1. Sleeper writes more than he knows. He's expanding vague perceptions into detailed prescriptions. Everything is an analogy to everything else that went before. There is only one, or maybe two things that have happened in all of history and it keeps repeating. Bad history, pop sociology, mostly filler material.
2. Starobin rambles on forever and has no point except that he needs a point: "We need a conversation". He also needs an editor.
Really, we should try to limit ourselves to writing about what we know. I simply don't have the time to wade through and analyze every possible idea everybody ever had. Maybe the internet is too big. Back in Gutenberg's day we at least didn't have logorrhea to contend with.
I don't see much thoughtful here. All I see is the same mindless and generally ahistorical disdain for Israel that not only ignores the facts on the grounds, but, if taken seriously, will lead to Istael's destruction and guarantee the success of all racist policies against it.
"Immanuel Kant ....tapping swift, dark undercurrents that would soon surface across Europe": Kant as some sort of turbine is certainly a thoughtful metaphor.
The only thought those articles raised was "why the heck did Megan consider these thoughtful?". Warmed-up leftovers; nothing new.
This line was particularly inane:
And help might come from Palestinian leaders like Marwan Baghrouti, who no more deserves to be the political prisoner he is now than did King or Mandela
You've got to be pretty far out in left field before convictions for murder and sabotage earn someone "political prisoner" status in your eyes. That either Barghouti or Mandela is mentioned alongside King is an insult to King's accomplishments.
I have admired much in Israel for 60 years, but now the doings of the State of Israel remind me more and more strongly of the later, sometimes brutal, often bigoted, flailing policies of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. That Kingdom collapsed when it lost one battle.
Thanks, as always, for sharing your insights. That said, I'm a bit uneasy when--every time there is a Middle East crisis--it prompts a discussion of the merits of Zionism...in effect, questioning the merits of the very existence of Israel.
I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but it seems all too easy to lose sight of the fact that Israel is a country, not a hypothetical construct or a temporary entity. It is home to millions of people, with its own culture, traditions, government, and economy.
If I responded to the latest crisis with essays questioning the value of Palestinian nationalism--whether it is a cause that is worth supporting in light of all these decades of bloodshed--I would rightly be criticized for dismissing a people's right to self-determination. Why then, do pundits seem comfortable always adding a question mark to Israel's existence?
As an observant Jew who's lived in Israel and is married to an Israeli citizen, I actually think both pieces are quite thoughtful and well-written. I sympathize with the main arguments in each even though they do differ (I guess that's my problem).
I personally consider myself something of an Israel supporter, in the sense that I think the Israelis have a right to be where they are and a right to live in peace, but if anything I found both pieces to be a bit too willing to overlook problems with the Israeli case. I'm pretty sure a lot of pro-Palestinian people I know would find both articles quite distasteful and too pro-Israel.
It's very sad how pointless polarizing this whole conflict/debate is. I'm glad both articles seemed quite thoughtful, even if they weren't that well-written/-argued.
Wow McArdle is blogging up a storm on Israel today. So much for her self-imposed silence on the subject! Zionism = Horse-ism.
1. Sleeper writes more than he knows. He's expanding vague perceptions into detailed prescriptions. Everything is an analogy to everything else that went before. There is only one, or maybe two things that have happened in all of history and it keeps repeating. Bad history, pop sociology, mostly filler material.
2. Starobin rambles on forever and has no point except that he needs a point: "We need a conversation". He also needs an editor.
Really, we should try to limit ourselves to writing about what we know. I simply don't have the time to wade through and analyze every possible idea everybody ever had. Maybe the internet is too big. Back in Gutenberg's day we at least didn't have logorrhea to contend with.
I don't see much thoughtful here. All I see is the same mindless and generally ahistorical disdain for Israel that not only ignores the facts on the grounds, but, if taken seriously, will lead to Istael's destruction and guarantee the success of all racist policies against it.
Megan,
All I see are erudite opinion pieces basically saying It's All Israel's Fault. Where is the thoughtful meditation you speak of?
"Immanuel Kant ....tapping swift, dark undercurrents that would soon surface across Europe": Kant as some sort of turbine is certainly a thoughtful metaphor.
This is one of those "media is [left/right] biased" things.
Half the population can only see the media supporting Israel against all the facts. The other half of the population can only see pro-Arab propaganda.
And neither side can understand what on Earth the other side is talking about.
"And neither side can understand what on Earth the other side is talking about."
I would guess land. More precisely Israel. :)
The only thought those articles raised was "why the heck did Megan consider these thoughtful?". Warmed-up leftovers; nothing new.
This line was particularly inane:
And help might come from Palestinian leaders like Marwan Baghrouti, who no more deserves to be the political prisoner he is now than did King or Mandela
You've got to be pretty far out in left field before convictions for murder and sabotage earn someone "political prisoner" status in your eyes. That either Barghouti or Mandela is mentioned alongside King is an insult to King's accomplishments.
Sleeper's equation of Yigal Amir, a true outlier in his society, with the endemic support of terrorism in Palestinian society, is morally obscene.
As is Starobin's argument blaming Zionism for its failure to end anti-semitism.
Megan -- what were you thinking?
I have admired much in Israel for 60 years, but now the doings of the State of Israel remind me more and more strongly of the later, sometimes brutal, often bigoted, flailing policies of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. That Kingdom collapsed when it lost one battle.
Hi Megan,
Thanks, as always, for sharing your insights. That said, I'm a bit uneasy when--every time there is a Middle East crisis--it prompts a discussion of the merits of Zionism...in effect, questioning the merits of the very existence of Israel.
I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but it seems all too easy to lose sight of the fact that Israel is a country, not a hypothetical construct or a temporary entity. It is home to millions of people, with its own culture, traditions, government, and economy.
If I responded to the latest crisis with essays questioning the value of Palestinian nationalism--whether it is a cause that is worth supporting in light of all these decades of bloodshed--I would rightly be criticized for dismissing a people's right to self-determination. Why then, do pundits seem comfortable always adding a question mark to Israel's existence?
As an observant Jew who's lived in Israel and is married to an Israeli citizen, I actually think both pieces are quite thoughtful and well-written. I sympathize with the main arguments in each even though they do differ (I guess that's my problem).
I personally consider myself something of an Israel supporter, in the sense that I think the Israelis have a right to be where they are and a right to live in peace, but if anything I found both pieces to be a bit too willing to overlook problems with the Israeli case. I'm pretty sure a lot of pro-Palestinian people I know would find both articles quite distasteful and too pro-Israel.
It's very sad how pointless polarizing this whole conflict/debate is. I'm glad both articles seemed quite thoughtful, even if they weren't that well-written/-argued.