US force-marches Israel over Syria

[bemildred]

There has been a qualitative leap in military technology that makes all inherited conventional wisdom, and war as an instrument of political policy, utterly irrelevant, not just to the United States but also to any other state that embarks upon it.

---

The United States should have learned its lesson in Vietnam, and its public is aware of it to a far greater extent than its politicians. The war in Iraq has reaffirmed the decisive limits of technology when fighting against enemies who are decentralized and determined. It has been extraordinarily expensive but militarily ineffective, and the US is ineluctably losing its vast undertaking.

---

The ultra-modern Israel Defense Forces finally learned this in Lebanon last July, when Hezbollah rockets destroyed or seriously damaged at least 20 of its best tanks and the IDF was fought to a draw - abandoning the field of battle and losing their precious myth of invincibility. Growing demoralization well before the Lebanon war plagued Israel, and the percentage of Jews with higher academic degrees that migrated grew steadily after 2002.

---

Israeli politics has always been highly unstable by any standard, but corruption and other scandals that now plague it exceed any in its history, paralleling its loss of confidence in its military power. Alienation from the political class in Israel has never been greater, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his colleagues hope that spreading fear of an Iranian bomb will help them ride out a political storm that has seen his popularity rating plummet to a record low. But fear works both ways, frightening the people who can migrate most easily and keeping out tourists and foreign investors.

Asia Times

[Shaktimaan]

1. You know, Gabriel Kolko has some insightful points,

but some of his language makes me uncomfortable. I mean, what is the motivation behind phrasing like this?

Israeli experts have come to the realization that US policy in the Middle East is not merely an immense failure but also a decisive inhibition to Israel reorienting its foreign policy to confront the realities of the region in which the Jews have chosen to live.

Aside from the fact that a large portion of Israel's citizens are non-Jews, all of whom are just as affected by these policies, why go out of your way to label all Jewish immigration to Israel "a choice" or use a term like "the Jews?" It isn't "the Jews," it's "the Israelis," or maybe even, "the Zionists," if you really needed to. Many of whom didn't have a huge choice in the matter unless you consider leaving post WWII Poland or Morocco "a choice." There's plenty of Israelis who would have preferred to stay in Libya had that been an option, you know? It's kind of like calling Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon "the area where the Palestinians have chosen to live," or Pakistan "the place where Muslims have chosen to live."

Besides, everyone knows that New York is where the Jews have chosen to live. You can't get a decent bagel for a thousand miles around Tel Aviv, it's strictly a backup plan. Sheesh, learn a little about the culture before writing your article for chrissake.

[bemildred]

2. Well, I see your point.

He would have done better to omit those last eight words. On the other hand, some Israelis and their advocates are themselves fond of conflating Jews with Israel when it suits their purposes, so I am not inclined to spend much time contemplating that error. The usage of "choice" is questionable too, while it does indeed characterize some of the citizens of Israel, in one degree or another, it is wrong to apply it to all of them. I could go on at some length on that subject, but I don't think I will.

Suffice it to say that the Government of Israel does go to a good deal of trouble in an attempt to get more Jews to immigrate to Israel (make aliyah), and it is certainly true that some large portion of the current Jewish population of Israel moved there in recent times, and it is also true that it was far from the only place to which they might have moved with good prospects for security, as the current distribution of Jewish population in the world shows, so the assertion, even though wrong, is not entirely without some foundation.

[calzone]

3. Well said. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

4. I have less of a problem with the technical accuracy of the comment

than I do with the fact that it is just a really odd and, to me at least, suspect way of referring to Israel. Every person who would read that article is educated enough to be well aware that Israel is the Jewish State. And I don't have an issue with it being referred to as such. It was just the particular wording of the statement that makes it stick out, like the way he refers to Israelis as "the Jews" and the other stuff I pointed out.

It's not really relevant to parse out the sentence and see if all its aspects hold up under scrutiny. I wasn't defending Israel's current immigration policies, but nor do I think that they were what he was referring to. Kolko's referring to the original decision to locate Israel in Palestine, that's when "the Jews," collectively had a decision as to where to try and emigrate to. It's not like there's any "choice" anymore about where to put the Jewish State, it is where it is, if you want to be a part of it you have to go there. Meaning, modern Jews who move to Israel go there because that's where Israel is, they are choosing Israel, not the region.

I'm not sure what you mean though about how the current distribution of Jewish people demonstrates their myriad of options in the immigration department. Most recent immigrants to Israel by far are former Soviet Republic citizens. Second are the Ethiopians whom Israel had to sneak out. I am not aware of any other options that existed for the vast majority of these people other than emigration to Israel. Are you referring to something different or some other time?

[bemildred]

5. I'm pretty heavy into technical accuracy myself.

And other kinds of accuracy for that matter. Sloppy thinking doesn't do a thing for me. In a matter where one is trying to construe the meaning of another writer, it seems essential to consider what the various possibilities as to what his intent was are, in order to try to select the most reasonable or likely among them. It seems to me a matter of fairness to consider the best as well as the worst constructions that might be put on a text.

I would infer that you suspect he harbors some bias against Jews, or something like that, which might be true, it's common enough. I think he might be very biased or just a little, or not at all, I can't really tell from a few words like that. But that has little to do with his argument, which was what interested me in the OP, so I think I'm going to abandon this line of thought.

Here is a summary of the Jewish population of the world:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

Edit: you will note that most of them do not live in Israel, and that the place where the largest number of them do live is not an ancient or traditional home of the Jewish people. And they do quite well here. Quite a few still live in Europe too, you will note. I have heard Germany is becoming attractive to some Jews again. Personally I would like that, I have great respect for the culture and history of European Jews and I would like to see it restored to its former glory. A last slap in the face for the bigots who tried to rub them out.

[Shaktimaan]

6. I agree that accuracy is important,

and I do think he raised some valid and interesting points.

I would infer that you suspect he harbors some bias against Jews, or something like that,

I wouldn't go that far. Anti-semitism is not a charge that I toss around lightly, making rash accusations of that sort is a truly terrible thing to do. Not only is it extremely irresponsible to label someone as such without solid evidence but the act of doing so lessens the weight of the charge itself. It's similar to how I feel when people draw casual comparisons between Bush and Hitler. Not only does it lessen Bush's real crimes by making them appear quaint in comparison but when every public figure making controversial decisions is described as a nazi it also lessens the impact and meaning of what nazism really is. I don't like Bill Frist more than anyone here, but Dr. Mengele he 'aint.

I more think it is evidence of him thinking that Israel's creation was a political lark as opposed to a legitimate need. The view that Israel was an unnecessary and unethical creation based on selfish or capricious motives is a common one. I don't know if he really thinks this, but his comment does certainly say something about his feelings for Israel and his opinion on why it exists.

you will note that most of them do not live in Israel, and that the place where the largest number of them do live is not an ancient or traditional home of the Jewish people.

I'm not sure why you think that those stats imply that Jews had/have a variety of choices in where to emigrate to? Yes, Jews live all over the world, but since this table only shows one point in time you aren't getting an accurate picture of what happened. Only of what the situation is right now. There happens to be an excellent reason why very few Jews live in the same areas that they've historically populated, take a look at a comparison of Jewish population densities from 1910 and 1995, it tells a clearer story.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/jews-20c.htm

Jewish migration in the past century has overwhelmingly been from North Africa and Europe to the only areas where they were guaranteed safety. Namely the US, if they could get in, or Israel. That's it. 40% of all Jews live in America, 40% in Israel and a little bit in France who are mostly not European Jews but Sephardim who had the right to emigrate there following Arab pogroms because of their former countries' colonial status. Most of the original French Jews are gone.

So while it looks like Jews are spread out all over, the past century has seen almost all of the world's Jewery consolidated in Israel or America. Anti-Semitism in Europe and the former Soviet Republic is very much on the rise and Germany doesn't welcome immigrants who just happen to be Jewish. You had to have been a German Jew! And it isn't like America takes in any old person who has a problem. You go on a list. At the start of WWII, the evian conference was held to discuss the issue of Europes Jewish refugees and what to do with them. No one, not even America was willing to absorb any. Those that were able to get to Palestine or weather the Holocaust survived, and the lesson learned was obvious.

About a million Sephardic Jews were expelled from North Africa in the middle of this past century. Some went to France, as I noted, what options did the others who were unable to go to France have? Jews had been living in Iraq for 3000 years, now there are none. Fine, who cares as long as they actually have somewhere else to go. Their only option was Israel. The Poles? Definitely only Israel. More recently, Russian or Ukranian Jews sick of rapidly rising anti-Semitism? A small fraction who could went to America. 100,000 or so. The other million? to Israel. The Ethiopians, only Israel.

Sure, my girlfriend just reclaimed her German citizenship. But any Jew of recent German decent living today is probably not in much of a pogrom situation. They live in America or Israel. You aren't suggesting that all the Israeli Jews of German heritage move BACK now that everything's peachy again, are you? Screw that. Likewise for France or Russia. Would YOU want to move to Russia now? Jews are slowly but steadily leaving France as well, for obvious reasons. As I said, I am not one to cry wolf on anti-semitism but things there are getting pretty fucked up. And last time I checked there were 25,000 Jews in Iran, and although they will almost certainly be fine, I feel better knowing that if they aren't at some point, at least ONE government will be making a plan for them that doesn't involve mass graves.

[bemildred]

7. You write an intelligent response, so I'll try to respond.

I think he might well have some bias, most of us do. That doesn't rise to the level of anti-semitism in my thinking, and that isn't what I meant, or what I thought you meant. As I said, I see your point about those words, I was just pointing out that it might be fortuitous, the conflation of Jews and Israel is common, even among pro-Israel people. He might not have parsed his words that closely and some underlying feeling about Israel, as opposed to Jews in general, came out that way.

Politics and ethics rarely meet, and usually only for the sake of expediency.

It is true that there is no place but Israel that Jews can "always" get into, but that is the situation of most people, the only place that is guaranteed to accept me is the place where I was born. The world is full of refugees, and most of them have no place to go, or they are taken only grudgingly, or for their skills and assets.

I think he was implying exactly that the creation of the State of Israel was in some sense optional, and precisely in the sense mentioned in the previous paragraph that most peoples, in the collective sense, get by without having their "own state", so most likely the Jewish people could too. They did exactly that for 2000 years and survived rather well, where many larger and apparently better situated peoples are gone. The notion that having your own state somehow makes you safer seems very questionable to me. History doesn't suggest that nationalism makes you safe, it suggests that it gets you in wars.

My point with the population statistics, and the Israeli efforts to encourage Jews to move to Israel, was that, clearly, some do and did have a choice; and many do or did choose to stay where they are, and some large portion of those who did move there had a choice in the matter, otherwise one must ask why the fuss to get them to move? And that was merely aimed at showing that the use of the word "chosen" in the OP, while questionable, was not "without some foundation". I was not intending to dispute that facts of history, or that Jews have in many times and places been persecuted, or that the Israeli state was created as a place for Jews to go to, nor do I think the OP intended that.

But I really think all of this is peripheral to what he was saying there, which was that if you are going to have a Jewish state in the Middle East, then you will need to deal realistically with the politics of the Middle East, and that the "special relationship" of Israel with the USA has interfered with that in a way that is pernicious to the true interests of the Israeli State.