Thought of the Day 06.04.10

1. Does America have a right to exist as a nation?
2. Does America have a right to protect itself against terrorism?
3. Would America have the right to establish a blockade against a militant territory with a history of attacking us and the officially pronounced desire that we be destroyed?
4. Would America have the right to enforce this blockade even if doing so led to the deaths of those trying to break it?
5. Would such deaths be considered primarily the fault of the American forces or primarily the fault of the terrorist supporters who were trying to violate the blockade?

The answers to these questions are fairly obvious, right? And yet, if you simply replace “America” with “Israel,” many people suddenly can’t seem to get those answers right anymore. This is vital to remember as you hear people discussing the events in the Mediterranean Sea, and the reason is simple.

Although not all critics of Israel have this problem, you’d be shocked to find out how many of them can’t even affirm the first two questions, let alone the others. This means that their real criticism of Israel isn’t that it mishandled this blockade incident. Rather, their real criticism of Israel...is that there’s an Israel.
Posted by at

5 comments:

Naum said...

Deflection of the issue here. Because "some" may be guilty of such a posture, let's lump everyone in.

By that logic — the activist civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served — they deserved to be beaten, flogged and some executed, because some movement sympathizers harbored thoughts of violence and annihilation towards their perceived enemy.

Flotilla raid not bungled — IDF Detailed Violent Strategy in Advance

See also profiles of slain — hardly counter-insurgents, and were unarmed peace activists massacred by heavily armed commandos…

Every nation has the right to defend itself and its existence, but not against international law — what is the purpose of law, if some entities consider themselves "above the law" and exceptions…?

June 4, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Andrew Tallman said...

I think if you go back and read the wording of the thought, which I chose quite carefully, you'll notice that I specifically avoided lumping all critics into this description.

I used the word "many" rather than "most" or "all" or even your "some." Then I specifically stated, "Although not all critics of Israel have this problem..." So, whereas I was deliberately making room for other, more reasonable voices, your response is the one which exaggerates by failing or refusing to notice these important exclusions. Your specific shift from my "many" to "some" then "all" is an abuse of rhetoric.

Your impulse to lump me (or this logic) with Southern racists is also a bit much, don't you think? Don't let yourself be so easily carried away, Naum. It undermines the valid points you have to offer.

In any case, the point of the thought was not about the particular incident, quite frankly. Rather it was about how these are the principled presuppositions which must be clarified before we can even begin to discuss the incident in itself and about how when such questions are asked about some other country (Norway, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia could just as easily have been the countries), the questions are obvious to the point of being absurd. Surely, you must admit that the inability to affirm Israel's very right to exist and protect itself is a question that truly is at the heart of many of the criticisms leveled against her by journalists or nations. That view is not rare by any statistical measure.

June 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Naum said...

Surely, you must admit that the inability to affirm Israel's very right to exist and protect itself is a question that truly is at the heart of many of the criticisms leveled against her by journalists or nations.

No. Definitely not to the degree which is touted by mainstream media and inherent in your post.

Which journalists and nations? Please specify.

My aim was not to lump you in with Southern racists, but to illustrate the absurdity in your argument, the Orwellian cloak that somehow the powerful are actually powerless, that the weak and oppressed are the oppressors and equate that with a most apt analogy.

NONE of the articles I've read (many of which were penned by Israeli natives, and even supporters of blockade) denouncing the Israel assault of a vessel in international waters would dispute #1 or #2, or to your followup, the existence of Israel.

Perhaps you can allude to a mullah in Iran or some right wing extremist mistranslation propaganda, but on the whole, it's rhetorical subterfuge.

June 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Andrew Tallman said...

Here's where I believe we agree. In any conversation about particular Israeli actions, all participants should agree without hesitation that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself just as any other nation. If someone balks or waffles on those questions, they should be immediately disqualified from the conversation. Now, what percentage of people would fail this test? Perhaps we can't know until we perform it. But at the very least, this is a prerequisite for even engaging in the discussion.

To return to your own application, if someone can't easily and emphatically agree that blacks (or Asians or Hispanics) are fully and equally human in rights and dignity as whites, then their views on affirmative action, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, immigration, etc. do not matter because they are poisoned from the start.

When I have discussions with people, I'm always thinking about root ideas and first principles, which can truly dominate a discussion without ever being made explicit. So the idea here (in fact the original wording before I had to trim and mold it significantly to fit one minute on the air...as often happens) was "If you find yourself in a conversation with someone being critical of Israel's recent naval incident...ask these questions first, just to be sure you're having the conversation you think you're having."

Given the number of Middle Eastern countries who do not recognize Israel's right to exist and given the vastly misleading portrait of Israel's status and conduct by American mainstream media which I recently got to experience firsthand, I'm pretty comfortable with my use of the term "many," even thinking it's pretty generous.

June 4, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Naum said...

Which countries?

I can think of only a couple — Iran (which is the result of recent breakdown, and not historically speaking). It is not an Arab country either.

Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Do they adhere to that stance or do they just not wish have diplomatic relations? (like US/Cuba).

Could you detail "vastly misleading portrait of Israel status and conduct" — it certainly seems to me that MSM is overwhelmingly one-sided, even more so than in Israel itself, where I can read a number of op-ed pieces highly critical, published in major print press, that I do not see (other than alt-news magazines and bloggers)?

The Flotilla incident is prime example - edited IDF film and perspective is hallow, anybody on the boat is tarred as a "terrorist" or "terrorist sympathizer" and their testimony (all of their film, photos, etc.… confiscated) unilaterally discounted.

While I certainly would place myself on side of Israel over Hamas, objectively, their treatment of Palestinians is akin to apartheid. And most Americans lack historical context or embrace maniacal eschatalogical delusions about a modern day Israel that has little in common with Israel of OT.

June 4, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)