Defending my Israel position
Lee Ratner
position on Israel. I did not mean to offend or anger anybody. Israel
is a very emotional issue for me and I probably should not write about
it as often as I do. I am not against the formation of a Palestinian
state and I have no sympathy for the settlers. The settlements were an
immoral and stupid idea and form a big blot on the Begin
administration.
Lucy Kemnitzer
This is interesting -- in the discussions before, you said almost
nothing I could agree with. And yet, here, you've said something that
is really easy to agree with. There is a state of Israel: there are
historical reasons why people should want one: there are basic,
terrible things wrong with its conduct: there are better ways to do
things. There we are -- in agreement.
I have ideas about how things could have been better from before the
beginning: how things could have become better at various times in
history: and how things could be better right now. We might or might
not agree about those things.
One of the things that I think is that the very idea of nationalism is
a barrier to every possible way of making things better.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Kevin J. Maroney
>state and I have no sympathy for the settlers. The settlements were an
>immoral and stupid idea and form a big blot on the Begin
>administration.
I would be far more willing to grant the government of Israel the
assumption of good faith in its dealings with the Palestinian Arabs if
the settlements were not still expanding. Until a Prime Minister of
Israel takes steps to stop the expansion--even passive steps such as
"not defending illegal settlements"--I can't assume that Israel is
dealing in good faith with the Arab denizens of the occupied
territories, no matter what other steps they take. I think that Ariel
Sharon could stop the creation of new settlements without getting
killed.
That said, I think that a complete rollback to the 1967 boundaries is
now impossible. (So, apparently, does Arafat.) Actually, I think it
would be unreasonable even if possible. A lasting peace--which I think
*is* possible--has to involve recognition of something like Israel's
current boundaries of fact.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Rebecca Ore
I wish there was a way to fund putting up the billboards that Nancy
Lebovitz suggested: in both Arabic and in Hebrew: "What if the other
side is just as stubborn as you are?"
Whole thing is tragic, really, especially since the passions are so
high, we're likely to lose some peacemakers on both sides before this
is over, and those people are extremely valuable. I think it would be
especially difficult to be a Palestinian who wanted to resolve this
with both an Israel and a Palestine, but as an American, I suspect
that any help or support I could give such a person would put his or
her life in even more danger.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>I think that Ariel
>Sharon could stop the creation of new settlements without getting
>killed.
Really? What makes you think that? The lesson of the last murder of an
Israeli Prime Minister appears to be that this is a good way to
achieve your aims.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Kevin J. Maroney
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:35:33 -0400, Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>I think that Ariel Sharon could stop the creation
>>of new settlements without getting killed.
>
>Really? What makes you think that? The lesson of the last murder of an
>Israeli Prime Minister appears to be that this is a good way to
>achieve your aims.
It's a "Nixon can go to China" thing. No one can doubt that Ariel
Sharon is the Hardest of Hardasses when it comes to tough dealing with
the perfidious Arabs. (Actually, he isn't--he has officially
repudiated the position of his own party on the question of
Palestinian statehood. But he's definitely a hardass.)
The nutbag who assassinated Rabin, and the small number of people who
supported him directly, believed that Rabin was throwing away Israel
because he was soft on the Arab question. No one can believe that to
be true of Sharon.
It's no guarantee--nutbags are nutbags. But I think that Sharon stands
a much better chance of survival than Rabin did even if he does the
right thing.
And maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe I'm just hoping.
Lee Ratner
There is a reason why the settlements are expanding, the settlers
are a bunch of loons who are next to impossible to control without
force. They are kind of like the militia people in the United States
but more hated internationally. Israel is going to have to do some
pretty nasty shit when it has to bring the settlers back to Israel
proper and its not going to be easy.
Dan Kimmel
"Lee Ratner" <czar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:59117524.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > now impossible. (So, apparently, does Arafat.) Actually, I think it
> > would be unreasonable even if possible. A lasting peace--which I think
> > *is* possible--has to involve recognition of something like Israel's
> > current boundaries of fact.
>
> There is a reason why the settlements are expanding, the settlers
> are a bunch of loons who are next to impossible to control without
> force. They are kind of like the militia people in the United States
> but more hated internationally. Israel is going to have to do some
> pretty nasty shit when it has to bring the settlers back to Israel
> proper and its not going to be easy.
When Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt, it was Israeli forces who
dismantled the Israeli settlements there. If Mazen can crack down on
terrorism (that's a big if, but I'm hopeful), then Sharon will be able to
deal. Likely it will involve drawing borders and trading land to preserve
some of the settlements (some of which are now medium size cities and not
just a bunch of nuts in trailers).
Of course the interesting question is: why does Israel have no problem with
its Arabic citizens, but all the Jews would be required to leave a new
Palestine? But that's just me noticing the nasty double standard being
applied. Never mind.
Lis Carey
news:otQpa.42328$cO3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
1) Israel is, mostly, a civilized country, and democratic, and with
established structures and practices for coping with disagreement amongst
its citizens.
2) The Arabs, to a distressing degree, are not civilized, and have no such
structures and practices.
3) The Arabs who stayed in Israel after partition are, mostly, the ones
either preferring to, or at least willing to, function in a civilized,
democratic society.
3) Unfortunately, the settlers are disproportionately composed of the tiny
minority of Jewish Israelis who are not civilized, and not interested in
being civilized.
Expecting uncivilized, undemocratic, intolerant, repressive Arab regimes to
cope with uncivilized, undemocratic, intolerant settlers with the same
relative success that civilized, democratic Israel copes with civilized,
democratic Arabs is, frankly, insane.
And politics is the art of the possible, not the art of rigid, inflexible
adherence to one guiding principle to the exclusion of all other principles
in complete disregard of what is actually possible.
And since the settlers for the most part became settlers _for the express
purpose of preventing a peace agreement_, they get zero sympathy from me.
--
Lis Carey
http://www.nesfa.org/reviews/Carey/index.html
David Dyer-Bennet
Um, this is not a serious suggestion.
But.
I just can't resist.
Sounds perfect. Looks like you could draw a relatively smooth line
(not too badly gerrymandered) and have the uncivilized people on one
side and the civilized people on the other. Make that the new
border.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>And politics is the art of the possible, not the art of rigid, inflexible
>adherence to one guiding principle to the exclusion of all other principles
>in complete disregard of what is actually possible.
Well said.
>And since the settlers for the most part became settlers _for the express
>purpose of preventing a peace agreement_, they get zero sympathy from me.
Actually, most settlers became settlers for the purpose of taking
advantage of the financial incentives the government provided to
settlers. Most of these settlers live very near the green line. (The
government provided those incentives for a number of reasons, many of
them not unconnected to "preventing a peace agreement", but I have a
hard time bringing myself to blame someone for succumbing to the
temptation of cheap housing and tax breaks.)
The settlers who are actively trying to thwart peace are a small and
noxious minority.
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 23 Apr 2003 04:32:07 -0700, czar...@aol.com (Lee Ratner) wrote:
>>I am not against the formation of a Palestinian
>>state and I have no sympathy for the settlers. The settlements were an
>>immoral and stupid idea and form a big blot on the Begin
>>administration.
>I would be far more willing to grant the government of Israel the
>assumption of good faith in its dealings with the Palestinian Arabs if
>the settlements were not still expanding. Until a Prime Minister of
>Israel takes steps to stop the expansion--even passive steps such as
>"not defending illegal settlements"--I can't assume that Israel is
What makes a settlement "illegal"? According to some understandings
of Geneva Conventions, most of the towns built since 1967 are "illegal".
According to the Pal-Arabs, Tel Aviv and Netanya are "illegal". The
army has often removed tiny settlements created outside the will of
the government (park two caravans on an unoccupied hilltop, raise a
flag, and demand army protection).
>dealing in good faith with the Arab denizens of the occupied
>territories, no matter what other steps they take. I think that Ariel
>Sharon could stop the creation of new settlements without getting
>killed.
What is "good faith"? Esp. when the Israeli government does act
to remove settlements it considers illegal.
>That said, I think that a complete rollback to the 1967 boundaries is
>now impossible. (So, apparently, does Arafat.) Actually, I think it
Not according to his behavior at Camp David. What leads you to think
he's changed his mind? What leads you to think his goal has ever been
anything less than a rollback to the 1947 borders?
>would be unreasonable even if possible. A lasting peace--which I think
>*is* possible--has to involve recognition of something like Israel's
>current boundaries of fact.
And what exactly are those boundaries? Pre-1967? Post-1967? Excluding
the disjoint pieces of Area A?
--
Jonathan Baker | What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
jjb...@panix.com | The Nissan Stanza.
Jonathan J. Baker
>3) Unfortunately, the settlers are disproportionately composed of the tiny
>minority of Jewish Israelis who are not civilized, and not interested in
>being civilized.
Sweeping generalizations, anybody? There are a quarter of a million Jews
living in the "settlements", many of which are, as Dan said, substantial
cities. I know plenty of people who live in "settlements" (defined as
towns beyond the Green Line that were settled or resettled by Jews after
1967 [ many of them were settled by Jews long before the West Bank was
made Judenrein in 1949]), including relatives, long-time friends, my old
pediatrician, and I would not characterize any of them as "uncivilized".
>Expecting uncivilized, undemocratic, intolerant, repressive Arab regimes to
>cope with uncivilized, undemocratic, intolerant settlers with the same
>relative success that civilized, democratic Israel copes with civilized,
>democratic Arabs is, frankly, insane.
Someone who lives in the bedroom communities of Efrat, Beitar Illit, etc.
because the Government offered nice financial incentives, and promises
that they will not be handed over to the Arabs, is to be considered
"uncivilized, undemocratic, intolerant"? The Ivy-educated olim who live
in Eli, who at one time were the Likud's brain trust, and many of whom
are now the right-wing think tank "Shalem Center", and/or columnists in
the Jerusalem Post, are "uncivilize, undemocratic, intolerant" loons?
>And politics is the art of the possible, not the art of rigid, inflexible
>adherence to one guiding principle to the exclusion of all other principles
>in complete disregard of what is actually possible.
>And since the settlers for the most part became settlers _for the express
>purpose of preventing a peace agreement_, they get zero sympathy from me.
You have absolutely no idea of the motivations of most Israeli "settlers".
99% of "settlers" are not the people who live in the Jewish district of
Hevron.