This was on the blogroll of someone I have never seen in the I/P debates. I read the first two articles and both were interesting. This one in particular. This article tends to sum up most of my views about the peace process. Anyone esle familiar with this website? It is www.southjerusalem.com
Regards,
DKW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
here's an article I think could be of great use on DKos http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145117814&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull so one can see "even Ted Kennedy supported Israel!" I think the far-left could take a lesson from that.
ReplyDeleteTed Kennedy only supported Israel because he was a neo-con, colonialist, racist, Islamophobic bigot, just like the rest of Israel-supporters :)
ReplyDeleteI really think this ought to be diaried on Daily Kos. It will show the true liberals from the extreme left, which are two very different things. When both Peres and Lieberman, of all people, mourn Kennedy, and Kennedy supported the Jewish State, it tells you something about these "progressives."
ReplyDeleteand I support "progressivism," but only when it doesn't venture into extremism, which the Israel-haters would have happen. We have history, truth, and even Ted Kennedy on our side. Opposing the only free state in the entire ME is NOT "progressive."
ReplyDeleteDKW - wouldn't you say that the obvious criticism of the front page article on that site is that he disposes of 'originalism' because it leads to contradictions in what he would like the end result to be - but then retains the part of originalism that is convenient (historical ties)? When he gets his cake - Israel "conquered" in the war of independence and eerything that happened then they were forced to do, then everything in 1967 is legitimate as well based on some vague - waiting for a settlement and n the meantime....
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly not a very consistent position intellectually. And it certainly leaves out anything that would be inconsistent with keeping the status quo (or more) - i.e the idea that Israel's original borders were made legitimate not with bullets but by UN resolutions an international agreements (which would delgitimize the 1967 gains).
To my ear this sounds more like a rationaliztion than a considered position.
Steve, let me take things in this order.
ReplyDelete"the idea that Israel's original borders were made legitimate not with bullets but by UN resolutions an international agreements (which would delgitimize the 1967 gains)."
International recognition came from UN resolutions. Borders came through war. It wasn;t intended that way. As a lawyer, I see it this way. A contract was offered, Israel accepted it, Palestininians did not. They chose war. After things didn't exactly go their way, they can;t go back and say can we have that contract now. It reminds me of a criminal defendant who turns down a plea bargain of 2 years in jail, gets convicted and sentenced to 10 years and then asks if he can take the 2 year offer now. Sorry Charlie.
In those terms, I actually see no distinction between 1967 and 1948. In my mind, the land Israel gained in a defensive war they are justified in keeping. However, this is not a sustainable ideology. The people who Israel conquered the land from were not the inhabitants of the land. In other words, they conquered the land from Jordan and Egypt, but it was the Palestinians who inhabited the land. As such, Israel was and is left of the false choice of a permanent occupation which would undermine the democratic portion of the notion of a Jewish Democratic country or annexation which would undermine the Jewish part. Thus, it must be assumed that one day there will have to be a separate Palestinian State. This is not only needed for the future of the Palestinians, but for the future of Israel as well.
I actually think that diarist pretty much dismisses the entire idea of originalism and I agree with that. No good comes from the concept of originalism because it requires arbitrary limits and ignores facts on the grounds. If you go back to 1950 why not go back to 1900 then 1850 then Roman times. Jews can claim the land up until the time of the Roman and then ottoman conquerers, and Palestinians afterward. I much prefer a logic and rationale that recognizes that both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate historical claims to the land.
Regards,
DKW
From the Talking Points Website (I had never heard this story before)
ReplyDeleteTwo Lions: When Ted Kennedy Privately Honored Yitzhak Rabin
It is a small part of his great legacy but it should not go unmentioned that Ted Kennedy was one of the few senators who rarely, if ever, yielded to the pressure to join the Israel-is-always-right caucus. The mindless jingoism of his colleagues was not his way (nor is it John Kerry's) and when he addressed the Israeli-Palestinian issue, he was compassionate and even-handed. He was not your standard "liberal on everything but Israel" type.
Professor Leonard Fein from Boston (of Americans for Peace Now) -- who has spent a lifetime struggling for Middle East peace -- offers this beautiful remembrance of Ted Kennedy today. He describes a small incident in Kennedy's long life but one that tells us a lot about the man.
"On the morning of the day before the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, Senator Ted Kennedy called the White House to inquire if it was appropriate to bring to the burial some earth from Arlington National Cemetery. The answer was essentially a shrug: Who knows? Unadvised, the senator carried a shopping bag onto the plane, filled with earth he had himself dug the afternoon before from the graves of his two murdered brothers. And at Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, after waiting for the crowd and the cameras to disperse, he dropped to his hands and knees, and gently placed that earth on the grave of the murdered prime minister.
No spin, no photo op; a man unreasonably familiar with bidding farewell to slain heroes, a man in mourning, quietly making tangible a miserable connection."
Miserable it is. But how much more miserable it would be if we never had these heroes at all?