It's not too much of a mystery why liberals have a hard time with Israel. And it only has a little bit to do with what Israel actually does. Because, if actual actions are the measure, why don't we unload this mount of vituperation on Syria, China, Myanmar, Sudan and the entire list of other countries who freely do to their own citizens ten or a hundred times more than Israel does? After all Israel has an active opposition, an active press, a peace movement, everything that none of these other countries allow.
Liberals are disappointed because 'their guys' actually turned out to have a mind of their own and their own ideas on how to survive. After WW II, the Jews were pitied for the effects of the Holocaust and they became sort of an example of people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps after being treated horribly. Israel was enormously successful as a country and a society – and of course Jews were prominent in virtually every area of American culture as avatars for the smart and the successful. And their image was clean and bright and peace-loving and – sort of harmless. After all, what kind of people let themselves be killed by the millions without responding.
So far, so good. The honeymoon period persisted through several wars and the David continually bested against the Goliath – and the Israelis were still 'the good guys.' Gradually, Israel took on the trappings of a real nation, an actual democratic country and began to pursue policies that would ensure their own survival – and another pitiable minority began to emerge, the Palestinian refugees. (Why the 500,000 Palestinians were puposefully left to fester in refugee camps while an equal number of Jews expelled, property-less, from the Arab countries were absorbed into Israeli society is a question that doesn't seem to come up.)
So Liberals became upset that their 'good guys', their exemplars,the people who suffered a lot and still carried on, actually became adults with minds of their own. Somehow they should have just persevered and let us figure out how to act - after all, aren't we the big brother who saved them?
I think that liberals feel rejected because Israel didn't do what the liberals would have wanted them to do, although, what the Israelis should actually have done is very much undefined. In a previous comment, I asked anyone to tell me , with due consideration of the statements of the Palestinian governments, what Israel should actually have done – at any stage to make teh situation better and still ensure their survival.
The behavior of the Israelis in some situations has not been good. How does it compare with the actions of other governments with the same degree of power of their occupied territories? For just one example, how has China acted toward the Tibetans? In point of fact, how does it compare with the actions of the US, the French in Vietnam, the Belgians in the Congo and damn near everyone else. The reality is that, throughout history, most countries who could exercise power did so, often brutally.
Why does the actions of the Israeli government attract so much anger from liberals. These, remember, are the same liberals who would go to court to explain why a teenager should be excused from bad acts because he grew up in a tough neighborhood and hostile surroundings.
Besides the internalized anger at being rejected, there is also a non-subtle racism here. Liberals have traditionally excused the rantings of Palestinian leaders as just that, talk. The kind of tolerance we give towards those who don't know better. But of course the Israelis should. And they should be perfect. And they should tolerate everything. And they shouldn't worry about their own survival. And they should not be affected by sixty years of being surrounded by hostile adversaries who, to this day, preach that they should be driven into the sea.
Would anyone here care to predict what would have happened if the power balance had tilted the other way?
Instead of sending people to convence the Israelis abut peace, perhaps the churches of the US should send demonstrators to convince the various Palestinian parties that they shouldwork towards peace. Ot are the churches concerned about the reception tehy would get from that side of the table.
Before anyone starts frothing I am a realist, Israel has done some bad things from my viewpoint and I wish that there was peace in the middle East but I don't think that 3 million more Jews have to die to make that happen.
(If you're going to make remarks about financial aid, new Nazis or other silly ranting, don't bother. I erase spam and have no tolerance of babbling morons either.)
___________________________________________
My life is photography and, with every post, I try to include an appropriate picture that I've taken. This is a work gang on the roads of central Myanmar - probably unpaid civilians working as slave laborers. The soldier on the right coming into the frame got very angry I had my camera out. My guide assured him I hadn't taken any pictures and bought him off with some dollars and cigarettes.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alan Milner
Claudia Moscovici
Stacey Youdin
john guzlowski
ume
Donegal Descendant
Salon.com
Comments
There are so many failed analogies in this sophistic post that I'll leave it for others to tear apart.
Stick to photography if you have any skill in that medium, which I doubt, based on the chaotic composition of the picture you chose to accompany this atrocious article.
unrated for obvious reasons
it is so typical of those who can't argue the point to dismiss the other's argument as beneath them. I notice you didn't tell me how Israel should act.
re:the picture - it documents the situation and was the best that could be done under the circumstances. Judging from your argumentation skills, you wouldn't do well as a photo critic either.
He went off on a babble about Israel when the point of my post is that I was wondering why people fixate in Israel to the exclusion of so many others. I am not denying that Israel has done some bad things but, in the scheme of things, what they have done pales both in degree and amount besides others that get so little attention.
Mark if you make a post that doesn't spring from some real wellspring of hatred, I'll leave it. Otherwise, out it goes.
It's ok; the paltry three rating your blog post received out of SIXTY-TWO viewers speaks volumes about how others view your myopic perspective.
your facts are one-sided and you don't answer my question. Your own constant stream of anti-Israel posts bespeaks a fascination that is Hitlerian in its focus.
My post was about why people focus on Israeli misdeeds and ignore everyone elses'. What is that worm inside of you that has found a way to rise to the surface?
I am american and born jewish, and I believe that silence in crimes committed in my name is complicity.
I hold both countries feet to the fire, and not in coincidence, these two countries have compiled, respectively, the most military incursions over the sovereign borders of any other nations during my lifetime.
One should always clean up their own home before criticizing others unclean homes.
I've read your almost monomaniacal series of posts.
You've chosen a single metric that justifies your own bias.
Why not actual numbers of people hurt, why not crimes against own citizens, why not unbalanced attitudes, why not degree of repression?
Quite clearly you are picking out reasons to justify the expression of your own internal hatreds. You need some psychiatric help to deal with your own problems.
Start your cleansing within yourself.
Get a life -- reality is NOT what you see on reality TV.
You are so overwrought by your own demons that you can't even look at yourself. What is it that causes you to write 10 or 15 consecutive blog posts about the evils of the US and Israel? What is it that so energizes your anger? If you are both a US citizen and a Jew, you could be either in the US or in Israel fighting for your beliefs. Instead you are in Japan, frothing at the mouth and trying to find some way of diminishing me by attacking me personally. Why not answer the question I have posed multiple times? What makes people, people like you - hold on and seethe with anger when anyone does not agree with them?
Come on Mark. Why are you fixated on Israel misdeeds when there is lots of ,arguably more powerful, evil in this world? Why not tell us why you think that this little country's deeds are so much more venal than anyone elses'? If they are so evil, why aren't you there fixing them?
If you don't answer, I'll just delete your comment. That's really a toughie, isn't it
Now one of my focuses is Okinawa, where I live and in which 1 in 3 civilians were nurdered in s crossfire in which Okinawa had no " dog in the race."
Baced on your previous vapid and vacuous comments, I am speaking way above your comprehension level.
Unrated for your unmitigated ignorance of the realities of the world even despite your sojourn in my current nesting place. You are an ignorant p.o.s., no offense to sh*t which has a useful purpose,
Delete me, coward.
You haven't answered my question directly but it is really clear what the answer is.
Instead of a civilized discourse, you attack me, my character, my abilities. You show yourself for what you are and I wouldn't delete this comment for the world.
You are a bigot. Concentrated hatred of yourself gets vented as hatred for what you are. Ever hear of Daniel Burros?
He was a Jewish American who, as a teenager changed his identity and joined, first the American Nazi Party, the later the New York State branch of the United Klans of America, one of the most violent Klan groups of the time.
He was mental unstable and, after a NY Times profile outed his background, shot himself.
You've got a different way of expressing your hatreds but is is probably equally unhealthy. Get some help, Mark, before you self destruct like Dan.
I see that you've just gotten an EP, and are, likely, justly, proud of it, but it, like much of your writing contains mistakes a 6TH grader could spot.
Your photography is pedestrian, at best; your efforts at psychoanalysis, abysmal.
Seemingly your jewishness causes you to have a real stone in your eye when you approach that topic.
To wit:
State of Trans-jordan
about the Arab behaviour in Darfut
When I see people having attitude that don't have logical causes
Ghandhi et als
Palestinians organizations
deadly children - if fact, large parts of the world encourage it
http://open.salon.com/blog/the_traveler/2010/06/12/hitler_-_fighter_against_apartheid_from_the_beginning
To try to write about righteousness, with your stiff-necked attitude, and misspell the name of a great man like Gandhi is a cardinal sin (in my book).
"jordan" with a small "J?"
I'll presume you know what possessive means, but must have some other intention in "Palestinians organizations."
Do you proof-read your posts or like your narcissistic attitude toward your photography, do you just throw them out there and presume their brilliance?
PS - Additionally, there is one outstanding lie in the post. "They forced out all their Jews." I lived and worked for many years in Casablanca. I presume you will not attempt to deny that they are an Arabic nation.
As I could see the bankruptcy of ashkenazi jewry. I adopted sephardic practices as my preferred form of worship. As basketball coach of the largest jewish public school and living in the building that had the largest synagogue in Morocco, I had access to the heart of that still thriving, vibrant, jewish community.
The jews of Morocco were not driven out of Morocco by their host country, but when the actions of israel became more and more genocidal, it was only then, that they began to fear that the hospitality of their host country might accordingly change.
I leave your comments in place because nothing I would say could make you look worse than your own words.
Then, the following question is, naturally, what do you call a person who speaks two languages, and the answer is bilingual.
The final question is what do you call a person who only speaks one, and the answer is an american.
You have brought a new segment to the routine.
What do you call someone who can't speak even their native language and the answer is "the Traveler."
Do you ever tire of your sociopathic Freudian projections?
Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything or made an error?
What a clown I've stumbled upon, and a liar, to boot.
Yes, by all means, allow my posts to stand so others can check the veracity of my comments.
It's certainly a shame when things get sidetracked - maybe that's the nub.
The reasonable premise, that we fixate on Israel rather than all the other transgressors is swept aside and the debate is reduced to two individuals - another nub.
There have been a lot of posts since the flotilla, but this one felt as if it was going to open up another, much needed, perspective.
Didn't happen. Damn shame.
I had my own rant on the subject ( before the flotilla ), from which I don't resile, but it came from a nostalgic rather than realistic point of view. Couple of people had a go at me, and then it petered out.
I do think this subject needs to stay afloat, and be explored from every angle, and I thank you for yours, traveller. It's unique, and I wish it wasn't so, because it speaks to me of reasonableness. Rated.
Apparently, a groundswell is building for the quality of your assertions.
A N Y D A Y N O W.
You focus on me and my failings and my post and its failing and my photography and its failings yet you have not, seemingly cannot answer the once central question.
Why is it Israel that incites so much anger when other countries do so much more?
I don't care much about the ratings; I am much more amused by having you trapped in your inability to answer that one singular question.
By refusing to even try, you speak for every person who eases his internal desires by finding a meta-target for his anger.
Take a couple months off from your cr*p photography, try some study, and maybe (although I doubt it) the fog of war within yourself will lift.
I am not you daddy (thank G-d) -- go elsewhere for further clarification.
I am done with you.
Comment all you like -- I will not answer -- soliloquy seems to be your preferred form of discourse, anyway.
Please don't let this one correspondent throw you.
I can't think of a more important topic right now.
I'm thinking maybe the reason we fixate on Israel is because in this we are culpable. Unlike China or Myanmar, Darfur or Fiji, your taxpayer's dollars are supporting the Israeli stance.
That, and the perception that democracy there is vital.
More vital, let's say, than in Tibet, whose only resource is altitude and faith ; or Myanmar, whose only resource seems to be an imprisoned leader.
Is this about the possession of land, or ideas ?
Perhaps we assume that Israel should be a cut above it's Asian neighbours - muddy waters.
Pakistan.
I think, and this is an opinion not based on fact, that we in the west ( incidentally I hail from Australia ) have a deep-seated aversion to hypocrisy, given our history and 1984.
Orwell chose Winston for a reason.
In one month - April 1941 - Churchill sacrificed more than 20000 Anzac, Greek and Bulgarian kids for an idea he had.
We are frightened by ideas that cost lives, but we submit.
It doesn't stop us hating those ideas, or spewing venom on their proponents with words in safe places like OS. Some ideas are plain bad. I believe Israel to be a bad idea, but it happened, and now we deal with it, in the same way we deal with China's occupation of Tibet. Reluctantly.
Thank you for, at last, a reasonable response. I am out today on the road but leave this as a placeholder and I'll respond to what you said.
I could understand and even agree with you if the respondents were universally trying to negotiate a just peace between between two aggrieved parties - and the Israelis were the intransigent party. But no, there is a sizable cadre who will never admit that anything that the Israelis do is positive. Everything done by Israel is sui generis (ex, the wall was not a response to suicide bombers but was an original act to hurt the Palestinians, yes I understand the wall placement issues, and won't argue that) and these same people are not trying to understand and mediate between two refractory positions to get to peace. Peace will save lives; taking a side so vehemently only preserves the current state of war which hurts the populace they are nominally trying to help.
Without arguing about the rightness of either government's activities, the goal should be peace and the preservation of life. The frantic adoption of partisanship may be understandable when people let their tangled emotions rule their brain but that partisanship leads only to more war.
I assuming that everyone actually knows two things, even if these things are pushed down deep: 1) every country, no matter how great or small is built on the ascendence of one group and the loss of power of other groups within that geographic space, and 2) Israel is a fait accompli and an unwillingness to accept that and trying to undo that in argument doesn't help the progress towards peace.
A good mediator understands what either side thinks and wants and tries to broker a deal where either side gives up everything they possibly can in return for the most important things they want.
Since I can't psychoanalyze every attitude that denies those realities, I can only infer from what people write, what really drives them.
I think there are possibly three different roots for the craziness.
1) People are ashamed that people like themselves (white) can be seen as oppressing non-whites. The urgency of the need to distance themselves from the Israeli actions, speaks to that. I won't argue as to the truth of that 'oppression.' This was clearly not even an issue previously when the French were routinely brutalizing the Vietnamese or even now when the Muslims of the Sudan kill black Sudanese at an enormous rate. It is only the personally-held shame of seeing white people being portrayed as oppressors that other whites react to.
2) A little bit of noblesse oblige, actual racism where the writers feel that we white people should understand certain issues and we can't expect those other darker people to either understand or conform to the rules that we should live by. This can be seen in the unwillingness to be upset or protest about the Palestinian groups many inhumane activities but only at the Israelis.
3) A little bit of free-flowing anti-jew feeling. No longer proper or acceptable in the US, the Israelis provide a perfect outlet.
I have no idea whether these are correct or even the only but when I see the moronic, illogical slaverings of many writers here on OS, their behavior really falls into one or more of these categories.
Thanks again for your civil response.
Israel is a fait accompli.
You are coming from a logical place.
It may be, however, that your logic is impacted by your a. race, and b. religion.
What do I know ?
I think shawn's point re community predating national boundaries is crucial. That there are people who are unable to respect lines drawn in sand by public servants in London.
We've created a problem.
I think your non-partisanship approach is the only solution.
How, then ?
Do you think ( for example ) if America were to disengage completely ; that is, to with-hold funding, that tempers might settle ? That the threat of terrorism might abate ?
Reminding you gently that yours is a military economy which would evaporate without war.
You have a perfect storm.
At least, your corporations have a perfect storm.
Me, I don't understand, and probably never will. the religious impetus behind this need to kill, or hold on to land.
But I think I read you clearly, traveler :
1) every country, no matter how great or small is built on the ascendence of one group and the loss of power of other groups within that geographic space ...
Even an atheist understands that.
Shawn is making an argument about a question I didn't raise and won't get into.
My question in this thread always has been to wonder what drives the outrage and anger of the anti-Israel group when even the dumbest of them must recognize that this kind of splenetic ranting makes Israel feel even more isolated and less willing to co-operate.
If these people were trying to perpetuate further war and casualty, they couldn't do any better.
Are they such captives of their emotions that sanity can't poke through to the surface?
I can't see a way to separate the elements, as you are able to with regard to Shawn's main point ( the pre-national history of the middle east ), but by-passing that, addressing the emotional aspect, wonder : how much emotion ; how much religion ?
Yes we are hypocrites, and yes Israel is a pressure valve for our fears and insecurities, latent racism even - it fulfils all roles neatly, and costs so little ...
traveler, my partner is a Jew. I am not. She does not believe in Jaweh, nor do I. Fantasies kill. Children in Gaza are starving as children in Sudan are starving. Something CAN be done, in the short term, to alleviate this suffering. That it isn't, that we support deprivation and cruelty, is eating us, and fuelling self-hatred.
We dive into camps, rather than address the suffering.
The rage of impotence, maybe.
Beaten by the bitter ease.
I guess I haven't really advanced the discussion - it will come back, to me, every time, to the relative volatility of emotion and religion.
I don't know that they can ever be separated.
Thanks for putting it up there, traveler.
I hope more people will engage.
This doesn't mean that I view Israel as in any way immune from criticism; I certainly don't. Israel does plenty to be critical about. It also doesn't mean (contrary to accusations I've fielded and you undoubtedly will field) that I am saying that any given behavior is excused by the fact that other nations do the same thing. I am merely saying that criticizing certain behaviors in Israel while habitually ignoring them absolutely everywhere else indicates that something other than the behavior in question must be driving the objection. That's not typically true among Americans but it has become a whole lot more typical among Europeans.
Anyway, I get your point, including the fact that it doesn't necessarily add up to Israel apologism. Not that it can't.
I read your posts and was impressed by the clarity of historical detail - which I don't possess. I think that we are of the same mind - that bigotry should be pointed out without fail. I don;t have the calm that you retain in doing so.
Calm is the secret. Remember, you're writing, so you have time to edit. Let everyone else get excited.