Heather and Eli can discuss the "strategic" considerations of the air war on Gaza and the bloodbath we are witnessing till they are blue in the face. But the overwhelming impression that this atrocity evokes is one of absolute horror (again) at the punitive brutality of the Israeli aggression. Israeli politicians have fallen for yet another crackpot IDF scheme of rampage and mayhem. Olmert (the reborn "peacemaker") has waged his second senseless war that can only strengthen his extremist enemies. Gaza was already a humanitarian disaster zone before the invasion. This will not only rachet up the catastrophic situation an order of magnitude, but it will also radicalize an extremely traumatized (and young) population. No good will come of this war. It is stupid, unnecessary and wicked.

Lest I sound like Scrooge, it must be the season for teary-eyed pleading. Contra Hurlburt and Lake, I'd like to click a button, send cash, and prompt a bell or jingle to go off on Lake's computer with my few bucks - actually, KRW. I Paypal people. I also subscribe to The Economist and TNR - to read Lake, for one - as well as use Bloglines for "free" stuff, but TNR also features writers, like Marty Peretz, I can't avoid enough. But, I have a heart, and I know donations do no good for someone with a family or monthly payments. At some point, we all have to accept that most journalism is a public good, and often a loss leader, and without some calculation other than the bottom line, agree upon fair compensation for literati.

It's hard not to believe the IDF is dusting off an old operation manual now because W. is all but out the WH door. Before the IDF and the other fossilized Arab states lose their Cheney, it's a love tap lest Hamas forgets, while the new president either lets the issue languish or sets off on another quixotic peace mission.

Eli, those glasses are excellent. Very Kissingeresque.

Quoting banco: Congrats on the new job Eli.

Second that. And good to see Heather and you back on BH.tv.

Eli betrays himself as a shill for the IDF when claims Hamas broke the truce. The truth is much more complicated. Why Israel broke the truce?

Eli also claimed that Meretz, the Israeli pro-peace party, was supportive of the aggression. However, in today's Ha-Aretz, Meretz leader David Grossman (whose son was killed in Olmert's Lebanon War) wrote this. Ha-Aretz writers Amira Hass and Gideon Levy have also been highly critical of the invasion. There have been anti-war demonstrations in Israel. I agree that the narrative that Hamas Bad Guys broke the truce that Israel was respecting is simplistic nonsense. That said, Hamas did stupidly fire rockets at Israeli civilian populations.

Also, Bhead Gershom writes in today's LA Times:

It is possible that Israel's attacks on government institutions, including the police, will weaken Hamas' control or even shatter the regime in Gaza. But will that benefit Israel? The most likely result will be chaos, a version of Somalia on our border. There will be no one to stop factions that are even more radical than Hamas from firing rockets. If Israel's army reoccupies Gaza, it will be the target of a new guerrilla campaign. Three months from now, we may long for the control that Hamas exerted. Our leaders are right that a country must defend itself. But while choosing a military option, they've failed to persuasively define limited, achievable goals.

Before they chose blunt instruments, each side had better choices.

Wonderment, You fault Israeli leaders for their bombardment of Hamas infrastructure and targeting of their leaders. With respect, what, exactly, would you have them do? Should they simply ignore the rockets raining down from Gaza? I find it odd in the extreme that Israel's critics get exercised when it RESPONDS to attacks, while not batting an eyelid at the initial provocation. Hamas is accused of behaving counterproductively or at worst stupidly, while Israel is labeled barbaric. The double standard would be comical if the stakes weren't so deadly high. As for the notion that some "more radical" group might take over from Hamas after their demise, since that group is already committed to Israel's destruction it's hard to envision a "more radical" group or how it might be worse from the Israeli point of view. Seeking peace is surely more than sticking one's head in the sand and hoping one's enemies will tire of their labors.

This is from a friend:

As the IDF's onslaught on Gaza's people continues . . .

The pattern for the response to Israeli overkill such as this in Gaza (which continues into a second day, as the NYT report below shows) has been established firmly over recent years, but especially under Bush. The US will exhort Israel to avoid civilian casualties but will otherwise stand aside (and even cheerlead quietly from the background). The UN General Assembly will call for a halt to violence. The UN Security Council will take no significant action because the US will veto any resolution at all critical of Israel. International outcry will mount, and eventually the Israeli government will decide, "well, OK, that's enough . . . for now" . . . and in the wake of the carnage they may even allow some aid into Gaza and proclaim their reasons just and their spirit humanitarian.

Meanwhile, the American public will note the headlines in their papers or web sites, perhaps shake their heads . . . and then turn the page.

And Mr. Obama will say nothing . . . and in the months to come, will - I suspect, and fear - do next to nothing. And when the next suicide attack is launched by some

TwinSwords, Same question for you: What should Israel do when it finds itself on the receiving end of Hamas rockets? Seems to me that for all the sympathy that the Palestinians in general and the people of Gaza in particular deserve, you're letting Hamas and others on the Palestinian side who aren't committed to any two-state solution off the hook pretty darn easy. "C'mon Israel, Hamas only kills a FEW of your citizens. Live with it," they seem to be saying. Is that the best advice you can give? Because no other country is expected to endure such provocations MERELY because the people trying to kill them aren't very good at it.

In the Israeli and international media, the message one hears over and over from Israeli spokespeople is that Israel's main aim is to stop the rocket attacks, to “change the way the game has been played up to now.” A less emphasized aim – one that is crucial for any two-state solution, but is nevertheless a secondary aim at this stage, I believe -- is to weaken Hamas significantly (destroying infrastructure, killing militants, etc.). My own view is that Israel’s basic strategy is in many ways new: to hit Hamas harder than they’ve ever been hit before (the fact that Hamas is now controlling Gaza and Gazans must be factored into any calculation of the kinds of harm that can be inflicted on them); wait a bit (measured in hours) to see if anything changes; if, not hit them hard again; wait a bit to see if anything changes; if, not hit them hard again; etc. At some point, if nothing has changed, this will involve sending in ground troops, something Israel would obviously rather avoid (for countless reasons). This is how many would respond to someone who repeatedly throws stones at your car, or you, or your

Same question for you: What should Israel do when it finds itself on the receiving end of Hamas rockets? Seems to me that for all the sympathy that the Palestinians in general and the people of Gaza in particular deserve, you're letting Hamas and others on the Palestinian side who aren't committed to any two-state solution off the hook pretty darn easy.

I'll let Cenk speak for me, 'cause he's bigger and can take the flack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyaBWyNFZfA I would add, that the US is responsible for solving the impasses over Jerusalem and the right of return, and making the solutions stick.

Quoting rfrobison: Wonderment,

You fault Israeli leaders for their bombardment of Hamas infrastructure and targeting of their leaders. With respect, what, exactly, would you have them do? Should they simply ignore the rockets raining down from Gaza? I find it odd in the extreme that Israel's critics get exercised when it RESPONDS to attacks, while not batting an eyelid at the initial provocation.

Hamas is accused of behaving counterproductively or at worst stupidly, while Israel is labeled barbaric. The double standard would be comical if the stakes weren't so deadly high.

As for the notion that some "more radical" group might take over from Hamas after their demise, since that group is already committed to Israel's destruction it's hard to envision a "more radical" group or how it might be worse from the Israeli point of view.

Seeking peace is surely more than sticking one's head in the sand and hoping one's enemies will tire of their labors.

Oh rf, you must not have gotten the memo. For those far enough on the left it is not about right and wrong so much as weak vs strong. That Hamas was the instigator is irrelevant

Huntington may have been a great scholar, but The Clash of Civilizations was a truly awful book, even if, as we can all probably agree, the author shouldn't be blamed for the simplifications that the neocons and others extracted from his silly thesis. This isn't the place for me to explain why I think the thesis was silly, but suffice it to say that no one familiar with the origin of the idea of civilization in the 18th century, or with its further development in the 19th century, could possibly think that civilizations (or cultures--Huntington makes no distinction) are doomed to clash. Civilization (in the singular) was always seen as a movement towards peace and plenty, spearheaded by the west to be sure but ultimately destined to spread to the rest of the world. Heather Hurlbut is spot on when she says that the idea of war between civilizations has been used and abused in the past decade as a cover for other kinds of conflict (mainly, in my opinion, to justify support for Israel and for Bush's crusades), just as nationalism in the 19th century and

Umm, OK, so America is responsible for everything. So I guess your solution to the conflict is to have Hamas fire its rockets at Washington, DC? Maybe the Israelis can join in. You've pretty much summed up why the Bush administration has not done much "peacemaking" in the region. The two sides are in a permanently arrested state of political development and you're basically arguing to keep them that way by making the U.S. the daddy who has to come in and fix everything. For my part, I am not optimistic but if there's any grounds for hope at all I'd say that the two side will someday realize that the other side isn't going away no matter how much blood the two sides spill. Maybe they'll exhaust themselves someday, but it won't be very soon. More's the pity for the average Joes and Yussefs on both sides who just want to live their lives in peace.

Quoting rfrobison: OK, so America is responsible for everything. So I guess your solution to the conflict is to have Hamas fire its rockets at Washington, DC? Maybe the Israelis can join in.

Do you really think that grossly mischaracterizing part of somebody's argument is a good way to begin a counter-argument?

As for Meretz, I said that the party supported for now the strikes, but may change its mind. Here is Chaim Oron, the chairman of the party last week:
"There's no other way but to work on two levels simultaneously: Hit Hamas in a calculated and focused manner and work to obtain a renewed ceasefire." That was the government of Israel's line as well until maybe yesterday, when Barak said it was all out war. Now who knows?

Quoting Wonderment: I agree that the narrative that Hamas Bad Guys broke the truce that Israel was respecting is simplistic nonsense. That said, Hamas did stupidly fire rockets at Israeli civilian populations.

Some people, Hamas among them, claim they weren't the ones firing rockets initially. In fact, other groups claimed responsibility for many of the rocket attacks. I don't think it would be in Hamas' interest to fire rockets while it was preparing militarily for the next inevitable Israeli assault. IDF can blame Hamas knowing full well Hamas can't openly confront the other extreme factions and risk assassination or worse. Even if Hamas were involved earlier no Israelis had been killed and the response was certainly disproportional to say the least. IMO, I think Israel's strategic goal is to expand the war into Lebanon and provoke Iran. As the Hezbollah leader was recently quoted in Haartz as saying, "we still don't know the magnitude of the conspiracies". Rockets were found in Lebanon with timers on them pointing toward Israel. Neither the Lebanonese Army nor Hezbollah claims to have put them there. Hmm.

Quoting mvantony: Request: Please invite Noah Pollak back to BhTV on this topic (and/or Shmuel Rosner, Michael Oren, etc.).

Yeah, I'd like to see them paired up with Rashid Khalidi or Norm Finkelstein. On seccond thought, that might be overkill. Ali Abunimah would be more than up to the task.

rfrobinson the original aggression is the occupation of the palestinian territory. It is an ongoing violent act that has not ceased for decades. to claim any particular act of resistance is an instigation of violence is to live in an orwellian fantasy.

I agree with Heather that Hillary will be a very good or great Secretary of State.

Quoting popcorn_karate: the original aggression is the occupation of the palestinian territory. It is an ongoing violent act that has not ceased for decades. to claim any particular act of resistance is an instigation of violence is to live in an orwellian fantasy.

The fantasy is to think that Hamas is resisting the 1967 occupation. But then maybe you have six rather than four decades in mind, and mean by 'occupation' and 'Palestinian territory' what Hamas means.

Quoting Baltimoron: I'll let Cenk speak for me, 'cause he's bigger and can take the flack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyaBWyNFZfA

I would add, that the US is responsible for solving the impasses over Jerusalem and the right of return, and making the solutions stick.

I almost forgot those guys were still around. lol! Cenk was bending over backwards to appear evenhanded. I understand the reality of American media but I'm tired of the preamble of "there's plenty of blame to go around". That's bullshit! There's the caricature of Hamas and then there is Hamas. Granted, its not a perfect organization but what do you expect when the IDF wages an assassination campaign against both its political and military leaders? Israel had made difficult, if not impossible, for Hamas to evolve beyond an armed struggle. What IDF leaves behind after assassinating its most capable leaders is an even more militant group of leaders.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Israel had made difficult, if not impossible, for Hamas to evolve beyond an armed struggle.

Evolve into what? An organization that accepts the State of Israel as neighbor with which to enjoy peaceful relations? You think it's Israel's "bad behavior" that's keeping this from happening? The truth is that if Hamas were to gain outside recognition as a politically legitimate entity, there's no reason to think that would change their anti-Israel, Islamist ideology one iota -- any more than gaining political legitimacy has changed the anti-Israel ideologies of Hizbullah in Lebanon or the regime in Iran.

Right. You did have the "up to now" caveat in there, which I neglected to mention.

This isn't the place for me to explain why I think the thesis was silly . . .

Sure it is. What better place?

. . . suffice it to say that no one familiar with the origin of the idea of civilization in the 18th century, or with its further development in the 19th century, could possibly think that civilizations (or cultures--Huntington makes no distinction) are doomed to clash.

You mean the philosophes? Sorry to be nitpicky, but aren't they the quintessence of Westernism?

Civilization (in the singular) was always seen as a movement towards peace and plenty, spearheaded by the west to be sure but ultimately destined to spread to the rest of the world.

Hard to imagine a more ham-fisted demonstration of myopic Western triumphalism. George Bush couldn't have said it better.

. . . nationalism in the 19th century and "ideology" in the 20th century were more often than not smoke screens for power politics.

You mean Western politics, right?

Quoting mvantony: Evolve into what? An organization that accepts the State of Israel as neighbor with which to enjoy peaceful relations? You think it's Israel's "bad behavior" that's keeping this from happening?

How do you accept a state that hasn't defined it borders? In fact, it is still confiscating Palestinian land as we speak, or shall I say write. But to answer your question, it could evolve into a political organization prepared to negotiate a peace settlement. Actually, I understand they have been prepared to negotiate.

The truth is that if Hamas were to gain outside recognition as a politically legitimate entity, there's no reason to think that would change their anti-Israel, Islamist ideology one iota -- any more than gaining political legitimacy has changed the anti-Israel ideologies of Hizbullah in Lebanon or the regime in Iran.

Changing their anti-Israeli sentiment is not a requisite for political settlement. Just as Hamas is not demanding that some knesset members change their anti-arab ideology before they will negotiate.

I think Huntington's description of Islam and differences/relations/antipathies between Islam and the West is very persuasive (I can't help but think that many critics of Huntington, especially those who consider the very phrase "clash of civilizations" to be some kind of slur, haven't even read the book). However, he defines civilization to mean the broadest category of culture, which culture is durable and resistant to change over the long term, and something is wrong with that definition as it applies to Islam. A salient feature of Islam is that it overrides culture. V.S. Naipaul rants and raves on this point. Simple geography suggests that Afghans, North Africans, and Indonesians would have very different cultures, yet in Huntington's view they're part of the same civilization. I suppose a critic of Huntington could ask, if Islam can be spread to cultures, why not the Enlightenment?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: How do you accept a state that hasn't defined it borders? In fact, it is still confiscating Palestinian land as we speak, or shall I say write. But to answer your question, it could evolve into a political organization prepared to negotiate a peace settlement. Actually, I understand they have been prepared to negotiate.

Changing their anti-Israeli sentiment is not a requisite for political settlement. Just as Hamas is not demanding that some knesset members change their anti-arab ideology before they will negotiate.

Sorry, lobbing rockets into a nation you claim to want to negotiate a peace settlement with is just insane on its face for me. But again, if you are arab or muslim or poor you are not held to the same standard it seems.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Sorry, lobbing rockets into a nation you claim to want to negotiate a peace settlement with is just insane on its face for me. But again, if you are arab or muslim or poor you are not held to the same standard it seems.

Hamas wasn't the one lobbing rockets. So if you want to blame them for not stopping it then you should blame Israel for not preventing the day-to-day theft and violence by Israeli settlers perpetuated against Palestinian civilians. These problems are all interconnected. It's kinda hard to argue you're interested in a peaceful settlement when the first thing you do after a free and fair election is tighten an already inhumane embargo on a population that didn't vote the way you wanted it to. How does denying food and medicine to the sick and elderly keep you safe?

nerd alert! those of you criticizing Israel are retarded. really put yourself in their position - constant attacks and threats from all of their neighbors. after thousands of years of being persecuted for no reason and decades of fighting guerrilla warfare like we're seeing now do you honestly think, as a jew, that you yourself would give a flying f*ck whether the response to rocket attacks is dialed in "just right."? you know what i'd be thinking if my neighbor was constantly trying to kill me for no reason?: "STOP TRYING TO BLOW MY FAMILY UP!" if i were Israeli I wouldn't really give a shit if we dropped a few too many bombs....god, such a ridiculous hand wringing/nitpicking knee-jerk reaction from the left......"Let's see, they launched 76 rockets at us since Nov. 18th. I calculate the internationally nerd-sanctioned response would be to try to negotiate and then we're allowed to drop 5-10 bombs in the desert if that doesn't work. Hopefully that will scare them away."

Quoting popcorn_karate: rfrobinson

the original aggression is the occupation of the palestinian territory. It is an ongoing violent act that has not ceased for decades. to claim any particular act of resistance is an instigation of violence is to live in an orwellian fantasy.

All assumptions aside as to what is and what is or is not Palestinian territory, both the 1948 and 1967 wars were started by Arab nations. Not to mention the fact that Israel offered in 1967 to hand back all of the territory it gained in defensive actions against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (not "Palestine") in exchange for peace and was rebuffed by the infamous "Three No's of Khartoum" . So your statement about "original aggression" is simply false. Unless, of course, you are in the same mind of Hamas that the UN's creation of Israel is the real problem.

Quoting gwlaw99: So your statement about "original aggression" is simply false.

The original aggression was the expulsion of Palestinians from their land in early 1948 by Jewish terrorists, prior to Arab armies invading Palestine. The question now is what do we do with 6 million arabs living in the apartheid state of Israel? A two-state solution is probably impossible at this point.

To Heather's point:
She says Israel gave itself a black eye a huge black eye in international public opinion by what looks like responding to one death with three hundred deaths completely misses the point. There were more than one death first off, but if there were only a few deaths that discounts the fact that Hamas has been firing rockets daily into Israel. That they are not very good at aiming said rockets doesn't negate the fact that they've been involved in daily war crimes in firing said rockets into Israel. I suppose she wants a proportional response.
How about Israel simply fires rockets into Gazas crowded streets every day. Would that be a better response or would she and others rightly describe such a response as the war crimes that they are?
What country would not respond to DAILY bombing attacks and what response would Heather suggest that would get the rockets to stop if Hamas is already violating the cease fire to fire said rockets?
I don't really see many reasons for Hamas not to fire said rockets since

I notice the regulars keeping quiet. Now that's setting a good example! Hurlburt is, as usual, interesting and surprising. But what is going on with Eli? Where are all the bad faith arguments? Where's the flurry of trivia? Where's the charges of moral equivalency and/or moral equivocating? When did he become so moderate? It's as if the fiasco of the Bush years has changed him somehow? OK, I'm kidding a little, but in the last couple of months he's sure changed.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Hamas wasn't the one lobbing rockets. So if you want to blame them for not stopping it then you should blame Israel for not preventing the day-to-day theft and violence by Israeli settlers perpetuated against Palestinian civilians. These problems are all interconnected.

It's kinda hard to argue you're interested in a peaceful settlement when the first thing you do after a free and fair election is tighten an already inhumane embargo on a population that didn't vote the way you wanted it to. How does denying food and medicine to the sick and elderly keep you safe?

Believe what you wish, I cannot convince a person who looks at a blue sky and calls it orange that he is deranged, all I can tell such confused creature is that his view of things has no credibility with me.
You believe falsehoods and half truths. But it is not the veracity of your beliefs that gives them weight, it is simply that you believe them, and that is enough. It is almost like arguing with a truther, cut one twisted lie and falsehood off two more

Further to Heather's points:
she is discounting the idea that we can create moderate forces out of clay and suggests they have to be allowed to emerge gradually and you have to be patient with the imperfect models coming up out of the mud by themselves. That argues not a short term solution but a long term solution.However, the issue NOW is how do you get Hamas to stop firing rockets and breaking the terms of the cease fire and why is she arguing against israels response as if it were a long term solution that will solve any and all further problems. Israel is trying to degrade Hamas and its ability to wage war in the short term,and hopefully weaken its leadership hold to the point where they stop firing rockets at them for the short term and degrade Hamas whereby Hamas might lose some power or influence. These are steps Israel (or Hamas) will have to take to ultimately get to a longer term solution whatever that may be. But as it stands now Hamas has

Quoting JonIrenicus: Believe what you wish, I cannot convince a person who looks at a blue sky and calls it orange that he is deranged, all I can tell such confused creature is that his view of things has no credibility with me.

You believe falsehoods and half truths. But it is not the veracity of your beliefs that gives them weight, it is simply that you believe them, and that is enough. It is almost like arguing with a truther, cut one twisted lie and falsehood off two more grow in their place, like some kind of mutant hydra. What is the point of arguing with such a mind.

Whatever . . . I'll give your reply the same weight as those who replied to Jimmy Carter's book by calling him a Nazi sympathizer. Which is to say ZERO.

Believe what you wish, I cannot convince a person who looks at a blue sky and calls it orange that he is deranged, all I can tell such confused creature is that his view of things has no credibility with me.

Fine. Let's just pack this site up, get drunk, and go back to our caves, just as long as you don't get near mine. Honestly, you don't need to use language to express yourself, if this is all the insight you have to impart.

I was engaged in a bit of hyperbole, grits. The thing I am objecting to is that Israel's legion of critics seem to excuse the murderous terrorism inflicted upon them by Hamas and others committed to their elimination, while condemning the actions they take to stop it. Now, it's perfectly legitimate, in my view, to criticize Israeli tactics as ineffective. One might also fairly take them to task for the civilian deaths they have inflicted (though it's hard to see how, given Hamas' willingness to see its own people suffer for the sake of a PR victory, it could be any different). But it's quite another to argue, as the "Young Turk" YouTube guy did, that the U.S. is the cause of the bloodshed. Take a look at the link. I'm more interested in hearing how people would solve the problem than in assigning blame. But I guess some people would rather make the Israelis the black hats and Hamas the heroic resisters.

Re Heather one more time:
She then goes on to say that we're not very good at promoting civilizational norms that are very different than ours. Is that a bad thing though to not promote those? For example I'll hazard a guess that if Hamas were to wipe Israel off the map and kill all the jews that we could get them to be peaceful at least for the short term (until some other enemy was conjured up to fight). Or if we submitted to Allah and lived under dhimmitude that there would be no more reasons for anyone to commit jihad and there would be peace. (this is the whole point of Islam by the way). Submission is peace. But its also submission. Some civilizational norms naturally clash and shouldn't be promoted. I think she and others though make a similar error though in expecting that somehow Hamas is non representational of its society or that somehow we can get them to change and stop being such bastards without forcing them to change through things like force. Maybe its unrealistic

Quoting rfrobison: I'm more interested in hearing how people would solve the problem than in assigning blame. But I guess some people would rather make the Israelis the black hats and Hamas the heroic resisters.

I'm more interested in discussing solutions too. I plan to read Ali Abunimah's "One Country" book which argues against a two-state solution. The parallels between apartheid South Africa and Israel are quite remarkable.

When you say, "occupation of Palestinian territory" are you referring to Gaza (which Israel no longer occupies), the West Bank (which they do, partially), or Ottoman era Palestine (something over half of which now is the Jewish state created in 1947?) If you are arguing that Israel must cede the territory it conquered in the 1967 war (instigated by its Arab enemies at the time, by the way) to the Palestinian authority and that it must share Jerusalem with the Palestinians, and that it must compensate those Palestinians who lost their land in Israel proper, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. That is, after all, what the Oslo peace accords and innumerable U.N. resolutions call for. But if you take the Hamas position (i.e., that Israel itself is illegitimate and that "resistance"--meaning violence--is justified, nay required, as long as Israel exists), then I'd say it is THAT maximalist demand that Israel liquidate itself that makes any talk of a negotiated settlement meaningless.

Grits, I've only heard a bit about the so-called "one-state solution." While that is an intriguing notion and has considerable appeal in the abstract, it has a number of (what appears to me at least) insuperable practical difficulties. The whole purpose of Zionism as an ideology, which was ratified by the U.N. in 1947, was to give the Jews a homeland where they would be safe from persecution. The Arabs of Palestine, for their part, had legitimate national aspirations of their own and felt betrayed by the British and other European powers that their claim to statehood was thwarted. They weren't (and Hamas and its ilk still aren't) interested in sharing land with Jews or anyone else. Just as there are some Israelis who still talk about claiming all of Biblical Israel for itself. While a nonsectarian, bi-national democracy at the heart of the Middle East has great appeal, I don't see how the vision is workable. Israel/Palestine is not Canada. Palestinians' acceptance of democratic norms is questionable at best; Jews, for their part, would again find themselves a minority people in their homeland--the very problem the creation of Israel was meant to solve. The

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The original aggression was the expulsion of Palestinians from their land in early 1948 by Jewish terrorists, prior to Arab armies invading Palestine. The question now is what do we do with 6 million arabs living in the apartheid state of Israel? A two-state solution is probably impossible at this point.

That's a narrative. I wouldn't bank on the odds that it's the fairest version of real events.

Quoting rfrobison: Grits,

While a non-sectarian, binational democracy at the heart of the Middle East has great appeal, I don't see how the vision is workable. Israel/Palestine is not Canada.

No one said it will be easy. Israel/Palestine may not be Canada but neither was/is Catholic Ireland, South Africa under apartheid, nor the US under slavery, reconstruction, and jim crow. The two-state solution has been on the table for how long? A long time.

Palestinians' acceptance of democratic norms is questionable at best; Jews, for their part, would again find themselves a minority people in their homeland--the very problem the creation of Israel was meant to solve.

I would find this claim laughable if it weren't so absurd and married to a long history of racist discourse. It deserves no further response.

The one-state vision is beguiling, but it is a Negev mirage.

I'm sure at one point it looked that way to many who supported dividing South Africa into white and black.

Quoting AemJeff: That's a narrative. I wouldn't bank on the odds that it's the fairest version of real events.

It's much fairer than the previous narrative which claimed the Palestinians left their land at the urging of invading arab nations.

Speaking of metanarratives... If the metanarrative of the umma disappears when al-Qaeda is defeated, and if the metanarrative of an Arab Palestinian homeland is another casualty of a realist take on this Israel-Gaza war, then Zionism has to go, too. Debate about post-1967, or post-1973 is beguiling enough, but at least we're talking about historical events and documents. Going back to Burg-Gorenberg, the Holocaust, like Rwanda or Armenia, is a human tragedy, not a Jewish one. The international community doesn't have to placate every language group and clan with a state. There could even be more than one Jewish state - maybe one for all of Jewry that's not Orthodox - just as there are more than one Arab, Chinese, or Korean state. Peoples have managed to live together in peace or nonviolent competition for ages, until corrupt leaders enact self-serving policies for their own aggrandizement. It always comes down to policies that states enact, and metanarratives are just cheating at the kind of persuasion competent leaders need to practice. Let's just consider the interests of Israelis and Palestinians in 2008, and trash the fairy tales. It's the realist thing to do.

The two sides are in a permanently arrested state of political development and you're basically arguing to keep them that way by making the U.S. the daddy who has to come in and fix everything.

Firstly, I agree Hamas is odious, and I'm not equating Hamas with the Palestinian people. However, Hamas' popularity increases as Palestinians despair about a moderate compromise with Israel backed by the Bush administration. There's few administrations less incompetent than the Bush administration on Israel, because it has never said no to the IDF's military solutions. So, although destroying the tunnels was a valid response, the accumulation of bad policies for eight years requires more than the same old enabling. The Obama administration has an opportunity to be an honest broker between Arab and Israelis in Palestine for a one-state solution. Americans like you have to give up the Zionist metanarrative. Israel is not a successful state, judging from the aid dollars it has to receive, the preferential trade, the wars it has fought, and its apartheid-like treatment of Arabs within Israel de jure. And, the US gets no diplomatic benefit from supporting Israel.

As I'm beginning to see it, there are only three options: more ethnic cleansing to maintain a purely Jewish state, continuing the current apartheid type of arrangement under the cloak of Palestinian state in name only, or a truly liberal democratic Arab-Jewish state with equality under the law for everyone. The last option requires Jews to give up their monopoly on privilege and power, which is as it should be.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: As I'm beginning to see it, there are only three options: more ethnic cleansing to maintain a purely Jewish state, continuing the current apartheid type of arrangement under the cloak of Palestinian state in name only, or a truly liberal democratic Arab-Jewish state with equality under the law for everyone. The last option requires Jews to give up their monopoly on privilege and power, which is as it should be.

Purely Jewish state? You appear to have little idea of what you're talking about.

Quoting jr565: ...

Excellent post.

Good to know there are clear-thinking people on the moon!

Quoting Titstorm: nerd alert! those of you criticizing Israel are retarded. really put yourself in their position - constant attacks and threats from all of their neighbors. after thousands of years of being persecuted for no reason and decades of fighting guerrilla warfare like we're seeing now do you honestly think, as a jew, that you yourself would give a flying f*ck whether the response to rocket attacks is dialed in "just right."? you know what i'd be thinking if my neighbor was constantly trying to kill me for no reason?: "STOP TRYING TO BLOW MY FAMILY UP!" if i were Israeli I wouldn't really give a shit if we dropped a few too many bombs....god, such a ridiculous hand wringing/nitpicking knee-jerk reaction from the left......"Let's see, they launched 76 rockets at us since Nov. 18th. I calculate the internationally nerd-sanctioned response would be to try to negotiate and then we're allowed to drop 5-10 bombs in the desert if that doesn't work. Hopefully that will scare them away."

Grits, No, what is "absurd" and "laughable" is the comparison of Israel, the region's only democracy (the jury is still out on Iraq), to South Africa under apartheid or even the U.S. under Jim Crow, particularly given the fact that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts. Compare the treatment of Arabs in Israel with, say, the treatment of Jews in Iran, Syria, or anywhere else in the Middle East and THEN talk to me about racism. You say the definition of Israel as a Jewish state is "racist discourse," but that's just a high fallutin' way of saying Israel shouldn't exist. NOBODY in Israel can reasonably be expected to negotiate their own extinction. So what other recourse is there? If the two-state solution isn't workable then it seems obvious to me that the only other "solution" is more of the same pointless killing. I do agree with you on one thing: There's little sense in talking to you further. Sad, isn't it?

I'm hearing a lot of noise about "metanarratives" (whatever they are, national myths, I suppose), but cutting through the verbiage and the dangerous attempt to de-judaize the holocaust with talk of "human tragedies"--Hurricane Katrina was a tragedy, albeit compounded by human error; the Holocaust was genocide aimed at a specific people, the Jews--what you and Grits seem to be saying is Zionism won't work, or doesn't deserve to. A unitary state is the way to go. OK, let's just assume for the sake of argument that you could get Israelis to vote in favor of national dissolution (a deluded assumption, but let's assume it anyway). Now there is a single state representing both Arabs and Jews in the same territory. But the drivers of the conflict haven't gone away. You still have two peoples fighting over the same land. Political parties (for as long as they lasted) would undoubtedly form along religious/ethnic lines. While it might be possible to imagine some secular parties spanning those lines, such voices would be quickly overwhelmed by tribal and sectarian impulses. Civil war and terrorism would surely ensue and you'd be right back to 1945, only with

Quoting Baltimoron: Speaking of metanarratives...

If the metanarrative of the umma disappears when al-Qaeda is defeated, and if the metanarrative of an Arab Palestinian homeland is another casualty of a realist take on this Israel-Gaza war, then Zionism has to go, too.

Zionism, as I and many others understand it, is just support for a state in which the Jewish people, understood roughly as an ethnicity, are culturally and politically dominant. (This isn't in the "mean" sense of 'dominant', but rather in the sense commonly used in academic studies of culture, ethnicity, nationalism, etc.; for example, it is consistent with minorities getting equal rights, or something very close to it). Not much different from the country you live in, I would have thought, except of course that you switch ethnically Jewish people and Jewish culture for ethnically Korean people and Korean culture. So please explain to me why Korea (North or South or both) doesn't "have to go" too? If you could explain that without "metanarrative-talk," which I don't do very well, that would be good.

Let's just consider the interests of Israelis and Palestinians in 2008, and trash the fairy tales. It's the realist thing to do.

You've mentioned the interests of the Palestinian people

Quoting mvantony: When someone gets a plan for a better set of political structures for the planet in which all those countries "go," I'll consider abandoning Zionism in the context of a global transformation of that sort. In the absence of such a plan, focusing on the Jews' state strikes me, to put it as kindly as I can, as unjustly discriminatory.

Well, mvantony, to put it as bluntly as I can, the previous poster's call for Zionism "to go" antisemitism, pure and simple. And I'm not even Jewish, so I guess I'm not so worried about calling it by its name. Now watch as I get a ton of angry posts accusing me of racism. Oh, well. Such is the topsy-turvy world we live in.

Quoting rfrobison: You say the definition of Israel as a Jewish state is "racist discourse," but that's just a high fallutin' way of saying Israel shouldn't exist.

'Racist discourse' primarily refers to the idea that Palestinians commitment to democratic norms is somehow suspect. This is an old canard applied to the colonized by the colonizer. What makes it even more offensive is the delusion that Israel is democratic. Yeah, I guess you can believe that if half the population doesn't matter.

Quoting rfrobison: Grits,

No, what is "absurd" and "laughable" is the comparison of Israel, the region's only democracy (the jury is still out on Iraq), to South Africa under apartheid or even the U.S. under Jim Crow, particularly given the fact that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts.

Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli occupation do not enjoy the same rights. That is indisputable. What is disputable is the notion that Palestinians living in Israel enjoy equality before the law. Israeli Arabs and Bedouin Citizens

Grits: When I say Palestinian commitment to democratic norms is questionable, I'm not arguing that there is anything inherently undemocratic in Islam (leaving Palestinian Christians aside for the moment) or Palestinian culture per-se, let alone that there is some genetic factor in the Palestinian "race" that makes them immune to democracy. But look at what "democracy" has meant in the Palestinian POLITICAL context over the last 60 years or so. Neither Fatah, nor Hamas, nor any of the various groups claiming to represent the interests of the Palestinian people has a history of playing by democratic rules. It's power from the barrel of a gun a la Mao. If you could wave a magic wand and commit all sides to peaceful coexistence based on a common understanding of human, civil and political rights, then by golly you'd have the recipe for a single bi-national state in the Holy Land and I'd be all for it. On the other hand, you'd also have a scenario for France and Germany, the U.S. and Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, etc., etc: that is, two states living in peace and prosperity side by side. In that scenario the "single state" would be a

Quoting grits-n-gravy: half the population

Nonsense.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli occupation do not enjoy the same rights. That is indisputable. What is disputable is the notion that Palestinians living in Israel enjoy equality before the law.

Israeli Arabs and Bedouin Citizens

Yes, minorities in Israel are not treated nearly as well as they should be. That should change. The same is true of your country too, however. And I don't even know which country you live in.

Quoting rfrobison: Well, mvantony, to put it as bluntly as I can, the previous poster's call for Zionism "to go" antisemitism, pure and simple. And I'm not even Jewish, so I guess I'm not so worried about calling it by its name. Now watch as I get a ton of angry posts accusing me of racism. Oh, well. Such is the topsy-turvy world we live in.

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to the discussion on this diavlog, rfrobison. I'd just add that there's room, I think, to distinguish between a anti-Semitic position (a position that discriminates unfairly against Jews) and an anti-Semitic person (a person who dislikes or hates Jews, knowingly discriminates against them, etc.). The distinction is important because many times well-meaning, moral people who hold what are in fact anti-Semitic positions don't realize that their positions have the discriminatory, unjust implications that they do. I'd also like to add that, having read many of Baltimoron's posts, I wouldn't want to say that his position is an anti-Semitic one (even though, on the surface, it looks that way to me), much less that he is. I'd need to hear more from him first about what his position is.

Quoting claymisher: what is going on with Eli?....in the last couple of months he's sure changed.

I agree. Eli, you were much better when people here hated you! What's happened?

You're a very fair-minded person, mvantony. The world needs more such people. You raise a good point about the distinction between a position that amounts to antisemitism and a person who is an antisemite. And though my sympathies generally lie with Israel, the Palestinians have, I believe, legitimate grievances and hopes for nationhood that Israel must acknowledge and make sacrifices for if they are ever to enjoy the peace they crave. It's strange to me that there appears to be a solution to the problem clearly at hand (i.e. Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, compensation for displaced Jewish settlers and Palestinians who lost their land when Israel was created, etc.), but no agreement on HOW to get from where we are now to a final, peaceful settlement. It's enough to make one throw one's hands up in despair. But I believe people will, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, do the right thing after all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Quoting Anyuser: Sure it is. What better place? You mean the philosophes? Sorry to be nitpicky, but aren't they the quintessence of Westernism? Hard to imagine a more ham-fisted demonstration of myopic Western triumphalism. George Bush couldn't have said it better.You mean Western politics, right?

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or why you think you are informing me of something. Whether or not the idea of civilization is an example of "westernism" (whatever that is....the contrary of "easternism"?), it was from its origin a promise of progress: through enlightenment, science, trade, the rule of law (=human rights), democracy. The implicit teleology of civilization was always "univeral peace," as you might discover if you were to read Condorcet, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Kant, John Stuart Mill and many, many other less famous writers... The idea of civilization may be utopian. It was certainly a hybrid concept that lent itself to misunderstanding. It was used at times to justify western imperialism (that of Britain and France, and under the name of "Kultur," that of Germany), but only an ignorant American academic, or an illiterate "social scientist," would use the word as Huntington does. And that is all I meant to say.

The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism:

Why--on what grounds--do the authors under review or people of a similar cast of mind maintain this claim? Zuckerman argues, "Just as historic anti-Semitism has denied individual Jews the right to live as equal members of society, anti-Zionism would deny the collective expression of the Jewish people, the State of Israel, the right to live as an equal member of the family of nations." This is a variation on an argument that is a staple in the "new anti-Semitism" literature. It goes like this: "Given the principle of self-determination for nations, the Jewish people have a right to their own state, like everyone else. To deny that right, especially if this means singling Jews out, is anti-Semitic."

This argument assumes that Jews, or the Jewish people, constitute a nation in the relevant sense, the sense in which the principle of self-determination applies. But this question is no less a burning issue today--not least for Jews themselves--than it was in 1917, when the Conjoint Committee disputed it. (It has been disputed from the beginning of political Zionism in the late nineteenth century down to the present day.) Certainly, mainstream

Metanarrative (e.g., manifest destiny, city on the hill) I include Korea, because like Israel, sovereignty inheres not in individuals, but in a certain type of individual, Korean or Jewish, respectively. Jewish and Korean people live outside of Israel, ROK, and DPRK, and still enjoy civil rights. In some countries, an immigrant might have to learn a language, as in Korea, but they at least can contest their civil rights in court. Unlike Israeli Jewish citizens, most do not have to dodge dodgy missiles, or fear to ride a bus. That's one measure of the failure of Israel.

Baltimoron, I've already been taken to task by mvantony over the charge of antisemitism, so I won't comment further except to say that I'm sorry if I offended you. You began your post with a lengthy quote from an unnamed author. He or she makes several cogent-sounding arguments but the key point is here: <or for Israel's Jewish population, [emphasis mine] that is not based on the principle of a Jewish state.>>

I agree that it is possible in the abstract to envision a state called Palisrael or Israelestine based on some democratic, nonsectarian principle. Indeed as an American, I would prefer such a state, all other things being equal. I instinctively recoil from the idea of a state based on culture or ethnicity (such as my current home of Japan), still more from one based on religion.

Nevertheless, given the history of Jewish suffering at the hands of their rulers over the last couple of millennia and the singular horrors of the Holocaust, I would say the Jewish people are entitled to an exception, and that's not even counting their ancient

read more . . .

Quoting mvantony: I agree. Eli, you were much better when people here hated you! What's happened?

I don't think I've changed that much. If it was not clear in my comments on the diavlog when I said Hamas profits from the misery of Gazans, I will make it clear here. I don't think it's possible to have any peace in Israel so long as Hamas as an organization exists. Their existence threatens both Israel and a two state solution because they have discredited the entire notion of land for peace, making the withdrawal from Gaza, land for war. Because they spend millions to brainwash their children so they may have the honor of becoming a human smart bomb. What Israel is doing now does not help to eliminate Hamas. This "rocket infrastructure" is easily restored. It's leaders will survive. And even if 1,000 of their operatives were killed, if they survive, they will count this as a victory. The trick is for Palestinians to oust Hamas politically in the way that Iraqis threw off al Qaeda and the outlaw wing of Sadr's movement. And of course Israel has a right to defend itself. But an air war against an

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The original aggression was the expulsion of Palestinians from their land in early 1948 by Jewish terrorists, prior to Arab armies invading Palestine. The question now is what do we do with 6 million arabs living in the apartheid state of Israel? A two-state solution is probably impossible at this point.

That is perhaps the most laughable attempt at rewriting history I have ever read.

hey, thanks man! (don't forget I'm the only openly gay moon resident as well

Quoting Francoamerican: I have no idea what you are trying to say, or why you think you are informing me of something.

In that event you obviously have not read even the first three pages of that "truly awful book," Clash of Civilizations. Enlightenment, science, the rule of law (=human rights), and democracy are all Western values that have never pertained in Africa, China, Japan, Russia and Islam as they do in Europe and the Anglosphere. With the possible exception of Adam Smith, the writers you name have as much impact outside the West as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb have in Las Vegas. You haven't the slightest understanding of Huntington's premises, yet you call him silly, ignorant, and illiterate.

Quoting gwlaw99: That is perhaps the most laughable attempt at rewriting history I have ever read.

Laugh this off. On second thought, forget the above link because A History of Israel Reconsidered: A Talk by Illan Pape will really crack you up.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Laugh this off.

Dude, it's a screed. Scholarly works don't generally come with disclaimers:

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

From another paper on the same site:

The next quotation will shock most of you and will change your perspective of many global issues. It is written by a courageous Jew to another courageous Jew.

Benjamin H. Friedman

Letter to Dr. David Goldstein dated October 10, 1954

“The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy (to destroy Christianity and obtain global power). The world-wide net-work of diabolical conspirators implements this plot against the Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy than other Christians … It seems so sad.”

Quoting AemJeff: Dude, it's a screed. Scholarly works don't generally come with disclaimers:

I know. The disclaimer is the reviewer's. But the point was to offer the book, not necessarily the reviewer's comments, as evidence.

I am not a military strategist just a former army grunt or have an a prestigious university education. However, for Hamas shoot rockets into Israel during a truce, then to excelerate the attacks after it ends and expect no retaliation is foolhardy. John

Quoting Anyuser: In that event you obviously have not read even the first three pages of that "truly awful book," Clash of Civilizations. Enlightenment, science, the rule of law (=human rights), and democracy are all Western values that have never pertained in Africa, China, Japan, Russia and Islam as they do in Europe and the Anglosphere. With the possible exception of Adam Smith, the writers you name have as much impact outside the West as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb have in Las Vegas. You haven't the slightest understanding of Huntington's premises, yet you call him silly, ignorant, and illiterate.

You are clearly an imbecile, and you have clearly NOT read Huntington. The idea of civilization as it was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries is incompatible with the idea of war. That is all I said. And thank you for agreeing with me: enlightenment, science, and democracy etc. are all western ideas. By the way you misused the word "pertain."

Quoting bkjazfan: I am not a military strategist just a former army grunt or have an a prestigious university education. However, for Hamas shoot rockets into Israel during a truce, then to excelerate the attacks after it ends and expect no retaliation is foolhardy.

John

The problem is Hamas wasn't shooting rockets into Israel. Z. Brzezsinski acknowledge that much on TV. You can argue Hamas wasn't doing enough to stop other groups from shooting rockets, but according to reports I've read Israel was also engaged in actions that didn't live up to the spirit of the truce.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: The problem is Hamas wasn't shooting rockets into Israel. Z. Brzezsinski acknowledge that much on TV. You can argue Hamas wasn't doing enough to stop other groups from shooting rockets, but according to reports I've read Israel was also engaged in actions that didn't live up to the spirit of the truce.

I doubt that without Hamas' (at least) tacit approval, that "other groups" would be able to mount rocket attacks on Israeli population centers.

Quoting AemJeff: I doubt that without Hamas' (at least) tacit approval, that "other groups" would be able to mount rocket attacks on Israeli population centers.

Absolutely. Hamas decimated Fatah in Gaza, e.g., by killing whoever opposed them. They couldn't keep these smaller groups "in line" if they wanted to? Please. I remember, during the Oslo years, when Hamas would carry out terrorist attacks, the PA's response would always be, "It's Hamas, not us, we can't control them." The fact that the PA's security forces were well equipped and trained (e.g., through the substantial international support for the peace process) didn't matter. It's amusing to see Hamas now spitting out the same lines, and sad the degree to which it is still believed.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Laugh this off.

On second thought, forget the above link because A History of Israel Reconsidered: A Talk by Illan Pape will really crack you up.

You citing Pappe only validates my argument that you are simply making up history. He is so manipulative of facts that he even offends fellow revisionist historians. See Benni Morris's takedown of Pappe in the New Republic. Who's next in your biblography? David Irving?

Post scriptum I could cite you dozens of passages in The Clash of Civilizations where Huntington says that cultural or civilizational identity is the CAUSE of conflict between nations. No one in the 18th and 19th centuries would have accepted this idea.

Manifest Destiny was a disgusting, racist ideology that lead to genocide and incredible suffering - as well as the to the existence of America in its current configuration. Zionism is a similarly racist ideology that has created great suffering - as well as leading to the state of Israel in its current configuration. hopefully Israel will outgrow zionism and become a pluralistic state.

Quoting popcorn_karate: Zionism is a...racist ideology.

No it's not. Or if it is, it's no different than the forms of nationalism associated with countless other of the world's countries with dominant ethnicities (Japan, Ireland, Slovakia, France, Norway, Korea, Germany, Spain, Russia, Greece, etc., etc., etc.) that people don't tend to whine on and on about. Whining on and on about Jewish nationalism (i.e., support for Israel as a Jewish homeland) -- and only Jewish nationalism -- is what's racist.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: As I'm beginning to see it, there are only three options: more ethnic cleansing to maintain a purely Jewish state, continuing the current apartheid type of arrangement under the cloak of Palestinian state in name only, or a truly liberal democratic Arab-Jewish state with equality under the law for everyone. The last option requires Jews to give up their monopoly on privilege and power, which is as it should be.

Why is Israel the only country in all of the middle east that is considered by you an apartheid state.Again, Israel appears to be held to a standard different than any and all Muslim countries. Are these other countries paragons of equality of law and liberal democratic pluralistic societies? You want to talk about societies that maintain a state based on a particular identity or religion I could name countless Arab states where anyone other than a Muslim has barely any rights.In fact all of them. If you are a Jew you can't even travel to some of these countries. If you are a christian missionary you might get your head chopped off. Please

Quoting gwlaw99: You citing Pappe only validates my argument that you are simply making up history. He is so manipulative of facts that he even offends fellow revisionist historians. See Benni Morris's takedown of Pappe in the New Republic. Who's next in your biblography? David Irving?

You gotta be kidding me. You're just throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks. You cite Benni Morris to argue that Pappe was wrong about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? lol! Benni was one of a group of Israeli historians who documented that tragedy. Not to rub your face in it, but not only does Benni acknowledge ethnic cleansing took place, he now apparently thinks it was necessary then and might be necessary in the future. Survival of the fittest? For those who haven't the time to chase down links, here is taste of Benni Morris:

Rape, massacre, transfer

Question: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Answer: "The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based

Quoting grits-n-gravy: You cite Benni Morris to argue that Pappe was wrong about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?

You are changing the subject. What caused the refugees to leave is a completely different debate we could have. The only issue I commented on was what was the "original aggression" and that was clearly the Arab states who rejected the establishment of a palestinian and Israeli state side by side and started the 1948 war. My citing Benni Morris was to say that even those who support the Palestinian narrative find Pappe's "scholarship" to be completely deceitful. And that says a lot considering Morris himself has been caught altering many quotes to fit the Palestinian narative.
In A History of Modern Palestine Pappe admits he doesn't care about historical truth only his political agenda. "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities . I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers."

Quoting Francoamerican: The idea of civilization as it was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries is incompatible with the idea of war.

I could cite you dozens of passages in The Clash of Civilizations where Huntington says that cultural or civilizational identity is the CAUSE of conflict between nations. No one in the 18th and 19th centuries would have accepted this idea.

You're right. I admit I am an imbecile and I concede your arguments. The quotes above are devastating critiques of Huntington. Happy New Year!

Quoting gwlaw99: You are changing the subject.

No I'm not. We were talking about the narrative(s) surrounding the "original aggression". When I pointed out what that aggression was you accused me of rewriting history. When I cited a source to back up the factual basis for claim, you replied with ad hominem against the source. The facts are the facts regardless of the political agenda of the writer.

Quoting gwlaw99: What caused the refugees to leave is a completely different debate we could have.

I have two questions for you. One, do you deny Palestinians were forcefully removed from their homes and land by Zionist militias prior to the 1948 war commencing? And if not, how is that not a form of aggression?

I'm not being a jerk about this and calling you out. But, I do have a problem with carve-outs, when the Kosovo precedent, where one religious group caused enough grief, has seemingly made carve-outs a rule. Perhaps Israel started this trend. Russia already made enough rhetoric out of Kosovo when it invaded Georgia that I shudder to think what other authoritarians can do with a threadbare excuse in the future.

Popcorn is a racist snack (it takes what was originally brown and hard and turns it soft and white) created by stealing the staple food of the peaceful, gentle, indigenous peoples of North and South America and turning it into a nutrition-less commodity to be exploited by greedy U.S. multinationals like Monsanto, which rapes Gaia the Earth Mother (bless her holy name) with its genetically modified poisons..blah, blah, blah... Karate is a violent, so-called martial "art" that has resulted in countless broken limbs, deforestation (all those broken wooden boards) and vastly overrated Bruce Lee movies aimed at exploiting Asian racial stereotypes and entrenching American cultural hegemony through Hollywood...blah, blah, blah. Gee, this is fun! I should have majored in Native American Studies or Film Studies or Karate Studies or something when I was in college.

Nonsense.

Frenchy, you've got to be one the most awful persons who posts on BHtv. I know it's painful for you, but France can't ever take the Maginot Line back. It's time to move on man.

I agree. Heather also doesn't understand that the unstated goal of Israel is to weaken Hamas so that Fatah can re-gain control of Gaza. Once Fatah is in control and if they can contain what's left of Hamas, there might be a chance for long-term peace. However, as long as Hamas wants the destruction of Israel; there can't ever be a solution to the violence. Hamas either needs to mature or be obliterated.

Baltimoron, I guess I have a problem with carve-outs too, as you define them in the examples you gave. I agree that creating states based on religious affiliation is a recipe for trouble. (Just got back from a New Year's service at my church!) With respect to Israel, I readily concede that the concept of a Jewish state is problematic and that the Palestinians have been hard done by history. It seems to me (if you'll forgive the flowery language) that nearly all countries are forged in blood and wrought with tears, Israel perhaps more than most. One state or two, I can only pray that the two peoples that have fought so bitterly over the Holy Land can find a modus vivendi somehow.

Quoting Lyle: Frenchy, you've got to be one the most awful persons who posts on BHtv.

Just in case you didn't already know, Francoamerican, the above is far from a unanimous opinion. I for one welcome and appreciate your views, even if I don't share all of them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Quoting gwlaw99: You are changing the subject. What caused the refugees to leave is a completely different debate we could have. The only issue I commented on was what was the "original aggression" and that was clearly the Arab states who rejected the establishment of a palestinian and Israeli state side by side and started the 1948 war. My citing Benni Morris was to say that even those who support the Palestinian narrative find Pappe's "scholarship" to be completely deceitful. And that says a lot considering Morris himself has been caught altering many quotes to fit the Palestinian narative.

In A History of Modern Palestine Pappe admits he doesn't care about historical truth only his political agenda.

"My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities . I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers."

And therein lies the derangement by many radicals. They shift data to fit their own world view, no matter how

Quoting bjkeefe: Just in case you didn't already know, Francoamerican, the above is far from a unanimous opinion. I for one welcome and appreciate your views, even if I don't share all of them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Well thank you. As for a hick like Lyle, do you think I really care what he thinks?

Quoting Anyuser: You're right. I admit I am an imbecile and I concede your arguments. The quotes above are devastating critiques of Huntington.

Happy New Year!

From your previous incredibly stupid reply I can only assume you are being ironic. Happy New Year to you too.

Quoting Lyle: Frenchy, you've got to be one the most awful persons who posts on BHtv. I know it's painful for you, but France can't ever take the Maginot Line back. It's time to move on man.

Gee Lyle, you really know how to place a witty historical allusion.

I was waiting for Heather to say she was saddened by Hamas' rocket attacks around the 13 minute mark, but it didn't come. Eli has the key point around 16:20.

Quoting jr565: Why is Israel the only country in all of the middle east that is considered by you an apartheid state.Again, Israel appears to be held to a standard different than any and all Muslim countries. Are these other countries paragons of equality of law and liberal democratic pluralistic societies?

The Middle East is full of human rights violators. I am just as critical of the Sudan government's genocidal violence in Darfur, and the silence of Arab governments, as I am of Israel's violent occupation. However the situation in Sudan can hardly be described as apartheid. It seems to me that supporters of Israel want the Jewish state held to a different standard than its neighbors because of the holocaust. I would argue American citizens have a special duty to criticize Israel's human rights atrocities in light of the 3 billion dollars a year in military aide America sends to Israel.

Eli, congrats on the new job. I would love for you to do a diavlog with Jay Rosen regarding the state of the news industry currently and where it's headed, can it be saved etc. Good points on supporting the local papers. Although your "organic produce" reference is getting awfully close to "arrugula eating elitism."

It sure is easy to sit at your macs in your comfy chairs and pass judgment on Israel's response. Imagine for a moment that Cuba was run by a terrorist group and had been regularly firing missiles into Miami for many, many years. Do you question for a second what the U.S. response would be? Look at what we did to Iraq, a country on the other side of the world that never touched us. If this scenario occurred, we'd OWN Cuba within days. Arguments like yours would be ignored and likely even considered traitorous. So enjoy the luxury of your intellectual banter while Israel deals with a real life and death problem in a world of double standards and blatant anti-semitism.

Quoting Wonderment: Heather and Eli can discuss the "strategic" considerations of the air war on Gaza and the bloodbath we are witnessing till they are blue in the face.

Thank you, wonderment. What's so off-putting about Heather, Eli, Dan Drezner, and the 'IR' school writ large (and realpolitik, sorry Bob!) is its utter lack of a moral framework with which to judge political/military actions. The endless arguing about what Dubya called "strategery" effectively renders moral and ethical considerations moot. It may be intellectually coherent, but its morally reprehensible. Thanks for pointing that out, wonderment.

I have rather jaundiced view of middle eastern politics and especially Palestinian Israeli conflict. The bombing that is going on at this time is a part of election campaign in Israel. Victimization of Israelis and Palestinians is an essential for maintaining power for Hamas (Palestinian victims), or seats at Knesset for many of the factions (Israeli victims). As we saw clearly during last 8 years of Bush administration people who are told to be victims, can be easily scared and manipulated and they will vote during the election in predicable way. This conflict will not be solved until new leadership among both Palestinians and Israelis will dispose with the notion of victim hood and introduce a notion of survivors despite adverse elements. They have to recognize each other as a human beings with equal rights.
Tom

Nice exchange and indeed a civilized clash with the latter sotto voce between two bright and lively people whose styles contrast: Lake's over- brimming brio as against Hurlburt's more somnolent understatedness. That, however inverted, said, I think there is a fundamental and vastly telling theme underlying this exchange ranging around the heading “Clash of Civilizations." And that is this: is there in the West, the developed World, an imperialist-like imperative to impose its will, civilizationally, on a different civilization? Hurlburt tends to argue yes; Lake no. I myself try to take the question one step further and visit the difference between ideology and philosophy. The former is a self answering, closed system of thought; the latter is an open ended, provisional view of the world, which takes into account evidence, changes its mind in conformity to the evidence, and can find an analogue in its ideal of deliberation in the methods of science. Theocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism—even understanding Arendt’s distinction between those latter two—and oligarchy typify ideology; liberal democracy typifies an anti-ideological open mindedness, which tries to balance tradition and self questioning—the double mindedness of liberalism which at once believes and doubts—and which is, ideally, open to a better argument or to

I do... and if you continue to name call and insult people I'm going to keep it up. So, Frenchy, I dare you to name call or insult another person you disagree with again.

Quoting Lyle: I do... and if you continue to name call and insult people I'm going to keep it up.

So, Frenchy, I dare you to name call or insult another person you disagree with again.

Actually Lyle I have as much right to call myself American as you do. I was born in Connecticut, went to school in Massachusetts and vote in US elections. So your insults directed at France leave me perfectly indifferent. If you think I will reply to your country bumpkin reflections, think again bumpkin.

Quoting Francoamerican: As for a hick like Lyle, do you think I really care what he thinks?

Actually, yes. Which is why I weighed in. You seem like a fairly normal human being, and it is a normal human instinct to care what others think of us.

Quoting bjkeefe: Actually, yes. Which is why I weighed in.

You seem like a fairly normal human being, and it is a normal human instinct to care what others think of us.

Yes and No. It is certainly normal to care about the opinion of equals. But what is equality? Civil equality? Intellectual equality? In intellectual debates, there are great inequalities of intelligence, information and wisdom. I do not care if imbeciles respect me or not, if they demonstrate manifest bad faith, illogic and ignorance in criticizing me. I have generally been polite on Bloggingheads, but there are limits to my patience.

Quoting Francoamerican: I have generally been polite on Bloggingheads, but there are limits to my patience.

So, like it or not, you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond to those you claim to disdain, don't you think?

Quoting bjkeefe: So, like it or not, you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond to those you claim to disdain, don't you think?

You can put whatever construction you want on my responses. It would be difficult to disdain someone without wanting to show it in some way. The ambiguity is in the word "care." I care (=am concerned) enough to express my disdain when I am confronted with an imbecile (as defined above). But I really don't care a fig about the person, i.e. I cordially detest him....more rarely her (not a sexist remark: I find women generally more acute). One thing I have remarked, in comparing intellectual manners in France and Britain on the one hand, and the US on the other, is that Americans are far too polite. I am afraid they confuse politeness with broadmindedness and tolerance, whereas it is in fact a kind of cowardice and a refusal to go deeply into any subject. But what about all the noise on the blogosphere, you may ask? Precisely: beaucoup de bruit pour rien.

Quoting Francoamerican:
One thing I have remarked, in comparing intellectual manners in France and Britain on the one hand, and the US on the other, is that Americans are far too polite. I am afraid they confuse politeness with broadmindedness and tolerance, whereas it is in fact a kind of cowardice and a refusal to go deeply into any subject.

Do you equate politeness with civility in this particular instance? Can we have civil discourse sans cowardice? Just curious.

Quoting Francoamerican: You can put whatever construction you want on my responses. It would be difficult to disdain someone without wanting to show it in some way. The ambiguity is in the word "care." I care (=am concerned) enough to express my disdain when I am confronted with an imbecile (as defined above). But I really don't care a fig about the person, i.e. I cordially detest him....more rarely her (not a sexist remark: I find women generally more acute).

Fair enough.

One thing I have remarked, in comparing intellectual manners in France and Britain on the one hand, and the US on the other, is that Americans are far too polite. I am afraid they confuse politeness with broadmindedness and tolerance, whereas it is in fact a kind of cowardice and a refusal to go deeply into any subject. But what about all the noise on the blogosphere, you may ask?

This is far too sweeping a generalization for me to take seriously. I can think of archetypes that you probably have in mind, but there's no way I buy your assertion applied to the entire populations.

Quoting basman: I fail to understand equivalence between liberal democracy seeking to extend itself—which makes that as an imperial enterprise oxymoronic—and an ideological fanaticism wanting what: to communize the world, in days gone by, or to caliphate the world, or some less apocalyptic version of either. An answer to Hurlburt, to the charge of American exceptionalism, to the tension between Wilsonian- come NeoCon-come Bush Democratic idealism and self interested, utilitarian/pragmatic realism is the alignment, where it occurs—Iraq is a highly debatable example—of national interest with the possibility of planting democracy.

That is not a clash of civilizations initiated by America. Itzik Basman

Well then, what it is? I agree that the Iraq war is not a clash of civilizations (for the reasons I gave above: civilization, properly understood, does not go to war in order to impose itself. Only imperialist powers do, and they do so in order to impose themselves, not civilization). The war was undertaken to plant democracy, you say. I like agricultural metaphors as much as anyone, but they only go so far in explaining human action....and not very far at that. We now know that Bush and his neocon advisers gave almost no thought to this problem because

Quoting bjkeefe: This is far too sweeping a generalization for me to take seriously. I can think of archetypes that you probably have in mind, but there's no way I buy your assertion applied to the entire populations.

I was referring to intellectuals. And, believe me, the French and the Brits show no mercy in intellectual debate when they disagree about something. But of course you are right, no generalization holds absolutely.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Do you equate politeness with civility in this particular instance? Can we have civil discourse sans cowardice? Just curious.

Maybe. I think the distinction is right: People can be civil and cordially detest one another. The French and the British are past masters in the art.

Quoting Francoamerican: I was referring to intellectuals. And, believe me, the French and the Brits show no mercy in intellectual debate when they disagree about something. But of course you are right, no generalization holds absolutely.

Still can't even accept that. I've been privy to too many debates, conferences, conversations, and read too many written exchanges to think that there's anything to the notion that American intellectuals are polite to a fault when disagreeing. Again, I know the sort of person you're thinking about, but I don't think this type is disproportionately in evidence. You'd probably get me to agree that there is too much deference given by American intellectuals compared to their British and French counterparts regarding one topic, though: religious belief.

In honour of H. Hurlburt's occasional nods to Marx and to a materialist analysis, two limericks composed by me: 1. Marx in a materialist rant, Yelled at his oh so Platonist Aunt, "You must ground the dialectic in class, And give the bourgeoisie a kick in the ass Or you will float away on Hegel and Kant." _____________ 2. Said Marx, "If you do not see what I am seeing, From reality you will be fleeing. Study the means of production, My Theory of Value is a good introduction; Or else suffer the unbearable lightness of being. __________________
Itzik Basman

All- Other than the usual mainstream propaganda organs, what are your favorite current affairs sources on the Middle East, especially whenever there's a major flareup there?

Another great piece by Glenn Greenwald. What I find truly freigthening, Orwellian really, is the degree to which the Democratic leadership is out of touch with the rank-n-file democrat who oppose Israel's indiscriminate use of violence. Listening to the democratic leadership sing off the same hyme sheet (as Tariq Ali put it) as Republicans is reminder to me of just how distorted our foreign policy is in the region. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../01/02/israel/

Quoting basman: In honour of H. Hurlburt's occasional nods to Marx and to a materialist analysis, two limericks composed by me:

Valentine's Day Poem
The Basman Variation Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Sugar is a sweet-tasting, naturally occurring substance composed of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen;
And so are you

This just about says it all, as posted by poster roidubouloi at TNR not so long ago: ________________________ "...I do not believe it is necessary to start weighing the moral claims or the moral character of both sides since the beginning of the conflict to decide that Israel has an unambiguous right to defend itself against missile attacks. Nothing about the stature of the claims of either side has the remotest thing to do with it and that does not change no matter the sheer volume of the verbiage poured out upon it. When someone comes to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself, killing them first if need be. When they stop coming to kill you, you don't any longer have the right to kill them in self-defense. There may be grievances, legitimate or illegitimate, but they do not constitute a right of self-defense and are not likely to be such as justify continuing violence. Indeed, in a case of self-defense, the only uncertainty is about when the threat and action giving rise to the right of self-defense has terminated. In this case, there is not

Quoting Francoamerican: One thing I have remarked, in comparing intellectual manners in France and Britain on the one hand, and the US on the other, is that Americans are far too polite. I am afraid they confuse politeness with broadmindedness and tolerance, whereas it is in fact a kind of cowardice and a refusal to go deeply into any subject.

Witless name-calling signals cosmopolitan intellectual bravery and depth? Okay: you're a doo-doo head. You're also my new favorite commenter.

Quoting basman:
"The convoluted character of the respective moral and political claims and meditation upon it contributes exactly nothing to that understanding. Those are not unimportant questions, they are just irrelevant to the immediate conflict."

As slightly edited by me. Wish I could have said something as clear and as forceful and correct.

Itzik Basman

I have omitted the "clear and forceful" though far from "correct" text....just to save space and spare the reader a tedious repetition of platitudes, which we have heard so many times in the past 30 years that most of us have grown utterly numb to the language of mutual recrimination and denigration. The Israelis and the Palestinians can (and no doubt will) argue till doomsday about their indisputable rights, and the indisputable wrongs of their enemies. I merely ask you to bear in mind the following two facts: 1. The state of Israel was founded on an absurd, indeed absurdist, slogan: "A land without a people for a people without a land." 2. Until the injustice implicit in that slogan is repaired, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Re: Gaza and Obama. Obama should NOT use the same mediators that Bill Clinton used in the Mideast. He should call on Uri Avnery immediately, who is part of the smart Israelis and Palestinians and knows all the peace makers. We in USA do not have a real clue about Israel because of all the propoganda that is pro-Israeli. To be truly pro-Israel, you have to include our Palestinian neighbors and those among them who talk to the smartest Israeils. In other words, you cannot use Americans to get real results. USA Jews are, some, pro-Israel without thinking about the best self-enlightened stance Israel can take for safety. That stance includes talking to Hamas and any other Palestinians and not killing them. Because they'll kill right back. That old useful motto about Insanity=doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same bad results applies BIG TIME to this invasion of GAZA. The kassim rockets are thrown as a result of Palestinian reality which is miserable. Bombing them to death is Israel's usual way. For Obama to inherit this horrid solution is bad for him and bad for us, American Jews and

Quoting Anyuser: Witless name-calling signals cosmopolitan intellectual bravery and depth? Okay: you're a doo-doo head. You're also my new favorite commenter.

So glad to oblige you. I have been out of the country too long, though, to understand the locution "doo-doo head." Witless? The Froggies? Only when it comes to the United States. I regret---slightly--- having called you an imbecile (assuming anyuser is always the same anyuser), but you certainly invited it.

Richard Folk's piece is an indispensible read. Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe. It would be interesting to read Eli's reaction to this article, particularly the following excerpt:

For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, which undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot, but hardly justifying the onslaught initiated by Israel on December 27, 2008. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel’s 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a

Hamas now*plans major suicide attacks inside Israel. The group actually warned Muslims who are foreign citizens to leave Israel immediately: http://samsonblinded.org/news/hamas-...ee-israel-5473

Quoting tranquill: Hamas now*plans major suicide attacks inside Israel. The group actually warned Muslims who are foreign citizens to leave Israel immediately: http://samsonblinded.org/news/hamas-...ee-israel-5473

It shouldn't be too hard for Hamas to find volunteers. In fact, they probably have more volunteers than potential targets inside Israel.

Wonderment and Nikkibong - Speaking for myself and not for Eli, I do have a moral view about these things which I imagine is as highly developed (though not any more so) than anyone else's. My moral imperative, though, is directed at what can be said and done to end killing and terror. So I find assigning blame a morally less relevant exercise than trying to find a way forward. That is not the same thing as "not having a moral sense." On a lighter note, Basman, and then bj, the limericks are so wonderful that I will forgive Basman for calling me "somnolent."

Wonderment and Nikkibong - Speaking for myself and not for Eli, I do have a moral view about these things which I imagine is as highly developed (though not any more so) than anyone else's. My moral imperative, though, is directed at what can be said and done to end killing and terror. So I find assigning blame a morally less relevant exercise than trying to find a way forward. That is not the same thing as "not having a moral sense."

I understand, Heather. I'm not particularly proud of my moral outrage, and I know it's not productive. It's very painful, however, to see hundreds of people slaughtered for no good reason (Is there ever a good reason?) After a lifetime of Israel/Palestine, I'm more than a little burnt out. If you and Eli can find "a way forward," I wish you all the best. I'm all for hope and change. B'hatzlakha. That means "Good luck."

Thank you for taking that approach, Heather. To me the worst part of Israel/Palestine discussions are that they so often devolve into arguments about the perceived morality of the 2 sides, which only heightens emotions and distracts everyone from the real focus of "what do we do about it?" After 8 years of having everything cast in terms of good/evil, I'm ready for a little rebirth of pragmatism.

Quoting rfrobison: The Arabs of Palestine, for their part, had legitimate national aspirations of their own and felt betrayed by the British and other European powers that their claim to statehood was thwarted. They weren't (and Hamas and its ilk still aren't) interested in sharing land with Jews or anyone else. Just as there are some Israelis who still talk about claiming all of Biblical Israel for itself.

While a nonsectarian, bi-national democracy at the heart of the Middle East has great appeal, I don't see how the vision is workable. Israel/Palestine is not Canada. Palestinians' acceptance of democratic norms is questionable at best; Jews, for their part, would again find themselves a minority people in their homeland--the very problem the creation of Israel was meant to solve.

The one-state vision is beguiling, but it is a Negev mirage.

So then you see the two-state vision as the solution? Or do you simply think there is no solution? That would be a counsel of despair. I assume you mean, in saying that "the Palestinians' acceptance of democratic norms is questionable," that they would never accept to be citizens in a single state on an equal footing with

Quoting mvantony: No it's not.

Or if it is, it's no different than the forms of nationalism associated with countless other of the world's countries with dominant ethnicities (Japan, Ireland, Slovakia, France, Norway, Korea, Germany, Spain, Russia, Greece, etc., etc., etc.) that people don't tend to whine on and on about.

Whining on and on about Jewish nationalism (i.e., support for Israel as a Jewish homeland) -- and only Jewish nationalism -- is what's racist.

I beg to differ: none of the countries you mention, with the possible exception of Japan, can be called "ethnically" uniform in any sense of the word "ethnic." In France, for example, one out of four French citizens has a grandparent that came from some other country. The inconvenient fact is that Israel is a state defined by a particular religion----a religion, moreover, that has always conflated ethnicity with religious belief. Even if the majority of Israelis are "secular" (but is this still true?), their state ideology---zionism---is religious in origin. Of none of the other states you mention is this true.

Francoamerican, Thanks for your trenchant criticisms of my post. Although I do not counsel despair, over the near term--dunno, my lifetime, maybe?--I'm not optimistic a peaceful resolution that both sides feel is reasonably just will be found. For the time being, I'd say the two-state solution offers the better chances for success, but I'm no seer on that score. I got raked over the coals by grits over the "questionable Palestinian commitment to democratic norms" comment, but what I meant was that Palestinian politics up to now, both internal and external, has been characterized far more by rule by the bullet than by the ballot, not that there is anything inherent in Palestinian or Arab culture that makes them immune to democracy. In a single-state scenario, I wonder how well the rights of Jewish citizens would be protected in a country where they would once again find themselves in the minority. See, for example, the treatment of Christians in Egypt, Kurds in Iraq under Saddam. It's entirely possible that a democratically empowered Palestinian polity would feel secure enough not to lord it over their former enemies, but I suspect that a unitary state would immediately fracture along

FrancoAmerican:
...Or do you simply think there is no solution? That would be a counsel of despair...
and then:
...1. The state of Israel was founded on an absurd, indeed absurdist, slogan: "A land without a people for a people without a land." 2. Until the injustice implicit in that slogan is repaired, there will be no peace in the Middle East...
Clearly you are capable of holding two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time, without even getting into, the, in your words, "absurd, even absurdist", not to mention a whole slew of other adjectives all meaning "ridiculously simplistic and distorted", of your #1. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: FrancoAmerican:

...Or do you simply think there is no solution? That would be a counsel of despair...

and then:

...1. The state of Israel was founded on an absurd, indeed absurdist, slogan: "A land without a people for a people without a land."

2. Until the injustice implicit in that slogan is repaired, there will be no peace in the Middle East...

Clearly you are capable of holding two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time, without even getting into, the, in your words, "absurd, even absurdist", not to mention a whole slew of other adjectives all meaning "ridiculously simplistic and distorted", of your #1.

Itzik Basman

The contradiction is not in my head; it is in yours, Basman. Fortunately there are intelligent Israelis who understand the problem. Yes, the slogan of Zionism was absurd and even absurdist (by which I mean ludicrous). Only someone, like you, with your minimal acquaintance with history (and minimal command of English grammar) would think otherwise.

Quoting Francoamerican: their state ideology---zionism---is religious in origin.

How so? From Wikipedia:

Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, "the Land of Israel"), and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.

Zionism is partly based upon strong historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE). The modern movement was mainly SECULAR IN ITS ORIGINS, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe. It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism. At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism grew rapidly, and after the Holocaust became the dominant Jewish political movement.

The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The movement seeks to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land and was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the homeland

Quoting Francoamerican: I beg to differ: none of the countries you mention, with the possible exception of Japan, can be called "ethnically" uniform in any sense of the word "ethnic." In France, for example, one out of four French citizens has a grandparent that came from some other country.

I didn't say Jews are "ethnically uniform" (whatever that means). They are a "people" in an intuitive, but notoriously difficult-to-semantically-characterize sense. But it involves: ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, historical, etc. elements. If you want to talk about citizens of France, one out of five Israeli citizens is Arab. And Israeli Jews have countless different backgrounds, degrees of religiosity, ties to Jewish culture and history, political views, etc.

The inconvenient fact is that Israel is a state defined by a particular religion

No, it's essential conceptual tie is to a people -- the Jewish people -- who have historical, cultural, and, for some, religious connections to one or other forms of the religion Judaism.

----a religion, moreover, that has always conflated ethnicity with religious belief.

Religions don't conflate things, it's people that sometimes do. You're right that many people do conflate the two -- you included, it appears. (It's actually quite natural to do so; I myself did many years ago when I first started thinking about Israel.) Were you better able to avoid the

Quoting Francoamerican: The contradiction is not in my head; it is in yours, Basman. Fortunately there are intelligent Israelis who understand the problem.

Yes, the slogan of Zionism was absurd and even absurdist (by which I mean ludicrous).

Only someone, like you, with your minimal acquaintance with history (and minimal command of English grammar) would think otherwise.

Rude, pretentious, and generally full of shit. You're just the complete package, aren't you? I'm amazed there's anybody left here that thinks there's any value added in an interaction with you.

Quoting mvantony: I didn't say Jews are "ethnically uniform" (whatever that means). They are a "people" in an intuitive, but notoriously difficult-to-semantically-characterize sense. But it involves: ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, historical, etc. elements.

We are talking about two different things: people and state. The American or French people are of diverse origins and religions, but they all have equal rights under the French or the American constitutions. The state recognizes no differences, ethnic or religious, among its citizens. As far as I know, this is not true of Israel. I stand to be corrected.

If you want to talk about citizens of France, one out of five Israeli citizens is Arab. And Israeli Jews have countless different backgrounds, degrees of religiosity, ties to Jewish culture and history, political views, etc.

That is clear to anyone who has followed, as I have from afar, the vigorous public life of Israel.

No, it's essential conceptual tie is to a people -- the Jewish people -- who have historical, cultural, and, for some, religious connections to one or other forms of the religion Judaism.

Conceptual tie, if you like. I think nationalism is something more primitive, something "charnel," to use a word that Charles Péguy used to describe the attachment of the French to their Republic in the early years of the 20th century. When wed

Quoting Francoamerican: ...

This topic is a large and important one that I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy to get into now. Amnon Rubinstein and Alexander Yakobson's book Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-State and Human Rights (Routledge, 2008) contains a treatment of the topic that I'm very sympathetic to. Here's a publisher's description of the book:

Can Israel be both Jewish and truly democratic? How can a nation-state, which incorporates a large national minority with a distinct identity of its own be a state of all its citizens? Written by two eminent Israeli scholars, a professor of constitutional law and a historian, Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein are the first to treat Zionism and Israeli experience in light of other states' experiences and in particular of newly established states that have undergone constitutional changes and wrestled with issues of minorities.Citing various European, constitutions and laws, the authors explore the concept of a Jewish State and its various meanings in the light of international law, and the current norms of Human Rights as applied to other democratic societies compatible with liberal democratic norms

David Bernstein brings up whether comparing the Sri Lankan civil war and the invasion of Gaza presents a double standard. There's also this other Bernstein post pointing to an article concluding, that the Israeli invasion of Gaza is justified by international law. I would also point out - because Carroll and Scher are good at self-aggrandizing but not at blogging - the Chait/Klein/Yglesias discussion on the invasion. Chait's parts fall under TNR subscription, but all three have quoted liberally from each other. 1. Who Started It? 2. Some Incomplete Thoughts on Gaza 3. An Occupied Nation and a Threatened One 4. Israel, Hamas, and Moral Equivalence 5. Why They Fight I think a three-way for a diavlog is in order! Or, maybe, a team competition: The Invasion No Week-in-Blog next week! Please, Bob?!

I just thought it was one of the best sustained exchanges on the Gaza issue for the past few days. Given Peretz's tantrum, Chait's subscription-only status, and Carroll/Scher's astounding dearth of links, I thought it would be optimal for bhTv to encourage the exchange as long as the Gaza situation continues.

Thank you for the reference, but at that price I think I will pass. In any case, I hope you understand that I am not anti-Israel.

Quoting AemJeff: Rude, pretentious, and generally full of shit. You're just the complete package, aren't you? I'm amazed there's anybody left here that thinks there's any value added in an interaction with you.

Given the general level, intellectual and other, of your interventions you have some nerve criticizing me. It is pretty amazing, isn't it, that there are people more intelligent than you?

Quoting rfrobison: =
In a single-state scenario, I wonder how well the rights of Jewish citizens would be protected in a country where they would once again find themselves in the minority. See, for example, the treatment of Christians in Egypt, Kurds in Iraq under Saddam.

It's entirely possible that a democratically empowered Palestinian polity would feel secure enough not to lord it over their former enemies, but I suspect that a unitary state would immediately fracture along ethno-religious lines and that the basic causes of the conflict would remain: two peoples fighting over a single land. A Lebanon-like state (at best) seemingly permanently riven by conflict, looks to me to be the most likely outcome.

I'd like to see a two-state settlement similar to the one put forward by Clinton at Camp David, but I'm not sure how we get there until the two sides exhaust themselves with killing.

Hope I'm wrong.

You have summed up the problem in a nutshell. The one-state solution is impossible as long as both sides insist on their religious identity to the exclusion of their civil identity. Both Jews and Muslims would have to accept the

Quoting Francoamerican: The one-state solution is impossible as long as both sides insist on their religious identity to the exclusion of their civil identity. Both Jews and Muslims would have to accept the principle of a secular polity in order to live under one constitution. From what I know about both peoples that seems unlikely.

The whole identity issue boils down to a problem of recognition, primarily on the part of the State of Israel I would argue. It's very existence is predicated on exclusivity, and not just in religious terms but cultural as well (note how the cultural political landscape in Israel is dominated by the Jews of European descent, the Ashkenazi Jews. A major obstacle to forging a secular identity maybe the Ashkenazis' fear of cultural assimilation into a dominate arab cultural identity. Something to think about in any event) I don't see religious exclusivity on Hamas' part (assuming that's who you had in mind) as a comparable obstacle to building a secular identity; mainly because Islam is being used to mobilize resistance to Jewish occupation, rather than Jews per se or Christians. In fact, Arab Christians in Israel probably feel

Under the 1907 Hague Conventions, a state can defend itself or right a wrong if the response is proportional, immediate, necessary, and avoids civilians. Under Article 51 of the Draft Articles of the the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question. Israeli forces outdo Hamas's and necessarily do greater damage. Hamas’s war aim is disproportionate to Israel’s: Israel’s is to stop rockets, Hamas’s to destroy Israel. No eye for an eye war ever was waged. History is clear on that. Proportionality doesn’t require it. Another doctrine of proportionality is found in the Law of Armed Conflict("LOAC") LOAC is nations’ desire to lessen harm consistent with effective war. It is part of public international law. It regulates war and protects those outside war. It outlaws force beyond military objective. It prohibits force over that needed for military objective. If a surgical strike is apt, carpet bombing isn't. Hamas rockets come. So Israeli force is underachieving. It, unlike Hamas, minimizes civilian harm. Hamas buffers civilians. Israel sends warning leaflets. Israeli commanders warn Hamas leaders their homes are targets, though they know that. Hamas rockets go

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I don't see religious exclusivity on Hamas' part (assuming that's who you had in mind) as a comparable obstacle to building a secular identity; mainly because Islam is being used to mobilize resistance to Jewish occupation, rather than Jews per se or Christians. In fact, Arab Christians in Israel probably feel more excluded from Jews than Islamist Arab Muslims. I seriously doubt Hamas, or Palestinian Muslims in general, want a theocracy.

I sincerely hope you are right about the instrumentalization of Islam by Hamas. I remain sceptical about the possibility of a secular state, uniting the three monotheisms under a common constitution. Israelis would have to abandon Zionism (which is a disguised religion), and Palestinians would have to accept the principle of toleration of other faiths. Arab Christians, because of their small numbers and because Christianity recognizes the principle of the separation of the spiritual and temporal powers, would probably be the most amenable to compromise. But who knows? There are no doubt mixed régimes I can't even imagine.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: In fact, Arab Christians in Israel probably feel more excluded from Jews than Islamist Arab Muslims.

That was great (as was the rest of your post up till that point). I especially enjoyed the "in fact." But my favorite was:

I seriously doubt Hamas...want a theocracy.

A minor problem (among many others) for your thesis: a few days before the start of Israel's current campaign against Hamas, Hamas voted for a law allowing courts to mete out punishments in accordance with SHARIA LAW, including whipping, the severing of hands, hanging, and...wait for it...crucifixion.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I seriously doubt Hamas, or Palestinian Muslims in general, want a theocracy.

I'm not quite sure what your basis is for this assertion, but Hamas seems to me like the very embodiment of Islamic theocrats.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm not quite sure what your basis is for this assertion, but Hamas seems to me like the very embodiment of Islamic theocrats.

Yes, here are a few bits from the Hamas Covenant (I did a very quick scan; there's lots more):

Article Two:

The Islamic Resistance Movement [the full English name of Hamas] is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

[...]

Article Twenty-Seven [regarding the PLO, i.e., Fatah]:

...with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.

Don't forget, by the way, that for Hamas "Islamic Palestine" includes pre-'67 Israel too -- as a quick glance at their

Sens. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin - the top two Democrats in the chamber - and Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell all say Israel's actions are understandable. They say it is what the U.S. would do if terrorists were firing missiles into the U.S. from across America's borders.

Change you can believe in.

Quoting Wonderment: Change you can believe in.

Thanks for your observation, Wonderstones.

Reason 7,239. Petition here. (h/t: John Cole)

Quoting mvantony: A minor problem (among many others) for your thesis: a few days before the start of Israel's current campaign against Hamas, Hamas voted for a law allowing courts to mete out punishments in accordance with SHARIA LAW, including whipping, the severing of hands, hanging, and...wait for it...crucifixion.

There's no trace of the report on Al-Hayat's English website. Pat Robertson's CBMnews reported it citing Al-Hayat, but Hamas denies it. I suspect this a piece of Israeli pre-War propaganda. Provide me with a more credible news source and I'll be happy to read it and comment. Until then, I stand by my contention.

I hope you aren't arguing that legal arguments are more important than moral, political, or diplomatic reasoning. The legal case is compelling, but few laypersons, even statesmen, would grant that much significance.

A nice post by Noah Pollak on "proportionality" and related matters, the latest post in an exchange between Pollak and Andrew Sullivan.

I'll concede Pollak's point, as he frames it, on proportionality, but there are two other points - of three, including the proportionality argument where Pollak scores - that The Economist raises that together undermine that argument.

And yet Israel should not be surprised by the torrent of indignation it has aroused from around the world. This is not just because people seldom back the side with the F-16s. In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.

It is true that Israel has put up with the rockets from Gaza for a long time. But it may have been able to stop the rockets another way. For it is not quite true that Israel’s only demand in respect of Gaza has been for quiet along the border. Israel has also been trying to undermine Hamas by clamping an economic blockade

Quoting Baltimoron: I'll concede Pollak's point, as he frames it, on proportionality, but there are two other points - of three, including the proportionality argument where Pollak scores - that The Economist raises that together undermine that argument.

Thanks for the link. The author's first two tests sound reasonable (though not the third, to me), prima facie at least, though I'd like to know where they come from. In any event, I don't find any of the arguments for the three points convincing, let alone that they undermine the legitimacy of Israel's campaign. On the author's first point, the partial blockade imposed by Israel, following Hamas' coup in June 2007, was preceded by many years of rocket fire. Counting just from Israel's evacuation of Gaza (before Hamas' election!), and up to Hamas' coup (before the blockade), the "IDF Spokesperson" website reports:

Between Israel’s evacuation of Gaza and the election of Hamas (Aug. 15, 2005 – Jan. 25, 2006), there was an average of over 15 rocket and mortar attacks a month.

Between Hamas’ election and Hamas’ forceful takeover of the Strip (Jan. 25, 2006 – June 14, 2007), there was an average of over 102 attacks per month—an over 650% increase.

This seems to me to undermine Hamas' claim (and the author's argument which is based on it) that Hamas is firing

Here's another expert opinion that adjusts what was happening in those crucial months of ceasefire.

MARGARET WARNER: Staying with you, you know the Hamas leadership, or certainly some Hamas officials, I think better than anyone we've had on our program so far.

Explain their thinking in -- did they intend to provoke this conflict in the first place in mid-December, when they intensified the rocket attacks on southern Israel? That has been one popular conception, certainly in many Israeli and foreign circles.

MARK PERRY: That is a popular notion, but it doesn't accord with the facts. During the six months of the cease-fire, there were 153 violations of the cease-fire by Israel, and 36 Palestinians in Gaza were killed by Israeli forces. Most important of all, the economic siege of Gaza continued.

Hamas officials went to Egypt, asked them to intervene to stop the siege, or they would have to take action. No one listened, so they did increase their rocket fire.

But if we want to assess blame here, this is not all on Hamas. They've suffered enormous casualties. The people in Gaza are suffering. That's not in their interest. What they wanted to do was lift the siege and allow the Palestinian

Quoting Baltimoron: Here's another expert opinion that adjusts what was happening in those crucial months of ceasefire.

A bit more adjustment: The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IHCC) published a very informative report on Dec. 30, "The Six Months of the Lull Agreement." (I also highly recommend their detailed report on Hamas from April 2008 -- "Hamas' military buildup in the Gaza strip.") Many media outlets (e.g., CNN) have been reporting that Israel violated the tahdiya (lull) on November 4 when they killed six militants on a raid on tunnel that Israel suspected was for kidnapping more Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips (in addition to Gilad Shalit). According to the first report I mentioned above, it's true that things took a turn for the worse after the Israeli raid on November 4. What CNN and everyone else leaves out, however, are two things: THING ONE From the "The Six Months of the Lull Agreement":

From the summary of the report:

...between June 19 [i.e., the start of the tahdiya] and November 4...there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out

Frankie: "...The contradiction is not in my head; it is in yours, Basman. Fortunately there are intelligent Israelis who understand the problem.
Yes, the slogan of Zionism was absurd and even absurdist (by which I mean ludicrous).
Only someone, like you, with your minimal acquaintance with history (and minimal command of English grammar) would think otherwise..." Of course, Frankie, a one state solution is the way to go. The Palestinains are clearly ready, willing and able partners for such an enterprise. Who is your travel agent? I think it's time to bring you back from Mars. Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? Why not? That kind of tension is true of many other democracies and is clearly not necessarily incompatible with democracy itself. Consider the following based the examples cited by Yakobson and Rubinstein in Israel and the Family of Nations as paraphrased by Hillel Halkin: “… Greece, which has Albanian- and Turkish-speaking Muslim minorities, adopted a constitution in 1975 that designates the “Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ” as the country’s “prevailing religion” and Greek Orthodox priests, unlike other clergy, receive state salaries. Moreover, descendants of Greek families that have lived abroad for generations can apply immediately for citizenship upon establishing residence in Greece, whereas

Quoting basman: By the way Frankie, I love guys like you who ubiquitously hurl insults at the drop of a hat behind a pseudonym.

What's your name?

Itzik Basman

Very nicely put, Basman. -Jeff Howard

Itzik, Thanks for bringing out some of the details in Yakobson and Rubinstein's argument, as well as other related details. I've cited Y&R in comments here on BhTV a number of times, and linked to a 2005 paper of theirs (doh! there I go again!), but haven't brought out any of the details. Their arguments -- and more generally the kinds of arguments they're putting forward -- deserve widespread attention. Too bad Routledge didn't make available an affordable paperback version of their new book.

Quoting basman: Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic?

Why not?

That kind of tension is true of many other democracies and is clearly not necessarily incompatible with democracy itself. Consider the following based the examples cited by Yakobson and Rubinstein in Israel and the Family of Nations as paraphrased by Hillel Halkin:

“… Greece, which has Albanian- and Turkish-speaking Muslim minorities, adopted a constitution in 1975 that designates the “Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ” as the country’s “prevailing religion” and Greek Orthodox priests, unlike other clergy, receive state salaries. Moreover, descendants of Greek families that have lived abroad for generations can apply immediately for citizenship upon establishing residence in Greece, whereas other would-be immigrants must wait eight years. (In

Thanks and you are most welcome. "...Routledge didn't make available an affordable paperback version of their new book..." Yeah, the book looks to be $140.00 U.S. I don't know why. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Frankie:

Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic?

Why not?

Itzik Basman

That is the question. We are still waiting for the answer.

Quoting basman: Frankie:
As for my minimal command of English grammar, Frankie, I won a contest.

Itzik Basman

What contest was that?

Nothing you say about other countries has any relevance to the situation of the Palestinians in Israel. Yes, it is true that other countries give precedence to certain languages; that they favor certain ethnic groups; that their flags bear the symbols of their religious heritage. The fact remains that Israel was founded on an act of injustice: the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland. Do you deny that?

Frankie: 1. You have answered your own question by trying to distinguish between the cases I cited and the uniqueness of the Israeli case. In other words, it is your view of the creation of Israel that informs your position, the premise from which you start. Should that premise falter, well hello chef! 2. Ms British Columbia, 1969; 3. Yeah I deny it. For now, I’ll rest on the vitrually universal approbation for a two state solution, which near to entails a balanced view of Israel’s creation, and stands as the possible fulfillment of the original promise of Resolution 181, which had, such as it was, world legitimacy. Resting your present day analysis on the illegitimacy of Israel’s founding is futility multiplied by itself, leading only to the tragedy of continued irresolution, of which the bloodshed in Gaza is the latest example. I have written elsewhere here why a one state solution, save over time by demographic "facts on the ground", is a fantasy. Itzik Basman p.s. I trust you will find some mistakes of grammar, spelling and such like pedantries, which can of course only add fuel to your argument.

Basman, You misunderstood me. I doubt whether you even read my replies to mvantovy. It makes no difference to me, or to the international community, which solution is finally adopted. The one-state solution and the two-state solution are equally just, although they may not be equally practical. The present situation, in which the Palestinians are stateless non-persons, is unacceptable. Unfortunately, I see no evidence that Israel wants to progress towards either solution. And only Israel is in a position to act.