Over the years, I've agreed with you on most issues, but your point 5 requires some rebuttal. Arabs living inside Israel proper even have citizenship while the "refugees" in the "disputed territories" do not. So not all the Palestinians "... have been or continue too be treated appallingly by Israel..." Yes, some rights of citizenship are reserved for Jews - something regrettable, but understandable, given the multi-millennia long suppression, slaughter, confiscation of property, and expulsion Jews have experienced in most of Europe and the middle east. Why are the great grandchildren of Palestinians considered refugees? After the 1948 war about 700,000 Arabs were pushed out or chose to leave Israel while an identical number of Jews left countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt where their ancestors had lived for centuries. Recall the 1948 war was launched by these Arab countries against an infant democracy comprised of Holocaust survivors. There are no refugee camps filled with descendants of these Jews - they were absorbed by Israel. The displaced Arabs were forced into camps where many of their progeny remain today, 75 years later. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a cynical body that in collusion with Israel's enemies insured the Palestinians would remain in squalor in these camps as propaganda fodder. How many refugee camps have been in place without resettling the occupants for 75 years? 5 years? These are the culprits responsible for Palestinian immiseration. Israel, for its part, has offered peace on several occasions, only to be rejected by Palestinian leadership, who will only accept the destruction of Israel.
I agree with much of what you say here. When I said Palestinians have been treated appallingly, perhaps I should have been more specific - I merely meant "the Palestinians" in a very broad sense.
Alas, I don't agree that citizenship rights exclusive to Jews is understandable (if anything, the long history of anti-Jewish persecution and exclusion ought to make Israel more inclusive).
I agree with much of what you say about the causes of Palestinian immiseration. But I don't think they would be easily or universally accepted by all decent and intelligent people, which is what I was going for. I tried to make my list as broad as possible. Perhaps I could have added more on that though.
But I do also think that there was and is genuine dispossession and suffering for which Israel is at fault, and that this is important to recognise. This dispossession is at the heart of the matter, and until it is resolved, nothing will be. I usually hate 'both-sidesing' things, but in this case I think it is justified to an extent. BUT - this is not to make a moral equivalence, as I also said originally.
Ultimately, I don't think religion is a stable basis for peace and prosperity, and part of the problem is that Jewish bigots get their way far too much of the time, betraying the ideal of a secular, democratic Israel which is a safe haven for Jews but not an exclusive, sectarian one. Anti-Zionism is very often anti-Semitism - but not always. In a very precise sense of the word, I would call myself an anti-Zionist. If only the term hadn't degenerated so much...
I hope this makes sense. What I absolutely do not mean is that Hamas's actions are justified, or that it is an outlet for legitimate grievances (rather, it is the exploiter of those grievances and the betrayer of the very people it says it wants to protect).
It makes sense. I understand your viewpoint. Like you and Hitchens, I am a hardcore atheist. I understand the desire for a completely secular Israel. That was the plan of Israel's founders. As it turned out, the kind of inclusive state you and I and Hitchens desire was not possible then and is not now. It can only be a dim hope for the future. The choice isn't between a secular, democratic state and a theocracy. That's an easy choice, but not on offer in a non-utopian world. The reality is continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible.
I thought Hitchens was wrong when I first read his piece 15 years ago, though he's high in my pantheon of writers and thinkers. On what basis do you think an inclusive Israel can possibly survive? How would things work? What sort of laws and policies would there be?
I have to say I don't regard secular democracy as a utopian choice at all, even in this case! (And I think it's far too easy to dismiss things as 'utopian' just because one doesn't like or want them - though that's not what you in particular mean, I know).
I think an inclusive Israel would be one where the bigoted Netanyahu and his goons were not quite so popular and their Jewish exclusivist ideology - which includes Israeli control of all of Palestine and thus justifies the dangerous and stupid West Bank settlement policy - was not the guiding principle of the Israeli government, as it has been, on and off, for quite a long time. (And remember that the Israeli right, including Netanyahu, were as opposed to previous peace plans as the Palestinian leadership.) And this isn't to mention the anti-democratic judicial policies of Bibi!
The rise of the Israeli right over the past few decades hardly gives grounds for hope of a peaceful or just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. And there is a secular and liberal political tradition in Israel which I think would be better placed both to protect Israeli democracy and to work for peace and justice. (There are plenty of Israeli and Jewish critics of Israeli policy, both historical and contemporary, just as there are nobler traditions among the Palestinians.)
Why assume that Netanyahu - here representing the hard right strand of Israeli politics - and his ilk are the best possible solution? Are they really the best of a bad job? Are their policies and ideas really conducive to Israel's survival? I think religious sectarianism on either side only makes violence more likely, not less. Israeli crimes and follies have happened; and Bibi-ism is not an imperfect solution in a bad situation but an ideology which actively pursues dangerous policies based on a reactionary ideology.
Your questions could as well be reserved - what does an Israel beholden to Bibi-ism look like? How will that work? What other policies and laws will they enact? Can an Israel like that survive?
Holding Israel to the same standards as we hold the Palestinians and everyone else to is not to make equivalences nor is it to engage in starry-eyed utopianism. In fact, it's the only realistic way to solve problems in the region! I think that "continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible" is not what Israel is doing right now - quite the opposite. The true utopians are, of course, the Muslim and Jewish fanatics who dream of a purified homeland.
Please don't take any of the above, however impassioned, as an attack. I appreciate your critique enormously, even as I continue to differ somewhat.
I'm pretty sure you're not a Bibi fan, so a lot of this isn't directed at you personally, let me just say that. It's about the general thrust of what I think you're saying. And, again, none of this is to explain away Hamas's actions - which were and are not motivated by legitimate grievances but by the toxic ideology of Islamism.
Thanks for replying in detail. I don't feel attacked at all. A disagreement where the two sides (you and me) make common cause on so much else can really sharpen the understanding. If you are right and your proposals would lead to a better result, I would say I'm wrong and be very happy about it. I just don't think that's the case.
For example, a withdrawal from the West Bank in my view would lead to a rapid Hamas takeover and terrorist action orders of magnitude larger than what we just saw. A massive conflagration would follow. Religious fools aside (a big aside that will only grow worse given high fundamentalist birth rates), Israel would be happy to cede the West Bank as it did Gaza and the Sinai.
I am animated by far more than the current Gaza episode. I have quite a deep historical understanding. Until a legitimate peace partner arises "continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible" is the best non-suicidal course for the Israelis.
I'm glad we can disagree amicably! I think some of our differences arise from where we put our emphasis, too. I think even on this, we mostly agree! But I have taken on board some of the very good points you made. I very much appreciate it.
Sincere congratulation on the new position.
Over the years, I've agreed with you on most issues, but your point 5 requires some rebuttal. Arabs living inside Israel proper even have citizenship while the "refugees" in the "disputed territories" do not. So not all the Palestinians "... have been or continue too be treated appallingly by Israel..." Yes, some rights of citizenship are reserved for Jews - something regrettable, but understandable, given the multi-millennia long suppression, slaughter, confiscation of property, and expulsion Jews have experienced in most of Europe and the middle east. Why are the great grandchildren of Palestinians considered refugees? After the 1948 war about 700,000 Arabs were pushed out or chose to leave Israel while an identical number of Jews left countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt where their ancestors had lived for centuries. Recall the 1948 war was launched by these Arab countries against an infant democracy comprised of Holocaust survivors. There are no refugee camps filled with descendants of these Jews - they were absorbed by Israel. The displaced Arabs were forced into camps where many of their progeny remain today, 75 years later. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a cynical body that in collusion with Israel's enemies insured the Palestinians would remain in squalor in these camps as propaganda fodder. How many refugee camps have been in place without resettling the occupants for 75 years? 5 years? These are the culprits responsible for Palestinian immiseration. Israel, for its part, has offered peace on several occasions, only to be rejected by Palestinian leadership, who will only accept the destruction of Israel.
Thank you, Carl!
I agree with much of what you say here. When I said Palestinians have been treated appallingly, perhaps I should have been more specific - I merely meant "the Palestinians" in a very broad sense.
Alas, I don't agree that citizenship rights exclusive to Jews is understandable (if anything, the long history of anti-Jewish persecution and exclusion ought to make Israel more inclusive).
I agree with much of what you say about the causes of Palestinian immiseration. But I don't think they would be easily or universally accepted by all decent and intelligent people, which is what I was going for. I tried to make my list as broad as possible. Perhaps I could have added more on that though.
But I do also think that there was and is genuine dispossession and suffering for which Israel is at fault, and that this is important to recognise. This dispossession is at the heart of the matter, and until it is resolved, nothing will be. I usually hate 'both-sidesing' things, but in this case I think it is justified to an extent. BUT - this is not to make a moral equivalence, as I also said originally.
Ultimately, I don't think religion is a stable basis for peace and prosperity, and part of the problem is that Jewish bigots get their way far too much of the time, betraying the ideal of a secular, democratic Israel which is a safe haven for Jews but not an exclusive, sectarian one. Anti-Zionism is very often anti-Semitism - but not always. In a very precise sense of the word, I would call myself an anti-Zionist. If only the term hadn't degenerated so much...
I hope this makes sense. What I absolutely do not mean is that Hamas's actions are justified, or that it is an outlet for legitimate grievances (rather, it is the exploiter of those grievances and the betrayer of the very people it says it wants to protect).
Christopher Hitchens was good on this subject, as on many others (for example: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/05/can-israel-survive-for-another-60-years.html) - and is still hated by the Israeli and Jewish right for being so!
>> I hope this makes sense
It makes sense. I understand your viewpoint. Like you and Hitchens, I am a hardcore atheist. I understand the desire for a completely secular Israel. That was the plan of Israel's founders. As it turned out, the kind of inclusive state you and I and Hitchens desire was not possible then and is not now. It can only be a dim hope for the future. The choice isn't between a secular, democratic state and a theocracy. That's an easy choice, but not on offer in a non-utopian world. The reality is continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible.
I thought Hitchens was wrong when I first read his piece 15 years ago, though he's high in my pantheon of writers and thinkers. On what basis do you think an inclusive Israel can possibly survive? How would things work? What sort of laws and policies would there be?
I have to say I don't regard secular democracy as a utopian choice at all, even in this case! (And I think it's far too easy to dismiss things as 'utopian' just because one doesn't like or want them - though that's not what you in particular mean, I know).
I think an inclusive Israel would be one where the bigoted Netanyahu and his goons were not quite so popular and their Jewish exclusivist ideology - which includes Israeli control of all of Palestine and thus justifies the dangerous and stupid West Bank settlement policy - was not the guiding principle of the Israeli government, as it has been, on and off, for quite a long time. (And remember that the Israeli right, including Netanyahu, were as opposed to previous peace plans as the Palestinian leadership.) And this isn't to mention the anti-democratic judicial policies of Bibi!
The rise of the Israeli right over the past few decades hardly gives grounds for hope of a peaceful or just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. And there is a secular and liberal political tradition in Israel which I think would be better placed both to protect Israeli democracy and to work for peace and justice. (There are plenty of Israeli and Jewish critics of Israeli policy, both historical and contemporary, just as there are nobler traditions among the Palestinians.)
Why assume that Netanyahu - here representing the hard right strand of Israeli politics - and his ilk are the best possible solution? Are they really the best of a bad job? Are their policies and ideas really conducive to Israel's survival? I think religious sectarianism on either side only makes violence more likely, not less. Israeli crimes and follies have happened; and Bibi-ism is not an imperfect solution in a bad situation but an ideology which actively pursues dangerous policies based on a reactionary ideology.
Your questions could as well be reserved - what does an Israel beholden to Bibi-ism look like? How will that work? What other policies and laws will they enact? Can an Israel like that survive?
Holding Israel to the same standards as we hold the Palestinians and everyone else to is not to make equivalences nor is it to engage in starry-eyed utopianism. In fact, it's the only realistic way to solve problems in the region! I think that "continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible" is not what Israel is doing right now - quite the opposite. The true utopians are, of course, the Muslim and Jewish fanatics who dream of a purified homeland.
Please don't take any of the above, however impassioned, as an attack. I appreciate your critique enormously, even as I continue to differ somewhat.
I'm pretty sure you're not a Bibi fan, so a lot of this isn't directed at you personally, let me just say that. It's about the general thrust of what I think you're saying. And, again, none of this is to explain away Hamas's actions - which were and are not motivated by legitimate grievances but by the toxic ideology of Islamism.
Thanks for replying in detail. I don't feel attacked at all. A disagreement where the two sides (you and me) make common cause on so much else can really sharpen the understanding. If you are right and your proposals would lead to a better result, I would say I'm wrong and be very happy about it. I just don't think that's the case.
For example, a withdrawal from the West Bank in my view would lead to a rapid Hamas takeover and terrorist action orders of magnitude larger than what we just saw. A massive conflagration would follow. Religious fools aside (a big aside that will only grow worse given high fundamentalist birth rates), Israel would be happy to cede the West Bank as it did Gaza and the Sinai.
I am animated by far more than the current Gaza episode. I have quite a deep historical understanding. Until a legitimate peace partner arises "continuing to survive while remaining as true to Enlightenment ideas as possible" is the best non-suicidal course for the Israelis.
I'm glad we can disagree amicably! I think some of our differences arise from where we put our emphasis, too. I think even on this, we mostly agree! But I have taken on board some of the very good points you made. I very much appreciate it.