Israel's settlers in Gaza - classic or dud?

This is completely true.

It's not a similar situation!

Look how much of Israel is empty! Put a bullet train all the way to the southern port, reclaim the desert, build villages in the southern desert! This is my peace plan...

xpost

Also, a point a friend of mine brought up: if the Israeli army is forced to use force, then you'll have Jews shooting at Jews AND Palestinians shooting at Jews.

That said, the fact that some American Jews (and Israelis) moved to Gaza JUST BECAUSE is, well, stupid.

I certainly don't and am hesitant to support either side because of this.

...I also have a very good friend currently in Israel/Gaza making a documentary at the moment and I'm at least somewhat concerned for his safety. Should I be?

Man. I need some books to read on all this. I really, really don't know shit, having heard compelling arguments from people that DO know on both sides of the fenc-- er, wall.

Why is it more ridiculous than the notion that the Israeli govt is doing/has done the exact same thing?

It's not like anyone is going to come out and flatly state "yeah, this is a land grab". But Israel does have a settlement policy, so obviously settlement serves a strategic purpose in the govt's view. I do know that Palestinians have built more "illegal" settlements in the West Bank than Israel has, and clearly anything close to the Green line is, at the very least, "disputed territory" pending a permanent agreement.

Unfortunately, you can't google "illegal palestinian settlements" and find any of this stuff too easily. In the same way, you can no longer google something to the effect of "destroy palestininan homes gaza strip" and find stories from this past March about Abbas dealing with govt corruption by destroying the homes of the perceived offenders.

however this is less the case in gaza than in the west bank. the settlers who will be least likely to go quietly are probably the ones who have settled in gaza for ideological reasons.

Watch the documentary, but remember that you're watching roughly the Israeli equivalent of the Michigan Militia. Nobody would view a TV program on the MM and assume that it represents an acceptable or mainstream view of everyday American life, would they?

"one palestine, complete" is the best book i have read on the topic.

barry, can you vouch for that one, too??

And some settlers have killed Palestinians and have tried to get Israel troops to do the same for them.

I've always liked this one by John Gee. He's definitely slanted toward the Palestinians, though, albeit not as much as those two reviews suggest. Gee is like a less deluded Edward Said in that he's pro-Palestinian but acknowledges (and is very critical of) the multitude of Arab and Palestinians mistakes. Unlike Said, however, he doesn't end up ignoring all his own logic and blaming everything on Israel.

But honestly, the best intro is Myths and Facts Online, and nothing else is even close. (there's a book version too)

Sure, so do I. But people have been forcibly moved, in this country even, for much less important reasons (civil projects, railroads, etc.) Honestly, I find a lot of the settlers' reasons for settling there a lot more distasteful than forcing them to move.

indeed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4653471.stm

Irrelevant: this is like saying "but people have been killed, in this country even, for much less important reasons."

But, that aside, I think you're right about zealous settlers just moving there for "fuck you."

ie - Bad is bad is bad.

xxpost

or, check out his treatise on campus lobbying= "tenured or tenuous:defining the role of faculty in supporting israel on campus"

t'wasn't me who called their arguments "misleading propaganda", more like bland dissembling/evasion; would take me a few hours of digging up footnotes/citations to swat through that tepid fog, but their entry on sabra/shatila's a good example= reduce a complicated historical event to an overly-broad simplistic "myth" and then "disprove" it. almost all of their list of "myths" follows that same tactic. not subjective, not informative, not useful for anyone actually interested in learning anything. you cited their website as the best primer on israeli/palestinian history, i countered that the webpage of an american-israeli academic lobbying group probably wasn't the best resource for anyone interested in dipping their toes into those long, sad, murky, tragic, confusing waters, you called me misinformed and accused me of maligning a moderate educational resource as misleading propaganda...there is no "meaningful counterargument" to dissembling, (just ask the current american president and his earnest minions), and in this thread you haven't offered anything resembling an argument, instead you've cited bogus resources and warned that a pbs documentary
might overexcite the "look!jews can be terrorists too!brigade"; you my friend seem to be chasing boogeymen in the dark, call them into the light, so together we might slay them together...

but their entry on sabra/shatila's a good example= reduce a complicated historical event to an overly-broad simplistic "myth" and then "disprove" it. almost all of their list of "myths" follows that same tactic. not subjective, not informative, not useful for anyone actually interested in learning anything.

This is exactly the sort of attitude which has led to so many people being so misinformed about Israel. Yes, the history of the region is complicated and sometimes -- GASP!! -- we have to do actual RESEARCH in order to put things in their proper context. We have to wade through -- OHNO!! -- INFORMATION before reaching conclusions, instead of dismissing anything and everything arbitrarily with flowery written brushstrokes like the kind you're resorting to right now. Yes, I know it's much easier to not bother learning anything and to just regurgitate the same lies and misconceptions -- THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF "MYTHS AND FACTS".

Rather than get defensive about proving how un-misinformed you are (and you'll have a ways to go in order to do that, given what you've written on this thread so far), why don't you cite a better introductory resource, since that was the most recent discussion taking place on this thread?

Yes, of course, that's why I used the word "certain" in my post up above. M&F isn't a complete, definitive history, but it's scope is hardly narrow.

I think he has/had a valid point and you are getting far far more defensive (and I daresay hysterical) than he is.

He has no point. Every Israel/Palestine thread is like this one -- the (few) pro-Israel adherents state their case, and the (many) pro-Palestine adherents accuse them of bias or creating spin or dispelling neocon babble. Every thread. As soon as we get away from that sort of talk and into a more reasonable discussion where varying opinions are intelligently expressed (as was the case until BBB showed up), then someone like him appears and we're back where we started. His rhetoric = "a valid point", my rhetoric = "hysterical"? Fuck that shit.

Like I said on the Hamas thread, far too many people are locked into the "pro-Israel = neocon" viewpoint, to the point that they dismiss any pro-Israel argument as non-trustworthy even though they themselves actually know very little about the issues.

The problem with "Myths and Facts" is that it's sole purpose seems to be to provide ammunition to unqualified supporters of Israel.

This is a tautology ... it presents facts that are flattering to Israel, while attempting to disprove misconceptions which are not. That is the purpose of the site/book.

It's somewhat disorganized because it's been through several editions and is frequently updated with new material as things develop. It doesn't flow as a consistent narrative and is best used as a reference. However, it's well-written, the sources are all helpfully linked, and it covers a lot of the essentials.

that's a pretty severe bias. doesn't that sort of show that "myths and Facts" isn't a good resource for learning about the palestinian-israeli conflict?

personally i get just as annoyed when pro-palestinian folks play this game.

Well I don't know about "= neo-con", but you aren't going far towards convincing me (or I imagine most people on this thread) that your arguments would be particularly trustworthy.

doesn't that sort of show that "myths and Facts" isn't a good resource for learning about the palestinian-israeli conflict?

It covers the basics exceedingly well. The facts it presents are essentially inarguable. That puts it two legs up on every supposedly "balanced" account I've read.

It's difficult to say more without providing examples (and derailing the thread). But the recent Hamas thread is kind of related to this ... there, some posters expressed serious doubt that Hamas are racist and anti-Semitic. They presented the issue as one for debate. This is patently false. There is no debate over this issue.

M&F would print something like "Myth: Hamas is a political organization and is not anti-Semitic", and then "Fact: (relevant portions of their charter + any one of a billion speeches/statements from Hamas leaders)". I would argue that if you aren't aware of that particular fact then your opinion on Hamas is worthless. This is the sort of role that M&F fills.

Uh other than the fact that you recommended the site as an "excellent" starting point despite describing it as "[presenting] facts that are flattering to Israel, while attempting to disprove misconceptions which are not", I would say your complete inability to engage in any sort of discussion about Israel without resort to ridiculous hyperbole, weak analogies and lame personal attacks pretty much eliminate you from the list of folks whose opinions I would rank as "trustworthy" on this subject.

Sadly, the footnoted link is dead.

Also: see ANY politics thread if you want to see serious hyperbole and personal attacks in action on ILE (and I'm nowhere near the top of the list in that respect, and you know it). This is about one thing and one thing only: you're dismissing my opinion as "hyperbole" because it is contrary to your own (at least you're not the only one who is doing it). Simple as that.

Uh other than the fact that you recommended the site as an "excellent" starting point despite describing it as "[presenting] facts that are flattering to Israel, while attempting to disprove misconceptions which are not"

You ignored what I wrote. I recommended it because it covers the basics very well. It contains a lot of facts that are flattering to Israel. Guess what -- there are a lot of facts that need to be considered that are flattering to Israel, as I wrote in my response to matlewis. I never said it was completely balanced, I said it was a good intro. If you're looking for references that confirm the things that ILE thinks it already knows, then don't go there.

Sadly, the footnoted link is dead.

? it works for me (link to NYT).

This is exactly the sort of attitude which has led to so many people being so misinformed about Israel. Yes, the history of the region is complicated and sometimes -- GASP!! -- we have to do actual RESEARCH in order to put things in their proper context. We have to wade through -- OHNO!! -- INFORMATION before reaching conclusions, instead of dismissing anything and everything arbitrarily with flowery written brushstrokes like the kind you're resorting to right now. Yes, I know it's much easier to not bother learning anything and to just regurgitate the same lies and misconceptions -- THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF "MYTHS AND FACTS".

I think BBB's point is that the site isn't wading through information, it's fishing out information and throwing away the stuff it doesn't like.

True, but I've never presented myself as a "trustworthy" or even particularly balanced representative for *anything* either.

I have no idea if your opinion on Israel is contrary to my own (although I imagine much of it is.)

(for the record "bobby" is a pal and colleague, and mindinrewind's assumption skills are extraordinarily bad)

But MIR, this is kind of my point. Regardless of truthfulness, Myths and Facts is not really a good starting point because I think it's inherently designed for someone looking to disprove specfic points they hear in an argument against Israel -- usually someone already staunchly pro-Israeli. Again, that doesn't mean that the site doesn't have any good information, it's just that it's not going to convince anyone not already staunchly pro-Israel, the way it's set up.

I'm not excluding myself from those threads -- I've said many a harsh word about Mr. Bush as well -- but the point is: it's all fun and games until somebody disagrees, at which point the dissenting rhetoric becomes the ramblings of a cable-news pundit. Whatever.

So where do the IDF fit into that scheme?

However, anyone who wanted to argue that Michigan Militia-style vigilante groups have any meaningful impact on the present political situation in the US would be full of crazy talk.

xxpost

Show me how they're influencing govt. policy and large-scale popular opinion and then we'll talk.

xpost

fine stence, but there a serious danger of it expanding its influence? Should it be on the national agenda, or can it be shrugged off as a local (municipal?) phenomena that is insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

and still it comes down to aipac. just admit it's a bias source already instead of acting like someone's accusing you of something.

-Jewish people who have been raised on the "importance" of Israel and feel a strong emotional attachment to it.

-Moselm people who have been raised on the idea that Israel is one of the central problems facing them and have a strong emotional feeling against it.

-American or European liberals who take on the cause because they read something by Chomsky or Said, or because they get interested through an activist group; well-meaning, but looking for a "victim" to stick up for and sometimes unwilling to accept gray areas.

-American conservatives with a knee-jerk reaction against anything in any way associated with the word "terrorist."

Also, both you and Hurting OTM about biased sources ... commonly, when discussing this issue (IRL and online), I encounter people who dismiss certain sources as biased and then turn around and cite something from the NYT or lunatics like Finkelstein or whatever. Understandably (I hope), this bugs me to no end. As you guys said, no one source (on ANY subject) is truly balanced or unbiased, rather, one needs to consider a wide spectrum of sources to obtain any measure of balance ... then, form an opinion based on what's available.

More to the original topic ... probably 6-12 months down the line, we're going to be reading "how the ex-Gaza settlers are faring now that they're back in Israel" stories. I wonder if they'll assimilate (I hate to use that word, but it probably applies in this context) smoothly, or whether they'll carry a social stigma (similar to, e.g. an ex-con) that will remain with them for years. I'm inclined to believe that it will be the latter.

i agree with barry 100% here.

the thing is, these sources are effectively an entertainment industry built around our (by our i mean citizens of the US, canada, britain, greater europe etc) engagement with middle eastern conflict. so these sources cater to the groups Hurting mentioned upthread. these people (on both sides) are in the business of selling ammunition to bolster already-formed opinions, providing talking points for the self-righteous, playing armchair general or great white explorer, etc.

the reason i would point people towards "one palestine, complete" is that it's history, and not current events. it's easier for writers and readers to look at it with some degree of detachment and neutrality. i'm not even going to recommend "OP,C" as the "best" book on the subject - but i would definitely recommend looking at the early history of israel (rather than post-1965) as one of the best approaches to the subject.

similarly, you may want to bypass a historical or political source altogether and read something like segev's "elvis in jerusalem", or edward said's autobiographical reminisces. this is sort of like reading the new yorker instead of the new york times - yes, you miss out on the immediacy and level of detail, the feeling of being in the scrum (this is what cable news excels at) but you get a level of cultural perspective that you can't better (except by actually traveling in the region). and, the volume level tends to be lower - more space to think, read between lines, etc.

He holds different opinions to MIR.

I wouldn't particularly recommend Finkelstein as an introduction to the subject, as he is a bit too much of a polemecist (a kind of leftist version of Christopher Hitchens). He does have some interesting things to say, but then so do many other people.

He holds different opinions to MIR - DV

oh come on. was it really worth waiting 24 hours just to throw gasoline on the fire? BBB gets a pass because i don't know if (s)he is new to the forum or what, but i would think the rest of us would be acquainted enough with barry's position to let his overstatements slide.

i hate to call people out for dogpiling on barry, especially because i've done my share of that in the past. but really, there's ways of approaching that "myths & facts" website that are much more constructive than "oh look i have proved it's partisan DO YOU SEE??"

why not just take the "myths & facts" website as a "primary source", as opposed to a "secondary source"? i.e. "myths & facts" is a website that presents a particular voice, at a particular point in time. it may be as aggrieved and partisan as the hamas charter but it is no less useful (as a point for inquiry) for being such.

instead of saying "this is not a good site for understanding" we could just as easily say "this is a very good site for understanding the priorities and logic which underpin barry's position" (my apologies to barry if that reads as condescending, i don't mean it that way at all).

Anyway, just because AIPAC is 'bad' deosn't refute a single argument Mr. Bard makes on his website. Is it 'biased'? Sure is and he says why. I'm not implying that the Sabras or the Israeli state haven't made their share of mistakes, enacted some unhelpful policies, and committed some unsavory acts, but sometimes I think the facts do fall more on one side and even if one wishes to be fair to two or more sides, one has to choose. In a very unfair analogy, if you argue the merits of the European settlement of North America, you can't very well take the side of the settlers and of the natives. You can take the side of the natives and sypathise with the plight of the Europeans that came here, or vice-versa, but if you don't take a side eventually, it's all just armchair philosophizing.

My personal biases are very much against the religious assholery that predominates on both sides nowdays, but I'm far more impressed with the early Zionists than with the Arabs who seem to have spent the entire 20th century making wrong decision after wrong decision, making special pleadings, and deluding themsleves. As Israeli society has become more extremist, I often find them distasteful too, so that sometimes I just feel like sighing wearily and wishing a pox on both their houses.

how does "taking a side" = constructive action? how is it that "taking a side" is somehow mutually exclusive from armchair philosophising?

Nobody should have to lower themselves to pointing out that Finkelstein is a pathological lying piece of scum whose credibility among real historians is less than zero and counts Holocaust deniers amongst his closest ideological allies (which is especially disturbing considering his parents survived the Holocaust).

When people talk about the Middle East, it's usually to determine who is right, or at least, more justified. Considering the fact that you are talking about the survival of the Israeli state and potentially many of its inhabitants and the economic, political, and moral lives of millions of increasingly desperate and marginalized Palestinians, I don't think this is a ho hum question. I'm not implying that you have to be a reductionist idiot but considering the stakes, I'm not sure that one can sit on a fence about this either.

so, um, what side are you on regarding AIDS?

I tried to chuckle at this and failed. While the Reagan administration dithered many people in this city and others died, despite everything we tried to do for them. Some of them died in the throes of dementia, unable to understand what had befallen them.

on mature reflection, I agree with you. I am not that convinced that Finkelstein is not a mentalist and so should not have made that remark. I would be interested in reading a fleshing out of MIR's accusations against him (I mean this non-rhetorically), but I'd rather read them on a "Norman Finkelstein - classic or dud" thread rather than here.

I do feel this thread has gone annoyingly meta. There's something a bit fucked up when people are less interested in discussing the Israel-Palestine issue than disccussing the writing style of ILX posters who are engaged with the issue.

I'm sorry but this is one of the most fucked up things I've seen:

<embed src='http://www.cbs.com/thunder/swf/rcpHolderCbs.swf?partner=userembed&vert=News&autoPlayVid=false&releaseURL=http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?pid=nGAE4BQZAzL27hvTUg3qlOkBmrgVWa8U' name='cbsPlayer' allowFullScreen='true' allowScriptAccess='always' width='506' height='494' wmode='transparent' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' />

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

That's a great piece. Kind of the wrong thread to revive since there are no more settlers in Gaza.

yeah it should be called settlers in the West Bank... but i just went for the first thread that had "settlers" in it, and i wasn't thinking clearly after watching it.

the most enraging part is the woman's "rationale" at the end. the "holy land" thing. it just makes one feel so hopeless about the irrationality of the conflict

i guess i can find the israel / us national interest thread and post it there

done