Israeli realism/realism about Israel

  1. @laseptiemewilay the discussion reveals that principal parties have only vague, often contradictory definitions of “state” @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 20:45:29, 2014-07-16
  2. @laseptiemewilay combined with weak understandings of “sovereignty” and its relationship to “state” @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 20:46:20, 2014-07-16
  3. @laseptiemewilay I think Israeli resistance to so-called two-state solution is much more fundamental @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 20:52:33, 2014-07-16
  4. @laseptiemewilay may have been easier to suppress recognition of “facts on the ground” in various ways, at different times @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 20:56:34, 2014-07-16
  5. @laseptiemewilay but both sides have continually re-discovered their respective state concepts to be mutually exclusive @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 20:57:17, 2014-07-16

  6. @laseptiemewilay did you ever read that interview with Benny Morris when he asked to be excused for not dissolving into tears? @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 21:02:48, 2014-07-16
  7. @laseptiemewilay (he was being sarcastic) @djpressman in reply to laseptiemewilay 21:03:23, 2014-07-16
  8. @laseptiemewilay “If you expected me to burst into tears, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that.” in reply to laseptiemewilay 23:45:33, 2014-07-16
  9. @laseptiemewilay I often think of it in next to Arnon Soffer’s notorious statements from around the same time about Gaza and the future in reply to laseptiemewilay 23:51:56, 2014-07-16
  10. @laseptiemewilay See Soffer here, tho he later amended some of his views on degree of Israeli withdrawal 00:11:22, 2014-07-17
  11. @laseptiemewilay I’ve not yet seen good evidence that Israeli realism doesn’t mean a Soffer-Morris line (see also ONE STATE, TWO STATES) 00:14:29, 2014-07-17

Soffer’s notorious statement about the Gaza withdrawal, which he strongly favored – that it meant Israel would be required to “kill and kill and kill” at the Gaza border possibly for another century – seems also somewhat prophetic, at least on the evidence so far, up to the latest news. See also Andrew Sullivan’s recent posts on “Understanding the Permanence of Greater Israel” – especially the one today describing Greater Israel as likely eventual American position (or open position) too: “; Sullivan extensively quotes Daniel Goldman/”Spengler” – from an essay in which Goldman extends common comparison of situation in MENA to the 30 Years War – to same general effect (in Tablet!).

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posts in this series

0 comments on “Israeli realism/realism about Israel

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Israeli realism/realism about Israel"
    1. […] and something else for the Palestinian Arabs, as I have noted many times (most recently in “Israeli Realism” and “The 1.x-State Solution“). Even the most generous offers to the Palestinian […]

    Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    Noted & Quoted

    TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

    For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

    The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

    Comment →

    Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

    Comment →

    [E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

    Comment →
    CK's WP Plugins


    Extraordinary Comments

    CK's WP Plugins