Jump to content

Internal vs external criticism of Israel


Elrostar

Recommended Posts

To get back to the blame game, this holds entirely for the anti-current-actions-of-Israel faction - except there has been no distinction there between political aims and current actions in support of the flotilla, whihc needed responding too, on account of being stupid.

Oh, agreed.

The reverse is also true of course, it's possible to defend an organization and not it's current actions. The problem usually comes when you're not certain who is doing what.

And it gets even more troublesome when we get both types of argument at once, from different people.

For instance, in the flotilla thing I personally think the IDF acted incmpetently and rashly (depending on what accounts you trust, criminally so) but I don't disagree with stopping the flotilla per se.

I also think the flotilla organizers created a provocation deliberately, and that it ended up having very few positive consequences, if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, agreed.

The reverse is also true of course, it's possible to defend an organization and not it's current actions. The problem usually comes when you're not certain who is doing what.

And it gets even more troublesome when we get both types of argument at once, from different people.

For instance, in the flotilla thing I personally think the IDF acted incmpetently and rashly (depending on what accounts you trust, criminally so) but I don't disagree with stopping the flotilla per se.

I also think the flotilla organizers created a provocation deliberately, and that it ended up having very few positive consequences, if any.

You blindly pro zionist hack. What about San Remo?:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the entire thing, how would you classify criticism from someone like Dror Feiler? (born in Israel, served as a paratrooper, jaild for refusing to serve in the occupied territories, moved to Sweden, made artwork that made the Israeli ambassador so mad he threw it in a pond, punched in the face during th entire flotilla fiasco)

Is he doing internal or externa criticism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't support actions which strengthen Hamas and give it legitimacy and standing as well as strengthening its position amongs the Gaza population? Such, as for example, a flotilla expressely more interested in the political and media ramification of breaking a blockade against Hamas than actually getting their supplies to the civilian population?

The flotilla was interested in breaking the blockade against the civilian population of Gaza, the world's biggest prison camp, than against Hamas specifically (though certainly some in the fleet may be pro-Hamas, since the Turkish financiers of some of the supplies have links related to Hamas). As already discussed in the prior thread, Hamas are not particularly restricted by the blockade given its permeability through the tunnels from Egypt, which the Egyptian government has done little to close down, through which weapons, explosives and supplies for Hamas flow without significant interruption.

If the blockade was lifted, Hamas would claim it as a victory, that they'd outlasted the Israeli siege and so on, and try to claim greater legitimacy but then so what? Is that a reason to continue to punish a million people for the actions of a few? Or do they deserve what they get for voting into power a terrorist organisation (of course, the thousands that didn't vote for Hamas are also being punished)? Did the civilian German population deserve to be firebombed back into the Stone Age for the actions of its government that they'd also elected into power? That's a difficult question to get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man. I start a thread on what seems like a specifically narrow topic, and instead it spirals into the usual Israel/Palestine mess.

There have certainly been some nice contributions here from certain people, but on the whole, would it really be such an onerous task to read the articles I linked to before launching into a dose of the 'old regular'?

I was really trying to understand the difference between internal vs external (specifically American) debate and criticism regarding the issues in Israel.

I personally found a few of the things that Steven Rosen said (in that clip) to be kind of chilling. The dichotomy he set up between being Israel's friend and being its enemy did seem like it very much of the "you're with us or you're against us" school of thinking (like our last president's approach to foreign policy).

And I was a little unnerved by his statements about the idea that being a friend means being a friend always, not just when your friend acts the way you like.

So can we please keep the regular questions of the Israel/Palestine debate out of this thread? There are plenty of other threads for that. Consider this a meta topic or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it was, Yoadm was specifically comparing reactions to the actions of the US and the UK to reactions to the actions of Israel.

Yes, as one example. Regarding how the world treats their actions, a few days ago, the US killed an Al-qaeda operative, with all his daughters. Barely anything on the news. When Israel does something similar (like the killing of Shkaky, where his family dies aswell), it didn't leave the headlines for two weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Here all day tommorow. (with a break to got to a protest at city hall around afternoon sometime though.) Want to meet up to coordinate strategy and get some falafel made with the blood of palestinian children? (The best kind, for those interested in the culinary side of things.)

Sure, why not. Im finished with my studies by 16:00. What are you studying, btw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally found a few of the things that Steven Rosen said (in that clip) to be kind of chilling. The dichotomy he set up between being Israel's friend and being its enemy did seem like it very much of the "you're with us or you're against us" school of thinking (like our last president's approach to foreign policy).

And I was a little unnerved by his statements about the idea that being a friend means being a friend always, not just when your friend acts the way you like.

That's a pretty stupid way of looking at the world (Rosen's). Britain and America are closer allies than just about any other two nations in the world (even the USA and Israel, since British and American troops have fought alongside each other many times), but that didn't stop the USA staying out of the Falklands War (whilst giving us some intel by the back door) or Britain ducking out of Vietnam. Being friends with a country doesn't mean slavishly standing by it in everything it does, something Blair needed to have remembered in 2002-03.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer seems pretty simple I'd say. When do you call someone your friend?

1) Emotional investment - how much does he (positively) care about about you? Does he love you? Likes to be with you?

2) Helps you - Is he there for you in your time of need? Does he do stuff for you just because? Does he defend you against enemies verbally/physically when you're attacked?

3) Common/similar goals and worldview - Do you share some of them or appreciate the ones held by the other?

A friend has all three of those things to some degree. If he has one of them to excess he might pass by with less of the others.

Jewish Americans who don't like AIPAC's position say they're Israel's friends as well because, well, they're related and therefore have emotional investment. This sounds plausible partially because Israel is too lax in its citizenship laws. Nothing is required to acquire a citizenship if you're such an American Jew beside getting born properly and visiting Israel. If Israel would add a clause to the law requiring a swearing of allegiance in order to receive the citizenship I think things will be much better. Not only to Israel but to non-Israeli Jews as well that will have less doubts raised about their loyalty to the country they live in. In short, saying that you care is nice, but not enough to call you friend.

US has supported Israel on numerous occasions and believes that they share a common worldview and ideology. It also seems to like Israel. So we can say it is Israel's friend even though it did bad things to it at times (like using it as a paper shield to sign arm deals with unsavory regimes while hoarding the nicer deals all to itself, or tearing up contracts Israel signs with other countries at the last moment on the ground that they're endangering its security)

Bush - a bit of a bearish friend

Obama -too early to tell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm, re: UN resolutions and "deep regret", "regret" and all that other stuff.

Israel is still here. How many Israelis have died since 48, how many Arabs?

As per usual I'm posting without any proof, buy I'm thinking they say these things to placate the Arab world, but have no fear that in the end they'll side with Israel. Maybe not in international toothless rethoric, but in the things that count, military and economics.

As for the media coverage? It's because the western media is racist (in the softest version of the word). People in the US or the west in general doesn't really care about what happens in Sri Lanka, in the Congo or heck, not even in Darfur (where almost 500 000 civilians have died since 2003) - or at least the media does not think they care, and thus don't use their time covering those crisis.

They love to hear about what happens in Israel though, as they can relate to it; it is a "western state" in a unique situation. The middle east is like the Paris Hilton of conflics, not a day goes by without some news from down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a friend i in trouble you help out. But if a friend's acting like a dick you tell him so.

Part of being a friend is trying to make sure your friends don't do stupid things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm, re: UN resolutions and "deep regret", "regret" and all that other stuff.

And more. The UN has constantly tied Israel's hands in the past, when it ignored other nations.

Israel is still here. How many Israelis have died since 48, how many Arabs?

21,000 Israeli's and 60,000 Arabs in 80 years of conflict. Tragic as it is, it's absolutely nothing. In Haba alone, the Syrians killed 30,000 in 3 weeks and no one even knows of this incident. Black september? 7000-10,000 dead. And there are conflicts like Darfur in which 250,000 were killed in 10 years. Overall, there are over 50 conflicts bloodier than the Israeli-Arab conflict (The Israeli Palestinian conflict is even smaller), some causing millions of deaths, in the last few decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the entire thing, how would you classify criticism from someone like Dror Feiler? (born in Israel, served as a paratrooper, jaild for refusing to serve in the occupied territories, moved to Sweden, made artwork that made the Israeli ambassador so mad he threw it in a pond, punched in the face during th entire flotilla fiasco)

Is he doing internal or externa criticism?

For one thing, I know plenty of people jailed for refusing to serve in the territories who did not move to Sweden, have never been in any fights, and most tellingly - did not turn to postmodern art for solace. :dunno:

I don't know that its a question of internal vs. external. I admit i'm quite wary of any opinion from anyone outside of anywhere becuase of the combination of lack of contextual, in depth knowledge and the freedom from living with the consequences seem to often tilt towards simplistic and extremist, and most importantly, not realistically achievable positions. (Its been years since i've had any but the most basic political opinions about anywhere else in the world - ever since I got old enough to understand that the media that is so shallow, even with the best of intentions, about Israel is the same media I rely on for my opinions about other places.)

Beyond that though I think anyone gets to say whatever they want, they just can't expect to have it respected, especially when its based on shallow assumptions, whether those are "Settlers are zionists" (they aren't) or "The flotilla people's actions will lead to relief for gaza and peace" (they probably won't), so when someone says that I support Israel blindly becuase I won't support what they think blindly - well, thats just offensive.

ETA - see TFJ's post above. "You don't think the way I think you ought to think, so admit you're a narrow minded nationalist," When none of us have any flipping idea what Yoadms actual opinions are.

I personally found a few of the things that Steven Rosen said (in that clip) to be kind of chilling. The dichotomy he set up between being Israel's friend and being its enemy did seem like it very much of the "you're with us or you're against us" school of thinking (like our last president's approach to foreign policy).

Look, to be honest, and maybe American jews won't agree with me (And I agree with Shadow Shoe that the citizenship law might require a bit of...tightening. Not a lot, but a bit.) but my impression is that jewish american politics are mostly about Jewish americans these days.

Israel is a jewish-american issue (along with assimilation, education, conversions, religous streams, orthodoxy, and probably more stuff I have no inkling of) They are not Israeli, and Steven Rosen owes a lot more to American political and media culture and foreign policy attitudes than to Israeli ones. The way these kinds of debates are conducted in the US is both quite foreign and basically irrelevant to my own opinions. Which isn't to say I necessarily disagree with them all the time or anything - I think the letter put out by a bunch of Jewish European intellectuals a while back was intellegent and respectful, for example - just that foreign debates about Israel are no proxy whatsoever for the way Israelis view the place and the kind of support or criticism that we offer it.

Wert - I don't support the blockade in and of itself, and think it should be immediately lightened massively in terms of what is allowed through. I just don't support trying to break it for political provocation either, considering what the practical achievments of something like that are turning out to be. In short - it has done exactly for the people of Gaza what agreeing to sail to Ashdod and getting their stuff trucked to Gaza would have. And eventually did.

Yoadm - Cool, I think i'll be back at the university by 4 after the protest. (I'm taking Geography, and now Economics next year.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking Geography, and now Economics next year.

Unless they cover Economics in a dramatically different fashion in Israel what they teach you might not be exactly in line with Marxist theory. You might have to sell out and become a Keynesian!

Still on the plus side you'll be able to tell hilarious jokes about economists and assumptions. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wert - I don't support the blockade in and of itself, and think it should be immediately lightened massively in terms of what is allowed through. I just don't support trying to break it for political provocation either, considering what the practical achievments of something like that are turning out to be. In short - it has done exactly for the people of Gaza what agreeing to sail to Ashdod and getting their stuff trucked to Gaza would have. And eventually did.

Well, the practical benefit of the blockade runners has been to get the blockade back on to the front page of every newspaper and at the front of every news programme and to get more pressure applied to Israel to end the siege, all of which has been accomplished. Egypt has also opened its border crossing for an indeterminate period as a direct result of this pressure. So on that basis the blockade-running has had a measurable and somewhat beneficial impact.

Interestingly, literally just before I wrote this, the BBC interviewed a reporter for Haaretz who said that Israel is becoming internationally isolated on a scale comparable to North Korea and Iran, must be careful not to alienate its allies in the West altogether and most Israelis don't 'get it'. I have no idea what Haaretz is, how mainstream it is, what its political bias is etc, so I don't know how significant that is. I just thought it was a striking comment from a reporter for an Israeli newspaper, not to mention a possibly hyperbolic one (Israel is becoming internationally isolated, but I don't think it's at that stage yet).

Apparently Iran has offered to send ships to take aid into Gaza and Hamas, showing some intelligence, has apparently declined the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoadm, why don't you just come out and admit that you're a narrow-minded nationalist.

The UN has never tied Israel's hands in a any significant way, because the USA vetoes every anti-Israel move from the UN.

The fact that the US acts as a balancer to this kind of bias within the UN is irrelevant. My point was that there is an extreme form of double standards applied to Israel by most of the world, and I've provided concrete evidence to back this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the US acts as a balancer to this kind of bias within the UN is irrelevant. My point was that there is an extreme form of double standards applied to Israel by most of the world, and I've provided concrete evidence to back this up.

Well, yeah, the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world that is not treated with kiddie gloves is unfortunate. I agree with you: I'd love to see more investigations into the actions of other states.

But what exactly has that to do with the actions of Israel? The fact that other people are doing worse things (they are) in no way justifies Israel's actions. (There may be OTHER justifications for Israel's actions, and that's a much more complicated ethical/political debate) It feels like a very odd variant of the "But all my friends do it!" argument that kids make. Yeah, they might do that and worse. Doesen't make what you did any less wrong.

EDIT: israelis aren't the only ones who do this obviously, everyone does, and especially americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, the fact that Israel is the only nation in the world that is not treated with kiddie gloves is unfortunate. I agree with you: I'd love to see more investigations into the actions of other states.

But what exactly has that to do with the actions of Israel? The fact that other people are doing worse things (they are) in no way justifies Israel's actions. (There may be OTHER justifications for Israel's actions, and that's a much more complicated ethical/political debate) It feels like a very odd variant of the "But all my friends do it!" argument that kids make. Yeah, they might do that and worse. Doesen't make what you did any less wrong.

EDIT: israelis aren't the only ones who do this obviously, everyone does, and especially americans.

I didn't say Israel shouldn't be criticised, It should, but the obsessive and demonic criticism emphasizes a far more amazing fact: The silence of the world, or at least relative silence, in the face of the systematic extermination of millions of others by Muslim and Arab regimes.

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...