Sam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
l33tminion) wrote2008-12-31 02:25 pm
l33tminion) wrote2008-12-31 02:25 pm
Swords Into Sword-Hilts
When it comes to the recent situation in Israel (specifically, them bombing the hell out of "military targets" like hospitals, police stations, and densely packed residential areas in Gaza), this article gets it right:
... when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not.
Why is the situation in Israel different?
More importantly: Do they really think that killing civilians en masse will lower support for the terrorists? Or make the terrorists less willing to strike? Do they really think that refraining from such massacres would make it easier for the terrorists to fundraise? Do they think that a population deprived of food and medical supplies will become less radical or less violent? Do they think that the threat of retaliation will just now inspire the Gazans to lynch the terrorists in their midst instead of joining them?
Probably not. They're not morons. So what does explain their behavior? My hypothesis: They want revenge, and they view the civilians as irrelevant sub-humans or quasi-terrorists or both.
The civilian casualties of US attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad enough, but at least at first we could plausibly claim "collateral damage on military targets" because there were military targets. We were fighting militaries with soldiers in uniform and everything, at least for a while.
This is, perhaps, a fundamental problem of the two-state solution. With one state, you're defending innocent civilians against terrorists. With two, you're defending your people against foreign enemies. You're only responsible for your own. Utilitarian ethics gets dragged up against the wall and shot for treason.
What good is a haven from atrocities if it's not a haven from committing atrocities?
... when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not.
Why is the situation in Israel different?
More importantly: Do they really think that killing civilians en masse will lower support for the terrorists? Or make the terrorists less willing to strike? Do they really think that refraining from such massacres would make it easier for the terrorists to fundraise? Do they think that a population deprived of food and medical supplies will become less radical or less violent? Do they think that the threat of retaliation will just now inspire the Gazans to lynch the terrorists in their midst instead of joining them?
Probably not. They're not morons. So what does explain their behavior? My hypothesis: They want revenge, and they view the civilians as irrelevant sub-humans or quasi-terrorists or both.
The civilian casualties of US attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan were bad enough, but at least at first we could plausibly claim "collateral damage on military targets" because there were military targets. We were fighting militaries with soldiers in uniform and everything, at least for a while.
This is, perhaps, a fundamental problem of the two-state solution. With one state, you're defending innocent civilians against terrorists. With two, you're defending your people against foreign enemies. You're only responsible for your own. Utilitarian ethics gets dragged up against the wall and shot for treason.
What good is a haven from atrocities if it's not a haven from committing atrocities?
no subject
Right on the money. Zionists are perhaps the most racist people I've ever met, yet bristle with umbrage and hurl accusations at anyone who dares suggest this is so.
Have you seen The Man From Plains, the movie about Jimmy Carter? There are some informative scenes there.
no subject
no subject
no subject
There are no doubt racist Zionists, but there are many who think there should be "a Jewish state" . . . .
This is, in my admittedly not-so-humble opinion, the problem. A "Jewish" state is, by definition, comprised of Jews, is it not? Now we need only define "Jew." On this point I have been educated by Jews; Jews are descended of Jews, specifically descended from (at the very least) a mother whose mother was Jewish.
(This came up because I offered to pray at a minyon. The rebbe I told me my grandmother needed to be my mother's mother, not my father's.)
While I realize many Jews might recognize recently converted Jews as fellow Jews, I've found that my in-law's rebbe's definition is pretty much accepted as par for the inclusion course. If true (as I assume and have been told), that fact limits Jewish Israeli citizenship to a race of people . . . which is inherently racist.
Like you, I have a beef with those who regard those not in (whatever) race as racist, most especially the violent ones. But their feelings of exclusivity prove different only in degree from those who promote the idea of race as one that decides inclusion -- and, importantly in Israel and Pakistan, the world's only "religious" states, exclusion -- through citizenship.
My wife (100% Jewish, as opposed to my questionable 1/16th status) agrees. She thinks the whole contested Holy Land should be run as a theme park by the United Nations, specifically by complete atheists who have no stake in the temples and history and stuff of seeming importance. Religious matters should have no place in secular people management.
I still encourage everyone to see the Carter movie. It shows his book tour for Peace Not Apartheid. He got a lot of flak for that title, even though I think he nailed the situation.
Of course, this is all just my opinion, and not one I voice often. I don't wish to offend anyone. I'll shut up now.
no subject
As to how to define "Jew", I think there are very good arguments on Zionist grounds for Israel using a very broad definition of "Jewish". Specifically, antisemites don't care if you're observant, or if your heartfelt conversion was in an Orthodox synagogue, or if it was your maternal or paternal grandmother. Those who say, "well, that's unfortunate for those people, but it's not part of our objective to protect Jews," are simply incorrect. Failing to provide a safe haven for the victims of antisemitism can only embolden antisemites, which is antithetical to the goal of protecting Jews.
Running Israel as a UN state (ignoring for now that the UN is not a government, etc.)... well, I have a hard time evaluating arguments for or against it because it's simply infeasible. Governing Jerusalem in that manner (well, not quite, the "by atheists" bit is simply not going to happen) might be a workable part of some solution.
Ultimately, I don't see how Israel staying "a Jewish state" is more racist than Japan remaining "a Japanese state", for example. On the other hand, there are way bigger minority groups in Israel than in Japan. I can see some potential conflicts between democracy and Israel maintaining an immigration policy that achieves the Zionist goal. (Don't ask me for an easy solution for that one, I don't know what the best course of action is.)
no subject
It's why I like to avoid discussing the Middle East entirely. There are no good answers. None. Again, as long as a state fails to stay secular, the things we see in Israel will happen. It is logically and potentially inevitable. On a lesser degree, the same things happened in Europe during the height of Catholic/Protestant tensions. Charles II dissolved a mainly Protestant Parliament largely because he refused to name a non-Catholic successor. Prior to that, his father was beheaded by Cromwell; once the crown regained power, Cromwell's own head was later mounted on a pike -- for 16 years.
Note I say "lesser" degree with England and Europe. Why? One could always convert. Yes, I know that non-Jews can become Israeli citizens, but they can't be Jewish Israeli citizens, a distinction listed on one's passport. Jewish Israeli citizens do enjoy more legal rights than non-Jews. Furthermore, though anti-Semites don't care how observant one is to be Jewish, Israel has delegated a Jewish test to the more Orthodox wing of society, meaning one must indeed be quite observant for quite some time while qualifying for citizenship. Therefore, one may be denied Jewish status if one's grandmother fails the test even if one was raised Jewish. This actually happened to (IIRC) author Naomi Klein's brother when he went to Israel. The Jews he met there simply regarded him as goy as Hitler.
This tends to reinforce some of the radicalism one sees in, for example, the Kahanists (sp?), a group that settles where it likes and reinforces its holdings not with a fence but with guns. "Our land is the range of an AK-47," said one settler in a PBS interview.
Arabs are shot at on sight.
This same group gained a bit of notariaty when they planted a booby-trapped propane tanker in front of an Islamic girl's school. The admitted perpetrators showed absolutely no remorse whatsoever. They wanted to kill as many non-Jews as they could, specifically Muslims.
Very few of these kind of stories are ever reported in the US, probably because publishers and producers are tired of the raft of "anti-Semite!" accusation letters that pore in every single time. Portraying a devout Jew as a serial killer is a great way of starting a riot . . . even if that person is a serial killer or wannabe.
Again, see the Jimmy Carter movie. And your point was dead on about the Japanese. Gaijin is a lovely term reserved for "non-Japanese," including (from what I've read) Japanese who have picked up non-Japanese habits by living abroad "too long." This entry of mine (http://peristaltor.livejournal.com/93571.html) touches on another aspect of Japanese racial homogeny backed by a sense of identity.
no subject
"One could always convert" is a negligible improvement, IMO. Yes, in Israel, it's an issue, you can convert but only in an Orthodox ceremony, so there are non-Orthodox Jews whose conversions aren't recognized and who feel they can't convert to the religion they identify as, but for most people, converting for reasons other than wanting to convert to that religion is a crap decision. Also, it wasn't true of Europe in a lot of cases. "Grandparents converted to Christianity" was also something the Nazis didn't give a damn about.
Of course, I agree that the settlers are a racist bunch, and that some of them go so far as to be genocidal bastards. Such people are a tiny minority, but there's nothing the history of Israel shows more clearly than the ability of tiny minorities of violent radicals to ruin everything for everyone.
As far as the Japanese... well, I've been in Japan in modern times, and as far as I could tell, their attitude towards outsiders is rather similar to that in the States. Which is to say some people are really racist, a lot of people are generally tolerant, there's some worry about "what if the culture is changing too fast", and some enthusiasm for learning about other cultures (actually, that last factor is much higher than in the States, at least in some parts of Japan).
And the analogy I was trying to make is this: No one suggests that there shouldn't be a Japanese state, or that Japan shouldn't have immigration politics that act in a preferential manner to their own people (of course, some say that Japan's policies are too tilted, but I haven't heard serious suggestions that they should just throw open their boarders).
So, I guess my conclusion is that maybe the notion of "a Jewish state" or "a Japanese state" is racist, but while I've heard plenty of attempts to beat down that idea, I haven't heard any good alternatives. As far as I can tell, we're basically in agreement on this topic, at least on any point of substance.
no subject
What hasn't happened yet is for a critical mass of properly influential folks in Israel to see their treatment of Palestinians for what it is, just another example of rampant xenophobic rage focused on a target population, just like the Japanese treatment of Chinese or Koreans during the Pacific War.
I think we do agree on the substance, like you say. I'll keep focusing on the xenophobia inherent in the race issue. For me, any beat-down of one "people" by another reflects a shocking lack of humility. What to do? I don't know that anything can be done. It's sad, but hey, we're all just big-lobed primates fighting over the prime bananas. What else can we expect?
no subject
no subject
I sometimes wonder what side I'd be on in the old Zionist debate back into the day of just where this new Jewish state should be. I probably would have sided with the "wherever is most convenient" side as opposed to the "it has to be in the most geopolitical unstable place on earth" side. But that debate's over and gone, those on the former side are committed to Israel since it doesn't look like there could be a Jewish state established somewhere else now. Even non-Zionists should want Israel to survive, since any alternative would probably mean millions killed and millions more displaced (again).
The only tenable Zionist/non-Zionist argument these days is whether Israel should be "a Jewish state" in some sense. Zionists would say "yes", non-Zionists would say "no" or "don't care". The debate over how Israel should conduct its defense is not drawn along those lines.
no subject
Michael Chabon wrote a great book on this premise called The Yiddish Policeman's Union. The premise: in 1948, they got Seward, Alaska.
no subject
no subject
There are people with a big "us against them" mentality who wouldn't care if Israel killed all the Palestinians.
And then there are people like me and the writer of this journal who think a Jewish state is important but are sickened by this violence.
So, don't go calling us racist. At LEAST ask us how we stand before going there.
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's a bad habit, I know. I'll try to clarify my thoughts elsewhere.
no subject