Comments on: A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 2” http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/ Commentary about Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism and the conflict in the Middle East Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:25:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5-RC1.1 By: A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 9″ at Z-Word Blog http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1905 A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 9″ at Z-Word Blog Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:25:20 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1905 [...] on previous installments in the Sam’s “Cool Hour” series behind these numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [...] […] on previous installments in the Sam’s “Cool Hour” series behind these numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, […]

]]> By: A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 3” at Z-Word Blog http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1426 A Response To “A Cool Hour on the Israel-Palestine Conflict 3” at Z-Word Blog Tue, 23 Sep 2008 03:06:02 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1426 [...] There follows my response to certain matters raised in the third post, titled “Racism and Anti-Semitism”, in a series by Samuel Fleischacker - hereinafter referred to as SF - about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, currently appearing over at Normblog. My responses to the two previous posts can be found here and here. [...] […] There follows my response to certain matters raised in the third post, titled “Racism and Anti-Semitism”, in a series by Samuel Fleischacker - hereinafter referred to as SF - about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, currently appearing over at Normblog. My responses to the two previous posts can be found here and here. […]

]]> By: Roddy Frankel http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1413 Roddy Frankel Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:32:04 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1413 Throughout the 400 year rule by the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were free to roam anywhere they pleased, much as they do today (contrast with the nearly total exclusion of Jews from Muslim lands.) There were no "borders" around "Palestine," it was a vaguely defined region named after an ancient Roman territory. Before 1922, it also included Jordan. "Palestine" was ethnically, religiously, and culturally indistinguishable from the surrounding Arab regions. Most of the original poor farmers leased their land from wealthy absentee landlords. The massive growth in the Arab population of "Palestine" was the result of immigration, stimulated in large part by Jewish settlement and the resultant agricultural expansion. The Arab immigrants had no more of an inherent right to the land than the Jewish immigrants. The main difference was that the Jews actually paid for the land, sometimes paying the owners several times over, in order to have them (the Arab owners) clear the land of squatters. The transactions appeared to be conducted in good faith, and for this we need not apologize 60 years after the fact. Throughout the 400 year rule by the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were free to roam anywhere they pleased, much as they do today (contrast with the nearly total exclusion of Jews from Muslim lands.) There were no “borders” around “Palestine,” it was a vaguely defined region named after an ancient Roman territory. Before 1922, it also included Jordan. “Palestine” was ethnically, religiously, and culturally indistinguishable from the surrounding Arab regions. Most of the original poor farmers leased their land from wealthy absentee landlords. The massive growth in the Arab population of “Palestine” was the result of immigration, stimulated in large part by Jewish settlement and the resultant agricultural expansion. The Arab immigrants had no more of an inherent right to the land than the Jewish immigrants. The main difference was that the Jews actually paid for the land, sometimes paying the owners several times over, in order to have them (the Arab owners) clear the land of squatters. The transactions appeared to be conducted in good faith, and for this we need not apologize 60 years after the fact.

]]> By: Petra http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1404 Petra Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:37:03 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1404 Eamonn: again, an excellent response; and it is great to see Sam Fleischacker following the debate. I can understand that he feels that it might be better to have the whole series he plans before commenting on his views, but I'm sure that he will understand that if he writes about such a loaded topic, it would be too cruel to shup up for another 2 months or so!!! I have one main concern re. the points picked up here by Eamonn: Indeed, the question is why, from all the refugees created in the wake of 2 world wars and the dissolution of colonial empires, it is only the Palestinians who should have something like an eternal "right of return" that is passed on through the generations. The fact of the matter is simply that by refusing to consider any form of partition involving any form of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine since 1937, the Arabs of Palestine made the choice to claim that not only were they entitled to self-determination, but that they were also entitled to dictate to what exact territory this right would have to be applied, and to have thus a veto over other groups' aspirations for self-determination. I'm also very doubtful that it makes sense to discuss these issues on the basis of some personal sense of justice, as Sam Fleischaker apparently intends to do. No doubt that his personal sense of justice is very admirable, but there is of course literature by experts in international law about the criteria for self-determination -- both now, and back then, when the concept was just emerging. The problem for the Palestinians is that for the longest time, i.e. really until 1988, they were not fighting for self-determination in the sense that they wanted to have their own state, but rather for denying self-determination for the Jews/Israel. Even now, the PA constitution emphasizes that the Palestinians are part of the Arab people and the Muslim world, i.e. it doesn't emphasize a seperate identity yearning for self-determination -- and that is indeed one reason why in another post here on ZWord there is yet again a post about the renewed enthusiasm for the "one-state solution"... Eamonn: again, an excellent response; and it is great to see Sam Fleischacker following the debate. I can understand that he feels that it might be better to have the whole series he plans before commenting on his views, but I’m sure that he will understand that if he writes about such a loaded topic, it would be too cruel to shup up for another 2 months or so!!!
I have one main concern re. the points picked up here by Eamonn: Indeed, the question is why, from all the refugees created in the wake of 2 world wars and the dissolution of colonial empires, it is only the Palestinians who should have something like an eternal “right of return” that is passed on through the generations. The fact of the matter is simply that by refusing to consider any form of partition involving any form of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine since 1937, the Arabs of Palestine made the choice to claim that not only were they entitled to self-determination, but that they were also entitled to dictate to what exact territory this right would have to be applied, and to have thus a veto over other groups’ aspirations for self-determination.

I’m also very doubtful that it makes sense to discuss these issues on the basis of some personal sense of justice, as Sam Fleischaker apparently intends to do. No doubt that his personal sense of justice is very admirable, but there is of course literature by experts in international law about the criteria for self-determination — both now, and back then, when the concept was just emerging.
The problem for the Palestinians is that for the longest time, i.e. really until 1988, they were not fighting for self-determination in the sense that they wanted to have their own state, but rather for denying self-determination for the Jews/Israel. Even now, the PA constitution emphasizes that the Palestinians are part of the Arab people and the Muslim world, i.e. it doesn’t emphasize a seperate identity yearning for self-determination — and that is indeed one reason why in another post here on ZWord there is yet again a post about the renewed enthusiasm for the “one-state solution”…

]]> By: Barry Meislin http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1367 Barry Meislin Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:18:52 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1367 Who so many words? Why so much reasoning? And why so much seeming reasonableness? Why can't we just agree that the Palestinian strategy is to erase Israel from the map, and have done with it? (Because we don't believe it? Because it's not politic to believe it? Because it goes against everything we believe in or would like to? Because it's simply too simple...and things, you know, are complex?) Though the real question is, more precisely: why can't we ADMIT that we are ignoring (or denying) that the goal is the erasure of Israel from the map. The Palestinian tragedy is, and has always been, that they failed and have thus far continued to fail to erase Israel from the map. And that they have decided, as a matter of policy, as a matter of strategy, that they will continue to suffer for as long as Israel continues to exist, while waging hostilities to chip away at Israel's morale, economy, and existence. Clearly, there are many who hold Israel responsible for this sorry state of affairs (to blame the Palestinians for their own suffering seems to be too counter-intuitive to contemplate), and their numbers, to the delight of the Palestinians, are continuously increasing. After all, we are all right and decent people; and the Palestinians are suffering---have been suffering for what is it, 60 years now?---and it is only right and decent to end that suffering. And so we have come to the point where if it means that the end of Palestinian suffering means the end of Israel....well, 60 years on and with no end in sight, so be it. Disguising one's efforts (up to now unsuccessful) to destroy another country in the garb of the suffering caused you by the country which you have thus far failed to destroy, is proving to be a brilliant strategy. (Or should one say, "privileging the Palestinian narrative...."?) Which leaves one asking: how much more will the Palestinians---subsidized to the hilt by a caring world---have to suffer? Which is easily transmuted into: hasn't Israel, after 60 years, having proven itself incapable of achieving peace with the Palestinians; thus proved to all and sundry that it no longer deserves to continue exist? The Palestinians would like us to think so. And they will continue to suffer (and threaten Israel) until we are all persuaded---or until Iran and its allies achieve their stated goals, Israelis AND Palestinians, be damned. Who so many words? Why so much reasoning? And why so much seeming reasonableness?

Why can’t we just agree that the Palestinian strategy is to erase Israel from the map, and have done with it?

(Because we don’t believe it? Because it’s not politic to believe it? Because it goes against everything we believe in or would like to? Because it’s simply too simple…and things, you know, are complex?)

Though the real question is, more precisely: why can’t we ADMIT that we are ignoring (or denying) that the goal is the erasure of Israel from the map.

The Palestinian tragedy is, and has always been, that they failed and have thus far continued to fail to erase Israel from the map. And that they have decided, as a matter of policy, as a matter of strategy, that they will continue to suffer for as long as Israel continues to exist, while waging hostilities to chip away at Israel’s morale, economy, and existence.

Clearly, there are many who hold Israel responsible for this sorry state of affairs (to blame the Palestinians for their own suffering seems to be too counter-intuitive to contemplate), and their numbers, to the delight of the Palestinians, are continuously increasing.

After all, we are all right and decent people; and the Palestinians are suffering—have been suffering for what is it, 60 years now?—and it is only right and decent to end that suffering.

And so we have come to the point where if it means that the end of Palestinian suffering means the end of Israel….well, 60 years on and with no end in sight, so be it.

Disguising one’s efforts (up to now unsuccessful) to destroy another country in the garb of the suffering caused you by the country which you have thus far failed to destroy, is proving to be a brilliant strategy.

(Or should one say, “privileging the Palestinian narrative….”?)

Which leaves one asking: how much more will the Palestinians—subsidized to the hilt by a caring world—have to suffer?

Which is easily transmuted into: hasn’t Israel, after 60 years, having proven itself incapable of achieving peace with the Palestinians; thus proved to all and sundry that it no longer deserves to continue exist?

The Palestinians would like us to think so. And they will continue to suffer (and threaten Israel) until we are all persuaded—or until Iran and its allies achieve their stated goals, Israelis AND Palestinians, be damned.

]]> By: Eamonn McDonagh http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1362 Eamonn McDonagh Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:53:07 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1362 Sam: Thanks for this. Sam: Thanks for this.

]]> By: Sam Fleischacker http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1360 Sam Fleischacker Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:15:13 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1360 I like both of Eamonn’s responses, but think it best to wait until I’ve gotten a little further in this series before engaging actively in answering objections. I think I should make sure I clear up a couple of things, though: 1) By saying that Arabs and Muslims across the world take an interest in Palestine, I didn’t mean to suggest that that interest was either as intense or as tied to their own needs as the interest of Jews in Israel. My point was simply to indicate why I will sometimes use “Arabs and Muslims,” rather than “Palestinians,” to describe one side in the conflict. 2) I do not believe that a right of return for Palestinian refugees should be implemented. I mean exactly what I said in the post: “It’s HARD TO SEE why Palestinians should not have a right to return to their homes.” It is hard to see that, even if a good answer can be given. My point was to set up the conflict of rights at the heart of this conflict, the fact that what is just, here, appears entirely differently depending on where one stands. In fact, the traffic on this site last week illustrated that. I’m hoping that by the end of this series it might be possible for some on each side to see their way to a shared view of what justice demands in this case. Eamonn’s points 3 and 4 are excellent – I’ll be addressing the history of nationalism in 3 or 4 weeks, and making a point much like his fourth one just before that. I like both of Eamonn’s responses, but think it best to wait until I’ve gotten a little further in this series before engaging actively in answering objections. I think I should make sure I clear up a couple of things, though:

1) By saying that Arabs and Muslims across the world take an
interest in Palestine, I didn’t mean to suggest that that interest was either as intense or as tied to their own needs as the interest of Jews in Israel. My point was simply to indicate why I will sometimes use “Arabs and Muslims,” rather than “Palestinians,” to describe one side in the conflict.

2) I do not believe that a right of return for Palestinian refugees should be implemented. I mean exactly what I said in the post: “It’s HARD TO SEE why Palestinians should not have a right to return to their homes.” It is hard to see that, even if a good answer can be given. My point was to set up the conflict of rights at the heart of this conflict, the fact that what is just, here, appears entirely differently depending on where one stands. In fact, the traffic on this site last week illustrated that. I’m hoping that by the end of this series it might be possible for some on each side to see their way to a shared view of what justice demands in this case.

Eamonn’s points 3 and 4 are excellent – I’ll be addressing the history of nationalism in 3 or 4 weeks, and making a point much like his fourth one just before that.

]]> By: Laura SF http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/a-response-to-a-cool-hour-two/#comment-1358 Laura SF Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:20:44 +0000 http://blog.z-word.com/?p=340#comment-1358 Thank you for this - and for your previous response to Mr. Fleischacker as well. I think you are being very polite & reasonable - which is more than I could do! I was extremely disappointed by this installment - I feel he has lost any claim to objectivity by accepting certain disputed "facts" as simply true (the "massacres" and "expulsions" of 1948 and the "illegality" of the settlements, for example). He also consistently presents the Palestinian "narrative" in a heartfelt way but rarely even mentions the Jewish one. I expected more than just the same rehashing of old biases, it's sad... Thank you for this - and for your previous response to Mr. Fleischacker as well. I think you are being very polite & reasonable - which is more than I could do! I was extremely disappointed by this installment - I feel he has lost any claim to objectivity by accepting certain disputed “facts” as simply true (the “massacres” and “expulsions” of 1948 and the “illegality” of the settlements, for example). He also consistently presents the Palestinian “narrative” in a heartfelt way but rarely even mentions the Jewish one. I expected more than just the same rehashing of old biases, it’s sad…

]]>