Week’s end in Israel

39 thoughts on “Week’s end in Israel”

1. First of all, I find that Tom Segev’s allusions to “jacuzzis” is just plain mean-spirited. (It reminds me of Begin’s ranting about the “millionaire” kibbutzniks and “their swimming pools”. It’s the exact same kind of demagoguery, and it is no less crap because Segev, and not Begin, says it!) I wonder if Segev has a jacuzzi? Or maybe he just has a health club membership? In any case, shame on him!
   Now, Helena, I tend to agree with you that it is indeed disgusting that SOME settlers did, indeed, use their children in a cynical and self-serving manner. However, SOME Palestinians have been doing exactly that for the past four years. At least, to our credit, the government children’s welfare agency threatened to declare the adults unfit parents and remove the children to safety. I’d like to see the same kind of concern from Palestinian agencies. (Instead, all we get is Hanan Ashrawi shrieking that we have no right to suggest that Palestinians love their children and don’t exploit them for political gain. Bull, in both cases!)
   Now, there are two more things that I want to say about the “settlers”.
   First, I’ve known many and all kinds. Most are probably far less materialistic than me and the rest of us who tend to agree more with Tom Segev than with Efi Eitam. At least give them credit for being where they were, in most cases, for ideological reasons. Mistaken, in my view, but ideological never the less.
   Second, Segev is correct that we need to try and make up for a 40 yearold error. Much of my tax money (not yours Helena) has been wasted on this enterprise, and from a purely Israeli point of view, I think that that is the long overdue reason for removing the settlements: They simply do not provide anything in return for the heavy costs we have paid socially and economically to establish and maintain them.

2. JES wrote:
   “Most are probably far less materialistic than me and the rest of us who tend to agree more with Tom Segev than with Efi Eitam. At least give them credit for being where they were, in most cases, for ideological reasons. Mistaken, in my view, but ideological never the less.”
   What you are actually saying is that, though it may be wrong that they were were they were, since they were were they were for ideological reasons, it is somehow less wrong than it would have been when they would have been were they were for other reasons than ideological ones.
   I disagree. It’s not because of money that the settlement project in the occupied territories is wrong; it is the project itself, and the ideology that drives it that is wrong. You talk about money, where you should talk about morality. The settlers were and are wrong because of there immoral, racist ideology. But to you it’s mainly an internal Israeli problem: the economical and social costs are too high, and “that is the long overdue reason for removing the settlements”.
   What you are saying is not part of any possible solution.
   It’s part of the problem.

3. Helena, I think it is likely that Sharon planned this with maximum propaganda returns in mind, particularly in regards to the US. If so, it worked. Coverage of the evacuations here has been over the top with sympathy towards the settlers, and almost completely without context.
   JES, it wasn’t just the Israelis who paid for those illegal settlements. Americans did as well. Apparently we are being expected to pay for the evacuations as well.

4. Menno,
   Please go back and read what I wrote. The settlers are attacked, as a group, by the likes of Tom Segev for being in the territories primarily for materialistic reasons (i.e. they’re crying because of the loss of their jacuzzis). Even Helena appears to get off calling them “pampered” because of their subsidized existence. Further, the problem of the settlements has to be settled ultimately by Israel and Israelis; not by the Palestinians or by international do-gooders. We therefore have to understand what the costs are to us – in economic and social terms.
   No Preference,
   The US has attached restrictive clauses to foreign aid and, more importantly, to the loan guarantees to Israel. Even if one argues that aid money used within the Green Line indirecty allowed funds to go to the settlements, you are ignoring the fact that, had there been no settlements, that money could have been used within the Green Line for things such as education and social welfare programs. Instead, we have had to live with a much, much higher tax rate than any American pays and with inferior social programs. That is the cost of the settlements, and it’s been borne by Israelis to a much greater extent than Americans. Further, I would expect that anyone complaining about the use of US tax dollars in the settlements should be equally adamant about the use of US taxpayer money in funding the Karin A and Muhammad Dahlan’s villa in Gaza rather than going toward building an economic infrastructure, which I believe was the intent.

5. JES, Israelis, not Americans, made the choice to lavish US foreign aid on the settlements. US aid to Palestine is a tiny pittance compared to what we have given Israel, as you well know.
   The cost of the settlements to the US goes far beyond the money we have given Israel. Far more costly to the US has been our defense of the indefensible, decade after decade, with our veto in the UN Security Council. That may be tough for you to see or care about sitting over there, and it clearly is not a consideration for American supporters of Israel. But it helped get us where we are today.

6. Well, if Steven Gutkin considers the killing of four Palestinians by Jewish terrorist is a non-event, maybe he’s right!
   What is extraordinary about one, two, or four (or a million) Palestinian civilians being shot dead anyway? It’s a daily event, and to people like Gutkin, something is amiss for the day only when there’s no dead Palestinian.

7. No Preference,
   You are free to believe what you want. Personally I think that you’ve stated a nice polemic, but no real argument.
   Israel did not “lavish” US foreign aid on the settlements. The US has had stringent requirements about that money not being used outside the Green Line.
   It makes no difference whether US aid to Palestinians is a “pittance” or a fortune in comparison. This is the same argument that we see here, that because more Palestinians have died in the recent violence than Israelies, that the Palestinians are somehow more “innocent”. I don’t think that really flies. The Palestinians also are responsible for where they are today!
   The US has supported Israel in the UN primarily because it has been in the interest of the US to do so.

8. Prime Minister Sharon has requested $2.2 billion from the Bush administration for the costs of the Gaza pullout and relocation.
   Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group:
   “There are about 1,900 settler families there. That’s over a million dollars for each settler family, when we give $100,000 for the family of every American killed in Iraq.
   This is an outrage to request that kind of money. We don’t owe a dime here. The Israelis should not have moved into Gaza. It was never their territory. They went in there against our advice and counsel and against international law. They should pay the price of the withdrawal here.”

9. Prime Minister Sharon has requested $2.2 billion from the Bush administration for the costs of the Gaza pullout and relocation.
   Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group:
   “There are about 1,900 settler families there. That’s over a million dollars for each settler family, when we give $100,000 for the family of every American killed in Iraq.
   This is an outrage to request that kind of money. We don’t owe a dime here. The Israelis should not have moved into Gaza. It was never their territory. They went in there against our advice and counsel and against international law. They should pay the price of the withdrawal here.”

10. Arthur,
    Pat Buchanan aside, let’s get two things straight here.
    First, the funding requested was for development of the Galilee and the Negev, not for the disengagement as well as, I believe, for revamping the border crossings (which will presumably benefit the Palestinians as well). It was not requested for use in funding either the disengagement or in compensating the settlers.
    Secondly, the money was REQUESTED. Governments can request a lot of things. It hasn’t been – and it doesn’t look as if it will be – granted.
    Finally, I don’t see the relationship between the first part of Buchanan’s demagogic statement and the second part. Not only are the families not getting anywhere near a million dollars per family, nor are they receiving compensation from US aid, and there is absolutely no connection between the disengagement and Iraq.

11. That the colonists in Gaza were pampered, one has only to look at the numbers: 8 000 colonists occupying 20% of the land and controlling 30% of the water. This left the 1.2 million Palestinians with the rest. Needless to say, the colonists

12. The US has supported Israel in the UN primarily because it has been in the interest of the US to do so.
    What a bitter joke.
    How has the US use of its veto to defeat resolutions critical of Israeli settlements been in the interest of the US?
    The fact is that has been in the interest of US politicians to support Israel in the UN. But for the country as a whole, our ongoing support of Israel has been an enormous liability.
    The US has had stringent requirements about that money not being used outside the Green Line.
    JES, you were more honest earlier when you acknowledged that any money the US gives to Israel supports the settlements. This is an obvious fact; money is fungible.
    JES, do you think it’s right that American taxpayers should pay for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza?

13. JES wrote:
    “The settlers are attacked, as a group, by the likes of Tom Segev for being in the territories
    primarily for materialistic reasons (i.e. they’re crying because of the loss of their
    jacuzzis).”
    True, they were not there for materialistic reasons; that was merely a bonus they accepted happily. But living the luxurious lifes of colonists in someone else’s land, in the midst of the poverty and misery of the owners of that land, is in itself reason enough for criticism.
    “Further, the problem of the settlements has to be settled ultimately by Israel and Israelis; not by the Palestinians or by international do-gooders. We therefore have to understand what the costs are to us – in economic and social terms.”
    But you don’t pay the real price for the settlement project: the Palestinians do. They don’t seem to exist in your universe. True, Israeli society pays a high price too: the moral corruption which was caused by the occupation- and settlement-policy. But that’s not the price you’re talking about. It should, though.

14. No Preference,
    In answer to your first question: From the late 1960s through the fall of the Soviet Union, the veto served the interest of the US in countering the cynical Soviet use of issues such as Palestine to manipulate the “non-Aligned” nations of the Thrid World. Following the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran, US support for Israel served the interests of the US in securing the free movement of its energy supplies.
    You may not think that it was in the US interest to counter the Soviet Union’s aggressive nature or to oppose fanatical Muslim hegemony of the world’s major oil reserves (the Carter Doctrine). That is your right. But the US certainly did not support Israel because its leaders felt it against US interests or because of the influence of some mysterious cabal, or masons or Jewish controlled illuminati!
    By way of comparison, during the 1950s when, under Eisenhower and the Dulles State Department, the US adopted a policy that was decidedly not pro-Israel, the US did not recognize any real benefits and, in fact, were manipulated to the hilt by Nasser’s double dealing.
    You can claim that it is in the interest of US politicians to support Israel in the UN, but apart from the rantings of Paul Findley and Cynthia McKinney, I don’t really think there is any proof of this. Fact is that there are numerous US politicians who criticize Israel and still get re-elected every year. By the same token there are apparently millions of American citizens, including politicians, who support Israel simply because they think that it is the right thing to do.
    In answer to your second question (or rather assertion of the “obvious”): Yes, it is obvious that money is fungible (money can also disappear as has happened in the PA). However, Israel is not operating under a budget surplus by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that had monies not been funneled into the territories, and had the settlers paid their full tax burden as I do (over 60% of my income) the $1 billion or so of US civilian aid (which has been declining every year for the past five years and will be eliminated in another five years) would have been available for other purposes. That, my friend, is the other side of the fungibility issue!
    Finally for your last question: No, I do not think that the American taxpayer should foot the bill for the withdrawal, and I don’t believe that I said that he or she should.

15. An informative article on refugees in Gaza, the PLO and the UN. The spin on this should be interesting.
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

16. Helena, this is what I wrote when the Loewenstein-Kimmerling theory [that the disengagement was ‘staged’] came up on my site:

    I think Imshin has the best answer thus far to the Loewenstein-Kimmerling theory. The idea that the emotions and passions circulating in Israel right now are all some kind of calculated dumb show comes very, very close to dehumanization.
    The bottom line, though, is that the theory also doesn’t fly in practical terms. To begin with, some of the settlers – possibly a significant number – might have chosen to make a last stand in Gaza rather than leaving with the soldiers. This would likely have resulted in deaths among both the settlers and the Palestinians. For Sharon to even risk this possibility would have been an act of irresponsibility toward both parties. The last duty of the Israeli state toward the settlers in Gaza was to bring them home.
    Second, a military withdrawal or blockade would have resulted in the same kind of scenes that Loewenstein and Kimmerling describe as theater. There would have been settlers lying down in front of departing army trucks, clinging onto soldiers and begging them not to leave, imploring the government to protect their children from the Palestinians, etc. A blockade would have been even worse, with mothers holding their babies out to soldiers and asking for milk. If anything, the settlers would have come off far more sympathetically than now, and deservedly so: whatever many of us may think of the settlers politically, a state has no moral right to abandon its own citizens.
    And third, an evacuation under the Loewenstein-Kimmerling plan might well have failed. The only way for the settlers to win, once the parliamentary decision was made, was to delegitimize the government in the eyes of the public and security forces. The idea of evacuation proved insufficient to do that, given the precedent of Yamit and the general unpopularity of the Gaza settlements. In the Loewenstein-Kimmerling scenario, though, the government would have been weaker from the get-go, because it would have come off as indecisive and unwilling to use force. Moreover, the process would have been drawn out over many weeks, pitting resolute settlers against an irresolute state, and the state (or the security forces) might have crumbled in the face of political pressure and civil disobedience.

    In answer to your further comments above, I’ll add the following:

    1. Re the infiltrators: Final post-evacuation reports suggest that there were many fewer of these than previously thought, about 1500 as opposed to pre-withdrawal estimates of 5000-8000. More to the point, however, it’s very difficult for any democratic state to close an area hermetically against its own citizens. This is particularly true given that certain categories of people – i.e., the settlers themselves and, until the final week, their relatives – were allowed in, thus enabling infiltrators to sneak through in the trunks of their cars or by similar methods. The security forces tried to stop them and did in fact stopped several thousand, but it was logistically impossible to stop them all.
       Some of the infiltrators may have made it in through ‘gray refusal’ – i.e., soldiers not checking incoming cars as thoroughly as they could have. This wasn’t government policy, though; it was something the higher echelons tried their best to stop. And while your faith in the planning ability of the Israeli government is quite flattering, mistakes will always be made, and not all the planning for the evacuation was thoughtful and rigorous. For instance, the problem of housing for the returning settlers was only partially solved and is likely to cause trouble in the near future. So the infiltrators can be explained more easily in terms of logistical loopholes than calculated stage-management. (Just for comparison’s sake, would you hold the PA security forces responsible for not stopping every single rocket attack against Israel, or cite the persistence of such attacks as proof that they aren’t trying?)
    2. Re the media: Let’s face it, the evacuation is the biggest story in Israeli-Palestinian politics this year, possibly the biggest since the intifada broke out. The media were going to get in by hook or crook no matter what the Israeli government did. Not only that, but a reporter in the wrong place could have caused serious disruption, if the IDF had to divert forces to save him from Palestinians and/or settlers. Given these circumstances, any sensible Israeli government planner would be hospitable to the media and set ground rules for their coverage. The fact that this was done doesn’t mean that the withdrawal was staged; it means that the Israeli security forces were sane.
    3. And with respect to the cui bono question, the settlers haven’t come off all that well from the media coverage. If you’ve been reading the Israeli commentary lately, the bulk of the sympathy is with the soldiers, and many people seem to think the settlers have made asses of themselves. Significantly, under the Loewenstein-Kimmerling plan, I’m certain that there would have been much more sympathy for the settlers (for reasons set forth above), so this factor is at the very least a wash.

    In other words, every aspect of the evacuation that is cited in support of the ‘stage-management’ theory can be explained, with much fewer strokes of Occam’s razor, in terms of ordinary politics and protest. In fact, I don’t think the logical threads hang together at all unless they’re supported by some pretty nasty a priori assumptions about the character of Israelis and the Israeli state, which I don’t believe are borne out in fact.
    Finally – but, I think, tellingly – if the Loewenstein-Kimmerling plan had been tried and failed, I’m certain that Loewenstein and Kimmerling wouldn’t have given Sharon any benefit of the doubt. I’m sure that, in this circumstance, they themselves would now be castigating Sharon for not using force against the settlers – “plan designed to fail,” “unwilling to confront the extremists,” “leaving the Palestinians to clean up Israel’s mess.” And – honestly now, Helena – wouldn’t you be joining them? Unless you can answer “no” to that, I think you owe some consideration for the judgment call Sharon made, which resulted in Gaza being successfully evacuated in just over a week.

17. In answer to your first question: From the late 1960s through the fall of the Soviet Union, the veto served the interest of the US in countering the cynical Soviet use of issues such as Palestine to manipulate the “non-Aligned” nations of the Thrid World. Following the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran, US support for Israel served the interests of the US in securing the free movement of its energy supplies.
    This is complete nonsense. US vetoes in support of Israel didn’t “counter” just the Soviets. They “countered” the entire world. Many of those votes are by 14-1 margins.
    Israel is of no use in “securing the free movement of (US) energy supplies”. We couldn’t possibly ask for Israeli military help for that. Israel is such a liability that during the two Gulf wars we begged Israel not to get involved.
    If we want to “secure the free movement of our energy supplies”, a good place to start would be by dropping our one-sided support for Israel.
    As for the power of the Israeli lobby and the freedom of our politicians to go against it, what you have posted is simply AIPAC’s talking points on the issue. I have observed US Middle East policy for many years, and all I can say is that it does not accord at all with what I have seen. Who are those “numerous” Senators and Congressmen who “criticize Israel”?
    Jonathan, the American media coverage I have seen over the past week has tended to be heavily sympathetic to the settlers. Anne Barnard’s reporting for the Boston Globe is an example.

18. Jonathan Steele has a very salutory column in today’s Guardian, putting the Gaza withdrawal in perspective:
    The settlers’ retreat was the theatre of the cynical
    Contrast the world’s overwhelming coverage, especially on television, of the departure of Israeli settlers from Gaza with the minimal reporting of larger and more brutal evictions in previous months.
    There was no “sensitivity training” for Israeli troops, no buses to drive the expellees away, no generous deadlines to get ready, no compensation packages for their homes, and no promise of government-subsidised alternative housing when the bulldozers went into Rafah.
    Within sight of the Gush Katif settlements that have been handled with such kid gloves this week, families in Rafah were usually given a maximum of five minutes’ warning before their houses, and life savings, were crushed. Many people did not even have time to go upstairs to collect belongings when the barking of loudspeakers ordered them out, sometimes before dawn. Fleeing with their children in the night, they risked being shot if they turned round or delayed.
    As many as 13,350 Palestinians were made homeless in the Gaza Strip in the first 10 months of last year by Israel’s giant armour-plated Caterpillar bulldozers – a total that easily exceeds the 8,500 leaving Israeli settlements this week.
    . . .

19. No Preference,
    First of all, this is JES, not Jonathan.
    “They “countered” the entire world. Many of those votes are by 14-1 margins.”
    Sorry, but what you say is utter nonsense. I think that the “entire world” comprises more than 15 members of the UN! Apart from this descent into hyperbole of yours, let’s not be naive or sanctamonious about the operations of the UN. I suggest you read Daniel Patrick Moynihan – who was there and vetoing – about how many of those votes were sold to the highest bidder.
    “We couldn’t possibly ask for Israeli military help for that. Israel is such a liability that during the two Gulf wars we begged Israel not to get involved.”
    Nobody says that the US should ask Israel for help. As for the US “begging” Israel not to get involved, I find this interesting. Those of your ilk usually accuse us of goading the US into these wars so that we wouldn’t have to fight them (which is pure bull).
    “If we want to “secure the free movement of our energy supplies”, a good place to start would be by dropping our one-sided support for Israel.”
    This is your opinion. You’re entitled to it, but I think you are wrong. Dropping supposed “one-sided” support for Israel would, in my opinion, not be any more effective in disuading radical Islam than was, say, Chamberlain dropping Britain’s “one-sided” support of Czechoslovakia.
    As I pointed out earlier, the US tried that tack through most of the 1950s and into the early 1960s. It did not have the results that you speculate on, and there was far less religious fanaticism in the region at that time.
    “As for the power of the Israeli lobby and the freedom of our politicians to go against it, what you have posted is simply AIPAC’s talking points on the issue. I have observed US Middle East policy for many years, and all I can say is that it does not accord at all with what I have seen.”
    Simply AIPAC talking points, eh? Well, I think that you need to explain exactly how it is that six million Jews (a good number of whom are either not supporters of Israel or are anti-Israel) are able to control the entire Congress and the White House and, more imoportantly, as you imply, the majority of the electorate of the US. Sure, the so-called Israel lobby can be effective in getting bills passed, but they do not control the US government or, more to the point, coerce US leaders to act in ways that they believe are antithetical to the interest of the United States.
    “…the American media coverage I have seen over the past week has tended to be heavily sympathetic to the settlers.”
    That final statement of yours deserves a big “so what?” American media coverage tends to pick up on whatever it looks like will sell. If little Muhammed ad-Dura will get an audience, they’ll kill him again and again, in slow motion. If Arafat dying looked like it would sell, then you got shot after shot of the old pedophile with his quivering lip getting on the helicopter, complete with all sorts of bull about how much his people loved him.
    So why do you all make such a big deal about the settlers getting TV coverage?

20. JES, the last sentence in my previous post was directed towards Jonathan Edelstein.
    I think that the “entire world” comprises more than 15 members of the UN!
    There are 15 members of the UN Security Council. When the US votes against the other 14 that does amount to the US voting against the rest of the world.
    You raise a number of straw men in your post, such as the suggestion that I believe that the Israel lobby controls the US government. I’m not going to bother with those.
    However, I would like to see your list of the “numerous” Senators and Congressmen who freely criticize Israel. Would it be possible for you to produce that?

21. Jonathan, the American media coverage I have seen over the past week has tended to be heavily sympathetic to the settlers. Anne Barnard’s reporting for the Boston Globe is an example.
    The settlers’ main battle is for Israeli public opinion, though, and they seem to be much less successful in that regard. Israelis are seeing much more of the withdrawal over a more extended period than Americans are, and the developing consensus seems to be that the soldiers are acting with great restraint and professionalism while the infiltrators… aren’t. The jury’s still out at this point, but I suspect that the Gaza evacuation will be cited as a precedent in favor of further withdrawals rather than a trauma counseling against them.
    In any event, the issue of sympathetic media coverage is orthogonal to the main topic of this thread: i.e., whether the withdrawal was somehow stage-managed. Loewenstein and Kimmerling seem to believe that the evacuation could have been managed more efficiently and with less bathos if the IDF had simply withdrawn from or blockaded Gaza rather than forcibly evicting the settlers. For the reasons discussed above, I don’t think this is so, and that such a procedure would have resulted in more tearful protests and the possibility of holdout settlers shooting it out with Palestinians. As such, the risks of the Loewenstein-Kimmerling approach would have outweighed the potential rewards, and Sharon’s judgment call to evict the settlers – which, after all, resulted in Gaza being evacuated successfully in a week – isn’t evidence of stage-management.
    Not to mention that there is absolutely no proof of an overall agreement between the Israeli government and the settlers to stage-manage the withdrawal for mutual advantage. Espionage novels notwithstanding, it’s impossible in practice to keep such a colossal conspiracy secret – if the “Sharon is a traitor” rhetoric were indeed all for the cameras, then surely some loose-lipped Kahanist would have spilled the beans. Occam’s razor cuts very clearly here: the passion was genuine, the protests were genuine, and the clashes during the evacuation were not street theater but the real deal.

22. Jonathan, I don’t doubt that much of the passion shown by the protesters was heartfelt and genuine, though there was also a performative aspect to some of it, too. “Performative” doesn’t mean it wasn’t heartfelt but can certainly add an extra layer to the outward manifestations– as in many religious ceremonies including the Shia observance of Ahura.
    What we SAW were only the outward manifestations– of the settlers’ and outside agitators’ lamentations and of the soldiers’ frequent sense of stress (crying etc), as well.
    To what extent did the terms under which the withdrawal were planned ensure that there would indeed be all that emotionalism, and also that we (and the Israelis) would see it? I still maintain that better administration of the border controls in that military area could easily have reduced the number of outside agitators to near-zero, and cut the access of the media people considerably, too.
    Btw, how do you account for this extraoridnary quote, from the police commander supervising the last set of evacuations from Netzarim, today?
    “It’s tougher to see them go quietly, not fighting,” said Hagai Dotan, the police commander overseeing the evacuation, as he watched the tearful and resigned settlers board the convoy.
    The Netzarim settlers were described as, “driving to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest shrine, and from there to temporary homes in a West Bank settlement.”

23. I still maintain that better administration of the border controls in that military area could easily have reduced the number of outside agitators to near-zero, and cut the access of the media people considerably, too.
    The IDF and police had a lot of jobs to do in the weeks before the withdrawal – containing the big settler demonstrations in the Negev, patrolling the borders, preventing Palestinian attacks (of which there turned out to be only a few, but there was no way to be sure of that in advance), hunting down armed deserters in the wake of the Shfaram attack and trying to control access to Sa Nur and Homesh. To ask that they hermetically seal Gaza at the same time is, I think, asking a bit much, particularly when it’s done in hindsight. The job they did was creditable.
    And why would it have been a good thing to “cut the access of the media people?” This event was news – very significant news in fact – and the media had a right to be there.
    Btw, how do you account for this extraoridnary quote, from the police commander supervising the last set of evacuations from Netzarim, today?
    Why is that quote “extraordinary?” I think that any police officer would find it emotionally harder to evict people who go quietly and tearfully than those who fight. That’s the power of civil disobedience – that it causes shame in the authorities. This is so even if the people practicing civil disobedience are advocating a cause that the authorities oppose. I find nothing at all extraordinary about this quote, and it’s certainly nothing that would suggest stage-management.
    The Netzarim settlers were described as, “driving to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest shrine, and from there to temporary homes in a West Bank settlement.”
    The NYT casts a bit more light on this. Some of the Netzarim settlers will live temporarily in empty college dorms in Ariel, but are planning a long-term move to the Negev. No new West Bank houses are being built for them.

24. BTW, I agree that the settlers’ outward manifestations may have had a “performative aspect” to them. The question is, what were they performing? Loewenstein is suggesting that their emotional manifestations were part of a prepared script, agreed upon in advance with the Israeli government, with the object of preventing future evacuations. I don’t think there’s evidence of this. Instead, the settlers’ object in letting the public see their (genuine) grief was to prevent this evacuation. Even at the last minute, many of them were hoping that soldiers would refuse orders en masse when they saw the people they were uprooting. They were, in other words, at cross purposes with the government rather than in cahoots with it.
    A second reason for the settlers’ tears might have been ceremonial, similar to your comparison with the Ashura ceremony. The Jewish religion also has a long tradition of public lamentation, beginning with the destruction of the First Temple. Indeed, Tisha b’Av, which commemmorates exactly that event (and many other calamities), occurred the day before the evacuation began, so both the settlers and the soldiers were emotionally prepared for such lamentation. Their tears were, like Ashura or Tisha B’Av, a genuine outpouring of spiritual grief that is in line with Jewish religious tradition. (Surely you wouldn’t suggest that Ashura is a stage-managed spectacle.)
    And finally – well, whatever we may think of the settlers politically, they’re human beings who were saying goodbye to their homes. Some of them had lived in those homes all their lives. Under those conditions, I can’t imagine them leaving without tears and curses. So underneath any performative aspect was a great deal of real, heartfelt grief. Such grief isn’t a reason to change one’s political attitude toward the settlements and is certainly not a reason to capitulate to the settler movement’s agenda, but I think it explains a great deal about the settlers’ behavior that Loewenstein doesn’t (or chooses not to) see.

25. No Preference,
    That’s still not voting against the “whole world”. It’s voting against the highly political security council. There’s a big difference, and it’s still meaningless hyperbole.
    Straw man? I don’t think so. I think that that’s pretty much what you implied.
    I’d like to hear an answer.
    If it makes it easier, I don’t have or intend to compile a list of US politicians who openly crticize Israel, because it will never be “numeous” enough, or critical enough of Israel for you to accept it.
    So, there you have it. I’ve admitted I don’t have a list. No let’s hear what it was that you really meant about the powerful Israel lobby, and why thre are, apparently and according to my own admission, absolutely no critics of Israel in Congress, and why the US has knowingly acted directly counter to it’s interests for the past 40 years.

26. JES is one of those guys who pretend that how UN members vote has nothing to do with their countries’ positions on issues. No, the votes would be different were it not for the highly politicized atmosphere of the Security Council (or General Assembly). Must be something in the air coming off the East River. What a joke.
    JES, you claimed that there are numerous US politicians who freely criticize Israel. Can you name, say, ten out of the 535 members of Congress? That would be a start.
    Or five. Can you name five?

27. Well No Preference, since you insist I did a quick search for documented evidence of members of Congress who have freely criticized Israel. I found the following Web page concerning HR 713 from July 14, 2004, which “deplores the International Court of Justice advisory opinion finding that the Wall Israel is building in the West Bank is illegal.”
    There is a list there of 45 members representatives who voted against this bill, refusing, according to the article to “endorse this knee-jerk resolution rushed to the floor by the supporters of Israel’s military occupation.”
    Does that satisfy you for members of Congress who have freely expressed views that counter those of Israel and its supporters?
    Re. your remark, again, the issue is not whether or not the votes express their government’s views. I’m sure they do. And I bet those views are influenced by political considerations. But again, the point is that it is a bit of hyperbole to accuse the US of voting against the “entire world”. (And, now that I think of it, does the fact that the “entire world” does something make it right?)
    So now maybe you’ll answer my question as to what you meant about the “powerful Israel lobby” and the US apparently willfully and knowingly acting against its own interests? (Or is that too much to expect from someone with no preference?)

28. JES, hi. 45 members of congress voting against the bill to “deplore” the ICJ ruling on the wall/barrier… (The source you referred to didn’t come thru but I’ll trust you on that.) I find it very depressing that only 45 members out of 435 members of the House of representatives would oppose a bill that “deplores” a position enshrined in international law.
    If it had been 45 senators, now, out of 100, that would have been something.

29. Helena,
    Thank you for trusting me!
    Perhaps you would care to share with me the basis for your assertion that camera.org is “harshly anti-Palestinian”? I’d really like to hear about that.
    Also, while we’re on the subject of walls/barriers, do you have any idea as to when the ICJ is going to hand down a ruling on the wall/barrier that the EU is building on the Eastern Front?
    BTW, isn’t it 102 senators? I thought that Israel was the 51st state.

30. JES, those 45 Congressmen were voting on a bill critical of the World Court, not a bill critical of Israel. Nice try, but that’s not answer.

31. Well No Preferance, I did a little more research and I have a list of 20 members of congress who received a +4 rating or higher from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. The complete list is presented on the Project Vote Smart Web site at: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=003519M
    Positive ratings indicate actions in support for the organization’s positions (i.e. “criticism” of Israel, as you put it). The range of possible ratings is -10 through +10 (although there were no -10s). So here is the list:
    Lynn Woolsy D CA +6
    George Miller D CA +4
    Barbara Lee D CA +8
    Pete Stark D CA +7
    Lois Capps D CA +6
    Maxine Waters D CA +6
    Darrell Issa R CA +4
    John Dingle D MI +10 (the winner)
    William Clay D MO +6
    David Price D NC +5
    Melvin Watt D NC +6
    Donald Payne D NJ +4
    Maurice Hinchey NY +4
    Dennis Kucinich OH +8 (surprise, surprise)
    Ron Paul R TX +7
    James Moran D VA +5
    Jim Jeffords Ind VT +4 (Senate)
    Brian Baird D WA +5
    Jim McDermott D WA +5
    Nick Joe Rahall D WV +7
    Okay, does that satisfy you?

32. That isn’t really an analogous situation, given that the EU is building its fence on its own territory. On the other hand, you might legitimately ask when there will be a ruling on the Moroccan wall in Western Sahara.
    One more thing on the “stage-management” issue: I don’t think Loewenstein et. al. are taking into account the damage that Sharon’s political career has sustained from the withdrawal. At this point, his political survival depends on the evacuation being seen as successful, so he has an interest in it being carried out without trauma. The fact that it happened so quickly will improve his chances of remaining in office, whereas the Yesha movement wanted a drawn-out process that would damage him irreparably in Israeli public opinion. Again, this points to Sharon and Yesha being at cross purposes.
    And, ironically, the plan suggested by Loewenstein and Kimmerling would have been far more likely to lead to the kind of trauma that Yesha wants.

33. Jonathan,
    Point taken on the EU wall. (Although I personally don’t believe that there will be much of an EU left within a decade.)
    Also, that is a good point you make about Sharon’s political career. By Israeli standards, he is not too old to continue in politics, and I don’t believe that he is ready to retire.
    I didn’t vote for the man, and probably would still vote for Shimon Peres or Mitzna if I had the chance, but I do have to admit that Sharon showed quite a bit of courage and leadership by putting it on the line.

34. JES, we agree on this: I do have to admit that Sharon showed quite a bit of courage and leadership by putting [the withdrawal] on the line.

35. JES, thanks for finding and posting that list. It is interesting to know that 20 out of 535 Congressmen have a record that could be described as quite sympathetic to Palestinians.
    At the same time, according to the same ratings 275 legislators can be described as very pro-Israeli. That views of the electorate are far more balanced than those numbers show.
    Still, good for you for digging up this information. It’s refreshing to see.

36. Preference,
    You saw the list, now would you care to share with us how “for the country as a whole, our ongoing support of Israel has been an enormous liability.”
    I think that it is you, actually, who has raised a straw man argument – that being the issue of the pro-Israel lobby somehow getting politicians to work against US interests.
    I think that if you look into that list (and remember, I didn’t include those who had plus ratings of 1 – 3) you’ll see that these ratings were based on voting records of the last session for members currently sitting in the House and Senate. That means that, in the case of the House, all those people voted in a way that is presumably contrary to the wishes of the supposed all-powerful Israel lobby, and still managed to be re-elected.

37. JES, the Israeli lobby certainly does get American politicians to work against American interests. Our protection of Israeli settlements through the use of the veto in the Security Council is very damaging to US interests. We have a big problem with the Moslem world. Our one-soded support of Israel; is part of that.
    all those people voted in a way that is presumably contrary to the wishes of the supposed all-powerful Israel lobby, and still managed to be re-elected.
    All those 20 people, out of 535. Twenty is more than I would have suspected, but it’s still miniscule.

38. Nice try Preference.
    But isn’t it just possible that the other 515 voted the way they did because that’s what they and their constituents believe is in the interest of the US?
    Again, look at the statistics, some of the remaining 515 also occasionally voted against the “all-powerful” lobby; I just didn’t include those who had weaker “anti-occupation” records, or weaker “pro-Israel” records.
    Your sole argument here is that you have an opinion about what you believe is best for the US, which must be correct, therefore anyone who disagrees with that opinion is acting against the interests of the US. (Note, that I am assuming you argue in good faith, and that you are not, a priori, in favor of what is bad for the US.) It’s nice that you are comitted to firm belief; it doesn’t mean that you’re right!
    You say:
    “We have a big problem with the Moslem world. Our one-soded support of Israel; is part of that.”
    Perhaps. But did it ever occur to you that radical Islam and the Muslim leadership may also be a big part of it? (It might be instructive for you to think about how many UN “pro-Israel” vetos Turkey supported, for example, and then tell me why they have such an apparent problem with the rest of the “Muslim world”?)
    I certainly would consider that. I have pointed out to you several times, that the US has not been particularly “rewarded” by the Muslim world for taking positions less favorable to Israel.
    Finally, US voting behavior in the Security Council is far more complex than you argue. It is not merely a matter of “protection of Israeli settlements” (which I don’t think is either part of expressed US foreign policy or something that the US particularly does), much of it is a matter of what appear to be very one-sided resolutions that blame Israel but avoid the culpability or responsibility of the other side (a very popular sport among anti-Zionist crowds).

39. Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
    club erotic personals adult dating online
    dating service join free.

    adult
    personals Adult personals online
    personals
    adult dating
    adult dating sex dating
    adult
    personalsadult personals sex dating
    dating
    servicesdating services – adult dating
    service
    adult dating
    serviceadult dating service adult
    personals
    sex
    dating
    sex dating adult dating service
    sex
    dating
    sex dating adult personals
    personals
    
    personals adult personals
    adult sex
    dating
    adult sex dating adult personals
    adult
    dating
    adult dating
    adult dating
    online
    adult dating online adult personals
    online
    personals
    online personals adult personals
    adult dating
    serviceadult dating service adult
    personals
    adult dating
    personalsadult dating personals adult
    personals
    adult dating
    adult dating service
    adult dating
    service
    adult dating service
    adult dating
    onlineadult dating online
    adult personals adult personals
    adult personals ads adult personals ads
    personals ads personals ads
    free personals free personals
    adult singles adult singles
    sex dating sex dating
    Adult Personals adult dating service sex dating adult
    club erotic personals adult dating online
    dating service join free.
    adult dating adult dating
    personal ads personal ads
    sex dating sex dating
    Dating Affiliate Program dating affiliate program
    adult personals adult personals
    adult personals adult personals
    free adult personals free adult personals
    adult dating adult dating
    sex search sex search
    personal ads personal ads
    adult personal adsadult personal ads
    Discount Airfare discount airfare
    Discount Hotels discount hotels
    Discount Travel discount travel
    Discount Cruises discount crusies
    Discount Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms
    Discount Car Rentals discount car rentals
    Discount Airline Tickets discount airline tickets
    Discount Vacations discount vacations
    Discounted Airfare discounted airfare
    Airfare airfare
    online casino online casino blackjack craps poker
    Online Pharmacy online pharmacy
    Pharmacy pharmacy
    generic cialis generic cialis Tadalafil
    generic levitra generic levitra Vardenafil
    zenegra zenegra Sildenafil Citrate
    Sildenafil Citrate Sildenafil Citrate zenegra
    finasteride propecia Finasteride propecia generic propecia
    proscar proscar FINASTERIDE genreric proscar
    tamsulosin tamsulosin flomax generic flomx
    Sibutramine Sibutramine meridia generic meridia
    Orlistat Orlistat xenical generic xenical cheap xenical
    celebrex generic celebrex Celecoxib
    Carisoprodol Carisoprodol generic soma
    imitrex imitrex SUMATRIPTAN generic imitrex
    Metformin Metformin glucophage generic glucophage
    actos generic actos PIOGLITAZONE
    avandia avandia ROSIGLITAZONE generic avandia
    Bupropion Bupropion buy generic zyban online
    lipitor lipitor generic lipitor Atorvastatin
    pravachol pravachol pravastatin generic pravachol
    paxil Buy Paroxetine generic paxil online
    generic prozac buy generic prozac fluoxetine online
    Sertraline Sertraline generic zoloft buy online
    BUPROPION BUPROPION generic wellbutrin Buy online cheap
    Allegra Buy Allegra – also generic Alegra FEXOFENADINE
    clarinex generic clarinex DESLORATADINE
    LORATADINE LORATADINE generic claritin
    singulair singulair MONTELUKAST generic singular
    zyrtec generic zyrtec CETIRIZINE
    CETIRIZINE CETIRIZINE generic zyrtec
    AUGMENTIN AUGMENTIN tablets
    CIPROFLOXACIN CIPROFLOXACIN generic cipro
    CEPHALEXIN CEPHALEXIN genric keflex antibiotic
    Suprax Suprax generic suprax CEFIXIME
    Valtrex Generic Valtrex VALACYCLOVIR
    Azithromycin Azithromycin Generic Zithromax
    FLUCONAZOLE FLUCONAZOLE Generic Diflucan
    Aciphex Aciphex generic aciphex RABEPRAZOLE
    nexium generic nexium ESOMEPRAZOLE
    OMEPRAZOLE OMEPRAZOLE generic prilosec
    protonix Generic protonix PANTOPRAZOLE
    altace Generic altace RAMIPRIL
    cozaar Generic cozaar LOSARTAN
    plavix Generic plavix CLOPIDOGREL
    actonel Generic actonel RISEDRONATE
    fosamax Generic fosamax ALENDRONATE
    clomid Generic clomid CLOMIPHENE
    generic valtrex generic valtrex
    valtrex valtrex VALACYCLOVIR
    generic zovirax generic zovirax
    generic cialis generic cialis Tadalafil
    Tadalafil Tadalafil generic cialis
    Sibutramine Sibutramine Generic Meridia
    Meridia Sibutramine Generic Meridia
    finasteride propecia finasteride propecia generic propecia
    Celebrex Generic Celebrex Celecoxib
    sildenafil sildenafil soft tabs online pharmacy
    Cialis Cialis Generic Cialis Tadalafil
    autosurf for cash autosurf for cash

Comments are closed.