Israel's New Reality

[Spinoza]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12203023_1


>SNIP "Having lulled Israel to sleep with an opium dream of the post-Zionist good life, Shavit held, Israel’s leaders discovered that their country was too groggy to perform adequately when waked on the morning of July 12, the day Hizballah triggered hostilities by abducting two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. “We were poisoned,” Shavit wrote, “with an illusion of normalcy.” This is an illusion, he went on, because

the state of Israel is fundamentally an abnormal state. It is a Jewish state in an Arab region, and . . . a Western country in an Arab region, and . . . a democratic state in a region of fanaticism and despotism. Israel is in constant tension with its surroundings. On the one hand, because of the situation in which it finds itself, Israel cannot live a life of European normalcy. On the other hand, because of its values and structure . . . Israel cannot avoid being a part of European normalcy.

To this fundamental dilemma, Shavit did not hesitate to offer a solution, or rather a prescription:

What is needed is to create immediately a new discourse that will suit the new situation. Without a new spirit and without a new language there will be no victory in the fighting. . . . There is no future for an Athens without a speck of Sparta. There is no hope for a society-of-life that does not know how to organize itself to deal with death. . . . We are returning to the encounter with our fate; returning to what is decreed by the reality of our lives."<SNIP

IMO a very interesting and deeply intellectual discussion of the Israeli existential dilemna. The article is a little long, but well worth a read.

[Englander]

1. Commentary?

Isn't that one of the in-house journals for the neo-cons? And they're quite proud of it, as well,
they're quite happy to identify themselves as such;

'About Commentary

Commentary is America’s premier monthly magazine of ideas, the publication that those who shape public opinion turn to first for in-depth analysis of politics, religion, foreign affairs, social policy, culture, and the arts, as well as for outstanding reviews of current books. The magazine’s letters section is a world-renowned forum for unfettered debate about the most pressing issues of the day. Commentary has been a major force in shaping American political and cultural life since its founding in 1945. The magazine is primarily known as the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement, a brand of skeptical thought that emerged as a reaction to the anti-American radicalism of the 1960’s and is today vitally engaged in the preservation and spread of democracy and Western values. As part of its historical mission, Commentary has always taken a special interest in Jewish issues and the state of Israel.

Also, Revisionist myths, ultra-nationalistic rhetoric & other fantastical fantasies (all of which
are in evidence in the article) don't qualify as being a "deeply intellectual discussion".

[Spinoza]

2. Your nuanced and detailed discussion

of the many ideas expressed in the long Commentary article were highly informative. Thanks.

[Englander]

4. Glad to be of assistance.

If you want any other articles deconstructed, just let me know.

[Spinoza]

6. OK. Thanks for the offer.

As for me, I learned as a child not to judge a book by its cover. And you might be interested in the following logical fallacies which are variations of critiquing an article based on its publisher, not the merits or demerits of the ideas expressed.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch6/hominem.htm

1) 'POISONING THE WELL'
"Another version of ad hominem attempts to impugn someone's objectivity by claiming that he or she has a vested interest in the view he or she defends.
This tactic is sometimes called "poisoning the well", and it is obviously fallacious. The fact that someone might have a nonrational motive for supporting a position does not mean the position is false, and it certainly does not mean we can decide ahead of time that all of his or her arguments for the position can be dismissed."

'TU QUOQUE'
2) "Suppose that someone criticizes you for telling a white lie. If your critic is a notorious liar, you would probably be tempted to say, "Look who's talking!" This response is certainly understandable--no one enjoys being censured by a moral inferior--but it is fallacious. It's a species of ad hominem known as the tu quoque ("you're another") argument. The fact that someone else is guilty of an accusation doesn't prove that you are innocent. A related version of the ad hominem fallacy occurs when we attack someone's position by claiming that it is inconsistent with his or her practice or other positions."

[Englander]

8. Old proverb -

"When in hole, stop digging."

[Spinoza]

9. As an amputee I

assiduously avoid stepping in holes. Tu Quoque?

[Englander]

10. Thanks for telling me that.

I'm sure there's some relevance somewhere, I'm sure the mixing-up of metaphorical holes with
literal holes has some sort of point attached, & I'm quite sure that the mentioning of your
disability wasn't in any way intended to accuse me of a slight against amputees.

This is a site for the "exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas." *
Using a magazine that provides a republican/neo-conservative pov, & praising that magazine
to the skys is likely to illicit an unfavourable reaction. I would suggest accepting that, &
getting over it.


*
About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/about.html

[Spinoza]

16. Bullshit..

Thats a good rationalization for dismissing ideas because of their venue, not their merits or demerits. Its a sign of weakness in any debate on ideas. Many on DU quote Patrick Buchanan, an open bigot, because he does make valuable points on the futility and stupidity of our attack on Iraq. Is this also impermissible and we shouldn't read a --possibly-- informative critique on our policy in Iraq?

Once again, you are simply defending the logical errors of Tu Quoque and 'Poisoning the Well'. It simply convinces your opponents that you are unable to debate actual ideas. If nothing else, the Commentary article shows the thinking of a certain segment of pro-Israeli opinion. That can be of benefit to anyone wishing to better understand the different dynamics in play. You are free to criticize that thinking all you like. But to dismiss it, because of where it was published (and Commentary magazine is not equivalent to 'Mein Kampf')is a sure sign of impotence in thought.

[Englander]

26. Or not accept it.

And produce logical errors, whilst complaining of errors in logic.

As I said, using repug/conservative sources is going to illicit an unfavourable reaction, that's
the reality, possibly if you'd said in the OP, 'here's a repug/conservative pov' I wouldn't have
to explain what could be called the 'bleedin' obvious'.

Due to the amount of insults in that post, a reminder is in order;

'Netiquette 101 for new netizens

When you surf the Internet, it can be fun, useful, and social—for adults and kids. But it's important for all new Internet citizens, also called netizens, to remember that there are other surfers out there. And, like real surfing or any other public activity, there are implied rules of behavior or etiquette to follow. If you fail to grasp the netizen ropes, it could result in more than just missed opportunities—if you say the wrong thing at the wrong time, you could provoke harassment or other problems.

So before a new user or child grabs the mouse to dive in to send messages, chat in chat rooms, play games, or visit Web sites, we suggest the following guidelines that can help them handle most any situation in cyberspace.

Guidelines for good netiquette

• Apply the golden rule: Treat others the way you would like to be treated.
• Remember there is a person on the other end of your message.
• Know where you are and use appropriate good behavior.
• Forgive other people's mistakes, especially newcomers.
• Always remain calm, especially if someone insults you (or you think they have).
• Avoid using ALL CAPS to emphasize—some users see this a way to “yell.”
• Don’t use inappropriate or offensive language.
• Use your online name or nickname consistently and sign all messages with it (but protect your real identity by never using your full name).
• Don't send or forward junk e-mail (commonly referred to as spam).
• Stay out of continual, emotional arguments or "flame wars."
• Check your spelling, be concise, and keep messages short.
• When you participate in chat rooms, don’t interrupt others and stay on topic.
• Follow the same rules of good behavior that you would in real life.
• Use emoticons to help communicate humor and sarcasm, and learn the common online acronyms.

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/athome/security/online/netiquette.mspx

[Spinoza]

29. But the post, nor the original OP

referencing an article published in Commentary, has not been removed. It looks like DU does not agree with you that I am violating DU policy.

[Englander]

37. Well, now you're just making stuff up.

The article's from a repug/conservative/neo-con source, any attempts to evade that reality don't
change that reality.

[Spinoza]

42. Then why is DU not removing the article?

This is kind of fun. Please respond.

[Englander]

45. Er, because they're considered a reputable source?

Besides, that isn't relevant to the point I've been making, nowhere have I said that Commentary, or
other repug/conservative/neo-con sources shouldn't be used, or should be removed, or are equivalent
to 'Mein Kampf', or are in any way beyond the pale. But, hey, you already knew that.

The point I've been making (which you appear to be denying, that Commentary is a repug/neo-con source
feel free to say if you agree with that evaluation) is that using such sources is going to illicit
an unfavourable reaction of some degree.

[Spinoza]

47. Commentary certainly supports

most if not all neocon viewpoints and was edited for decades by Norman Podhoretz an undisputed neocon. But I am interested in what neocons think, (I am also interested in Hitler's ideology) and have occasionally found specific points with which I agree, (e.g. the attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan) though I strongly disagree with the neocon Wilsonian view of much American foreign policy. I don't care whether using such sources elicits 'an unfavorable reaction'. Strong debate, among liberals and progressives is, in my mind, a postive to be sought not a negative to be avoided.

[Tom Joad]

3. It informs me to know what kind of stuff people are reading. As they

say, GIGO.

[Englander]

5. Aye, it's informative to see where the ideas are coming from.

Personally, I prefer articles that are *actually* grounded in reality, rather than those that claim
to present the reality of the situation, but really misrepresent the situation, or produce an extremist pov.

[Spinoza]

7. Look up the logical fallacies called

'Poison the Well' and 'Tu Quoque'.

Based on your obvious objectivity, your desire to understand the history, culture, fears, and points of view of both sides, your refusal to demonize either side or approach the conflict in black and white terms, your deep empathy for the sufferings of both peoples, your willingness to engage on all issues and questions from all posters with patience and without rancor, I stand abashed and ashamed by my temerity in posting such an obviously unfit article.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. 'Based on your obvious objectivity, your desire to understand the history'

your willingness to engage on all issues and questions from all posters with patience and without rancor,




That's a Pot, Kettle, Black moment from you, Spinoza :)

[Englander]

11. Interesting & informative article on the neo-cons -

review | posted February 5, 2004 (February 23, 2004 issue)

A Tragedy of Errors

Michael Lind


About a decade ago, I invented a game with a colleague of mine who, like me, had once worked for Irving Kristol. We called it neoconservative bingo. The idea was that the clichés of neoconservative discourse would be arranged in various combinations on bingo cards: "The World's Only Superpower"; "The New Class"; "The China Threat"; "Decadent Europe"; "Against the UN"; "The Adversary Culture"; "The Global Democratic Revolution"; "Down With the Appeasers!"; "Be Firm Like Churchill." The free space in the center of the bingo card would be "The Palestinian People Do Not Exist" (nowadays it would be "No Palestinian State" or "All Palestinians Are Terrorists"). As you read an essay or a book by a neoconservative, you would check off each slogan on the card in the order in which it appeared.

We never printed our neocon bingo cards. But the neoconservative manifesto by David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil, which is more a collection of talking points than a coherent argument, can serve just as well. The United Nations "has traduced and betrayed" the dream of world peace. The China Threat: "Eventual Korean unification will reinforce the power of the world's democracies against an aggressive and undemocratic China, should China so evolve." There are the Neville Chamberlain appeasers and the Decadent Europe theme: "To Americans, looked like appeasement. But it would be a great mistake to attribute European appeasement to cowardice--or to cowardice alone." There are the obligatory Churchill references--a chapter is titled "End of the Beginning"--and there is this: "We will never cease to hope for the civilized world's support. But if it is lacking, as it may be, then we have to say, like the gallant lonely British soldier in David Low's famous cartoon of 1940: 'Very well, alone.'"

Bingo.

Paradoxically, Perle and Frum happened to publish their manifesto of neoconservative grand strategy at the very moment many of their colleagues were insisting in print that neoconservatism does not exist, and that the neocons have no influence on US foreign policy. Up until the summer of 2003, neo-conservatives proudly championed their movement against adversaries on the left and against factions on the right (realist, paleoconservative and libertarian) that questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq. That summer, however, the invasion of Iraq--planned for a decade and carried out chiefly by leading neoconservative foreign policy experts like the Bush Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith--went terribly wrong. As of this writing, more US soldiers have died in the unnecessary second war in Iraq than have been killed in any other US military venture since Vietnam, and several thousand Iraqis have died, with many more maimed (the Bush Pentagon does not bother to count Iraqi casualties). As the enormity of the debacle became apparent, neoconservatives abruptly began avowing their own nonexistence. Not since Stalin ordered the US Communist Party to go underground has an American political faction pretended to dissolve itself in public like this.

David Brooks recently claimed in the New York Times that only "full-mooners" believe that neoconservative institutions like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) have any influence on Bush Administration policy because PNAC "has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy." But PNAC disseminates the views not of its paid staffers, receptionists and interns, but of powerful Administration insiders like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, in the same way that the Committee on the Present Danger used to broadcast the views of Paul Nitze and Gene Rostow, who as government officials were guarded in their own public comments.

Brooks continued: "In truth, the people labeled neocons... travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another." In truth--to use Brooks's phrase--among those who have signed PNAC letters are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Robert Kagan. PNAC is run by William Kristol, who edits The Weekly Standard, for which Brooks writes, and is the son of Irving Kristol, founder of The Public Interest and former publisher of The National Interest, who wrote a book called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, and is married to the neoconservative historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, William's mother. Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary, is the father of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative editor and columnist who has worked for the Reverend Moon's Washington Times and the New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns The Weekly Standard and Fox Television. Norman is the father-in-law of Elliott Abrams, the former Iran/contra figure and former head of the neocon Ethics and Public Policy Center and the director of Near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council. Elliott's mother-in-law and Norman's wife, Midge Decter, like many older neocons a veteran of the old Committee on the Present Danger, was recently given a National Humanities Medal after publishing a fawning biography of Rumsfeld, whose number-two and number-three deputies at the Pentagon, respectively, are Wolfowitz and Feith, veterans of the Committee on the Present Danger and Team B, the intelligence advisory group that grossly exaggerated Soviet military power in the 1970s and '80s. Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (and its former head), is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and sits on the board of Hollinger International, a right-wing media conglomerate (including the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph) controlled by Conrad Black, the chairman of the editorial board of The National Interest, which Black partly subsidizes through the Nixon Center. Perle and Feith--both PNAC allies--helped write a 1996 paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," on behalf of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, Feith and the other US and Israeli authors called on Israel to abandon the Oslo process and to restore martial law in the Palestinian territories long before the second intifada began. Co-authorship is common among the neocons: Brooks and Kristol, Kristol and Kagan, Frum and Perle.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040223/lind

[shergald]

14. Interesting view of the Neoconservative movement placed within...

a larger historical context as applies to Israeli politics and American foreign policy, by Jeff Halper, founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, and professor of anthopology at Ben Gurion University. Brooks is either not getting it, or is pandering to Israeli propaganda disputing the dangerous notion that Israel dictates American foreign policy.

http://www.icahdusa.org/2005/09/28/israel-as-an-extension-of-american-empire/

[shergald]

31. Thanks for this illuminating post.

My readings of the Neoconservatives have yet to clarify this point, summed up in two bingo cards,

"No Palestinian State" or "All Palestinians Are Terrorists"

Are the Neocons there to prepare the Middle East region for the day Israel annexes the West Bank, liquidating any hope for a Palestinian nation, as the 18 Writers recently put it? That would mean taking care of Iraq, Syria, and Iran and turning them into friendly democracies, no? This is my problem with the Neocons: no foresight whatsoever. Just look at Iraq, a potential enemy of Israel worse than Saddam.

[pampango]

12. Why do we spend all of our time dissing the source and not discussing

the idea?

The idea that there is a fundamental tension built in to the existence of the state of Israel is interesting but hardly earth-shattering. If Israel (with another name, of course) existed as a democratic Hindu state surrounded by Christian countries that were largely dictatorial, I would hope that we could discuss the challenges faced by this unnamed state. The question of whether the discussion was initiated by someone of the left or the right should not change the value of the discussion.

I realize that in American politics today (maybe everywhere in the world) if you don't want to discuss the message (it's too complicated, it's not popular, the political ramifications are negative), politicians and partisans make hay by attacking the messenger and his/her motives and background and leave the issue undiscussed.

To initiate a discussion of the message, leaving the messenger out of it, I will say that Israel needs to understand that it must return the land that it took in 1967. Its military is much stronger now relative to its neighbors'. While this does not provide them with perfect protection from attack, it does not have that much to worry about. Return the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt from whom they were taken or to a Palestinian state, internationalize control of Jerusalem, and set up an international fund to compensate Palestinians for their right of return.

Would this be a gamble for Israel? Sure, but not an unreasonable one. I am sure that Palestinian representatives will quarrel with trading away the right of return, sole control over Jerusalem and its Islamic sites, who gets the West Bank and Gaza (and how to unite them if they end up in a Palestinian state). There will be plenty to discuss, but if Israel and its people want to be a Jewish, liberal, European democracy, they have to take some risks and promote the political and economic development of the Arab and Muslim area in which they exist.

[Spinoza]

17. Good for you.

I don't necessarily agree with all your points, but you are the first person posting addressing ANY of the actual comments made in the article. Your opening question is appropriate.

One point, I think in light of the actions of Hamas, following the Gaza pullout, and Hezbollah, following the 2000 Lebanon pullout, there is every reason for Israelis to believe that a West Bank pullout will mean Kassams reigning on Tel-Aviv. (Which will be in range from the West Bank.) Why shouldn't they believe this? Why shouldn't they believe that Tel-Aviv is the ultimate goal of Arab 'liberation'? Why pull out of the West Bank when there is no REASON to expect peace in response; when there is every REASON to expect Tel-Aviv will now be also be subjected to missile attack? The last 'gamble' Israel took for peace, the Gaza pullout, has made things worse for Israel, not better. Why do it again? Israelis know that as bad as things are now, they can always get worse. Much worse.

[bemildred]

13. Mixed bag.

I keep getting cognitively disconnected by some of the linkages he makes, but there are some good points too.

An example of what I criticize:

"The nation-state is the only reliable vehicle in modern times for preserving the heritage of a people."

This is bilge, "heritage" is transmitted by active, living culture, usually in the complete absence of any state apparatus with an interest in the subject; and in fact Jewish heritage has been so transmitted for most of its existence, and far more reliably than most.

There is also nothing to show that the presence of a nation-state does anything to help preserve or transmit culture, although they have been shown to have a propensity to meddle in the interests of the ruling elites. States in general have a remarkably poor record of protecting their citizens or of lasting any great length of time themselves; and those that have become stable nation-states never start out that way, it is an achievement of integration, as France or Switzerland, not a process of centralization of some homogenous group in some one spot.

[Spinoza]

18. I think you make a good point.

I agree with your comments on the nature of a group's 'heritage'. However, following the massive trauma of the Holocasust, on top of centuries of unremitting persecution, I can empathize with those Jews who now believe that a national homeland is essential for Jewish survival. 'Empathize' does not necessarily mean 'agree'.

[bemildred]

19. Empathize is easy enough to do.

It is easy enough to see why the Jews after WWII were interested in finding a place where they could live unmolested, or as unmolested as anyone else gets to be. Zionism, or course, goes back farther than that; and was only partially motivated by a desire to escape European bigotry; there were other, stronger motives back then.

Nationalism seems to be a natural propensity we have, or a version of a natural propensity that we have; but I just wanted to point out that the evidence mostly suggests that it is erroneous to think it makes you more secure, or at least that it is an easy route to such a goal; although it is a true that it is a good thing when a nation is "unified" in a certain sense. But that is usually the result of good governance, and poor governance tends to lead to the opposite.

[Spinoza]

20. I don't know that I can agree that

empathizing is 'easy'. If it was easy, it would be common, and that does not appear to be the case.
Nor can I agree with your comments on Zionism. While it is true that the Jewish yearning for 'Israel reborn' has ancient roots only partially motivated by anti-Semitism, the modern Zionist movement, as articulated by its founder Theodore Herzl, was wholly based on a desire to escape Anti-Semitism. Herzl wrote in the founding document of modern Zionism, (called the 'Bible' of Zionism) "The Jewish State" (Der Judenstatt) published in 1896.

"...Vain to seek obscurity. They say the coward, he is creeping into hiding driven by his evil conscience. Vain to go among them and offer them one's hand. They say: why does he take such liberties with his Jewish pushfulness? Vain to keep faith with them as a comrade-in-arms or a fellow citizen. They say: he is Proteus, he can assume any shape or form. Vain to help them strip off the chains of slavery. They say: no doubt he found it profitable. Vain to counteract the poison.....
We are a PEOPLE, ONE people. We have everywhere tried honestly to integrate with the national communities surrounding us and to retain only our faith. We are not permitted to do so. In vain do we exert ourselves to increase the glory of our fatherlands by achievements in art and science and their wealth by our contributions to commerce. We are denounced as strangers. If only they would leave us in peace. But they will not. THEY WILL NOT.....Over the centuries, over the millenia, everything has been tried. There is only one solution left. The Jewish state must be reborn....."

[bemildred]

22. It is easy enough for me. That was all I meant.

I won't dispute you on Herzl's state of mind, I expect I would lose that argument; but it seems worth pointing out that, if that was the purpose, than it doesn't seem to have worked out as well as one might have hoped. So far anyway. Which was my original point, that just having your own state doesn't necessarily make you more secure, and not having your own state doesn't necessarily make you less.

[Spinoza]

24. Unfortunately,

you are right.

[Lithos]

33. True

However, there is always a bit of confusion about what Zionism is and what it takes to reconcile such a notion. I also think Herzl's motives are a bit misunderstood where the means is assumed to be the goal. Rather, I agree completely with the ideas Walter Lacquer has entered into what Zionism is which, namely that it is about respect.

As such, the founding of Israel is not the end all/be all of Zionism. The proof is that such an idea existed well before Herzl as it was frequently proposed by several prominent Christians in the 1840's. But it didn't take off because it was a lot like today's Christian Zionism where Jews are considered at best part of a plan. Zionism was born at a time when Jews were being relegated to second/tertiary class citizenship because they were of Jewish heritage (as opposed to the medieval standards where conversion brought some social respect) and a new form of anti-Semitism was on the rise.

The primary spark was the horrible issues raised by the Dreyfus affair which Herzl covered as a journalist. It affected him greatly. From this and from the issues raised, Zionism arose as part of a desire to gain equality - respect if you will - for Jews with everyone else. Herzl drew upon much of the core beliefs during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, that having a nation state was considered by many as the only means an ethnic group could achieve such respect (paralleling the rhetoric of Bismarck and Garibaldi) and in the case of Jews help end anti-Semitism. And like Bismarck and Garibaldi, Herzl felt once the state was established, Jewish powerlessness would cease and everything else would fall into place.

Others such as Martin Buber felt that respect was only obtained culturally and as such pushed for a Jewish cultural renaissance. Ideas were more important.

At this point, almost 60 years after the foundation of Israel, I think Zionists should wonder if having a state is sufficient or only part of the requisites to achieve the real goals of Zionism which is respect? At this point anti-Semitism is still prevelent even though Israel is militarily one of the strongest states in the world what with it's own armed forces and the support of many of the world's strongest powers. Is there some other identity and understanding which must also accompany the physical State in order to achieve the desired goals?

[bemildred]

38. This is a bit off to the side, but,

one should consider that "non-state actors" have better leverage to assert themselves (vis-a-vis "state actors") than at any time in the past; or to put it otherwise: the advantages assumed to lie with having a state has been eroded relative to non-state political actors. The recent war with Hizbullah might serve as an example, but examples are legion these days. One might consider the situation in the first half of the 20th century with that which obtains now, and ask "Where are all those empires?" There are various reasonable-sounding "causes" for this situation, and it is a fascinating subject; probably more meaningful in terms of where we are going politically in the future than theological-sounding arguments about economics and political formalisms.

[Lithos]

49. Good points

Yes, the original agents of the Treaty of Westphalia have changed somewhat not only with the rise of the International State, but also the Global organization of which Hezbollah is possibly one.

L-

[Spinoza]

48. Excellent points.

Your question is THE question isn't it? But at the risk of trivializing the subject I am reminded of Theoden's anguished question in 'The Lord of the Rings'. "What can we do against such reckless hate?" It seems to me that significant elements within the Arab world feel wounded in their souls by the very existence of Israel, within any boundaries. Since the Jews if Israel will not voluntarily give up their state I see no solution at this time.

[Lithos]

51. Aye

Where now from here?

The occasional rhetoric aside, I suspect the real issue by Arabs is not the existance of Israel itself, but that it represents a feeling of powerlessness in their own lives. The original history of the conflict started not as a religious one, but as a view of the Jewish Agency as a colonial one. Anti-Semitism later crept into some of the dialogue as a European import (starting with the Damascus affair (c) 1840).

[tomcalab]

15. Psa 122:6

My wife and I pray daily for the peace of Jerusalem, and believe that the existence of Israel is essential to the world.

Through "sparknotes" we found even more reason for a logical person to support the existence of Israel:

"Another aspect of Einstein's religious life was his relationship to the Jewish people. Although he did not observe Jewish traditions, Einstein appreciated the love of truth and justice that he saw as constituting the core of Judaism. He claimed that Jews have been united throughout the centuries by a reverence for truth, a democratic ideal of social justice, and a desire for personal independence. In Einstein's view, the greatest Jews, including Moses, Spinoza, and Marx, were those who sacrificed themselves for these ideals. Above all, Einstein believed that Judaism involves a strong sense of the sanctity of life and a rejection of all superstition. He contended that the creation of a Jewish state would preserve these values for the world. Einstein thus had a cultural and intellectual vision for Israel, rather than a political one. The greatest danger posed by anti-Semitism, he believed, was the threat it posed to the survival of Jewish ideals; thus Israel must serve as a region sheltered from Europe's deep-seated anti-Semitism, must constitute a seat of modern intellectual life and a spiritual center for the Jews."

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/einstein/section11.rhtml

Is this "Spinoza" that Einstein reveres, any relation of yours?

Thank you for your post, and your commentary.

[Spinoza]

21. Thank you for your kind remarks.

The 'Spinoza' that Einstein refers to is certainly the same man whom I, with respect,have used as an alias. Spinoza was a 17th century Jewish philosopher, (who is considered, along with Descartes and Leibnitz to be a founder of modern 'Rationalism') who in an extraordinary series of events was ex-communicated, at the age of 22, by the Jewish community of Amsterdam who themselves had been forcibly exiled from Portugal only a few decades earlier. Einstein (and many modern physicists) studied and revered Spinoza.

As a (Jewish) atheist and a follower of Spinoza (who abandoned the Jewish religion, and all religion, based on reason) I cannot, in reason, agree that the existence of Israel is 'essential' to the world. But I must admit I feel it also. My father, a survivor of Treblinka, and a complete rationalist, would have laughed at my (and your) 'mysticism'. My mother, a survivor of Dachau, who was not religious in the slightest though she did not share my fathers' furious atheism, would have wept at your remarks and agreed.

[tomcalab]

25. The Trouble that Israel is Going Through

Thank you for the link to the informative article about the trouble Israel is going through today. I found it an unbiased look at the different modes of thought among the Israeli's themselves, presenting contrasting viewpoints for me to think about.

One thing that alarmed me when watching the coverage of the war in the Summer was that there were actually Israelis demonstrating to end Israel's fighting against Hezbollah while Israel was being bombed. The impression given was that there was a growing sentiment of pacifism among the war-weary Israelis as a whole. There was also coverage that many reservists were complaining about being called up, and so the government was hesitating to bring more troops into the theater of war. All this left me concerned that the Israelis were losing their will to fight for their right to life in Israel.

But this article you posted has offered another view. Overall, I came away from it with a feeling of hope that there will be a resurgence of strength of purpose for Israelis, and Israel will not disappear from the map. Do you think this is realistic?

I think there can be a better solution to all the warfare than cutting Israel into smaller and less defensible pieces. I responded to a post with an idea I have about how to solve the Palestinian problem, and I would be interested to know if anyone has proposed this before, or if you think I am totally off base. The thread is: "Not an internal Palestinian matter. Amira Hass." and my two responses are: "A Palestinian Solution?" and "Where on Earth is Palestine, and Who Are the Palestinians?"

Peace be unto you.

[Spinoza]

32. Though I disagree,

with Israeli pacifists I think the fact that Israelis do not share a monolithic opinion on anything is a sign of strength not weakness. Israel is a genuinely pluralistic society with a plethora of stronly held, and strongly expressed, opinions on every subject. (You know the old joke. Put 2 Jews together and you have 6 opinions.) My understanding is that Israelis were more united on the need to strike back at Hezbollah than they have been on any other foreign policy issue in recent decades. (Perhaps Pelsar can comment whether this is true.) Even the leftist 'Peace Now' interviewees, who are stronly pro Palestinian statehood, spoke of the need to defend Israelis from Hezbollah incursions. So I personally don't worry whether Israel has the will to defend itself.

As to Israel's ultimate survival, I am afraid I am not optimistic. Hatred of Israelis is endemic and growing and the odds against long term survival seem very large. Perhaps there will be a THIRD Disapora. With all my heart I hope not, but what does hope have to do with anything.

I tried to find the posts you cited, but they do not seem to be there. Perhaps they were deleted by the Mods.

[Englander]

36. --I tried to find the posts you cited...--

They've gone, he's gone;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=195596

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[shergald]

27. Israeli existential dilemma.

(by the way, nobody believes today that Israel attacked and devastated Lebanon as a result of two soldiers being abducted; it was a preplanned invasion waiting for a pretext).

Israel is insecure today principally because it is attempting to screw the Palestinian people for a second time. The first time, as we all know, was the ethnic cleansing of 1948. They are insecure because they are hated by the Arab world which surrounds them, the world that sees on a daily basis what is going on in the West Bank: the almost daily killings of Palestinian adults and children, the bulldozing of homes, olive groves, and crops, and the confiscation of their lands, all for the purpose of attaining some God-given right to ALL OF THE LAND OF ERSTATZ ISRAEL (hardcore Zionism).

You have to be a dimwit not to appreciate why Israelis are insecure. The notion of the existence of Israel, its right to exist, is simply a RED HERRING to distract attention from the brutality of the 39 YEAR OCCUPATION OF THE PALESTINAN PEOPLE. Its not hard for me to understand Israel's insecurity. Is it hard for you?

[Spinoza]

28. I don't agree.

Of course it is true that the latest kidnappings are not the sole reason for Israel’s reaction. The continuous Hezbollah provocations on the northern borders eroded Israel’s patience. There were constant hostile incidents on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, initiated by Hezbollah since Israel’s unilateral pullout from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah did not invent kidnappings on 12 July 2006. There had been previous kidnappings over the years and negotiations for release. This latest kidnapping was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. As for the invasion being 'pre-planned', thats called 'contingency planning' which is a legitimate responsibility of the militaries of all nations, especially democratic nations.

Your assertion that Israel's existential dilemma is due to the occupation beginning in 1967 ('39 year occupation') is also false. In your words a 'red herring'. The repeated rejection by the grand mufti, the PLO, the Arab world, and the Palestinian people of the existence of a Jewish state lies at the heart of the conflict. The reason for the rejection has been that most Arab and Muslim leaders cared more about denying the Jews the right of self-determination, in ANY areas of the Middle East, than in exercising their own rights of self-determination. This sad reality is demonstrated by words and actions of many, many Palestinian and Arab leaders over a 70+ year period.

In recent years, the mainstream Palestinian leadership finally said that they accepted the existence of Israel, so long as it returns to the boundaries that the Palestinians had previously rejected by violence--and so long as millions of Palestinians have the right to re-locate in Israel, thus effectively destroying Israel's raison d' etre as a safe haven for world-wide Jewry. Now, with the election victory of Hamas, even this limited, grudging and unworkable commitment has disappeared. Israel is now expected to return land to the Palestinian people even as they claim the right to 'liberate' Tel-Aviv from Jewish control.

The Palestinians have been offered a homeland on three separate occasions--in 1937, 1947, and 2000-1--and each time have rejected the offer and responded with increased terrorism. It is quite remarkable that the Palestinians were offered anything after WWII, considering that their leadership (the Grand Mufti) actively sided with the losing Nazis. I know of no situation in history where a people has twice rejected offers of statehood, responded with the massacring of civilians, then been rewarded for its crimes against humanity by still another offer of statehood. In 2000, the Palestinians were again offered statehood, this time quite understandably with a reduction in territory. For the third time the Palestinians responded with violence.

Israel has offered statehood to the Palestinians in exchange for a commitment to end terrorism, and the Palestinian response has been an escalation of terrorism. The Palestinians will eventually have a state, but not until terrorism is genuinely renounced.

I will be happy to continue this dialog providing your response is courteous and civil as was mine to you. Please refrain from words such as 'dimwit' or I will not respond.

[shergald]

30. No need to respond.

You have bought into all of the Israeli propaganda points, none of which have any truth, beginning with this statement,

"The Palestinians have been offered a homeland on three separate occasions--in 1937, 1947, and 2000-1--and each time have rejected the offer and responded with increased terrorism."

For cripes sake, didn't you hear. Palestine was the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs and had been so for a thousand years. I don't recall 1937, where the Palestinians were allegedly offered a state in their own country, then occupied by the British, but I will leave it to you to explain that one. The Grand Mufti, a British created title for the head of a major political Jerusalem family, was kicked out in 1937 because he was fomenting rebellion against the intentions of the British to give the Zionists a piece of their homeland, which as usual involved taking Palestinian land. By 1947, Jews in Palestine owned only 7% of the land, ten years before probably much less.

The 1947 partition gave the Jews 60% of Palestine, even though they constituted only a third of the population there, in spite of all of the European immigration that occurred. But what is perhaps worse, 400,000 Palestinians, who were caught inside the Jewish Partition, were expected to give up their homes, lands, and villages, and essentially move into what is today the West Bank or Gaza, presumably to start again from scratch. You must truely believe that the 1947 Arab partition was the first "generous offer." People in effect were asked, if you want a country, move from your country, where you have lived for centuries.

And that anyone who can come up with the notion that the Palestinians were offered a state at Camp David/Taba in 2000 just does not know facts. They are spinning long after the truth was revealed by Barak himself, who, on the Charlie Rose Show a few years later, admitted that if he had offered the Palestinians a state not even his own party, Labor, would have endorsed it. In any case, he walked out of the talks. If you want to understand what was offered, see the documentary: Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land over at Google Video. About 770,000 have viewed in the last few months alone. It will help you get oriented to the truth and what university students and others interested in the truth are coming to understand about Israel. A handful of bantustans, separated by settlements, surrounded by IDF, crisscrossed by other settlements and Israeli only roads, without its own borders, is not exactly what anyone could call an independent country. The generous offer was essentially generous to Israel who would proceed to annex the West Bank. Arafat was a lot of things but he was no fool. Yet, Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who consulted for the Israel Project, a propaganda machine, encourages people to keep talking about the "generous offer." You can get his 50 page report from the Israel Project site. I recommend that you do and learn some further falsehoods, like calling the West Bank, "disputed territories, not occupied territories." I see you missed it.

Otherwise, only a fool would believe any of the disinformation and spin you posted.

[breakaleg]

34. excellent post.

[Lithos]

35. The truth is not as simple or one sided as you portray

And you too carry along several myths in your statements.

1) The failure of the Palestinian state was not due to only the Israeli's or the British. Rather, in addition to severe internal divisions and issues (do you think Arafat really wanted to establish a nation or just continue milking the funds - remember they had to lean on him to assume the role), the Palestinian efforts were almost continually frustrated by the efforts of the Jordanians (who desired the West Bank for apx. 40 years) and other neighbors and actors including the US and the USSR. To limit it down and say there were only three chances and that the causation is external when in fact there were hundreds of opportunities that were missed is not helpful nor accurate.

2) A fair number of the Palestinians who left did not inhabit what was Palestine for centuries, that too is a myth. No, I'm not going to repeat the tripe that Joan Peters and others state claiming a vast wave of illegal immigration in the 1930's which is also a myth, but rather note that there was a well documented immigration into Palestine by Muslims starting in the late 18th century with the majority arriving in the middle of the 19th Century. Yes, there were Palestinians who had lived in Palestine for centuries prior to this just as there were Jews and Greeks and Egyptians, but before the great wave of immigration which started in the late 18th Century, Palestine was a very diverse area featuring almost even distributions of Muslims, Christians and Jews.

So, the idea of some sort of special and unique attachment to the land by either side is really a myth.

[shergald]

39. Sources please.

1) "hundreds of opportunities that were missed." Please describe even the three you claim, let alone the hundreds. Was one of them the Camp David/Taba 2000 "generous offer?"

2) Jews in Palestine pre19th century, if I recall correctly, numbered less than 5,000, a small minority that is generally conceded. When Ben Gurion settled there in the early 20th century, I believe the number was only 8,000.

What is or isn't a myth often depend on the sources one consults. There has been a lot of rewritting of history to justify the Zionist project begun by Ben Gurion, who envisioned that original Israel could be attained once again by conquest, in domino fashion.

[furman]

41. Palestinians miss an opportunity every single day

Palestinians must renounce terror, formally recognize Israel's right to existence, and adhere to past agreements with Israel.
Only then can there be a foundation for peace.

Given recent statements by Hamas, it appears that this is unlikely in the near future.
Haniyeh: Hamas Won't Recognize Israel
Sun Oct 8, 2006 6:55 PM EDT
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/10/08/391048-haniyeh-hamas-wont-recognize-israel


Below is a source with population statistics in the region over time.
It shows that by the year 1822 there were about 24,000 Jews there.

Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank & Gaza
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

[shergald]

43. formally recognize Israel's right to existence?

This statement first. When did Israel ever formally recognize Palestine's right to exist? Right to exist has been a RED HERRING used by Israel to avoid peace initiatives. You would do well to read Uri Avnery's article on the topic of Israel's avoidance of peace, at least until the West Bank is confiscated and facts on the ground prevent withdrawal.

Want to know what Israelis believe of Palestinian's right to a state? Look at the political platforms of the major party, Labor, Likud, and Kadima. Nothing there. None of them indicate a project to work toward peace through a two state solution. None of them. Hear me. None of them.

I will not even bother to click on the Jewishvirtuallibrary. It is a propaganda site replete with lies about the historical reality and the current situation. Don't insult me. Try nonbiased historians, scholars who have made the middle east the center of their expertise. Then come back.

Is this the Democratic Underground. Didn't you know: Truth has a liberal bias. Never expected stuff like this over here.

[Phx_Dem]

46. Your wrong

A majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, as does Kadima.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/2135stahim2.pdf

[shergald]

52. Yes, Israeli polls indicate that

the Israeli people do believe in a two state solution. But the political parties do not, except for the small minority left wing parties like Meretz. And certainly the peaceniks do, although I'm not certain how much influence they are having among Israelis.

Kadima's stated platform is noncomittal. From the facts on the ground, there is only room for another bantustan offer, which as everyone knows, was declined in 2000. Olmert believes that he has only to dismantle 20-30 settlements to achieve a solution, but that would not include the Jordan Valley. In 2004, Sharon allocated 50 million dollars for the settlement of the Jordan Valley, which is presently occupied by a few settlements, 42 Palestinian villages, and IDF compounds. Now if Kadima could be bold and give it up, we might have a peace plan for two states, in which Palestine will have and control its own borders. Still, you are forgetting that Israel has been under a right wing government and a climate in which not even Labor could propose anything more than a bantustan to the Palestinians. It is spelled out in its political platform. As peace is stalled, more and more facts on the ground are made until it is impossible to get to two states and it is no longer possible to think in terms of land swaps. Hope that this is all wrong, but...

[Englander]

66. Kadima doesn't.

The stated principle is for a claim to the entire 'Land Of Israel', the policy of Kadima is to
increase the illegal settlements in the West Bank, to annexe the Jordan Valley, to keep hold of the
large settlement blocks in the West Bank, to have control over all of Jerusalem, to keep effective
control over Gaza, & keep control over the natural resources.

[shergald]

67. Hard to believe that they believe they can get away with it.

It could conceivably mean hundreds of years of further strife and eventually another antiCrusade effort by Muslim countries to relieve Jerusalem, the third holiest Islamic site in the world. And all that in an environment of modern weaponry including nuclear bombs. Just what are the Israeli thinkers thinking about? You have to wonder about that. For example, our Neocons apparently lack any capacity for thinking forward, of having foresight. Iraq would never have happened if they ever had that capacity.

Now, given Olmert's speech to congress, one has to believe that in Israel, only strong Zionist nationalists can get elected, those who believe, along with Menachum Begin, that "the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel, all of it, forever." This, in spite of the fact that the majority of Israeli believe in the two state solution. That must be one confused people, believing it is possible to have it both ways. Trouble is they are dragging the US down with them.

[furman]

50. Most of what you write reeks of Palestianian propaganda and lies

DU should not be a place for this kind of rhetoric.
It does the Democratic Party no good and makes DU look like a laughingstock to anyone monitoring this board.

[shergald]

53. Please tell everyone...

what points constitute Palestinian propaganda and lies? I post the links to several documentaries. What in them constitute Palestinian propaganda and lies? Over a quarter a million viewers have now seen Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land. What content in that documentary is a lie, and who are the liars: Noam Chomsky? Robert Fisk? Rabbi Arik Ackerman? And others?

Truth has a liberal bias. Claiming that DU or any Democratic site supports a right wing extremist Likud view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that depends on media censorship and propaganda to get its message across, is well beyond the pale. I would suggest that there are many proIsraeli bloggers positioned on liberal sites to counteract trends that does not support Ben Gurion's Greater Israeli dream.

[Lurking Dem]

54. .

>>Claiming that DU or any Democratic site supports a right wing extremist Likud view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that depends on media censorship and propaganda to get its message across, is well beyond the pale.<<

A. That's a hell of a stretch there. Who here has made that claim? Who here has a Likud viewpoint about anything?

B. Your choice of The Pale as a descriptor is very telling.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Now that's Beyond the pale!!!

B. Your choice of The Pale as a descriptor is very telling.

Last time I checked it's a common phrase. Most people using it would have no idea of where it originated, so to imply that someone is out of line for using it is, well, beyond the pale ;)

[shergald]

63. Thanks.

For me it is a phrase that I know but can't define. Perhaps I should look it up. "Beyond belief?"

[shergald]

62. This was a reply to information and responses I provided

including references to documentaries by known liberals and peaceniks such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Alison Weir, and Jeff Halper.

"Most of what you write reeks of Palestianian propaganda and lies

DU should not be a place for this kind of rhetoric.
It does the Democratic Party no good and makes DU look like a laughingstock to anyone monitoring this board."

The responses were in answer to positions justified and typically taken by the Israeli right wing and the misinformation they depend on. Look them up above. I am interested in learning just what Palestinian propaganda and lies are. I didn't say anyone had a Likud viewpoint specifically, but that the arguments in posts show the characteristics of propaganda discussed in Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land, which justify the denial of a Palestinian state, a Likud viewpoint. You may be familiar with the Letter from 18 Writers, about the "liquidation of the Palestinian nation."

[Phx_Dem]

58. Foreign Minister of Egypt

....
Ahmed Aboul Gheit -- who has spent the past several months immersed in a failing effort to restore the broken connections between the Palestinian Authority and its international donors, as well as Israel -- placed the blame exactly where it belongs: on the Palestinian political leadership. "The Palestinian situation is marred by sharp divisions and battling; it is a misery and shameful for any Arab and any Palestinian," the minister told the government newspaper al-Ahram.
....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001241.html

I have no idea how someone could spin this, but I'm sure some will try.

[shergald]

64. Correct observation...

which we are seeing played out between Hamas and Fatah. Factionalism is a problem in the Palestinian Authority and it has to be dealt with. It would help Hamas to come aboard if Israel would exchange with them a mutual right to exist, the existence of Israel and Palestine. There will be skepticism, otherwise.

Arafat gave Israel this guarantee. What did it get the Palestinians in 2000: offer of a group of bantustans surrounded by Greater Israel?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

65. Here

1) "hundreds of opportunities that were missed." Please describe even the three you claim, let alone the hundreds. Was one of them the Camp David/Taba 2000 "generous offer?"

Do you think Palestinian Statehood derives itself from the Israelis or the United States? I mean afterall, shouldn't we have waited in the US for France or GB to say it was okay for us to declare independence? Instead of fighting the Jordanians or the engaging in the Lebanese war, or countless other events, do you think Fatah or Arafat could have actually done some statecraft and try and build something as opposed to destroying things? The Palestinians themselves could have sent Arafat packing, but they did not. Yes Israel and the United States have made things difficult, but then again the leaders of the Palestinians have done a fair job in keeping the status quo in order to enrich themselves.

2) Jews in Palestine pre19th century, if I recall correctly, numbered less than 5,000, a small minority that is generally conceded. When Ben Gurion settled there in the early 20th century, I believe the number was only 8,000.

The Ottoman figures indicates the population of Jerusalem in 1844 included 7,000 Jews. And by the turn of the century I think the number was up to around 40-50,000.

What is or isn't a myth often depend on the sources one consults. There has been a lot of rewritting of history to justify the Zionist project begun by Ben Gurion, who envisioned that original Israel could be attained once again by conquest, in domino fashion.

Sorry, there is a bit of irony in what you said here. You ask about sources. The ones you've quoted here, Chomsky and Alison Weir, are both problematic. First outside of his chosen field of linguistics, Chomsky is a political polemicist whose views need to be as closely examined as any apologist. He is an excellent writer, but has a habit of working in a ivory tower often casually omitting or cherrypicking things which are contrary to whatever thesis he is trying to make. Case in point are his defenses of the Khmer Rouge's actions in Cambodia during the 1970's as well as defending the character (not just the legal principle of the right of free speech) of Robert Faurisson.

Allison Weir's credibility is extremely in question as in addition to being a non-scholar and polemicist on the subject, her choice of emphasis of how to describe and explain the relevance of the Holocaust mirrors strongly ideas I've seen expressed in several groups founded by Willis Carto. Even the hatchet job done to history by Joan Peters has nothing on what was done here.

[Phx_Dem]

55. attachment to land

Without getting into a semantic argument about what "special and unique" means, the fact is that jews have been living in Palestine for thousands of years. For some jews, this attachment to the land is G-d given and for others it is the historic ancestral home of the jews, regardless of religious tradition. Judaism is not the only religious tradition that has an attachment to land, The Hopi indians for example believe that their land is also G-d given, do you think that is a special and unique attachment that should be respected?

"The Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona encompasses lands that the Hopi people have inhabited for more than a thousand years. Unlike many other tribes, the Hopi people have never been relocated from their ancestral lands to other geographical areas by the United States government. Over the past century, however, the sovereign lands of the Hopi Tribe have been continually reduced through takings by the United States and litigation with the Navajo Tribe. As a result of these actions, access to Hopi ancestral sites and sacred places has become increasingly difficult and, in some instances, dangerous. Shrines are also being desecrated by vandalism or "use" by non-Indians.

"The religious practices of the Hopi people are embedded in the landscape that the deity, "Ma'saw," gave to them when they entered into a covenant to earn stewardship of the earth. The ceremonies, pilgrimages and rituals that sustain the Hopi religion are inextricably linked to shrines that were established in ancient times at specific springs, mountain peaks and other sacred areas. These shrines were created in accordance with divine instructions as a permanent testament to the Hopi's covenant with Ma'saw. Each shrine and sacred place contains an irreplaceable life essence that prohibits any relocation or alteration of the shrine."

http://209.200.101.189/publications/CSQ/csq-article.cfm?id=1621

[Lithos]

60. In the end

Religious uniqueness is often never unique when history is laid bare.

If you wish to use the Hopi as an analogy, your article hints at some of the issue invovled. The Hopi have NOT been living as a tribe in the area for thousands of years. The Hopi are a fairly recent (last 500 years) development and in turn are related to the Anasazi Indians who had similarities and differences (ie, the Hopi are distinct). However, the Hopi are NOT the Anasazi. Also related in some fashion (not Pueblo Indian, but still related) are the Navajo whose own religions and cultures seem derived and interlated to the Chaco Canyon culture. Obviously the Hopi and the Navajo are different, yet both claim ties to the same area and the same tradition.

Who is right? Who is wrong?

The Palestinians and the Israeli's are similarly tied though there is much greater overlap than the Hopi and the Navajo. Palestinians comprise not only those who settled from adjacent lands over the intervening time periods, but also a fair amount who can trace their lineage back to the Canaanites, Jebusites and Israelites all of whom have long standing ties to the area.

Who is right, who is wrong? Both claim that God gave them the area, both are brothers (the analogy to the sons of Abraham is an old chestnut which sometimes is fit to bring out on the appropriate occasion), both have ties back to pre-history.

[shergald]

68. Recall reading one review of the history...

in which Palestinian roots were traced back to the Philistines, and as having some association with the city of Nablus, which is allegedly 9,000 years old.

[Phx_Dem]

40. Interesting read Spinoza...

I think it's a pretty good analysis, though I disagree that the Bush admin has been "magnificent" for Israel. A more engaged US admin in the ME peace process would have been much better than what we have right now.

[Spinoza]

56. Yes,

I agree with your comments on the Bush administration. Frankly, what struck me about the article was how balanced it actually was. Criticism of Palestinian actions and thought was--nearly equally--offset by criticism of Israeli actions and thought. Of course, the article WAS supportive of Israel and (variations of) Zionism. As some have pointed out, it WAS published in (roll of ominous sounding drums)..... COMMENTARY. Never-the-less, one could wish that similarly balanced critiques would come out of the Arab world. They may exist, but with rare exceptions, I haven't seen them.
'

[Violet_Crumble]

59. The article contains some major flaws...

...but this bit jumped out as being factually incorrect: 'Now, a year later, its wisdom having been called into question even before the hostilities in Lebanon by the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian Authority and the firing of Kassam rockets from Gaza into Israel...'

Hamas no more did a takeover of the PA than our local Labor party did a takeover of our local govt. Takeover is usually used to describe the acquiring of the reins of govt by force, not when it comes to democratic elections where the elections were open and fair. Also, the sentence continues on without a breath to blame Hamas for the firing of Qassams from Gaza when Hamas is not the group responsible for carrying out the missile attacks. While folk who are so biased towards the 'pro-Israel' side of things they can't even admit Israel discriminates against its Arab inhabitants without blaming the Arabs for the discrimination would find this ever so balanced, based on that sentence alone I find claims that the article is balanced to be hard to believe. That is, unless the article also contains some completely untrue stuff about Israel as well :)