…Meanwhile, on ABC’s yentafest “the View” (sorry, I couldn’t find the remote control in time) Star Jones informed viewers that the conflict in the Middle East is a “cultural” conflict, that we as Americans can’t possibly hope to understand it, that — because of the “thousands of years that are behind” this dispute — there’s a whole “history” that we are not privy too. In other words, it’s all too complex to understand (unless, presumably, you happen to be an Arab or an Israeli — at which point you are magically imbued with the requisite historical knowledge and cultural clarity to count as an expert. Just ask Eddie Said).
Well, sorry, Star, but that’s not how it works at all. There’s nothing complex at all about the current dispute. Finding a solution that both sides agree upon has been complex, but that’s to be expected when one of the sides refuses to accept any reasonable compromise.
Here’s how I see it: One set of people — in an effort to get what they want (without the benefit of any moral, ethical, or historical mandate to speak of, mind you) — is training its young to blow themselves up and, in the process, to take as many innocent civilians with them as is logistically possible. The other set of people wishes to prevent the first set from exploding daily in their pizza parlours or toy stores or coffee shops, etc. To do this, they’ve deployed their military.
Not so complicated, after all.
You see, Star, in an effort to present yourself as a “deep thinker,” you’ve bought into the entire line of mythological bullshit the Arabs have been peddling for years — the “historical Palestine,” the “occupation,” the “refugee status,” and on and on and on. You haven’t bothered to think through any of it, however — content as you are to rub your chin contemplatively and to label the whole mess “complex.”
“How should the international community deal with suicide bombers, Star?”
–“Well, that’s complex.”
“But they’re blowing up innocent women and children. Daily. They’re targeting them.”
–“But there’s a history…”
“Which history is that, Star? Mid-20th century? Sumerian? Can you be more specific?”
–“Being specific is complicated. I mean, history itself is complex. It’s a chain of culturally-specific events, as I see it, and I don’t feel like I should be taking ownership of those events by learning about them. Because in learning about such things, I’m presuming to slip inside the skin of the Other — and the only thing I’m prepared to slip inside is a pair of expensive shoes.”
“Ah.”
Listen: This conflict is about one thing: The Arabs want the Jews out. Period. Calling for a return to pre-1967 borders and for “the right of return” is essentially to challenge the original U.N. partition. Under such conditions, “Israel” would cease to exist.
And the Israelis are having none of it.
I’m with them.
*[update: I’ve mentioned this below (in the “comment” section), but I’ll make it clear here, as well: I don’t think Star Jones is wrong on every issue by virtue of being a panelist on a show like “The View.”
I do, however, think she’s remarkably under-informed about the situation in Israel. Consequently, I believe she should either research the subject more thoroughly, or she should admit she has no idea what she’s talking about by keeping her mouth shut whenever the issue arises.]
…fish in a barrel going after Star. As though she would possibly have any useful insight on <b><i>anything</b></i>.
Maybe so, Addison. But like Babba Wawa, she’s speaking to millions of viewers at a clip.
And I don’t think she’s wrong on every issue simply by virtue of being on “The View” (I know you were joking, but I <i>should</i> mention this for the record)—but I do think she’s remarkably uninformed about the Middle East, and so she should either research the area or keep quiet about it.
First, its always easy to pick an easy target.
Second, I think that you have a case of over simplifying the argument, don’t you?
If we assume that your analysis is correct, that leaves even more questions unresolved.
For example, people do not just decide one day to train their children to be terrorists and have no regard for life. That, of course, is not to say people haven’t. It is also not to say that these actions are right, but rather it begs the question about how so many could come to this mindset (I would argue is done by demonizing the other. Not a foreign concept to many Israelies that see Palestianians as barbarians “who teach their children to kill).
Second, if military action is working, why have attacks been escalating? Do you pre-emptively kill every potential terrorist?
Third, you seem to assume that because the UN made Isreal, it deserves to be. Historically, this is one of the few countries that has a UN mandate existance, but just because its UN mandated, do the people there have to obey it?
I could probably go on, but I guess I am just left with the important question of, “how exactly does your analysis help?” (except that it helps show you have a very obvious agenda).
In my opinion, taking sides is incredibly arrogant. Can you sympathize with the suicide bombers that take lives of innocents? Not unless you are out of your gord. Can you sympathize with a government trying to asserts power over groups that want nothing to do with them? Again, not unless you too are out of your gord?
I didn’t pick the target, Mike. Star Jones decided to speak on the subject to however many millions of viewers her show gets every day. My taking issue with her muddled thinking is therefore a perfectly legitimate response, the way I see it.
This Edward Said-esque “demonizing of the Other” trope you appeal to as a way of explaining motivations for hate has had its run, both historically and philosophically. It’s a discredited husk of thought. Face facts: sometimes people demonize the Other because the Other is strapping explosives to his (or her!) body and blowing up toy stores and pizza parlors. Hatred is not taught overnight, you’re right. Which is <i>precisely</i> why Palestinian textbooks demonize Jews, why Palestinian maps don’t recognize Israel, and why their “Chairmen” preaches the glory of martyrdom (and if that don’t work, he makes it a heroes’ cult, complete with local and foreign subsidies for the families of suicide bombers). It takes<i> time</i> to build such a culture; the Arab world has been doing it since 1948. Arafat’s been doing it since 1964. The anti-semitic propaganda in the Arab press is appaling, but it reinforces this whole mindset of wiping out Israel. I mean, how can you even take seriously people who believe that the mere recognition of Israel’s right to exist is a bargaining chip? If you haven’t done so yet, you might wish to check out MEMRI’s site.
You ask, “[…] if military action is working, why have attacks been escalating? Do you pre-emptively kill every potential terrorist?”
Well, since the Israelis started this incursion, there has been not <i>one</i> successful suicide bombing. Not one. If you knew who the terrorists were, yes, you’d kill them before they tried to kill you; if all you have to go on is terrorist potential, you set up check points.
You write, “you seem to assume that because the UN made Isreal, it deserves to be. Historically, this is one of the few countries that has a UN mandate existance, but just because its UN mandated, do the people there have to obey it?”
Of course these other people don’t have to obey it. But by the same logic, why not just let Israel loose? Whoever ends up with the land gets to keep it. Here’s the thing, Mike: the Arab countries have <i>never</i> obeyed the UN mandate. But every time their unwillingness to do so leads them to try to drive Israel into the sea (and they subsequently lose more land and are further humiliated), they seem to start whining about getting “their” land back.
My analysis helps explain why my agenda is what it is. Will it save the world or prevent further suicide bombings? No. But it certainly aims at counteracting the blather of “easy targets” like Star Jones, who have a much wider audience than I have.
You call it “arrogant” to take sides. How absurd. This idiotic notion that all sides are equally correct when viewed from a particular “context” has made people who don’t understand the nuances of such a philosophy intellectually lazy. Your notion of equivalence is itself a philosophical universal, in that it asserts that all propositions and positions are inherently unjudgable. Horseshit. I have no desire to spend my life sitting on the fence, afraid to take a stand on one piece of solid ground or another. You’re not engaging in critical thought by not judging; rather, you’re embracing impotence.
You missed a few points, Jeff.
Like, Israel was a nation long before the UN mandated her modern existence, and Jews were there for thousands of years. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews there–natives, not immigrants–in 1948, who had been living there for many generations.
Also, the Arabs didn’t wait until the UN Mandate to slaughter the Jews. Zionism began in the 19th century. Zionists came to Israel and bought land and houses. After a while, the local Arabs, who had been happy at first to sell the land and houses, decided that too many Jews were coming to Israel, so they started killing them, both to get rid of the current ones and to make other Jews afraid to emigrate. Boy, sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
The right-wing looney-tune fringes in America want nothing to do with our government, Mike, and some have fought against it, and I sure as hell don’t sympathize with those wackos. That argument doesn’t hold a whole lot of water.
And Jeff–Starr Jones and the rest of the View can speak with great authority on shoes, clothes, and makeup, but trust me, they do not speak in depth on much else. Jones was a lawyer, and she can talk intelligently about the law, but Lord spare me from daytime talk-show hosts who jump into world affairs.
Dick Cavett she ain’t.
Thanks, Meryl–
I take the force of your points. I was trying to speak to Mike in the context of the specific points he raised, but it certainly bears repeating that the slaughter of Jews in lands populated predominantly by Arabs is not all that unusual, historically.
As for Star—well, my point exactly. Unfortunately, millions of folks listen to her garbage every day. Many of those who listen to her garbage believe it, too.
Sad.
You said, “sometimes people demonize the Other because the Other is strapping explosives to his (or her!) body and blowing up toy stores and pizza parlors.” Ok, and sometimes people demonize the other because of occupation. What’s your point? The validity of the reason no more excuses the demonizing an entire people for the actions of some (or many).
You also said, “Well, since the Israelis started this incursion, there has been not one successful suicide bombing.” How very <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/opinion/31FRIE.html”>Thomas Friedman-esque</a> of you. The fact that bombings haven’t happened, does not mean that attacks on Israelis has stopped, or that lives are any safer. It would seem that from that statement you are ok with killing, military or civilian, so long as its not with bombs strapped to them.
There are many accounts, not the least of which appears in todays NY Times, about Palestinians killing Israeli targets.
Furthermore, I do not find a non-position intellectually or philosophically lazy. In actuality, I find both a pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian positions crazy. There are more than two sides to this issue, and I happen to believe that neither side is right. I find that an equally valid position might be that they are both right (not that I would want to defend that).
Israel is not innocent and has dealt its fair share of death cards to innocents as well. Palestinians are definitely not innocent. Although many of their targets were settlers and occupation forces (by most accounts reasonable military targets), their attacks are on civilians is unacceptable.
That people are strapping explosives to themselves and blowing up toy stores and pizza parlors, Mike, is an <i>empirical fact</i>, whereas “occupation” is a contestested ontology in the dispute between the Israelis and the “Palestinians.” In order to believe in the empirical reality of “occupation,” you have to have already first convinced yourself that the Israelis are building settlements and living on land that <i>belongs</i> to the Palestinian people—a condition that, though it certainly gets to the heart of the conflict, doesn’t necessarily justify said conflict. That is, just because the Palestinians <i>claim</i> a status as an “occupied people” doesn’t make it so. If you believe otherwise, you’re hardly a neutral respondant in the exchange of ideas vis-a-vis the Mid East situation.
Are all Arabs or supporters of the Palestinians suicide bombers? No. But all the suicide bombers <i>are</i> Arab/Palestinians. Not to recognize this fact is willful denial of evidence that literally and repeatedly blows up in your face. I made no mention of a defense for ethnic cleansing. But the Israelis need to do something, and rather than put up a wall, they’ve chosen checkpoints.
If I was being Friedman-esque in my assessment of what’s happened in the last week or so, then so be it: I was (again) pointing out an empirical fact. There <i>hasn’t</i> been a single successful suicide bombing since the incursions began, and—given that the prevention of further suicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists in Israeli cities was of the <i>goals</i> of the incursion—I’d call that a successful operation. To point out that attacks against Israelis haven’t stopped is meaningless; are you suggesting Israelis should cease trying to protect themselves because others have decided to attack them regardless?
Taking the position that neither side is right (or that, on certain issues, both sides are right) is perfectly valid; that is not, however, a “non-position.” Yesterday you articulated an intellectual stance in which is you argued that people couldn’t / shouldn’t take a side, because doing so was in and of itself arrogant. Does this mean that—despite my having researched the conflict, and despite my having come to a reasonable intellectual conclusion—I cannot or should not profess my considered position for fear of being labeled “arrogant”? Again, horseshit. This is the stance I labeled intellectually lazy (a disinclination to work toward making a judgment) and I stand by that.
If settlers are, as you say, “reasonable military targets,” then those who target them are, likewise, “reasonable military targets.” But this is the same kind of thinking that allowed Usama Bin Laden to conclude that the WTC was a legitimate military target—because workers in the building were paying taxes to a state that Bin Laden believed was at war with Islam, they were fair game. If you conclude that unprovoked attacks on settlers-as-targets is unacceptable because you are “anti-death” you haven’t concluded anything of importance, intellectually.
Mike,
It’s one thing to attempt to be even-handed and consider both sides of an issue. That’s honorable, and it’s something that everyone should strive for. It’s another thing entirely to detach yourself from concrete reality in order to force an even-handed interpretation. Basically, you have to come to terms with two indisputable facts.
The first fact is that Israel exists, whether or not it deserves to. That would have been a question to ask back in the late 1940s. U.N. mandate or no U.N. mandate, the state of Israel exists, and it has existed for half a century. It’s not going anywhere.
The state of Israel is there now. It’s not going to dry up and blow away in the wind. It can’t be handwaved away by questioning whether it deserves to exist or not.
The second reality is that suicide bombing is not a spontaneous activity. The tears of the opressed Palestinians do not coalesce into plastic explosives. Suicide bombers don’t walk the streets endlessly hoping to come across a juicy target. The bleakness of the refugee camps doesn’t infuse Palestinian adolescents with the magical ability to smuggle explosives past trained soldiers.
Behind every suicide bomber is a network of individuals. Some of them are tasked with acquiring, smuggling, storing, and preparing the explosives. Others are tasked with selecting the softest targets. Still others are tasked with recruiting and briefing the bomber.
You rightly point out that the absence of suicide bombing attacks during the Israeli offensive is not necessarily evidence that Israeli civilians are now safer from such atrocities, or that they’ve stopped entirely.
The killing of Fatah’s explosives expert. The seizure of caches of explosives and other weapons. The dismantling of Arafat’s counterfeit press. The acquisition of intelligence data from the Palestinian Authority’s headquarters. These things are all evidence that Israeli civilians are now safer from terrorism.
Sometimes I really hate it when I’m right, <a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1920000/1920463.stm”>Israel hit with another suicide bomber</a>.
…. I wish there was more to offer the families than violent retribution.
Violence really does beget violence. The burden of proof is really on you to prove that it doesn’t.
The last two days have seen the only two successful attacks on Israel from Palestinian terrorists during the latest Israeli military incursion (one was an orchestrated attack on the military).
Not surprisingly, these attacks came 1) as Israel had begun to pull out of West Bank towns, and 2) as “international pressure” was at its most severe, forcing the Israelis to excelerate their operations. Zinni’s coming? Suicide bombing. Powell’s on his way to the region? Suicide bombing. This is a gesture toward peace on the part of the Palestinian militants?
No, far from proving <i>yourself</i> right, Mike—you’ve proven my point <i>for</i> me: Israel is at her safest when she’s allowed to defend herself as a sovereign nation. Half measure are ineffective—and emboldens foes who play the victim card at every turn, even as they instruct 10-year olds to strap explosives to themselves and go kill Jews.
Oh, and citing the Union of Concerned Scientists as “proof” militating against <i>The Skeptical Environmentalist</i> is disingenuous, Mike (yes, I read your site). The Union of Concerned Scientists is an Environmental Advocacy group. For an interesting deconstruction of the attacks on Lomborg’s book, keep an eye out for Ronald Bailey’s article in <i>Reason.</i> Also, you might check out Lomborg’s own site, where he meticulous answers the criticism.
Of course, you won’t find the <i>Scientific American</i> critique glossed on Lomborg’s site: They made him remove it, claiming copyright violations (so much for scientific exchanges, eh?)