The I/P Lodge.

[thekingfish-ip]

Reflections on the Peace Summit Simulations

The negotiation simulations were an interesting method to force students not only to research the finer points of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but to also understand and adopt the mindset of the negotiating actors. The simulations were a powerful tool to highlight the seemingly intractable nature of the I/P conflict; they make clear the way that both teams of negotiators have their hands tied by their domestic constituencies. 

Although the simulation was undoubtedly a useful tool, I think that for future classes it would be fruitful for the project to be a little more structured. The simulations are essentially a class-sized group project, and in my experience it is difficult enough to get a regular-sized group of students to coordinate for a project. I think that assigning specific roles to each group member and possibly designating one group member as a leader to improve coordination might be a good idea for future classes. 

[bluedonkey417-deactivated201703]

Members of Hamas Arrested in Connection with Bus Bombing

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-bus-bombing-was-suicide-attack-organized-by-hamas/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Members of Hamas were arrested in the West Bank for the Jerusalem bus bombing that occurred on Monday. The bomber who placed the explosive on the bus received severe wounds, which he died from on Wednesday.

[loudlytinyflower-blog]

I was interested to see how this would play out and who would end up taking responsibility for the attack. I find it intriguing that the bomber was just a member of Hamas and that the group ended up not taking full responsibility for this (according to the article), yet they condone the violence against against Israelis. Wouldn’t they want to claim responsibility or is there a reason why they’re falling short of this? Whatever the reason is I am sure we will continue to see an increase in “lone wolf” terrorist attacks. Technology has made it easier for individuals to break away from terrorist organizations and act alone, rather than relying on the organization. I wonder if future organizations will rely on “lone wolf” terrorists to continue to do the “dirty work” while the organization’s reputation will remain unscathed. However, I am unsure of how probable this actually is.

[bluedonkey417-deactivated201703]

I agree with what you said about lone wolf terrorist attacks. If there are people carrying out terrorist attacks for the group, the organization can act more like a political organization that doesn’t encourage terrorism but isn’t opposed to terrorist attacks on Israelis either.

[alwaysbeeneasy-deactivated20160]

I have a hard time seeing this bombing as a “terrorist attack.”  The kid was 19 years old.  He’s no more a terrorist than a kid who jumps off his roof wearing a cape is a super hero.  To me, when I think of a terrorist, I think of an adult, capable of rational thought, who intentionally commits a violent crime in order to try to produce a desired effect.  I don’t feel like this kid probably put that much thought into his crime.  I look at that picture of the bomber and see a kid who probably played too many video games and has a confused mentality which was influenced by his surroundings.  

More and more of these stories we read about are being perpetrated by 18 and 19 year old kids.  Are these kids being used as tools of terrorist organizations, like Hamas, to carry out their dirty work because they are so easily manipulated?  Or are these just highly excitable boys who are extremely confused?

[thekingfish-ip]

I agree with your notion that there ought to be some sort of distinction between someone who uses violence as a political tool, a la Timothy McVeigh and someone who enacts violence as a way to play the role of a vengeful killer or as a way to manifest their internal experiences a la Adam Lanza. Of course there is often some degree of overlap between the two, like the actions of Dylan Roof at  Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

 In the case of terrorism in Israel, the attack could be wholly both. Hamas/PIJ leadership might plan and or an attack in order to pragmatically improve their personal standing within Gaza or the West Bank, but the young men who carry out the attack might be act “idealistically.” Unfortunately, as far as public perception goes, there isn’t much difference between a pragmatic planned terrorist attack and an idealistic lone wolf bombing or knifing spree. They are both quite effective at spreading distrust and fear of Palestinians among Israeli Jews.  

[thekingfish-ip]

Rally in Support of Convicted Hebron Shooter.

Thousands of Israelis attended a rally yesterday in support of Elor Azaria, the IDF medic charged with the on-video execution of  Abdul Fatah al-Sarif- a Palestinian knife-attacker who had already been disarmed and was laying passively on the ground. 

Tuesday’s rally was organized by the family of Elor Azaria and former right-wing Knesset member and journalist Sharon Gal.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-rally-for-hebron-shooter-draws-fewer-than-expected/

The rally didn’t draw as much support as its organizers perhaps had hoped, with only some 2,000 people in attendance, but was an interesting insight into the Israeli far-right. 

The reverse side of this poster said “too many terrorists in prison.”

The poster says: “A dead terrorist doesn’t return to murder Jews” The yellow flag says: “Kahane was Right” 

A journalist from Electronic Intifada reported being beaten by rally goers and told to leave by the police, two journalists there report chants of “Death to Arabs”, a common right wing refrain. 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/death-arabs-rally-draws-thousands-tel-aviv 

Though less people showed up to the rally then were projected, I can’t help but feel that tensions are burning white hot in Israel right now. I pray that this doesn’t culminate into another intifada/IDF operation. 

[thepreppypolitique-blog]

Realities of Today’s Attack in Jerusalem

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/middleeast/jerusalem-bus-explosion/index.html

Earlier today, a bus in Jerusalem was deliberately attacked. 21 people were injured and the details continue to trickle in. There has already been controversy surrounding the incident. No one has claimed responsibility yet, but there has been questions about whether or not this can be classified as a terrorist attack.

One thing is certain, when the state no longer has a monopoly on violence and civilians are targeted, the purpose of the attack was to create panic. This sounds a lot like a terrorist attack to me. Attacks like this one have the potential to disrupt normalcy and make civilians feel like they aren’t safe in their own communities. As more information comes in, we’ll have a better idea of what the long-term effects are.

[thekingfish-ip]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-attack-netanyahu-vows-to-settle-score-with-bus-bomber/

Netenyahu has vowed to find those responsible for carrying out and planning the bombing vowing to “settle the account with these terrorists.” It seems bizarre to me that none of the usual suspects have claimed responsibility for this attack. 

Apparently the police believe one of the people injured in the blast might have been the one who set the bomb. Whether its him or not, I hope that the Israeli’s find whoever is responsible quickly. I also hope that the bomber was acting alone, and this bombing doesn’t lead to another IDF incursion into Gaza. 

[lmepal-blog]

Bus explosion in Jerusalem injures 10 to 20 people, Israeli aid agency tells CNN.

Bus explosion in Jerusalem injures 10 to 20 people, Israeli aid agency tells CNN. www.cnn.com

It’s just breaking news, so nothing to read about just yet - be awaiting updates!

[thekingfish-ip]

My Israeli homies are posting that ynet says that the police think this likely wasn’t a terror attack. I can’t read ynet though so ymmv.

E: Guess not, too bad.

[thepreppypolitique-blog]

Uneasiness Towards Kerry's Claims Proves Justifiable

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-syria.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

A few weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry assured the world that ISIS was faltering. This was in light of the Belgian attacks, which ISIS claimed responsibility for. In response to these claims, I blogged about my concerns towards such lofty claims and the potential for them to be totally off-base.

It seems as if my concerns are warranted, as ISIS seems to be expanding. Despite American and other western powers’ efforts and, seemingly, against the odds, ISIS is growing. The number of attacks is increasing and the number of American members is growing. The ISIS problem is not going away any time soon and I fear it is going to get worse before it gets any better.

[thekingfish-ip]

It's true that ISIS as a state is faltering, but ISIS as an ideology is definitely still going strong. The ideology was always going to be the hardest part to combat and now that it seems to have gained a foothold in Europe it is difficult to say how best to combat it. Such ideologies are probably easier to attack overseas where extremists aren't subject to the rights of Western citizens. It's difficult to say what steps the European countries can take to combat radicalism at home. They are often third generation immigrants who generally have it much better than their parents and grandparents did. They likely need to feel like they are part of a meaningful community, and they would prefer an Islamic one, but it isn't clear how the western states can provide this while still maintaining the sorts of personal freedoms that we put such a high emphasis on.

[unlpols470]

From Israeli jail, ‘nonviolent’ bid to ‘free Palestine’ takes shape

Aiming to succeed Abbas, convicted murderer and Nobel-hopeful Marwan Barghouti said to coordinate campaign with Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad

Among the ideas, the sources said, are ending the Oslo Accords and everything connected to them, canceling PLO recognition of Israel until Israel recognizes a Palestinian state, a willingness to negotiate with Israel but in a new framework laid down at an international summit without the “People’s Revolution” having to stop, and ending security cooperation with Israel.

The steps of the plan, as agreed between the representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, are no less dramatic and are expected to confound the Israeli security forces and government if they are implemented. That is because they relate not to “armed resistance,” the sources said, but to actions that are considered nonviolent.

[thekingfish-ip]

Fascinating, and a huge potential scenario for us to explore in our simulations! Barghouti seems like the sort of complex and dedicated figure whom the Palestinians could unite behind. He has the militant and anti corruption cred to draw support from moderate Hamas supporters and yet is moderate enough to draw wide support from Fatah. In fact, I found a poll that says The 60% of Palestinians would vote for him for President. For Hamas leadership to appear open to the ‘67 borders is a massive step forward. From what few details are available, I think the Barghouti plan is the best chance yet for an independent Palestine. A non-violent popular uprising is precisely what a united Palestinian people would need. Such a such a campaign provides a framework for resistance that stands a chance to actually the Palestinian cause. A unified popular uprising could make things extremely difficult for Israel, both at home and in the perceptions of the global community.

[alwaysbeeneasy-deactivated20160]

Sanders says positive U.S.-Israel ties contingent on improving relations with Palestinians - U.S. Election 2016

In recently released transcript, Sanders says he would demand Israel halt settlement construction, adding that if Israel 'want us to have a positive relationship, they're going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.'

In his campaign rally in Green Bay, Sanders reaffirmed two of the major negotiating points of this conflict: #1, that Israel needs to halt all settlements in the West Bank and withdraw from those “illegal” territories and #2 that Palestine needs to completely denounce all terrorist activity - as he calls it “complete condemnation of all terrorist attacks”.  These seem to be two points that universally are agreed upon as necessary for peace talks to ensue, so I’m not sure who is fighting against these concepts or why.  

As for the Palestinian end of the bargain, “complete condemnation of all terrorist attacks” is kind of a vague phrase in my opinion.  What exactly does that mean.  One can condemn something without actually taking action against it can’t they?  I mean, I condemn rape and murder, but I’m not out there on the streets actually trying to stop it.  This seems like an issue that will have to be ironed out a little more.  

[lmepal-blog]

Interesting.. denunciation is easier said than done. As we know it takes more for anyone to just say, “Stop it” - they need to convince the young Palestinian activists (aka ‘terrorists’) why they need to stop it. But they know this. This just seems like a reaffirmation of this subject. Could be why Israel doesn’t ‘feel the Bern’ - he just repeats what they already know..

[thekingfish-ip]

Israelis aren’t feeling the Bern because he is probably the least friendly candidate towards Israel on either side of the race. Of course his talk of “denouncing terrorist attacks” on the part of the “Palestinians” is basically just political posturing- he likely recognizes this as well as we do. 

Although Sanders isn’t going to win, I think his would have been the best approach to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. This isn’t to say that I think he would have “solved” the conflict, but that he would have altered the US position on Israel. I think Sanders would take a harder line towards Israel than any other President in the race and might be willing to denounce Israeli military actions or cut back/block Israeli arms funding. 

[lmepal-blog]

Agreed - I suppose I just meant that this wasn’t necessarily helping.. You have a great point: his position is the most different as compared to the other candidate’s stances, though all we know from Trump is that the “loves Israel”. But even with his ‘hard line’ I don’t think that he would’ve made any more progress than Obama. I just feel like it would end terribly: I think it would’ve just made it more difficult for negotiations to be possible without US support and Israel would retract from us. In this case, we would not only lose our most powerful ally in the Middle East (which we can’t really afford, but this is all theoretical), but they would also stumble without our support. In 2015, aid to Israel was roughly $3.2 billion. In 2014, it was the same, and supposedly one-third of the foreign aid budget. Not that Israel hasn’t worked hard on their economy (that still requires a lot of work), but I feel like we have a great deal to do with their ranking of the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world. On the other hand, maybe they need to get out from under the US’s heavy-handed influence - we tend to ‘baby’ (for lack of a better description) them sometimes. Maybe a ‘tough love-slash-figure it out yourself’ attitude would force them to take larger strides on the issue if we fully pull out from the argument. (Again, not that that would actually happen - all theoretical).

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/usaid.html

http://www.wrmea.org/congress-u.s.-aid-to-israel/u.s.-financial-aid-to-israel-figures-facts-and-impact.html

[a-kanyeforpresident-blog]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Hillary Clinton’s position on Israel. Just like her former boss, President Obama, Secretary Clinton has taken a rather hard line approach on Israel and their actions. Below, I’ve posted a link from Haaretz (this one is free so you can actually read it) that insinuates Sec. Clinton may even be more anti-Israel, if you want to call it that, than President Obama. It’s no secret that Clinton is hawkish, even by Republican standards, and while she maintains that he relationship with Netanyahu is contentious at times but friendly, I don’t think she would have a problem stiff-arming the Likud and its leader. Secretary Clinton is undoubtedly calculated, and I think she would probably be the best suited person to solve this problem. Sen. Sanders doesn’t seem to have as good of a grip on foreign policy, and I think the candidates on the other side of the isle would be too blindly pro-Israel. I’m not saying she would be the person to finally broker peace in the Middle East, but I think she has the best grip on the situation of any of the presidential candidates, and her incredibly long political career, including being Secretary of State, would suggest she has thought about the issue more so than any other candidate. 

[a-kanyeforpresident-blog]

Oops, heres the link. 

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.697675

[thekingfish-ip]

I think that Obama has taken the hardest line rhetorically towards Israel of any President for the last half century, but his rhetoric has yielded little to no action. Hillary might continue Obama’s tough talk policy while continuing to support Israel in every meaningful way. The small nods that the Obama administration has made towards the BDS movement and against settlement creation are unlikely to survive the transition to a Clinton Administration. Clinton is extremely outspoken against the BDS movement, calling it “alarming” and “[an effort] to malign isolate an undermine Israel and the Jewish people.” 

Truthfully, I doubt Clinton’s willingness to even even match Obama’s rhetoric. When interviewed last year, Obama told Israeli tv journalist Ilana Dayan that because of the settlements, “it will be harder for the US to defend Israel in the United Nations.” Clinton’s only public stance on the settlements seems to walk back Obama administration’s policies: 

“Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements… For the security of Israel and the world, we need America to remain a respected global leader, committed to defending and advancing the international order. An America able to block efforts to isolate or attack Israel. The alternative is unthinkable.” 

As for your link.. its pretty shaky content-wise. It certainly doesn’t “insinuate” that Clinton is more pro-Israel than Obama, it only mentions that Hillary is being attacked by the Right for supposedly being anti-Israel:

three- and four-year-old emails from the Clinton private server have opened a window into advice her close aides fed her when when she was in office, and is giving ammunition to opponents who do their best to paint her as hostile to Israel, based on the company she keeps and some of the suggestions that were thrown her way.

The article itself just shows that Clinton aides had some really bad ideas with regards to solving the I/P conflict. 

Obviously Clinton has spent more time in Foreign Policy positions than Bernie has, but I don’t think that she has distinguished herself on foreign policy in the slightest. So Clinton spent 4 years as the Secretary of State.. what does she have to show for it? 

Hillary on BDS, settlements and blocking sanctions: http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

Obama on difficulty defending Israel in the UN: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/israel-obama-interview-settlement-policy-growing-isolation.html# 

[alwaysbeeneasy-deactivated20160]

Sanders says positive U.S.-Israel ties contingent on improving relations with Palestinians - U.S. Election 2016

In recently released transcript, Sanders says he would demand Israel halt settlement construction, adding that if Israel 'want us to have a positive relationship, they're going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.'

In his campaign rally in Green Bay, Sanders reaffirmed two of the major negotiating points of this conflict: #1, that Israel needs to halt all settlements in the West Bank and withdraw from those “illegal” territories and #2 that Palestine needs to completely denounce all terrorist activity - as he calls it “complete condemnation of all terrorist attacks”.  These seem to be two points that universally are agreed upon as necessary for peace talks to ensue, so I’m not sure who is fighting against these concepts or why.  

As for the Palestinian end of the bargain, “complete condemnation of all terrorist attacks” is kind of a vague phrase in my opinion.  What exactly does that mean.  One can condemn something without actually taking action against it can’t they?  I mean, I condemn rape and murder, but I’m not out there on the streets actually trying to stop it.  This seems like an issue that will have to be ironed out a little more.  

[lmepal-blog]

Interesting.. denunciation is easier said than done. As we know it takes more for anyone to just say, “Stop it” - they need to convince the young Palestinian activists (aka ‘terrorists’) why they need to stop it. But they know this. This just seems like a reaffirmation of this subject. Could be why Israel doesn’t ‘feel the Bern’ - he just repeats what they already know..

[thekingfish-ip]

Israelis aren’t feeling the Bern because he is probably the least friendly candidate towards Israel on either side of the race. Of course his talk of “denouncing terrorist attacks” on the part of the “Palestinians” is basically just political posturing- he likely recognizes this as well as we do. 

Although Sanders isn’t going to win, I think his would have been the best approach to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. This isn’t to say that I think he would have “solved” the conflict, but that he would have altered the US position on Israel. I think Sanders would take a harder line towards Israel than any other President in the race and might be willing to denounce Israeli military actions or cut back/block Israeli arms funding. 

[mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog]

The Nature of Islam and “Christianity”

Continuing our ending discussion in class, I think it would be interesting to look at the nature of the two proselytizing monotheistic religions and the nature of their evangelization. 

In a nutshell, the Church’s message (the Gospel) is that the Mosaic Law and the Prophets (Major and Minor) were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who then opened up the covenant between God and humanity from a chosen nation to all nations. The truth of the Gospel is based on a historical event, the Resurrection of Jesus after being put to death. If this event happened, then the message of the Church is true, and there is no other rational choice for a person than to join the Church. The Church’s mission then is to spread the Gospel to the whole earth and hope that people accept baptism. If the Resurrection did not occur, then despite having nice tidbits on how to treat the downtrodden, the Church and its message is based on a lie and should be rejected. 

On the other hand, Islam, in a nutshell, teaches that God gave the Jews via Moses a revelation in book form, but that they corrupted it intentionally so as to not submit to the will of God. He then gave Jesus a revelation in the form of the gospels (injil), but his followers perverted them and deified him, so as to not submit to the will of God. Finally, God came to Mohammed and gave to him the last revelation, the Quran, making Mohammed the seal of the prophets. If this is true, then the Quran reveals the truth about God and how to conduct a human life, and all people should convert to Islam. Governments should cease relying on man-made law and should submit to the Shariah, or divine law, as ascribed in the Quran.  Also, Muslims should try to convert all people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and infidels (the rest of the world). 

[rightistheleftsmuse-blog]

It’s true that being a Christian or a Muslim means dealing with an imperative to draw others into your faith. It’s also true that Christians (traditionally) and Muslims feel that their way is the only path to God. Given the all-encompassing nature of their doctrine why would they feel otherwise? To dilute that “one-way” message means short-changing humanity from the truth of the “path.” 

The problem is violence and coercion. Both of these faiths have a long history of “forced conversions” - conversions by the sword. The idea that someone can be coerced into believing and following a faith has been around since the inception of religion. This is what is so abhorrent about some people of faith. It is not that they have some sort of “good news” to share, it’s that they are willing to dehumanize those who they cannot persuade, or (in some cases) simply force religious behavior out of others with no actual belief in play. This sort of “conversion” is less a belief change than a type of political oppression.

I have no problem with people – Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. – trying to use persuasion to convert others to follow their faith. When someone chooses to believe and convert, that’s all well and good. It is when religion becomes part of an arsenal of oppression that it is truly pernicious.

[unlpols2]

The problem with “religion,” a gross overgeneralization of a not very monolithic bloc, is the lack of toleration. Isn’t to try to convert others a violation of toleration? In that sense, whether through force or words, conversion attempts violate the principle of toleration, right? I seem to go back and forth on this issue. Thoughts? 

[salsanamecontest-blog]

I think that religious individuals, even those who attempt to evangelize and convert others, can accept others and the fact that they believe differently. If you believe, as most Christians and Muslims do, that those who do not believe in God and obey His commands or submit to His will are headed for hell (or some other regrettable destiny), then it is not very kind to refrain from conversion attempts. “Tolerating” someone could just be ignoring them or having nothing to do with them. Engaging with ideas and understanding both non-spiritual and spiritual perspectives, and the great spectrums those traverse, requires something a little bit deeper than toleration. I agree with what another blogger said (sorry, this conversation is kind of all over the place), that religion may be inherently intolerant because it is exclusive. The same goes for any type of group, even the belief in tolerance - if you ascribe to this belief, great. If not… you may not “belong” to certain groups.

And about conversion… you can’t actually force anyone to believe anything. You can’t control the minds of others. Violence in the name of religion is usually more political in nature, than anything else, and you will find a lot of aberrations in these groups’ religious practices. This debates usually comes down to what makes people “truly” religious, and those debates can often be traced to how well do their lives align with the instructions of their holy texts.

[thekingfish-ip]

The problem with “religion,” a gross overgeneralization of a not very monolithic bloc, is the lack of toleration. Isn’t to try to convert others a violation of toleration? In that sense, whether through force or words, conversion attempts violate the principle of toleration, right? I seem to go back and forth on this issue. Thoughts?

It might be helpful to consider what “toleration” really means and who is being asked to tolerate what. Why should members of proselytizing religions be asked to abstain from the practice of their religion? It seems more proper to me that the non-religious and people of different religions should tolerate being proselytized to; that way nobody feels obligated to forgo the practice of their religion.   

[thekingfish-ip]

Israeli Solider Executes Wounded Palestinian Attacker.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/24/israeli-soldier-filmed-shoot-dead-wounded-palestinian-attacker-hebron

This video released last Thursday by a B'Tselem activist depicts the execution of an incapacitated Palestinian man wounded while attacking Israeli soldiers in Hebron with a knife. The shooting, which was described by an Israeli Defense Force spokesman describes as “a grave breach of IDF values, conduct and standards of military operations conduct and standards of military conduct.”  lends credence to earlier Palestinian allegations of summary execution of knife-attackers by Israeli soldiers.

This shooting reminded me of the execution-style shooting described in Shipler following the bombing or attempted bombing of an Israeli bus though that the IDF has responded with such forceful rhetoric clearly demonstrates that the Israeli Army has different propaganda goals in 2016 than in the 1980s.This “execution”, viewed within context of the ongoing campaign of knife-attacks suggests that the soldiers of the IDF may be reaching some sort of breaking point- that the attacks may be “getting to them” as it were.

[ime16-blog]

“The proposal does not aim to treat unreasonable noise, but to violate the freedom of religion,” the Israel Democracy Institute says about this proposal, and I’m very much inclined to agree. The bill proposed would have banned mosques from using  PA systems to announce the call to prayer. An amendment to the failed bill would limit the decibel level the announcement systems could use. The fact that this amendment was only proposed after the total ban lacked support speaks volumes. If the original goal was to “treat unreasonable noise”, the decibel level restriction would probably have been proposed initially. Frankly, I’m glad that the bill couldn’t gain support, because it just seems like another way to drive a wedge between the Muslim and Jewish populations in the area, another (albeit tiny) barrier to peace. 

[alwaysbeeneasy-deactivated20160]

  I totally disagree with your feelings on this subject and feel that the use of the P.A. systems by the mosques should be banned.  P.A. stands for Public Address.  It should be used only in situations which concern the ENTIRE public, such as weather emergencies.  This has nothing to do with freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion exists only if you religious practices do not effect those who do not adhere to your beliefs.  Muslims should not be able to fill the air with religious announcements anymore than Christians should be allowed to stuff religious Christmas songs down our throats during the holidays.  Plus, what kind of Muslim are you if you need a public announcement to remind you that you need to pray? 

  This would drive me absolutely crazy if I lived within earshot of these P.A. announcements.  Imagine if, 5 times a day, the city of Lincoln blasted “Goooo Biiiiiggg Rrreeeeedd!” over the P.A. system.  Sure, the majority of the city would probably instinctively fire back, “GO BIG RED!”, but for those of us who don’t have a religious belief in college football, this would simply be a violation of our rights.

I hope that the bill eventually gets passed.

[thekingfish-ip]

It wouldn’t be a violation of your rights, because you don’t have the right to not hear a religious message. 

If there was any legal room to stand on it would be that the PA system is noise pollution, but that's obviously the sort of thing that ought to be handled locally; not through legislation at the national level. Besides, the call to prayer is less obnoxious than a subway or train whistle and doesn’t sound during the middle of the night. 

My apartment is across from a Parish and their chimes ring like every half an hour, and I’ve always grown up near train tracks so maybe I’m just more accustomed to the idea than others would be. 

[unlpols2]

Overheard at Oberlin: The Holocaust was mere

Roger Cohen advances a salient point: criticism of Israel is one thing, blatant anti-Semitism another. A complex veil of identities and ideologies surrounds the anti-Israel stance many Europeans are willing to take. What leads them to their position? Is it sympathy with the Arabs? Is anti-Semitism alone? Like all pieces of an identity, the anti-Israel stance Europeans take has its origins in various ideological undercurrents. Cohen addresses most of them in his article. However, one he omits and it is one I have not heard on this blog either. In part Europe’s anti-Israel stance is simply rooted in old fashioned anti-Semitism, which has a long tradition on the continent. The more recent developments, however, suggest, and this is largely my own interpretation, that part of the anti-Israel stance stems from the inability to comprehend the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I think many Europeans perceive Israel merely as an extension of the United States. 

Therefore, the increase in anti-Israel sentiments could correspond to the unpopularity of U.S. military actions in the Middle East. 

[thekingfish-ip]

I was planning on writing about the same article, but I’ll take a different angle for my blogging than you did.

Johnson, writing in Fathom Journal, outlined three components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.” Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Johnson’s components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are overly broad; There is nothing inherently anti-Semetic about any of these three components.

First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” 

This component only seems anti-Semitic when cloaked in Johnson’s charged language. “The creation of a unitary secular state for the entire people of Israel/Palestine” carries the same meaning and is much harder to take offense with. 

Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.”

Though controversial, its difficult to describe Zionism in terms that a leftist wouldn’t deem racist. We already discussed in class that Zionism is essentially an expression of Jewish nationalism; inherent racist baggage and all. The “Naztification of Israel” is shitty and insensitive, but also ubiquitous within the Western world- Godwin’s Law exists for a reason. 

Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Israel is the one and only state that counts itself among the global democratic West while simultaneously displaying a gross disregard for human rights and troubling preoccupation with its ethnic identity. 

[mysteriouslydisguisedgentle-blog]

I agree that the label “anti-Semitic” is often used when it isn’t necessary. Like many other political labels, it shuts down or limits any real discussion. On the other side of the coin, is Zionism inherently racist? I think equating Zionism with racism shuts down conversation in the same way calling someone anti-Semitic does.

In class, we’ve defined Zionism as an ideology that believes that the Jewish people have a right to their own Statehood. I think whether or not the State is racist depends on how it is run and what its purpose is. That is and has been a debate between the Israeli people. With all the current news about apartheid, I think the State could justly be considered racist. However, I don’t think the State is automatically racist by its nature. 

[thekingfish-ip]

Perhaps I gave too much significance to the article’s use of the word “leftist”. I was assuming that the writer was referring to the actual left- socialists, anarchists, and communists as opposed to liberals. These groups generally reject nationalism altogether, and therefor consider Jewish nationalism to be equally as racist as any other form of nationalism.

On the other hand, anyone who indulges in nationalism for themselves and for non-Jews while denouncing Zionism as an ideological concept is acting anti-Semitically.  

[unlpols2]

Overheard at Oberlin: The Holocaust was mere

Roger Cohen advances a salient point: criticism of Israel is one thing, blatant anti-Semitism another. A complex veil of identities and ideologies surrounds the anti-Israel stance many Europeans are willing to take. What leads them to their position? Is it sympathy with the Arabs? Is anti-Semitism alone? Like all pieces of an identity, the anti-Israel stance Europeans take has its origins in various ideological undercurrents. Cohen addresses most of them in his article. However, one he omits and it is one I have not heard on this blog either. In part Europe’s anti-Israel stance is simply rooted in old fashioned anti-Semitism, which has a long tradition on the continent. The more recent developments, however, suggest, and this is largely my own interpretation, that part of the anti-Israel stance stems from the inability to comprehend the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I think many Europeans perceive Israel merely as an extension of the United States. 

Therefore, the increase in anti-Israel sentiments could correspond to the unpopularity of U.S. military actions in the Middle East. 

[thekingfish-ip]

I was planning on writing about the same article, but I’ll take a different angle for my blogging than you did.

Johnson, writing in Fathom Journal, outlined three components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.” Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Johnson’s components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are overly broad; There is nothing inherently anti-Semetic about any of these three components.

First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” 

This component only seems anti-Semitic when cloaked in Johnson’s charged language. “The creation of a unitary secular state for the entire people of Israel/Palestine” carries the same meaning and is much harder to take offense with. 

Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.”

Though controversial, its difficult to describe Zionism in terms that a leftist wouldn’t deem racist. We already discussed in class that Zionism is essentially an expression of Jewish nationalism; inherent racist baggage and all. The “Naztification of Israel” is shitty and insensitive, but also ubiquitous within the Western world- Godwin’s Law exists for a reason. 

Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Israel is the one and only state that counts itself among the global democratic West while simultaneously displaying a gross disregard for human rights and troubling preoccupation with its ethnic identity. 

[anti-ishihara-blog-deactivated2]

I’ve been reading and writing a lot about anti-Semitism through the lens of the BDS movement and related student demonstrations and I think I may be able to respond to at least part of this. I think you do make a good point (Point 1), one that I’ve considered many times in my readings of the situation. The difference between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish movements or demonstrations is shaky and ambiguous. As a self-proclaimed State with a Jewish majority, Israel has obvious, strong ties to the Jewish culture and religion. Therefore, any anti-Israel movement can be construed as also having anti-Jewish undertones. There really is no way to determine the intentionality (targeting of Jews or secular Israel) without clear statement or language of racism. The problem is that these so-called secular, anti-Israel/BDS movements also rely (although more covertly) on anti-Jewish rhetoric.

Photo: Israel Apartheid Week demonstrations at Columbia University

While I may be overstating this, it’s hard to see images like this and still claim that anti-Israeli rallies (usually inline with BDS movements) are not also anti-Semitic in nature.

I think Point 3 is the most salient of claims in the discussion of rising anti-Semitism. There are countless human rights injustices happening in countries throughout the world and people aren’t lining up to boycott goods or education from China or Saudi Arabia, for example. Israel, unlike the other two, is a first-world nation. Although we may see them as having more responsibility to uphold such international standards, their status as a Western democratic state doesn’t completely defeat their claims of being singled out. In their view, any claim to the injustices in their country should also be turned toward other countries where human rights violations are more extensive. Otherwise, it is singling out a people whose main distinction is their Jewish-ness.

I don’t think this point encompasses the entire complexity of the situation, but you can’t help from feeling at least slightly empathetic for a nation with all guns pointed on them, feeling singled out amidst a sea of injustice Here in America, we didn’t have such a hard time achieving our barely contested religious/cultural majority. Parallels between the US and Israel can be drawn in terms of our identity as a democratic state with cultural ties to religious tradition. The difference lies in the historical contingencies that didn’t align so easily for Israel, but this doesn’t contradict their claim to an analogous situation. And further, it can be seen that while sometimes Israel may be overreacting to anti-Israeli movement (framing them as anti-Semitic), their paranoia is not unjustified.

[thekingfish-ip]

Sorry if I am being naive, but what is the anti-Semitism that I’m supposed to be seeing in that picture? 

I think that it is proper for Israel to receive more international sanction from the West than China or Saudi Arabia. Israel, a Western liberal democracy, ought to be held to a higher standard than a single-party authoritarian state or a literal kingdom. Not only because Israeli citizens have the power to effect change in their government’s policy, but because Israel undermines democracy’s moral high ground on the international stage. 

[unlpols2]

Overheard at Oberlin: The Holocaust was mere

Roger Cohen advances a salient point: criticism of Israel is one thing, blatant anti-Semitism another. A complex veil of identities and ideologies surrounds the anti-Israel stance many Europeans are willing to take. What leads them to their position? Is it sympathy with the Arabs? Is anti-Semitism alone? Like all pieces of an identity, the anti-Israel stance Europeans take has its origins in various ideological undercurrents. Cohen addresses most of them in his article. However, one he omits and it is one I have not heard on this blog either. In part Europe’s anti-Israel stance is simply rooted in old fashioned anti-Semitism, which has a long tradition on the continent. The more recent developments, however, suggest, and this is largely my own interpretation, that part of the anti-Israel stance stems from the inability to comprehend the U.S.-Israeli relationship. I think many Europeans perceive Israel merely as an extension of the United States. 

Therefore, the increase in anti-Israel sentiments could correspond to the unpopularity of U.S. military actions in the Middle East. 

[thekingfish-ip]

I was planning on writing about the same article, but I’ll take a different angle for my blogging than you did.

Johnson, writing in Fathom Journal, outlined three components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.” Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Johnson’s components to left-wing anti-Semitic anti-Zionism are overly broad; There is nothing inherently anti-Semetic about any of these three components.

First, “the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.” 

This component only seems anti-Semitic when cloaked in Johnson’s charged language. “The creation of a unitary secular state for the entire people of Israel/Palestine” carries the same meaning and is much harder to take offense with. 

Second, “a demonizing intellectual discourse” that holds that “Zionism is racism” and pursues the “systematic Nazification of Israel.”

Though controversial, its difficult to describe Zionism in terms that a leftist wouldn’t deem racist. We already discussed in class that Zionism is essentially an expression of Jewish nationalism; inherent racist baggage and all. The “Naztification of Israel” is shitty and insensitive, but also ubiquitous within the Western world- Godwin’s Law exists for a reason. 

Third, a global social movement to “exclude one state — and only one state — from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity.”

Israel is the one and only state that counts itself among the global democratic West while simultaneously displaying a gross disregard for human rights and troubling preoccupation with its ethnic identity. 

[thekingfish-ip]

i did't get into the bernie sanders rally because i had to take a test

and now im feeling salty about it.

[rightistheleftsmuse-blog]

But was "regime change" ever something that was considered when Chamberlain declared "peace in our time" after Munich? What would lead us to believe that anyone thought for a moment about ousting Hitler in the mid-1930s? And a question (really for the original author of the regime change post, I suppose): Why do failed recent attempts in Iraq and Libya lead us to think that there isn't much of anything to be done with Middle East authoritarian regimes besides sadly support them?

RE Chamberlain: My point is that International relations is done with Chamberlain and Munich in the rear view mirror. Your right that no one thought of ousting Hitler early on. The world was ready to sit back and let Hitler take Poland, Austria (with the help of the Austrians of course), and Czechoslovakia as well as enforce Nazi hegemony over much of Eastern Europe. It was his roll through Belgium and France (and the Russian campaign) that woke up the allies to the necessity of ousting Hitler.

Yet in hindsight there is much hand wringing over why the world did not wake up and stop Hitler sooner. If I remember correctly this was even one of the discussion points surrounding Saddam Hussein and his possible possession of WMD’s prior to the 2nd gulf war. We think about regime change in terms of “preventing the next Hitler,” and we think about treaties in terms of “not being fooled into another Munich.” So I disagreed with the post author - who seemed to be saying that regime change is always a mistake. I believe we turn to it out of fear of another Munich and/or another Hitler. Often this is probably a mistake - but Munich and the Nazi threat drive our instincts in that regard. 

RE Libya and Iraq: Regime change has fallen out of favor recently because our experience has lead us to the conclusion that the “cure is worse than the disease.” Democracy can’t take root in ground that is not prepared. It takes institutions, rule of law, and an understanding that the purpose of democracy is not “winner take all” politics that lead to alternate tyranny. So much of our effort to lead people to freedom has been a dumpster fire. We have failed to find a path to something better than dictatorship by petty strongmen. I think that’s why we feel forced to “sadly support them” - stability seems better than violent anarchy. 

I don’t think anyone (in the West) is arguing that autocratic regimes are beneficial to their people. The question is how do we accomplish regime change. Efforts from above (Iraq, Afghanistan) have been ham-handed and ineffectual. Efforts from below (Egypt, Libya) have resulted in unstable governments careening out of control and falling into chaos or dictatorship - with Tunisia a notable exception. Albeit Tunisia had little in the way of military force to act as a fly in the ointment.

So, what do world famous academics say is the best course of action to a march toward less violence, greater human rights and freedoms and stable governments? 

[unlpols2]

Regarding regime change in the Middle East: why does abandoning traditional regime change – actively toppling foreign governments through clandestine or not so clandestine military / intelligence operations – automatically lead to tacit and sad support for the Middle East’s authoritarian autocracies? That is certainly not the point I wanted to advance. Top-down regime change initiated by the West has failed (I know, I know “each case has its complexities etc. etc.” Still, the precedent is heavily stacked against these policies). Accepting this premise does not mean support for authoritarian regimes. It merely indicates the need for more gradual actions. 

Burkian gradualism, in my view, presents the only solution. To alter states like Iran, a lot more will have to be done, and, as the previous author already pointed out in his response, foundations must be built. These will take time and commitments from local populations. And ultimately, there will be some failures as well. The Green Rev. in Iran is a rather sad example of how long it will take for democratization processes to work.

There are critical internal divisions the ME must face first and foremost. As I have said before, radical Islam and even the Muslim Brotherhood with its agenda of gradual transformation must be pushed to the periphery of ideological concepts. With their presence being widespread, no regime change policy will result in anything other than protracted civil unrest, maybe even civil war. 

Regime change is used when the West thoroughly despise and perceives as threatening a foreign government due to its ideology. You cannot kill the tree by cutting a couple branches; you cannot combat an ideology by dethroning its most vocal supporters. 

[thekingfish-ip]

Why do failed recent attempts in Iraq and Libya lead us to think that there isn’t much of anything to be done with Middle East authoritarian regimes besides sadly support them?

Are we arguing based on the premise that the advancement of human rights, “doing something with Middle East authoritarian regimes”, is a significant goal of US foreign policy? I don’t see much evidence for that. 

The US could do plenty to fight autocracy and improve human rights in the Middle Eastern if we chose to put leverage on our allies in the gulf. Instead, we focus our human rights attention on countries like Iran who are outside of our sphere of influence. 

Iran, Libya, Morsi’s Egypt, Saddam’s Iraq, Somoza’s Sandinistas and so on all the way back to North Vietnam and earlier; the targets of US “human rights” based regime changes are almost always opposed to US regional interests.