« Sympathy barf | Main | Credit where credit is due »

Monday, May 18, 2009

Comments

As As`ad Abukhalil points out repeatedly, it's not just Israeli leadership, it's Israeli society. After watching the poll numbers regarding the recent assault on Gaza, I don't think I can be shocked by Israeli poll results anymore. And of course, US poll results regarding our own criminal actions aren't much better, at least until they start resulting in US body-bags, so I'd say that's pretty similar to Israeli attitudes (witness reactions to the failure of the recent Lebanon war for example), lest anyone accuse me of anti-Semitism.

I think the Israelis are pretty much the same as white Americans would be in a similar situation--if there were 300 million Native Americans crammed into Oklahoma and a few other states totaling about 22 percent of the land (with white settlements sprinkled around even there), I imagine most white "liberals" would be exasperated with the intransigence of the Natives and would accuse them of anti-white extremism if they demanded the right of return and we'd feel deeply sorry for ourselves and would be outraged by outside sources who might give support to Native groups that shot rockets across the borders even as we pounded them 100 times more intensely.

It's easier for a settler colonial state to admit its crimes later on if the natives have been reduced to a tiny fraction of the settler population. And even then honesty doesn't come easily.

I've thought of this analogy before. One thing I'm curious about, but haven't looked up--when were Native Americans given the "right of return"--that is, allowed off the reservations? I'm guessing it varied from place to place and tribe to tribe, but don't know.

I think the Israelis are pretty much the same as white Americans would be in a similar situation...

True, though that applies more to what Rojo was saying than to the results I was citing, which are thoroughly gobsmacking and—as far as I'm aware—unprecedented.

I'd agree that it's important to look at the way behaviors generalize (and to seek out the underlying principles), but I also think it's a mistake to take that too far, since it can obscure the unique features of any particular situation.

So.. since uh, they're idiots, surely they deserve to move out of the country for the sake of Palestine,no? Sorry,but I can't help but think that's what you're implying here.

Sorry,but I can't help but think that's what you're implying here.

Somehow, I was able to not think that's what John was implying here. I don't know how I'm able to do that; it must be something I was born with.

My solemn promise: the day I mean "69% of Israelis are idiots, so they deserve to move out of the country for the sake of Palestine", I'll say so in a posting titled "69% of Israelis are idiots, so they deserve to move out of the country for the sake of Palestine", with the entire contents being "69% of Israelis are idiots, so they deserve to move out of the country for the sake of Palestine."

"So.. since uh, they're idiots, surely they deserve to move out of the country for the sake of Palestine,no? Sorry,but I can't help but think that's what you're implying here."

Very good example of a common phenomenon--someone criticizes the Israelis without pulling any punches and immediately someone else says "oh, you think they should all leave."

Sorry, but somehow, Jenny, it comes across that you think crimes against humanity should be inflicted against people who are idiots--why else would you think John was implying that? As it happens, the people who actually were driven out were the Palestinians and it's the Israelis who go into hysterics at the thought of a one state solution where both sides live in the land together.

Actually, now that Jenny's brought it up, I'm intrigued by this idea that idiocy qualifies you for dispossession from your lands.

Does it mean Mexico gets to take back Texas?

Remember, America needs to be raped.

The comments to this entry are closed.