Disecting A Daily Kos I/P Article

Today a diarist I must admit I am unfamiliar with, Oblomov, posts an article about the right of return that I can only assume is somewhat a response to Karma's diary from yesterday. I wanted to disect it a little bit to make a few points.

The "right of return" sought by the Palestinians to the lands from which they were evicted during the war for Israel's independence is not part of a practical solution to the I/P problem, any more than giving the American West back to the Indians was realistic in 1920. Actually, it's even less practical, because in 1920 there weren't enough American Indians left to alter the balance of population power in the US, while if large numbers of stateless Palestinians refugees and their descendants were allowed to return to Israel the essential Jewish character of the State of Israel would be threatened, if not undermined completely.

Interesting paragraph. On the one hand, it recognizes the key problem from the Israeli perspective with the right of return, that being the loss of Israel as a Jewish state. On the other hand, the description of the right of return, which I italisized, is certainly weighted. It refers to Palestinians evicted in 1948. Now I am not sure if this is intentional or not. Is the diarist suggesting that the right of return only applies to Palestinians who can prove they were evicted, as opposed to left either voluntarily or on demand of Arab leadership? Any decent historian will recognize that all 3 happened. Some Palestinians were forced out of land by Israeli forces, some left voluntarily to avoid the conflict, and others were forced to leave by the Arab leadership. I suspect though, that the diarist intends to whitewash history and make it so that every Palestinian who left a home during the War for Independence did it because they were evicted by Israeli forces.

The bad-faith substitute offered by some Israeli sympathizers, allowing to "return" only persons who were themselves evicted in 1948, isn't even worth spitting on.

As a lawyer, I know this trick well. Any offer that isn't liked is offered in "bad faith." Key words to look out for here. "bad-faith," "Israeli sympathizers," "isn't even worth spitting on." This person is not a fan of the suggestion.

Only a withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries (with rational adjustments) will move the problem toward a solution. Everyone knows this, but a some Israelis, and others, just don't want to give all that good land and copious water resources back to the rightful owners.

Another mixed message paragraph. I think most honest people recognize that a withdrawl to 1967 borders with some rational adjustments is going to be the very framework of a deal. But then the diarist goes on the attack against Israel alleging that "some Israelis" don't want to give back land or water. While I am sure that is true, some Israelis don't support that view, the Israeli government has previously accepted a peace deal that entailed this very suggestion. It was rejected by Yassir Arafat. I find it interesting that the diarist talks about "some Israelis" but ignores the Palestinian leadership who have never accepted the framework that he puts forward.

So, what's the newest propaganda wrinkle on the subject? The Right To Remain. In the past year or two, Israeli sympathizers who feel that the so-called "settlers" (an Orwellian word if ever one existed) should be allowed to remain in their condos on stolen West Bank land (and what better place for these pesky misfits, geographically as well as ideologically out of the mainstream of Israeli society?) have been floating this idea as a trial balloon.

Another paragraph with an alert going off when you get through 5 words. Calls the suggestion "propaganda." Then goes off again by talking about "stolen West Bank land" I cute out the part where he tries to justify his attacks by demonstrating it is supported by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

Now in theory I'll bet that the Palestinians would not mind having Jews living in their midst-- Jews, that is, who properly bought the land they are living on from a rightful owner, who agree to live as law-abiding Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state, without all the benefits the so-called "settlers" enjoy today, such as special-access roads, water-supply preference, the right to roam heavily armed across Palestinian land, and a host of other privileges, petty and gross.

But what kind of idiot would believe that any of the current "settlers," who view themselves as redeeming the Land of Israel, would agree to live in the West Bank like this, and all the less so under explicit Palestinian rule? Maybe a few left-wing Jewish peaceniks would try this, but most of the settlers would flee immediately.

So, without a real prospect that Jews in any number would choose to live as Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state on the West Bank, what is all this talk about the settlers' Right to Remain? Just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism.

More attacks on settlers with a conclusion that really misses the point. The "right to remain" as he puts it will likely not be very meaningful because, as Karma indicated yesterday, most Israelis in that situation will go back to Israel rather than stay in Palestine and many Palestinians in Israel will likely go to Palestine. Interesting that he concludes that this is "just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism." Again, a singular focus on Israel without any mention of the Palestinians, and ascribing the worst possible motive for a suggestion at how to end a decades long impasse.

Most of this diary has been about the "Right To Remain" as applied to Israelis living in the West Bank. But don't assume that the proponents of this doctrine are being one-sided. They are not ignoring the plight of the Palestinians for one second, they have the same rights as the West Bank Jews-- identical rights, in fact.

The Palestinians also have the Right To Remain in place in their refugee camps or as second-class citizens, serfs really, oppressed and humiliated daily, and finally tossed off the good land, in their own country.

This is one face of Israel today-- a decades-long campaign of harassment, humiliation, intimidation, vandalism, environmental crimes, theft of water, murders, and attempted school bombings by the settlers and their partisans, conducted under the banner of expansionism and with the tacit support of the State of Israel.

And finally we have the talk of the Palestinians. Unlike the Jews who remain in Palestine (who apparently will be treated like royalty because the Palestinians are better than the Israelis), the Palestinians who remain in Israel will stay in refugee camps, and be "second class citizens," "serfs," "oppressed and humiliated daily."

And then to make sure that he is clear, his final paragraph accusing Israel of just about every crime imaginable.

And this is what makes it a facscinating piece. Somewhere past the hatred and hyperbole is an actual plan for peace. But the diarist is so worried about making sure that he fully demonizes Israel that he misses the opportunity to actually express the message.

Take a look at this piece and Karma's piece side by side and you see the same basic approach written by two different people. One committed to coming up with constructive ideas for peace, and the other to dismiss them out of pure unbridled hatred for Israel.

Regards,

DKW

Controlling What We Can Control

I was living in Arad, Israel in 1998 and 1999. I was in an advanced Ulpan (Hebrew Language Course) when I starting talking politics with my middle-age, female, Hebrew teacher. Politically, there is not really a party that represents my views in Israel. In Israeli politics I would be considered a defense oriented secularist. I suppose the short lived Shinui best represented my views, but I disliked them because of the rampant anti-religious screed of their leader, Tommy Lapid. My teacher, on the other hand, was a Shalom Achshav (Peace Now)/Meretz voter. When I asked her how she could support these political movement, she stated "I don't care what other people (the Palestinians and Arab states) do, I can only control my government."

I can't say that based upon this, I shifted my political views. However, what she said has a particular resonance. I have no control over what my opponent does. All I can try to control is what I do. I can't make my opponent act morally, I can only try to make my government act morally.

I tie this in to a statement that Shimon Peres made in the summer of 1999. It was at a private gathering at the Peres Center for Peace, so you wouldn't have read it in the papers. During a question and answer period, Peres was asked what his greatest regret was about the peace process and he answered "the fact that a Palestinian left never emerged to rival the Israeli left." Where the Palestinian rival to Shalom Achshav and Meretz to say "I don't care what my rival does, I only care that my government is doing the right thing?"

I think this is an important point because it is absent on Daily Kos. Every day TomJ writes a diary about something Israel is doing and refuses any attempt to answer questions about the responsibility of Palestinian Leaders. And Keith Moon does the same thing. Perhaps if things were reversed, the dialogue at Daily Kos wouldn't be so toxic. I wonder what would happen if TomJ were to write an article about the failure of the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist almost 20 years after Oslo and Keith Moon were to write an article about the damage done to peace, not to mention international respect, by having an extremist as Israel's foreign minister.

Too much of the I/P debate as Daily Kos reminds me of fights I used to have with my siblings when we were kids. Me: "Moooooom, [my brother] took off his shoes even though you said not to." Mom: "Worry about yourself." I don't know about you, but I think Daily Kos I/P debates could use a healthy dose of this motherly advise.

Strange Success

I like the fact that Daily Kos Watch has become a regular feature of the I/P debate. Not sure that it means anything in the long run, but for some reason it makes me smile. I also like how they make us out to be some nefarious organization. Here is something I have noted before. A kind of silly sentiment:

How something named DailyKosWatch could NOT be a Dkos bashing site is kinda problematic

I am curious why it has to be a Kos bashing site. Is Human Rights Watch a human rights bashing organization or an organization that monitors human rights? If UN Watch a UN bashing site, or a site that monitors the UN? Monitoring something is not the same as bashing it. This is the same type of rhetoric that says criticizing America is akin to treason. Just like I love America and that is why I speak out when I oppose its policies, I like Daily Kos and feel the need to speak out when I see trends I don't like.

In the same comment, the author, buhdydharma, claims that I insinuate that Meteor Blades is a secret muslim. First of all, I have never even come close to mentioning Meteor Blades religion, not do I have any reason to suggest that if he were Muslim, he needed to keep it a secret. This comment is truly amazing, because what you are witnessing is someone claiming that my criticism of Meteor Blades is somehow related to the fact that he is a Muslim, the same thing they condemn when people claim criticism of Israel to be anti-semitism. I want this to be perfectly clear, so I am going to repost what I wrote about Meteor Blades. It demonstrates that the claim that I said Metero Blades is a secret muslim is both false and evidence of the complete hypocrisy of the commenter and his 3 upraters.

There is a distinction on Daily Kos between "Front Pagers" and the rest of us. Front Pagers have the ability to post things on the "front page" while the rest of us post in the columns on the side. A Front Pager is also one who could be said to "represent the site." One such person is Meteor Blades who has also taken over the role of arbitrator of disputes. Thus, he has made the rule that in any debate you cannot compare the Nazis to anyone in the I/P debate. He also warns, suspends or terminates people that, in his opinion, regularly go over the line.

The problem that I see is that Meteor Blades comes to the issue with his own viewpoints. Thus, when a diarist such as Karmafish accuses a poster supporting Hamas of supporting terrorism, Meteor Blades warns KarmaFish instead of the people supporting Hamas.

Meteor Blades, the Arbitrator of what is and is not allowed to be said, thinks Comparisons of Zionism and Nazism are fair, just not at Daily Kos.:



* [new] Comparisons of Zionism with Naziism ... (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:blueness
...are forbidden. While this might be a perfectly reasonable discussion to have in a more nuanced environment, say at a political journal or face to face among scholars, the I/P threads at Daily Kos do not qualify as such an environment and have a long history of disruptive behavior associated with such accusations. These are not productive, which is why we forbid them. Please cease and desist.

Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 05:18:24 PM EDT

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


And here is another one of his gems:


I support the right of those Palestinians (and their offspring) who can prove a direct lineage that put them in what is now Israel prior to 1948, or who have been forced out since then.

I do not support the "return" of Palestinians whose families do not originate from what is now Israel.

That may not be Solomonic, but it is fair, and it does not mean an end to the Jewish state. [My emphasis not in the original]

Addendum: I also support the rights of Jews expelled from Arab countries to be considered refugees, with all that status implies.


The comment I really wanted to focus on, I can't find after 30 minutes of looking. If anyone can find it and post it in the comments, I would appreciate it. It is the comment where Meteor Blades states that "All Settlements Are Illegal." This was the comment that first inspired me to create this blog. A person who "represents" Daily Kos, A Democratic Blog, making such a gross misstatement and one that so directly conflicts with the Democratic Platform. Failure to distinguish between major Israeli cities like Efrat and fanatical religious outposts in the West Bank is shameful.

The larger issue is that if Meteor Blades is going to comment substantively, he should not be the arbitrator of what is allowed. That is like the fox watching the hen house. Furthermore, why is it that Meteor Blades gets to be the sole voice on what is and is not anti-semitism? Why can he continue to call for more and more support for Deniac's claim that TomJ is an anti-semite based upon some very dubious links in his profile while at the same time attacking Keith Moon for posting diaries intended to balance the All Gaza All The Time Crowd?

Finally, what I want to know is does Meteor Blades "represent" Daily Kos when he says those things. Are his views the ones we want the Democratic Party to think Daily Kos stands for? If so, count me out.