I'm interested in Holzman's concept of the "sub-rational", because one of my pet theories is that what has to be done to make peace conflicts with the most basic cultural lies of both sides. Yes, these are generalizations, and yes, every generalization has a million exceptions, but in general, as a cultural norm, Arabs have to pretend that they're always strong, especially when they're not, and Jews have to pretend that they're always morally superior, especially when they're not.
So what we have to do is:
1) Figure out a way for the Palestinians to give up all claim to 78% of where they used to live and feel like it's an act of strength.
2) Figure out a way for Israel to face up to the fact that they've been hated and killed not because Arabs are a Leon Uris style evil race or because Everybody Hates the Jews, but because that's the normal reaction to taking a country away from the people who were living there, and to see that admission as an act of moral superiority.
Like the wabbit said, that's a pretty good trick, Doc.
This is spot on (although that piece about Jews and moral superiority stung--I would have phrased it differently, but I get the point). The challenge will be restraining the primal instincts and their reactionary political parties, in favor of pragmatic solutions that maximize human life and dignity.
Thank you, I really appreciate it. I grew up in a time when you couldn't say what I said without being treated like the moral equivalent of Hitler, so sometimes I need a reminder that things have changed (only partly, but enough to matter.) So it moved me that you responded as you did.
I realize this is unimportant, but the Connecticut River boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire is also basically the right bank - step into the water (or visit an island) and you're in New Hampshire.
The modern, pragmatic principles of states, laws, regulations, fairness, reason, and truth are fundamental principles that guide the progressive efforts today to construct an alternative world order, a worldwide process forged by anti-imperialist states, led by China and Cuba, among others, who have retaken the Third World project of the 1960s and 1970s for a post-colonial world economic order. In their strong criticisms of the Israeli war/genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, said governments and leaders do not indulge in extremist Fanonist rhetoric, even though they defend the legitimacy of armed struggle in certain conditions. Their condemnations of the Israel government today continually emphasize the need for peaceful resolutions of world conflicts, and in the case of Palestine, the revitalization of the two-state solution. Post-modern anti-liberal utopias are idealist, disconnected from real struggles for social justice; while a single-state secular democracy in Palestine is not a practical alternative in the current historical moment. The construction of two viable states with security and ultimately mutually beneficial relations is the only practical road. It is an approach that has the support of most governments in the world.
I am fairly sympathetic to Rabbi Holzman's perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict, although the chance of buy-in by significant populations on either side seems slim. So, I write here just to correct an error he makes about rivers and their ownership when they are the boundaries between states. Saying the boundary between Virginia and Maryland is the only one not on the river centerline is NOT correct. Despite its name, the Ohio River has, until the 1980s, never been owned to the centerline by the states of Ohio (my home) or Indiana. Instead, until the 80s, West Virginia and Kentucky owned ALL of the Ohio River, at least to the historic low-water line, a condition affirmed by the SCOTUS. As a retired wildlife biologist, I could tell you what havoc ensued from that for recreational use of the river for those living on its northern shore. Today, it is essentially the case that Ohio and Indiana own the river out 100 feet from their shorelines. I recognize that this is pretty tangential to the purpose of the Rabbi's contribution to the dialogue here, which I appreciate and thank him for.
But the ease with which captivating sub-rational ideas can be continually introduced and nurtured in the US emphasizes the magnitude of and effort to maintain and advance liberal forms of society.
In the distant future, a 'liberal' solution both possible and even likely. However, it might take decades (or longer) to get there. Consider how long France and Germany (or France and the UK) were at odds.
You have a specific number of generations in mind? UNRWA registers the descendants of Palestinians as "refugees" without, as far as I know, any limitation. If we're just looking at things as they are, then there's certainly no "right of return" and the Jews should never have been kicked out of Gaza and can't be kicked off the West Bank. What are your criteria?
Didn't even bother finishing this. Once someone writes that "Israelis saw exile in the constant terror attacks of the Second Intifada," he's obviously shoehorning everything into his thesis, however tight the fit. Israel saw its citizens being blown up in the Second Intifada. If you want to call the desire to avoid sudden, horrible death "sub-rational", go ahead, but I don't know what you think you're proving.
And in general, the desire of Jews to return to their homeland and reconstitute their state is not parallel to the desire of Arabs to always be the rulers. That's the kind of "pride" one associates with Don Corleone, not with rectitude. I suppose the author is okay with honor-killings as well.
"Return to their homeland." The idea that anyone would think they have a legitimate right to a land that's home to someone else because their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents (give or take a few greats) used to live there-- come on, this is nuts!
I'm interested in Holzman's concept of the "sub-rational", because one of my pet theories is that what has to be done to make peace conflicts with the most basic cultural lies of both sides. Yes, these are generalizations, and yes, every generalization has a million exceptions, but in general, as a cultural norm, Arabs have to pretend that they're always strong, especially when they're not, and Jews have to pretend that they're always morally superior, especially when they're not.
So what we have to do is:
1) Figure out a way for the Palestinians to give up all claim to 78% of where they used to live and feel like it's an act of strength.
2) Figure out a way for Israel to face up to the fact that they've been hated and killed not because Arabs are a Leon Uris style evil race or because Everybody Hates the Jews, but because that's the normal reaction to taking a country away from the people who were living there, and to see that admission as an act of moral superiority.
Like the wabbit said, that's a pretty good trick, Doc.
This is spot on (although that piece about Jews and moral superiority stung--I would have phrased it differently, but I get the point). The challenge will be restraining the primal instincts and their reactionary political parties, in favor of pragmatic solutions that maximize human life and dignity.
Thank you, I really appreciate it. I grew up in a time when you couldn't say what I said without being treated like the moral equivalent of Hitler, so sometimes I need a reminder that things have changed (only partly, but enough to matter.) So it moved me that you responded as you did.
I realize this is unimportant, but the Connecticut River boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire is also basically the right bank - step into the water (or visit an island) and you're in New Hampshire.
good catch, thanks
A thoughtful and informative commentary.
The modern, pragmatic principles of states, laws, regulations, fairness, reason, and truth are fundamental principles that guide the progressive efforts today to construct an alternative world order, a worldwide process forged by anti-imperialist states, led by China and Cuba, among others, who have retaken the Third World project of the 1960s and 1970s for a post-colonial world economic order. In their strong criticisms of the Israeli war/genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, said governments and leaders do not indulge in extremist Fanonist rhetoric, even though they defend the legitimacy of armed struggle in certain conditions. Their condemnations of the Israel government today continually emphasize the need for peaceful resolutions of world conflicts, and in the case of Palestine, the revitalization of the two-state solution. Post-modern anti-liberal utopias are idealist, disconnected from real struggles for social justice; while a single-state secular democracy in Palestine is not a practical alternative in the current historical moment. The construction of two viable states with security and ultimately mutually beneficial relations is the only practical road. It is an approach that has the support of most governments in the world.
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/
I am fairly sympathetic to Rabbi Holzman's perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict, although the chance of buy-in by significant populations on either side seems slim. So, I write here just to correct an error he makes about rivers and their ownership when they are the boundaries between states. Saying the boundary between Virginia and Maryland is the only one not on the river centerline is NOT correct. Despite its name, the Ohio River has, until the 1980s, never been owned to the centerline by the states of Ohio (my home) or Indiana. Instead, until the 80s, West Virginia and Kentucky owned ALL of the Ohio River, at least to the historic low-water line, a condition affirmed by the SCOTUS. As a retired wildlife biologist, I could tell you what havoc ensued from that for recreational use of the river for those living on its northern shore. Today, it is essentially the case that Ohio and Indiana own the river out 100 feet from their shorelines. I recognize that this is pretty tangential to the purpose of the Rabbi's contribution to the dialogue here, which I appreciate and thank him for.
Yes Omland also commented on my ill-informed claims about U.S. rivers. I appreciate the correction.
Thanks for this article.
But the ease with which captivating sub-rational ideas can be continually introduced and nurtured in the US emphasizes the magnitude of and effort to maintain and advance liberal forms of society.
In the distant future, a 'liberal' solution both possible and even likely. However, it might take decades (or longer) to get there. Consider how long France and Germany (or France and the UK) were at odds.
You have a specific number of generations in mind? UNRWA registers the descendants of Palestinians as "refugees" without, as far as I know, any limitation. If we're just looking at things as they are, then there's certainly no "right of return" and the Jews should never have been kicked out of Gaza and can't be kicked off the West Bank. What are your criteria?
Didn't even bother finishing this. Once someone writes that "Israelis saw exile in the constant terror attacks of the Second Intifada," he's obviously shoehorning everything into his thesis, however tight the fit. Israel saw its citizens being blown up in the Second Intifada. If you want to call the desire to avoid sudden, horrible death "sub-rational", go ahead, but I don't know what you think you're proving.
And in general, the desire of Jews to return to their homeland and reconstitute their state is not parallel to the desire of Arabs to always be the rulers. That's the kind of "pride" one associates with Don Corleone, not with rectitude. I suppose the author is okay with honor-killings as well.
"Return to their homeland." The idea that anyone would think they have a legitimate right to a land that's home to someone else because their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparents (give or take a few greats) used to live there-- come on, this is nuts!