The self-righteous left's simplistic world

[shira]

There is a phenomenon, the self-righteous left, which lives in a simple black-and-white universe, governed by what I call SLES, short for Standard Left Explanatory System – a concoction that is ruining the left's credibility and integrity. This system, which started to evolve in the 1960s, says: "Always look for the underdog and then blame the stronger party for anything the underdog does, particularly if the stronger party belongs to the west. Never hold the underdog (particularly when non-western) accountable for anything."

snip...

There is not a single state in this area where I could express my views freely except Israel. In Gaza, the Hamas regime has just imposed a rule requiring women to wear veils to comply with Islamic modesty laws; in Iran gay people are hanged and critics of the recent elections threatened with death – or actually killed. Egypt and Syria incarcerate political opponents, and Saudi Arabia is a highly repressive regime – and the list goes on. This is not meant to characterise Islam: it's a description of the facts in the Middle East.

While I feel strongly for Wettstein's lost dates, I feel even more strongly about the disproportion between the condemnations of Israeli policies and the silence of Europe's self-righteous left about horrors ranging from the mass murder of members of Fatah by Hamas, to the genocide in Darfur, to rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Critical though I am of Israel's policies, I have nothing but disdain for the self-righteous left hiding behind a simplistic SLES that enables them to spill venomous condemnation of Israel as if it were nicely placed between the US and Canada, and for completely unintelligible reasons behaves as if it were under threat.

snip...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/israel-free-speech-middle-east

[Silent3]

1. Most PEOPLE, on the left or the right...

...have very simplistic world views. This is hardly a particular failing of the left. It is unfortunate that this condition applies to many people who post on DU.

[LeftishBrit]

4. True enough.

[patrice]

2. There are no absolutes, "Left," "Right," or "Middle." nt

[LeftishBrit]

3. I agree that there is a lot of over-simplistic thinking about the world and about Israel, but not

just on the left. It's a general characteristic of people to view the world in rather simplistic terms, and especially when it concerns places with which they have little direct experience.

I think Israel gets seen by many on right and left as simply an American ally and gets caught up in people's views of America and its influence on the world. This can lead to extreme views in either direction: "Israel is just an imperialist bully" on the one side, or "Palestinians are terrorists who need to be crushed" on the other.

I think there is a tendency by some to demonize Israel - ranging from some left-wing 'mirror-image-ists' who treat American and its allies as an 'axis of evil' and their opponents as a Good Thing, to the rather larger number of right-wing xenophobes who hate Israel because it's furrin, has too many joos in it, and America has a financial commitment to it. But there is also a tendency for some to demonize Arabs and Muslims.

My own view: Likud and its allies are a bunch of disgusting RW nutters, Hamas are worse if at present less powerful, and the Israeli Right and Palestinian Right reinforce each other, through mutual aggression and fear. Likud couldn't do a better job of building up Hamas, or Hamas a better job of building up Likud, if they were allies!

Both Israel and the Palestinians could do with a big change of leadership.

[shaayecanaan]

5. Remember the 1980s?

We were all up in arms about South Africa, yeah? Man, were they racist or what?

Of course, the white South Africans were always coming up with excuses. I can remember them as if it was yesterday:-

1) If South Africa was so bad towards Blacks, why were so many of them migrating from Angola and Mozambique in search of employment?

2) South Africa's democracy, however flawed, was clearly better than most of the African states that had no democracy at all.

3) Most of the African states that bitched at the UN about South Africa treated their citizens worse and had worse living standards than South Africa ever did.

4) The Dutch planters that owned most of the farms didnt forcibly take over the land. They simply walked onto it following the devastating Difaqane war between the Zulu and Sotho-speaking tribes that left these areas virtually depopulated.

5) However much blacks had been deprived of their traditional lands, they still held onto a far more significant proportion than Native Americans, Maoris, Aborigines or Israeli Arabs had been allowed to retain.

6) Statistically, South Africa was actually less segregated than many places in Europe or the new world.

7) Had the Zulus not needlessly provoked the first Anglo-Zulu war, there would still be an independent Zulu homeland. The British fought the first Zulu war largely because of atrocities committed by Zulus against their fellow Africans.

8) Far more blacks were killed in fraternal wars between tribes than were ever killed by whites. Likewise, far more whites were killed in the Boer War than had ever been killed in battle with blacks.

Funnily enough, the rest of the world didnt see the situation as being as complicated. Apartheid was dismantled and in its place, just as the whites had warned, a corrupt, Zulu-dominated oligarchy replaced it. The living situation of blacks in South Africa is probably worse, as most of the white capital fled the country and the leadership if anything is less capable than before.

You can at least respect the Left for being consistent:- they criticised South Africa as loud and long and hard as they do Israel. My own contempt I find lies with those whose eyes are as soft as pillows when they gaze upon the black South Africans, the Tibetans, etc, and which become as hard as obsidian when they look at the Palestinians.

[shira]

7. you're forgetting just one tiny little thing with your comparison to S.Africa

This conflict isn't about Jews and Palestinians being able to play nice together if only those mean Joos come to their senses and finally start realizing that Palestinians are their equals.

This conflict is about Palestinians being used as pawns by the Arab world the past 60 years in its ongoing attempt to destroy the Jewish state by every means necessary.

Sorry to ruin your simplistic party with some facts.

[shaayecanaan]

8. So you're saying that South Africa was indeed that simple?

It was simply a case of those evil racist whites having to come to their senses?

And I suppose you think the situation is as simple in the case of the Tibetans?

[FarrenH]

19. The occupation of the West Bank is functionally indistinguishable from Apartheid

You can peddle your revisionism till the end of the world. Israel is not winning the propaganda war and cannot so long as its starkly obvious that their policies are racist, nationalist and clearly disenfranchise the Palestinians unfairly.

[shira]

20. how disingenuous can you possibly be? remember our conversation earlier - when you disappeared?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x277964

to remind you, since you 'forgot'.

[FarrenH]

27. Where I "disappeared"?

Because everything that had to be said had been said, and you proved incapable of addressing the structural, motivational and other aspects presented that showed the situation to be close enough to Apartheid for direct comparison? That conversation?

[shira]

32. yeah, you didn't respond to this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x277964#278670

You quoted Jimmy Carter to support your view, but even he says there is no apartheid within the green line that is Israel....AND moreover, he says what he beleives to be apartheid it's NOT based on racism.

Remind me again why you'd use Carter as a source when he utterly refutes your argument?

[FarrenH]

38. k I'll respond to it now.

I never claimed Apartheid was practised in Israel proper, so that has no relevance to me (I did however point out that discrimination against Arab citizens takes several covert forms, with references provided, on that or another thread). That aside. Carter and I disagree on motive, but agree on implementation. Carter says the occupation has the form of Apartheid. And? What was your point?

Lets do a thought experiment: What if you had motive without implementation. What if Afrikaner Nationalists in SA (and their enablers among South African english voters) simply intended to implement a racially discriminatory system, but didn't?

Jesus, this is hair splitting of the most disingenious sort. Would you like to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with me?

And here comes the clue train, next stop you: Carter said that Israeli Apartheid (his words) is worse than South African Apartheid, a view most black veterans of the South African struggle agree with.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/799476.html

[shira]

41. thanks for trying

You admit there is no apartheid in Israel but that discimination exists. Okay, so this describes all Western nations - Israel is no different. Difficult to admit, right?

But the occupation is like apartheid? No - an occupation is what it is and like any other occupation, it is fueled by security considerations. In no occupation are citizens treated equally to citizens that the occupying military represents - that's not racism, that's the nature of any occupation. Don't you think you'd have a stronger case if Israel annexed the W.Bank and made that part of Israel, but denied rights to Palestinians there that Israelis enjoy, and kept settlers separated from the other Palestinians there?

In East Jerusalem now, a private Jewish owner is seeking to renovate a building he owns there. So a Jew is not allowed to integrate among other Arabs. Is the denial of his rights as a private landowner a form of racist apartheid in your view? Do you support discriminatory law banning individual Jews from owning and building within Arab neighborhoods?

[FarrenH]

48. Putting words in my mouth

I didn't "admit" anything. "Admitting" implies retracting a claim or acknowledging fault. You seem to have a poor grasp of both semantics and logic. And the ironic thing is, you accuse me of conveniently evading a response, but you never really respond to anything I say, whether its a detailed comparison of the exact similarities between SA and Israeli Apartheid, or careful explanation of the irrelevance of your demands. Your entire style of argument seems to be "but look over there!" and counterfactuals. In case you're unsure of what a counterfactual is, its a conditional proposition of the form "if this happens, that will happen". And counterfactuals are notoriously problematic, not least because they are laden with the biases and presumptions of the claimant. For instance, your apparently divine knowledge that Palestinians are eternally warlike and incapable of peace.

I suspect simple bigotry underlies that presumption, but regardless of the underlying causes, you exhibit all the traits of cognitive dissonance and seem to struggle with basic logic. Counterfactuals are not facts, they are speculation. They don't constitute a powerful argument against basic moral decency, as encoded in International law in the wake of not one, but two world wars that were learning experiences for much of the human race. Evidently not for Israel, which, if nations were people, might be considered a sociopath, increasingly unable to grasp the golden rule.

And you sound EXACTLY like a self-deluding white racist South African, circa 1980.

[shira]

49. probably a waste of time, but...

If I don't really respond to anything you say, please be more explicit - IOW, what have I missed?

As for your "look over there" and "counterfactual" accusations, it's not really that at all - if it turns out you have hypocritical and contradictory positions - and it appears you do since you're unwilling to answer my questions - I find that quite revealing.

The reason I bring up hypotheticals like Hamas taking over the W.Bank almost immediately after IDF withdrawal, resuming their attacks on Israel afterwards, etc...is because over the past 15 years this has been the pattern without exception. Anytime Israel does something, big or small, it's met with more "resistance". I have no reason to believe by word or deed that Hamas has changed or will change anytime soon.

As for bigotry accusations, I must admit you fit the pattern of a zionophobe - know what that is? I don't have any irrational hatred or bigotry towards Palestinians - I do have a problem with their leadership as well as regional leadership in countries surrounding Israel. I'm thinking you believe I'm a bigot or racist because you conflate the Pal/Arab people with their leadership - so a knock on their leaders is a knock on them from your POV. I don't think in those terms, however. But I think I can see why you believe it's bigotry - maybe for the same reasons I suspect you and yours of ill-intent for irrationally slamming the Israeli govt?

[Lakrosse]

52. actually it is distinguishable

because you cannot compare to completely different things with totally different intents and purposes! Israel has offered numerous times, pending a peace agreement, to stop occupying the West Bank. And the Arabs refuse every offer time and again. The Afrikaners never offered to end apartheid until their country was destroyed by sanctions and boycotts. And Israel, per the UN resolution which says withdraw from "territories" not "the territories" or "all territories" can build settlements in them, which it does to extend its borders. However, not all settlements do this, and I am against settlements deep in the West Bank. But the occupation is done to protect Israel. We saw what happened when they left Gaza.

[FarrenH]

18. Bravo!

As a white male who grew up under, and hated, Apartheid, who applauded sanctions and was sickened by the spectacle of both racist South Africans and their foreign apologists, I am struck by deja vu whenever I read this kind of tripe.

[shaayecanaan]

23. Deja vu is right...

"We made the desert bloom"
"They all left voluntarily"
"They weren't doing anything with all of this country anyway"
"don't you think they'd do worse to us if they had half a chance?"
"They're a lot better off than before we came",
"what did these ignorant ______s ever care for independence, anyway, before we came long?"

I imagine it all sounds quite familiar for anyone that has lived in South Africa, Australia, Canada etc.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FarrenH]

28. If you ignore facts and cling to cognitive dissonance

in a near IDENTICAL manner to my racist white compatriots just over a decade ago, then "they're not alike". Thanks for linking that post. I'm fairly certain most sane people who review the maps linked and the point by point comparisons made can ascertain for themselves the mind-numbing level of self-deception and hair-splitting of trivia involved in trying to finesse away the extensive similarity.

[shira]

31. okay, let's play this one your way - occupation ends tomorrow, all hell breaks loose as Hamas

shortly takes over the W.Bank and turns that into Gaza - sharia law and everything - 'apartheid' (in your view) is now over but Hamas is shooting all sorts of projectiles into Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem - as well as human bombs (suicide bombers) - and daring Israel to strike back while they boobytrap houses and mosques and hide among their human shields in hospitals and daycares....hoping for another PR coup. Tens of thousands of lives are destroyed in one way or another.

Hamas then runs both the W.Bank and Gaza strip and Palestinians are miserable for several more generations, Hamas is still committed to Israel's destruction, etc...

But that's okay with you because 'apartheid' is over with?

That's moral and "leftist"?

[FarrenH]

34. Oh please the Hamas bogeyman doesn't vindicate Apartheid

Shira, once Israel withdraws all its settlers from the occupied territories and gives up its claim to East Jerusalem, that's a clean slate as far as I'm concerned.

If a newly constituted Palestinian government (and the probability of it being a Hamas government elected by a majority of Palestinians in both territories is IMO pure speculation) conducts a low-level war against Israel after such accommodations have been made, I would support Israel's right to do exactly what the USA did to Japan at the end of WWII. To wit, re-occupying Palestinian territory (without any settlements being built), impose a peaceful constitution, ban the offending party from holding office and force new elections.

Even better, bring in NATO or the UN, which in such a situation would willingly assist, thus depriving the likes of Hamas of any claim to being the victim of a single bullying power. Not only has the UN signalled its willingness to put force on the ground in the past, but in that context Israel would have all the votes required in the Security Council for a chapter 6 or chapter 7 resolution enforcing the peace, thus effectively putting the world on Israel's side. Of course all of this hinges on removing the settlements.

Apartheid is not the answer

[shira]

35. wow - where to start?

Shira, once Israel withdraws all its settlers from the occupied territories and gives up its claim to East Jerusalem, that's a clean slate as far as I'm concerned.

you expect Israel to pull out hundreds of thousands of Jews, especially from the major settlements - and go beyond what UNSCR 242 calls for? And you think simply pulling out and NOT allowing right-of-return will end this?

If a newly constituted Palestinian government (and the probability of it being a Hamas government elected by a majority of Palestinians in both territories is IMO pure speculation)

Hamas doesn't have to win an election to rule militarily - Hezbullah proves that. And Hamas won't just drop their guns and let Fatah dominate them and take them out of power.

conducts a low-level war against Israel after such accommodations have been made, I would support Israel's right to do exactly what the USA did to Japan at the end of WWII. To wit, re-occupying Palestinian territory (without any settlements being built), impose a peaceful constitution, ban the offending party from holding office and force new elections.

It's nice you would support this. It's highly unlikely your fanatical comrades would tolerate yet another Israeli occupation - or the imposition of anything Israeli. Israel's not allowed to defend herself without hostile condemnation now - what makes you think that will change?

Even better, bring in NATO or the UN, which in such a situation would willingly assist, thus depriving the likes of Hamas of any claim to being the victim of a single bullying power. Not only has the UN signalled its willingness to put force on the ground in the past, but in that context Israel would have all the votes required in the Security Council for a chapter 6 or chapter 7 resolution enforcing the peace, thus effectively putting the world on Israel's side. Of course all of this hinges on removing the settlements.

Right, a western occupation would be tolerated. And the UN has done such a wonderful job enforcing peace before (ex. staving off Egypt in '67, monitoring Hezbollah now).

Apartheid is not the answer.

It's not apartheid.

But for someone so interested in Palestinian human rights , you don't seem so concerned about Hamas ruling the W.Bank and imposing sharia law on women, gays, and minorities - or waging an inevitable war on Israel that will just lead to thousands of deaths - many more on the Palestinian side. No big deal though, right? Israel should ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Jews and throw away thousands of more Israeli lives.

And for what, so that settlement activity will finally end? Because according to your scenario, occupation would just resume - same as now but after many tens of thousands of lives are first destroyed. Would you have a problem with a separation barrier and lots of checkpoints at that point? And even if you didn't, who says your fanatical comrades wouldn't have a problem with re-occupation, the wall, checkpoints, etc.. after all hell breaks loose?

And what would make this scenario appealing to Israelis? I suppose there's some appeal for Palestinians who want to get rid of Hamas, but why not do that now and not wait for later when the price in blood will be much higher?

[FarrenH]

37. Here

you expect Israel to pull out hundreds of thousands of Jews, especially from the major settlements - going beyond what UNSCR 242 calls for?

They're colonists and there in violation of the Geneva convention. Their presence prevents the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Of course I do. That, or they become citizens of a Palestinian state.

Hamas doesn't have to win an election to rule militarily - Hezbullah proves that. And Hamas won't just drop their guns and let Fatah dominate them and take them out of power.

I didn't realise you were a precog

It's nice you would support this. It's highly unlikely your fanatical comrades would tolerate yet another Israeli occupation - or the imposition of anything Israeli. Israel's not allowed to defend herself without hostile condemnation now - what makes you think that will change?

It kind of logically follows from my ideas about justice and international law. Bantustan-like fragmentary states, denial of self-determination and colonisation do not.

Right, a western occupation would be tolerated. And the UN has done such a wonderful job enforcing peace before (ex. staving off Egypt in '67, monitoring Hezbollah now).

Right, and Israel allowed them to be deployed on the Israeli side when they were ordered out of Egypt? (No)
And the Palestinians could field a force the size of the Egyptian army?
And the UN is clearly incapable of effective force because of an example from 40 years ago?
And NATO could not be called upon to assist in a legal occupation (As they have willingly in, what, 3 recent conflicts, one even further away from Europes boundaries)?

LOL

It's not apartheid.

It is similar enough to warrant the term. Let's call it "Israeli-style" Apartheid for a little nuance, kay?

Two Nobel prize winners call it Apartheid. Both have extensive and direct experience of what is happening in the region. Every sitting member of the current ANC government in South African calls it Apartheid. It fits all of the criteria of the UN-defined crime of Apartheid as well as being a textbook case of colonialism. Its Apartheid.

But for someone so interested in Palestinian human rights , you don't seem so concerned about Hamas ruling the W.Bank and imposing sharia law on women, gays, and minorities - or waging an inevitable war on Israel that will just lead to thousands of deaths - many more on the Palestinian side. No big deal though, right? Israel should ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Jews and throw away thousands of more Israeli lives.

I am in fact appalled by Hamas. But I recognise that both their rise and grip on power in Gaza has been facilitated by Israeli oppression. In every earnest study of oppression and conflict resolution I have yet encountered, the conclusion is always the same. To wit, constant ratcheting up of oppression of an unwilling, subject population produces increasingly greater violence as a response, frequently attended by extremism. I reported the South African experience to you in other threads, including virulent strains of anti-white hatred among some Africanist and BC groups that included "driving whites into the sea". Their existence no more vindicated Apartheid than Hamas' does Israeli Apartheid. And as a white male I didn't bleat about that threat in response to valid criticism of Apartheid. I wholeheartedly supported the end of that evil system and braced myself for whatever might follow its end (and was pleasantly surprised). Bear in mind we whites in SA didn't get to keep our own little majority white enclave in the final outcome, so forgive me if I have zero sympathy for a bunch of Jewish nationalists who seem to think giving up only some land they have no legitimate claim to is unacceptable.

I also recognise that reforming a society under siege that is suffering starvation, infrastructural collapse, inability to conduct any kind of meaningful trade and denial of basic medical services is like demanding a patient on life support complete a university degree with honours. A retard could comprehend that.

And for what, so that settlement activity will finally end? Because according to your scenario, occupation would just resume - same as now but after many tens of thousands of lives are first destroyed. Would you have a problem with a separation barrier and lots of checkpoints at that point? And even if you didn't, who says your fanatical comrades wouldn't have a problem with re-occupation, the wall, checkpoints, etc.. after all hell breaks loose?

The settlement issue is a moral and legal one. The settlements represent illegal colonisation, recognised since the beginning of the last century by hundreds of nations as an unacceptable outcome of war that cannot be tolerated. Speculation about future, legal and legitimate military action has no bearing on that whatsoever.

Furthermore your presumption that, simply because I endorse occupation and banning of aggressor parties (a la Japan) WITHOUT colonisation as a response to significant military threat, I acknowledge that it will be an immediate consequence, says much about your opinion of Palestinians as perpetual warmongerers, incapable of peace. I'd like to suggest that that is an all too familiar tune to a white South African, who as a boy was taught that "black" and "potential terrorist" were virtually synonymous. The comparisons just keep racking up.

And what would make this scenario appealing to Israelis? I suppose there's some appeal for Palestinians who want to get rid of Hamas, but why not do that now and not wait for later when the price in blood will be much higher?

I don't give a damn whether it is appealing to Israelis or not. If they oppose it they are wrong. I support full sanctions against Israel to pressure it into compliance with just demands and international law, and rejection of all attempts by Israel to negotiate themselves into a position of acquiring stolen land.

[shira]

40. you want human rights addressed by destroying more human rights and many more human lives

You're evading the main point. Mainly, that an end to occupation and what you call 'Israeli apartheid' will result in Hamas taking over the W.Bank and making that into another Gaza.

And you're okay with that? Please answer this time.

Think of what this will do to the Palestinians there - women, children, gays, other minorities. Realize more war with more casualties will inevitably happen. Tens of thousands of lives will be destroyed. The conflict will only rage on and under your scenario, the occupation will just resume. How will Israel impose peace then? If you give Israel a green light to end Hamas, what about Fatah - who just recently announced like Hamas that they will never recognize Israel's existence and never give up fighting. Hamas goes but Fatah stays? Why not end both Hamas and Fatah now and avoid a bigger bloodbath later?

So if the decision were yours, you wish to take responsibility for your solution? Namely - that your end to occupation will only result in a lot more misery, bloodshed, and a continuation of occupation? You think that's justice?

===========

As to settlements, why do you think that Israel retaining major settlements hugging the green line will not result in a non-viable Palestinian state?

[FarrenH]

46. Your entire argument is one big counterfactual

Furthermore, its one premised on the idea that giving Palestinians what they want, and what a large portion of humanity considers just, will only result in greater bloodshed.

[shira]

50. my argument is based on recent history, without any exceptions to the rule

and that rule is, anything Israel does in the interest of reaching out for peace - whether big or small - is only met with more violence and terror. I have no reason to believe at this point in time that Hamas or Fatah would change if Israel withdrew completely from the W.Bank, based on the Gaza example for one.

You, OTOH, believe with some sort of religious (simple - like the OP) blind faith that Hamas and/or Fatah will change overnight and reach out peacefully once the occupation ends. I'm always fascinated by those who have such an irrational POV (faith in the absence of any supporting evidence, devoid of any analytical rigor). And I'll bet it's this extreme fundamentalist belief that RW fanatics also have that you typically, but hypocritically and often ridicule.

[shaayecanaan]

33. As do you...

for example, when I asked "do you think South Africa was really that simple?" and you declined to answer, as you usually do when you are boxed into a corner.

My observation is that Israel advocates generally object to any comparison being made to any other territorial dispute, whether it is South Africa, the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Armenia, etc, no matter how prescient the comparison and no matter how pathetic the attempts to distinguish the two are. On the other hand, adversaries of Israel (Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, Hamas, Ahmadinejad) are invariably the subject of comparisons to Hitler. Any comparison of Israel to the Nazis, on the other hand, is met with a chorus of histrionic screaming.

I find it all rather petulant and pathetic, but I suppose its good for you to have a hobby.

[shira]

36. sigh

YES, it was that simple.

The reason Israel cannot be compared to any other territorial dispute is because this conflict is unique....and trying to 'solve it' by looking to other conflicts and their solutions will only result in failure. Unlike in S.Africa, Israel's 'victims' in Hamas and Fatah will only become more violent against Jews across the green line once Israel's "apartheid" ends. Solving 1967 without dealing with 1948 is stupid. Ergo, your simple solution will result in failure.

Why do you think those adversaries of Israel are linked to Hitler? Might it have anything to do with their calls for incitement to genocide against Jews?

As for Israel = Nazis, what other group or country besides Israel is and has been compared frequently to Nazi Germany? Oh yeah - only the state with Jews in it - Hitler's intended victims. And you wonder why there exists histrionic screaming.

[shaayecanaan]

39. Ah-hah! now we're getting somewhere...

YES, it was that simple.

South Africa was that simple? Perhaps you may have missed the fact that 2,000 Afrikaner farmers have been murdered since the end of apartheid. Fact is, that's a lot more than the amount of Israelis that were killed in both intifadas - not exactly a byword for racial harmony, is it? Then you have living standards in South Africa. Not to mention the HIV crisis. So maybe the post-apartheid era hasnt been quite been the nirvana it was hoped to be?

Why do you think those adversaries of Israel are linked to Hitler?

Nasser had the opportunity to kill 100 000 Jews right at home in Egypt. There are 25 000 Jews in Iran that the regime could kill tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they really are genocidal maniacs, one can only assume that they are hopeless underachievers.

Of course, you could always stop and reflect on the fact that there were more Arabs killed by Israel in the first year of its existence than there were Jews killed by the entire Arab world in the last five hundred years. One can only assume that in the genocide stakes, either Israel is a lot more talented, or a lot more motivated.

As for Israel = Nazis, what other group or country besides Israel is and has been compared frequently to Nazi Germany?

Well, you just compared Ahmadinejad (Iran), Nasser (Egypt), Arafat (Palestine), and Saddam Hussein (Iraq). So you can add those to the list.

Oh yeah - only the state with Jews in it - Hitler's intended victims.

So:-

1) The Palestinians are enemies of Israel.

2) Israel is predominantly Jewish.

3) The Nazis were enemies of the Jews.

4) Therefore, the Palestinians are Nazis.

Have I got this basically right?

[shira]

42. i doubt it

South Africa was that simple? Perhaps you may have missed the fact that 2,000 Afrikaner farmers have been murdered since the end of apartheid. Fact is, that's a lot more than the amount of Israelis that were killed in both intifadas - not exactly a byword for racial harmony, is it? Then you have living standards in South Africa. Not to mention the HIV crisis. So maybe the post-apartheid era hasnt been quite been the nirvana it was hoped to be?

Looks like you disagree with FarrenH. I'll leave that to the two of you. Still, it doesn't seem to bother you that in order to right one wrong you're fine with making things much worse. I realize it's a catch-22....I just want you to admit your "solution" to I/P does nothing to help the human rights situation for Palestinians and that it would just result in a lot more bloodshed - and in FarrenH's view, just a continuation of occupation. Your end to occupation and settlements is shortsighted and simpleminded - a fine example of what the OP describes - and as someone who pretends to care about human rights and human lives, I just want you to admit your goal is NOT to improve the Palestinian human rights situation (unless improvement in your view means the W.Bank turns into Gaza and more war is better).

Nasser had the opportunity to kill 100 000 Jews right at home in Egypt. There are 25 000 Jews in Iran that the regime could kill tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they really are genocidal maniacs, one can only assume that they are hopeless underachievers.

Of course, you could always stop and reflect on the fact that there were more Arabs killed by Israel in the first year of its existence than there were Jews killed by the entire Arab world in the last five hundred years. One can only assume that in the genocide stakes, either Israel is a lot more talented, or a lot more motivated.

All the players you mentioned in your last post have been very clear in their intentions with their incitements to genocide based on Jew hatred (holocaust denial, protocols of the Elders, etc). But maybe you disagree with me...maybe they really made no such declarations or whatever they said were mistranslations? What do you call indiscriminate rocket attacks and suicide bombers, if not attempts at genocide?

Well, you just compared Ahmadinejad (Iran), Nasser (Egypt), Arafat (Palestine), and Saddam Hussein (Iraq). So you can add those to the list.

Sorry, but only one country in the world today is frequently compared to the Nazi state. Which country is that? Care to answer?

1) The Palestinians are enemies of Israel.

2) Israel is predominantly Jewish.

3) The Nazis were enemies of the Jews.

4) Therefore, the Palestinians are Nazis.

Have I got this basically right?

That seems as stupid as your apartheid analogy.

Do you understand the difference between comparing leaders of nations or organizations to Nazis as opposed to comparing entire countries to the Nazi state?

[shaayecanaan]

47. Its looking like it...

Looks like you disagree with FarrenH. I'll leave that to the two of you.

No, it looks like I disagree with you. And typically, you duck and weave. FWIW, It was right to dismantle apartheid because it was necessary and inevitable.

I just want you to admit your "solution" to I/P does nothing to help the human rights situation for Palestinians and that it would just result in a lot more bloodshed

Its hardly "my" solution. It is the solution of most of the international community, moderate Palestinians, moderate diaspora Jews, and about 60-70% of the Israeli populace.

I take it we can now consider you an opponent of the two state solution? I actually have a Kahane Chai t-shirt that I bought in New York five years ago (long story). I can send it to you if you like.

Sorry, but only one country in the world today is frequently compared to the Nazi state. Which country is that? Care to answer?

So in other words, the comparison of virtually every Arab leader of the past fifty years to Hitler is legitimate, but any comparison of any Israeli leader to Hitler is categorically illegitimate?

[shira]

51. it's looking like a waste of time, but...

You accuse me of ducking and weaving, but be explicit - what specifically have I missed? Let's have it!

I'm still for the 2-state solution, but unlike the fanatical simpletons I'm not for forcing it when Pal/Arab leadership isn't ready to work for peaceful coexistance. Once their leaders do a Sadat and start speaking peace and reconciliation on the Knesset floor, I'll know it's time. You, OTOH, don't appear to care whether Pal/Arab leadership is still stuck in 1948/1967 mode.

I don't compare virtually every Arab leader the past 50 years to Hitler - that wouldn't be legitimate. But when they very clearly make calls for genocide against the Jewish state and their govt institutions incite such actions and they use Palestinians as their proxies to try to achieve such ends (however slowly - think slomo genocide accusations) what would YOU call that? As for Israeli leaders, I'm not aware of the same happening.

[shaayecanaan]

54. Probably, but it amuses me...

You accuse me of ducking and weaving, but be explicit - what specifically have I missed? Let's have it!

You stated that the South African conflict was due to evil racist whites not realising the error of their ways. I replied that in fact it was not that simple, and that the continuation of fratricidal violence amongst blacks and between whites and blacks in the post-apartheid era indicated that it was not so. I was reflecting on the fact that you have no trouble seeing other territorial disputes in black-and-white terms, and that it is only in the context of the I/P dispute that you insist on muddying the waters.

I don't compare virtually every Arab leader the past 50 years to Hitler - that wouldn't be legitimate.

Then which Arabs do you compare to Hitler, and why?

think slomo genocide accusations

So the Palestinians are slomo Nazis committing slomo genocide? I suppose this slomo genocide, rather like a redwood growing, is so slow that you can't see it happening?

[shira]

55. i'm glad you find it amusing

1. A major distinction between Israel from S.Africa is that the entire S.African system was based on institutional racism and THAT had to end - plain and simple. The same cannot be said of Israel, which as Jimmy Carter states is a wonderful democracy that guarantees equal rights. Many of the simpletons among your crew, who only see in black and white, believe Israel as a whole needs fundamental changing on the order of S.Africa. They go WAY further than wishing for a just land settlement and an end to occupation. And then there are some among your crew who believe that if the occupation just ends, all will be warm and fuzzy - as though solving the 1967 problem also miraculously solves the 1948 problem between Israel and its Arab neighbors. THAT is simple thinking too. Yes, the occupation has to end - I agree - but it has to be at the appropriate time.

2. I thought I made myself clear about those who preach hate and incite violence and genocide against Jews. What part of that don't you understand? And I never said "Palestinians" are nazis committing slomo genocide. Conflate much? Well - actually, your interpretations of what I write explain a lot about your 'amusing' views on I/P.

[Dick Dastardly]

56. You have clarified that you say racism in SA had to end but the same cannot be said for Israel,

because racism is ok for them to practice as all Jews can vote.

Any criticism of Israel is preaching hate and violence to Jews

You also say its not the Palestinians who are like nazis commiting slomo genocide but its all the Arabs.

You also say you want the occupation to continue until Israel can expand the settlements and steal more land.

[shira]

57. whew - at least someone understands me!

:)

[shira]

6. this isn't political - it's not about Likud - the demonization persists even with Israel's leftwing

parties in control. It's not Israel's rightwing that people have a problem with. It's Israel, period. It's not left vs. right. It's far left and far right uniting in a common cause against Israel - even if not in intent, it's the effect.

Check out the long comment I quoted from a talkback on this article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x281947#282417

A major problem with the fanatic left's view of this conflict is their (willful) acceptance of too many false narratives and myths. This conflict isn't about Palestinian human rights (unless Jews are involved). It's not about Israel's rightwing (because they see no difference b/w Israel's left and right). The conflict didn't begin with the 1967 occupation (it goes back to at least the 1920's). It's not about Israel's dealings with Palestinians (as much as it is with Israel's dealings with the entire Arab world).

The only way to ASSURE that this conflict rages on is to willfully ignore the reality, mix cause with effect, and focus instead on attending to the symptoms, not the root causes.

Fanatics either don't see this or do not wish to see this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Right about some points, wrong about most.

"It's not Israel's rightwing that people have a problem with. It's Israel, period"

Sort of = as you pointed out recently, only about 6%-8% of Israeli Jews hold leftwing views on the IP conflict, so the distinction between Israel's right wing and Israel is, sadly, not that great. But I have a massive amount of respect for those few remaining Israelis - Meretz, Breaking the Silence, Peace Now, and the likes of Derfner, Levy, Burston etc - who still hold up genuine left-wing views in the face of demonisation from right-wingers like yourself.

"This conflict isn't about Palestinian human rights (unless Jews are involved)."

That's one hell of a big "unless" - what the conflict is about is the violation of Palestinian human rights by Israel. There are all sorts of issues with violations of Palestinian human rights by Palestinians and others, but a) they aren't part of the I/P conflict, and b) more importantly, there isn't very much that can be done about them - stopping one people oppressing another is much harder than dealing with a government that has a popular mandate from the people it oppressed. The only way I can see external forces being able to influence Palestinian society to become more liberal without doing more harm than good is to support Fatah (who, while no angels, are clearly the least worst option) against Hamas, and the only way to do that is to make peace viable. But, it's worth noting, Hamas inflicts massively less suffering on the Palestinians that Israel does (one of the foulest and most disgusting arguments I regularly see advanced on the I/P conflict is Israelis trying to blame the Palestinians for what has been done to them).


"It's not about Israel's rightwing (because they see no difference b/w Israel's left and right)."

There is a big difference between Israel's left and right, but sadly on the issue of the IP conflict the former is virtually extinct, since Barak took Labour over to the right (although they're still leftwing on many other issues).


"The conflict didn't begin with the 1967 occupation (it goes back to at least the 1920's)."

Absolutely. The root of the conflict is Jewish colonisation of Palestine. I would put the start of the problem even earlier back, with Herzl. However, to end it, not all the Palestinians grievances will have to be addressed - enough of them would be willing to let Israel keep the land it stole in 47 to make peace viable, thankfully.


"It's not about Israel's dealings with Palestinians (as much as it is with Israel's dealings with the entire Arab world)."

Yes, that's exactly what it's about. The desperate attempts of Israeli to pretend that it isn't always make me laugh. Western criticism of Israel is - almost exclusively - because of its treatment of the Palestinians, and not because of antisemitism or desire to "appease" the Arab world or any other ulterior motive. Israel has treated the Palestinians abominably, and that - and not any psychological flaw on the part of its critics - is the main reason it is criticised.

[shira]

12. to take on the first point before moving on

It's not just Israel's rightwing those like yourself have a problem with...

and it has nothing to do with your preposterous statement that Ehud Barak took Israel to the right. Not until Menachem Begin in 1977 did a rightwing govt even come to power in Israel. Your problem with Israel goes way back to the years between 1948 and 1977 when Labor ruled, from Ben Gurion and Eshkol to Meir and Rabin.

I don't see how this is just a "rightwing" problem for you.

[shira]

13. onto your second point - whether Palestinian human rights matter (if Jews aren't involved)

There are all sorts of issues with violations of Palestinian human rights by Palestinians and others, but a) they aren't part of the I/P conflict,

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.

You don't think arab leadership keeping Palestinians as refugees and not granting them citizenship since 1948 has nothing to do with this conflict? Palestinian leadership is no better because after 15 years since Oslo and billions of dollars, they have NO INTEREST at all in ending the refugee camps within Gaza and the W.Bank.

Ironically enough, Israel attempted more than anyone else to end the refugee camps but Palestinian leadership was against it, along with the UN who supported the Palestinian leadership's decision of that time:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=960&x_context=7

and b) more importantly, there isn't very much that can be done about them

so don't do anything at all, right? What are HRW and AI good for then?

- stopping one people oppressing another is much harder than dealing with a government that has a popular mandate from the people it oppressed.

it appears you have it backwards - check out the link above - how is Israel ending the refugee camps more oppressive than the Palestinian leadership and the UN wanting to keep them open? Israel's "BUILD YOUR OWN HOME" program was compatible, and actually even more humane, than Jimmy Carter's "HABITAT FOR HUMANITY" program but the UN and Palestinian leadership shot that down.

you have it backwards, don't you?

[shira]

43. Donald, you there?

[subsuelo]

10. "It's not about Israel's dealings with Palestinians"

Speaking of willful ignorance...

(going on the assumption that your statements are all addressed towards the 'fanatic left')

It's not Israel's rightwing that people have a problem with. It's Israel, period.

Wrong.

It's not left vs. right. It's far left and far right uniting in a common cause against Israel

Wrong.

This conflict isn't about Palestinian human rights (unless Jews are involved).

Wrong.

It's not about Israel's rightwing.

Wrong.

The conflict didn't begin with the 1967 occupation (it goes back to at least the 1920's).

There's a true statement!

It's not about Israel's dealings with Palestinians.

Wrong.


Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you just don't get the activist Left? Statement after statement in your post is flat-out wrong. Why is that?

[shira]

11. since you disagree, pick one of the points and let's debate it

[subsuelo]

14. No problem

How about this untrue statement:

It's not Israel's rightwing that people have a problem with. It's Israel, period.

You imply that it's Israel that "people" (assuming you mean, leftist-activist-people) have a problem with, and has nothing to do with challenging Israel's rightwing. This is easily disproven. Those of us on the activist "far-left" have plenty of leftist comrades in Israel itself, that join us in condemning the Israeli regime's ongoing atrocities, the land theft, and the war crimes. So it has nothing to do with attacking Israel, just because it's Israel and the left just has some sort of innate thing against Israel. Far from it. The target of accusations and criticisms from the activist left are actually very clear, for those paying attention: we oppose Israel's war crimes, land theft of indigenous Palestinians, and general ruthless disregard for the ordinary lives of Palestinian people.

On this point I see very little to debate. But, have at it anyway, I guess

[shira]

15. start with post #12 above then.....why do you hammer all labor govts between 1948-1977?

as though they were all rightwing governments?

===========

the author of the OP has been very open with his criticism against Israel - he's clearly very liberal - as are his fellow Haaretz columnists like Yoel Marcus and Aluf Benn - Israeli leftists who are just not as whacko far-left as the Gideon Levys and Uri Avnerys. Remember this letter from Noa?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=255450&mesg_id=255450

Noa and Carlo Strenger (the author of the above OP) are unquestionably leftwing.

Your problem with Israel's "right" is every bit as problematic as it is with Israel's left like Carlo Strenger, Noa, Yoel Marcus, and Aluf Benn.

I think part of the problem is that you believe YOU are authentically "left" or progressive and ANYONE not as "left" as you may as well be rightwing.

Check this out and tell me what you think.

An open response to Gideon Levy
http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-response-to-gideon-levy.html

There's a left and then there's the way far-out and irrational idealogue left who sees things mostly in black/white.

If your problem is only with Israel's right, or with Israel's rightwing policies, then why are you also at war with leftists like Strenger, Noa, Yoel Marcus, Aluf Benn, etc?

[shira]

44. Subsuelo, where did you go?

[shira]

16. i forgot one - no one is really interested in the laws of war either

There's a big difference between fighting a just war (like Afghanistan) and fighting a war unjustly.

The civilian carnage wrought by western Allies in Afghanistan makes whatever the IDF does in war pale in comparison - and goes to show that the laws of war do not matter in what is perceived as a 'just' war - but since none of Israel's recent wars are "just" (in the W.Bank 2002, Lebanon 2006, Gaza 08-09), it doesn't matter how "justly" the IDF fights - even if in comparison to NATO they are far more humane in their war efforts.

[FarrenH]

29. Its not "left-wing"

(if egalitarianism and the absence of racist nationalism are considered features of leftism) to support Apartheid. Regardless of what political parties are labelled in Israeli politics, support for the settlements in any form isn't "left wing". Such support doesn't even rise to the level of common decency enshrined in the Geneva Convention.

Any purported left-winger who supports the settlements, even just tacitly, does not share my values, and I don't give a rats ass whether they're labelled left or not.

[FarrenH]

17. As pathetic an attempt to broad-brush smear critics of Israeli Apartheid as all the others

Anyone who thinks the left's primary beef with Israel is about the freedom of expression of their own citizens is a freaking simpleton.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Carlo Strenger also takes issue with Richard Dawkins views on religion

Ironically, what Strenger says about people of faith also applies to himself, to Zionists, and to DU's "pro-Israel" contingent:

A variety of researchers have produced strong research results demonstrating that when the belief systems that provide humans with meaning and worldview protection are attacked, the result is inevitably that humans dig more deeply into the trenches of their belief systems. The meaning and psychological protection that humans derive from their worldviews is so important to them that they will go to enormous lengths to defend these beliefs against any attack.

Dawkins is wrong about believers

Carlo Strenger
Monday 4 May 2009 17.30 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/04/richard-dawkins-ridiculing-belief

[Alamuti Lotus]

21. ah yes, the demonization of the 'left' continues unabated

I must say the discussion of this over at LittleGreenFootballs was more interesting, though most of the exact same things were said.

[shira]

24. it's criticism - not demonization - of the FAR fanatical left, by the left - do keep up

[LeftishBrit]

25. Carlo Strenger is quite left-wing, and not at all uncritical about Israel

He is here criticizing some left-wing factions that he thinks are simplistic and narrow-minded in certain ways.

There *are* plenty of demonizers of 'the left' and of all critics of Israel, but Strenger is not in this category.

[FarrenH]

30. In that case, I withdraw my accusation of broad-brush smearing

Since you're a Brit, obviously exposed to a lot more of his stuff, and in the main seem to have an eminently sensible perspective. Sometimes one makes the mistake of seeing all information provided by someone inured to self-deceptive defenses of massive human rights violations as being tainted by the conduit.

And Shira, I remember this dynamic from the anti-Apartheid days, remember the masses of less intellectual anti-Apartheid activists with their knee-jerk responses that made me sigh when I had to explain that I was one of the "good" whites when abroad. But I was happy that they existed. That my country and my race, who did, after all, vote as a majority to keep Apartheid in place for decades, were thus scorned. Those of us who opposed it with every fibre of our being were, after all, in the minority. Comparatively, Jewish Israelis actually get less flack abroad (ps please don't blah blah blah about Arab Israelis having equal rights - its irrelevant since they don't support the occupation).

The majority of people will always be less than nuanced in their political opinions and you have to win over the majority to effect real change (like the effective sanctions against SA). So as someone who sees little functional difference between the occupation and Apartheid, and recognising that Israel has a direct hand in _creating_ its own monsters like Hamas, I'm not in the slightest bit sympathetic to your pleas to consider a "left" in Israel that is in a tiny minority, instead of getting enough people to see Israel as a pariah so that real change will be effected. However simple their understanding, it approximates the inevitable moral conclusions that more informed and nuanced views do anyway. It is Apartheid and Israel should be treated the same way for practising it as SA was.

So if, as is the case, my many less politically-concerned friends half-remember the convincing reasons I gave them to shun Israel as consumers or whatever, I don't really care if their deeper understanding of the situation is as fleeting as our conversation as long as the effect on their behaviour is enduring. I didn't deceive them, so this is not an "ends justify means" argument. I informed them. Its just pragmatic to assume most don't devote their lives to political discourse. As in all human endeavours we generally delegate that responsibility to the interested and take our cues from the most convincing of them.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Thanks - here is a link to another of Strenger's articles, which shows more where he's coming from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/11/israeli-elections-2009-israelandthepalestinians1

[Lakrosse]

53. stunningly good article!

I was always on the left, but now I am drifting precisely because of what is being described in this article. I think the left needs to understand this, or it will lose all credibility.