tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post9136651949426539125..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: A Fighting Faith, ReduxDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-81232397877293162022010-05-28T12:32:34.769-07:002010-05-28T12:32:34.769-07:00Joe,
You were not focusing on moral dimensions. Y...Joe,<br /><br />You were not focusing on moral dimensions. Your argument is that there is a consensus. That consensus does not exist.<br /><br />Now, you add a view about the Arab governments' position regarding the Palestinian Arab cause. That is supposed to show that OIL is not the driving force in countries adopting the Arab League line on the Arab Israeli dispute.<br /><br />Well, it would help if you actually knew what the Arab position is. You confuse opposition to Israel's presence in the Middle East with support for a Palestinian Arab state. Which is to say, your comment is another misstatement of fact.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-4056706042594874642010-05-28T09:06:15.893-07:002010-05-28T09:06:15.893-07:00Good luck ever separating power politics from inte...Good luck ever separating power politics from international law. Which is why I've been focusing on moral dimensions for the most part. (As for your oil argument, it can't co-exist with the rather common and supportable observation cheerfully made by many "pro-Israel" individuals, that the Arab countries in the region don't really give a damn about Palestinians. Now why would oil states deviate from whatever is their optimal economic/geopolitical strategy may be for people they don't care about?)<br /><br />As advocacy-filled as your analysis of 242 is, 446 is more recent and it's a clear declaration that the settlements are illegal. Perhaps more to the point, without a single "no" vote, it's hard to claim lack of consensus.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-33848445165732261652010-05-28T07:35:56.888-07:002010-05-28T07:35:56.888-07:00joe,
You spoke of law. When you were showed that ...joe,<br /><br />You spoke of law. When you were showed that there is no consensus on the law, you claim that your view is the view of most nations. I was not aware that there is a UN resolution eliminating Article 80 of the UN Charter. <br /><br />The driving force on any nation to adopt your position is a three letter word, OIL. That is not law. That is simple power politics.<br /><br />And, to note: the world, back in 1967, rather clearly made a promise to the Israelis, in the form of UN 242, that Israel did not have to give up the entire West Bank or Gaza. Such was plainly stated on the floor of the UN by the sponsors/authors of the Resolution, who said that the Green Line was not a secure boundary - which is why the resolution does not call for Israel to withdraw from all territories it conquered and why it states that Israel is entitled to a secure and recognized boundary and why it suggests mediation to help resolve the dispute, something which, at the time, the Arab side rejected.<br /><br />So, we can live in a world of law or we can live in the world that you confuse with the law.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-10552406100723515122010-05-27T21:50:41.150-07:002010-05-27T21:50:41.150-07:00Even though scholars with different canons of inte...Even though scholars with different canons of interpretation can reach some different conclusions, when all (or nearly all) states but one take a position like this, what can we call that if not consensus? The international community is what makes international law in the first place, so I'd even venture to call the position a "law of nations."joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-10176762948243976352010-05-27T12:28:38.298-07:002010-05-27T12:28:38.298-07:00Joe,
I was not arguing the law. I was stating tha...Joe,<br /><br />I was not arguing the law. I was stating that there is no consensus on the issue.<br /><br />I might add, the Palestine Mandate is not a custom. It is something specifically incorporated, by Article 80 of the UN Charter, into International law. In fact, as Rostow shows, Article 80 was specifically written to incorporate the Palestine Mandate.<br /><br />So, it is as much a part of International Law with respect to the Jewish settlement within Mandate Palestine as the Geneva Convention. <br /><br />Again: I do not claim he is correct. What I claim is that the scholarship on this topic is contrary to what you claim it to be, namely, an issued on which there is a consensus.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-78259957243797277142010-05-27T12:01:31.036-07:002010-05-27T12:01:31.036-07:00I'd say when the UN Security Council votes twe...I'd say when the UN Security Council votes twelve to zero on this kind of thing, that's consensus. Your originalist arguments don't hold a lot of weight given the state of international law, where mere custom can become binding.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-68366237222564299902010-05-27T09:09:15.689-07:002010-05-27T09:09:15.689-07:00Joe,
One last point. I cite you to an article I j...Joe,<br /><br />One last point. I cite you to an <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=782" rel="nofollow">article</a> I just found online which summarizes the views of the various views about settling the West Bank. Evidently, pace your view, there really are differing views and among prominent scholars.<br /><br />So, it appears that scholars of the caliber of Morris Abram take the view that the Geneva Convention is not intended to preclude the Israelis from settling the West Bank.<br /><br />Some consensus, Joe.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-55769894898791278982010-05-27T08:47:47.848-07:002010-05-27T08:47:47.848-07:00Now, Joe, I address your other points. Sharon wan...Now, Joe, I address your other points. Sharon wanted Israel to retain land that Israel conquered. That is a perfectly moral point of view. It is not my viewpoint but it is one that can certainly be held by a liberal. The US, at the end of WWII was of that view with respect to the ceding of land by Germany to, for example, Poland. That land was, I note, settled by Poles who, in fact, moved onto land that, prior to WWII (and going back many, many centuries) with a German population.<br /><br />So, why is that OK for Poland - and supported by liberals by the way, notwithstanding the accompanying million ethnic Germans expelled from their ancestral homes in what was not previously Poland - but not for Israel on the West Bank, on which Arabs are allowed by Israel to remain?N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-57650311445912811572010-05-27T08:36:57.471-07:002010-05-27T08:36:57.471-07:00Joe,
Let's talk about this supposed legal con...Joe,<br /><br />Let's talk about this supposed legal consensus which, in fact, does not exist except among a group which claims it exists. The consensus, of course, does not include a principle author of UN 242, the late Professor Eugene Rostow, dean of the Yale Law School. He wrote - and I defy you to find a better legal authority than he is not to mention one more familiar with the background:<br /><br /><i>The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."</i><br /><br />Moreover, he writes:<br /><br /><i>The Bush [i.e. Bush I] administration seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.</i><br /><br />There is, I should add, a recent article in the neo-con magazine Commentary by a scholar of the Geneva Convention who says that, in fact, the entire legislative history of the anti-transfer population provision in the Geneva Convention was, by its author's expressly stated intentions, not intended to preclude voluntary settlement of land conquered.<br /><br />Now, these legal opinions may be wrong. However, to say that there is a consensus except among crackpots is, frankly, disingenuous.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-61724453006320079852010-05-26T22:56:21.009-07:002010-05-26T22:56:21.009-07:00More on morality, we have Sharon's statement e...More on morality, we have Sharon's statement explicitly urging additional settlements in the 90s as a land grab. Encouraging that sort of thing isn't what I'd call moral government policy. Not when it's a zero sum game where any eventual Palestinian state ends up even poorer, more crowded, and less contiguous (in addition to the harm done to the peace process). And I think it's telling that Sharon called it a "grab" without bothering trying to justify it in terms beyond realpolitik. Same with his instruction of "let them build without talking" (in criminal law, of course, concealment of an act can be evidence of a guilty conscience). On the individual level, aiding and abetting an immoral government act can itself be immoral. All this ignoring the obvious bad acts you don't defend but do want to gloss over like "price tagging."<br /><br />And of course, what you call "pseudo-legal" is the considered opinion of basically the entire international community, save Israel and certain evangelical groups in the United States. In other words, the case against Geneva applying is very self-serving and entirely influenced by settlement politics.<br /><br />I assume you know who Theodor Meron is, and I've got his opinion <i>when this first became an issue</i> backing me up here. How many third party legal scholars do you think take the view that the settlements are okay? (I'd ask for a Palestinian legal scholar, seeing as how Meron worked for the Israeli government, but I assume you'd say that's ridiculous because Palestinian intelligentsia is captive to an eliminationist agenda.)joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-82572917957863367912010-05-26T21:58:18.956-07:002010-05-26T21:58:18.956-07:00Everything is political. The politics of settlemen...Everything is political. The politics of settlements are a moral issue because peace is a moral good.<br /><br />I don't think "norm of human history" gets you to moral action, either. A lot of nasty things can be said to be a "norm." Not to mention that waving things aside because "it's been done before" can lead us to ignore key bits of context.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-23446413864749417782010-05-26T12:30:10.129-07:002010-05-26T12:30:10.129-07:00Joe,
I note that your language is now purely poli...Joe,<br /><br />I note that your language is now purely political, with the morals of building villages no longer in issue. The Anti-Israel crowd, by contrast, focuses on the moral and employs pseudo-legal assertions to make their case about settling on land conquered during a war. <br /><br />That argument, which is that settling on land - whether they call it "Arab" land or "Palestinian" land - is an inherently illiberal argument yet it commands the respect of supposed liberals. The movement of people from place to place is the norm of human history and those who say that those who move are engaged in an immoral project are, themselves, illiberal people who merely want to undermine Israel's legitimacy.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-76284849167594712012010-05-26T12:14:40.194-07:002010-05-26T12:14:40.194-07:00Building on outside the line reduces the chances o...Building on outside the line reduces the chances of an end to the conflict. Which of course much of the Israeli government realizes, but has concluded to be politically acceptable.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-43137566250023265962010-05-26T07:29:46.418-07:002010-05-26T07:29:46.418-07:00Joe,
And, the difference between building outside...Joe,<br /><br />And, the difference between building outside or inside the Green Line is what, exactly? <br /><br />A small reminder. The Green Line is an armistice line, not a recognized boundary. And, prior to Israel's war of independence, the villages within what is now the Green Line were deemed settlements on what, back then, was alleged to be "Arab" land. Moreover, there were Jewish settlements on the East side of the Green Line, all of which were ethnically cleansed by the end of that war. And, such cleansing was the publicly declared policy of the Arab opponent's to Israel.<br /><br />So, again, the difference between building on one side of the Green Line and the other is what, exactly? The result of the war of 1948? Get real.ieN. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-11348876333399871342010-05-25T16:28:44.070-07:002010-05-25T16:28:44.070-07:00How is building inside and outside the Green Line ...How is building inside and outside the Green Line different? The question itself contains the answer.<br /><br />Now, if you take issue with delegitimization, I really think you'd be better served attacking the unique logical premises of that argument. And I mean that as a pragmatic matter. To the extent you're basically criticizing large swathes of the human rights community for speaking inconvenient truths it really doesn't lend credibility to your other arguments.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-26987569848973573942010-05-25T06:32:25.810-07:002010-05-25T06:32:25.810-07:00Joe,
I agree with your last point in theory. Howe...Joe,<br /><br />I agree with your last point in theory. However, this is not a logic class and, in the world that is, there is an unmistakable campaign to delegitimize Israel that employs your arguments and that has gained substantial momentum.<br /><br />The reason for this, I think, is on the theory that where there is smoke, there is fire. So, we have two groups of people criticizing Israel, one that seeks the country's demise and the other that thinks the country can be reformed. In such an atmosphere, your argument, however unintentionally, advances the ground of the elimination argument. After all, how is it any different that Israelis have built villages within the Green Line and outside of the Green Line. If it is wrong in one place it sure is wrong in the other. So, the view that you advance is readily turned against Israel's existence and you into a person who fails to recognize the logic of your position.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-12076445097859849132010-05-24T13:31:59.740-07:002010-05-24T13:31:59.740-07:00But destruction/dissolution of Israel is not a nec...But destruction/dissolution of Israel is not a necessary conclusion from the premises I listed. Anymore than, say, vigilantism is the necessary solution if we can agree violent crime is a problem.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-45685161818664018442010-05-24T09:59:52.882-07:002010-05-24T09:59:52.882-07:00Joe,
The answer is that you should read, e.g., ne...Joe,<br /><br />The answer is that you should read, e.g., newspapers such as the British paper, The Guardian, including its article/blog page Comment is Free. On that page, you can read "liberal" opinion advocating Israel's demise and using the very arguments you make to support that view.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-40604498691205095562010-05-24T09:34:36.935-07:002010-05-24T09:34:36.935-07:00Okay, N., if I look back to the initial beaten pat...Okay, N., if I look back to the initial beaten path in this conversation, what I really take issue with is statements like "such premises have in mind to delegitimize Israel and eliminate it."<br /><br />Well, what premises are we talking about? Most critiques of Israel I see and read seem to be working off of premises like "Israel commits some human rights violations" (which, to be fair, you haven't actually disputed) and "human rights violations are bad."joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-38364300568831413982010-05-24T06:09:13.301-07:002010-05-24T06:09:13.301-07:00Joe,
Note that when you have no reply, you attemp...Joe,<br /><br />Note that when you have no reply, you attempt to label those who disagree with you. <br /><br />I am an American, in response to your query.<br /><br />I am not sure what your point is now other than you refuse to deal with substantive arguments, labeling them.<br /><br />If you have something substantive to add, please let me know.<br /><br />David,<br /><br />My reason for mentioning Hitler was not to call anyone names. My goal was to note a quintessential eliminationist movement to which the Islamist movement can clearly be contrasted, for similarities and differences.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-23896614605104326552010-05-24T03:07:06.795-07:002010-05-24T03:07:06.795-07:00Yeah, okay, "futile ranting" is probably...Yeah, okay, "futile ranting" is probably fair, and we've been talking past each other.<br /><br />I know I personally use Godwin as a shorthand for saying someone is strawmanning with Hitler in the mix so we really know it probably won't end well. It's not about "losing." It's about "gimme a break."<br /><br />Finally, do I Netanyahu? Well, if that quote were accurate he would really have no choice but to lie through his teeth about it. But maybe the whole thing's a total fabrication that falls right into my blinders when I see a right-wing politician whose family members go around publicly calling Obama an antisemite. It <i>is</i> possible to have terrible policies and social circle and still not be a total jerk. But since I don't go in for the Great Man theory of history, I'd say the larger point is that there's a segment of Israeli society that calls Obama an antisemite in all seriousness and that does buy the self-hatred charge. The rough equivalent in the US would be people who genuinely believe that liberals hate America and we need to change all the menus to offer "freedom fries."joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-60163528978874747892010-05-23T19:09:31.098-07:002010-05-23T19:09:31.098-07:00I'm just going to list off several non-substan...I'm just going to list off several non-substantive pet peeves and then step back again:<br /><br />1) "Godwin's Law" isn't normative -- it doesn't say that the first person to cite Hitler "loses", or that Hitler references are inherently bad. All Godwin's Law says is that as a comment thread grows larger, the likelihood that a reference to Hitler is made approaches 1. This thread has, needless to say, already buttressed that hypothesis, but that's all Godwin had to say on the matter.<br /><br />2) Please don't <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking" rel="nofollow">nutpick</a>, and please, both of you, stop strawmanning.<br /><br />3) The charge that Netanyahu called Rahm "self-hating" <a href="http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/29/1006888/netanyahu-spokesman-denies-self-hating-jews-remark" rel="nofollow">is not really substantiated</a> (Netanyahu denies ever saying it, and the original source <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-s-paranoia-extends-to-self-hating-jews-emanuel-and-axelrod-1.279611" rel="nofollow">is entirely unattributed</a>).<br /><br />You may now return to your previously scheduled futile ranting.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-30939098200483618932010-05-23T17:58:42.896-07:002010-05-23T17:58:42.896-07:00Also, color me unimpressed by Mr. Rosner's rev...Also, color me unimpressed by Mr. Rosner's reverting to the classic You Outsiders Could Never Understand Why My Team Has to Do This line. I don't buy it when it's the LDS church talking about its treatment of women. Don't buy it when reading those old Southern defenses of their "peculiar institution." Not gonna buy it when it's racism Arab citizens of Israel face (which naturally means the non-citizens will really get shafted).<br /><br />I also think the top reader comments speak volumes of the kind of operation Mr. Rosner is running there. Calling Beinart a "JINO" and a "girlieboy Lib"?<br /><br />Yeah, sounds like a great font of liberal values.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-21747947367156470852010-05-23T17:37:41.307-07:002010-05-23T17:37:41.307-07:00Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you an...Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you an American? Yet here you are giving us your opinions on this issue the same as Mr. Beinart. And that's fine, because the Middle East exists in an objective sense, so we can all observe the events there.<br /><br />So this "nothing at risk" argument is really a red herring. If you really believed it you yourself would have to defer to the judgments of the most vicious members of Hamas. Which would be ridiculous.<br /><br />And indeed, as applied to Beinart that argument is especially ridiculous, because of course Israel bills itself as "<i>the</i> Jewish state." Netanyahu calls non-Israeli Jews like Rahm Emanuel "self-hating" solely for supporting Obama's policy on settlements. Well, he can't have it both ways. He can't make that claim on the nature of the very identity of American Jews and then deny they have anything at stake.<br /><br />The rest of that, the Clash of Civilizations/Islamofascism/do-you-know-what-a-<i>dhimmi</i>-is stuff, does not hold my attention. Though I do find it very interesting to note, that whether you're aware of it or not, you've internalized the Frank Luntz ploy described by Beinart-- reminding us non-stop that the Palestinians are Arabs (in fact never writing Palestinian without Arab in the same sentence).joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-90757997697975943072010-05-23T07:17:06.617-07:002010-05-23T07:17:06.617-07:00Joe,
Another point. I have not said that everyth...Joe,<br /><br />Another point. I have not said that everything the Israelis do is merely to survive. I have said that their efforts to survive have mostly been liberal and moral. <br /><br />The settlement program is not necessary, at least on land to be ceded, for Israel to survive. <br /><br />I note: You have provided no answer at all to the view that the Islamist Hamas movement is an eliminationist movement that is important to Palestinian Arab politics. You have not dealt with the difficulty that such a movement has on the ability to resolve the dispute. Instead, you have attempted to deflect discussion. That is your privilege.<br /><br />I would ask you to consider that the entire Arab and greater Muslim region is under the sway of a great eliminationist movement. That movement has been, for the most part, felt by Christians in the region who, quite literally, are on the run, with tens of millions of such people fleeing in among the great migrations in human history. Many such Christian Arabs have come to the US. The point here being that the movement which has impacted, relatively quietly, on Christian Arabs is the same movement that challenges the right of Jews to have sovereignty and even live in the region. My recollection is that about sixty million Christians have thus far fled the region.<br /><br />Moreover, the numbers killed by the Islamist movement are staggering - in the millions. Yet, you act as if the Arab Israeli dispute were in isolation. No. The assault on Israel is part and parcel of what is well described as a purification movement in the Arab and greater Muslim regions which seeks to reassert Islamic dominance and make all others basically go away. Your view, by contrast, is that if the Israelis are nice, there will be peace. It is not so and that is due to this transnational eliminationist movement that ruins everything it touches.<br /><br />Mr. Beinart has no understanding of the region, missing the main issues that impact on why there is no peace, just now, in the Arab regions. He is just one of those outsiders unaffected by his own criticism and who criticizes without any deep understanding of the Arab regions, seeing problems in a <a href="http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/peter_beinart_on_the_failure" rel="nofollow">simple minded</a> way.N. Friedmannoreply@blogger.com