A Pro-Peace Rally This Sunday

I'm totally going to be there!

as a relative lull in hostilities.

Just a reminder.

It's bad enough that large swaths of the Jewish community want us to be Israel-Firstniks, but now you want we should also be Palestine-Firstniks as well?

I know you were being facetious but least there will be then peace-thereby rendering the whole point moot as there will be nothing for anyone to champion anymore

This is an extremely important and courageous act by Dan. I wholeheartedly support it and will try to be there (I teach Synday mornings so I'm not absolutely sure - but I will certainly try). If there is any ongoing organizational activity around efforts like this, I'd love to know about it and help.

     The flier says all the right things - we are not "anti-Israel"  nor "anti-Palestinian" - we believe that nothing good can come of this, and that a ceasefire must be the prelude to a lasting peace, which means security for both Israel and Palestine. To this I would add Einstein's famous definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "Wiping out" first the PLO in Lebanon, then Hezbullah in Lebanon and now Hamas in Gaza will always lead, as it has, to many civilian deaths as well as many deaths of Israeli soldiers, the further delegitimization of Israel, and eventually, a ceasefire  - which could have been had upfront without the casualities.

     I would also like to bring up a point of particular interest and distress to me - in all of this, where, exactly, are all of the "alternative" "countercultural", "indy-minyan" groups and people in all of this? The ones who should be in the forefront of supporting and publicizing Dan's courageous effort? True, JStreet, Brit Tzedek, Tikkun and the Shalom Center are doing important  and courageous work  - but where are the religious and spiritual "troops" and organizations  on the ground that should be supporting them? If one looks on the wesites of the various Orthodox groups, one sees no lack of  strong support for the attack on Gaza. Where is the corresponding support for peace - not for "Hamas", but peace - on the corresponding websites of BJ, Aleph, etc? A rather thunderous silence, it seems to me.

    In any event, thanks again to Dan for this courageous effort.

 

Howie  

      

   

 

Keep rockin' Mobius. 

Howie Katz: Check these folks out: http://www.abrahamsvision.org/

Hey, is everyone familiar with the Latin phrase quid pro quo? Good!

In my view, the de-Jewing of Gaza was a pretty fuckin' substantial quid put forth by Israel. Granted, there remain many additional quid's desired by the Palestinian side: a West Bank under Muslim control -- oops, I meant Arab control -- the matter of partitioning Jerusalem into an Israeli capital and a Palestinian capital, the right of return, and so on. But the whole point of quid pro quo bargaining is that each side makes incremental concessions, rather than giving up everything at once. 

So my question is: Exactly WHAT was the quo given by the Palestinians in return for Israel's above-mentioned quid, namely dismantling all the Jewish settlements in Gaza?

'Cause it appears to me that the Palestinians did not bring to the table anything REMOTELY proportional to the Jewish withdrawal from Gaza -- such as, for example, offering to scale down the demanded "Right of Return" so that it would apply only to Gazan Arabs born prior to 1948 and to their children, but not to any subsequent generations. Or, gosh, maybe amending the Hamas constitution so that it was no longer dedicated to the annihilation of the Zionist Entity?

And if the Palestinian quo amounted to nothing more than a temporary ceasefire during which they dug tunnels to smuggle in as many weapons as they possibly could, then in my humble goyish opinion it'd be rather distasteful to see this proposed peace rally with Israeli and Palestinian flags side-by-side. Because when you reward people with friendly gestures and goodwill that they've done absolutely nothing to earn, you are (a) engaging in the "soft bigotry of low expections"; and (b) setting yourself up to be a sucker.

----

הגיון

Let us remind ourselves that it is Hamas that Israel is confronting today.

Hamas which slaughters "pro-peace" Arabs in the Gaza Strip (all three of them) along with thuggish Fatah supporters. Having a pro-peace rally with them is like one hand clapping.

This kind of moral equilivance between Israel and those who have sworn to her destruction is obscene and immoral.

In the words of George Orwell

"Pacifisim is objectively pro-fascist" 

 

Is pacifism on the part of Palestinians objectively pro-occupation? I have tons of respect for Orwell, but not everything he said was necessarily a winner.

He said it was objectively pro-fascist. Not to be confused with pro-occupation. Unless you're talking about Hamas' totalist occupation of the Palestinian government in Gaza.

It was a rhetorical question, whose aim was to show that by applying the same logic, you can get that pacifism is objectively pro-anything-you're-not-using-violence-to-stop. My point was, just as there are non-violent ways to oppose the occupation, there are non-violent ways to oppose fascism (which Hamas is not - but they can be opposed non-violently too). And, just as it is preferrable for Palestinians to use non-violent means to oppose the occupation, it would be preferrable for Israel to use non-violent means to oppose Hamas. I offer this not as a defense of pacifism, per se, because I am not a pacifist, but merely to point out how stupid and reductionist this "objectively pro-whatever" line of argument is. There are lots of things we oppose without busting out violence.

"..Is pacifism on the part of Palestinians objectively pro-occupation.."

Pacifism when used against a liberal democracy with a conscience like Israel is highly effective. Martin Luther King and Gandh owe most of their success to the flawed but essentially decent and democratic nations they were protesting against; the USA and the UK.

That is why MLK ands Gandhi were successful and Sophie Schole of The White Rose resistance against the Nazis was not. Only rough men with guns were able to defeat Nazism. Only rough men with guns will be able to defeat Hamas.

To do less is to provide aid and comfort to Hamas and prolong the suffering of all concerned indefinietly which is morally degenerate.

Hence, the original Orwellian quote:

"Pacifisim is objectively pro-fascist" 

 

Except that there's a wide range of responses tougher than "doing nothing", but falling short of "war", any of which a pacifist might adopt. Specifically, the rally is in favour of an immediate cease-fire. Do you really think that being in favour of a cease-fire is objectively pro-Hamas? Even rough men with guns occasionally have to take breaks from shooting those guns, and during those breaks, other methods of containing Hamas have, can, and will be tried. Many of these methods will be compatible with a pacifist philosophy. It's not clear what your "to do less" refers to. To do less than men with guns? But I'll assume you mean "to do less than engage in the sort of military action Israel is currently engaging in", which prompts the question, does that mean that for the previous four months Israel has been "provid[ing] aid and comfort to Hamas"? Was Israel's failure to do what it's doing now "morally degenerate" back in July? 

No one (okay, not no one, but no one here) is advocating never taking any sort of action against Hamas. However, plenty of people are against what they feel is counterproductive, excessive, and gratuitous action, and are in favour of ending what they feel is an ill-conceived and immoral military action. After all, even if leaving Hamas alone is morally degenerate, you have to wonder if it's more or less "degenerate" to bomb schools or to leave them standing. Or to allow Red Cross workers to help orphaned children versus having those children unattended. Or to avoid civilian targets versus, well, targeting them. In fact, given that I'm sure many Palestinians are going to become even more bitter towards Israel, it's not inconceivable that Hamas might end up strengthened by this whole exchange. While they don't have all of the advantages Hezbollah had two years ago, it's possible that Hamas might finish this latest round of fire similarly well-positioned. In that case, maybe supporting this military action would be "objectively pro-Hamas".

"Do you really think that being in favour of a cease-fire is objectively pro-Hamas"

Yes, a cease fire to them means a time out to regroup and rearm.

"Was Israel's failure to do what it's doing now "morally degenerate" back in July"?

Sadly, yes. Allowing your citizens to suffer constant rocket attacks in order to appease killers and their left-wing friends who only protest when Israel fights back is morally wrong. They get points for not waiting until their was a direct hit on a kindergarden but I am no fan of the Olmert government.

".....you have to wonder if it's more or less "degenerate" to bomb schools or to leave them standing......avoid civilian targets versus, well, targeting them."

When those schools are being used as launching sites and being used to store deadly bombs they become a legally legitment target. The real criminal conduct falls on Hamas which not only uses civilian sites as depots but when the IDF actually alerts people to an upcoming attack, Hamas orders women and children to the roof of the target while the fighters scramble for cover.

Why?

Because they know people like yourself will condem Israel and not them.

You will call for a withdrawl so Hamas can declare victory and rearm for the next conflict. You may not like Hamas but Hamas needs you in order to win.

Please do not help them.

 

While I admire your consistency, I feel that the position "every person, even every Israeli, who doesn't agitate for constant war with Hamas is morally degenerate" is not going to catch on.

If Hamas orders women and children onto roofs, then that must mean they feel it benefits them when civilians are killed. People like you who want those targets bombed anyway are doing exactly what Hamas want you to. How is that not objectively pro-Hamas. In order to win, Hamas also needs credibility as a resistance movement, and it needs the Palestinian population to believe only the worst of Israel. It needs the Palestinian population to hate Israel. You may not like that, but Hamas needs you to win too. Hamas knows it has no chance of an overwhelming military victory against Israel. Their only victories are propaganda victories. You are handing them those victories without a thought. Their recruitment, their support abroad, and their acceptance by the Palestinian people only grow the more Israel ignores humanitarian concerns. Anyone who advocates ignoring those concerns can, I think, be credibly called "objectively pro-Hamas". At least as objectively as someone who wants a cease-fire. I might be in favour of a strategy that will give Hamas to re-arm, but you favour a strategy that will give Hamas thousands more recruits to fire those weapons, and a huge base of support when they do so. 

That's a pretty good argument, Jer.

Raed Kami // Jan 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm

For the sake of world peace, Jews must evacuate stolen Palestine (that includes both Haim and Gershom). I actually thing “progressive zionists’ are more dangerous than right wing israelis. Right wingers say-we stole this from the Palestinians because we have more force, and the Palestinians are animals. The “progressives” pretend to be our friends at the same time takeing over our movement and suppressing the indigenous Palestinains with your smothering paternalism. Make no mistake-when we regain Palestine, we dont want you or Feiglin as neighbors. If you really want to contribute to our cause, please leave Palestine. That is all you can do

Ironically, it's not an argument I actually want to make. Or, rather, while I believe what I said to be true, I wouldn't use that to claim that supporters of the bombing are "objectively pro-Hamas", mainly because I think it's a term that has more use as a propagandistic term for brow-beating opponents than as a descriptor. If Hamas is evil, and I suspect most of us here on this website think they are, to claim that someone is objectively pro-Hamas is to claim that they are pro-an evil movement. It marginalizes their opinion by associating them with a morally repugnant group. In Alcove-One's understanding of the situation, going to university, or becoming a doctor, or trying to start a band, rather than joining the IDF to fight Hamas, is going to benefit Hamas (that's one less rough guy with a gun, right?). That means that, if you seriously want to claim that any action or philosophy which does not immediately translate into deaths of Hamas fighters is objectively pro-Hamas, then anyone who does not quit their day job to take up arms is objectively pro-Hamas. And we all know what we should think of people who are objectively pro-Hamas.

It's a cheap way to dismiss your opponents, and I don't want to use it even to score a point against someone who is using it. Rather, I would say that the course of action Alcove-One advocates is counter-productive (immoral too, but I don't see him being swayed by that argument). It expresses the same idea, that it may well end up strengthening Hamas rather than weakening them, but without the implication that actually Alcove-One is secretly on Hamas side, and therefore should be dismissed as a terrorist-enabler. 

Similarly, I would hope that people who do support the war stop trying to label us peaceniks as being in some way on the same side as Hamas simply because we don't approve of the strategy Israel is taking against them. It does no one any good to pretend that people who are repulsed by Hamas's views and actions are actually secret Hamas supporters because they are also repulsed by Israeli actions. A completely reductive approach leads to absurd conclusions.

This "objectively pro-" business leads to conclusions that EVERYONE thinks are absurd. Thus, abandon the formulation.

Those are his words not mine.

After wadding through your posting, let me focus on one point:

"In Alcove-One's understanding of the situation, going to university, or becoming a doctor, or trying to start a band, rather than joining the IDF to fight Hamas, is going to benefit Hamas..."

Once again, take that up with Israeli policy of mandatory conscription of most able bodied men and women. Along with being doctors and rock band members, Israelis must serve to protect their nation from the likes of Hamas.

To avoid service on a large scale would benefit Hamas and every other enemy of Israel.....big time.

How about just having moral clarity in supporting a just war against a vile enemy who along with no regard for Jewish lives, have no regard of their own people's safety.

This is not hard stuff Jer. Even staunch liberals in Israel see this conflict as neccesary.

Well, Orwell is dead, so I can't take it up with him. But if you're using it, then you must agree with it, so I'm taking it up with you, since you seem inclined to believe he was being reasonable when he said it.

I'm not talking about Israelis, I'm talking about anyone: any able-bodied young North American Jew is, in your formulation, depriving the IDF of necessary fighting men. Are twenty-something North American Jews who don't drop everything to join the IDF "objectively pro-Hamas"? How about those orthodox kids who get exemptions to study Torah? My point is, not every single decision we make has to be directly in service of taking the lives of Hamas members for us to be anti-Hamas.

The fact that an enemy is vile, with no regard for lives, doesn't mean that every military operation launched against them is wise, moral, or remotely likely to achieve its aims. The point I'm making isn't even about morality; obviously I don't support the war, but I'm sure there are many people who do for good and wise reasons. I'm simply objecting to your characterization of everyone who doesn't support it as being in league, morally at least, with Hamas. This is also not hard stuff. People can reasonably disagree with each other on how best to deal with Hamas, without one side having to claim the other is actually on the side of Hamas.

This "objectively pro-" business leads to conclusions that EVERYONE thinks are absurd.

No, it does not lead itself to absurdity; you forced it to an absurd conclusion using verbal legerdemain, hoping that careless readers wouldn't notice you were cheating. Specifically, you tried to pull a fast one by re-defining "pacifism" to mean "any action or philosophy which does not immediately translate into deaths of Hamas fighters."

However, "pacifism" usually has a rather more narrow and specific meaning than that, doesn't it?

הגיון

 

Well, certainly that's not what pacifism is, but Alcove-One's justification for why pacifism doesn't work applies equally well to any non-Hamas-killing action. Furthermore, his original formulation doesn't work either since not everyone who favours peace in this specific instance is necessarily a pacifist.

Actually, on closer inspection, he never gives a full justification, but based on comments like this: "You will call for a withdrawl so Hamas can declare victory and rearm for the next conflict", or his claim that Olmert's refusal to start this war earlier makes him morally degenerate pretty strongly imply that it's not just dictionary-definition pacifism that he's objecting to, but rather any criticism of any military action against Hamas, unless the criticism is that we're not warring enough.

Nice job of cutting through the pseudo-intellectual bullshit.  Keep up the good work!

כהנא צדק