America and Israel - a match made in heaven?

Remove all ads!

Equester,
don't use the term genocide so lightly. Israel doesn't do that. You might have a point were you talking about ethnic cleansing, or about their brutal siege of Gaza - neither of which is genocide - but alas, you don't.

Israel as a democracy is still something neighbouring countries ought to strive to replicate, but that doesn't make the Israelis angels. Israel certainly allows for some decidedly illiberal streaks. But then, democracy is a broad term. Jim Crow law era America was a democratic Republic, only not a fair one. Apartheid South Africa was a democracy, if you were white.

In that sense, labelling Israel as not being democratic (or in reverse: praising how superior its democracy is when compared to the Arab neighbouring countries) isn't getting us anywhere. The point I am trying to make is that Israel is neither universally flawless and saintly, pitted against universally evil enemies, as it's apologists are trying to tell us - nor is Israel the epitome of evil. Israel is a normal country with normal flaws; in Israel's case these flaws are about territorial expansion and ethnic nationalism. Seen that way Israel's situation isn't even unique.

I agree that Israel is having a crisis as far as their own self conception is concerned. Are they a liberal democracy? Are they a state for Jews only? What will be the role for the Muslim Palestinians? For the Christian Palestinians? The Bedouin? If one asks Liebermann there isn't much of a role for anyone not Jewish. That are all important questions for which Israel yet has to find answers. Point is, if they go down the Liebermann route, that will be a bad development for everyone.

 

actively destroying a peoples way of life or removing them from their land is considered genocide.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

this is the international law defining genocide, tell me again Isreal doesn't do any of that

 

Equester,
you leap to conclusions when you assume that Israel does have the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group - the Palestinians that is. Even though I don't know about what goes on in Liebermann's mind, as a state Israel does not pursue such a goal systematically.

Specific intent to destroy is the key. Lack thereof doesn't make any of the things any better, but it makes the difference between genocide and ordinary crimes. That means, Israel may well do all those things you listed, and it's bad that they do them, but it is still not genocide.

I can easily imagine that there are Israelis who want to expel Palestinians, that would then be ethnic cleansing, and Israel has done that in the past, but certainly Israel does not want, to use a graphic example, kill the Palestinians as a group and turn them into soap.

 

you don't have to kill them to make it genocide by the definition I have already qouted. I honestly think the living conditions forced upon the palestine in Gaza and near the settlers are living up to the definition of genocide, as per my prior post, you apparently don't.

Just to make it clear, I think Isreal is (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. That is by international law genocide.

 

Equester,
you still miss my point. For genocide you don't need to kill them (all) but the intent to eliminate is nevertheless necessary. So far I can't see that Israel does have that intent. That doesn't mean I like what they do or make excuses for it.

What Israel does in Gaza, successfully, is to try to make life for Palestinian so miserable that they either give up fighting or move away. That's cruel and brutal (and probably won't work), and it violates human rights of every civilian caught in Gaza, as siege warfare inevitably must do, but it still isn't genocide. It also amounts to collective punishment, another serious crime, but it still isn't genocide.

In light of the extraordinary nature of the crime, one ought to not use the label promiscuously.

 

that is where we disagree, as already identified and honestly because I label this crime genocide and you don't I am using the label promiscuously? cute Ragusa, really cute.

 

Good point. Thanks.

... I'm looking at you, Iraq! Historically, they've even gone at each other with Israel present, but not nearly as violently as before Israel was there.

Wait, wait, wait. They're still human, right? Seriously, though, I think a great many of them are and do, because a great many humans are and do. And the ones who aren't are usually the power-hungry despots who realize that they can get more power by making the stupid, one-track-minded humans hate each other.

Those two are pretty funny, yeah. To the first I say: if God wants it to happen, it's gonna happen, don't worry. To the second, I respond much the same way you do.

Oh, I understand that. I wasn't challenging that at all.

Yeah, that one's just waiting to go off. I think Christianity has largely given up on it, but just because God seperated Himself from locality. We don't have any singlular sacred temples at which God resides. Anywhere. Well, short of us, but, you know, wherever we go, there we are. Judaism and Islam are still definitely at each other's throats over it, and Christianity may still be circling the two looking for an opening or something.

Equester, I think Ragusa's point is that there is no intent to destroy a way of life, in any way. The only intent is to get them out of the area in question. As I understand it, far more have been displaced into neighboring nations than have been killed or remain in the areas in question. As far as I know, Israel has done nothing to strike at those who fled. I'm not saying what Israel did was right, just that it wasn't genocide.

 

NOG,
I am stunned at so much agreement.

Equester,
you're entitled your opinion, but you're wrong.

 

I like the way Ragusa can go from criticizing Israel to defending it when it is unfairly attacked -- that speaks volumes as to his fairness, and I is impressed.

I'm not sure what Israel's critics want it to do, realistically. I mean, beyond withdrawing from territories that are not theirs*, how are they to respond to the serious hostility and violence they are subjected to by their neighbours?

I agree that they should withdraw, but what happens then? It's not like the withdrawal will suddenly make the Arab nations love them and stop the violence. I can just hear people like Ahmenijad (sic)** saying "we've pushed them back and now we'll roll them all the way to hell!" or other such nonsense, and given the Islamic world's proven willingness to attack Israel militarily, such talk is not empty rhetoric. How should Israel keep its citizens safe?

* Which is what they should do, no argument from me there, it's provocative, arrogant, and if Ragusa is right, illegal to boot.

** Yes, I know that the Iranians are not Arabs, but in this matter they are pretty well in lockstep with their Arab friends.

 

I must concede that I have not researched this extensively, but surely some percetage of Irainians must also be Arabs, no? The borders were drawn long after people settled in to various localities, and I'm sure there was no great effort applied to making national boundaries ethnically pure. Probably not a ton, but something like 5%* or so must be ethnically Arab?

And yes, I pulled 5% directly from my arse. I'm just thinking it has to be some single-digit, non-zero percentage.

 

And what serious violence is that? Isreal haven't been under serious attacks for decades, hell they lost a whole wooping 13 soldiers in the last offensive, compared to the 1400 palestines who died.

 

The Iranians are mostly Persians and mostly Shiite. In Iran, I doubt Arabs or Sunnis would get much political or social power. They may even have some Chirstians, but I doubt if they count for much either.

I found this:

...And I thought they were more conservative than we are. I guess as long as you are not gay, or a woman, life can be pretty good there....politically.

 

Perhaps I was not clear -- I know that the Israeli's have the backing of the US and thus they won't be steamrolled -- by conventional means, that is -- into the sea. I know that, I hope it didn't sound like I thought that was a possibility. What I was aiming at was the constant influx of suicide bombers, assassins, and RPG type missiles being launched into Israel. dmc touched on this quite nicely, and while his "buffer zone of flattened cities" idea may sound draconic, I don't see much of another option. I cannot imagine any country in the world just sitting idly by and doing nothing while criminals in another country attack them.

I know it has been said (possibly by Ragusa, but I'm not sure) that even if the enemy nations get nuclear capability they won't use it on Israel for fear of being wiped out. I'm not sure I believe that -- all it takes is one maniacal whackjob to start something that would end badly for everyone living there. In an atomic sense, I do see the possibility of Israel being wiped off the map just as the Arab states have been yammering about for years.

 

We've talked about all this before, and I think the general consensus was that both sides are being completely unreasonable and one side has to take a step of faith for any progress to be made. Israel is in the more stable position. If Israel gave back these lands, the worst their enemies could really do is what they're already doing, only in different territory.

 

Update

+++ More on Netanyahu's DC visit +++

More news is coming on regarding Bibi Netanyahu's visit to Washington. So he visited DC. It was not a state visit. He wasn't invited for talks by the US administration; they merely gave him a visa. This was a 'self invited visit', provocatively primarily to meet Israel's lobby, and after equally provocative tough talk about Israel wanting to continue building new settlements, no matter what the US says.

It was a striking to watch the unrestrained adulation showed to a visibly delighted Bibi Netanyahu at the AIPAC conference. Except for that fleeting moment, Netanyahu's Washington visit was an unmitigated disaster. Remarkably, and despite previous statements, he did privately meet with Obama. Obama showed him the cold shoulder because Netanyahu didn't offer anything new. Netanyahu was essentially told to call again when he is serious.

I have to say I have underestimated Obama. He is far tougher and persistent than he appeared in the last couple of months.

+++ Vile Obama ... +++

The superheated rhetoric against Obama on Israel continues: The Zionist Organization of America regards Obama's Israel stance 'an insult' to all Jews:

John Hagee's Americans for Armageddon in their recent e-mail alert inform their audience that it was Obama who for no apparent reason created a crisis vis a vis Israel. Others complained that Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea. Taking up the line, Instahack Glenn Reynolds writes, in sleazy Glenn Beck fashion:

That, and that he is a secret Muslim *sarcasm alert* -- "Not saying anything, just wondering ... (OF COURSE I am saying it)!"

So to these people the only conceivable explanation for being tough with Netanyahu is ... anti-semitism. Aside from the smear inherent in and intended with the allegation, this trope is getting stale as much as it is preposterously false.

+++ ... cruelly victimised Israel +++

In this narrative Netanyahu and Israel have been cruelly victimised by Obama. I think that Glenn Greenwald is very much correct when he points out that that very much is not the case:

+++ The matter of Dennis Ross +++

My hunch about Dennis Ross proved to be largely right. Ross is reportedly unhappy with Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu:

i.e he is not on board with the policy of the administration. That is not surprising. In a sense, Ross is the living embodiment of the Israel lobby. And the Israel lobby is in its current constellation, with the exception of the new group J-Street, aligned with Israel's right wing Likud party.

Speaking of right wing - the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute that Ross led, opposes intermarriage between Jewish women and gentiles. Intermarriage appears to be a thing that the current Israeli government also concerns itself with. I think it is a disturbing sign of tribalist tendencies when intermarriage (and by extension breeding) becomes a political issue.

 

The marriage ads are a bit disturbing. Sort of in a Muslim fundamental 'mock funeral for family members who convert to Christianity' kind of way. An interesting parallel, really.

 

Intermarriage, breeding and demographics

That's just for trivia: The former Bush administration's point man for Israel/Palestine and Iran-Contra alumnus Elliot Abrahms also opposes intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. His reasoning:

The Jewish State might one day run out of Jews and lose its exclusively Jewish character (i.e. might have to grant rights and political role to non Jews (read: Christian or Muslim Arabs etc.) as well). Thus intermarriage is tantamount to a "strategic national threat". These people are obsessed with demographics. Originally from Haaretz:

Presumably it is in this context of this obsession with demographics that the recent utterances by Harvard scholar Kramer are to be interpreted. At this year's Israel's Herzliya Conference (Israel's top national security conference that draws a who's who of Israeli national security figures) last month Kramer said this, as commented on by Stephen Walt:

And overcoming radicalism aside, thanks to the menopause, it would also solve the threat of Israel being out-bred by the Palestinians, and in time, say three generations, Israelis could settle in Gaza. A clear win-win-win for the likes of Kramer. While what Kramer said is not representative for the Herzliya Conference, his utterance didn't cause an outcry either.

While extreme, his remarks and the lack of outcry at Herzliya about them, are indicative of a spirit that sees criticism about Israeli actions and policies, however justified, or humanitarian aid to Palestinians, as 'aiding the enemy', as an essentially hostile act, and as taking sides against Israel in the conflict: Either you're unconditionally with Israel, or against Israel.

 

A concern for the continuity of the Jewish people and society is fine for private groups and individuals, and I can even see such an ad campaign being done by some PETA-esque extremists over there (pretty mild for that area, really), but the gov't shouldn't get involved in stuff like that.