Will You ‘Love Israel from the First Shalom?’ « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Will You ‘Love Israel from the First Shalom?’

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Will You ‘Love Israel from the First Shalom?’”.

Tags: israel

This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 11:53 PM and is filed under Mideast Peace. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

67 Responses to “Will You ‘Love Israel from the First Shalom?’”

Richard Silverstein says:

April 30, 2008 at 2:43 AM

I find it astonishing that you think that you and other Israelis are the only ones who can present a truly credible picture of what is going on within Israeli society. If what you say is true then what academic can write credibly about any field unless he has actual physical contact with it? How can a Greek scholar write persuasively about ancient Greece if he must rely solely on written sources?

I think reading multiple media sources AND having direct contacts with real live Israeli informants (you conveniently left that out of yr dismissal of my expertise) gives me a pretty good vantage pt. to opine on such affairs. As for the subtleties & nuances of Israeli life, we’ll have to rely on you to convey that to us in yr own writing for Comment is Free (I don’t mean this ironically). And I’m curious why you would think that the Israeli blogs I read DO NOT present Israel’s “day to day rhythms, daily grind and unwritten stories?” In fact, some of them do just that.

All I can say is what I say to the 100 others who’ve carped about me and this blog: go write a better one yrself (and I don’t mean that ironically either). Since CiF just asked me to write weekly for them I’d say my editor has a different opinion about whether or not I “engage in reasoned critique.” You don’t like much of what I write because we disagree politically. Naturally, you don’t find my arguments “reasoned.” I wouldn’t expect anything different. Others of my audience feel just the opposite.

Reply
Blonfelfelch says:

April 30, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Again, I clearly never said people shouldn’t write about Israel unless they live there. That didn’t stop you going into a predictable and cliched response about academics living elsewhere etc etc. My comment was a particular reference to your blanket statements about Israeli society, which I felt in no way reflected the reality, which is much like elsewhere: people going about their lives and struggles. I also said nothing about my own blogging – as you know, I haven’t written about Israel on CIF for quite a while now. And, for the third time, I actually agree with much of what you have to say politically. But I do think style, tone and presentation are important.

There’s actually a good example of you not engaging above. I wrote “you don’t particularly engage with reasoned critique.” You then go on to say “I’d say my editor has a different opinion about whether or not I “engage in reasoned critique,” which conveys a totally different meaning from my original statement. I was referring to how you deal with comments, you make it seem like I was referring to the content of your articles themselves (I did that elsewhere).

Am still waiting for an example of a tourist board that promotes its countries conflicts…

Reply
Blonfelfelch says:

April 30, 2008 at 3:05 AM

Am very tired – apologies for the bad grammar in that last sentence!

Reply
Einstein says:

April 30, 2008 at 8:49 AM

Simple question. Is Israel “responsible” (in a bad way that should make Israel look bad) if this is indeed a secondary explosion? If so, isn’t this a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the world?

Richard seems to be indicating Israel did something very bad here by, God forbid, killing some bad guys who happened to have lots of explosives on them while being in a densely populated area full of civilians.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

April 30, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Yes, Israel is responsible if this is a secondary explosion. As responsible as those who carried the alleged munitions which allegedly blew up.

And yes, Israel did something very bad. It killed a mother, four of her children & left the remaining two irreparably scarred for life. And it left a widowed father to care for them & somehow carry on w. his life. That doesn’t seem to bother you in the slightest.

Reply
Yerushalimey says:

May 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM

Richard,
I feel I must call you to task about your closing remark to Einstein. It was an entirely inappropriate thing to say.
Not only would you object vehemently to a suggestion that you seem not to be bothered in the slightest by the suffering of Israeli victims, but you would probably (threaten to) ban someone who said such a thing to you.
Furthermore,in a comment on 2008.04.26 16:22, Einstein said: “I’m not justifying suffering on innocents at all.” So there is evidence of his concern.
The most cynical argument I can invent to demonstrate that even the most callous, truly evil Israeli would be at least slightly bothered by the death or injury of innocent civilians is that it is a waste of munitions and a guarantee of bad publicity.
If you sincerely believe that Einstein is not bothered in the slightest by the death of these and other victims, then your view of humanity is one of the most twisted and uncharitable I have ever encountered.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Yerushalimey: All I can say is that Einstein wrote the following:

Richard seems to be indicating Israel did something very bad here by, God forbid, killing some bad guys who happened to have lots of explosives on them while being in a densely populated area full of civilians.

This is a willful distortion of my position, which was to denounce the killing of innocents. I never said Israel was wrong to attack militants. It is wrong to try to try to kill militants standing a few feet away from a flimsy hut containing innocent women & children.

As Einstein above chooses to focus on what he seems to claim is a “righteous kill” and not on the loss of innocent life, I choose to judge his words on these terms & find them severely lacking in compassion or humanity. If that bothers you, so be it.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 2:34 AM

Therefore, Israel should cease and desist from ever trying to defend itself by pinpointing and targetting bad guys. Who knows if the targetted bad guys are armed to the hilt and that a secondary explosion can kill others a block – maybe 10 blocks – away? One never knows, so what can Israel do to defend itself Richard? This cuts to the heart of the matter to those overly critical of Israel.

Can you at least agree that some burden of responsibility rests on these bad guys who had all these explosives on them in a densely populated civilian area?

Assuming a secondary explosion is indeed the cause of this terrible tragedy, would you say this is still primarily an illegal act committed by Israel that should set precedent for the rest of the world in similar situations?

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 3:05 AM

What’s ludicrous is to take this example and use it to perhaps criticize all countries with internal or external problems, who campaign for tourists. Held to the same standards you have for Israel, it’s disingenuous of any country to compete for my vacation time since they’re not being so honest and upfront about all their nasty problems in their nice, but dishonest, ad campaigns.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 5:59 AM

The loss of innocent life is always terrible, Richard. War is hell. The question is, since Hamas, Fatah, and Hizbollah all resort to attacking Israel from densely populated civilian areas – what can Israel do to defend herself and avoid all possibilities of collateral damage? What options are available? What action would be proportional to attacks from terrorists who hide behind human-shield victims that they care little for? If Israel is to comply with international law and act morally and responsibly in situations like these, what do you propose Israel can do to protect its citizens? Imagine Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah all act together RIGHT NOW and start raining in missiles and rockets from their own densely populated regions – what can Israel do lawfully and morally in response?

Reply
William Burns says:

May 1, 2008 at 6:33 AM

Well, for one thing, they could actually try and talk to Hamas about a cease-fire.

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 6:37 AM

So if the USA stopped all aid to Israel, you think Israel wouldn’t be singled out much more often than many other criminally savage nations combined? Come on. Israel being constantly singled out with complete disregard to context or the responsibility of terrorist entities fighting Israel is bigoted and racist, especially when no other country in Israel’s situation (fighting a terrorist entity) would be savaged similarly.

Suppose there’s a hudna and Gaza is capable of attracting tourists. Their advertisements paint Gaza in the best possible light. Remember that the people of Gaza could benefit and suffer less with tourism. Would it be mean-spirited and racist to light into Gaza travel advertisements? If so, why doesn’t this apply with respect to Israel? If it’s not mean-spirited, then what possible problem could anyone realistically have with right-wing media that constantly bashes, distorts, and tries to paint Palestinian society in the darkest imaginable light? If that’s problematic, then maybe you can start seeing the problem with some who do the same to Israel, but claim to be objective and fair (light right-winged media).

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 6:41 AM

Therefore, fighting in an assymetric war is hopeless. As long as Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.. attack from densely populated civilian populations and hide among their victims, Israel should never, ever try defending itself.

What other option is there? How can Israel defend?

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 8:05 AM

How does talking to Hamas about a ceasefire do anything immediately for those being attacked by Hamas rockets and missiles if Israel is not allowed to defend for fear of collateral damage? What if it takes Hamas 30-90 days to finally stop firing, or 6 months, 2 years, etc.?

What government in the world acts with such restraint as to never defend by force, for fear of collateral damage?

Reply
Yerushalimey says:

May 1, 2008 at 8:43 AM

“And IDF “investigations” never end in the IDF accepting any culpability, even when the evidence is incontroveribly against it.”

What right have YOU to expect the IDF to accept culpability for what they do when YOU never admit YOU were wrong and apologize when, in this war of words we are in, something YOU wrote is shown to be incontrovertibly untrue?

Reply
Einstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Richard, you wrote:
“The salient pt as you say is that the IDF cared little for civilians living in a hut a few meters fr. their alleged target (if there even was one)”.
==================================

Think about what you wrote. Do you realize most left wing, liberal and progressive Israelis serve or have served previously in the IDF? Do you think these progressive Israelis care so little for civilians, as you are suggesting with these words?

If you think there’s some “disconnect” between Israeli progressives vs. progressives elsewhere in the world, maybe this is something you need to explore. The fact is that in Israel, most progressives have moved more to the center as a direct result of all the recent (last 8-10 years) suicide bombings and the result of the Gaza disengagement. It’s not that they suddenly don’t care anymore for Palestinian civilians – only that their hearts were broken when they found that Palestinian society tended to become more aggressive and murdersome the more Israel moved to resolving the I/P conflict (with Oslo, Camp David, Gaza).

I’m stunned you think so little of the IDF and their regard for civilians when the IDF is comprised, and has been comprised mostly of progressive Jews (as you identify yourself).

Reply
Scott says:

May 1, 2008 at 11:10 AM

There are I think a set of separate issues to be considered here.

One is that, like it or not, there _have_ been cases on Israel’s borders where IDF personnel at various levels have employed weapons in ways that predictably increase civilian casualties: I’m thinking here of the decision to ‘flood’ southern Lebanon with cluster munitions in the last days of the 2006 war, the decisions in Gaza to reduce the danger zones around artillery targets over 2003-2006, and the employment of 2000-lb bombs in assassinations in urban areas. One can argue that, for example, the American armed forces has done similar things in Iraq (again, with lots of civilian casualties), but that’s hardly an example for the IDF to emulate.

There’s a larger issue as well, though – the distancing effect of employment of remote munitions, and the elevated casualties that these ‘precision’ weapons inflict. There’s a paradox in Gaza/Lebanon/Iraq/Afghanistan, in that the technologically-advanced side, the one that follows the laws of war and claims to be preoccupied with civilian casualties, actually inflicts _far more_ casualties on civilian populations than does its terrorist opponents. In large part, that’s because such weapons are more destructive and are employed remotely, so that the death of civilians is pretty much an abstraction until the news hits the papers.

So, a nice, quiet, monochrome image from a drone, taken from a kilometre away. It shows the fighting, pans across, spots a couple of indistinct bipeds moving closer to the action, one has something rectangular (maybe an RPG?) in one hand. It can’t show who it is, and the operator isn’t close enough to hear the baby crying inside the house that they’ve stopped outside, or smell breakfast cooking. Maybe that operator is sitting at a base in the Negev, maybe in northern Israel, who knows? They don’t know the neighbourhood, they don’t have to. Easy to make the decision to launch a Spike or a Hellfire – and it really doesn’t matter too much if one is a progressive or not.

Countries like Israel, the USA and etc (those aren’t the only culprits) have evolved a language and way of thinking about the conduct of asymmetric warfare that combines observation of the the laws of war and a more-or-less sincere regret for civilian casualties with conduct that in practice causes such casualties in great numbers. Eventually, that will have to change. That doesn’t mean surrendering when such wars occur, but it does mean taking far greater care in avoiding such casualties than is now the case.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Einstein: You are monopolizing the comment threads publishing so many comments I can’t reply & spend time writing posts. Starting today, if you post more than two comments per day I will either delete comments over that threshhold or withdraw your comment privileges entirely.

The best way to prevent terror is by agreeing to a peace treaty with the Palestinians that involves withdrawing to pre 67 boundaries. As long as Israel isn’t willing to do this then nothing can prevent terrorism against it I’m afraid.

But if Israel IS going to attack Palestinian militants, as a state it is subject to the laws of war & international law. If it kills civilians indiscriminately as it often does, then it is violating them. Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians are also subject to the laws of war & should be prosecuted as well when the time comes.

My job isn’t to tell Israel how to fight a counter-insurgency war against militants. My job is to tell Israel how to achieve peace with its neighbors.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 11:56 AM

This is the fourth time today you’ve published virtually the same argument (using diff. words) in various comment threads. I’m really losing patience with you, Einstein.

But in short, yes, fighting an asymmetric war against Palestinian militants IS hopeless for Israel. The only option is a negotiated peace settlement. NOW.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM

I didn’t know my alleged imperfections freed the IDF fr. any responsibility for its own. Don’t you think there’s a lack of proportionality there?

I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t write in riddles. If you want to claim something I wrote is untrue pls. provide a quote or something so I can know what you’re talking about.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM

I was referring to how you deal with comments, you make it seem like I was referring to the content of your articles themselves

I thought you were referring to my posts & not my comments. I take a different tack in the comments than I do in the posts because in the posts I’m writing for myself and in my own head, while in the comments I’m actually engaging another commenter & usually people who disagree with me.

Reply
Yerushalimey says:

May 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Richard,
I do not intend any sarcasm when I say I am pleased and surprised that you state: “Palestinians who attack Israeli civilians are also subject to the laws of war & should be prosecuted as well when the time comes.” Compared to some other occasions when you have been challenged about the culpability of non-Israelis, this response seems to me to be a welcome change. Yasher koach.

Still, I take issue with your opinion: “The best way to prevent terror is by agreeing to a peace treaty with the Palestinians that involves withdrawing to pre 67 boundaries. As long as Israel isn’t willing to do this then nothing can prevent terrorism against it I’m afraid.”
An old, but I believe perfectly valid refutation of the first sentence is that complying with the demands of terrorists actually encourages more terrorism. Added to that is the history of terror against Jews in Israel which existed before June 1967. So I don’t believe withdrawing to those boundaries would actually prevent terror. Although certain types of terror might well cease, some terror would inevitably continue (and the closer the terror bases are to Israel’s population centers, because of the so-called “Auschwitz” borders, the more threatening such terror would become).
I also take particular exception to the idea that “nothing” other than shrinking Israel can prevent terror. There is terrorist activity all over the world. Can worldwide terror be stopped? (You don’t really believe that Israeli withdrawal will eliminate terror everywhere, do you?) Perhaps the international community can unite and come up with a practical way to fight terror. If so, then your fear that “nothing” but Israeli withdrawal can prevent terrorism is baseless. And if the international community cannot unite to defeat terror… Well, I guess we can always pray…

The bottom line is:You may believe that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is the only, or merely the best solution to Israel’s problems. I don’t.

Reply
Yerushalimey says:

May 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Richard,
This may sound bizarre, but… I agreed with those critics who complained about your arrogance and I wrote the comment with the intent rehashing some of your “alleged imperfections” and teaching you a lesson in humility. However, a subsequent comment of yours (to which I’ve responded in the interim) in which you uncharacteristically – as far as I was concerned – concede the culpability of attacks on innocent Israelis has dissuaded me from pouring my wrath out on you. In a weird way I suppose I owe you an apology for planning to ridicule you….

Reply
William Burns says:

May 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM

You keep throwing out these if, if, ifs–can’t you deal with the situation thats actually happening?

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

May 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Compared to some other occasions when you have been challenged about the culpability of non-Israelis, this response seems to me to be a welcome change. Yasher koach.

Don’t do me any favors. My opposition to Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians is consistent & has never wavered. If you claim that it has you’re dead wrong.

…Complying with the demands of terrorists actually encourages more terrorism.

God, I haven’t heard that claim in a long time. It was tired & bankrupt when it was first conceived God knows how long ago & is irrelevant in the current situation. Hamas is not Al Qaeda. It has specific goals & political demands that ARE negotiable. Military resistance is a tactic toward an end & that end will not result in Israel’s destruction despite what you & others claim.

So I don’t believe withdrawing to those boundaries would actually prevent terror.

You are tragically & pitifully wrong.

because of the so-called “Auschwitz” borders

Do NOT rip off Dershowitz tropes in this blog. Again, such a phrase is banal, trite & propaganda. Do not abuse the Holocaust for the sake of scoring a political pt. I detest it.

I also take particular exception to the idea that “nothing” other than shrinking Israel can prevent terror.

I object to terms like “shrinking.” Israel is not going on diet or amputating a limb by withdrawing to the 67 borders. Israel didn’t control this territory before 67 & won’t after a peace deal. There’s no “shrinking” involved.

There is terrorist activity all over the world. Can worldwide terror be stopped?

There you go again trying to implicate every other issue in the IP conflict except Israel’s actions. I have no interest in talking about worldwide terror & it is largely irrelevant to this issue. If you want to moan about global jihad & worldwide terror you should check out LGF. That might be more conducive to yr views.

(You don’t really believe that Israeli withdrawal will eliminate terror everywhere, do you?)

Yes, there may be an odd terror attack after a peace deal is signed. But it will largely cease.

The bottom line is:You may believe that withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is the only, or merely the best solution to Israel’s problems. I don’t.

Frankly, I couldn’t care what you think. What will happen will happen in terms of an IP settlement & it won’t reflect much if anything of what you believe. You may find this hard or cruel but that will be the way it is.

Reply
Michael says:

May 1, 2008 at 8:09 PM

A fomer IDF spokesman summed up the problem a few years back,

“Why can’t we understand that PR is not a recipe for success, and that even good PR cannot justify bad deeds?
It is time to admit the real problem: that Israel’s actions in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are inexplicable.”

No number of ads with pretty pictures will obscure this reality.

Reply
Yerushalimey says:

May 1, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Richard:
I was not thinking of Dershowitz but was quoting Abba Eban who first used the term “Auschwitz borders” in November,1969.
I suppose the ignorance you display has much to do with your arrogance.
But, since you couldn’t care (isn’t the correct term “couldn’t care less”?) what I think, I won’t waste any more of my time visiting your blog.
If you wish to respond, you have my email address.
Best wishes for your success at The Guardian, you’ll fit right in there.

Reply
Bill Pearlman says:

May 2, 2008 at 5:44 AM

Even Seth Freedman in the Guardian thinks you went too far here. Seth Freedman for Gods sake. The specific goals and political demands of Hamas are the destruction of Israel. And I give them credit for clarity, they’ve been very clear about what they want. Either you refuse to see it or your ok with it. It’s one or the other.

Reply
William Burns says:

May 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Mr. Pearlman,

Since Israel does not openly avow its goal of destroying Palestine, does that make Hamas its moral superior?

Reply
peter norton says:

May 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Dear Richard,
I have come here from Seth’s thread. While I agree with you about his bad manners (he is a bit of a loose cannon) I would never have read your article without it. Thank you in general for your articulate and well argued columns in the Guardian.

Reply