"I need to get back to thinking about what I am for, not just what I am against."Powerful statement regarding this blog, the "intertoobz" and everything that we seem to believe in lately. How much of our thinking is really based due to reactions to the anti-Semites and Israel / Jew Hate on the Left? How much of our thinking is based around the insane and hateful rhetoric on the Right.
For myself, lately a lot. I find myself tossing between being pushed towards relatively Rightist solutions because of the stupidity, hate, and vitriol I see spread towards Jewish people in public forums and in the news by the Palestinians and their supporters. At the same time I then wobble back to the Left when I see the absolute insanity and idiocy of the memes that are spread by the Right, with their own version of their noxious bigotry and brain dead generalizations.
Well, my friend's letter got me thinking and he is absolutely 1000% RIGHT! What is it that I am for? What is it that I expect others to be for given their circumstances and what are creative solutions to the problems that we face.
I have been as guilty as anyone else for participating and allowing these childish games of internet "I know you are but what am I" to be part of this blog. That comes from my own behavior as well. The fact that I would even engage with people who have no serious agenda and only come here to scold, or state their mindless propaganda, all the while offering absolutely content free comments that don't address anything ends today.
From now on, we discuss the issues and ONLY the issues. Enough of the negativity. From now on, the main question is "What are you for", "What do you represent". For posters who can't do this, don't post here. You are not welcome and you add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You don't have to agree with the philosophy of this site but you do have to actually stand for something and you do have to articulate what you stand for. Once you articulate that you have to be able to defend it. If you can't or won't defend the substance of your commentary then your comment will be deleted. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
SO... what am I for? I am for a few things:
1. I would like to see a "Liberal / Progressive" agenda in the United States of America, as the normative way that we as a nation conduct politics. I would like to see civil rights for all Americans to be respected. I would like to see an end to the politics of personal destruction that have invaded our system. I would like to see politicians talk about real reform and real solutions to problems. Right now the only people I see coming up with specific balanced approaches are the Democrats, I see nothing from the Republicans but vague talk about slashing "entitlements" AND cutting taxes for the Rich in some Randian theoretical frenzy.
2. Internationally, I stand for a strong yet sensible American presence. I believe that we have a responsibility as the most powerful nation on Earth to lead (but to lead with respect) people into new and better places, however, I also believe as a powerful nation we have a responsibility to our allies and friends to assist in their defense and well being. I think that we do need to be mindful though of our actions. In other words, I think we have to respect people and their beliefs and try to work with other cultures rather than purely against them.
3. Because this blogsite is called "The Progressive Zionist", it follows that I support "Progressive" to Center-Left policies in Israel, (hence the "Zionist" part). For Israel, a country that I love and I lived in (though I remain an American first and foremost), I believe in a Left-Center approach to both foreign and domestic Israeli policy. What does this mean... Well, on the Israeli domestic front I believe strongly in economic and social justice for all Israeli citizens. I believe that all citizens whether Arab or Jewish should have equal access to services and rights in the Israeli system. I do believe the system is unfair, and under the economic and social policies of the Netanyahu Government(s) I believe that the disparity is getting worse for both Jews and Arabs.
As for the Occupation... I believe that it is wrecking Israeli society and forcing the Israelis into a place that will compromise their integrity as a Jewish and Democratic State. I adhere to the formula Abba Eban came up with when he said:
1. Israel can be Democratic
2. Israel can be a Jewish State
3. Israel can be a State from the Med. to the Jordan,
But it can only be two of the three. It cannot be all three things unless the Israelis decide to commit acts of "ethnic cleansing". My feeling on the two of three things is that I think 1&2 are the most important things.
Anyway, that is where I stand. I am for a Liberal / Progressive Israel that is also a strong Social Democracy.
What are you for? What do you stand for?
Then why do you censor opinions you don't like?
ReplyDeleteI don't censor opinions I don't like,
DeleteI censor gratuitous trolling and insults, something that you regularly engage in here. You don't really bring anything to the table but criticism and half truths. Honestly, if I want to be lectured regarding internet protocol, I will ask for your opinion on it, OTHERWISE, I am really not interested.
As for your "censored" comment regarding the President's map - If you had just posted your last paragraph I would have kept it up but, you had to include three other paragraphs of both insults and your petty clucking. SO as I told you (but you don't read my comments, so you wouldn't know) I cut it out.
NOW... If you want to participate in this diary. Come to the "table" with things that you stand for. NOT anything else. If you cannot do that, then don't bother responding because I will just delete your comment. IF however, you can do like the other posters here and actually tell us what it is you stand for... then you are welcome to comment, even if we don't agree.
If there is a way to make the top part of your post "sticky" (as in discussion threads) you ought to do it. Excellent post.
ReplyDeleteAs for what I am for in the US, I am trying to distill it down to less than 10,000 words. With regard to Israel, a two (or three) state solution which guarantees Israel's Jewish identity, national sovereignty and border security.
--Hey338Too
With respect to Israel, I'm for an end as soon as possible to the occupation of the West Bank. Whether Israel retains some of the settlements there, in exchange for land swaps, doesn't really matter as long as it is agreed to by both sides. Unfortunately, I think the Palestinians are as intransigent as the Israeli settler movement when it comes to giving up an inch of the West Bank. What remains to be seen is how much power the intransigents have over each of their respective sides.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Jerusalem, I'm becoming increasingly hard-core about the importance of Israel keeping sovereignty over the Temple Mount and other important Jewish sites. The Palestinians and their supporters keep up a refrain that East Jerusalem is supposed to be Palestinian, but there is simply no historic basis for it. They weren't supposed to have it under the Partition Plan, and never in the history of mankind has the loser in a political/military conflict been entitled to land that they weren't entitled to before the conflict began. And given the desecration of Jewish holy sites during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, Israel simply can't afford to cede control to anyone else. Give the Western Wall to the Palestinians, and by the end of the first day, they'll have turned it into a sheep pen. Remember, the Palestinian leadership consistently denies any Jewish historical connection with Jerusalem.
As for the so-called Palestinian "right of return," I can't say what I'm against, because this is supposed to be about what I'm for. So let me say that I'm all for Palestinian refugees returning to their own Palestinian state, when it is established.
Paul... I can't say I disagree with much here EXCEPT for possibly the second to last sentence of your first paragraph:
DeleteUnfortunately, I think the Palestinians are as intransigent as the Israeli settler movement when it comes to giving up an inch of the West Bank.
I would say in the case of Hamas, you are right, but, I would say that in the case of the P.A. there is room to argue that. In polls, the Palestinians seem to answer along the Hamas lines, but the Palestine Papers do show us that the P.A. was willing to compromise on some key issues.
Now, granted that they did walk away, and granted had Abbas taken that deal back to the Palestinians, they probably would have rejected it, but, we will never know because the deal never made it off the table.
Still, President Peres, ex-Shin Bet Director Dishkin, and ex-Defense Minister Barak as well as many others seem to feel that Abu Mazen is someone they can talk to, and honestly, they know better than we do.
That said, I very much agree with you on the Palestinian refugees.
Good post man.
@ Dr. Mike... For some reason your comment has not shown up here... I don't know why but it is a really good comment. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteFROM DR. MIKE:
While I am mostly with Paul's position and don't want to get down into real granular details, I'm really just here to commend VolleyBoy for the post itself. We DO spend far too much time on what we are "against" rather than making a cogent argument about what we are "for". And framing a discussion in positive terms is far better than framing it in negative ones, not only emotionally but rhetorically-- don't let the other side define the terms of the debate.
I will endeavor to do the same in my own writing and speaking.
By the way, you also might enjoy this civil yet productive online video conversation in which, by 50 minutes in, I have gotten a "one state solution" Palestinian-American to admit that 2 states for 2 peoples is a just and fair solution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGkr7crgY9I
@ Thanks to Paul and Hey338too for their commentary I appreciate what you guys have to say - and I think I can def. appreciate what Paul has said as well and agree with him almost completely.
SO then... now that we feel this way, how do we lobby for what we want, given the make-up of the new government which is decidedly against what we want?
I just don't think it is that simple of a dichotomy. In the real world of contemporary politics, a lot of what one is for is necessarily shaped by what they have to be against.
ReplyDeleteConsider: There would be no need to be for gay rights if there wasn't homophobia in the world. The fact that there are homophobes around (for example) means that I have to be against them.
Anyway, when it comes to the biggest issues facing Israel, I am FOR either a two- or three- state solution that preserves Israel as a Jewish democracy and guarantees its security, and where they get to keep the major settlement blocks near the green line and the Jewish parts of East Jerusalem. I am also for the continued economic prosperity of that country and its continued status as a hub of innovation, which ultimately necessitates integrating Haredim and Arabs into the workforce and the educational system and off of large-scale public assistance.
When it comes to US politics, I am FOR having a reasonable safety net and social services so that people don't fall through the cracks, reasonable regulations to protect workers and the environment, and for a public sector that does things that the private sector can't. such as funding basic science research and infrastructure improvements. This means that taxes should have to be slightly higher, especially on the wealthiest people. Additionally, I am FOR the non-interference in peoples' private lives and the continued separation of church and state.
Not sure I agree with your first paragraph, but, I do get your point.
DeleteAs for the rest I am with you 100%. As are most others here. SO I guess the next questions are "How do we get there?" and "What policies do we specifically advocate for?".
THEN I think we have to realize (for another diary) that our views are going to differ from the current Israeli government SO, how do we walk that line between supporting Israel and disagreeing with (and suggesting solutions) what that current government is doing with regards to this issue.
Also, and please take this in the spirit that it is meant... One of discussion...
DeleteYou stated you liked this government that was put in place, but above you mentioned that you support a Two or Three State solution with Israel keeping the Jewish parts of the Old City.
If that is the case, then how do you reconcile these two statements (the one above AND the one stating you liked this coalition)? I ask this question in all honesty. I don't see how the two statements are compatible.
Why you ask? Because the government coming in is decidedly anti-Two States. Even if PM Netanyahu was sincere about Bar-Ilan (and many knowledgeable Israelis dispute that), what about the people who make up his government? Bennett and Jewish Home absolutely oppose two states. Ze'ev Elkin (Deputy FM with no one above him), opposes two states, Moshe Ya'alon and Danny Danon (DM and Deputy DM) oppose Two States. Most of Likud opposes two states.
Please note, I am NOT criticizing you here, nor am I "picking on you", I am just curious as to how you reconcile those two comments?
Because politics is the art of the possible.
DeleteFirst of all, I don't think that in the near term, as far as the two-state outcome goes, it really matters what the configuration of the Israeli government is. The PalArabs and their useful idiot cheerleaders in the West are not going to agree to any peace settlement anytime soon. Barak couldn't get it, Olmert couldn't get it, and a hypothetical coalition of Livni and Yacimovich couldn't get it. So what does it matter, as far as that issue goes?
I like this current Israeli government coalition primarily because it is (hopefully) going to tackle the crucial issue in Israeli life that can be dealt with in the near term - which is the Haredi service and economic integration problem. Also they will be doing some needed electoral and ministerial reform.
One need not agree with a particular party or coalition on every issue to think they will be good for the country. For instance, I oppose gun control and much affirmative action but I will continue to vote enthusiastically for Democrats because I agree with them on most other issues of national importance.
Ok... fair enough. I can't really agree with you here but I appreciate the answer.
DeleteWhen you say this..
The PalArabs and their useful idiot cheerleaders in the West are not going to agree to any peace settlement anytime soon. Barak couldn't get it, Olmert couldn't get it, and a hypothetical coalition of Livni and Yacimovich couldn't get it. So what does it matter, as far as that issue goes?
First of all, I don't think what the Useless Idiot Cheerleaders in the West have to say matters to the Peace Process one bit. All it is, is a bunch of "White Noise". It's like the drone of Mosquito's; annoying, but, in the end not much of anything.
As for the Palestinians.. that is an interesting question. They were on the verge of accepting Olmert's deal until scandal hit and he went away. But, they did walk from that too, although it is also true that Olmert wouldn't give them a final map until they agreed... SO, can one really blame them completely.
As for the coalition maybe getting something done on the Haredi issue... We shall see. Lapid has 45 days to present his plan. Should he do that (what was agreed too behind closed doors), we should see that reform. We have already seen the ministerial reform.
I personally oppose this coalition because I feel that Israel could get all of those things PLUS a meaningful start to the Peace Process in any case if there were a "better" coalition in place. BUT honestly, I am not sure how a "better" coalition could be put in place. SO there is that.
Anyway, though I disagree with you, I appreciate your answer.
The reason the useful idiot cheerleaders matter is that if and when the PalArabs decide they do not have sufficient outside support, they will return to the negotiating table. The useful idiots do have a role in promoting PalArab intransigence.
DeleteAfter the fall of the Soviet Union, when they realized that their patron was gone, the PLO decided it was time to negotiate. But then they chose to pursue the strategy of lining up support among the Western far left and misguided liberals. Now they get a ton of funding and foreign aid via the EU and other international bodies.
But they also get a ton of aid and funding from Iran (well at least Hamas does).
DeleteYes the Useful Idiots do have a role in promoting Palestinian and Arab intransigence with "the street", but, as much as they are publicized the street is just the "release valve".
For instance, look at Egypt. With their rhetoric they should have already invaded Israel. If they listened to the crowds in Cairo, they would be bombing Tel Aviv.
But what is really happening? The Peace Treaty continues. Israel and Egyptian Security still work together in Back Channel ways to stop Hamas (witness the latest closing of tunnels around Rafah and how the Egyptian military just arrested Seven Palestinian Terrorists who had stolen uniforms to carry out a terror strike.
Same for the P.A., all those people that pledge support don't necessarily send it, and when they do, it's mostly symbolic. Hamas is financially ok because they are involved in all kinds of smuggling, Black Market, and other criminal enterprises. Plus they get a lot of funding from Iran. The P.A. is struggling because while they may get a ton of misguided Euro and American useless idiots, those people don't bring know how to run a government or money. The P.A. needs a state sponsor. SO in that regard, a bunch of wannabe, Vietnam war era protestors from Europe mean NOTHING to those who would actually be doing any negotiations for peace. Those folks are there to keep people in the streets agitated and focused on anything but their own problems.