Actually I agree with him almost entirely, though I think he has expressed himself badly in the first part.
To describe the suicide bombers as "random" psychopathic killers is surely false, since there is very definitely a pattern, a history and an alliegance to their behaviour that is not random (that they are psychopathic killers is surely correct). Also, while I now understand what he means when he says we should not try "to understand the political or religious motivations of the bombers", on first reading I took it to mean we should not study the history & organisation of Islamism, which again cannot be correct (I'm reading an excellent book right now on Al-Qaeda, btw).
Some excerpts I 100% endorse:
Should the political sensitivities and religious aspirations of jihadist killers be treated with any greater respect? The answer is clearly, no.
There must be a rock-solid commitment to give no quarter to any of the terrorists’ alleged grievances or ideological demands.
Morally, today’s Muslim extremists must be put exactly on a par with neo-Nazis. Their violence and hatred may be motivated by deep philosophical convictions and a genuine sense of grievance, but the same was true of Hitler.
The serious response to the jihadists’ religious demands should be to trace them back to their source in the Wahhabi religious schools of Saudi Arabia, with their exaltation of death and martyrdom. For Saudi princes to support religious charities and schools that extol martyrdom — or for British mosques to accept money from such Saudi charities — must become as shameful as it would be for Alabama politicians to remain KKK members or for German political parties to take donations from self-confessed followers of Adolf Hitler.
Only then can there be any hope of restoring respect for human life in the Islamic community and reducing the concept of martyrdom to what it really amounts to: a sad, lonely and utterly futile suicide.
We address them by - accommodating them anew (money for Palestine), or by - highlighting that they are unfounded (Bosnia etc), or - by dismissing them as absolutely ideologically unacceptable in a globalized socioeconomic community of nations.
If the way to deal with an unfounded grievance is to dismiss it as unacceptable, I 100% agree. Unfortunately I doubt that many commentators who talk of Muslim grievances are as enlightened as Wembley, and consider this possiblity at all.
When Palestine exists as a functioning state, most Palestinians will stop giving a shit about Israel
Sadly, not true. Too many Palestinians are absolutely committed to the destruction of Israel.
Well, you and other non-stakeholders might take the risk that the majority of Palestinians will experience this sudden change of heart, but why on earth should the Israelis?
TONY JONES: But you say this as if all Palestinians were the same.
DANIEL PIPES: No, of course not. 80 per cent, I'd say, of Palestinians believe that the destruction of Israel is a worthy goal. Some 20 per cent say, "No, let's just live our own lives apart." What we need to do is focus on getting that 20 per cent to be 30, 40, 50 and 60 per cent, rather than focusing on negotiations.
[The fundamental issue is] that the Palestinians have a point.... [M]ake the Palestinian case for the ownership and self-governance of traditional Palestinian lands.
Yes, playing devil's advocate is an interesting and valuable intellectual exercise, but first, clarification: which lands, and which point?
If you mean the occupied terroritories, the Israelis are unilaterally handing back the Gaza Strip right now, and just a few years ago attempted to hand back the whole lot, to which Arafat responded by launching the second intifada, thus proving Aba Eban's comment that Arafat "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity". So I'm not sure what the point would be in my (or anybody's) making the Palestinian case for their ownership and self-governance of the OT, since pretty much everybody (including me) agrees with the principle anyway.
Or do you want me to argue for Palestinian ownership and self-governance of Israel proper, ie to argue that Israel should not, and should never have, existed? I'll give it a go if you want, but regardless of how well I do, no such argument could be expected to convince any Israeli.
Bodi does not argue directly that Israel should not exist; instead he argues negatively, that the failure of two defences of Israel's right to exist means that Israel does not have that right. For this argument to succeed there is a hidden premise that these are the *only two* possible reasons that can justify Israel's, or indeed any state's, existence, but Bodi simply tacitly assumes this to be true. There is no wider discussion of why any nation in general should have a right to a state, which is a pity, because that *is* an interesting area.
The first argument for Israel's existence is the Biblical Argument. Bodi's response is that this argument does not stand because God would not have wanted Israel to come into being by "force and chicanery". Interestingly, he does not challenge this argument on the grounds that God doesn't exist, that such a promise never occurred, that such a promise should have no force in questions of secular realpolitik, that God's obligations to Muslims outweigh any previous promises to Jews etc etc. He simply asserts (i) that there has been force and chicanery and (ii) that he knows that God would not have wanted it this way. There is no elucidation of how he comes by such privileged knowledge of God's will, of what force and chicanery he is referring to, nor of what force and chicanery may have been used by opponents of Israel, thus nullifying their own claims to statehood even if God had promised them anything (which He presumably didn't).
The second argument he considers is the International Recognition Argument. Bodi's response is that neither Sykes-Picot nor Balfour have legal merit because the Ottoman Empire, not Britain, was legally sovereign. Naturally, had there been an Ottoman Balfour Declaration, Bodi would be leaping to Israel's defence, but sadly there was not. He may well be right about the legal sovereignty issue - I do not know enough legal history to comment. It is, however, quite rare in modern political discourse to refer to the processes of that esteemed & successful establishment the League of Nations to justify a currently-held position, and I do not think any argument that relies only on the LoN to support it will hold much weight.
He notes that Israel did in fact come into being as a result of a UN partition resolution (a fact unknown to / ignored by an extraordinary percentage of commentators, it seems to me). Mysteriously, given the importance Bodi places on international recognition, there is no discussion whatsoever of what legitimacy the UN's decision may have given Israel.
I don't think there is anything else in the article that addresses the right of Israel to exist, but I will address one of the other points he makes. He says that in 1947 Jews constituted 32% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land. I can't be arsed right now to double check these figures, but I do know that Jews were in the majority in the areas allocated them under the UN Partition Plan. He then claims that "paramilitary" organisations were responsible for Arab emigration from what became Israel. This is false: post-partition Haganah became the Israeli Defence Force (ie military, not paramilitary), the majority of Arab emigration was ordered by Arab leaders as a precursor to cleansing the land of Jews, and the initial aggressors in the fighting were Arabs rejecting the UN Plan, often deliberately targeting civilian population centers, and it is they who in defeat must take the blame for the Arab population displacement. If they hadn't attacked, or hadn't lost, there would have been no such movement.
a geographical, secular entity is the only viable solution, in which jewish and arab citizens of a single, non-ethnic/religious entity would have equal status in law.. if not in practice (qv SOuth Africa, indeed).
Well, that's one solution. Another is to have two such secular entities living in peace and harmony, as intended by the UN in 1947.
Is it right, proper and moral to return the possessions taken by nazis from Jews, even several generations later, even if later bought 'in good faith' by regular run-of-the-mill rich people...
Interesting question. There's certainly a prima facie case here, but perhaps in some cases it could be for fair compensation, rather than return of the goods. And I have a gut feeling that after a certain (large?) number of generations the whole thing becomes moot. For comparison, do you know what the the legal position is in the UK on such matters?
...is it any less right to return land title to those palestinian peoples who did legally own land later given in title to citizens of the state of Israel?
It may be. Bodi might argue that Israel should be returning such land to Turkey, of course, and JSL suggests that perhaps not that many Arabs did have legal title. Again, compensation in some cases may be more appropriate than returning land title, especially if the consequence of returning land title en masse is effectively the end of the state doing the returning, or if those claiming restitution are not prepared to live under the laws of that state.
...and would it matter, in returning the title of possessions stolen from holocaust victims, how much resistance those victims had put up, or how apathetic or acquiescent they had been from 1923 to 1933, or 1933 to 1942?
If they went to their deaths unresistingly, as many did, no, this should make no difference. But a more appropriate comparison might be with East Prussians who lost their land to the Soviets as a direct result of the German invasion. They had a bad time of it in 1945, but sympathy for them is thin on the ground.
9 comments:
Actually I agree with him almost entirely, though I think he has expressed himself badly in the first part.
To describe the suicide bombers as "random" psychopathic killers is surely false, since there is very definitely a pattern, a history and an alliegance to their behaviour that is not random (that they are psychopathic killers is surely correct). Also, while I now understand what he means when he says we should not try "to understand the political or religious motivations of the bombers", on first reading I took it to mean we should not study the history & organisation of Islamism, which again cannot be correct (I'm reading an excellent book right now on Al-Qaeda, btw).
Some excerpts I 100% endorse:
Should the political sensitivities and religious aspirations of jihadist killers be treated with any greater respect? The answer is clearly, no.
There must be a rock-solid commitment to give no quarter to any of the terrorists’ alleged grievances or ideological demands.
Morally, today’s Muslim extremists must be put exactly on a par with neo-Nazis. Their violence and hatred may be motivated by deep philosophical convictions and a genuine sense of grievance, but the same was true of Hitler.
The serious response to the jihadists’ religious demands should be to trace them back to their source in the Wahhabi religious schools of Saudi Arabia, with their exaltation of death and martyrdom. For Saudi princes to support religious charities and schools that extol martyrdom — or for British mosques to accept money from such Saudi charities — must become as shameful as it would be for Alabama politicians to remain KKK members or for German political parties to take donations from self-confessed followers of Adolf Hitler.
Only then can there be any hope of restoring respect for human life in the Islamic community and reducing the concept of martyrdom to what it really amounts to: a sad, lonely and utterly futile suicide.
I think brother Wembley intended this as a reply to JSL so I have reposted his comments on that thread.
We address them by - accommodating them anew (money for Palestine), or by - highlighting that they are unfounded (Bosnia etc), or - by dismissing them as absolutely ideologically unacceptable in a globalized socioeconomic community of nations.
If the way to deal with an unfounded grievance is to dismiss it as unacceptable, I 100% agree. Unfortunately I doubt that many commentators who talk of Muslim grievances are as enlightened as Wembley, and consider this possiblity at all.
When Palestine exists as a functioning state, most Palestinians will stop giving a shit about Israel
Sadly, not true. Too many Palestinians are absolutely committed to the destruction of Israel.
Well, you and other non-stakeholders might take the risk that the majority of Palestinians will experience this sudden change of heart, but why on earth should the Israelis?
---------------
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1299517.htm
TONY JONES: But you say this as if all Palestinians were the same.
DANIEL PIPES: No, of course not. 80 per cent, I'd say, of Palestinians believe that the destruction of Israel is a worthy goal. Some 20 per cent say, "No, let's just live our own lives apart." What we need to do is focus on getting that 20 per cent to be 30, 40, 50 and 60 per cent, rather than focusing on negotiations.
[The fundamental issue is] that the Palestinians have a point.... [M]ake the Palestinian case for the ownership and self-governance of traditional Palestinian lands.
Yes, playing devil's advocate is an interesting and valuable intellectual exercise, but first, clarification: which lands, and which point?
If you mean the occupied terroritories, the Israelis are unilaterally handing back the Gaza Strip right now, and just a few years ago attempted to hand back the whole lot, to which Arafat responded by launching the second intifada, thus proving Aba Eban's comment that Arafat "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity". So I'm not sure what the point would be in my (or anybody's) making the Palestinian case for their ownership and self-governance of the OT, since pretty much everybody (including me) agrees with the principle anyway.
Or do you want me to argue for Palestinian ownership and self-governance of Israel proper, ie to argue that Israel should not, and should never have, existed? I'll give it a go if you want, but regardless of how well I do, no such argument could be expected to convince any Israeli.
Wonder if Wembley expects me to do better than this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,417125,00.html
Israel simply has no right to exist
Faisal Bodi
January 3, 2001
The Guardian
Good post (in as much as it presents a different argument) - the heart of the matter as it were.
Would love to hear your counter arguments (you may find them too obvious to rehearse here, but I would find it helpful.)
Bodi does not argue directly that Israel should not exist; instead he argues negatively, that the failure of two defences of Israel's right to exist means that Israel does not have that right. For this argument to succeed there is a hidden premise that these are the *only two* possible reasons that can justify Israel's, or indeed any state's, existence, but Bodi simply tacitly assumes this to be true. There is no wider discussion of why any nation in general should have a right to a state, which is a pity, because that *is* an interesting area.
The first argument for Israel's existence is the Biblical Argument. Bodi's response is that this argument does not stand because God would not have wanted Israel to come into being by "force and chicanery". Interestingly, he does not challenge this argument on the grounds that God doesn't exist, that such a promise never occurred, that such a promise should have no force in questions of secular realpolitik, that God's obligations to Muslims outweigh any previous promises to Jews etc etc. He simply asserts (i) that there has been force and chicanery and (ii) that he knows that God would not have wanted it this way. There is no elucidation of how he comes by such privileged knowledge of God's will, of what force and chicanery he is referring to, nor of what force and chicanery may have been used by opponents of Israel, thus nullifying their own claims to statehood even if God had promised them anything (which He presumably didn't).
The second argument he considers is the International Recognition Argument. Bodi's response is that neither Sykes-Picot nor Balfour have legal merit because the Ottoman Empire, not Britain, was legally sovereign. Naturally, had there been an Ottoman Balfour Declaration, Bodi would be leaping to Israel's defence, but sadly there was not. He may well be right about the legal sovereignty issue - I do not know enough legal history to comment. It is, however, quite rare in modern political discourse to refer to the processes of that esteemed & successful establishment the League of Nations to justify a currently-held position, and I do not think any argument that relies only on the LoN to support it will hold much weight.
He notes that Israel did in fact come into being as a result of a UN partition resolution (a fact unknown to / ignored by an extraordinary percentage of commentators, it seems to me). Mysteriously, given the importance Bodi places on international recognition, there is no discussion whatsoever of what legitimacy the UN's decision may have given Israel.
I don't think there is anything else in the article that addresses the right of Israel to exist, but I will address one of the other points he makes. He says that in 1947 Jews constituted 32% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land. I can't be arsed right now to double check these figures, but I do know that Jews were in the majority in the areas allocated them under the UN Partition Plan. He then claims that "paramilitary" organisations were responsible for Arab emigration from what became Israel. This is false: post-partition Haganah became the Israeli Defence Force (ie military, not paramilitary), the majority of Arab emigration was ordered by Arab leaders as a precursor to cleansing the land of Jews, and the initial aggressors in the fighting were Arabs rejecting the UN Plan, often deliberately targeting civilian population centers, and it is they who in defeat must take the blame for the Arab population displacement. If they hadn't attacked, or hadn't lost, there would have been no such movement.
a geographical, secular entity is the only viable solution, in which jewish and arab citizens of a single, non-ethnic/religious entity would have equal status in law.. if not in practice (qv SOuth Africa, indeed).
Well, that's one solution. Another is to have two such secular entities living in peace and harmony, as intended by the UN in 1947.
Is it right, proper and moral to return the possessions taken by nazis from Jews, even several generations later, even if later bought 'in good faith' by regular run-of-the-mill rich people...
Interesting question. There's certainly a prima facie case here, but perhaps in some cases it could be for fair compensation, rather than return of the goods. And I have a gut feeling that after a certain (large?) number of generations the whole thing becomes moot. For comparison, do you know what the the legal position is in the UK on such matters?
...is it any less right to return land title to those palestinian peoples who did legally own land later given in title to citizens of the state of Israel?
It may be. Bodi might argue that Israel should be returning such land to Turkey, of course, and JSL suggests that perhaps not that many Arabs did have legal title. Again, compensation in some cases may be more appropriate than returning land title, especially if the consequence of returning land title en masse is effectively the end of the state doing the returning, or if those claiming restitution are not prepared to live under the laws of that state.
...and would it matter, in returning the title of possessions stolen from holocaust victims, how much resistance those victims had put up, or how apathetic or acquiescent they had been from 1923 to 1933, or 1933 to 1942?
If they went to their deaths unresistingly, as many did, no, this should make no difference. But a more appropriate comparison might be with East Prussians who lost their land to the Soviets as a direct result of the German invasion. They had a bad time of it in 1945, but sympathy for them is thin on the ground.
Post a Comment