"These are the people the boycotters want to snub."

Josh the reasons the boycotters give are insincere. Their real reason for wanting to boycott Israel is their hatred of the Jewish State. They want to destroy it. It's that simple.

Their real reasons for targeting Israel are no different from those of Hamas or Hizbollah whom they also support.

"Solidarity" among right-thinking Israelis and their anti-occupation colleagues around the world has produced precisely nothing in the way of amelioration of the conditions under which Palestinians suffer daily. Note also that these earnest expressions of "solidarity" earn the approval of even the most rabid expansionists in Israel. Why? They cost nothing and lead nowhere.

Boycotts (and sanctions and divestment), on the other hand, provide some possibility of producing actual change. The fact that these non-violent efforts prod the defenders of Israeli hegemony into such a tizzy (in contradistinction to "solidarity" and similar milquetoast strategies, which the oppressors tolerate quite well, thank you very much) suggests their potential effectiveness. When your opponent gets scared, you're on the right track.

Uri Davis et al are heroic defenders of liberty, and it's a shame that they would be included in a boycott. But this is no reason to avoid one. Boycotts, strikes and similar actions inevitably affect the blameless. Was every person hurt by boycotts against apartheid a raving racist or unredeemable brute? Nope. Should the boycotts have been avoided on that account? Nope.

Non-violent, afflicting to the comfortable, claiming an effective historical pedigree-sounds good to me.

I'd sure like it if all you boycott opponents spent similar energies working towards ending the occupation you claim to oppose, but since you don't, I'll continue taking your fretting about unfairness as one more instance of reflexive defense of Israel's every action.

"Non-violent, afflicting to the comfortable, claiming an effective historical pedigree-sounds good to me."

This sentenece doesn't make much sense, but if you mean that the Jews have it too good, my reply then is fuck you.

Being targeted by suicide bombers and being shelled by psychopaths after Israel left Gaza doesn't sound like they want to prolong the occupation.

"I'd sure like it if all you boycott opponents spent similar energies working towards ending the occupation you claim to oppose, but since you don't, I'll continue taking your fretting about unfairness as one more instance of reflexive defense of Israel's every action."

It would be better if you told your psychotic Palestinian friends to stop killing innocent civilians.

Israel has been trying to hand back most of the territories since 1967 but first the Arabs and then PLO and now Hamas would rather keep fighting till they destroy Israel then build their own independent State.

You pro boycott antisemites are historically challenged.

"Boycotts (and sanctions and divestment), on the other hand, provide some possibility of producing actual change. The fact that these non-violent efforts prod the defenders of Israeli hegemony into such a tizzy (in contradistinction to "solidarity" and similar milquetoast strategies, which the oppressors tolerate quite well, thank you very much) suggests their potential effectiveness. When your opponent gets scared, you're on the right track."

So I take it, then, that if there was a call to boycott American intellectuals in a bid to end the war in Iraq, the pro-boycott camp would be in favor of boycotting the Noam Chomskys and Howard Zinns of the U.S. universities? Somehow I doubt it.

Universities are generally hotbeds of activism against unsavory state activity. And since when did halting or shutting down intellectual dialogue do a bit of good bringing crimes of state to a halt? Even if it was proven effective, isn't it a bit like denying civil liberties to curb terrorism? Do we not sometimes have to say 'thus far and no further?' I suppose its a matter of priority.

As for milquetoast--you make precisely the argument of suicide bombers: non-violence doesn't work and violence does. If our opponents are "scared" as you put it, then we're "doing something right." I suppose my point in opposing both occupation and mass murder has to do with the fact that both ethically cancel out the ethical demands they claim to make. And while I'm not a pacifist, there is something to be taken from Howard Zinn's argument against war--that the character of action aimed at social change should resemble the character of the resulting society it hopes to achieve.

Solidarity doesn't work? Tell that to Adam Michnik.

Here is another article about anti-Zionism, this one from the great Anglo Jewish comic writer Howard Jacobson that should also be required reading:

"Howard Jacobson: It's time to end the vilification of Israel Forty years ago, Israel's victory in the Six Day War was greeted in the West with widespread relief. So how come she's now the most shunned nation in the world - fair game for boycotts and vilification? History has been subtly rewritten, says Howard Jacobson, and it's time to speak out against it"

Published: 08 June 2007 From The Independent:

http://tinyurl.com/22k3l2

Here is how it begins:

"Heigh-ho, it's boycott time again. Just as surely as young men's fancies turn seasonably to love, and folk long to go on pilgrimages, so do the Zionophobic zealots of our universities start on hearing the boiling of their blood and decide to have another go at ostracising their fellow academics in Israel. This year it's the turn of the newly merged Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) to pass a resolution to proceed to a boycott of Israeli scholars. Not yet a done deal but as good as. A boycott in waiting. The three think-alike monkeys of academe cover their faces in excited anticipation: see no dissent, hear no dissent, speak no dissent.

By its nature a boycott is not a precise instrument, so no distinction is drawn between Israeli academics who actively support their government, those who speak vociferously against it, or those who just go quietly about their biomedical researches. "Passivity or neutrality is unacceptable," the resolution says. All are guilty by association with the heinous ideology of their country, that is to say, guilty by simple virtue of being Israelis.

I do not say "by simple virtue of being Jews". The last thing today's boycotters want, having learnt from their last failed attempt, is to pass for anti-Semites, and the last thing I want, when they tell me they are not anti-Semitic, is to contradict them. There is almost an obligation on Jews to be reassuring. No, no, of course it is not anti-Semitic to be a critic of Israel. Please be as critical as you like. But it is a false syllogism which goes Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic; I am a critic of Israel; therefore I am not an anti-Semite. Zealotry acquaints us with strange bedfellows, and in their loathing of Israel some without a grain of anti-Semitism in their bodies lie down with others who are composed of almost nothing else.

It is, anyway, a red herring. I am tired, myself, of deciding who is and who isn't. Anti-Semitism, when all is said and done, is not the only crime on the block. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a blackguard. And you certainly don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a fool. Boycotters assure us of their innocence of anti-Semitism as though that settles once and for all the question of their intellectual and moral rectitude. Some have even stopped dressing like Palestinians (seen as marginally compromising of their impartiality the last time round) and started paying reverential visits to Auschwitz. Since we are demonstrably not Jew haters, these new recruits to Jewish anguish ask us to accept, since we are neither Nazi sympathisers nor Holocaust deniers, our credentials are in good order. But it isn't quite as simple as that.

Whether it's in the best of taste to like Jews better when they're in concentration camps than when they're in their own country I leave to less interested parties to decide. But this, I think, is obvious: you cannot proudly present one clean hand and not expect people to wonder what you're hiding in the other. A person cleared of anti-Semitism might still be guilty of something else. If anti-Semitism is repugnant to humanity, then it is no less repugnant to humanity to single out one country for your hatred, to hate it beyond reason and against evidence, to pluck it from the complex contextuality of history as though it authored its own misfortunes and misdeeds as the devil authored evil, to deny it any understanding (which is not the same as sympathy or succour), and - most odious of all - to seek to silence its voices...."

Read it all it gets better.

I posted "boycott! it works!". I shouldn't be surprised by the slightly unhinged response it's provoked. Here we have it all: suicide bombers, violence, Jews in concentration camps-every paranoid trope that serious discussion of countering Israeli aggression seems to elicit in those who are happy to tolerate 40 years of dispossession and brutality.

Shriber: sorry my sentence was opaque; let me spell it out. "Afflict the comfortable" was an allusion to Finley Peter Dunne's famous charge to journalists: "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". I was using a little literary license to make the point that the boycott supports the victims and makes the lives of the oppressors less cushy. Nothing about Jews qua Jews, despite your fervid wish to bravely confront an anti-Semite. But this is a reflexive gambit of most Zionists; render an anti-Zionist into an anti-Semite rather than confront the argument. It's a vicious, cowardly and threadbare move, and it demeans the actions of those who fight genuine anti-Semitism. Disgusting. Stop it.
I will ignore your comment that Israel has been "trying to hand back most of the territories sine 1967" since it is clearly the product of delusion, inebriation or similar derangement. Please get back to me when you're sober if you have an actual argument to make.

Strawn: "Universities are generally hotbeds of activism against unsavory state activities". Even if this were true, the Israeli academy would be a conspicuous counterexample. Israel's most renowned anti-occupation professors (Pappe, Shlaim) have decamped to other countries. No official university body has condemned the occupation. Not a peep was raised by Israeli academics, now outraged that they may be the targets of a boycott, when their country closed Bir Zeit for 4 years and performed similar filthy outrages against schools and universities in the West Bank and Gaza for decades.
As for your bizarre comment that I "make precisely the argument of suicide bombers-that non-violence doesn't work and violence does"-where do I begin? Unlike the raving Shriber, you've made reasonable (though incorrect) arguments in the past. So what can it be? Are you tired? Blinded by ideology? I don't think you're dishonest, so I'm stumped.
I endorsed the boycott specifically as a non-violent measure-reread my post. Somehow, you have me in a campfire singalong with suicide bombers. Unless you have an infinitely elastic notion of "violence", in which a boycott is equivalent to a bomb (in which case I will happily leave you to your fantasies), you owe me an apology.
You ought to leave these sorts of shenanigan to Dershowitz, and stick to the high road.

Sorry, I neglected to answer Strawn's question about boycotting the US academy.

Several points:
First, note that there is a credible, widespread sense of disgust in the US re Bush and his war. The recent congressional elections and the consequent shift (albeit tiny) of the Democrats towards a less enthusiastic supinity vis a vis the Iraq aggression are heartening. More important, every poll suggests that the American people are ahead of their leaders in getting fed up with this war.
Unhappily, Israelis seem to be going in the opposite direction. I'm sure you're aware of the trends towards more overt racism there and the dwindling relevance of the peace camp.
So the hope of effecting some sort of change in Israel's policies by relying on more pedestrian forms of opposition seems quixotic.

Second, Strawn's query assumes a model of political activism that exists only in the slapstick dimension occupied by apologists for Israel. Activists simply do not construct a calculus of infamy, determine the world's worst malefactor, and go at him. If this were so, there would be only one legitimate movement at a time.
No, activists are drawn to issues for all sorts of reasons; personal history, area of knowledge, etc. This is a simple and unremarkable observation. Note that no one ever condemns an activist for equal pay for women for ignoring the clearly more urgent fight against FGM, nor are anti-sweatshop activists scolded for not working towards the liberation of Tibet. Only in the case of Israel is this sort of indictment levelled.

It's a bogus argument, ignorant or dishonest, and it should be escorted from the premises.

Red Herrings go both ways.  If only Israeli occupation were a simple black and white issue, as apartheid was.  But Palestinian and Arab efforts to destroy and delegitimate Israel PREDATES Israeli occupation (and in the case of Gaza, POSTdates it!!!!!!)  There simply is no way to demonstrate that Israeli occupation causes or justifies Palestinian 'resistance'; historically, it's provably the reverse.

Boycotts do occasionally work.  Against single companies, even big multinationals, they are particularly effective; see the dolphin/tuna controversy among many others.  Against countries, boycotts are of questionable utility.  Boycotting and sanctions against Saddam and South Africa only led them to make all sorts of unsavory deals with shady characters and regimes around the world; a country has far more ways to circumvent boycotts via third parties and the like.  And when they have resources desired by others that can be paid for in cash-- like oil, diamonds, and weapons-- boycotts/sanctions only encourage a vast black market and fund worldwide crime and worse.  But when a boycott or sanction REALLY hits a nerve-- as the American 1940 refusal to sell oil to Japan did-- it is a casus belli.

 So even if singling out Israel for a boycott (without, say, the Palestinians, whose universities are dominated by avowed terrorist groups Fatah and Hamas just as much as their population as a whole) were remotely justified, a boycott of israeli academia is incredibly stupid and shortsighted.  And as has been said above, of all sectors, israeli academia is least 'complicit' in the structures and ideologies of 'occupation' (compared to, say, israel's hi-tech or aircraft or agriculture or religious establishment...).  Edward Said, one of Israel's most famous and virulent critics, admitted that he got a far fairer hearing for his views in Israeli media and academia than he did anywhere else-- even including Palestine!

Of course, it makes sense that academics think academia is important, doesn't it?  Self-absorbed morons.

"Shriber: sorry my sentence was opaque; let me spell it out. "Afflict the comfortable" was an allusion to Finley Peter Dunne's famous charge to journalists: "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". I was using a little literary license to make the point that the boycott supports the victims and makes the lives of the oppressors less cushy." Anonymous Jun 10, 2007 11:37 am

I am aware of the origin of the cliche anonymous. You would btw have more credibility if you offered us some kind of name.

"Afflict the comfortable" goes both ways and I doubt that you are any less comfortable than the Jews you wish to bocott. You, then could be boycotted too.

I also doubt that the boycott will help the Palestinians in any meaningful sense.

As for Jews reacting badly to boycotts that's because they have been the target of boycotts for centuries. Your antisemitic effort, and it is antisemitic for reason spelled out by many people, is not the first.

All your boycott will do is drive the Jewish communities around the world to draw closer to Israel. They will also institute a counter boycot of the boycotters as the Brits are finding out.

Here is one counter boycott measure launched by dozens of Nobel prize winners:

"Scholars urge solidarity amid boycott

Jonny Paul, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 7, 2007

A group of distinguished academics has issued a call to show solidarity with their Israeli counterparts following last month's move to boycott Israel by Britain's University College Union.

Led by law Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize laureate in physics from the University of Texas, and a task force against boycotts set up by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, the group is urging scholars to sign a statement of solidarity with "our Israeli academics and professional colleagues," stressing that they will not participate "in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded."

Their statement reads: "We are academics, scholars, researchers and professionals of differing religious and political perspectives. We all agree that singling out Israelis for an academic boycott is wrong... We, the undersigned, hereby declare ourselves to be Israeli academics for purposes of any academic boycott. We will regard ourselves as Israeli academics and decline to participate in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded."

Last month, Weinberg canceled a visit to Imperial College, London, scheduled for July, citing "a widespread anti-Israel and anti-Semitic current in British opinion" after an earlier vote by the National Union of Journalists to boycott Israel.

In a letter to the college, he wrote: "I know that some will say that these boycotts are directed only against Israel, rather than generally against Jews, but given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism."

Along with Dershowitz and Weinberg, signatories to the solidarity call include:

Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov, Nobel laureate in Physics, from the Argonne National Laboratory, USA.

Stanley Deser, Dirac Medal winner from Brandeis University.

David Gross, Nobel laureate in Physics, from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Roald Hoffmann, Frant H. T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters at Cornell University.

Avram Hershko, Nobel laureate Chemistry, from the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate in Economics, from Princeton University.

Eric R. Kandel, Nobel laureate in Medicine, from Columbia.

Roger Kornberg, Nobel laureate in Chemistry, from Stanford.

Arthur Kornberg, Nobel laureate in Medicine, from Stanford.

Marshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel laureate in Medicine and Biochemical Genetics, National Institutes of Health.

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Nobel laureate in Physics, from L'Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris.

Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University.

Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate in Physics, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181228569184&pagename=JPost%...

AnonymousJun 10, 2007
12:14 pm

Your second post, assuming that you are the same antisemitic anonymous as the first one, is also full of falsehoods.

You wrote:

"Unhappily, Israelis seem to be going in the opposite direction. I'm sure you're aware of the trends towards more overt racism there and the dwindling relevance of the peace camp."

What crap! Israel withdrew from Gaza while the Palestine elected Hamas a genocidal party pledged to destroy Israel and kill Jews. It's in their charter.

Moreover, just as Israel was about to begin dismantling settlements on the West Bank Hizbollah and Hamas launched kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launched rockets attacks at civilians.

And don't tell me about Israeli military superiority. It's useless when fighting against terrorists who hide among civilians and when antisemitic organizations disguised as human rights groups condemn Israel for defending itself.

The racism and aggression is coming from your side anonymous and your pretext for a boycott is as hollow as your claim not to be antisemitic.

You humanitarian pretensions don't fool anyone. They are just an excuse to hate Jews, oh excuse me, Zionists.

"More important, every poll suggests that the American people are ahead of their leaders in getting fed up with this war."

Anonymous, sorry, the Israeli electorate is also well ahead of its leadership in supporting negotiation, disengagements, evacuation of settlers, pretty much any metric of dovishness you can poll them on. There's always been a prickly vigor to Israeli dissent that's not matched in the U.S., e.g. after the Lebanon invasion Menachem Begin had a nervous breakdown, resigned as Prime Minister, and permanently withdrew from public life because of constant protests outside the PM's residence calling Begin a murderer. Can you see that happening here? Or our having Israeli-style high-profile government investigations that slam sitting administrations in the nads for failed foreign policy?

So yours is a self-serving and bogus explanation for why you support collective economic and cultural punishment of Israelis ("Israelis qua Israelis") but not of Americans qua Americans or for that matter Sudanese qua Sudanese or Chinese qua Chinese. I'm open to explanations for why the left regards Israelis as unique in meriting collective "discomfort" (nor do I accept "antisemitism" as an explanation), but you've got to offer something stronger than "I needn't be boycotted because the Dems done purty good in the last elections!" Perhaps something akin to why South Africa merited collective punishment but Uganda did not? Maybe if you think along those lines you'll be able to gin up something credible.

when will people finally open a book and get the real story?
joan peters' a british journalist who was pro-arab got to the crux of it and wrote:
from time immemorial

if you read this incredibly well researched book, a book the israel-hating left discounts, if you read it you will understand the legion of lies perpetrated by the arabs and the lefties who kiss their asses.

Joey-

I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that the Israeli electorate is ahead of its leadership regarding dovishness. According to the Israeli Democracy Institute, as of 2003 53% of Israeli Jews were against full equality for Arabs and 57% thought Palestinian citizens of Israel should be encouraged to emigrate. I think you'll agree that, compared to today, 2003 was a rosier time for feelings of fellowship. One can only imagine what the numbers would look like now.

I agree that Israelis enjoy a more robust brand of political participation than Americans do, but so do the French, Italians,etc. As for government investigations, I assume you're referring to Olmert's current pickle. Far as I can see, he's being crucified (magen-davified?) for his inefficiencies in dispatching the Lebanese quickly, not for the basic cynicism of his policies. Had he spread his cluster bombs as densely but with fewer casualties on the Israeli side, I don't think he'd be in much trouble (similarly, much of the anti-Bush sentiment here would evaporate if we were winning in Iraq, regardless of the moral horror of the decision to go there in the first place).

Regarding your second paragraph, I still wonder why supporters of non-violent and effective action against Israeli mischief are required to justify their political efforts when that preposterous demand is never made of any other political actors. Lurking in the question is the notion that there's some formula which would tell us just when the threshold of acceptable political behavior is reached and we may proceed with the blessings of a relieved world. This, of course, is the sheerest bullshit. I'm reluctant to even engage on this, because I don't want to give any credibility to what I think is a crackpot idea, but you seem like a nice guy, so:

1. Occupation has gone on 40 years with increasing vigor (no, the Gaza "withdrawal" is not a counterexample).
2. Forty yr old siege supported by my tax dollars.
3. Israel remains a very bad actor supported financially, militarily, politically by most powerful country in the world. Planet's other malefactors don't have such friends in high places.
4. Unlike, e.g., lunatics in Turkmenistan, Israel has powerful lobby in US looking out for its interests.

Note that none of these reasons leads ineluctably to my position. They are reasons I find compelling, not a mathematically rigorous metric leading to only one logically possible conclusion. There's no such thing. People make political decisions for all sorts of reasons. Bottom line, I don't have to demonstrate that Israel's the worst actor on the block in order to mobilize against its policies.

By the way, the argument you make was exactly the one South Africa made when it faced boycotts; "Why us? The Soviets are worse!" Beside the point when they said it, still beside the point when it comes from Tel Aviv.

Anyway, what'd you think of tonight's "Sopranos"?

polls all depend on how you ask... formerly kahanist ideas like expelling arabs from israel are now supported by somewhere between 40 and 57% of Jewish Israelis depending on how you ask the question.  Joey, you're simply off base.  There are polls that say that IF it resulted in a comprehensive peace, would you make concessions, most Israelis of course say yes; that's like saying IF chocolate and vodka were health foods we'd eat more of them.  It's a big and unproven if-- given that 88% of Palestinians voted for murder (not a poll: an actual election.  Openly terrorist Fatah and openly terrorist Hamas got 88%; on ly the 'third way' disavowed terror, and got only 10% of the votes.)

It will take generations before 'comprehensive peace' is something Arabs would be willing to give us.  (remember, we still don't have peace with Egypt or Jordan, only non-belligerency even as they massively re-arm and disseminate anti-semitism, mein kampf is a bestseller, and the top hit song is 'i hate israel'. )

By selective misreading of the most optimistically worded polls, one can convince oneself that there's hope.  But for those of us living in reality (and within shooting distance), actions speak louder than a watered-down poll.  Let's see the Palestinans elect Nelson Mandela and disarm all the terrorists-- then and only then would we even have a STARTING POINT.

AnonymousJun 11, 2007 12:06 am

You still didn't make a rational case for boycotting Israel.

Lots of assertions leading to your predetermined conclusion.

Most Americans support Israel precisely because they know the difference between people wanting to make peace and being rebuffed and people wanting to destroy another country.

The US isn't Great Britain and there will be no boycotts here except from a few lefty college types who think they have a corner on morality.

Your claim that you pay taxes ergo you have a right to boycott makes me laugh. I'll bet most posters here pay ten times the tazes you pay.

What is you name btw? Give any name, let's see with whom you identify with?

Self-determination for an entire nation of people is not a reward for good behavior. If it were, there would be no state of Israel--no nation-states to speak of, really, since most all are the product of some wretched behavior, some massive body counts and some silly notions of community. Oppressive military occupation of an entire populace is not a justifiable punishment for the elements within that populace that embrace extremism, even if it is a majority. These basic principles don't bend just because somebody utters the word "terrorism," or worse, "security." Likewise, indiscriminant mass murder of innocent Israeli civilians isn't justifiable under any circumstance--the principle doesn't bend because somebody utters the word "occupation," "Zionist," or "imperialism." They also don't bend for the far more absurd words "holy land." The entire "debate" is marred by belligerence, arrogance, chauvinism, and superstition on both sides. Belief in God-given lands, belief in mythologized histories, belief in race, belief in the purity of the oppressed, belief in the glory of power--is there a patent absurdity that doesn't enter into this conversation? Even the juvenile he-said/she-said of Sykes-Picot, Hussein-McMahon and Lord Balfour should be enough to make grown people cringe with shame--Brits, Russians, French, Americans join in, please. This so-called comprehensive peace would come about not because Mr. Mandela steps on the scene, but because The Righteous Opressed on both sides of the wall begin to feel less Righteous. Unfortunately, with the tangible relics of monotheism so nearby and with the degenerative doctrines of nationalism so fresh in their heads, neither side is likely to let go their vicegrip on the monopoly of Righteousness, which this conflict is essentially a tug-of-war over.  As long as we're congratulating ourselves on our proximity to the shooting, let me remind you:  there are people in my current hometown of New York who are currently planning to kill me and all of my neighbors.  There are mosques where the congregate.  They've successfully murdered several thousand of my countrymen and women already and I too live with the daily knowledge that they will do so again and I might be one of the victims.  However, the harrassment of Arabs and Muslims by my own government I already find unacceptable and they've not even yet stooped to the point they did when they tossed Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII.  But I'm supposed to believe that Israel gets a pass in terms of the correct mode of conduct for a free and democratic society?  Gimme a break. 

As for all my critics above who, while well-spoken, failed to engage my essential point--that solidarity among academics is preferable to isolation--I don't believe that responding to red herrings will further the conversation.  I've taken notes: solidarity is "milquetoast," advocating it means I live in a "slapstick" world, and I'm an apologist for Israel to some and a filthy anti-semite to others.  Run-of-the mill stuff, everyone.     

easy to criticize from the armchair you're clearly sunk into.  Israel does not PUNISH the Palestinian population: that would imply some form of retributive justice.  Almost every measure taken, including arrests and assassinations of terrorists and pre-emptive attacks on bombers, and roadblock security checks, and most of all the wall-- exist solely as preventative measures.  If there is a de facto collective punishment, it is no different from the blockades imposed on Iraq in the '90s or Germany in 1919-- end the state of belligerency, end the blockade.  The party that is the belligerent MUST GIVE UP WAR and then they can return to normal life.  Such is the case here.  Israel is only reluctantly (and partially) at war with the Palestinians; Palestinians are full-out at war with Israel, and not only they but YOU, 'yawn', refuse to acknowledge THEIR responsibility for their mess.

  Retribution would involve revenge on either an eye-for-eye or more massive basis.  Germans and Romans were good at this while occupying-- they would kill every tenth male or more in retribution for any crime by the occupied.  Some current regimes operate on this basis-- the PA, Fatah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran among them. 

...so I heard basically this: "they staarrrted iiiiit," and "if you were closer to the situation, you'd see that we're the most Righteous."  *yawn.*  I in fact acknowledged their responsibility and I roundly condemn their wanton acts of atrocious murder.  You seem to have missed the point--that illusions of purity lie at the heart of this matter and yours, like all the rest, aren't interesting, much less persuasive.  From my armchair in the most swooned-after target city for the most devastating terror attacks by Islamist radicals, I'll take your "facts" under advisement.     

"As for all my critics above who, while well-spoken, failed to engage my essential point--that solidarity among academics is preferable to isolation--I don't believe that responding to red herrings will further the conversation. I've taken notes: solidarity is "milquetoast," advocating it means I live in a "slapstick" world, and I'm an apologist for Israel to some and a filthy anti-semite to others. Run-of-the mill stuff, everyone."

This isn't about you, is it?

Try writing a non self referential sentece sometime.

Finally, I wish that this blog wouldn't allow Anonymous posts. Let posters pick a "name" any name so that we can identify them when we reply.

You can pick a name. For instance, I picked "Anonymous."

that people should be asked to pick their own name and not fall back on Anonymous.

 It's use is a sign of laziness.

Re: the willingness of the Israeli electorate to make sacrifices for peace, the willingness of a stable and solid majority to evacuate all of historical "Judea and Samaria" as part of a peace settlement (with land exchange of equal size and quality for the 3% of territory with the biggest settlement blocs), the willingness of an even larger majority to evacuate settlers with extreme prejudice and unseemly delight if and when it serves any purpose at all, and so forth, all these things are attested by various public polls including, yes, those conducted by the patchouli-stinking, Beilin-loving, Meretz-voting hippies at Hebrew University.

Mausner, you may think that many of your countrymen are big friars for believing that terms like "peace settlement" have any meaning, but many still do.

Of course, there's no doubt that if you asked the Israeli population whether it would support a peace agreement in which Palestinians were forced to wear their underwear outside their clothing at all times on pain of death, you'd get at least 20% who'd sign on. And polls also capture other, similarly ignoble sentiments.

Anon, you're right that people make political decisions for all sorts haphazard, inconsistently applied reasons. My question is why the left, which is so conscious of the internal diversity (particularly class diversity) of any population--and which almost invariably opposes collective economic or cultural action against a given nation, because, after all, a "nation" is no true collective but rather an artifice by which the powerful try to persuade the powerless that they share a common interest and a common fate--why the left makes an exception for Israel, but only Israel. I'm actually interested in hearing a reason for this beyond "Just 'cuz! I don't have to tell you, you're not the boss of me! Stop harassing me, Zionist!" But I won't hold my breath

As to your other question, I didn't watch the Sopranos finale. I've only watched a few episodes of the show. I saw one episode that I thought may have been the most brilliant piece of television I'd ever seen outside the Star Trek franchise, and that was the one where Tony's sister sees a therapist and the Italians and Native Americans are battling over Columbus Day. That was a work of art, true brilliance, it'll last a thousand years by which time they'll no longer have access to all the levels of its genius. Then for no good reason, I never saw another episode. Also, if you don't want to register, why not just enter your name as BaruchHaGever.

josh, then, do you acknowledge the Palestinians' responsibility for terror and for STARTING things? (can anyone dispute that after Israel withdrew from Gaza, they then, unprovoked, kidnapped Gilad Shalit? and shot kassams?)

 If you do, then you recognize that it's not about 'punishment' or anything retributive; nor does Israel have to be saintly and perfect.  Give back Shalit and stop shooting rockets, and instantly Israel will stop all operations against the Palestinians in Gaza.  They are CHOOSING to be at war with Israel, while Israel is NOT choosing to be at war with Gaza.  Your fuzziness on this point, implying that somehow Israel is immorally choosing to collectively punish Palestinians, makes me question your moral judgement, from wherever you're sitting, even as you 'condemn' their terror activities.

 Joey, the meretz-beilin loving hebrew U. lefties (who often, to my ironic delight, live in dorms on french hill, 'occupied territory'-- making them settlers!!) ask slanted questions.  Willingness of the Israeli public to go along with certain things depends immensely on how you ask the questions.  Phrased right, just as many Israelis agree with Kahanist ideas like expelling all Arabs from greater Israel if that would lead to ridding us of our problems with terror, as would agree to the standard leftie 'painful sacrifices' if that would lead to genuine peace. 

 Israelis would agree to damn near anything that would let us live in peace-- even contradictory things.  Ask the same person, IF IT WOULD LEAD TO PEACE, would you expel all Arabs? they'll say yes.  then ask, IF IT WOULD LEAD TO PEACE, would you give up all of x,y,z, jerusalem, etc?  and they'll say yes too.  The same people. 

 The problem is, for anyone with their head out of their ass, the Arabs collectively do NOT want any peace that leaves a sovereign Jewish entity anywhere in the Middle East.  The tiny minority of Arabs that would agree to real peace wouldn't actually like it-- but they are powerless, and given what education looks like everywhere from Morocco to PA schools to Iran, it will be generations before genuine acceptance can come. 

Without a deep sea-change in Arab public opinion, no 'peace' agreement will lead to anything better than past agreements with Arafat (we know how that turned out) and with Egypt (currently the world's leading disseminator of anti-semitic propaganda, allowing arms smuggling to Gaza, practicing army exercises to invade Israel with their hi-tech american-supplied army, and whose biggest hit song is 'I Hate Israel'.)  This is NOT peace, and nothing should be given up for something like this that calls itself 'peace'-- that's Orwellian and self-destructive.

 Of course, idealism dies hard, and Jews are desperate to live in peace.  But it takes two to tango, and the minimum requirements of the Arabs to live in peace with us are still FAR more than the maximum Israel could ever give up and remain Israel.  If you really, genuinely believe this isn't the reality, please, please show me, with real examples from Arab leaders and Arab education that can contradict this.  I'll bet you my inheritance in the holy land that you can't.

I hesitate to answer your questions because I would probably quote or paraphrase extensively the work of a person who, judging by many of the things you said in this post (particualrly "inheritance in the holy land"), you would consider a self-hating, anti-semitic Jew. But the late Israel Shahak demolishes in less than 10 pages of his 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years' your conceptions of the Israeli state's good intentions. The irrefutable facts stand that non-Jews do not have equality before the law, that the Jewish religion's influence on the Jewish ideology and the Jewish state are anything but just and equitable. Myself being a non-Jew, if I were visiting the wrong part of Israel on the wrong day of the week and had a life-threatening emergency, my chances of survival would be smaller if rescue happend to require the use of a phone. I find this repellent to any basic notion of human dignity or compassion.

The "deep sea-change in Arab public opinion" might come when changes are made that elevate the dignity of non-Jews in the eyes of Jews and in the eyes of the Israeli law--this far predates the infitadas and the first suicide bombing. These are deeply rooted in the Jewish faith's attitude toward non-Jews prior to the creation of Israel, and it has informed the legislation and political character of Israel, (just as chauvinism and racism have informed the legislation and political character of the Islamic regime that currently enslaves Iran). The insight that a state should not create its policies paying any mind to religious thinking or giving any privilige to citizens on the basis of their religious orientation was consecrated in 1776 and had a solid body--two centuries worth--of historical evidence to prove itself. Nation-states established in the 40's or the late 1970s ignoring this evidence, as far as I'm concerned, should expect to encounter turmoil as they run up against the humanistic demands of modernity.

Those who prosecute political affairs according to the monotheistic texts--whether in Jerusalem, Tehran or Washington D.C.--don't get my ear when they tell me they only want to be left in peace. I don't buy it for a second.

Religion, particularly monotheism from a historical and sociological standpoint (up until recent times) is at its very core a sort of in-grouping and elevating of the group. The corresponding components are outgrouping and lowering of the outgroup--you can't do one without the other. There will be trouble as long as there are any groups of people who talk about the Christian America, the Jewish Israel, the Islamic Iran/Palestine/Suadi Arabia. Luckily for us in America, Thomas Jefferson got to help write the country itself and his contributions haven't yet been overturned by the mass of idiots that come on FOX News disgracing his legacy. Unfortunately in the Middle East this isn't the case. I don't know, maybe it's the landmarks, temples, churches, mosques and shrines that keep reminding everybody that if they want a justification to be a jerk, they've got it in religion and "history." Perhaps that's an upside to all our American strip-malls and Disneylands that Europeans and the rest of the world so chide us for.

But I read your comment to my post about Tiv Taam and I can see we clearly have a different opinion about the justice and of divine mandates. This is generally a conversation-stopper, so I'll reccommend Shahak's book and leave my contribution at that.

while i wouldn't dispute that jews and non-jews have different legal status in israel, that didn't arise in a vacuum; jews were expelled from, and are STILL not allowed to own land in, almost all Arab countries, including even ones with 'peace' treaties like Jordan.  So don't pretend, as is so often the wont of critics of Israel, that Israel's policies or existence is the 'original sin' of the middle east, without which all would live in equality. 

I don't know what that means that you're 'not jewish': the state of Israel accepts not only patrilineal descent but even reform conversion from outside Israel insofar as the Law of Return is concerned (marriages in Israel are another matter).  Assuming you fall under one of those umbrellas, or even as a western tourist, you would be treated as just as 'jewish' as anyone else in an emergency.  (and according to some, in terms of emergencies and hospitals, there is more equality with arab israelis than in other aspects of society here.)

While I see a lot of truth to some so-called 'right-wing' ideas about settlements and religious points of view, I am far from a dogmatist, nor do i dismiss you as one.  My political background is that of a liberal-anarchist-tree-sitter-amerindian-land-rights activist. Out of those principles, I came to the set of ideas that ALL peoples should live most 'wholly' as tribal peoples in their homelands. I did also come to believe that modern consumerism which is destroying the world is rooted in a collective sense of homelessness among most people in the world; only by re-connecting to land in a deeply rooted, ecological way can we hope to live sustainably. 

So i left america for its indigenous peoples and returned home.  and as long as they respect my right to live here, i'll respect that other people can make a claim to this land as homeland as well.  (Navajo and hopi homelands overlap peacefully, despite the navajo only having showed up there 700 years ago, and the hopi going back 3000+) 

Just as it is scientifically proven that viruses evolve, it's also proven that race does not exist and that, from the earliest fish-out-of-water, it is the nature of life on earth to move into diverse environs, adapt to them, and repeat the process. Tribe is a relic of a separate and distinct epoch; the attempt of Luddites to graft them back on to modern existence is precisely the source of the majority of tension we experience today (more likely this than consumerism). You seem keen on 'natural' life--but natural doesn't mean old. A creature once adapted is most often not permitted to return to former arrangements. By the constraints of the laws of physics, we can no longer inhabit the oceans. Such is the case with modernity.

As to Jewishness--are you saying that the moment I arrive on Israeli soil, I'm treated as Jewish as everybody else? How's that? Neither of my parents are Jewish--to my knowledge none of my extended family is Jewish, my blood heritage includes Scots-Irish-British, French, Cherokee, and by haplogroup traces back to northern Persia/Azerbaijan, probably around the time of the Safavid empire. It would be news to me to find out that by virtue of my being a western tourist I am as Jewish as anybody else in Israel. When did this happen? I'm positive it wasn't the case just a few years ago, but I'm sincerely curious to understand how precisely this policy functions.

The difference between us re: legal status is that you say 'Arab countries do it, so then so do we.' I say 'it's wrong when an Arab country does it and it's wrong when you do it.' The law reflects the value a society places on people--unequal law means unequal people, which in my book in unacceptable. If one doesn't believe this, it seems to me they could hardly cheer for in the victories of African Americans' struggle for civil rights.

As for modern consumerism, I'm convinced that the people who are convinced it is destroying the world will more likely destroy the world first with divisive ideologies and regressive notions of community. Marx understood the ills of consumerism but he also understood the nature of globalization--that we are all now--whether we like it or not--interconnected. What happens in Kosovo, Chad, Indonesia, or Montreal, effects you and me. As such, we must be global citizens: inclusivists, not exclusivists. As I've mentioned before on these blogs, there are more communities and histories than plots of land. You say that one should embrace their tribe but that another tribe can make a claim to land supposedly to no negative effect. Oh, the mountains and mountians of historical and material evidence that refute such a claim!

I am myself a the product of centuries of migration, adaptation, re-migration, re-adaptation. The city in which I live is not locked in bloody, daily war with itself precisely because tribal boundaries are softened (for some eradicated) in favor of common values and the recognition of equality before the law. This works incredibly well until tribalists come from miles away taking issue with it, trying to blow stuff up. But I'll end with a question: if I were to adopt your philosophy that one should live 'wholly as tribal peoples in their homelands,' where would I go live with my tribe and in what homeland? Glasgow? Belfast? Essex? North Carolina? Tabriz? And what if I can't figure out which post-Abbasid khanate or dynasty I come from? Or which valley in central Scotland my ancestors lived in? What then? (..also, just to be sure we understand each other, I don't feel 'homeless' at all, but rather quite priviliged to experience the vast array of human life and culture as we exchange with one another--in fact, after having grown up in a far more culturally homogeneous place where I felt very alien, I feel more at home than ever).

if you're not at all jewish, what is your intention in being at Jewcy?  I don't understand.  I don't necessarily object, I just feel that I need some clarification.  There's an implicit understanding in a discussion of Jewish identity and/or Israel that one's Jewish identity is an important component of persective, however that identity is defined (or inherited).  If you're not Jewish, why blog in a Jewish context, where most people will assume that you are a [secular] Jew?

Having spent a lot of time with various AmerIndians, I don't believe tribalism is a relic, nor do I believe that it doesn't have a genuine spiritual valence or importance beyond the mere feeling of connecting to a larger [exclusive] group.  Both in personal experience and as a historian, [and well before I chose to prioritize my Jewish identity and move to Israel] I have come to see tribalism as something very real and very much alive and current. 

As Philip K.Dick said, reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.  The fact that you and various other multicultural metrosexuals have decided to stop believing in it doesn't make it not real. 

...doesn't it rather belong to the Kurtzman/Wertheimer discussion? And as we well know, there are many Jews that consider many other Jews as not Jewish, so the so-called 'tribal' criteria you call on would have to be defined very precisely. The OED gives for 'tribe': 'a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader'. So which one of those criteria do you reckon ties the 'Jews' together? And who's the 'recognized leader' (so you perhaps propose to assume that role?)? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I for one really appreciate Josh's contributions at Jewcy. It is precisely part of what makes the site different from other, more 'traditional' Jewish websites. Moreover, when you write 'There's an implicit understanding in a discussion of Jewish identity and/or Israel that one's Jewish identity is an important component of persective, however that identity is defined (or inherited).', I think you neglect the possibility that some Gentiles may actually have a genuine concern for Israel/the Jews that does not depend on some other religious beliefs or the like. Why antagonise them with questions about their non-Jewish identities which, frankly, remind me of what the anti-Semites are doing most of the time?

Excellent job of diverting all my points into a meaningless conversation about the origin of my blood.   I blog here because the folks at Jewcy and I agree on a simple point--blood has (or should have) no bearing on ideas.  I just offered a rather literal and scientific explanation as to why your tribal "reality" is outmoded and dangerous.  You said you've spent a lot of time with AmerIndians (Native American is actually preferable--they/we aren't an insurance company, nor were they/we living in India).  Is that you idea of making a point?  Given my Native heritage, and given that I've been forced to live with myself all my life, I can safely say I've spent a lot of time with them too in a sense.  Does my saying so consitute a point?  Nah.  If you wanna have an ontological discussion via Philip K. Dick, you've got the wrong guy.  Reality is physics, biology, molecules and galaxies.  I'm a Saganite to the core: "But up there in the cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits. National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatic ethnic or religious or national identifications are a little difficult to support when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars."  Sagan also said once that we are all made of star stuff.  That's quite enough for me.  The realities you're talking about are contingent upon the human propensity to imagine them into reality.  It is not required, nor is it any longer desirable or feasible to organize community in this fashion.  Of course some do, I don't deny that.  I only deny their criteria as false and their need to hold on to it as yet another brand of unhealthy, regressive wish-thinking that we could all do without.  But you've just gone on about "spiritual valence," so again, it's quite clear to me we are bound to disagree about what "reality" is.  

i wasn't trying to attack you, nor divert from your discussion.  i was only surprised and confused-- i did happen to be under the impression that the staff of jewcy was jews, however defined.  i don't object to gentiles having a valid and important role in discussions of jewish issues; just made the (probably common) assumption that a 'josh' blogging on 'jewcy' was jewish.  Statements, especially controversial ones about Judaism, DO have a totally different meaning if they come from a Jewish or non-Jewish source, as with every minority (like blacks being able to say n--ger).

You're right, Josh, about my view of identity and reality: "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson, a great work of scholarship on the birth of nationalism, is one of my 'bibles'.  Humans imagining modern nation-states into reality is probably the single biggest FACT of the last century.  They ARE part of reality, even as they only stem from imagined, projected identities and boundaries.  I don't think we totally disagree; I just deal with reality as it is.  You can choose to believe that nationalism is wrong, but you can't choose to believe that it doesn't exist.

Even in the negative, as with boycotts (back on topic!!), external perceptions of a given ethnic or national identity can have a very real effect even if much of the boycotted group does not want to self-identify.  Hitler went after all jews, even assimilated; the arab boycott affects all companies doing business with Israel-- even ones that are supporting the palestinian economy; and the british boycott threatens to boycott all academics associated with israel-- even some who are deeply critical of israel in far more informed ways than Brits.  The national identity 'Israeli' has a reality even if its source is an imagined set of ideas.