Jump to content

Internal vs external criticism of Israel


Elrostar

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'm basically copying this from the other thread because I think it's a sufficiently interesting topic that it's worth debating on its own.

For people who are interested in the actual merits of to what extent outside criticism of Israel can or cannot be constructive, there was an interesting bit in On The Media this week which I highly recommend people listen to (apparently the transcript will be up tomorrow). It referenced an article from the New York Review of Books on this topic.

To me this is actually an interesting question. Do Israeli members of the board feel that outside criticism poses something of an existential threat to their state? Does the US need to be unwavering in its support of Israel, particularly at times like this when the rest of the world is taking a more negative stance? Or is it acceptable for voices, even within the Jewish-American community, to voice concerns and criticism without being labeled allies of terrorists?

Obviously there exists such a healthy debate within Israel. The question is whether there's a difference in how these things must be seen from without, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, criticism is very legitimate.

The problem I see, (and other Israelis see it too, I believe) is the difference between criticism and dictating policy. This occurs often with American Jews, and is very infuriating. (most) Israelis can accept criticism, but cannot commands from the outside.

This comes into play especially when certain elements believe that if only America imposed peace on the Israelis and Palestinians, peace would be achieved. The idea of an outside force coercing Israel, a democratic country that is working toward peace with the Palestinians, is aggravating, especially in light of the fact that dictatorships are engaged in dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To respond to datepalm's last post from the other thread:

More importantly in any run longer than tommorow, strengthened the positions of two hardline governments and reentrenched positions across the board. The blockade won't be lifted, moderating influences wil be delegitimized and the extremist, non compromising, institutionally anti-peace hamas have gained new allies. Mizrach tichon hadash, baby.

But continue to enjoy your armchair activism. I'm not one to criticize things that make people feel good about themselves.

The relief flotilla project is an end by itself, to bring needed supplies to the people of Gaza suffering under Israel's blockade. Seeking for byzantine motives and results from it is an inane game suitable only for those who enjoy spewing hot air that amounts to much ado about nothing.

Speaking of much ado about nothing, could you remind us how your laboriously hidden dissent has done anything to remedy the problems mentioned above? ;) I seem to have lost track of the numbers of intifada and settlement constructions over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, some of the op-ed pieces from the Israeli left that I've read in mainstream jewish papers are pretty heavy stuff against state actions/policies. To find the equivalent in the US, you have to read motherjones or counterpunch, and those are hardly mainstream sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the US need to be unwavering in its support of Israel, particularly at times like this when the rest of the world is taking a more negative stance? Or is it acceptable for voices, even within the Jewish-American community, to voice concerns and criticism without being labeled allies of terrorists?

Why is this question limited to the US? I think the positions of other countries are just as interesting, perhaps even more so (e.g. Turkey).

I consider myself pro-Israel in the sense that I think the country has a right to exist, but as others have stated, that doesn't mean I condone all actions taken by the Israeli government and military (far from it, in fact). I also think it's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine at the same time, in the sense that I want both parties to work out a solution which doesn't boil down to annihilating one another.

The way I see it, this conflict has dragged for so long and both sides have committed so many atrocities that any black or white which may have existed at the start has long been smudged beyond recognition. Thinking in terms of "good" and "bad" brings us little, I feel; better to be pragmatic and search for a modus vivendi that works, rather than continuing policies and behaviour which are clearly counterproductive.

We have national elections coming up next week. It's interesting that most parties have formulated an official stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict in their programs. Now, it hasn't been a big issue in TV debates and such, but apparently it's deemed important enough that parties have to take a stand, even though the Netherlands is not directly involved in this thorny issue.

Traditionally, Dutch governments have been rather pro-Israel in their policy, undoubtedly due in part because the Christian Democrats have been in almost all our coalitions since World War II. The Jews also had lots of goodwill with the general population because of their sufferings under the Nazis, but this "holocaust factor" is becoming less and less relevant for younger generations. By many, Israel is no longer automatically regarded as the good guy - rather the opposite, even.

It'll be interesting to see to what extent this shift in sympathies will effect Dutch policy towards Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comes into play especially when certain elements believe that if only America imposed peace on the Israelis and Palestinians, peace would be achieved. The idea of an outside force coercing Israel, a democratic country that is working toward peace with the Palestinians, is aggravating, especially in light of the fact that dictatorships are engaged in dialogue.

i think the classic rejoinder to this would be that Israel's current policies are not, in fact, the product of a fully independent, democratic state, but are instead largely made possible by the political and military support of the U.S., whose own policy goals have sometimes been compromised by what seems to be an ungrateful client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to support Israel pretty much unconditionally. That's changed in the last year or two as their belligerence and militarism has started to remind me of Germany. I think they have a right to exist, I don't think they have a right to become the new South Africa instituting a new apartheid. I hate the shit they pull like attacking the flotilla, bombing the fuck out of gaza etc. They've really tried hard in the last two years to make themselves into a country you feel good about being against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason people get so defensive about Israel is because people attack it so aggressively over the smallest things and pretend that murky situations are as clear as day.

As example, in roughly the same time period N.Korea fired on a ship without provocation and killed forty six people, and Israel shot nine or ten people after they were beaten with clubs, had their weapons seized, and had members of their military taken hostage below the decks of the ship they had boarded in an effort to enforce an international blockade.

Now look at the proportional outrage inspired by these two events. One is off the charts and the other is pretty meh.

Criticism of Israel can be legitimate. The level commonly displayed however really isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason people get so defensive about Israel is because people attack it so aggressively over the smallest things and pretend that murky situations are as clear as day.

As example, in roughly the same time period N.Korea fired on a ship without provocation and killed forty six people, and Israel shot nine or ten people after they were beaten with clubs, had their weapons seized, and had members of their military taken hostage below the decks of the ship they had boarded in an effort to enforce an international blockade.

Now look at the proportional outrage inspired by these two events. One is off the charts and the other is pretty meh.

Except they are not equivalent. One is a democratic nation that receives tremendous US backing, while the other is a communist dictatorship. There is a higher level of standards of appropriate behavior for one versus the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-Law

Also, the North Korean government's actions aren't controversial: virtually nobody justifies them, unlike Israel's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\

\ and Israel shot nine or ten people after they were beaten with clubs, had their weapons seized, and had members of their military taken hostage below the decks of the ship they had boarded

you board a ship in international waters without permission to be there, you can expect an unpleasant reaction.

I fully support Israel having a right to be there, however their actions make me wonder if the US should be offering anything more than token support for them anymore.

Im so glad to see Europe getting sick of the way Israel uses their allies. Yes the Holocaust was horrid, but grow up and stop acting like the world still owes you and needs to back you whenever you decide to break laws and treat other humans as dirt.

Both sides over there are so stuck in the same rut, both sides do immense damage to any peace effort. I feel that if Israel were to step up and prove they are the bigger person then in a few years attitudes may change on the other side and it might make for chance for a true peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except they are not equivalent. One is a democratic nation that receives tremendous US backing, while the other is a communist dictatorship. There is a higher level of standards of appropriate behavior for one versus the other.

Your counter argument that sinking ships absent provocation is appropriate behavior for communist dictators and thus there is little reason to be outraged by such things? I must concede originality, but I do not think the argument is a compelling justification such disproportionate reactions.

you board a ship in international waters without permission to be there, you can expect an unpleasant reaction.

The same is pretty much true when you attempt to run an international blockade. The difference is that Israel isn't the one that initiated either the confrontation or the violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same is pretty much true when you attempt to run an international blockade. The difference is that Israel isn't the one that initiated either the confrontation or the violence.

Wait it's an international blockade now? I thought it was a blockade in Israel's national waters, and one that is highly disputed at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standards for North Korea and Israel are different. There isn't much North Korea can do at this point that would surprise anyone. They are expected to do terrible things. That doesn't mean it's okay. And since no one is really on North Korea's side, there isn't much that can be done, barring all-out war.

Israel has lots of allies. And they're often displayed as the only democracy in the Middle East, a partner and friend. So when they do something like this, that is HIGHLY publicized and are proud of it and defend it... yes, the international reaction is different.

Think of it this way: If a murderer murders someone, that is expected. Not acceptable, but it fits the definition. If your friend knocks over a convenience store, that's a bit more shocking.

(btw, NK situation was pretty damn big news for two months after it happened, not just the one+ week we're going on for Israal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason people get so defensive about Israel is because people attack it so aggressively over the smallest things and pretend that murky situations are as clear as day.

As example, in roughly the same time period N.Korea fired on a ship without provocation and killed forty six people, and Israel shot nine or ten people after they were beaten with clubs, had their weapons seized, and had members of their military taken hostage below the decks of the ship they had boarded in an effort to enforce an international blockade.

Now look at the proportional outrage inspired by these two events. One is off the charts and the other is pretty meh.

Criticism of Israel can be legitimate. The level commonly displayed however really isn't.

The problem with this argument is that you have to resort to comparing Israel with the bad guy de jour. This is hardly compelling and in itself rather telling.

And while measuring with different standards is really unfair, I do expect more from a state like Israel. In fact, especially by Israel, because of their history. They opted for a different way as I would have wished for, which makes me sad. It's understandable, but really, really sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since NK has been brought up, let me just say that I've come to suspect China feels the same kind of aggrieved frustration towards North Korea that the USA feels towards Israel: both are super-states attempting to maintain cagey, world-girdling foreign policies, but both face a credibility threat if they were to divest from the client which compromises this caginess and pushes them into heavily biased positions...leaving both hegemons frequently forced to smack themselves on the foreheads and groan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same is pretty much true when you attempt to run an international blockade.

it isnt an international blockade....

as for Israel and their friendship status with the US, they spy more on our country than (as of the 90s) any other country, they steal military secrets and have turned and sold those secrets to China. What a great friend to have...

We get a base to use in the middle east, we get some co-operation with the Mossad/etc. Both things are very important. But one has to wonder, at what point is a line crossed by the US being made to look like a weak, ineffectual lapdog of Israel? Does what we get balance out what we lose?

Take the Iraq war, what was the true driving need to go after Saddam? We all know the WMD line was just a tool, so in the end what was the real reason? It sure wasn't access to cheap oil, since we would have to be given oil for free for a long time to balance the books. It wasn't going after Osama since it was clear Saddam wasnt in bed with groups like that either.. Was it to protect our friend? Maybe, and that could be a valid goal if it was admitted to and explained to the US prior to the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...