Another Brick in the Wall

As you've probably heard, Israel has for some time now been constructing a "security fence" -- i.e., giant wall -- to keep Palestinians in the Palestinian territories and Israelis safe on the other side of the wall. Reasonable enough, in my view. The only problem is that they've also peppered the Palestinian territories with Jewish settlers and the government isn't about to abandon them to danger. The result is the situation described in this fantastic Washington Post article on Hebron, a place where "the separation is enforced not only by Israeli barriers but also by military checkpoints and curfews intended to protect the roughly 700 Jewish settlers living within the city's most historic and religiously important areas."

These 700 Jews, voting, passport holding citizens of Israel, live in the same city as 150,000 Arabs, citizens of noplace, but subjected to the political authority of an Israeli government which makes every decision about how to administer Hebron with the interests of the 700 in mind, irrespective of the ways in which "securing the small Jewish minority has a potent impact on the lives of the city's 150,000 Arabs." I take the view that, taken as a whole, the "apartheid" rap on Israel is seriously unfair. But take a closer look at the specific situation in Hebron and I don't see what else you could call that particular state of affairs. And there's just no legitimate anti-terrorism reason for any of this. Far and away the easiest way to provide security for Hebron's 700 Jews would be for them to leave and go live in Israel.

Comments

The tail that wags the dog.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 26, 2007 8:12 AM

I'm sure Israel begs to differ. Their solution would be for the 150,000 Palestinians to disappear.

Posted by steve duncan | July 26, 2007 8:14 AM

"I take the view that, taken as a whole, the "apartheid" rap on Israel is seriously unfair. But take a closer look at the specific situation in Hebron and I don't see what else you could call that particular state of affairs."

Well then, why do you think the rap is unfair?

------

The Remnick piece in this week's New Yorker is well worth reading.

Posted by Petey | July 26, 2007 8:16 AM

Look at the second picture and tell me it's not an apartheid system. Is everything Israel does analogous to South Africa? No. But there enough similarities to warrant the comparison.

Also, the other problem with the Separation Wall isn't its existence but where it was built.

Posted by Alice B | July 26, 2007 8:35 AM

Well then, why do you think the rap is unfair?

It's unfair because it implies that all of Israel is like Hebron. South Africa was Hebron writ large; Hebron is South Africa writ small. To dismantle apartheid you needed to completely dismantle the idea of a white-governed political entity in southern Africa.

Dismantling the apartheid-like situation in the West Bank, by contrast, doesn't require liquidating the Zionist enterprise it just requires the dismantling of the settlement system.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 26, 2007 8:37 AM

It should be pointed out that the settlement in Hebron would have been abandoned if the Palestinians had agreed to the Ross/Clinton plan in 2000. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for the current situation. It is hard to feel sympathy for someone who continually shoots himself/herself in the foot.

Posted by SLC | July 26, 2007 8:42 AM

Apartheid rap unfair? Matt, the 700 Hebron settlers are a small fraction of the tens of thousands of settlers that the Israeli government is using to take Palestinian land.

Posted by Barry | July 26, 2007 8:42 AM

Dismantling the apartheid-like situation in the West Bank, by contrast, doesn't require liquidating the Zionist enterprise it just requires the dismantling of the settlement system.

At least until Arab Israelis threaten to outnumber Jewish Israelis. See, for example, the way Israeli marriage law prevents Arabs from the occupied territories from joining their spouses in Israel, a restriction that doesn't exist on Jewish Israelis. The goal of legislation like this is clearly to maintain Israel's Jewish character while keeping it nominally democratic. It does so, however, by making Arab citizens of Israel second-class citizens.

Posted by Christmas | July 26, 2007 8:48 AM

It's not much different inside the Zionist enterprise. See this, for example. I remember reading somewhere recently that according to a poll 75% of the Israeli Jews don't want any Arabs living in their apartment complex. It's amazing number, isn't it.

Posted by abb1 | July 26, 2007 8:53 AM

BTW, the reaction of the Israeli government to the Oslo plan in the 1990's was to *increase* settlement building. So any belief that any current government of Israel would do other than it's doing now is not supported by the fact.

Posted by Barry | July 26, 2007 8:54 AM

It should be pointed out that the settlement in Hebron would have been abandoned if the Palestinians had agreed to the Ross/Clinton plan in 2000. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for the current situation. It is hard to feel sympathy for someone who continually shoots himself/herself in the foot.

it should be pointed out that while arafat rejected the plan, the 150,000 arabs of hebron were not at the table. it's hard to take seriously the arguments of someone who will blame over a hundred thousand people for a choice they did not make, and thus condemn them to misery in perpetuity.

regardless of the peace plans of the past, the situation in hebron doesn't make sense even from a purely israeli security perspective. it drains a lot of resources to protect a small group of zealots. the only reason the hebron settlement exists at all is because of its religious significance.

Posted by upyernoz | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM

Dismantling the apartheid-like situation in the West Bank, by contrast, doesn't require liquidating the Zionist enterprise it just requires the dismantling of the settlement system

I agree that improving the situation of Palestinians living under Israeli control does not involve liquidating the Zionist enterprise. But the notion that the oppression of Palestinians is a matter of small exceptions such as Hebron, or that the illegal settlements are the only barriers to justice for Palestinians, is just out of tune with reality.

I find the most troubling aspect of this incredibly contentious disagreement is the denial of the objective reality of Palestinian suffering. It is simply objectively true that some Palestinian cities are placed under 24 hour curfew, with no system in place to challenge the curfew. It is simply a fact that Palestinian homes are routinely bulldozed without due process or legal recourse, and that rebuilding those homes requires a permit that costs more than the average Palestinian makes in years-- and which carries no guarantee that the rebuilt home won't be demolished. It is a fact that Palestinians in many areas require special identification cards, that they have to pass through Palestinian only checkpoints, that they are subject to interrogations and questioning that Israeli Jews aren't. And, yes, it is a fact that an enormous wall which has been planned with complete disregard for existing communities divides residential areas from roads, isolates individual neighborhoods and deprives people living in a desert climate from water.

The wisdom of these actions is debatable. You can, and many do, argue that they are necessary to promote Israeli security. There, I think, there's room for dialogue. But it seems that for far to many supporters of Israel, discussion can't include accounting for Palestinian oppression at all. And when you start from that kind of a place, you are involved in self-delusion.

I'm also saddened that you seem to present ending the project of Zionism as the goal of people who support justice for Palestinians. There are some who are opposed to the existence of Israel at all, yes. But to suggest that anyone who is opposed to the status quo for some of the most beleagured people on earth is anti-Zionist is, I think, wrong headed. I personally support the Zionist enterprise, although it depends on the definition of Zionism. What I take issue with is the existence anywhere of a state with an explicitly ethnic or religious character. I don't like state religion, not in Israel or America or Iran or Saudi Arabia. And I don't like countries that are founded for individual ethnicities. If that's being opposed to Zionism, I suppose I am. But I do support the existence of a secular, egalitarian Israel, one that ensures safety and freedom for Jews and Palestinians alike. I don't think acknowledging the horrible conditions that Palestinians face prevents someone from supporting the continued existence of Israel.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM

Re upyernoz

"it should be pointed out that while arafat rejected the plan, the 150,000 arabs of hebron were not at the table. it's hard to take seriously the arguments of someone who will blame over a hundred thousand people for a choice they did not make, and thus condemn them to misery in perpetuity"

It should be pointed out that these same 150,000 Arabs of Hebron, along with their countrymen elsewhere in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip voted Mr. Arafat into office by a large majority. This is the theory of a republican form of government. Citizens elect representatives to perform executive and legislative functions. Thus, Mr. Arafat and his aides were representing those 150,000 Arabs of Hebron at the negotiation table. The latter had their say in the matter when they voted Mr. Arafat into office.

Posted by SLC | July 26, 2007 9:36 AM

The real problem is that, unlike South Africa, Israel's unrealistic policies are being subsidized and propped up by the U.S. If we stopped subsidizing them, then I'm sure they would quickly adopt more pragmatic policies because they would bear the cost of these ridiculous security measures.

Posted by Jim W | July 26, 2007 9:40 AM

It should be pointed out that these same 150,000 Arabs of Hebron, along with their countrymen elsewhere in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip voted Mr. Arafat into office by a large majority. This is the theory of a republican form of government. Citizens elect representatives to perform executive and legislative functions. Thus, Mr. Arafat and his aides were representing those 150,000 Arabs of Hebron at the negotiation table. The latter had their say in the matter when they voted Mr. Arafat into office.

and by the same logic, every american soldier who dies in iraq is to blame for his own death, because he was only there because of the decisions of our elected represenatives.

it's ridiculous to blame people for all the consequences of all of the decisions of their bad leaders. that's true even if those leaders are elected.

once again, it's simply absurd to say that the people currently suffering in hebron under a manifest injustice are themselves to blame because of a decision by one of their leaders a decade ago.

Posted by upyernoz | July 26, 2007 9:54 AM

Aparthied is a strech. But Haartetz, the premier english language paper in Israel, just wrote

Every day the Knesset has the option of passing laws that will advance Israel as a democratic Jewish state or turn it into a racist Jewish state. There is a very thin line between the two. This week, the line was crossed

Read all about it here

If you follow SLC's logic, the people of Israel should be blamed for this racist outcome.

Posted by Ahmediyya | July 26, 2007 10:19 AM

I rejoice to hear your defense of Palestinian democracy, SLC. Ordinarily, you Likudnik types aren't willing to concede that . . .

Posted by rea | July 26, 2007 10:24 AM

It should be pointed out that the settlement in Hebron would have been abandoned if the Palestinians had agreed to the Ross/Clinton plan in 2000. The Palestinians have only themselves to blame for the current situation. It is hard to feel sympathy for someone who continually shoots himself/herself in the foot.

Sigh, we've done this before - repeating the lie that the Ross/Clinton deal was the bee's knees doesn't make it any less false. The deal absolutely sucked from a Palestinian point fo view, and anyone who's read the terms and isn't an AIPAC shill knows that.

More importantly, how does Arafat's refusal to accept a deeply flawed offer excuse Israel's actions? Israel's actions with regards to the Occupied Territories still violate the Geneva Conventions - it's still a war crime to build the settlements, it's still a war crime to expropriate property the way they are, and it's still a war crime to recklessly disregard the lives of innocents the way Israel does. How does what Arafat did make that any less true?

Posted by SS | July 26, 2007 10:25 AM

The illegal wall does not separate Israelis and Palestinians. It separates Palestinians from their lands and in some cases totally encloses them inside walls, forcing to them live in what are in reality outdoor prisons. The wall does not follow the Green Line of prior-1967 war except in parts and is illegal in all those parts where it deviates from it. This is a legal fact. Claiming otherwise, like you did, is either a case of not knowing the facts - which can be quickly found out from neutral sources (even when Israeli government propaganda also does reveal the truth) and so is not a good excuse - or either deliberately lying about them. One last thing: In US Israel is always considered to be a separate case, above laws, able to do what others are not allowed to do. But in the larger world if Israel is allowed to steal land against international laws and decisions, then others will follow. And US claims that Israel can do what other can not will be a hollow cry.

Posted by Alias | July 26, 2007 10:33 AM

Posted by Alice B | July 26, 2007 8:35 AM:"Look at the second picture and tell me it's not an apartheid system."

It is not an apartheid system. One road is for Israeli citizens, even if they are Palestinians. The other is not. If America provide welfare for Americans but not Mexicans, even in Mexico (tho' at this point the analogy goes wild) it is not apartheid. There is no racism in Israel's policy.

Posted by Alice B | July 26, 2007 8:35 AM:"Also, the other problem with the Separation Wall isn't its existence but where it was built."

Then it is hardly an "Apartheid" Wall is it? It can be moved.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 26, 2007 8:37 AM:"Dismantling the apartheid-like situation in the West Bank, by contrast, doesn't require liquidating the Zionist enterprise it just requires the dismantling of the settlement system."

Surely that depends on what you consider the problem to be. Those people who object to "Apartheid" are rarely clear as to what they object to precisely. Or rather it is a broad Church under which many causes hide. Some of them would claim that the settlements are just like the rest of Palestine to the West of the Green Line. What is, after all, the difference between a town on one side of the Green line and a town on the other? There are certainly people who would argue that the Zionist enterprise, by its very nature, is racist and would point to the lower socio-economic outcomes of Israeli Arabs as proof. This is simply dog-whistle politics. I hear what I expect to. So, no doubt, do you. So, alas, do the radicals and Islamists.

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 10:57 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM :"I find the most troubling aspect of this incredibly contentious disagreement is the denial of the objective reality of Palestinian suffering. It is simply objectively true that some Palestinian cities are placed under 24 hour curfew, with no system in place to challenge the curfew."

I am sorry to trouble you some more but could you please list those Palestinian cities which have been under 24 hour curfew in the last year? You know, before I doubt that any such cities exist.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"It is simply a fact that Palestinian homes are routinely bulldozed without due process or legal recourse, and that rebuilding those homes requires a permit that costs more than the average Palestinian makes in years-- and which carries no guarantee that the rebuilt home won't be demolished."

And while I am at it, may I also ask for proof of this interesting claim which seems to be a conflation of several problems, none of which apply to all Palestinians? Routinely? Could you please tell me the last time that a Palestinian home was bulldozed - especially one that required an Israeli permit to be rebuilt.

Far be it for me to claim this is a myth and hence prove my denial of course.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"It is a fact that Palestinians in many areas require special identification cards, that they have to pass through Palestinian only checkpoints, that they are subject to interrogations and questioning that Israeli Jews aren't."

Actually that is not a fact. It is a statement of your prejudice. Israel has, nowhere, Jew-only checkpoints. It has special facilities for its own citizens - many of whom are Jews but some of whom are Palestinian. Those who are not Israeli citizens - all of whom are Palestinian and almost none of whom are Jews (although a statistically insignificant percentage are Jewish) - are not entitled to use the same facilities as Israeli citizens. What is unusual about this? Last I checked American Airports had special lanes for American citizens. Oh the Humanity! Of course, by the way, they are subject to special security checks. As are Muslims in a lot of places including the US.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"And, yes, it is a fact that an enormous wall which has been planned with complete disregard for existing communities divides residential areas from roads, isolates individual neighborhoods and deprives people living in a desert climate from water."

As far as I can see precisely none of those claims are true either. In so far as the Fence was planned with little regard to the welfare of the Palestinians, the Israeli Courts changed that. Who lives in a desert climate and has been separate from water?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"What I take issue with is the existence anywhere of a state with an explicitly ethnic or religious character."

So you are opposed to the entire nation-building project of the last two centuries given that most states are or pretend to be based on a specific and explicit ethnic character? How do you feel about the Tibetan struggle for independence given it too is based explicitly on an ethnic and religious character?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"I don't like state religion, not in Israel or America or Iran or Saudi Arabia."

Good thing Israel does not have one then isn't it?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 9:01 AM:"And I don't like countries that are founded for individual ethnicities."

So are you opposed to a Palestinian state?

Posted by HeiGou | July 26, 2007 11:07 AM

I just sent this below email to Matt and thought I would share it with you:

Hey Matt,

I think it's really silly that you continue to insisit that the "apartheid rap" on Israel is unfair. You've already shown you've got enough stones to break away from the usual chorus of pathetic Israel-firsters in America. Now the next step is to try and actually be honest about what is happening, instead of weighing your words in terms of how acceptable or unacceptable they are in the American mainstream. The last thing America need is another pathetic journalist trying to defend Israel from patently true observations being made about it.

In case you still honestly don't believe that Israel is carrying out something vastly worse than anything apartheid South Africa has ever done, please check out this graphic of what is happening in the West Bank: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/page/0,,2088220,00.html

Posted by saifedean | July 26, 2007 11:12 AM

I don't know how this affects the basic arguments going on here, but to address Matt's point: keep in mind that it's not as if Israel just realized "Oh my, there are 700 settlers in Hebron. We must protect them." Settlements exist at least in part to help Israel control the West Bank/defend Israel/grab land from Palestinian Arabs/put pressure on Palestinian Arabs/whatever else you might want to call it. In short, things like settlements and the security fence/wall are just facets of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, just like the rockets and the suicide bombers. I think that there must be better ways for Israel to get whatever it is Israel thinks it can get by having settlements, but I know little of the details.

Posted by dan | July 26, 2007 11:25 AM

And also, make sure you check out these pieces on the topic:

Chris McGreal's Two-part Report for The Guardian on Apartheid and Israel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html

Posted by saifedean | July 26, 2007 11:27 AM

as critical as i am of israel, i think calling the settlement system "apartheid" is counter-productive. all it does is start up a whole issue about the appropriateness of the analogy, which ends up getting us away from the actual facts. analogies can be useful to clarify an argument, but in this case it's pretty clear that the apartheid analogy is just muddying the waters.

besides, who cares whether the situation in the occupied territories is similar or dissimilar to the south african townships in the 1970s and 80s? even if apartheid had never existed, what the israelis are doing to palestinians would be just as wrong. examples of injustice stand on their own merits. sometimes all the apartheid analogy does is give the pro-israeli side a way to avoid addressing those issues, focusing the argument on another country entirely.

Posted by upyernoz | July 26, 2007 11:38 AM

As far as HeiGou's claims of factual error on my part, I would suggest that he try and reconcile his views with the large majority of the recent historical record of Israel, and in particular, with even the history of mainstream conservative Israeli historians such as Benny Morris. People who have every reason not to agree with me do. If you want to argue about historical facts, I would suggest that the burden of proof rests on the person arguing contrary to the world's historians.

As for the claims about Israel's ethnic and religious character, though-- this is another instance of Israel's supposed supporters wanting to have it both ways. There is simply no question that Zionism as classically constructed sought an explicitly Jewish state, both ethnically and religiously. More importantly, there is also no question that the original Zionists, and the hard-core Zionists of today, consider Israel a Jewish state, specifically, in religious and ethnic character. Do you think an Orthodox Israeli Jew, who is dedicated to the Zionist project, is willing to dismiss the Jewish character of Israel as casually as you do? What percentage of Israel's people, do you think, would embrace the notion that Israel is not an explicitly Jewish state? Does the right of every Jew to emigrate to Israel not suggest a special status for Jews in Israel? Does the power that Rabbis have to determine the Jewish identity of a potential immigrant to Israel-- a legal distinction-- not count as theocratic power? These are important questions. They can't be dismissed glibly.

And here's the other thing. Whatever else is true, it is a matter of absolute fact that Israel is considered a Jewish state. The standard rejoinder to this is that it isn't really a Jewish state, legally; and that it has only symbolically Jewish character. I would like to ask whether American Jews, or Muslims or Sikhs or whoever else, would have no objection to America being deemed a Christian state. If the Constitution was amended in such a way that America was deemed a Christian state-- even if it was just a symbolic measure-- would you be cool with that, Hei Gou? I would not. I don't like religious identity for states, not Christian identity for the USA, not Jewish identity for Israel, not Islamic identity for Iran. Egalitarianism and secularism are, to my mind, some of the basic foundations of democracy. You can't have secularism for thee but not for me.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM

Reasonable enough, in my view.

"When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out." -Martin Niemöller

Posted by Gregorio | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM

On a previous thread HeiGou was commenting on a few days ago he was denying global warming.

Today he is denying apartheid in the Occupied/Besieged Territorries.

Dear old HeiGou: reliably wrong about everything.

Posted by CH3CH2OH | July 26, 2007 2:16 PM

We should stop describing the 700 Israeli citizens of Hebron as settlers and start using the more accurate term – war criminal. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court specifies the following to be war crimes:

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

The United States has tolerated and appeased these war crimes merely because Israel is a Jewish State. In doing so the US caused immense damage to its standing in the World and significantly complicated its attempts to bring the wider Middle East into the modern world.

There is not much ordinary Americans can do to help move the Israeli-Palestinian conflict towards a fair and permanent solution. One small thing we can do is to refer to Israeli citizens transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories as war criminals rather than settlers. We need to take back the definition of reality from those who abuse it through their use of quaint, and seemingly benign, terminology to describe war criminals.

Posted by ndm | July 26, 2007 2:20 PM

I don't agree that Jewish settlement in Hebron is positive for achieving a lasting peace, however; in the above comments and article, it seems like the Jewish history and significance of Hebron is being glossed over. Hebron is the second holiest city in the Jewish religion and the site of the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. There was a Jewish community in Hebron throughout the Byzantine, Arab, Mameluke, Ottoman and some of the British period. It was only until 1929 that a particularly violent pogrom occurred during the Arab Riots and the Jewish community was evacuated from the city. After 1948, Jews were not allowed to enter the city's holy cites, and the Jordanians razed the ancient Jewish quarter and Jewish cemetery.

I don’t personally agree that this justifies the Palestinian hardship caused by the Jewish presence in the city or that it justifies the behavior of the hard line settlers. Israelis and Palestinians must realize that sometimes existing political facts and situations on the ground need to trump religion and/or nationalism.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that these settlers have a legitimate historical connection to the place they live. They clearly believe that Jews should be able to live in their religion’s second holiest city. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complicated and couching it in the language of European colonialism (which tends to be done in the comments above) obscures the fact that there is a legitimate Jewish history and religious significance to Israel/Palestine in addition to an Arab significance and history to the land.

Both sides will have to make painful concessions to achieve the necessary peace, and Hebron will probably have to be one of those concessions. However, this doesn’t mean that the Jewish religious significance of the city should be forgotten.

Posted by S | July 26, 2007 2:53 PM

S:

In fact, though, religion is the problem here. The truth is nobody has the right to live anywhere because God gave it to them, because other people either believe that God said something else or that God didn't have anything to say about it at all or that God doesn't even exist. It's an unprovable, contested, BS claim.

So if Israeli Jews should live in Hebron, it must be justified on some secular ground.

The hard fact is, people don't get to declare places "holy" and then live there, at the expense of other people who were already there. And it is precisely the fact that Israel wants to uphold religious claims over the occupied territories while remaining a secular state that is causing the problem here.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 26, 2007 8:30 PM

"It should be pointed out that these same 150,000 Arabs of Hebron, along with their countrymen elsewhere in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip voted Mr. Arafat into office by a large majority."

Between the beginning of the occupation and the election of Arafat, many years past. Nobody here is claiming Arafat was a good person. However, in that time frame of Israel not being able to effectively rule the Palestinian Territories and the election, terrorists in Palestine, including Arafat, were able to kill, maim and intimidate any potential opposition. In addition, Palestinians were (and still are) one of the world's biggest refugee populations, meaning many potential adversaries went abroad. Israel wasn't exactly kind to proud but more moderate Palestinians either. When you end up occupying a people, especially in the era of both nationalism and asymmetrical warfare, for an extended period of time, terrorist groups will rise and they will attack both the occupier and their own internal adversaries. A similar process has been carried out in Sri Lanka in the crisis between the Tamils and the Colombo government. To carry SLC's logic further, the Israelis voted for the governments that continued the occupation while not allowing for Palestinian elections, which allowed Arafat to kill of his opposition and made him the only game in town, meaning that the Israelis consented to Arafat's actions. This is a sick, twisted logic. It's the logic of mass retribution against a people for the actions of a few.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 3:39 AM

Re SS

Mr. SS conveniently forgets that Mr. Arafat walked away from the table and did not submit a counterproposal to the Clinton/Ross proposal. There can be no question that the reason he did so is that it was clear to him that there was no way that the Palestinian demand that the Palestinians in refugee camps be resettled in Israel would be accepted by the latter. That has always been the Palestinians non-negotiable demand and will never be accepted by the other side. For this reason, negotiations are hopeless.

Posted by SLC | July 27, 2007 10:09 AM

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM :"As far as HeiGou's claims of factual error on my part, I would suggest that he try and reconcile his views with the large majority of the recent historical record of Israel, and in particular, with even the history of mainstream conservative Israeli historians such as Benny Morris. People who have every reason not to agree with me do. If you want to argue about historical facts, I would suggest that the burden of proof rests on the person arguing contrary to the world's historians."

May I take it from you total refusal to name a single Palestinian city that has been under a 24 hour curfew lately as proof that you do not know of any such city and in fact made that claim on the basis of ignorance and malice? In fact may I extend the question a little further and ask if you are aware that every single city in the OTs is presently under the control of the Palestinian Authority and so Israel is not (and has not been for a long time) in any position to impose any sort of curfew on territory they do not control?

As for your interesting effort at changing the subject, I have no problem reconciling my views with the mainstream of Israeli historiography. Morris is hardly "mainstream" and for a long time he was not on the Right. But we have established your special attitude to facts haven't we? I would be pleased if you could point me towards a single historian of Israel who agrees with you about the on-going existence of 24 hour curfews in the OTs.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"As for the claims about Israel's ethnic and religious character, though-- this is another instance of Israel's supposed supporters wanting to have it both ways. There is simply no question that Zionism as classically constructed sought an explicitly Jewish state, both ethnically and religiously."

And while we are at it, does your refusal to name any area in which Palestinian houses which need permits to be re-built are routinely bulldozed prove that in fact no such area exists and no such houses are being bulldozed? Indeed that you made that claim up entirely?

As for Israel's religious character, there is no doubt whatsoever that while the early Zionists affirmed Israel's national and ethnic character, they flatly rejected a religious identity for Israel. A fact that has remained true to the present day despite the power of the Frummies.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"More importantly, there is also no question that the original Zionists, and the hard-core Zionists of today, consider Israel a Jewish state, specifically, in religious and ethnic character."

Actually there is no question that is a statement utterly at odds with the historical record and the real world. Zionism was a secular movement that rejected any religious role in the State - as the entire historical record proves. But please don't let me and reality stop you.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"Do you think an Orthodox Israeli Jew, who is dedicated to the Zionist project, is willing to dismiss the Jewish character of Israel as casually as you do?"

Well yes. It depends on the Frummie of course but the more Orthodox they are, they more they will reject Zionism - the reconciliation between the Zionists and the Orthodox dates to after WW2 and revolves around the argument that the State of Israel is needed for the transition to the coming of the Messiah - that a Zionists Israel can be taken over from inside and transformed to a proper Jewish state. Israel is, now, as the cliche goes, a state for Jews, not a Jewish state.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"What percentage of Israel's people, do you think, would embrace the notion that Israel is not an explicitly Jewish state? Does the right of every Jew to emigrate to Israel not suggest a special status for Jews in Israel? Does the power that Rabbis have to determine the Jewish identity of a potential immigrant to Israel-- a legal distinction-- not count as theocratic power? These are important questions. They can't be dismissed glibly."

Can we all take the fact that you have failed to provide any evidence of "Jewish only" checkpoints as proof that you now accept that they do not and never have existed and your statement was factually inaccurate?

I think the vast majority of Israelis, and Jews, would accept that Israel is not a Jewish state. Because it isn't. Jewish law does not apply anywhere much. It is a state for Jews (and its Arab minorities). Not a Jewish state. It is true that the Law of Return implies a special status for Jews. As do the laws for the Palestinians of Israel imply a special status for them. Rabbis do not have the power to determine the Jewishness of an immigrant. They have the right to state Jewish law as it applies to Jews. Anyone who is Jewish by the secular standards of the Law of Return, Lenin for instance, can immigrate to Israel even if they are not Jewish by Jewish law. Because the law is self-evidently non-theocratic. But of course anyone with any knowledge of Israel knows this so you must have known that too, right?

I don't have to dismiss them glibly. I dismiss them as ignorant, contrary to the facts and pretty good evidence of bigotry and hatred with some glee and delight. Rarely have I seen anyone lay themselves so open to dismissal in my entire life. Have you read even one book on Israel?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"And here's the other thing. Whatever else is true, it is a matter of absolute fact that Israel is considered a Jewish state."

May I take from the fact you have failed to name a single desert community that has been separated from its water that you now accept that no such community exists in Israel?

That is not a matter of absolute fact. I might take pity on you and agree that it depends on your definition of "Jewish state", but I would be absolutely delighted to see any definition you could come up with that would be accurate and yet not show every single one of your claims about Israel so far to be specious. Please feel free.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"The standard rejoinder to this is that it isn't really a Jewish state, legally; and that it has only symbolically Jewish character. I would like to ask whether American Jews, or Muslims or Sikhs or whoever else, would have no objection to America being deemed a Christian state."

I think that would be an interesting question but that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights therein attached might make it hard for America to be called a Christian state. I'd say the better analogy would be Pakistan which was not founded as an Islamic state but as a state for Muslims. See the difference?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"If the Constitution was amended in such a way that America was deemed a Christian state-- even if it was just a symbolic measure-- would you be cool with that, Hei Gou? I would not."

Sorry but as Israel is explicitly not a Jewish state, why the analogy?

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"I don't like religious identity for states, not Christian identity for the USA, not Jewish identity for Israel, not Islamic identity for Iran."

Good for you but as Israel is not a Jewish state in that sense it is irrelevant. You ought to be a full supporter of Israel then.

Posted by Freddie | July 26, 2007 1:00 PM:"Egalitarianism and secularism are, to my mind, some of the basic foundations of democracy. You can't have secularism for thee but not for me."

I expect you can but as Israel is a secular state I don't see the point. This simply high lights what you have yet to learn.

By the way, are you explicitly opposed to any future Palestinian state on the basis that it will be either explicitly ethnic in character (i.e. Palestinian and Arab) or explicitly religious (i.e. Islamic) depending on whether Hamas or Fatah win?

Posted by HeiGou | July 27, 2007 11:50 AM