>But I'm putting words in his mouth. What is your
>actual belief, Nathan?
Justin wrote:
>I think Nathan's "acceptance" is cheap and merely
>verbal because it is idle, particualr in view of his waffling on Israel in
>other contexts. jks
I actually find this discussion kind of hilarious in showing how completely uninterested the purist left is in making real alliances.
I state I am in favor of cutting off all aid to Israel, erecting sanctions against Israel if they do not withdraw from the occupied territories, support deploying international troops in defense of the Palestinians, and in favor of threatening Israel with international intervention leading up to bombing if necessary to gain justice for the Palestinians.
But this is deemed a "waffling" position by Justin and seen as wildly different from my position on Kosovo by Reed.
There is a whole group of pro-intervention folks in Kosovo who should be enlisted in the pro-Palestinian cause, but most of the Left will not make the argument. In fact, on the basis of their position on Kosovo, I don't actually know what the anti-Kosovo-intervention Left has to argue for in calling for external interference in the "internal affairs" of Israel. Sure, they will argue that the West Bank and Gaza are not "internal" to Israel, but the Kosovars argued the same about Serbia. Heck, at least the Israelis have never tried to ban the use of Arabic on the West Bank, as the Serbs tried to suppress Albanian in Kosovo.
But as has been noted, real politics is about what's on the table in reality and there this hypothetical purity test being proposed is even more ridiculous, since my position on Israel is more in favor of intervention against Israel than 95% of the population.
With the pro-Palestinians purists cutting at their "waffling" allies, it's no wonder that AIPAC controls Congress. They don't actual have much competition trying to recruit moderate allies on the other side.
-- Nathan Newman