Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Weekly Parsha Blogging
Eric Alterman on last week's parsha.
My gf's Rabbi connected the parsha to the 6 Days' War: even us liberals should not forget that such a strong threat as Israel experienced is tantamount to an invasion (and if you look at the blogs you can see some interesting double talk about this -- one feller claimed that if the situation were reversed, he would have been against Egypt invading Israel and then went on to contradict himself later in the same post) and, as such, Israel by rights does get to keep the occupied territories.
In general, before there is peace, Israel needs to face up to the degree to which its very existance did cause a very real catastrophy for many people. But, OTOH, the Palestinians need to realize that, contrary to what the international community is telling them, Israel has, by the standards of the international community when applied to anyone else but Israel, every right to formally annex the occupied territories, expel the Palestinians, etc (as Israel gained territory in a fundamentally defensive war, and countries have always been allowed to keep such territory, especially when their security is at stake). And the international community needs to stop aiding and abetting the refugee crisis by committing itself to refugee resettlement as it has done in almost all other long-term refugee situations and to face up to the behaviors of many nations, many of which do deserve condemnation, which it somehow only manages to condemn when Israel engages in them.
Of course, we Jews need to also realize the corrosive and fundamentally anti-Jewish nature of Zionist moral relativism (just because other countries get away with it does not make it right for Israel to do -- we Jews, pace Herzl, are not like any other people ... ya know that whole B'ris haTorah thing and all?) ... but that's another blog post, nu?
My gf's Rabbi connected the parsha to the 6 Days' War: even us liberals should not forget that such a strong threat as Israel experienced is tantamount to an invasion (and if you look at the blogs you can see some interesting double talk about this -- one feller claimed that if the situation were reversed, he would have been against Egypt invading Israel and then went on to contradict himself later in the same post) and, as such, Israel by rights does get to keep the occupied territories.
In general, before there is peace, Israel needs to face up to the degree to which its very existance did cause a very real catastrophy for many people. But, OTOH, the Palestinians need to realize that, contrary to what the international community is telling them, Israel has, by the standards of the international community when applied to anyone else but Israel, every right to formally annex the occupied territories, expel the Palestinians, etc (as Israel gained territory in a fundamentally defensive war, and countries have always been allowed to keep such territory, especially when their security is at stake). And the international community needs to stop aiding and abetting the refugee crisis by committing itself to refugee resettlement as it has done in almost all other long-term refugee situations and to face up to the behaviors of many nations, many of which do deserve condemnation, which it somehow only manages to condemn when Israel engages in them.
Of course, we Jews need to also realize the corrosive and fundamentally anti-Jewish nature of Zionist moral relativism (just because other countries get away with it does not make it right for Israel to do -- we Jews, pace Herzl, are not like any other people ... ya know that whole B'ris haTorah thing and all?) ... but that's another blog post, nu?
# posted by alberich @ 2:56 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Are us saying that there is no UN Resolution prohiniting the expulsion of occupied people from their homes?
What I do know, is that Res. 242 requires occupiers to give land back, when the borders are secure. "secure borders" is th e operativew word here.
I personally don't think that giving back land, in a piecemeal fashion, as Israel did with Gaza, works, because the violent people in the occupied territories are focused on achieving a Palestinian State; so any piecemeal of land given toi them ie. Gaza, LebANON, will be used by them to attack Israelis
What I do know, is that Res. 242 requires occupiers to give land back, when the borders are secure. "secure borders" is th e operativew word here.
I personally don't think that giving back land, in a piecemeal fashion, as Israel did with Gaza, works, because the violent people in the occupied territories are focused on achieving a Palestinian State; so any piecemeal of land given toi them ie. Gaza, LebANON, will be used by them to attack Israelis
Israel needs to face up to the degree to which its very existance did cause a very real catastrophy for many people
Huh?
I dont know what the liberal CA day school teachers were telling you... but what catastrophe was caused to those people in 1948? Just days after Israel's birth those "catastrophized" people were told by their Arab brethren to get out of Dodge due to the imminent attack on Israel that the new country was able to defend.
Who exactly had to deal with a catastrophe back then?
Huh?
I dont know what the liberal CA day school teachers were telling you... but what catastrophe was caused to those people in 1948? Just days after Israel's birth those "catastrophized" people were told by their Arab brethren to get out of Dodge due to the imminent attack on Israel that the new country was able to defend.
Who exactly had to deal with a catastrophe back then?
Nu? Nate ... if Israel didn't exist, why would these people have gotten out of dodge? Forget who told whom to do what -- that's actually in dispute somewhat -- although at the time, such population transfers were rather accepted and that they were not, in the case of Israel, is exactly the double standard about which I am complaining ...
... and the Palestinians need to accept that it's ridiculous for them to view it as already having made a compromise (and many sincerely view even coming to the table knowing they won't get 100% right of return as having made an extra-ordinary compromise) and expecting a similar compromise from Israel when the compromise the Palestinians sincerely feel they've made (if they reject 100% right of return) is the rejection of a right no one else really claims.
*
As to the issue of piecemeal land giving back (kero9 -- I forget, are you Rob or Debu? or do you not wish to reveal yourself ;) ) ... you do have a point (although 242 is written in such a way that anyone -- as long as they are in neither the "Jordan is the Palestinian State" crowd nor the "wipe Israel off the map crowd" -- can claim it supports their point of view).
And moreover this gets right to the problem with negotiated settlements. As far as Israel is concerned, it's almost a scientific process -- "how do we know whether the borders will be secure? let's test it by withdrawing a little bit." However, given certain other Israeli actions as well as the general non-faith-based-scientific mindset of the Israeli "testing" approach, the Palestinians naturally find the Israeli actions to be disingenuous and respond with more violence rather than less. But then Israelis say "look at the violence that happened when we gave even a little" ... even if, perhaps the violence is caused by giving only a little.
In order for negotiations to work, both sides need to be willing to test and be tested. So far only one side is willing to do that. But both sides also need to be willing to make leaps of faith ... and the side willing to in any real sense negotiate is unwilling, in a literal sense, to act in good faith (even as they constantly complain about the lack of good faith actions on the other side -- which just, AFAIC, re-enforces certain stereotypes about Jewish hypocrisy ... but that's another discussion, nu?). So there's the conundrum, nu?
... and the Palestinians need to accept that it's ridiculous for them to view it as already having made a compromise (and many sincerely view even coming to the table knowing they won't get 100% right of return as having made an extra-ordinary compromise) and expecting a similar compromise from Israel when the compromise the Palestinians sincerely feel they've made (if they reject 100% right of return) is the rejection of a right no one else really claims.
*
As to the issue of piecemeal land giving back (kero9 -- I forget, are you Rob or Debu? or do you not wish to reveal yourself ;) ) ... you do have a point (although 242 is written in such a way that anyone -- as long as they are in neither the "Jordan is the Palestinian State" crowd nor the "wipe Israel off the map crowd" -- can claim it supports their point of view).
And moreover this gets right to the problem with negotiated settlements. As far as Israel is concerned, it's almost a scientific process -- "how do we know whether the borders will be secure? let's test it by withdrawing a little bit." However, given certain other Israeli actions as well as the general non-faith-based-scientific mindset of the Israeli "testing" approach, the Palestinians naturally find the Israeli actions to be disingenuous and respond with more violence rather than less. But then Israelis say "look at the violence that happened when we gave even a little" ... even if, perhaps the violence is caused by giving only a little.
In order for negotiations to work, both sides need to be willing to test and be tested. So far only one side is willing to do that. But both sides also need to be willing to make leaps of faith ... and the side willing to in any real sense negotiate is unwilling, in a literal sense, to act in good faith (even as they constantly complain about the lack of good faith actions on the other side -- which just, AFAIC, re-enforces certain stereotypes about Jewish hypocrisy ... but that's another discussion, nu?). So there's the conundrum, nu?
Of course, I forgot the disclaimer: all the moonbat liberal stuff is obviously my own opinion and not the opinion of my gf's Rabbi who tends to play these things close to the vest. I don't know where he stands on Israel/Palestine (even after hearing many sermons from him about the subject) but I imagine he's well to the right of me ...
BTW -- what'dy'all think of this "analysis" of mine?.
As the fake explanation of the Chinese character for crisis goes, there is not only danger in what's happening in Gaza but also, from the point of view of a goal of a two-state solution, an opportunity to remove Gaza (which complicates matters both being a hotbed of radicalism and making any Palestinian state discontiguous -- which complicates the formation of such a state) from the equation, thus helping along the formation of a moderate Palestinian state on the West Bank?
Perhaps as soon as Egypt starts engaging in Gaza (so that the solution for Gaza is Egypt reoccupying it) is the time for Israel to make some serious territorial concessions so that it'll happen? But what'll Egypt's incentive be? Perhaps the US can arrange something with the Saudis being shamed ("you claim to love your Arab brethren, why don't you do something about it?") into footing the bill?
As the fake explanation of the Chinese character for crisis goes, there is not only danger in what's happening in Gaza but also, from the point of view of a goal of a two-state solution, an opportunity to remove Gaza (which complicates matters both being a hotbed of radicalism and making any Palestinian state discontiguous -- which complicates the formation of such a state) from the equation, thus helping along the formation of a moderate Palestinian state on the West Bank?
Perhaps as soon as Egypt starts engaging in Gaza (so that the solution for Gaza is Egypt reoccupying it) is the time for Israel to make some serious territorial concessions so that it'll happen? But what'll Egypt's incentive be? Perhaps the US can arrange something with the Saudis being shamed ("you claim to love your Arab brethren, why don't you do something about it?") into footing the bill?
Oh ... I also have a follow-up post to clarify some things which I'll post this evening if I have time before Shabbos ...
Yep. I actually was on the phone with "the king of the gods" yesterday and found out it wasn't him ... so I knew then it was you ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home
