George, your facts aren't accurate, and your sympathies are clear. It's easy, as you concluded, that the non-Israeli Palestinians do deserve much more of the blame for rejecting Israel's existence and committing random and horrible atrocities on a regular basis. Not sure why you didn't exemplify Black Sabbath to prove your point that mos…
George, your facts aren't accurate, and your sympathies are clear. It's easy, as you concluded, that the non-Israeli Palestinians do deserve much more of the blame for rejecting Israel's existence and committing random and horrible atrocities on a regular basis. Not sure why you didn't exemplify Black Sabbath to prove your point that most of them identify with the sub-human Hamas tactics and leadership. I don't know why we don't see Israelis leading their bloody, bound, captives around Dizengoff Square, as captured animals, do you?
Yes, there are two sides of the story but the fact is that the non-Israeli Palestinians simply won't recognize the right of Jews to live in the Jewish homeland, side by side with them, in peace whereas 90% of Israelis would manage (after October 7, sadly due to Hamas rape, murder, dismemberment, burning and mutilating their neighbors, we'll have to change that to "would have managed") that scenario passably well under terror-free circumstances.
1) Until October 7, the pattern of violence has always been small-scale (that's all they were capable of) Palestinian violence, followed by massive, outsized Israeli retaliation. For example, between 2014 and October 7, around 70 Israelis were killed. In return, 3400 Gazans were killed, mostly civilians (as always). You may say, "But it's always the Palestinians who begin the violence." But consider: Israel is quite content with the status quo -- which the entire world except for the United States regards as illegal and immoral. It would ignore the Palestinians entirely if it could. The Palestinians are desperate. Of course they ought to use nonviolent means -- and many of them have and still do, while getting nowhere. The Palestinians are to blame for resorting to violence. But the Israelis are to blame for creating the situation to which the Palestinians are responding.
2) As for who's rejecting peace: I suggest you look at Tanya Reinhart's "Israel/Palestine", Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall" and "Israel and Palestine" and Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle." Israel has never made a serious peace offer, because it has never been willing to give up the dream of "Greater Israel."
And I suggest YOU read Susie Linfield's 'The Lion's Den' on how self-supporting and stubbornly fraudulent Chomsky's repeated stance is on this topic, then follow it up with Shlomo Ben-Ami's 'Prophets Without Honor' for a firsthand account of exactly what went on in some of those 'unserious' peace offers.
I will investigate those writings you mention with which I am unfamiliar. And I concede we are not far apart on many of your points -- though farther apart than I apparently am with Shadi and I dispute the last point (see Golda Meir laughing out of her office the first group of Jewish zealots who tried to convince a prime minister of the necessity to settle what they termed Judea and Samaria as the point from which a vocal extremist minority eventually - and perhaps predictably - came to dominate the agenda...something we have no familiarity with in the West).
George’s responses are nuanced enough for you to concede that many of them are close to yours and substantiated by a wide range of sources that he shared. I enjoyed the way he lead with data that reinforced his perspective which was stated without personal attacks. And that his points are at the center of the issue being discussed. What is combative about that?
I suppose I'm referring to George's repeated use of sweeping declarative generalizations and apportionment of "blame." See, "one side deserves much more of the blame," "Israelis are to blame," "Israel has never made a serious peace offer." His "data" is therefore not coming from a place of attempting to understand but of serving in support of his judgment.
Your reply came off (to me, and through comment text, to be fair a difficult way to parse motive) as if you were cheering George's conclusions and, specifically, that you appreciated him slamming the door on my offering of an alternate reading with his rebuttal citation (which I discuss below). Your joy therefore rankled, especially as you center your enjoyment on his "data" which is exactly what I sought to complicate and which he more or less swiped aside because he's "not impressed" (though I very much thank him for linking his sources). So I'll ask your pardon if I read something between your single line of appreciation.
Noah, would you disagree that there have been countless historical/political conflicts in which one side was more to blame than the other? And if there have, then one can't rule out a priori that this is one of them. Certainly some well-informed Israelis think (or thought) so: Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart. Assuming that both sides are equally to blame is no more intellectually respectable than assuming that all blame must be on one side or the other. In any case, one shouldn't assume: as you learn more about the history of the conflict, I think (naturally) that you'll come closer to my sweeping, unnuanced view.
I actually stated above why I liked George’s comments. He substantiated his thinking with information in a very transparent way. It made it easy for me to follow his logic and learn more myself. I don’t know you. So I wasn’t really excited by him “slamming” you. I enjoyed the way he reinforced his position.
I also don’t think the purpose of the exchange was to deeply understand one side or another. I expect to learn what a person’s stances are and how they got to those set of conclusions. For that reason his critiques of Israel didn’t bother me.
Thanks, Noah, but I've read a fair amount of Susie Linfield and am not impressed. FYI, there was a review of that book in the Nation by someone who clearly knew more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield. He demolished the book, with particular attention to the chapter on Chomsky.
Thank you for linking. I'm glad it's here so others can read and decide for themselves. As for me...well, I'll try to keep this a comment and not turn into a full blown essay.
Joshua Leifer (wrote the book critique) is nothing that you promised. He does not appear to clearly know "more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield" and he did not "demolish" her book. In particular he failed to punch a hole in her charges against Chomsky. His small section on Chomsky is spent making excuses for the man and the mind without actually addressing what Linfield is arguing: that Chomsky's entire argument line hinges upon an un-passed UN resolution that - if you read it - says something quite other than what Chomsky purports it to...and that Chomsky's support for the accuracy of this analysis is always HIMSELF.
In fact, Leifer implicitly acknowledges that Linfield is perhaps correct while attempting to minimize how much it matters, waving away any errors Chomsky has made by saying, "as is to be expected of someone who has written for more than half a century, [Chomsky] has made mistakes, political as well as factual, some of them serious. Yet...". Indeed, yet. This kind of response is exactly what Linfield is criticizing, a willful near-sightedness on both the part of Chomsky and his ardent defenders that does not want to see the frailty of this argument because, well, the man's a genius.
(By the way, Leifer's sympathies are quite clear and nearly all his writing is spent advocating his position on this topic. That doesn't make him an expert on Levantine history and conflict, it makes him an expert at arguing HIS SIDE. Many of us - including in this forum - are attempting to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the issue, which is the true humanist response. Ideological responses may be the least useful here).
The letter exchange with Chomsky reinforces these points. He continues to avoid answering Linfield's direct criticism and continues the circularity of his argument - which is the exact problem Linfield is pointing out - offering as 'evidence' in his response to her, "I referred to my discussions of these topics, all accurate." We're just supposed to take Chomsky's word that HIS interpretation is accurate because he said it and, well...the man's a genius. (Linfield's letter links to the actual UN documents, so readers can decide that for themselves as well).
It's unfortunate to get stuck on the Chomsky portion of the book in particular as Linfield's deep dives into some of the other thinkers are far more nuanced and interesting, frankly. But Chomsky casts such a large shadow on this subject among Western leftists (the reason he was deputized into this conversation) that his statements really must be addressed. I continue to recommend it, as well as Ben-Ami's very recent book about his experience attempting to negotiate one of those peace's that you claim, sweepingly, Israel has no interest in.
Hi, Noah. Thanks for your reply, but I’m afraid we’ll have to differ. Leifer’s review was not as harsh in tone as I remembered, but I don’t see that anything in the review agrees in the least with the substance of her argument. He makes his overall distaste clear from the outset: “Linfield wants to position herself among those brave realists who are willing to criticize both sides in equal measure and are equally committed to a two-state solution. Yet in doing so, she demonstrates precisely what she finds objectionable in her subjects: a “readiness to substitute ideology [and]wishful thinking…for reality.” There’s not a kind word for the book until this rather lame compliment at the end: “[Readers] will find much to argue with in The Lions’ Den. But they will also, if they read carefully, learn a lot from it.” Leifer and Linfield are colleagues at Dissent, so maybe he was just being polite.
Since Chomsky was one of half a dozen subjects profiled in the book, it’s perhaps not surprising that Leifer doesn’t take up her charges in detail. But he makes perfectly clear what he thinks of her case: “Chomsky is perhaps one of the best examples to refute Linfield’s repeated claim that the postwar left sacrificed its commitment to equality, anti-capitalism, and anti-fascism in favor of anti-imperialism. If anything, he has embodied the unwavering link between a socialist egalitarianism and an anti-imperialist internationalism when few self-described left intellectuals dared to fly the flag of either. Like Deutscher and Stone, he has consistently emphasized the connection between inequalities of wealth at home and abroad, and he has focused as much energy on exposing the United States’ repressive measures against its own citizens as on the US military’s violations of human rights and international law overseas.
“In the light of history, Chomsky’s record—against the Vietnam War, Israel’s occupation, neoliberalism, and the surveillance state—outshines those of many of his New Left contemporaries, some of whom, by the 1990s and early 2000s, had embraced so-called humanitarian intervention and championed US war-making in the Middle East. Far from a nightmare, Chomsky has been among the American left’s most consistent moral beacons.”
In the letters exchange, Linfield’s main complaint is that Chomsky draws sweeping conclusions from an “obscure” UN Resolution that in any case was not passed. The links Linfield provided did not work for me, but Chomsky quoted the essential provision from the resolution: it “called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the internationally recognized borders, with guarantees for ‘the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area,’ including Israel and the new Palestinian state.” If this was a misquote, Linfield doesn’t say so. Equally disturbing is her attempt to minimize its significance with “obscure” and “unpassed.” It was not passed because the US vetoed it at Israel’s behest. If it is obscure in the US and Israel (probably not so obscure among Palestinians), it is because American and Israeli policymakers and liberal intellectuals would prefer not to remember it – for obvious reasons, if Chomsky is right about its content.
And more: the notion that Chomsky’s “entire argument” for Israeli rejectionism rests on this “obscure” resolution is ridiculous. Fateful Triangle, his other books, and his website (chomsky.info) contain hundreds of pages of discussion of the whole panoply of peace talks.
I think your dig about Chomsky as “self-supporting” is a little silly for three reasons: 1) if someone misrepresents you, the proper thing is to refer to your own writings to prove it; 2) if someone disputes an interpretation and you think you’ve made the case in your own writing, why on earth wouldn’t you cite them? and 3) Chomsky’s major political writings are exceptionally well-documented. Linfield’s suggestion that he tries to act as his own authority because he has so little evidence is just blowing smoke.
Finally, “stubbornly fraudulent.” Alas, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does make blusterers of us all. It’s nonsense, though. I’ve been reading Chomsky for fifty years, and perhaps more to the point, I’ve been reading his critics for fifty years. For my money, they haven’t laid a glove on him. And consider that Chomsky is deeply hated by at least three categories of people: liberal intellectuals, the Israel lobby, and Israeli intelligence. I suspect that every page he’s written is combed by one or all of these groups for anything that might discredit or embarrass him. They must be frustrated. But at least they’ve succeeded in keeping him out of the mainstream media.
I’ll look at Shlomo Ben-Ami’s book if and when I revisit this subject. Though really – a foreign minister in a Likud government? I suppose you know that the founding document of the Likud Party decreed that there can only be a Jewish state “from the river to the sea.” And before you throw any more roundhouse rhetorical punches, have a look at Fateful Triangle.
George, your facts aren't accurate, and your sympathies are clear. It's easy, as you concluded, that the non-Israeli Palestinians do deserve much more of the blame for rejecting Israel's existence and committing random and horrible atrocities on a regular basis. Not sure why you didn't exemplify Black Sabbath to prove your point that most of them identify with the sub-human Hamas tactics and leadership. I don't know why we don't see Israelis leading their bloody, bound, captives around Dizengoff Square, as captured animals, do you?
Yes, there are two sides of the story but the fact is that the non-Israeli Palestinians simply won't recognize the right of Jews to live in the Jewish homeland, side by side with them, in peace whereas 90% of Israelis would manage (after October 7, sadly due to Hamas rape, murder, dismemberment, burning and mutilating their neighbors, we'll have to change that to "would have managed") that scenario passably well under terror-free circumstances.
Michael, we differ on the facts:
1) Until October 7, the pattern of violence has always been small-scale (that's all they were capable of) Palestinian violence, followed by massive, outsized Israeli retaliation. For example, between 2014 and October 7, around 70 Israelis were killed. In return, 3400 Gazans were killed, mostly civilians (as always). You may say, "But it's always the Palestinians who begin the violence." But consider: Israel is quite content with the status quo -- which the entire world except for the United States regards as illegal and immoral. It would ignore the Palestinians entirely if it could. The Palestinians are desperate. Of course they ought to use nonviolent means -- and many of them have and still do, while getting nowhere. The Palestinians are to blame for resorting to violence. But the Israelis are to blame for creating the situation to which the Palestinians are responding.
2) As for who's rejecting peace: I suggest you look at Tanya Reinhart's "Israel/Palestine", Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall" and "Israel and Palestine" and Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle." Israel has never made a serious peace offer, because it has never been willing to give up the dream of "Greater Israel."
And I suggest YOU read Susie Linfield's 'The Lion's Den' on how self-supporting and stubbornly fraudulent Chomsky's repeated stance is on this topic, then follow it up with Shlomo Ben-Ami's 'Prophets Without Honor' for a firsthand account of exactly what went on in some of those 'unserious' peace offers.
I will investigate those writings you mention with which I am unfamiliar. And I concede we are not far apart on many of your points -- though farther apart than I apparently am with Shadi and I dispute the last point (see Golda Meir laughing out of her office the first group of Jewish zealots who tried to convince a prime minister of the necessity to settle what they termed Judea and Samaria as the point from which a vocal extremist minority eventually - and perhaps predictably - came to dominate the agenda...something we have no familiarity with in the West).
See also a lengthy exchange between Linfield and the reviewer in a subsequent issue of the Nation.
Your responses in this thread are a joy.
I suppose if you like combat rather than nuance and plausible solutions.
George’s responses are nuanced enough for you to concede that many of them are close to yours and substantiated by a wide range of sources that he shared. I enjoyed the way he lead with data that reinforced his perspective which was stated without personal attacks. And that his points are at the center of the issue being discussed. What is combative about that?
I suppose I'm referring to George's repeated use of sweeping declarative generalizations and apportionment of "blame." See, "one side deserves much more of the blame," "Israelis are to blame," "Israel has never made a serious peace offer." His "data" is therefore not coming from a place of attempting to understand but of serving in support of his judgment.
Your reply came off (to me, and through comment text, to be fair a difficult way to parse motive) as if you were cheering George's conclusions and, specifically, that you appreciated him slamming the door on my offering of an alternate reading with his rebuttal citation (which I discuss below). Your joy therefore rankled, especially as you center your enjoyment on his "data" which is exactly what I sought to complicate and which he more or less swiped aside because he's "not impressed" (though I very much thank him for linking his sources). So I'll ask your pardon if I read something between your single line of appreciation.
Noah, would you disagree that there have been countless historical/political conflicts in which one side was more to blame than the other? And if there have, then one can't rule out a priori that this is one of them. Certainly some well-informed Israelis think (or thought) so: Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart. Assuming that both sides are equally to blame is no more intellectually respectable than assuming that all blame must be on one side or the other. In any case, one shouldn't assume: as you learn more about the history of the conflict, I think (naturally) that you'll come closer to my sweeping, unnuanced view.
I actually stated above why I liked George’s comments. He substantiated his thinking with information in a very transparent way. It made it easy for me to follow his logic and learn more myself. I don’t know you. So I wasn’t really excited by him “slamming” you. I enjoyed the way he reinforced his position.
I also don’t think the purpose of the exchange was to deeply understand one side or another. I expect to learn what a person’s stances are and how they got to those set of conclusions. For that reason his critiques of Israel didn’t bother me.
Thank you.
Thanks, Noah, but I've read a fair amount of Susie Linfield and am not impressed. FYI, there was a review of that book in the Nation by someone who clearly knew more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield. He demolished the book, with particular attention to the chapter on Chomsky.
Please link, I've yet to read a takedown that held water but will happily look.
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/zionism-and-the-left-lions-den-book-review/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/letters-from-the-june-1-8-2020-issue/
Thank you for linking. I'm glad it's here so others can read and decide for themselves. As for me...well, I'll try to keep this a comment and not turn into a full blown essay.
Joshua Leifer (wrote the book critique) is nothing that you promised. He does not appear to clearly know "more about Middle Eastern history and politics than Linfield" and he did not "demolish" her book. In particular he failed to punch a hole in her charges against Chomsky. His small section on Chomsky is spent making excuses for the man and the mind without actually addressing what Linfield is arguing: that Chomsky's entire argument line hinges upon an un-passed UN resolution that - if you read it - says something quite other than what Chomsky purports it to...and that Chomsky's support for the accuracy of this analysis is always HIMSELF.
In fact, Leifer implicitly acknowledges that Linfield is perhaps correct while attempting to minimize how much it matters, waving away any errors Chomsky has made by saying, "as is to be expected of someone who has written for more than half a century, [Chomsky] has made mistakes, political as well as factual, some of them serious. Yet...". Indeed, yet. This kind of response is exactly what Linfield is criticizing, a willful near-sightedness on both the part of Chomsky and his ardent defenders that does not want to see the frailty of this argument because, well, the man's a genius.
(By the way, Leifer's sympathies are quite clear and nearly all his writing is spent advocating his position on this topic. That doesn't make him an expert on Levantine history and conflict, it makes him an expert at arguing HIS SIDE. Many of us - including in this forum - are attempting to argue 'in utramque partem', on both sides of the issue, which is the true humanist response. Ideological responses may be the least useful here).
The letter exchange with Chomsky reinforces these points. He continues to avoid answering Linfield's direct criticism and continues the circularity of his argument - which is the exact problem Linfield is pointing out - offering as 'evidence' in his response to her, "I referred to my discussions of these topics, all accurate." We're just supposed to take Chomsky's word that HIS interpretation is accurate because he said it and, well...the man's a genius. (Linfield's letter links to the actual UN documents, so readers can decide that for themselves as well).
It's unfortunate to get stuck on the Chomsky portion of the book in particular as Linfield's deep dives into some of the other thinkers are far more nuanced and interesting, frankly. But Chomsky casts such a large shadow on this subject among Western leftists (the reason he was deputized into this conversation) that his statements really must be addressed. I continue to recommend it, as well as Ben-Ami's very recent book about his experience attempting to negotiate one of those peace's that you claim, sweepingly, Israel has no interest in.
Hi, Noah. Thanks for your reply, but I’m afraid we’ll have to differ. Leifer’s review was not as harsh in tone as I remembered, but I don’t see that anything in the review agrees in the least with the substance of her argument. He makes his overall distaste clear from the outset: “Linfield wants to position herself among those brave realists who are willing to criticize both sides in equal measure and are equally committed to a two-state solution. Yet in doing so, she demonstrates precisely what she finds objectionable in her subjects: a “readiness to substitute ideology [and]wishful thinking…for reality.” There’s not a kind word for the book until this rather lame compliment at the end: “[Readers] will find much to argue with in The Lions’ Den. But they will also, if they read carefully, learn a lot from it.” Leifer and Linfield are colleagues at Dissent, so maybe he was just being polite.
Since Chomsky was one of half a dozen subjects profiled in the book, it’s perhaps not surprising that Leifer doesn’t take up her charges in detail. But he makes perfectly clear what he thinks of her case: “Chomsky is perhaps one of the best examples to refute Linfield’s repeated claim that the postwar left sacrificed its commitment to equality, anti-capitalism, and anti-fascism in favor of anti-imperialism. If anything, he has embodied the unwavering link between a socialist egalitarianism and an anti-imperialist internationalism when few self-described left intellectuals dared to fly the flag of either. Like Deutscher and Stone, he has consistently emphasized the connection between inequalities of wealth at home and abroad, and he has focused as much energy on exposing the United States’ repressive measures against its own citizens as on the US military’s violations of human rights and international law overseas.
“In the light of history, Chomsky’s record—against the Vietnam War, Israel’s occupation, neoliberalism, and the surveillance state—outshines those of many of his New Left contemporaries, some of whom, by the 1990s and early 2000s, had embraced so-called humanitarian intervention and championed US war-making in the Middle East. Far from a nightmare, Chomsky has been among the American left’s most consistent moral beacons.”
In the letters exchange, Linfield’s main complaint is that Chomsky draws sweeping conclusions from an “obscure” UN Resolution that in any case was not passed. The links Linfield provided did not work for me, but Chomsky quoted the essential provision from the resolution: it “called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the internationally recognized borders, with guarantees for ‘the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area,’ including Israel and the new Palestinian state.” If this was a misquote, Linfield doesn’t say so. Equally disturbing is her attempt to minimize its significance with “obscure” and “unpassed.” It was not passed because the US vetoed it at Israel’s behest. If it is obscure in the US and Israel (probably not so obscure among Palestinians), it is because American and Israeli policymakers and liberal intellectuals would prefer not to remember it – for obvious reasons, if Chomsky is right about its content.
And more: the notion that Chomsky’s “entire argument” for Israeli rejectionism rests on this “obscure” resolution is ridiculous. Fateful Triangle, his other books, and his website (chomsky.info) contain hundreds of pages of discussion of the whole panoply of peace talks.
I think your dig about Chomsky as “self-supporting” is a little silly for three reasons: 1) if someone misrepresents you, the proper thing is to refer to your own writings to prove it; 2) if someone disputes an interpretation and you think you’ve made the case in your own writing, why on earth wouldn’t you cite them? and 3) Chomsky’s major political writings are exceptionally well-documented. Linfield’s suggestion that he tries to act as his own authority because he has so little evidence is just blowing smoke.
Finally, “stubbornly fraudulent.” Alas, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict does make blusterers of us all. It’s nonsense, though. I’ve been reading Chomsky for fifty years, and perhaps more to the point, I’ve been reading his critics for fifty years. For my money, they haven’t laid a glove on him. And consider that Chomsky is deeply hated by at least three categories of people: liberal intellectuals, the Israel lobby, and Israeli intelligence. I suspect that every page he’s written is combed by one or all of these groups for anything that might discredit or embarrass him. They must be frustrated. But at least they’ve succeeded in keeping him out of the mainstream media.
I’ll look at Shlomo Ben-Ami’s book if and when I revisit this subject. Though really – a foreign minister in a Likud government? I suppose you know that the founding document of the Likud Party decreed that there can only be a Jewish state “from the river to the sea.” And before you throw any more roundhouse rhetorical punches, have a look at Fateful Triangle.