[Potemkin]

Cmon pote, whats a highly unlikely but still technically possible outcome that you would prefer?

A worldwide Communist revolution, of course.

[mikema63]

Then go out there and make it happen!

[Potemkin]

I'm doing so, Mike, one PoFo post at a time!

[mikema63]

Your changing the world pote!

Dont you feel optimistic now?

[Potemkin]

Goshdurn it, Mike, I guess I do!

[wat0n]

I think the problem (and it is a 'problem' from the standpoint of Israeli nationalism, aka Zionism) is deeper than that. The humanities in general ultimately derive their values from the European Enlightenment. Unfortunately, Enlightenment values are essentially incompatible with the real world, in which various social classes and ethnic and religious groups are struggling against each other for survival and for hegemony. In fact, this struggle pretty much is what we call 'history'. From the viewpoint of almost everyone who lived before the Enlightenment, there is nothing strange about Israel's behaviour, nor is there anything strange about the behaviour of the PLO in the 1970s, or the behaviour of the Islamist Jihadis. It's just business as usual. But from the viewpoint of an Enlightenment thinker - and almost by definition, a scholar in the humanities is an Enlightenment thinker - it's horrifying and immoral behaviour which must be criticised and 'corrected'.

I don't know, wouldn't these same values lead to criticism (if not opposition) to the Palestinians as well? From the illiberalism to the fact that armed groups tend to target civilians.

[mikema63]

Palestine is also the weaker of the two sides by a large margin, which puts them in the oppressed category.

The west also often takes a very "primitive savage" viewpoint about non-western nations and we are willing to forgive them things that we would hate in a fellow western nation. They can't help it if they aren't as wonderful and liberal as the superior west and more enlightened westerner.

[wat0n]

Palestine is also the weaker of the two sides by a large margin, which puts them in the oppressed category.

The west also often takes a very "primitive savage" viewpoint about non-western nations and we are willing to forgive them things that we would hate in a fellow western nation. They can't help it if they aren't as wonderful and liberal as the superior west and more enlightened westerner.

Neither of those have anything to do with the Enlightenment, though. That's just orientalism, ironically.

[mikema63]

Sure, but it's the other part of the equation, you don't really expect it to all boil down to one single issue or another do you?

[wat0n]

Sure, I just don't think Pote is right in his assessment.

[mikema63]

It's certainly part of it, our attitude towards life and our ideas about right and wrong certainly influence what side we like better.

[wat0n]

It's certainly part of it, our attitude towards life and our ideas about right and wrong certainly influence what side we like better.

Indeed, they do and if right and wrong are based on the values of the Enlightenment then it makes more sense to support Israel, itself a liberal democracy, over the Palestinians even if this support may be with reservations.

But if the Palestinians are the underdogs and "noble savages", and thus worthy of support because of this, then this has little to do with the Enlightenment and a lot to do with orientalism.

[Pongo]

The whole boycott saga sometime has twisted results. Oren Yiftachel is one of these "traitors", few years ago, his work along with Palestinian co-authored, first rejected, then censored, by a British magazine, Political Geography, as part of a growing academic boycott of Israel. No matter that one of the scholars is Palestinian and the article was critical of "Israeli expansionism" including making a comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa.

British academic boycott of Israel gathers pace


Andy Beckett and Ewen MacAskill
Thursday December 12, 2002
The Guardian



Dr Oren Yiftachel, a left-wing Israeli academic at Ben Gurion University, complained that an article he had co-authored with a Palestinian was initially rejected by the respected British journal Political Geography. He said it was returned to him unopened with a note stating that Political Geography could not accept a submission from Israel.

Mr Yiftachel said that, after months of negotiation, the article is to be published but only after he agreed to make substantial revisions, including making a comparison between his homeland and apartheid South Africa.

In this report we referred to the treatment of a paper written by Professor Oren Yiftachel of Ben Gurion University and Dr Asad Ghanem of Haifa University, which was submitted to the journal Political Geography. We reported that Professor Yiftachel had, after a protracted dispute, agreed to revise the paper according to suggestions made by Political Geography, including the insertion of a comparison of Israel and apartheid South Africa, and that on this basis the paper had been accepted for publication. We now understand that the paper's acceptance for publication has not been guaranteed, and that agreement has not been reached between Professor Yiftachel and Dr Ghanem and Political Geography over all the changes the journal suggested - in particular the comparison of Israel and South Africa. Professor Yiftachel and Dr Ghanem have received a list of comments and suggestions from three academic referees appointed by Political Geography, and they are considering what revisions are most appropriate for the paper, purely on scholarly grounds. Whatever revisions are finally made, the paper will then be refereed again. Professor Yiftachel, as we reported, has consistently opposed the academic boycott, and he remains committed to his position, as well as to the ending of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 63,00.html

[mikema63]

Indeed, they do and if right and wrong are based on the values of the Enlightenment then it makes more sense to support Israel, itself a liberal democracy, over the Palestinians even if this support may be with reservations.

But if the Palestinians are the underdogs and "noble savages", and thus worthy of support because of this, then this has little to do with the Enlightenment and a lot to do with orientalism.

These are hardly incompatible, we were doing empire and orientalism long after the enlightenment took hold. Not to mention a lot of people would content that Israel is not a liberal democracy at all. Everyone has to join the military at some point, you have to be a particular religion to be a citizen, many view whats going on as an apartheid, etc.

[wat0n]

These are hardly incompatible, we were doing empire and orientalism long after the enlightenment took hold.

So? They are also perfectly distinguishable.

Not to mention a lot of people would content that Israel is not a liberal democracy at all. Everyone has to join the military at some point, you have to be a particular religion to be a citizen, many view whats going on as an apartheid, etc.

You don't need to be Jewish to have Israeli citizenship. Israeli Arabs are not Jews, after all, and yet they have Israeli nationality and citizenship with all the perks that come with them like minorities in other liberal democratic countries do. When this is taken into consideration, Apartheid allegations seem completely ridiculous.

Likewise, Israel is far from being the only liberal democratic regime with compulsory military service.

[mikema63]

So? They are also perfectly distinguishable.

Yes, but like I said it's not one or the other, it's both and more.

You don't need to be Jewish to have Israeli citizenship.

I have been misled it seems.

Regardless, there is a wide spread perception that Israel is not a liberal democracy, and as I said we hold Israel to a different standard than we do Palestine.

[wat0n]

Yes, but like I said it's not one or the other, it's both and more.

.

If it were both, then I'd expect to see both sides being held to the same standards. This is also part of the Enlightenment if anything...

Regardless, there is a wide spread perception that Israel is not a liberal democracy, and as I said we hold Israel to a different standard than we do Palestine.

There is widespread perception that Israel is not a liberal democracy among whom? The very same anti-Israel people?

[mikema63]

If it were both, then I'd expect to see both sides being held to the same standards. This is also part of the Enlightenment if anything...

If anti-Israeli sentiment was held by a single guy who happened to have a much more coherent and non-contradictory position than most people you might have a point, but there are a lot of people who are anti-Israeli with a variety of reasons for being so and with all the weird in coherency the human race is known for.

There is widespread perception that Israel is not a liberal democracy among whom? The very same anti-Israel people?

Obviously.

[Rich]

Personally I've never got over excited about the enlightenment, but then I don't believe in Science as some fundamentally different epistemology. I've been thinking about it and on reflection I think the categorisation of the West Bank as Apartheid is not unreasonable. Although I guess the difference is that supposedly Bantustan government is recognised as the resistance. So the lefties very much want their cake and eat it. Which pretty much sums up their attitude to the enlightenment. Although it has to be said Western Conservatives seem to be into the enlightenment when it suits them.

[mikema63]

but then I don't believe in Science as some fundamentally different epistemology.

From what specifically?