Acting in ignorance (Richard Silverstein)

[Scurrilous]

Israeli extremists have built themselves a vacuum of hatred. Liberal Jews have a responsibility to prevent them flourishing

<snip>

"Last week marked the Jewish festival of Purim, commemorating the salvation of the Jews of Persia from extermination at the hands of the evil Haman. Like many religious holidays, this one has taken on political meaning in the present day. Haman has become the Jewish equivalent of the antichrist, the quintessential Jew hater. In the midrash, Haman is equated with Amalek, the tribe that ambushed the children of Israel in their desert wanderings and was repaid with extermination.

Jewish extremists today note the gallows on which Haman and his sons hung and reserve a similar fate for latter-day enemies of the Jewish people. Among those they liken to Haman is the Palestinian who attacked Jerusalem's Merkaz HaRav yeshiva, his family and his entire village. Shockingly, some extremist Jews even include the prime minister and cabinet members among those who should be taken to the gallows for betraying the Jewish people through the Gaza withdrawal.

Jerusalem resident Gershom Gorenberg notes that before Purim, posters dripping with blood-red lettering showed up all over the city announcing a rally at the East Jerusalem village where the Palestinian terrorist had lived. Demonstrators planned to destroy the family's home, since the government had delayed doing so in order to follow legal protocol. Gorenberg notes that the language used in the poster made clear that a Jewish pogrom was planned. On the day of the demonstration 200 extremists showed up. They were faced by Israeli police attempting to keep the peace and prevent them from entering the village. But the police were easily outflanked and a howling mob descended on the outskirts of the Arab neighbourhood. Luckily residents decided to stay indoors or there might have been serious bloodshed. But the demonstrators, bent on avenging Jewish blood, rampaged through the village smashing windows, destroying property and attempting to terrorise the residents.

A Haaretz editorial called it a pogrom and said the police betrayed amazing incompetence, so much so that it made one wonder whether their heart was in it. Maybe they wanted the demonstrators to teach the Arabs a lesson and deliberately allowed themselves to be outmanned."

more

[bemildred]

1. Kick.

Some of the comments are good too.

[msmcghee]

2. It should be titled "Writing in Ignorance".

Just another long winded-trope about how the Jews are just as bat-shit crazy to kill Arabs as Arabs are to kill Jews. I get pretty sick of reading this crap from college-educated elites who seem to know how to write good paragraphs - but never figured out how to reason well enough to put things in them that made sense.

Richard, there is no equivalence between the things you are comparing. To attempt to do so - even if you devote a thousand words more than necessary - only reveals your ignorance and bias. On one hand you have Jewish citizens terrorized daily and their children purposely targeted and killed, followed by the deaths of their children celebrated in the streets of Gaza and praised by the religious and political leadership. On the other hand you have an angry mob demonstrating in response to those killings - and the perception that their government has not done enough to stop attacks against them. Did that mob injure or kill any Palestinians in that neighborhood during their unfortunate rampage? No! That's one fact you got right, though you played it down skillfully.

You see, targeted killings of innocent youngsters is not quite the same thing as civil disobedience that only produces property damage - but keep up with your logically tortured narratives. You're doing wonders to education those who just could not believe that a people would so consistently seek out murderous violence to resolve their differences - people who don't follow the conflict that closely but want to believe that any people would reach out for peace rather than war if given the chance.

From articles like yours, full of conjecture and assumptions, but very short of reasonable conclusions - they will only see how hopelessly wrong they were.

[bemildred]

3. Well, I did think it was well written.

And I think the problem that religious/nationalist extremists pose is one Israel ignores at it's peril.

[msmcghee]

4. I agree that Richard is a good writer.

It's the content I find so consistently lacking. I just don't have much tolerance for political agendas disguised as reasoned analysis. It's the deception that bothers me. Like most pro-Palestinians - they love to talk about incidents in the conflict but never about the principles they use to judge the morality of those events.

****************

I'm not sure just how perilous the religious right is to Israel's existence. My sense is they'd be a lot less influential if the Palestinians hadn't had something other than far-right control of what has happened on that side of the conflict since 1948.

As I was discussing in another thread, states are formed primarily to defend the citizens from outside aggression. When a nation is under deadly attack from outside and your people are being killed - the voices of ultra-nationalists start to sound pretty sensible.

It has much more to do with human nature than politics. 10,000 years ago they would have called them ultra-tribalists - or something equivalent - and then as now, their influence would rise with the seriousness of the outside threats they faced.

[bemildred]

5. The problem with your argument is that religious/nationalist "extremists"

don't have a particularly good record of protecting the interests they claim to protect. They are violent, irrational, intransigent, and unrealistic. There are many examples. Once you go down that road, you don't come back this side of disaster. This is a common argument made against the rejectionist Palestinians for example, that they have done great harm to their own people. There is no reason to think that the religious right will do better by Israelis if they get power, and there is a very real threat of civil insurrection if any realistic attempts are made to hammer out a workable resolution with the Palestinians.

[msmcghee]

7. " . . violent, irrational, intransigent, and unrealistic . . "

That's a good definition for all-out war.

If you look at history and all the major wars that have been fought - even in just the last few hundred years - when side A is totally (and ideologically) committed to destroying side B - usually the only thing that will stop them is if they suffer enough destruction themselves that further execution of that war becomes physically impossible. Often, nothing short of very serious destruction of side B's people and infrastructure will be necessary.

(Dick Dastardly wrote a great post on this a little while back. I'll try to find it.)

It's my impression that the Israelis have been hoping against hope since 1948 that the Palestinians and their supporters will come to their senses before such terrible destruction becomes necessary. I have seen the Israelis try everything except the military destruction of their enemies. They have repeatedly pulled their punches, withdrawn from battles, returned captured land, unilaterally withdrawn from occupied territory (Gaza), provided power, food, medical care, attended untold peace conferences, granted concessions - on and on. All their proffers have been met with violence - and usually as much violence as the Palestinians are capable of providing at the time.

The problem now is that as Hamas gets better weapons and training from Iran - the threat to Israel becomes seriously greater. The fence seems to have prevented many suicide attacks - only to be replaced by longer range and more powerful rockets that are fired daily into Israeli cities - and aimed at civilians.

As these new rockets are brought on line and average Israelis start to see how vulnerable they are and how eager the militants are to exploit their vulnerability - there will be more and more average Israelis supporting Israel's right wing and electing right wing MK's. At some point a majority of Israelis will be joining the right wing and demanding that their government put an end to the threat once and for all. They will finally realize that pulling their punches and hoping for peace with a people who truly want to destroy them - is not going to work.

I hope it doesn't reach that stage but all the indications point to that outcome. It's really in the hands of the Palestinian leadership at this point. Israel is not going to end the occupation and allow those long range rockets into the WB. At some point Israel will decide that the time has come to put an end to the attacks, once and for all - and no matter what it takes. The more people like Richard justify the Palestinian "resistance" and vilify Israel's defense - the more emboldened the militants become and the more monetary support they get. Richard is taking a significant part in ensuring that any peaceful negotiated outcome will be impossible and in bringing that day of terrible decision closer and closer.

[bemildred]

12. Israel is a small and weak state, in size and in numbers.

It has made it this far by virtue of unwavering support from the USA and other "Western Powers". Those powers have their own agenda, and their support is not without it's limits. Despite it's hyper-militarism, Israel would lose an all out war with the Arabs, if left to it's own devices. It would be bled white in short order. Not that the Arabs would come off well either. It is no accident that all of Israel's hot wars with the Arabs have been short. It is not lack or will that has prevented the subjugation of the Palestinians, but the consequences of such an act and the lack of means to carry it out. Whatever long-term viability Israel has as a Jewish state depends on a political resolution with the Arabs, and the longer that is fended off, the more unlikely it becomes.

[msmcghee]

16. Yes, many Palestinians and Arabs believe those myths too.

According to the accounts I've seen, Israel had almost no assistance from the US or the West generally from 1948 through the '67 War. They fought their own battles and wars with their own resources. In some cases the US actually threatened Israel with political and military opposition if the war crossed any lines that we laid down. Despite that, every one of those wars ended in more or less an Arab rout that Israel suspended before complete military and political victory. In some cases it was because they had no desire to inflict the number of casualties that would be required nor to take responsibility for the conquered / occupied state. In others it was mostly because of - or perhaps also in hopes of - a more readily negotiated peace treaty.

But of course, Arab culture requires that a military defeat at the hand of Jews could only be possible with the great assistance of - and conniving with - a mighty superpower like the US. Arab news accounts and literature of the day is full of such face-saving pronouncements. I can assure you that if any Arab power or coalition of Arab powers had the ability to destroy Israel in any of those conflicts they would have done so - and I think, based on some accounts I've read - that the US would have let it happen.

I find it interesting (not surprising) that pro-Palestinian folks here buy into that "weak and corrupt hyper-military power" narrative so readily. For them, I suspect it's more that they hate Israel so much that they the idea of Israel as a small and weak state that must be supported by large imperial powers - satisfies their larger leftist ideology.

I guess if a set of beliefs feels good enough, any fanciful narrative can become the dominant paradigm within specific "tribes".

But then, maybe mine is the narrative that more seriously violates reality. I guess we will see in the not so distant future. I put my money on Israel still being there after the smoke clears and the dust settles.

[bemildred]

17. Yah, time will tell. nt

[bemildred]

19. I just want to add that the notion of "poor little Israel" is not something

the Palestinians made up, I've seen it many times here coming from pro-Israeli posters. The Palestinians tend to see Israel as a 800 pound gorilla. To be fair, I haven't seen it much lately, and it usually comes up in the context of the need for continued US support. But it's annoying to see it called a myth made up by critics of Israel.

(And a kick for Richard.)

[msmcghee]

20. I'm getting confused here.

In post #12 you essentially say that Israel's might is a myth, that they are really a ". . small and weak state, in size and in numbers". You say that without US assistance they'd be unable to wage war against Arab states. You say that they don't totally subjugate the Palestinians because they don't have the "means to do so".

Then in post #19 you say the "poor little Israel" myth is made up by Israel's supporters.

Finally, you say it's annoying for you "to see it called a myth made up by critics of Israel."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but you are a critic of Israel and you're the one who wrote post #12 where you essentially said that Israel's might is a myth. Just what are you annoyed about here? Have you suddenly become a supporter of Israel and now you want to claim credit for the myth?

I don't get it.

[bemildred]

21. Yeah, I know you get confused a lot.

I'm annoyed at being criticized (being called pro-Palestinian, saying it's a myth, various other baseless assertions) for using an argument (which I agree with) that has commonly been used by pro-Israeli posters.

Edit: and your discourse on what "Arab culture" requires is most amusing.

[pelsar]

8. i liked the gaza withdrawl.

it shoved all the fantasys aside and showed what the real facts are:

.....there is a very real threat of civil insurrection if any realistic attempts are made to hammer out a workable resolution with the Palestinians.

pre gaza withdrawl the israeli right threatened a civil war, threatened that the those in the army would refuse etc etc etc.

_____

the right managed a protest of no more than estimated (if i remember correctly about 20,000) and the army had no problem with its personal. When it comes time for a real agreement that the israeli people are behind, the israeli far right will have little to say......

[bemildred]

10. Well, I hope you are right.

As I said to Ms Celeste, it seems to me that they wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers or their contribution to the common good.

[MaryCeleste]

6. They don't ignore them

but as long as they stay within the lines, they can speak, publish, and demonstrate

[bemildred]

9. It appears to me at present that Mr Olmert, for example, is restrained

by the need to appease them. Of course he is a weak leader. They have certainly not been averse to a bit of violence in the past. Mr Cook in the other piece I posted today cites a fellow that thinks that in the end they will go along, that they will choose unity. I think that they might or might not. I don't expect that they will go along quietly. They seem quite selfish in pursuing their own interests as they see them, while leaving others to shoulder the burden of defending and supporting the state.

[MaryCeleste]

11. No party in Israel is big enough to form a government, so small fringe parties get accomodated

well out of proportion to their numbers. Not quite as bad as Italy, but some times I wonder. The accommodation does not extend to riots though.

[bemildred]

13. When the freedom of action of the state is restrained by the need to accomodate

loons, it weakens the state. Why that is so is secondary.

[pelsar]

14. i doubt they will go along quietly...

but in the end they will have little choice...they will get little backing from mainstream israel when the time comes. They'll make lots of noise, scream alot (especially the 15-17 yr old girls)....but no more than that......

[bemildred]

15. Well, they don't have their own army, it's true. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Since when has speaking out against extremists been ignorant?

Extremism is a problem on both sides of this conflict, and for anyone to make out that one side is worse and therefore extremism on the other side must be ignored isn't doing a thing to working towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict...

Both Israelis and Palestinians have been victims of violence which can lead to hatred. Trying to make out that extremists in Israel aren't part of the problem because they're justified in their actions (btw, what you described as a mere 'demonstration' was described by Ha'aretz as a pogrom) is exactly the same argument used by Palestinian extremists....

As the Ha'aretz editorial said, it's no thanks to the police that no-one was injured or killed by that mob of rampaging extremists. It was down to luck and people staying indoors and hiding...