Powered by TypePad

« Great Moments In The Epistemic Closure Debate | Main | In Space, No One Can Hear Doc Drezner Scream »

April 26, 2010

Comments

Danube of Thought

What do little generals and admirals do when they retire from active service?

What's with the "little?"

How many of them become 'lobbyists' and 'advisors' and sit on the boards of directors for companies who employ and use lobbyists and advisors in D.C.? What boards of directors has the good little general in question belong to?

Concerning "lobbyists," I believe the answer is zero. Concerning boards of directors, you have created the very strong impression that you have no idea what a director does. And again, why describe Gen. Jones as "little?"

Danube of Thought

"Has there ever been a negotiated peace without one of the parties having been defeated?"

Panmunjong, 1953. Over half a century of peace between North and South Korea, with neither side having been defeated.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

It's not really a spammer (unless Chinese is involved) - the same thing happened the last time I mocked the antisemitic pustule. While anonymity is understandable for some, the true coward uses it as a shield.

I believe DoT's reference to "sick" is on the mark.

anduril

As a Christian you should recognize that what the Israeli's have done defending themselves in the last few decades is exceedingly tame compared to what God instructed them to do in the OT.
As then, their reluctance to be as ruthless as necessary is far more of a problem than their alleged savagery.

I'm a Christian, and that means I'm not a fundamentalist. I'll agree that the actions of the Israelis have been tame compared to the genocide that fundamentalists think God commanded the Israelis to practice. Fortunately, most Israelis aren't fundamentalists and aren't as insane as their "Christian" and Neocon supporters.

Nor, I should add, am I a situational ethicist, for whom the end (?) justifies the means ("as ruthless as necessary").

I also believe that a distinction should be made between creation of the state of Israel and maintenance of that state. They're obviously closely related, but situations never stay the same.

Danube of Thought

Minus 12 at Raz. Fifty-eight percent favor repeal of Obamacare.

anduril

Why was there any war at all in the first place? Because while Jews accepted the partition of Palestine, Arabs rejected it and vowed to "drive the Jews into the sea".

I think David Ben Gurion gave the honest answer:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army."

The fact that their country was taken with the complicity of Western nations and essentially without they're having had a meaningful voice in the matter can hardly be expected to reconcile the Palestinians--as Ben Gurion recognized. Just be honest.

anduril

Rick Ballard, a scamster is using your name and an email account to spam.
Friends of Rick be on alert.

I'm on alert, but haven't seen anything yet. Or is that a typo, for "hamster?" :-)

Danube of Thought

Good God--this long-winded butthole is insane.

anduril

It's not really a spammer (unless Chinese is involved) - the same thing happened the last time I mocked the antisemitic pustule. While anonymity is understandable for some, the true coward uses it as a shield.

Two lies in one short paragraph:

1. The slanderous suggestion that I am in any way, shape or form antisemitic. That's just a typical attempt to suppress honest discussion on the internet by someone who's afraid to join in.

2. The slanderous suggestion that I have anything to do with his computing problems. The fact that this baseless lie is advanced by means of a well known logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc - suggests the reason why he fears honest discussion.

3. The real cowardice of these lies is shown by the fact that by their nature I can't refute them: how can I prove a negative. If this shithead thinks I did anything to his computer he should turn me in instead of spreading lies.

Ignatz

--I'll agree that the actions of the Israelis have been tame compared to the genocide that fundamentalists think God commanded the Israelis to practice.--

Well it's recorded in the foundational document of the Christian faith which the NT tells us:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

and also that:
"For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

Your apparent rejection of which does not engender much hope in further conversation on this subject.

centralcal

All anduril all the time here at JOM.

All Obama all the time on the morning news.

What a depressing way to start the day.

anduril

The relation between the Israelite and Christian scriptures, the nature and meaning of revelation, and the proper approach to exegesis are complex topics which cannot be grasped by citing a handful of proof texts out of context. Anyway, it's obvious that the early Christians did not believe that everything that purports to be a command in the Israelite scriptures should be followed.

I don't think this is the proper forum for going into these important questions, but I will state that I don't regard the "NT" as the "foundational document of the Christian faith":

1. The foundation of the Christian faith is Jesus of Nazareth, the person, and not any book;

2. The "NT" is not a document, strictly speaking; rather, the Christian scriptures are a collection of documents, as are the Israelite documents.

Danube of Thought

CNS summary of Raz:

Fifty-eight (58) percent of likely voters said they would support an effort to repeal the legislation, as Republicans have given consideration to campaigning on such a promise. Just 38 percent communicated opposition to such an effort.

The percentage who support repeal efforts are up 3 percent from the week just after the bill passed, when President Obama made several campaign-style stops in support of the bill.

The ranks of those who believe the bill will be “bad for the country” have also increased from 49 to 52 percent over the same time period, while the percentage of likely voters who believe reform will be “good for the country” has inched down from 41 to 39 percent.

The overall negative perception of the bill seems to stem from the belief of an overwhelming portion of respondents that the bill’s effects will include diminishing the quality of health care, running federal deficits higher, and increasing general health care costs.

DrJ

Rick,

I do think the email circulating is spoofing your email address and is spam (I got one too). It contains a link to a putative online buying site, and it is written by one for whom English is not his native language.

anduril

DrJ, you gutless piece of shit, why don't you come out and say it: he's lying about me and owes me a groveling apology.

Old Lurker

AT's Graph of the day links a serious Cato paper on the real spending per student by selected public schools.

Most glaring is the $28,000 per student spent by Washington DC for probably the worst outcome in the country.

That figure approaches the cost of a St. Albans or Sidwell private schooling per student.

Old Lurker

LUN is the Cato paper.

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

I'll change passwords and log out. I won't be sending email to any JOMer today.

JM Hanes

It must be You Can Dish It Out Day.

Clarice

Dr J, accurately described the email I got, too.

OL I always suspected the official figures were too low.
$28K per pupil! And virtually no one wants to see their kids there if they can afford anything else or get into one of the better charter schools.

Even the fresh off the boat African immigrants who drive cabs here refuse to send their kids to those schools.

jimmyk

The fact that their country was taken with the complicity of Western nations

"Their country"? Jews were living there too, you know, and had been since Biblical times (to the extent they weren't massacred like in Hebron). This was a partition. Something like 50% or more of the Jewish population in Israel in 1950 were refugees from Arab countries. The fact that Ben-Gurion said something doesn't make it so. Why don't you read some history and form your own conclusions instead of finding quotes that match your preconceptions.

rse

How bad must it be to say there are more carveouts and exemptions for political cronies in the fin services bills than in Obamacare?

LUN

Captain Hate

I'm really hoping against hope that the party Michael Steele leads fights this financial "reform" garbage by asking one question: How's Sarbanes Oxley working out for you?

anduril

"Their country"? Jews were living there too, you know, and had been since Biblical times (to the extent they weren't massacred like in Hebron). This was a partition. Something like 50% or more of the Jewish population in Israel in 1950 were refugees from Arab countries. The fact that Ben-Gurion said something doesn't make it so. Why don't you read some history and form your own conclusions instead of finding quotes that match your preconceptions.

Yes, I knew that Jews were living there, too--I know it because I read history. I also know, from reading history, about the Jewish expellees from Arab countries. Of course Ben Gurion saying something is so doesn't make it so, but given his position in Israel throughout the period in question and the aftermath as well, I think his saying so makes it presumptively so--a rebuttable presumption. The fact that prominent and influential persons who disagreed with Ben Gurion agree as to Ben Gurion's influence over events strengthens the presumption.

Re population and partition and whose country it was:

His image of an iron cage represents the limits placed on them by the Balfour declaration in 1917, when the Jews were promised a "national home" as long as it was built without prejudice to the rights of what were absurdly called "non-Jewish communities" (then 90% of Palestine's population). This inbalance was constant: the UN partition decision of November 1947 gave the Jews, by then 33% of the population, half of the territory when they owned just 6% of the land. By 1949 they controlled 78% of it.

If Mexican immigration ends up totalling 33% of the population and the UN then partitioned the US, giving Mexicans half the territory, I suspect other Americans would feel that they had lost their country without an effective voice in the decision.

Clarice

The Ben Gurion quote is from a report of a conversation he had with Nahum Goldmann and clearly reflects , not Gurion's view of reality, but his estimate of the Arab's position.


Now--I really do prefer sticking to thread themes and not one poster's individual hobby horses, "supported" by crap grabbed off the IT and bolded to show his contempt for the intelligence of others, a contempt which lacks any factual basis at all.

nathan hale

That's more the American rather than the Israeli experience, I mean in comparing settler states, between the Louisiana Purchase
and Guadalupe Hidalgo, the US pulled off such
a hat trick.

anduril

...not Gurion's view of reality, but his estimate of the Arab's position.

In Ben Gurion's view, the Arab position was/is part of reality which Israel must take into account. And that's why Ben Gurion goes on to give his policy prescriptions based on his view of reality--which includes the Arab position.

No wonder I have to bold things for some people. For the intelligent, on the other hand, my bolding is simply a convenience to allow for quick scanning.

Clarice

Perhaps in that case, you might be happier posting where you think there's a more intelligent audience worthy of your offerings.

Rick Ballard

Golly - it was Chinese spam. I assumed that the antisemite was at it again. It's sort of like an "innocent" priest coming under suspicion on the basis of a few altar boys' complaints, isn't it?

Danube of Thought

Anduril, go fuck yourself. You're an inconsiderate son of a bitch who takes up a hell of a lot of space with boring, borderline insane crap that nobody reads. Go away.

anduril

Yes, nate, which is why there actually is Mexican sentiment for the return of Tejas, Nuevo Mexico, Arizona y California. On the other hand, those Hispanics with a sense of enlightened self interest aren't so keen about that idea.

Can you do some research and find out what the percentage of the Anglo population at the time of detachment from Mexico compared to the Hispanic population (we all know the Native American population wasn't a factor to the Hispanics or the Anglos)? Might be interesting.

anduril

Perhaps in that case, you might be happier posting where you think there's a more intelligent audience worthy of your offerings.

Oh, just because you have trouble getting up to speed is no reason to sell other posters here way short.

BTW, are you proud of your friends:

butthole

fuck

son of a bitch

crap

and the liar who hasn't the guts to do the right thing?

You're a classy clique.

JM Hanes

"For the intelligent, on the other hand, my bolding is simply a convenience to allow for quick scanning."

LOL! How thoughtful of you to make it so much easier for the intelligent to scroll on by.

jean

Anduril DOT wording is not one I would have chosen,but it does have the ring of truth

Carol Herman

Soon Abbas comes to the USA. He will be in the White House. And, I'm sure there will be photo ops. And, plenty of soup. And, he won't be chased into the Roosevelt Room, to talk to his aides, where the room is bugged. And, the phones are tapped.

While as an attempt to actually "give" the palestinians what the saud's require of all their bought politicians, it looks like a weak hand.

The Israelis, instead of 'budging' are sticking with Bibi Netanyahu. This wasn't supposed to happen! The Israelis were supposed to flock to Livni. And, Kadima wasn't supposed to stay as brain dead as Arik Sharon.

As to telling Jews anything, right now, it seems there are a few facts, instead, worth noticing. Israel has not gone in after Iran. (She has, however, a working MOSSAD), so blowing up Iran would be foolish. Where would new information come from? The CIA has been gutted for decades. And, no country just tosses out the advantages they do have.

What's Iran's biggest choice? To join the table as an EMPIRE. After 3000 years out in the cold. It can take all the cards its won, while America has been losing them, repeatedly, in irak and afghanistan. And, toss this all away, with one military encounter with Israel. Proxy. Schmoxy.

Because Israel has no intention of EVER AGAIN taking arab lands, hoping for a peace treaty. Waste of time! Just as Israel keeps holding her prisoners (with blood on their hands). And, hamas still claims it's got Shalit alive. (Which I happen to doubt. He's about as alive as Arik Sharon, these days.) But you can't just exchange body parts with the Jews. In Israel.

If I had to guess? Iran hold back. If she doesn't? Her satellites get damaged. Including Assad. Where, once, low level Israeli Air Force flights, shattered all the windows of Assad's summer palace.

You bet, there are plans on how to respond. Even "how to respond" to CRAZY MONKEY Jones. A screaming Hillary. And, a bamster who dials Jerusalem offering to "cut a deal." And, you thought Condi Rice, dancing in July of 2006, really did something brilliant for the UN, and the US? Huh. Dubya was just a water boy for the saud's. The Israelis, here, are very experienced.

Ignatz

anduril's LUN, which I presume is him, gives a pretty clear view of his, shall we say, idiosyncratic, views of Israel and the OT and their relationship to Christianity.

He does at one point however cite with approbation Clarice whom he now apparently believes too stupid to read his posts without assistance.

--BTW, are you proud of your friends:--

Perhaps the reactions you provoke from folks who are otherwise relatively benign, some bordering on phlegmatic, should prompt a bit of self reflection rather than accusation.

anduril

jean, why would you reject wording that has the ring of truth to it? go for the truth is my attitude. liberate yourself instead of just living vicariously. embrace your inner tourette's.

anduril

pretty mainstream, really, but you give a somewhat inaccurate view of what i'm about. but you'd have to read it all to understand. might do you some good, however.

As for provoking reactions--how does lying fit in for you?

Janet

This is sorta on topic...I reconnected with a college friend on Facebook. He saw that I participated in Tea Parties, and he went insane. All he could do was accuse me of being a racist. I "unfriended" him finally, and then had to block his messages....now he is emailing me with linked articles.

He is in some kind of war with a phantom "evil conservative" of his own imagination. It is a little scary to tell you the truth.

Janet

I had to look up phlegmatic...it is good...doesn't SOUND good, but it is!

anduril

Yes, Janet, there are people here, too, who can only hurl epithets and lie. Can't deal with disagreement any other way.

nathan hale

You do make it exceedingly difficult for persons to keep a civil tongue, in any language, because you argue the indefensible. Mr. Langdon

anduril

You do make it exceedingly difficult for persons to keep a civil tongue, in any language, because you argue the indefensible.

I think I get it: if you can't beat 'em or keep up with 'em, scream at 'em.

JM Hanes

"embrace your inner tourette's"

That's andurilese for "go fuck yourself."

Janet

Yes, Janet, there are people here, too, who can only hurl epithets and lie. Can't deal with disagreement any other way.

Ummmmm, I wasn't really making that point but that is okay. I'm too phlegmatic to engage!

Army of Davids

The wise McGuire crowd is needed on the Dodd Bill

It is important legislation.

The Dodd Bill.

Schumer is the Senator to watch. He has received 3 X as much money from Wall Street as any other Senator.

He also is comfortable using the homosexual slur “tea bagger” against taxpayers.

Ignatz

--pretty mainstream, really--

Your views on the OT and Judaism in general are not in the mainstream of Catholic theology, Eastern Orthodox theology and obviously not in Protestant theology.
It and variations of it are however commonplace within heretical "Christian" sects of the far right.

--but you'd have to read it all to understand. might do you some good, however--

I read enough to see it is your usual blend of 25% wheat, 25% chaff and 50% rat droppings.

--As for provoking reactions--how does lying fit in for you?--

RB apparently based his intial reaction on an earlier incident before seeing the email in question. Upon further investigation he publicy corrected his mistake. That does not constitute a lie.
If you're miffed you haven't received an apology, perhaps in the future you might refrain from prefacing your request with the word "grovelling".
Whatever value you bring to the discussion in your more rational moments is more than overshadowed by what might charitably be described as your social retardation.

peter

All anduril all the time here at JOM.

All Obama all the time on the morning news.

What a depressing way to start the day


LOL! go out and garden!

anduril

Your views on the OT and Judaism in general are not in the mainstream of Catholic theology, Eastern Orthodox theology and obviously not in Protestant theology.
It and variations of it are however commonplace within heretical "Christian" sects of the far right.

Ignatz, that was not a very humble post. There are "subtle disagreements" involved here and your reaction disappoints me. And I do think I know what I'm talking about in this regard.

As for "far right," you couldn't be more wrong--although I doubt whether a correct characterization was your concern: this is just a renewal of your previous attempt to smear me as "far right" (cf. your absurd Lew Rockwell comments). The fact is, my views are anathema to the far right--I know this from long experience. However, if you do some research on the authors whose views I champion you'll find out just how mainstream my ideas are. If I have any claim to originality it lies in the synthesis, which is unfortunately not totally in view yet.

RB apparently based his intial reaction on an earlier incident before seeing the email in question. Upon further investigation he publicy corrected his mistake.

What earlier incident? Are you suggesting that I have EVER tampered with anyone's computers via the internet--or any other way? Here, show me the retraction, wise guy:

...he's lying about me and owes me a groveling apology.

Posted by: anduril | April 27, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Golly - it was Chinese spam. I assumed that the antisemite was at it again. It's sort of like an "innocent" priest coming under suspicion on the basis of a few altar boys' complaints, isn't it?

Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM

That isn't a retraction, that's a reassertion of the slanderous lie--he's accusing me of possible criminal conduct. Come on, Ignatz, man up! Why are you defending this thuggish behavior that would be far more appropriate on a lefty site?

BTW, I never requested an apology. I merely stated to DrJ that I was owed an apology. It's one thing to say that I'm owed one, quite another to ask for one.

Cecil Turner

He's not a troll, though. (Riiiight.)

Ignatz

--However, if you do some research on the authors whose views I champion you'll find out just how mainstream my ideas are.--

If you honestly think that denying the divinely inspired nature of the OT and holding that the "Israelite Scriptures" are merely the most accurate of manmade traditions then, regardless of your disappointment in my humility, you are far outside of any orthodox Christian theology.
The belief, in and of itself is heretical. I'm not sure on what planet a heresy is considered mainstream.

--That isn't a retraction, that's a reassertion of the slanderous lie--he's accusing me of possible criminal conduct.--

It's a retraction of what he said this time. Since he retracted this one because of the foreign nature of it, that would indicate the first incident was different. And since I have no details of the first incident I can form no meaningful opinion of it nor do I have any interest in doing so.

I do see you have ignored my suggestion of self reflection. That's too bad because once again you're bollixing up the place for everyone else.

Cecil Turner

That's too bad because once again you're bollixing up the place for everyone else.

How many times does he have to do it before it's obvious that's by design?

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

And to drag this 'round to the topic, can the same thing not be said about Gen Jones's [un]diplomatic efforts?

jimmyk

the UN partition decision of November 1947 gave the Jews, by then 33% of the population, half of the territory

Antisemites always quote those figures, leaving out the fact that the denominator in the land share is totally arbitrary. For example, the Palestine Mandate originally included Transjordan. Also, the land granted to Israel was disproportionately desert. Finally, those population figures don't take into account the huge numbers of Jews that would flee Arab lands and have all their property and land confiscated. Put another way, what was the proportion of land in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. allocated to Jews relative to their populations? Relative to what they owned?

anduril

denying the divinely inspired nature of the OT and holding that the "Israelite Scriptures" are merely the most accurate of manmade traditions then

No, you've got it completely wrong. Don't expect that you can just jump in at random and understand these issues. Almost anyone will approach it with preconceptions that will get in the way. Keep working at it. If you're really interested in comparing my views to what could be considered "mainstream" views I suggest two possibilities:

1. The most recent really comprehensive document issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission: THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
, or

2. The Foreword to Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. I would think that most decent public libraries would have it. The Foreword is numbered with Roman numerals. Please note that on page xxiii Benedict writes:

It goes without saying that this book is in no way an expression of the magesterium, but is solely the expression of my personal search "for the face of the Lord" (cf. Psalm 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.

That statement is significant, because I believe he was soliciting feedback on fundamental questions regarding divine revelation--which he addresses in the Foreword--knowing that the understanding of these issues is a matter of current debate. This is not to suggest that they are totally up for grabs, but that the understanding of revelation is in process of refinement and development due to the explosion of knowledge in this and related fields over the past century and a half, at least. I will say, I believe the principles that he sets out are mostly sound, but that I believe that he 1) fails to fully understand the implications of those principles and 2) doesn't follow them consistently himself.

Do not expect that you will be able to wrap your mind around either of these documents at one quick sitting. Also bear in mind that neither document is considered defined doctrine (Benedict expresses that caveat himself with regard to his book simply for the benefit of the more simple minded of the faithful who might think that every expression of opinion on the part of a pope somehow is of doctrinal significance.)

once again you're bollixing up the place for everyone else.

Here's my understanding of this site, and TM can correct me if I'm wrong. I think he wants a wide ranging discussion, both on a wide range of topics and from a fairly wide variety of perspectives, conducted in a freewheeling manner. That is how I interpret his liberal posting policy as well as the fact that he's been known to engage mano a mano at lefty sites. My posting on this thread--which I take you to be referring to as quoted--is firmly within the spirit of TM's intentions. As I say, if I'm wrong about that he can correct me. I doubt that his hope was that the comments section here would become primarily a social networking site, nor that the most concerted activity would be the attempt to suppress "heretical" views through the use of invective alone.

anduril

jimmyk, I'll pass over the gratuitous reference to antisemites and proceed:

1. The reason the land totals are of significance is because the Palestinian population was largely agriculturally based, compared to the Jewish population which had more of a mix.

2. The reason those figures don't take account of the displacement of Middle Eastern Jews is for the very good reason that that displacement hadn't yet taken place and nobody had envisioned it yet--least of all, probably, the UN people who came up with the partition plan. In the event, the displacement of the Middle Eastern Jews turned out to be an enormous boon for Israel, in several ways.

3. Jews in those other countries were, I believe, urban populations and so they would not have occupied a large percentage of the actual land area.

4. The Negev was thinly settled but was also predominantly populated by Arab pastoralists. The Israelis nevertheless wanted it, to make it bloom.

anduril

I'll quickly add that I believe there was a time when there had been a sizable Jewish farming community in Yemen, but that that was no longer the case. You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Cecil Turner

My posting on this thread--which I take you to be referring to as quoted--is firmly within the spirit of TM's intentions.

Horse puckey. Your posts are a primer of fallacious annoyances designed specifically to make discussion difficult.

jimmyk

The reason those figures don't take account of the displacement of Middle Eastern Jews is for the very good reason that that displacement hadn't yet taken place and nobody had envisioned it yet--least of all, probably, the UN people who came up with the partition plan.

This is demonstrably false. Not only does the whole history of Judaism make it obvious that there would have been mass migration, the Partition Plan explicitly took into account the expectation that there would be mass migration of Jews to the new state. See, for example, here:

The territory designated to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively) on the assumption that increasing numbers of Jews would immigrate there.
Clarice

We could all decamp to anduril's blog which no one seems to comment on and start re-posting the entire dictionary--of course, putting in bold the parts we think the owner might otherwise miss and needs to take special notice of.

Like this:

jerk1 definition
jerk (jʉrk)

transitive verb

to pull, twist, push, thrust, or throw with a sudden, sharp movement
☆ INFORMAL to make and serve (ice cream sodas)
Etymology: var. of archaic yerk < ?

intransitive verb

to move with a jerk or in jerks
to twitch
noun

a sharp, abrupt movement; quick pull, twist, push, etc.
a sudden muscular contraction caused by a reflex action
☆ SLANG a person regarded as disagreeable, contemptible, etc., esp. as the result of foolish or mean behavior
WEIGHT LIFTING a lift in which the barbell is raised upward from shoulder level with the arms completely extended
jerk (jʉrk)

transitive verb

to preserve (meat) by slicing into strips and drying, esp. originally in the sun
Etymology: altered (after jerk) < jerky

Y.

anduril,

Any interested reader can judge by the quotes and links provided earlier whether Morris understands and represents his own research correctly (!), so I'll leave it at that.

What is clearly a misrepresentation however is your "statistics" re: Jewish land ownership.

First, the Arabs didn't reject partition because they wanted better terms - they rejected it because they did not want a Jewish state at all. They even earlier rejected the Peel commission's suggestion to only give 17% percent to the Jews. So this is misleading regarding the Arabs' motives.

Second, you are conflating between private ownership, national control and national ownership. Your statistics starts with "owned" (implied - privately. Like a Japanese businessman might own a skyscraper in Manhattan, not like Japan having sovereignty in Manhattan), and ends in "controls" (America controlled Japan at the end of WWII), and doesn't mentioned "sovereignty" (a different concept than either, but the appropriate one here). The correct antecedent (with regards to sovereignty) to the State of Israel was the British Mandate, and it was the Jews which only got 20% or so of it, since Britian unilaterally split Transjordan out.

Lastly, I'm glad to hear that UN resolutions are optional if one does not believe they are right (I never liked the UN either, and its authority is questionable at best). I'm sure you apply the same standard and understanding when Israel is blamed for allegedly violating UN resolutions.

Ignatz

--If you're really interested in comparing my views to what could be considered "mainstream" views I suggest two possibilities:--

I'm not, but I am interested in good Catholic writing. Not because I'm Catholic, I'm not and never will be, but because good Catholic writing is always interesting and often enlightening.

My only conclusion upon reading a good portion of your first link is that your ideas are the crankery of a crank and in stark contrast to the good sense and orthodoxy of your link.

centralcal

Excellent, Clarice!

Anduril has a blog? Then why has he become a squatter here?

Oh . . . no one comments on his blog? Why does that not surprise me!

Y.

Heh. All this writing, and now I understand I forgot to write about Jones' speech. Well, Jones' idea of negotiating peace in order to calm the Middle East's Muslims, is like a mediator in a negotiation between Obama and Republicans announcing his main goal is to appease Labor union (or alternatively, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing radio).

You can't be a fair mediator if your goal is to appease one of the parties. The only possible (if at all) deal given this condition would be a tilted proposal, which will then be rejected by both sides. One will reject it since he wasn't really consulted, nor does he agree with the tilted terms. The second, since it believes it can get more - after all it got the most powerful nation on Earth scared.

Clarice

cc--it's a LUN under all his posts.

DrJ

I've tried to stay out of the poo flinging, but I wandered over the "that" web site. I love the comment policy there:

Regrettably, based on my experience at other blogs, I've decided to moderate all comments, to avoid abusive posts as well as those which I consider nonconstructive or non-pertinent.

Really!

Clarice

HEH!

centralcal

Dang it, DrJ beat me to it - I was just about to paste that "policy" as well.

Let us see . . .

abusive posts?
nonconstructive posts?
non-pertinent posts?

Well my golly, no wonder he has no commenters. I was really, really dismayed however, to see there were no restrictions on "social networking," since we know that this is particularly repugnant to anduril.

anduril

jimmyk, good to see you've dropped the "antisemite" rhetoric. However, I'm not so happy to see you playing fast and loose. Compare what you say:

the Partition Plan explicitly took into account the expectation that there would be mass migration of Jews to the new state. See, for example, here:

with the interesting text that you quote

The territory designated to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively) on the assumption that increasing numbers of Jews would immigrate there.

"Increasing numbers" of Jews immigrating is different than a "mass migration" based on a mass expulsion. For starters, "increasing numbers" is a very relative term. In actual fact the overwhelming number of Jews in Islamic countries migrated. While there is some dispute about the motives, there seems little doubt that they were heavily pressured to leave.

Next problem: there were two potential sources of Jewish immigration to Israel: the West and the Orient (broadly speaking). I doubt whether there was an "assumption" that the large Jewish population were going to migrate en masse to Israel, nor even that, assuming that "increasing numbers" of American Jews did so, that the majority of American Jews would do so. OTOH, I think that there definitely was an expectation that a significant proportion of European Jews (outside Russia) would immigrate to Israel. I repeat my contention that if a mass expulsion had been expected that paragraph you cited would have read:

The territory designated to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively) on the assumption that there would be a mass expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews from Islamic countries to Israel.

If you can find a source that documents the exact source for the assumed increased immigration I will be in your debt.

Finally, in a perverse sort of way, you prove to much--or at least I suspect that you prove more than you would wish. How would you feel if the UN, without consulting you or your fellow Americans or giving you a vote in the matter, partitioned the US unequally under the assumption--or expectation, whichever you prefer--that "increasing numbers of Mexicans would immigrate to the US"?

anduril

TM is free to encourage comments and I'm free to discourage comments. Sorry.

anduril

Y., I'll try to find time to respond to you later. I've got things to do right now. Preliminarily, I'll simply say that, generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the UN. I'm sure it serves some useful purposes, but I'm not convinced that any good that it does outweighs the harm it also does. But I have an open mind on that. Feel free to convince me in either direction.

JM Hanes

anduril:

"That statement is significant, because I believe he was soliciting feedback on fundamental questions regarding divine revelation"

Has he written you back yet?

Cecil Turner

TM is free to encourage comments and I'm free to discourage comments. Sorry.

And we're free to note the hypocrisy. Not sorry.

anduril

First, the Arabs didn't reject partition because they wanted better terms - they rejected it because they did not want a Jewish state at all.

We've already gone over this. I don't disagree. I simply say that Ben Gurion understood the dynamics of the situation and that you're pretending that the dynamics are somehow other than those that Ben Gurion enunciated.

As for your second point, it boils down to more of the first.

Y.

So you agree your previous "statistics" post is misleading and irrelevant. Good.

Your current argument boils down to "I believe the Arabs own the entire land, ergo everything they do (war crimes and all) is justified, or at least understandable, and I can excuse everything". Leaving aside the implications of that "total war" logic to world peace (or its lack of moral worth - is everything allowed even for a truly just cause?), the obvious problem is that you're not going to get far here - if anything, Americans are more likely to take your logic and apply it to Israel's side ("I believe the Jews..." etc.) than take it as is.

P.S. The Ben Gurion quote shows he understood the Arabs very well, if Israel had such people today! You're stretching it to make it sound like a confession, when the meaning is clear - he was talking from their perspective. 60 years of activism show how deeply he believed in Israel and its right to the land.

anduril

So you agree your previous "statistics" post is misleading and irrelevant. Good.

Nothing of the sort.

Your current argument boils down to "I believe the Arabs own the entire land, ergo everything they do (war crimes and all) is justified, or at least understandable, and I can excuse everything".

Stop being stupid. I never said anything of the sort and you know it. I agreed with Ben Gurion's assessment. Period.

Y.

I might have misinterpreted your last post. So lets unpack it slowly:

If the reason (as we agree) to the Arab position is their rejection of any Jewish state, than arguing the fairness of any would-be partition plan is irrelevant. Jews could have owned 100% of the land and the Arabs would have still opposed any plan.

Inasmuch the statistics implies a different (supposedly more "fair") plan would have been accepted it is misleading. It is even more misleading since you confuse private and national ownership (and you didn't bother to reply on this).

You could argue that the UN has no authority to make these decisions at all, and I said that's fine by me as long as you apply this to Israel too.

Lastly, since you find Arab rejection of the UN plan (or any peace plan) understandable, I assume you're ok with their final goal and with their methods (you sure manage to keep moral opprobium limited to one side). I hope I misjudged you on that last point.

anduril

You're doing fine until the last paragraph. The complicating factor for me has always been twofold: 1) the expulsion of the Oriental Jews and 2) the presence of Sabras. These groups had nothing to do with the original dispossession, yet here they are on the ground, so to speak. Being there, they have a responsibility to work for a just solution, but they also have rights--for what those are worth in that part of the world.

I'm not at all sure what the final goal of the Palestinians truly is, or whether they would accept some half way solution. I suspect that the goal is not a partition but a one state solution. Demographically, Israel may end up with something like that anyway. After all the water over the dam, is co-existence possible (as Nahum Goldman and others have hoped)? I'd be a fool to be sanguine, and so would you--but who knows. Here's the bottom line: Israel will remain dominant militarily for a long time to come, but that isn't going to be the deciding factor, ultimately. The current situation is ultimately unsustainable and Israel needs to be looking to the future. More settlements and an apartheid state will not be the answer.

I have no idea why you would think or assume that I'd be OK with any or all methods. I'm not.

Here's a more philosophical bottom line for you. Zionism was/is a snare and a delusion. The idea of blood tied to land is wrong--it isn't, and Ben Gurion's justification of what the Israelis did is morally unjustifiable. It was bad for the Palestinians, but in a sense it was worse for the Jews who supported it--that is the answer of Plato's famous question: is it worse to suffer an injustice or to commit an injustice. But, as I said above, this Zionist project is unsustainable in the long run without even worse, just as the Crusader states were unsustainable. Zionism has led something like half the Jews in the world into a moral impasse: they only way Israel can be sustained is by terrible oppression of others.

Yes, I know you'll argue antisemitism the Holocaust and so forth. There are a number of answers to that, none I suspect that will be satisfying for you. One is that I disagree that Zionism was truly born entirely of antisemitism--I think it was heavily influenced by a sort of evil twin: European tribalism/nationalism. You may say that's water over the dam now, which is true, but it's never too late to renounce a wrongheaded ideology--although the practical problems remain. Re the Holocaust, the only thing I can say is that two wrongs don't make a right. That will sound terribly unfair, and all I can say is that life IS unfair, sometimes tragically so. Nothing can make up for the Holocaust. But for Israeli purposes, the point is that no Arab can be expected to feel guilty about the Holocaust, and that's the only thing that matters now. Ben Gurion was right: there was and is no reason to expect Palestinians to forget that Palestine was once theirs.

Finally, lest you think that I have any particular sympathy for Muslims, I have long advocated banning Muslim immigration to the US. The tragedy for the Jews is that they went where the Muslims were. Yes I've said that the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians, but it's perfectly possible for one people (caught in a snare and a delusion) to oppress another people (caught in another particularly nasty snare and delusion). This is what makes me pessimistic for the long term.

BTW, I'm somewhat impressed that you're going to a bit of trouble to understand this perspective. As you can see, I'm holding out no easy solutions.

Y.

There's a perspective which opposes nationalism, but it's at best like an atheist standing aside the Thirty Years' War telling everyone there is no God - not very useful to anyone. Nationalism's all but written into the international laws - the "right of self-determination" is nearly unlimited (well, except if a government can bloodily crush it. The restrictions on warfare make this more and more difficult).

You seem to feel this yourself; You don't like "blood ties to land", but on the other hand you expect Palestinians to "not forget the land was theirs" - what's that if not a blood tie, and one that is expected to be lasting?

Ultimately, your argument seems to rest on the expectation that Israel will lose. If one believes Israel's position is good or even unassailable, it would be trivial to flip your argument (yes, Palestinians, you may feel the land was/is yours, but nationalism is a snare and besides the world's unfair). Allow me to suggest this type of argument is unlikely to help the chances of any a peaceful result - it merely invites both sides to fight harder.

The Israeli/Palestinian future is iffy, and unlike you I have little idea how it's going to end. One state is impossible, the land is almost too small to be divided, and the neighbouring Arab states won't help. Well, one is always safe predicting a war in the Middle East, right?

P.S. As far as to Zionism's utility to the Jews, one must note the other Jewish half isn't doing well at all. The Israeli Jews are demographically growing, while the American half is shrinking rapidly. I think it's safer to make a doomsday prediction for American Jewry than for Israel...

anduril

Y., I think you make valid points but try to push some of them a bit too far. For example...

Re the Palestinians and blood ties. I do NOT think the Palestinians are tied to the land by blood. The problem is, the Palestinians remain massively present both in Palestine, in Israel, and in the surrounding countries. If they'd all moved on to, say, Libya, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re whether or not Israel (or the Palestinians) is/are bound to lose, each side is unquestionably engaged in this very same sort of calculation already, so it may as well be raised publicly--as versions of it, of course, have been raised both within the Muslim world and within Israel.

Re whether I have an inside track on how this will all end, I don't--I was giving my best prognostication, which remains fallible. I can't disagree, however, with your assessment, one which bodes no particular good for the future:

One state is impossible, the land is almost too small to be divided, and the neighbouring Arab states won't help. Well, one is always safe predicting a war in the Middle East, right?

Re your reflections on Zionism and Jews/Jewishness:

P.S. As far as to Zionism's utility to the Jews, one must note the other Jewish half isn't doing well at all. The Israeli Jews are demographically growing, while the American half is shrinking rapidly. I think it's safer to make a doomsday prediction for American Jewry than for Israel...

obviously most of that depends on words and their meanings. What is "utility"? What does it mean to be a Jew? My comments re Zionism (tying it to other nationalisms) wasn't focused on "utility" but rather on truth. Some nationalisms have been highly "useful" in preserving the existence of a separate group identity. At what expense is a different question.

BTW, are you sure you don't want to call me some names or accuse me of abominable practices? :-) I've come to expect that in these types of discussions. Best.

Oh, I should add, an atheist preaching to the participants in the Thirty Year War would have had little success precisely because religion was - contrary to popular misconceptions - a relatively minor consideration. It was about power politics and nation states.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame