Well I just want to say it’s been an interesting conversation and I appreciate the measured tone you’ve taken and your efforts to explain your position. I really do.
I think you’re right that my friends are probably in the 2nd group you outlined. I think Carter, Clinton, Obabma, (and yes, Biden) all fall into that category of working towards a two-state solution that allows everyone to live peaceably. Certainly that’s the dominant message I’ve ever recieved from the Democrats.
But as for this part: The problem is that following the Oslo Accords, the far-right recognized that momentum was slowly shifting their way, and the liberal zionists never fought it. They liked the idea of rights and justice, but they didn’t really have the stomach to advocate for the agency of Palestinians.
Wasn’t that the whole issue about Yitzhak Rabin? As per Wikipedia:
In 1992, Rabin was re-elected as prime minister on a platform embracing the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. He signed several historic agreements with the Palestinian leadership as part of the Oslo Accords. In 1994, Rabin won the Nobel Peace Prize together with long-time political rival Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Rabin also signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994. In November 1995, he was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an extremist who opposed the terms of the Oslo Accords.
So the way I saw it, was that his assassination was a coup for the far right as represented by Bibi and the Likud is the equivalent of the MAGATs here - that is to say, utterly reprehensible people who do not represent what most people want.
But you’re making the case that in fact most people DO want what Likud is selling they just don’t have the courage to express it? If that’s the case, how do you know this? I mean is it strictly anecdotal or do you know of some other data that suggests that? I admit I’m only going by what I have heard and my assumptions from reading the news, so that’s why I’m asking.
And, more than that, that Biden somehow falls into the category of supporting a two-state solution but secretly (?) wanting to eliminate all Palestinians?
At a certain point I worry that this gets to be more philosophy than deduction, but I would say that my reasoning is largely under-girded by two things.
First, I’m a realist, a materialist, and a consequentialist: if someone repeatedly does things that produce a consistent outcome, eventually I conclude – regardless of what they may say – that clearly that is the outcome they prefer.
Second, my impressions regarding anyone based the same thing as anyone’s: observing what people and groups say and do by following the news and testing how well various mental models predict and explain observed behavior.
Here’s an example: from reading Jewish Currents, 972 Magazine, Mondoweiss, The Intercept, The Forward, etc. I’m aware that the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, has been a controversial figure even among his ideological peer group. Even within the ADL and like-minded organizations such as J Street critics have complained that Greenblatt demonstrates a bias against criticism of Israel and zionism that seems to routinely impede the overall mission of the ADL.
And now we’re at a point where the ADL has become wholly deferential to Elon Musk. They are not just passive toward him, they actively defend a man who has flatly stated that he believes Jews engage in media manipulation and act to enrich themselves even at the expense of any national allegiance. But: he’s also made clear that he’s prepared to support a Jewish ethnostate without reservation as long as he feels that the Jews refrain from challenging his own power and priorities.
This is just a case study. Greenblatt is not a uniquely important case. The point is that I look at this, and I have a mental model of Jonathan Greenblatt. I think about what I was raised to believe, and I understand how a man like Greenblatt can lie to himself all the way to quietly accepting the richest man on Earth unapologetically performing a sieg hiel salute in public. But going back to my point about being a realist and a consequentialist, it does not matter how convincingly one may insist that circumstances forced their hand, and that they made the best hard choice among bad options. It doesn’t matter how hard one insists that they’re a conflicted defender of human rights. If every time a group further yokes the rights and dignity of another group you say ‘Well… I’ll let it slide just this once’, then forgive me if I use the same mental model to predict your actions as I’d use for an embarrassed fascist. If you don’t like it, behave in a way that doesn’t conform so well to that ideological framework.
I consume credible journalism and analysis and follow where it leads. A great example is this analysis of the Sde Teiman riot. “A riot for impunity shows Israel’s proud embrace of its crimes” [+972 Magazine]. There are a lot of people like the ones described here who have dropped any pretense of opposing genocide. And it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who knowingly support them do to. And we can say the same about the people who knowingly support them. And when you apply this to the settlement of the West Bank and destruction of homes in East Jerusalem over the last decade, you’re left with a bewildering but unavoidable conclusion. Obama certainly criticized Netanyahu for subsidizing the obvious ethnic cleansing he was doing. But he never stopped sending crucial supplies and vetoing UN resolutions about it. The companies that build factories that rely on the labor of an oppressed class living under apartheid cannot claim not to know that they’re benefiting from and working to uphold ethnic exploitation. They know well enough that they seek to censor people who try to bring awareness to it. In other words, what do words of support for a two-state solution mean in the face of actively collaborating in the primary strategy that was employed to curtail any possibility of a two-state solution? It’s kind of a “2+2=4” situation.
But here’s where I think we can wrap up: Biden is retired. He lives in history now. I’m not interested in shaming anyone, I just want to help people figure out what is right and do it. And right now, that is (1) opposing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid and (2) recognizing attempts to justify or deflect from these practices and then calling these out for what they are. That’s what I’d encourage everyone to do. If you have a brain, use it; and if you have a mouth, use it too.
So where do the aforementioned liberal Jews go? What do they do? The simple existence of a homeland, a space where they will never be chased out and destroyed is what they’re looking for. They disagree 100% with what is going on, and have never supported it.
I think we’re throwing some of the babies out with the bathwater is another way of asking that I guess.
Well I just want to say it’s been an interesting conversation and I appreciate the measured tone you’ve taken and your efforts to explain your position. I really do.
I think you’re right that my friends are probably in the 2nd group you outlined. I think Carter, Clinton, Obabma, (and yes, Biden) all fall into that category of working towards a two-state solution that allows everyone to live peaceably. Certainly that’s the dominant message I’ve ever recieved from the Democrats.
But as for this part: The problem is that following the Oslo Accords, the far-right recognized that momentum was slowly shifting their way, and the liberal zionists never fought it. They liked the idea of rights and justice, but they didn’t really have the stomach to advocate for the agency of Palestinians.
Wasn’t that the whole issue about Yitzhak Rabin? As per Wikipedia:
So the way I saw it, was that his assassination was a coup for the far right as represented by Bibi and the Likud is the equivalent of the MAGATs here - that is to say, utterly reprehensible people who do not represent what most people want.
But you’re making the case that in fact most people DO want what Likud is selling they just don’t have the courage to express it? If that’s the case, how do you know this? I mean is it strictly anecdotal or do you know of some other data that suggests that? I admit I’m only going by what I have heard and my assumptions from reading the news, so that’s why I’m asking.
And, more than that, that Biden somehow falls into the category of supporting a two-state solution but secretly (?) wanting to eliminate all Palestinians?
At a certain point I worry that this gets to be more philosophy than deduction, but I would say that my reasoning is largely under-girded by two things.
First, I’m a realist, a materialist, and a consequentialist: if someone repeatedly does things that produce a consistent outcome, eventually I conclude – regardless of what they may say – that clearly that is the outcome they prefer.
Second, my impressions regarding anyone based the same thing as anyone’s: observing what people and groups say and do by following the news and testing how well various mental models predict and explain observed behavior.
Here’s an example: from reading Jewish Currents, 972 Magazine, Mondoweiss, The Intercept, The Forward, etc. I’m aware that the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, has been a controversial figure even among his ideological peer group. Even within the ADL and like-minded organizations such as J Street critics have complained that Greenblatt demonstrates a bias against criticism of Israel and zionism that seems to routinely impede the overall mission of the ADL.
And now we’re at a point where the ADL has become wholly deferential to Elon Musk. They are not just passive toward him, they actively defend a man who has flatly stated that he believes Jews engage in media manipulation and act to enrich themselves even at the expense of any national allegiance. But: he’s also made clear that he’s prepared to support a Jewish ethnostate without reservation as long as he feels that the Jews refrain from challenging his own power and priorities.
This is just a case study. Greenblatt is not a uniquely important case. The point is that I look at this, and I have a mental model of Jonathan Greenblatt. I think about what I was raised to believe, and I understand how a man like Greenblatt can lie to himself all the way to quietly accepting the richest man on Earth unapologetically performing a sieg hiel salute in public. But going back to my point about being a realist and a consequentialist, it does not matter how convincingly one may insist that circumstances forced their hand, and that they made the best hard choice among bad options. It doesn’t matter how hard one insists that they’re a conflicted defender of human rights. If every time a group further yokes the rights and dignity of another group you say ‘Well… I’ll let it slide just this once’, then forgive me if I use the same mental model to predict your actions as I’d use for an embarrassed fascist. If you don’t like it, behave in a way that doesn’t conform so well to that ideological framework.
I consume credible journalism and analysis and follow where it leads. A great example is this analysis of the Sde Teiman riot. “A riot for impunity shows Israel’s proud embrace of its crimes” [+972 Magazine]. There are a lot of people like the ones described here who have dropped any pretense of opposing genocide. And it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who knowingly support them do to. And we can say the same about the people who knowingly support them. And when you apply this to the settlement of the West Bank and destruction of homes in East Jerusalem over the last decade, you’re left with a bewildering but unavoidable conclusion. Obama certainly criticized Netanyahu for subsidizing the obvious ethnic cleansing he was doing. But he never stopped sending crucial supplies and vetoing UN resolutions about it. The companies that build factories that rely on the labor of an oppressed class living under apartheid cannot claim not to know that they’re benefiting from and working to uphold ethnic exploitation. They know well enough that they seek to censor people who try to bring awareness to it. In other words, what do words of support for a two-state solution mean in the face of actively collaborating in the primary strategy that was employed to curtail any possibility of a two-state solution? It’s kind of a “2+2=4” situation.
But here’s where I think we can wrap up: Biden is retired. He lives in history now. I’m not interested in shaming anyone, I just want to help people figure out what is right and do it. And right now, that is (1) opposing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid and (2) recognizing attempts to justify or deflect from these practices and then calling these out for what they are. That’s what I’d encourage everyone to do. If you have a brain, use it; and if you have a mouth, use it too.
So where do the aforementioned liberal Jews go? What do they do? The simple existence of a homeland, a space where they will never be chased out and destroyed is what they’re looking for. They disagree 100% with what is going on, and have never supported it.
I think we’re throwing some of the babies out with the bathwater is another way of asking that I guess.