Los Angeles and Israel Collaborating on Water Technologies

I feel bad for the deracinated shrubs.  It may be good for the kids
to learn how to plant, and to connect to the land thereby, but I can't
help but wonder if the "a tree has been planted in your honor..." gifts
I've given (and have received) don't have the lasting value I'd
originally expected.

As for the kids and water...they've got the a song and dance down, at least.  Good place to start...

Let it be said that I'm all for teaching kids (and everyone, for that matter) about ecology, the environment, agrarianism, etc. etc. etc.  I'm just saying that since Israel/JNF is sort of maxed out on trees, they might as well create a new ritual and in doing so, promote and expand knowledge, thinking, and participation in finding solutions to a different global challenge. 

How fitting that Los Angeles, whose own history of chicanery and deceit regarding its water supply is legendary, should partner with Israel, a world-class water thief, in dealing with this most precious resource.

Israel's chronic lack of water has been a "... source of conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians." ?  Very decorous formulation, that, with no specifics nor attributions of agency.

Let's rectify that, shall we? Israel controls all the water resources in Israel/Palestine and doles it out in a disgustingly racist formula-swimming pools for Jews, puddles for Arabs. The fact that Israel releases less water to Palestinians than the WHO declares necessary for minimal human welfare is no secret. 

For your information:

1. Israeli colonists in the West Bank are allotted 1459 cubic meters per person per year of water. Palestinians? 83 cm pp py.

2. 3% of the Jordan River lies within Israel proper. Palestinians have little access to the 97% within their territory due to Israeli closures, restrictions, etc., although Israel obtains close to 1/4 of its water from Jordan River diversion.

3. Israel forbids drilling of new wells by Palestinians. Will you be surprised to learn that such restrictions do not afflict Jewish colonists? 

4. Israel colonies Ariel and Kedumin are built over the Western mountain aquifer in prime Palestinian agricultural territory. Interestingly, the Apartheid Wall swings most deeply into Palestinian territory at just these points, insuring Israeli control of these resources.

5. All seven of the wells of the town of Jannous have been annexed by Israel or destroyed by the Wall.

This list goes on and on, but the gist should be clear to even the most casually attentive.

Using the bland and contentless phrase "...a source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians" obscures the salient fact of Israel's terrible behavior regarding water policy. It would be like saying, in 1960, that voting booths were a source of conflict between blacks and whites in Mississippi. 

 

They could always eat their camels Issy! Aren't the humps a good source of water?

Finger Lickin'!

Mateo - love the cartoon veggies dancing to Japanese "Mayim Mayim"

working with water industry in israel for over twenty years

all i can say is we made the desert bloom

 

"all i can say is we made the desert bloom"

Let's see, in the period between 1880 and 1930, Palestine was a net exporter of agricultural products to both their neighbors in the Middle East and to Europe. Some desert.

Israeli "desert blooming" was accomplished by ignoring the most fundamental rules of land stewardship, with the resulting increased brackishness of freshwater aquifers and the turn towards piracy via diverting water from the land of others or outright commandeering of that land. 

Zionists need to stop constructing tortured rationalizations for their depredations and put some energy into making things right.

I would also suggest drumming out of the tribe altogether such moral morons as those who get a kick out of the idea of children being deprived of the minimal requirements of adequate hydration. 

"Let's see, in the period between 1880 and 1930, Palestine was a net exporter of agricultural products to both their neighbors in the Middle East and to Europe. Some desert."

Sorry. This proves nothing other than how much drier other Middle Eastern countries were by comparison, or how tiny the population of the country was relative to its own agricultural yields.

Next!

 

"Sorry. This proves nothing other than how much drier other Middle Eastern countries were by comparison, or how tiny the population of the country was relative to its own agricultural yields."

Well, you could look at it that way, in just the same way that you could say that Kansas grain exports prove how much drier Nevada is, and how tiny the population of Kansas is relative to its grain exports. But then you'd be an idiot.  

Here's another for you:

"“We abroad are used to believing Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth this is not the case. Throughout the country, it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed."

This from the Zionist Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsburg) in 1891.

Note that my point is not that Palestine was an overwhelmingly fecund place, only that it was not the fruitless desert of Zionist fantasy, and that the indigenes cultivated the land in a manner that its topographical and geological features would support. That is (and this is the ideologically interesting point, as opposed to your senseless comparisons), pre-invasion Palestine was an economically sound place which produced enough food for its population with enough surplus to maintain a significant export sector. Furthermore, it managed this while observing the limits of its geography. It was not, as Zionist fiction would have it, an empty and barren desert, awaiting the kind ministrations of European Jewish crusaders in order to bloom.

Zionist boasting about blooming deserts belongs in the same dustbin of short-sighted hubris as golf courses in Arizona and lush green lawns in Saudi Arabia.

Now, stop being a dullard and go learn something. 

Well, if you wanted to look at it in a realistic way, in just the same way that you could say that Colorado grain exports prove how much drier Nevada is, and how tiny the population of Colorado is relative to its grain exports. But then you'd actually be making an analogy that doesn't make you sound like an idiot.

I think somewhere between "empty and barren desert" and lush pastures lies the real picture - an arid, rocky landscape that was productive in some areas and experienced improved productivity in areas that the Zionists further cultivated with improved techniques. I realize that admitting that more accurate narrative would make you a traitor to your cause, but let's not allow for Arabian cultural expectations to get in the way of the whole point of the article. If you want to deny that Israelis have been at the forefront of improving agricultural techniques and hydrological innovations, then just fuckin' say so. But I suspect that even your jealousy isn't sufficient to lie that brazenly. So don't think your shifting of the discussion to water sharing detracts from the accomplishments. After all, it's not like the city of LA is seeking out contracts with businesses developed by Ismail or chartered in... wherever your grievances lead you to next.

Next thing you know Ismail will claim that Kinrot ripped off the technology they developed from those innovative Palestinians. Which would almost be as pathetic as the time Yasir Arafat complained to the U.N. that Israel ripped off falafel sandwiches as the Palestinian national snack. But instead, Ismail just shifts the discussion to whatever grievance of the moment prevents an Israeli from receiving recognition for doing something meaningful.  

Let me get down on all fours so we can approach one another eye to eye. I'll also try to use short sentences and simple words.

The disagreement we are having is a political one, not only a scientific or technical one. There is no question that modern Western agricultural practices produce greater yields, at least in the short term. Modern fishing practices yield greater catches, too, but we are now depleting reproducing populations. That is, there are consequences to our practices.

In the case of Israel, aquifers have become brackish due to irresponsible water use. This a problem of hydrology. To slake its thirst, Israel has diverted the Jordan and appropriated more and more of the West Bank's most aquiferous areas. This is a political problem. Simply braying about Israel's technical accomplishments misses the larger point of sustainability, ecological degradation and colonial expansionism.

Regarding Arafat's complaint, he was alluding to the same thing that Moshe Dayan referenced in his famous speech at the Technion; namely, that part and parcel of the Zionist project in Palestine was the deliberate effacement of any scrap of Palestinian culture. Towns were razed or renamed, local memorials were removed and, yes, even things as seemingly minor as popular snacks were recast as Israeli in origin. Not an uncommon way for crusaders to behave, by the way.

I have no problem with recognizing the important contributions of Israelis. Daniel Barenboim is both a first-rate musician and a man of great conscience. Uri Avnery is a brave speaker of truth to power. When the cultural or technical efforts of Israelis are embedded in a political reticulum that deserves exposure, though, I'll expose it.

My main point was simply that talking about Israel's relation to water without mentioning those Israeli water policies which massively and illegally disadvantage its occupied population is spitting in the eye of reality.  

...finally some thoughtful comments. Are the political implications of flouting Israel's acheivements so hard for North American Jews to grasp? There is a water dispute in which Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not receive the portion of water they would otherwise be entitled to under international law. This is the point. Israel has come up with brilliant solutions to the meager water shortages, but reserving a disproportionate portion (90-95 percent in the West Bank) of the water resources for Israeli bodies, seems difficult to justify while still working within a framework of universal ethics--the framework under which Israel is critiqued in the International Community.

Please, feel free to adopt a different ethical framework. Be my guest: As Jews, we are free to be particularist...Jabotinsky, Begin, et al. had little need for a universal ethical framework under which Israel's actions were and are judged in the international community, and (baruch ha'shem, increasingly in the US). They offered a simple alternative: Jewish life comes first. When having these discussions, it would be helpful for everyone if all parties made clear whether they sought to legitimate or invalidate Israel's actions based on an ethical system that strives to treat people equally, or one in which Jewish life is a higher priority.

Israel's water policies are entirely justifiable under the context of a "Jewish life first" ethical framework, but difficult to do under a framework in which Palestinian life is considered equally valuable. The former is a vocal position within Israeli politics, particularly on the right. But please, it is intellectually dishonest, let alone logically confusing, to try and legitimate Israeli policies toward resources like water in the West Bank according to a universal ethical framework.

We as a community come off as ignorant or at least illogical, when from one side of our mouth we try to defend Israel on universal ethical terms, and then try and silence those who only highlight issues like Israeli water expropriation. We may be able to fool each other, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to fool others.

 

(Also, please please please do not attempt to present arguments about the total derth of water resources to go around. Israeli's consume on average almost 100 cubic meters more water than Germans per year... see this articule...I also heard this guy speak in Jerusalem...http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961667.html

 

JCA, your comments are valuable, but they're a stretch. They might be more pertinent if you could clarify exactly what legal instruments in the "International Community" establish "universal ethics". Such florid prose is very heartening, but the fact is that no such community can effectively govern absent a legal basis for doing so. And lawyers will disagree on what the law says, what the law does and what the law is - no matter how grandiose the sense of community defined by that government.

Suffice it to say I highly doubt that you endorse every UNGA or UNSC ruling on an ethical basis.  

Suffice it to say I highly doubt that even someone as naive as Ismail could endorse every UNGA or UNSC ruling on an ethical basis. Suffice it to say that I strongly suspect there are at least a few that fall under that category.

Then there's a technical argument. Israel has a much more highly developed economy, and a much greater water requirement - largely for industrial uses which make up the lion's share of a country's water use. Of course with both you and the naive little Ismail we could get into a chicken-and-egg argument over whether economic development does or should follow increases in water use or vice versa. And all of this assumes that there is a way to divide water resources that would be considered satisfactory and equitable to all parties.

Not every Israeli objection is in bad faith or a stalling tactic. There are some practical concerns behind an "unequal" share that the very technology described could obviate - technology that is that much more likely to arise in the setting of the advanced economy that Israel's water resources support. Perhaps Israel might take advantage of their greater share of water resources by becoming sufficiently adept at technological innovations in water conservation, so that one day they might live comfortably with 10%, while the Palestinians take 90%.

All this is speculative, of course. But at least it takes into account some very real principles and considerations. These are not abstract caveats, and this is merely one illustration of all the variables that impede the sense of omniscience implied by a "universal ethics", or at least one which is sterilized of the sort of legal challenges that are normitive in the Western canons - normitive for some damn good reasons.

However, I take it you don't subscribe to any Lockean principles in your conception of "universal ethics", particularly vis a vis matters of land use. That's fine if you don't. But you should recognize the constraints that would place on your claim to an unchallenged notion of "universal ethics". And those constraints should make the humility you prescribe to Jews as applicable to yourself when hailing the high and mighty One-Law - this fanciful notion to which, for some reason, you would seem to advise that we should all now bow down.

Anonymous: I do imagine you're correct. I would not support each and every motion or law passed by the UN...but you misread my argument by assuming that I intend to collapse universal ethics and international law. I admit, upon rereading my last post, that this might be my own fault. I did after all, make reference to the "international community" critiquing Israel on the grounds of universal ethics. Indeed, the framework through which those critiques are made is often international law, which does represent the most material and relevant embodiment of universal ethics to which we might make reference. 

 And yes, you are correct that Israel's highly developed, industrial based economy does require higher water intake than the largely agriculturally based (for now) economy upon which Palestinian society supports itself. These are real problems to be worked out within the realm of policy. 

 What I am trying to point to is something a little more basic, something which I feel rests at the core of the problem here. I think it's important to look first--before we move into the complex arguments related to divisions in resources, etc--at Israel's presence and actions in the West Bank over the past 40 plus years. If you believe that Israel has a right--however framed--to move its civilians into conquered territory at the expense of Palestinians in the region, then your arguments about water divisions etc are totally legitimate. 

However, if you believe--according to international law or otherwise--that Israel should not in fact settle its citizens in a territory it conquered--particularly at the expense of the people living there, then it matters little, whether Israel needs or does not need the water held within West Bank aquifers.

 Now, I would ask you, on what ethical grounds would you suggest Israel lay claim to West Bank acquifers? Through what means does it even become a question as to whether or not Israel may or may not have such rights? And here we see the crux of the dynamic I laid out in my previous argument. Your ethics must be based--whether on international law or not--on a notion of Jewish rights (in this case to water) predicated on Jewish ethnic particularity secured by the political instrument of the modern state, Israel. Through what institutions and through what policies? Through the military and military courts, and the legal system it thereby imposes protected by the institutions of the army and police. To even speak of the minute details like those you laid out early is to obscure the fact that you have not provided a position on whether or not you believe Israel maintains some rights to resources in the West Bank/Gaza. 

But perhaps you need not state this position explicitly. Indeed, there is already an ethics embedded in the presuppositions of your argument. Whether you recognize them or not is beside the point here. To consider even the small minutia of what the UN has to say on this or that water issue in the west bank is to already grant Jewish collective rights--which in this case are secured through the power of the state--to west bank water resources. 

 Now, I think we should take seriously the consequences of this position. By refusing to discuss ethics as they relate to water from the core issue of the ethical legitimacy of the occupation itself, we hand over our ethics--whether based on international law or not--to the concept of brute, ethnically based, political force.

This is why I brought up the figures of Jabotinsky and Begin. These were individuals with a clear vision of the relationship between ethics and politics as they related to Jewish security. They saw the institution of the state as the only instrument through which Jewish security could be secured. There was no hope for life in the diaspora, no hope for solidarity across lines of difference, no hope for coexistence between Jews and non Jews. As such, the only moral option was to secure Jewish life at any cost. The political, coercive instrument of the ethnic state becomes the guarantor of ethics. If Israel needs water in the West Bank, if it feels it needs water, it takes it. End of discussion. It is, by virtue of their needing it, the ethical option. 

So again, feel free to associate yourself with these figures. But do not, at the same time, attempt to position yourself as someone interested in universal ethics--whether grounded in international law or just simply on the notion that you seek to better humankind other than Jews. You have already made it clear that you do not. If this is not the meaning you intend, I suggest you look again and the presuppositions upon which your argument is based. 

 Though perhaps I misjudge you. The defaming manner in which you have chosen to speak to someone who entered this discussion space as a non-Jew, and one who puts forward opinions which are clearly in the minority here may already speak volumes about where you stand on these positions of power and force. This is not to defend Ismail, he is capable of defending himself. It is rather to express a sense of disappointment at how you and others here have chosen to conduct yourselves in a Jewish space. I hope I would be more warmly welcomed as a Jew expressing unpopular opinions in non-Jewish spaces. 

 

  

 

  

JCA, there are more points you make which are worth addressing here - I will make it a point to read through all of them. But in the meantime, it's important to clarify that Ismail has a history here of snide and condescending comments - particularly when he can't best his "opponent" while simultaneously remaining topical. JewcyCraig has compiled a section on the site completely devoted to archiving the sort of vitriolic sneering for which he's become known - when he's not busy complaining of becoming a target of it in return. It is certainly worth perusing.

Second, you don't have a right to choose figures with whom to claim I've "associated" when I've made no mention of them. You surely have even less of a right to do this when I've referenced no less an innovator of human rights than John Locke in making my argument, only to either ignore what I've said or completely refrain from engaging that point.

And third, Ismail has specifically referenced Israel's aqueduct in his comments on water rights. This is not the same argument as its use of the parts of the aquifers that are located under the West Bank. But apparently it's one which he thinks is at least as important to use - even if it seems that you have an easier time arguing against Israel's use of the aquifers. Why is that?

I'm sorry to hear about such vitriol, anonymous, and I look forward to your response. I will say, however, that I do not quite understand the implications of your final comment, and want to. Do you mean that Ismail is striking at the legitimacy of the Zionist state-building project itself, while my arguments are confined to the West Bank, and that as a result my arguments are legitimately up for discussion while his are beyond the pale?

 I understand your discomfort at what was clearly a polemical foregrounding of Jabotinsky et al. The point is that there is an inherent incompatibility between their positions and that of a Lockean liberalism. What I am asking is that you make clear the ethical framework against which Israel's actions may be judged right or wrong. It need not be Locke nor Jabotinsky, but moving back and forth between the two looks like obfuscation.  

 

  

 

 

 

 

First, I commend JCA on both his clear (and, to me, decisive) reasoning and his calm, inclusive tone. Alas, I can assert no claim to the latter.

Anon is correct about the timbre of my remarks (and, before we go any further, may I again request that commenters choose a screen name, in the service of clarity and ease of conversation? As we all know, discriminating among the various "anons" that crop up in a discussion is cumbersome. Choosing a name does not require registration and takes no more time than posting anonymously does. It costs nothing and helps us all. Do it.)

As I say, I admit to unforgivable quantities of snark. I recoil, though, at anon's charge that this is deployed in order to evade staying on topic or to cover my inability to "best" an opponent. Near as I can tell, I best them all, no contest.

I also reject the accusation that I spend a of of time complaining about the tone of remarks aimed at me. I'll check out Ismail's Greatest Hits (thanks, Craig), but I really don't think I'll find much whining.

Anon might also pay attention to the difference between literate wordplay and silly kid stuff like rendering my name "Is he male?". I'm sure he thinks that Dorothy Parker's green with envy and Oscar Wilde's wilting from the competition, but no....merely unfunny and sporting just a whiff of gender condescension to boot. 

I hasten to add that I'm more than fine with being attacked; just please make it clever.

I will add to JCA's comments that international law proscribes not just "occupation" but the several components of same; displacing locals, settling the occupiers' citizens on occupied land, and...ready for it.... taking water from occupied territory for the occupiers' use (not to mention use by colonies within occupied territory, themselves already illegal).

But JCA's point is a much wider one; how do we ground our ethical imperatives? And he's right that before anon gets into the minutiae of hydrological technology, he needs to answer the prior question; do Israel's perceived needs legitimate the occupation? I would say that, by answering yes, anon excuses himself from the domain of moral discourse, for this answer, when stripped of verbiage, reduces to "Israel may do what it wishes as long as its own standards of necessity are satisfied". Even the casual observer will recognize this position as the ethics of the toddler, all appetite and minimal recognition of the other. If, on the other hand, anon has the sense to answer no,....well, then we have something to talk about. 

Finally, there is something disgusting about anon's proposing his Popular Science imaginings about what miracles the future may hold as appropriately responsive to the brute reality of Israel's vicious theft of water now, today, as we write. I find this blithe and high-handed indifference quite common among right-Zionists (recall Dov Weissglass's filthy "putting Palestinians on a diet" comment, or the swinish bleats of the commenters above who find the dehydration of Palestinian kids the source of a good joke) and suggest that anon and his pals have a look at M. Warschawski's concerns about how the occupation has contributed to just this sort of coarsening of the Israeli character.  

I am glad to see your acknowledgment of Locke, JCA. He is infinitely more relevant to the conversation. Perhaps, at some distant point in the future, you might come to appreciate how.  

And once that occurs, you might come to grips with your obsession with useless references to this Jabotinsky character. I didn't mention him, I don't make arguments based off of his, and clear argumentation might necessitate avoiding an urge to use third parties to characterize the actual people you address. Because characterizing the people you address is something that those familiar with argumentation refer to as "ad hominem" - a tactic often employed to deliberately shift focus away from the argument and onto the person. In more popular terms, this is called shooting the messenger (to avoid addressing the message). And you're free to do it. But don't think that Jews are so easily confused as to mistake this for anything resembling "clear argumentation". They like to argue. But they're not fucking stupid. 

Other than that, you might want to consider that your obsession with Israel's statehood could be leading you to think that this is an obsession which you share with everyone. Perhaps Ismail shares it. I do not. Nor am I moving between Lockean liberalism and Jabotinsky. But you're free to assert that I am - that is, assuming you have some kind of unjustified faith that people familiar with "clear argumentation" might not also clearly see a crude straw man for what it is. 

No, I addressed the difference between your focus on the aquifers and Ismail's on the aqueduct because one clearly starts within pre-1967 "green-line" Israel. I'm assuming the nature of any debate over Israel's water carrier would carry different legal implications than those focused on its tapping the aquifer from sites within the West Bank. Denying that would be obfuscation.

There is only one thing in Ismail's polemic worth addressing. Israel didn't take the West Bank for its water. Nor did I argue that, retroactively, it should have. It has possession of the West Bank because it was shelled by the Kingdom that did at the time, and remains in possession because no polity mature enough to credibly take responsibility over the area's security has managed to successfully negotiate a change in that status. How and why Israel uses the land in the meantime is an entirely different matter. But I understand if Ismail would prefer to put these questions out there. They shift focus to the morality of occupation while conveniently avoiding factual considerations regarding its objectives. Of course, that is not the same as saying that "Israel may do what it wishes as long as its own standards of necessity are satisfied". And although I wouldn't count on it, with the passage of time, perhaps Ismail might come to understand why that is.

If I choose a name to register under, perhaps it could be "Ismail's nemesis". Or perhaps it could be "The nemesis of things so odious that only Ismail ignores them - when it suits his purpose, as self-proclaimed exemplar of all things moral, to do so". And once I do that, we could talk about how witty uses of language do not obviate the goals of a serious discussion. Which is something that Ismail might lower himself to considering, once he agrees to allowing the nature of the Palestinian character to be as easily given to debate as he does that of the "Israeli character".

In the meantime, I'll just take his request that I do so as being indicative of a reluctance on his part to emphasize arguments - a reluctance to emphasize the message as opposed to the messenger whom he thinks he can much more easily shoot down. And until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll take that request about as seriously as he takes his own arguments. Which is to say, not very seriously at all. 

 I'm going to divide this into two posts. The first I hope will better explain my invocation of Jabotinsky. The second will deal with your retort about why Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. 

Anon, first off, let me say I highly enjoy your writing style, even if its content drifts slightly from the problematics I hoped to raise. First, on Jabotinsky. The move was polemic, but not ad hominem. I bring up Jabotinsky because contrary to popular discourse about his thought, I think he produces a challenge to liberal humanist values the ramifications of which I think should be taken seriously, even if we disagree with them. Jabotinsky, though arguably not a fascist thinker himself, was highly inspired by fascist concepts and definitely by fascist organizing techniques. His revisionist Zionist Betar Youth movement, for example, was based on Mussolini's paramilitary "black shirts." 

 Its a daunting legacy, and one with which you might be hesitant to identify. I myself, cannot do so, and Ismail's comments about such a moral position amounting to the ethical framework of a toddler I think sum up how we tend to discount such a position outright. Your sense that it was a personal attack is a sign not only that its polemical intent was felt, but that you experience such an identification as one from which you must retreat to John Locke.

But the move is more than rhetorical, and I think we should take seriously the legacy of the revisionist right, and the set of experiences they came out of. I believe this both because the Zionist right: parties like Likud (which positions itself as a direct descendent of revisionist Zionism), as well as Yirael Beitenu, which openly advocates transfer, or at least denationalization of much of the Palestinian-Israeli population (which you probably refer to as Arab Israeli) won 12 and 11 seats in Knesset respectively during the last elections, and as such represent a serious voice within Israeli political culture. (If one adds to this right alignment at least the even more right wing Ichud Leumi-Mafdal party--one which identifies with the religious settler movement (9 seats)--we get an even better sense of the strength of a hard Jewish particularism.). As you might know, or can probably guess, these groups have a clear position on where ethics matter: ethics apply and should be adjudicated based on the needs of Jewish collectivity.

Yet the practical significance of such parties as representing (more than) a legitimate discourse within the Israeli polity, is only half the reason I believe it important to take seriously their ethical foundations. We should also look at their historical experience and the challenges it poses to the kind of universalism which can be found both classical liberal philosophy as well as socialist internationalism. Indeed, many of these people were in fact internationalist before the horrifying European pogroms of the late 19th century. During those pogroms, these former socialists appealed to their non-Jewish comrades for support, but were met with the following "pogroms are just a spasm of violence before the true uprising of the working class." In other words, "deal with it, our solidarity is not with you." Such experiences were constitutive of right's conviction that life among non-Jews--even when organized on the desire for justice for all people--was undeniably impossible. 

 They reject, in other words, the underlying presuppositions of universal ethics. What was needed was power, and the ability to use power for Jewish interests (you might check out Ruth Wise's new "Jewish Power" for a contemporary example of this line of thinking), regardless of what the goyim think. 

 The difference between you and I, anon, is not that I am trying to shift the conversation, but rather that we are engaged in two conversations simultaneously. I am interested first in knowing your conception of justice. I am impressed with your wealth of knowledge about the technicalities and details of policy and politics, but I am not clear about the ethical framework by which you seek to judge them. I bring out the example of the Zionist right because I want to make clear that not everyone involved in this debate judge Israel's actions according to the same ethical framework. I do believe that the framework offered by the Zionist right is more than simply a lack of ethics, it is simply an ethical framework which rejects the possibility embedded within liberalism that all people are capable of getting along--specifically of not killing each other--within the same political framework. 

Personally, I choose to imagine a different kind of world, one which perhaps looks more like the Lockean liberalism to which you claim to hold fast (though perhaps without the implicitly racist assumptions about reason resting at the foundation of human nature) My guess is you probably identify as some sort of more liberal Zionist. Maybe at most right an old school Labor-Zionist, or perhaps even the left spectrum of Kadima. Maybe, like many American Jews, you are enamored with Meretz (who won a pitiful 5 seats). My sense is that the problem with such groups is that they have not worked through the implications of their commitments to a Jewish State, and the constraints such a commitment imposes of any notion of justice which takes seriously some conception of "equality"--whether this is a lockean conception or otherwise.

 This is the key point: If you create state-institutions which cater to a specific ethic group--even if they try to be as fair minded as possible like Meretz) you will have descrimination against minorities. This seems to me to be at the heart of American Jewish domestic politics in the US, the logic behind the civil rights movement, etc. The first step is to do away with the legal and symbolic vestiges of particularism. This is why we as Jews get uncomfortable when we hear claims by Republican senators that "America is a Christian nation," we know, almost instinctively, what this bodes for us as Jews (let alone for women, GLBT folks, Muslims, etc). 

 This is not to say that the framework we must adopt is a liberal universalism. But what seems clear, is that whatever justice looks like, does not resemble the ethnic state. For a good example of this kind of critique in Israeli center, I would visit the website of the New Israel Fund Funded Mossowa center for Arab Israeli rights. 

 You write in your last post that "[Israel] has possession of the West Bank because it was shelled by the Kingdom that did at the time, and remains in possession because no polity mature enough to credibly take responsibility over the area's security has managed to successfully negotiate a change in that status." 

 But at the same time, you want to argue that its use of the land is a different matter: As though the conquering of the land and its use were different: "How and why Israel uses the land in the meantime is an entirely different matter. " I hope you are not trying to be misleading and are simply misinformed. I'm not entirely sure where to begin, other than to suggest you take a look at Gorenberg's Accidental Empire, or basically anything else not taken off the AIPAC website. To try and make the claim that the occupation of the West Bank occurred only because Israel was attacked, and was not connected to a desire for settlement and territorial expansion seems a difficult claim to make outside an audience which is totally unfamiliar with the history of the conflict, Zionist political ideologies, or Israeli military doctrine. There are many overlapping reasons Israel took over that land and began to settle it, and almost none of them can be justified under the notion that "It was just attacked." (from a right-security perspective, see the "thin middle" argument about Israel's geographic shallowness, from a right-settler perspective, read well, just about anything on the settler movement and the state's accommodation of it). 

 Also, as it relates to both you and Ismail. I'm a little confused about why you are interested in Israel's intention in conquering and occupying the West Bank. It seems to me to matter little whether "it" did so because "it was only attacked" or because it inherently expansionist seems beside the point. Israel should be judged on its actions, not its intentions. If Israel's actions involve the starvation of the people of Gaza, or the displacement of much of the Palestinian population, I care little whether Israel "means" to do so or not. I care little whether Israel took over the West Bank for resources, for ideology, or for new soccer fields for that matter. I'm judging Israel based on its actions, and the effects of those actions on those whom it rules--whether it does so willingly or not. You don't know what Israel's intentions are, anon. You have no way of determining them. The claim that 1. you know them and 2. they are fact, is nothing short of theological.

I'm also surprised at your language, anon. I was sad to see you use the word "mature" to measure the Palestinians ability for self government. Maybe you're familiar and perhaps not, but the baggage of terms "maturity" when referring to indigenous/non-Western/global south governance carries quite a lot of colonial baggage. You, whether you want to or not, implicitly establish a teleos in your logic, one in which "childlike" indigenous people have simply not "matured" to the political state which marks "western" political institutions. You might not have "intended" that baggage when you used the term, though you might want to consider whose company you keep when you use such language. This marks another difference between you and I. You think you are sovereign over your language. That you control its intention and meaning. That is why you think you have not identified yourself with rather unsavory figures (like Jabotinsky) or ideologies like right Zionism. Your words, though, are not your own. They make associations and identification about which you are not the arbitrator. You are not at liberty to use to words like "mature" as they were somehow divested of their colonial implications. You have, perhaps knowingly perhaps unknowingly, "animated" a colonial discourse that precedes you, and which will follow you. 

Furthermore, if you visit even the World Bank reports on why the Palestinians territories have not developed into an entity ability to impose the legitimate use of force on a specific territory (if you like a Weberian definition of the state), you will find that the reason given deal with Israeli control over land, airspace, boarders, its ongoing settlement activity, etc. Not to mention its insistence of undermining political moderates, etc. I bring this up because I'm pretty sure your next move is to place responsibility for on the Palestinians for not "developing" properly...as though Israel were not at all responsible for strangling Palestinian political or economic autonomy. Maybe it's not your next move, but I figured I'd try and preempt it before having to write another post. In any event, if you were going to go there, suffice it to say that the dual claims that the PA is not strong enough to negotiate because it does not maintain control, and that it is simultaneously strong enough to set the course of its own development is specious at best. 

And Ismail is right...you should read M. Warschawski.

In the first of these unfortunately long posts I wrote at the end "For a good example of this kind of critique in Israeli center, I would visit the website of the New Israel Fund Funded Mossowa center for Arab Israeli rights." I did not mean to put "center" here..."context" would be more appropriate... apologies 

If you want to simultaneously have a different conversation than the one I thought we were having, that's fine. But could you not address it to me? I'm not some undergraduate waiting to be indoctrinated into a graduate student's worldview and I'm not in the market for participation in a psycho-sociological research project - and certainly not for free. When you want to address what I actually said, rather than some gestalt of what your normative conceptions of the world project onto me, then I'd be happy to continue a discussion and address perhaps a few of the points in the 16 paragraph dissertation you've written. But count me out when it comes to your war against etymology.  

I'm dealing with the world as is. No ideology here other than a great deal of pragmatism and, to a good degree, the Lockean one that you caricature me as "retreating" to. The Lockean perspective that's always carried more weight with me and that you seem to be new to. Sure the Israeli government has contributed to manufacturing opinion - as the Palestinians and a whole host of others have done all along. But objective reality exists somewhere and I'll be more trusting of the need to incorporate the Palestinian narrative into it once I see better evidence of good faith, and yes, maturity, on their part. This is not some pomo, academic exercise. Expectations of good behavior follow a two-way street and breaching the golden rule isn't something that can be excused by an overly politicized depiction of the conflict - a depiction that chides the use of terms that are "felt" to disparage the Palestinians while simultaneously excusing their behaviors with idealistic, victimology-driven claptrap about colonialism. They're either defenseless children or they're responsible for their military and political actions (or should I say "adventures"?). Not both. Choose one. 

Colonies aren't formed by the original indigenous inhabitants. They are established by a far-away empire run by those colonists. As such, no state in Europe from recorded history through 1948 qualifies as the mother country of a hypothetical Jewish Empire, nor does it qualify as the benefactor through which Zionist immigrants were established in the mandate as its "colonial" extension. Clean up your language. The Israelis constitute their own mother country. They're not going "back" to whatever empire you imagine incubates their "imperial" aspirations.

Your attempt to use any "desire for settlement and territorial expansion" as an excuse for denying the justification of Israel's occupation of it following an attack is laughable. Psychology is a real phenomenon. It is, however, not the same thing as missiles from a hostile state. Neither is it the same thing as that hostile state renouncing its claim to the territory in question years before making peace with the state against whom it committed that aggression. I could use the powers of my psychology to visualize missiles not flying out of Gaza tomorrow, and accompany that visualization in real life with every piece of paper and troop redeployment asked for by Hamas. It doesn't mean that such a reality will occur just because Hamas asked for it, Israel did it, and I and every Israeli visualized it. And events as of a few days ago prove that.  

When you're ready to have a conversation that includes something more than just the psychology of the conflict, then by all means let me know. Until then, I have things to do. A life to live. And a framework for choosing whom to trust. It's based on how they have dealt with me, and others, and themselves, in the past. And it works very well. No need for guilt or excessive idealism required. And no one questions my morality or ethics for it. 

My dearest anon,

 I regret having upset you. It was not my intention...though perhaps given my previous comments, you should have no need to be concerned with my intention. I hope, though, that you take this expression of having little intention to upset you as some kind of clarification. 

 As for your comments. If your personal attacks on my intentions or character were generated out of a response to what you felt was an attack...I understand. However, if you're going to try and make me look bad in response, I would hope that your arguments stand on their own merits. That is, if you're going to insult my intelligence or analysis, at least justify yourself in doing so by providing arguments that are water tight. Otherwise, it just looks like you're trying to force upon me your understanding of the facts, an understanding which alas I will not accept. 

 I think we simply differ on some core principles...not ethical necessarily, but definitely epistemological. I, as much as you might want to impose this, do not believe in an objective world which stands outside of subjective experience...which is not to say that I believe the inverse either. My arguments depart from this presupposition...and I will try here and explain what I feel are the merits of such a departure.

I see in your attempt--which I assume is in good faith--to maintain a sense of "the objective" coupled with your own common sense assumptions about the relevant actors in the conflict and their positions/sides/narratives/etc. Your categories are not objective, let alone innocent. They represent one construel of the conflict, one which I believe erases other important connections and distinctions.

 I'll give you an example. You lay out "a two-way street," one which should be constituted by "good faith" and "good behavior" from both sides. These sides to which you refer seem to be constituted by "Israel" on the one hand and "Palestinians"--however politically construed on the other. Yet where you see self evident sides, I see, and have tried to make an argument based on this conception, internally variegated entities which cannot be reduced to a narrative or set of political actors. I assume the Palestinian actor you speak of is not the collective spirit of the Palestinian ethnic group, but a political entity or set of political entities which act on their behalf. Which one, exactly, do you mean to reference? Maybe Hamas, maybe Jihad al-Islami, maybe Fatah, maybe the PLO or PA. Lets say you are speaking of the PA, the closest thing to a representative government in the West Bank and Gaza--and the one who Israel has held responsible for attacks coming from any segment of Palestinian territory. I would argue that the PA is perhaps better understood as a surrogate who's emerging role--if Israel has its way--is to secure Israeli security and economic interests in the West Bank (and maybe gaza). I'm sure this is not what the PA wants, but it is constrained in such a way so as to make it likely that this is how it will function. As such, I think they must be treated--as every group must-- in a more complex way that simply the manifestation of the "Palestinian side."

You have not only "Palestinians" you have non-violent and violent resistance, family based affiliations, collaborators with Israeli intelligence, Hamas, Fatah, Jihad, PFLP, DFLP etc divisions, refugees, refugees in camps, West Banks Gazans etc. Yet in your last e-mail, you reduce these complexities to a "Palestinian narrative" or a "two way street" while lauding the virtues of "objective reality." I'm sorry, anon, but I am not willing to accept the very categories and terms in which you seek to ground your reality. I wouldn't do so with regards to Israeli society and definitely not the Jewish collectivity more broadly.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, I think speaking of "two sides" actually erases the fact that one of those "sides" (and here I am speaking of political leadership in the West Bank and Gaza) is under a military occupation--for whatever reason--which seriously curbs and constrains its ability to act decisively, develop its economy, and so forth (though not to deter its ability of some elements to launch kitchen-made rockets into Israel--Israel can't even stop that). By speaking of a two-way street, your discourse dissolves this element of the conflict. At the same time, by attempting to defame and humiliate me, while simultaneously demanding that I accept what are in fact your particular claims about reality, you attempt to force upon me what is clearly a version of that reality--one which seems particularly well tailored to the conclusions you seek to draw from this conflict. 

Furthermore, anon, if you are going to demand that I "clean up my language" when it comes to discourse of colonialism, I would ask that you yourself at least offer a more complex discussion of the term. That is to say, please make sure you've killed my line of argumentation before you attempt to "nail my coffin" as is were. There are many different colonial relationships: mercantilism, industrial, settler, etc. Zionism did not resemble British colonial ventures in India, or French ventures in the Middle East...in which colonial national/citizens set up administrative and economic rule for the betterment of the colonial agent. One might fruitfully think of Zionist settlement as a surrogate colonial venture, whereby promises were secured though certain colonial agents to allow for Jewish collective rule in certain areas of the Levant. Hertz, Weitzman, et al, did indeed propose that such ventures would be advantageous for Western interests in the region--though not necessarily under the same relationship of direct rule to a specific country. For you, colonialism seem to be a term which is useful only if colonial agents as citizen/nationals of the settling country and retain that citizenship while in the colonized context.

But Zionism--political Zionism at least--is better thought of as a settler-colonial enterprise--not unlike Australia or the US--in which a population attempts to settle permanently and, if necessary, replace the indigenous population permanently.  

Look, honestly anon, I have little invested in the term. The Zionists did in fact manage to replace much of the indigenous population and continues to do so. This to me seems like the important point. If someone wants to call this process "settler colonialism" there is certainly a case to do so. Point in fact, the Zionist movement in America, for example, during the pre-state era itself often used the language of colonialism when talking about Jewish settlement in Palestine. Furthermore, ideas like the "iron Wall" or Hertzl's notion that the Jewish State as a barrier against barbarism in the Middle East, and an outpost of Western culture definitely has it colonial analogues. 

The argument against using such a term seems to amount to the fact that you don't like it. So you defend the Zionist project by reducing colonialism to one genre of its organization thus obscuring the fact that the Zionist movement did the work which the word "settler colonial" has attempted to describe. If you would like to find a different word, feel free, but please do not do so at the expense of making Zionism look like just another third world liberation movement--themselves often equally full of ethno-national presuppositions. 

 What I regret most, anon, is that these are actually all really important issues to discuss. Does Zionism's settler-colonial elements make Jewish life here illegitimate now? I would argue no. In fact, most versions of justice that seem at all just are one in which Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and many other centers of Jewish life remain...but that fact does not imply that political Zionism did not result in the displacement of the indigenous population in the creation of the state---something we refer to generally as settler colonialism. Zionism also created a refugee for Jews languishing in DP camps in Europe, but it does not follow that political Zionism did not result in the displacement of the indigenous population. Israel may have developed wonderful, world changing water conservation and desalinization technology, but it (say it with me) "does not follow that Zionism did not result in the displacement of the indigenous population..."

Please, anon, do not attempt to bully me. Everything we say here can be contested, but your rhetoric comes off as a blatant attempt to silence me while imposing particular--not objective--categories through which to theorize reality. I have, in this post, only tried to show that other constructions are possible, constructions which show what your discourse obscures in the name of "objective reality."

 

 

 

sorry...JCA is responsible for the last post

Listen, man. You can get as subjective about it as you want. But don't hold me responsible for anticipating and addressing every little subjective nuance about the way you or anyone else wants to view the conflict.

anon,

I think if you had followed my argument you would appreciate that what's at stake is not simply a given individual's "subjective" understanding of the conflict. I'm sorry you cannot accept the historically contingent nature of the categories you seek to posit as objective. It does not follow, though, that my position is then "subjective"--or even that yours is. The task is to appreciate the (political, material) ways in which particular categories (which are never merely subjective) become authorized as "objective" in the first place--and the consequences therein. 

Come on, anon, you can follow this argument. I know this is something you can get your head around. You are clearly capable of treating what are undeniably complex and important issues with the sense of complexity and importance they deserves. You're free to end the conversation. I just thought you'd do it with more respect for the subject...you're better than that. 

JCA-

 Man, are you like the most laid-back, positive, Gandhiesque cat on the planet?

C,mon, man. Eat a cheeseburger, have a beer and lace into that anonymous mofo. Yer creepin' me out. I mean, I basically agree with you, but...yer creepin' me out. 

This guy is justifying withholding water from children! Fuck 'im. Go to town on his cracker ass. 

You're like the Jewish Francis of Assisi or something.   

I did follow the argument, and I am capable of following a complex issue - thank you for noticing that. You, however, were the one who dismissed objective reality, not me. The way I see it, that ends the conversation. At least to any objective realist or person who holds that goal in mind.  

And comments from the one-man, vulgar mob version of a peanut gallery aside, no one's justifying "withholding water from chi