According to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, there are 5 main reasons "why the liberal blogosphere doesn't write very much about Israel-related subjects."
1. It sparks unusually vicious comment threads, something this blog hardly needs since comments here spin out of control often enough anyway....
2. The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable. It follows the same rhythms decade after decade, full of hypocrisy and posturing from both camps, and there seems little to say about it that doesn't eventually boil down to, "Both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and rein in their own extremists." Aside from being pointless, there are only just so many ways you can say this...
3. The conflict is fantastically complex, and the partisans on both sides are mostly people who have been following events with fanatical attention to detail for many decades. Ordinary observers can hardly compete in this atmosphere...and this has produced an almost codelike language of its own over the years. One misuses this code at ones peril (see #5 below).
4. As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides...
5. Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism...
Drum further points out that it's much easier for conservatives to talk about this subject, since they "simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way." Well, that solves that; must be nice to see the world in shades of black and white, as many conservatives do.
For liberals, it's much harder, and I would argue, much more divisive. In fact, it seems to me that if any subject has the potential to tear liberals apart, it's the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Which is why, despite the fact that I have a Masters' Degree in Middle East Studies, have lived and traveled extensively in the region, have studied both Arabic and Hebrew, and have read hundreds of books and articles on the subject, I am loathe to say just about anything to non-specialists about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Honestly, I have rarely read anything on the blogs, right or left, that has enhanced my understanding of this particular subject. Basically, I agree with Kevin Drum; just avoiding discussion of it altogether is probably the best course of action. What do you think?
[UPDATE: A new CNN poll shows what Americans think about the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict. It turns out that 57% sympathize more with Israel, 4% more with Hizbollah (who on earth are THOSE people?), and 20% with neither (again, huh?). On Israel's military reaction, 31% believe it has "gone too far," while 35% say it's been "about right" and 14% say "not far enough." Most (65%) believe the United States should stay out of it. And, not surprisingly, there's a partisan split: "Most Republicans say Israel should continue to attack until the threat is eliminated; most Democrats prefer a cease fire." Interesting, although once again, I'm not sure what all this tells me exactly.]
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
What's the purpose of RaisingKaine? Palestine is a long way from Virginia, but we're engaged in discussions about what our Congress and Senate should do. I doubt that we can agree as easily as the idealogues on the right, and you are correct in pointing out that there are many levels of sophistication in our understanding of the issue. I would contend that a benefit of public dialogue is the exposure that one gets from a variety of perspectives and levels of understanding.
Maybe the best way to deal with it is to direct people to discuss the issue within the context of our Virginia elected official's policy and political stance, and to bear in mind that there are some times when we have to agree to disagree and move on.
The American people must stop allowing themselves to be threatened, shamed, and blackmailed into silence.
The one thing this war does is further destabilize the middle east and what with us in Iraq, we could truely be standing on the edge of a third World War. I don't think we're there yet, but reason must intercede soon. What scares me is that this adminstration doesn't seem to give a damn what happens. Hopefully wiser head will bring them to the peace table and we can at least get a cease fire. But, like you Lowell, I'm stumped and should probably just shut up about it. I sure have no answers.
I totally agree - and think it's OK to speak out for peace. (or seven easy peaces?)
While it not be news to anyone reading RK, we are clearly being lead by an arrogant, clueless fool unworthy of calling himself Leader. The man governs like a bad fraternity chapter president.
The U.S. now has no dialogue with Iran, or Syria, and fritters good will with the rest of the Arab world while he mouths platitudes about Israels right to defend itself. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
Worst.President.Ever.
I am suspicious of anyone who would suggest we shouldn't post about this. The issues in the Middle East have affected our economy, our standing in the world, our freedom of the press and speech, and many other issues central to our existence as a democracy and our ability to be respected in the world.
Of course, this was a language class and the talk wasn't much on politics (more like "I want tea and bread, please"). But one thing I have always loved about language classes is that there is such a heartfelt effort to communicate with a very limited vocabulary.
At another level, here is something our young people are able to do at UVA: Sustained Dialog
Ilan's father is/ was my rabbi down in Lynchburg and that may be why I remembered this. The sustained dialog idea has spread through other areas and conversations.
I am not as informed or articulate on these matters as are many others. I really do not want to argue when people are getting killed, but I certainly would like to discuss and see it discussed w/o polarization among those of us who are not in harm's way.
One thing that I will say as a convert to Judaism is that the ideas of nation and people in the Jewish community are not the same as they are in the Christian world. One of our most sacred prayers starts out with "Hear, Israel."
The meaning is more like "Hear, Jewish people." So sometimes when people condemn Israel, the wording can make it very personal.
I remember when I was studying for conversion that I was very glad that it was "hear" and not "speak" because I am not very articulate about things like this. And you don't have to be a religious Jew for this to be meaningful.
Simply I would like to see a civilized dialog if any. I think it is very important that Democrats work at developing this capability to deal with disagreement in a mature way.
Right now as we squabble among ourselves, GWB is speaking at the NAACP. He is reaching out and seeking to build bridges as a way to strengthen his party. I see that Julian Bond was there. I believe he is now emeritus, but just a few months ago, he was advocating for the living wage at UVA's rotunda.
We really have to do better. Now I am going to a NCDC meeting. There may be one or two other Jewish people there. But that's it. And there are no Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone of other middle Eastern origin. There are no Asians either. This is an extreme change from my work environment where I work with people from nearly every corner of the earth.
While we struggle to find common language with our rural American neighbors, we also struggle to find language among ourselves as Democrats and Americans. The absolute worst time to stop communicating is when things are very bad.
I hope for starters, that all of American citizens in Lebanon return safely. At the same time I cannot help but think of how we failed our people right here in the continental US when it came to Katrina.
However, we can bring about peace and cooperation and understanding right here in Virginia. What an excellent challenge we can all rise to.
Sometime in the next month, invite some neighbors over for dinner - neighbors you have not talked to before. Especially neighbors of a different faith or political persuasion. Talk to them, listen to them. Be polite. Try to understand them and respect their differences. Spread a little peace. If they invite you in return, go visit them.
Invite them to your church/temple/meeting/activity. Be a guest at their church/temple/meeting/activity. Be a good guest.
When we get to know each other we begin to understand each other and we can take care of each other. Less violence, less hate, less fear.
Thank you Kathy for reminding me what we should be focused on. Bringing peace to our lives.
John Hart
The House, displaying a foreign affairs solidarity lacking on issues like Iraq, voted overwhelmingly Thursday to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas.The resolution, which was passed on a 410-8 vote, also condemns enemies of the Jewish state.
[...]
So strong was the momentum for the resolution that it was steamrolling efforts by a small group of House members who argued that Congress's pro-Israel stance goes too far.
The nonbinding resolution is similar to one the Senate passed Tuesday. It harshly condemns Israel's enemies and says Syria and Iran should be held accountable for providing Hezbollah with money and missile technology used to attack Israel.
But we must discuss.
We must discuss how Bush's Monty Python-like "Trojan Rabbit" entry into Iraq - absent an honest "casus belli" or any plan for winning the peace - has left our military stretched thin and actually made Israel & Lebanon more vulnerable. Bush said, Bring em on...and Hezbollah listened.
We must discuss how our alcoholic-like dependency on oil has actually made the Middle East as a whole a more-dangerous place.
We must discuss how Israel is the only stable, sustainable democracy in the Middle East.
We must discuss the seldom reported story of how groups like Hezbolah and Hamas have prevented Arabs from attaining economic prosperity. Say, where are all those millions the Saudis gave to help the Palestinians? Ask the widow Arafat.
We must discuss something that Israel knows but Cheney, Rummy, Turd-Blossom, and the Boy-King do not: IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA, ETC. ARE NOT, NEVER WERE, AND NEVER WILL BE STABLE WESTERN-STYLE DEMOCRACIES! Ask an Israeli which regime they would rather oppose - a fascist enemy like Nasser or the faceless insurgency of rival Islamic Fundamentalists and he or she might say they yearn for the days of Gamel Abdel Nasser. Israel smashed Nasser in 6 days. Israel now, dealing with the cowardice of Hezbollah (bunkers embedded in suburban neighborhoods), will need much longer.
Hey kids, this is the hand our open-mike-night, shoulder-rubbing Prezzy-dent has dealt us!
Iran was a democracy until the United States sponsored a coup in 1953 and installed a puppet Shah to protect the "interests" of a few oil companies and banks. We reap what we sow. nearly 30 years later the backlash finally caught up with us when the Shah was deposed and the embassy staff was taken hostage. Yes the Iranian students who took those hostages were wrong to do so, but their anger is understandable.
A parallel is the way Israel treats Palestinians. Over time the Palestians can't think of anything better to do than strap bombs to themselves and blow up some Israelis, usually without success. It is wrong that they do this and very sad that they think this is their best choice, but I understand their anger. It comes from lack of opportunity, lack of respect, lack of any semblence of humanity from their arrogant occupiers.
There is a miniscule morsel of truth in this statement, but that's about all. Iran had a very unstable democracy for a few short years after WWII. Prior to being occupied during most of the war, Iran was essentially a constitutional monarchy, and had been for about half a century. The fledgling government that was overthrown was inching closer to a totalitarian form of Marxism than anything else.
The overthrow of the government in 1953 was mostly sponsored by the British, but the CIA did help. Keep in mind that this was during a particularly tense part of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union took a very long time leaving Iran after the war.
In any event, it is inaccurate to suggest that Iran had "a democracy" until 1953, or that the United States sponsored the coup. We simply provided logistical help to what was going to happen anyway. Doing so, at that time and in that place, was considered advantageous to our national security, since it would give us influence with the new government.
What lobbying effort keeps this conflict on our front pages and keeps us so wrapped up in it??????
If these were Chechens and Russians, or Maoists and government forces in country A, would we pay so much attention.....oh that's right we don't. Strange.
We don't put that level of resources into other foreign states. For me, knowing my share of the Federal debt that funds the middle east inititives creates a personal feeling of complicity and responsibility for everything that happens there. It is very disturbing to me that these resources are spent on what appears to be unending warfare. Would the conflict cease if Israel gave back the land it seized in 1967? Who knows?
The answer is simple: because for an enormous majority of Americans the geography is something they are interested in because of their Abrahamic mono-theistic background/education/religion. The liberal blogosphere in general is talking this conflict. I have read about it on daily Kos, MyDD, Huffington Post, and most of my friend's and family member's blogs.
I personally am not that interested because I am Buddhist and have no stake in the outcome other than general human compassion for both sides. Ok, so I confess I have a little interest as most of my wife's family is Jewish. The sad thing is that my wife's family basically counters my wroth and resentment that for decades the United States has essentially granted Israel a blank check every year in the form of huge sums of foreign and military aid.
I am not anti-semitic, nor anti-Jewish. Perhaps I am anti-zionist (if you subscribe to zionism being an exclusive claim to that territory). All the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths look pretty much alike from my point of view. They all have merits, and detractors. I see no reason to favor the Israelis over the Palestinians or vice-versa.
The actions of Hizbollah have been pretty aweful, but then what choice have they? They cannot go toe to toe with the Israeli military... they'd be crushed. THey are forced to fight unfairly and horribly.
Both sides need peace leaders. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, JR: Hate cannot drive out hate, violence cannot drive out violence; only love can drive out hate.
The U.S. Government has squandered it's influence in the world with horrible leadership. We can only be minimally effective in brokering a peace. We should support some other group of people to broker this peace for a tiny strip of dust.
For my part there are more people and therefore more interest in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Africa, and South America. I am tired of the coverage of Europe and the Middle East; even though I know there are good reasons for it (media simply reflecting interests of Americans).
I was kicked off the blog and someone from the blog wrote me and told me many others had been kicked off for the same reason. Apparently the blog is run by Jewish Americans who don't allow any negative talk about Israel. On the other hand, you have blogs like Huffington Post which are very open in this way. That's a good place to discuss the Middle East if you need to.
However, what makes the most angry is when I hear American "experts" say that we need to let Israel do what is necessary to combat Hizbollah because to stop them now would prevent the world from getting at the root cause of this--terrorism. I would submit that terrorism isn't the cause but rather the symptom. Why is there Hamas? Why a Hizbollah? In no way do I defend their terrorist activities against innocents, but they exist and have support for a reason. I don't think a military solution is the answer.
What is really disturbing is that these wingnuts are being given front and center in the media. Doesn't anyone remember all the falsehoods preceeding the Iraq war? Well these folks cooked them up, and now here they are again. Have they no shame? They have failed in Iraq and are still trying to do the same thing. That's the definition of insanity.
Israel's response to the captured soldiers will cause far greater terrorism inthe future than anything they or the US have ever known or imagined. -And they are just too --- (crazy?) to realize it. Is this what they want? One needs to know that the Israeli military is being purged of moderate voices much the same way much of our military has been. We are atill lucky, however, to have generals who are still saying "hell no" to attacking Iran.
We need politicians who will pressure Israel to evacuate the settlements without regard to current Muslim attitudes. I hope Jim Webb turns out to be such a Senator. (It might be impolitic to push the issue before he is elected, of course.) The settlements are illegal under the Third Geneva Convention. Israel could keep their army legally in the territories until a suitable peace treaty is established.
BTW Lowell, that is the difference between Russia and Israel. The Chechans are not going to drop WMD on countries who support Russia. Anyway, no country supports Russia even remotely as much as we support Israel vis a vis Palestine. Come to think of it, if we did support Russian that much, the Muslims might turn on us the same way they are turning on us because of our support of Israel.