I just added Beatniksalad! (“A weblog by Ryan in Manchester”) to my blogroll. I discovered Beatniksalad! because he just blogrolled me, but despite appearances I don’t do reciprocal links. Alas’ blogroll is just a list of blogs I like enough to want to check back on semi-regularly, whether they link to me or not (at least one blogger on the list has actively gone to other people’s websites to ask them not to link to me!). Beatniksalad! – due to Ryan’s sense of humor, his links to stories I haven’t seen elsewhere, his lefty politics (slightly left of me, which is pretty rare in blogtopia), and his charming habit of filling up the sidebar with crap that amuses him – is a blog I’ll want to return to regularly.
I’ve also added the Daily Kos (which I think of as the king of the “smoke-filled back room blogs”) to the blogroll. A link from me will make approximately the same difference to Kos’ overall traffic as bringing a paper bag full of lying shit to a Bush family reunion. But Kos is essential reading, and that’ll be more and more true as the 2004 election nears.
Oh, and I’ve added Allison Kaplan Sommer’s pro-occupation blog An Unsealed Room, as well. Since Allison (who is Israeli) pretty much defends Israel’s occupation, she and I disagree a lot. This has given me the opportunity to be impressed with Allison’s ability to disagree in civil terms. I try to make a habit of “reading the opposition,” and Allison’s innate decency and good writing skills keep that from being a chore.
The link to An Unsealed Room brings up some issues of terminology. First, Allison considers herself a leftist (or at least a liberal), but on the only issue we’ve discussed she’s far to the right of me. Since I can’t quite see her as a blog of a feather, but she probably wouldn’t like being classified as a right-winger, I’ve stuck her in “unpigeonholable.”
Second, what do I mean by calling her “pro-occupation”? Well, I’ve decided to start framing the Israel/Palestine issue that way – those who think the occupation is justified are “pro-occupation,” even if (like Allison) they don’t like the occupation and regret the human costs; those who don’t think the occupation is justified are “anti-occupation.” I’m using this terminology because I refuse to define the issue in terms of being “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel,” since I’m “pro-Israel” in the larger sense of supporting Israel’s right to exist and hoping it prospers. Being a peacenik is not being anti-Israel, dammit!.
I admit that I never read your blog before, except for one not very bright post about the security fence that I found via Allison, and I must say that it looks like you are not really familiar with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I draw this conclusion by your oversimplified framing of pro occupation and anti occupation. There are so many aspects to take into consideration that makes your black or white coloring so foolish. And since I’ve been reading Allison’s blog since she started it, to me it doesn’t look like she is “pro occupation” at all.
Your simplify way to judge her is absurd.
As you’d know if you read my post, I defined “pro-occupation” as folks “who think the occupation is justified.” If Allison really doesn’t feel the occupation is justified, then I’ve greviously misread her on this subject, and I’ll issue a retraction – but it would be odd, as she’s said several times that she doesn’t think Israel can risk ending the occupation. I’ll wait and see if she corrects me.
And maybe I am oversimplistic in my view of Israel/Palestine – but at least I’m not as simplistic as the person who saw The Matrix Reloaded and had this response:
When Morpheus carries his speech to the people of Zion I couldn’t help thinking that his words are true to real life Zion. We’ve been holding off our enemy for one hundred years now and there is no reason to be afraid.
I mean, someone who thinks Israel is remotely comparable to a Hollywood action movie, in which the bad guys are all inhuman computers and the good guys are absolutely in the right – boy, it’s hard to imagine anyone taking that simplistic, black-and-white an approach to Israel issues, isn’t it?
Just curious – are you one of those people who say they are pro-choice and don’t like it when people call you “pro-abortion”? Most of the pro-choicers I know object being called “pro-abortion” but your argument for categorizing people as “pro-occupation” suggests that you would be comfortable with the pro-abortion label.
e.g. “those who think abortion is justified are “pro-abortion,” even if they don’t like abortion and regret the human costs; those who don’t think abortions are justified are “anti-abortion.”
I think at this point there’s more-or-less a consensus that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are the terms people use for themselves. I don’t like being called “pro-abortion” because I know perfectly well that the folks who use the term are intending it as an insult, not as a neutral statement of the “favoring abortion remainging legal” position.
Look, I’m hardly married to “occupation” as the term du jour. I’m just not going to call myself “anti-Israel,” because I’m not; nor am I going to name the position I disagree with “pro-Israel,” because that implies I’m anti-Israel.
Here’s the real question: What term would you suggest we use to refer to the “occupation, while unfortunate, is justified” position versus the “occupation is not justified” position? I’d be happy to switch to some other terminology, if you can suggest something reasonable. Seriously.
Ampersand – The sentence you quoted is so out of context. It’s part of a Matrix review post, nothing more. You couldn’t find something better? Why didn’t you quote my post about Saddam hiding in Brooklyn? Oh, you understood it’s not a serious post? Oh well.
This is pathetic.
Gil, I quoted the entire paragraph and linked to the post in question – here it is again. That’s hardly quoting out of context.
Heck, here’s the entire text of your post, unedited and uncut:
Matrix Reloaded in IL
Just for you to know that Israel is part of the western world, the Matrix Reloaded premiered here last Thursday and created a minor fuss. Anyway I saw it yesterday and was disappointed. I think the first one was brilliant, this one was just plain. Lot’s of unnecessary parts such as that rave in Zion. We do like raves here in Zion but … .
When Morpheus carries his speech to the people of Zion I couldn’t help thinking that his words are true to real life Zion. We’ve been holding off our enemy for one hundred years now and there is no reason to be afraid.
As for the rest, I agree that our exchange is pathetic. So what will we do to change it?
I’m willing to start over and attempt to have a more constructive exchange, if you are. Maybe you could start by answering my question – what do you think would be a fair, non-insulting, concise way of labeling the two sides of the occupation debate? Or do you think that even talking about “two sides” – when there are actually many more degrees of views than that – is unhelpful?
In other words, when I want to politely refer to the views of someone who disagrees with me – as in “Allison has _____ views” – what term should I use? Because I do think having terminology is useful.
Yes, yes, yes, Amp! There are more than two sides! Lots of sides! It’s not black and white, with lots of shades of muddy gray.
The Palestinians have made lots of mistakes and bad choices.
The Israelis have made lots of mistakes and bad choices.
The surrounding Arab countries have made lots of mistakes and bad choices.
The thing is — a solution is possible only when all of these sides face up to their bad decisions and miscalculations and change course.
Not just one side (Israel) saying, “yes, yes, we’re bad, the occupation is a mistake, we’re clearing out of every square inch of the West Bank and Gaza,” and boom — the whole Palestinian problem will be solved and Israel will live in peace and security forever and ever.
This is not clean and simple Good vs. Evil, Occupier vs. Oppressed, European colonializer vs. Third World Colony.
It’s just not.
Read your delightful exchanges on Israel and “occupation.” Please note this simple but basic fact: when one country or group loses land (theland was not Palestinian but Jordanian and Egyhptian) to another, the losing side gets something, or nothing, or a piece of something back when they have made peace, a treaty. Till such time, the warfare is continuing and the ladn lost is in fact occupied pending a settlement.
The US has “occupied Japan, Korea, Germany et al by arangement; Lebanon has 30 thousand troops occupying them and they are Syrian forces.
Why would any country lose men, not have any sort of peace accord, and give back what they won through loss of life simply because they do not want to be called “occupiers?
Simply put: you lose, you pay till you cry uncle and quit the match…then you can become friends, perhaps. Now that’s history and show me how it has been done at anyh other place and at any other time.
Allison wrote: “Not just one side (Israel) saying, “yes, yes, we’re bad, the occupation is a mistake, we’re clearing out of every square inch of the West Bank and Gaza,” and boom — the whole Palestinian problem will be solved and Israel will live in peace and security forever and ever.”
With all due respect, Allison, where have I ever said anything even remotely like this? I don’t know who you’re paraphasing here, but it’s certainly not me.
Freddie, there’s at least one obvious example of unilaterial withdrawel from occupation, without treaty, and that’s the end of Israel’s occupation of Lebanon.
Anyhow, it’s not merely the fact of occupation that Israel is criticized for; it’s the unjust and inhumane means by which occupation is carried out. In other words, it’s not the simple black-and-white issue you’re describing it as.
First, one has to define exactly what are the Occupied Territories. If you accept the post 1973 borders, when Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, then Israel has already withdrawn from the Occupied Territories. If you accept the Post 1967 borders, then the West Bank and parts of Gaza are Occupied Territories. But then, why would the territories occupied in the 67 war not be considered Occupied? If you accept the Post 1956 borders, then why wouldn’t they also be considered Occupied Territories? Or, finally, if you accept the Palestinian definition of Occupied Territories, then this is the pre 1948 borders. I.E. all of Israel is Occupied Territories, and Israel should be extinguished.
What is your definition?
Odd. Ampersand, always on the lookout for straw opponents, magically transforms Allison Kaplan Sommer’s into a “pro-occupation blog” … and then quickly objects to being inaccurately “paraphras[ed]”, along with a stern warning that “it’s not the simple black-and-white issue you’re describing it as”.
Pot, kettle. Maybe this blog description stuff is too challenging; Ampersand maybe wants to get back to explaining how the world is divided into those who are “pro-occupation” and “anti-occupation”.
Or, for that matter, how he is shocked, shocked, that his binary would be, uh, misunderstood as referring to those who stand in favour of the West Bank and Gaza occupation and then to those who’d like to see it end. Of course not, Ampersand; don’t know how anyone would get that idea. But go ahead: please continue dividing the world into twos, and go right ahead slapping leading labels on ’em to make sure we understand the way things *really* mean.
Meanwhile, out there in the real world …
Pingback: An Unsealed Room