Interesting speech from a member of the Jewish Left to the Jewish Left,. . .
Read it. It's an elegant piece, a bit rambling, but some very poetic moments. I've struggled with just how to label it and the only one that comes to mind is that it's a psychiatric sermon. I gather the piece means a great deal to you so I'm a bit reluctant to criticize it.
However, you asked for my reaction so here it is.
1. At the most general level, I'm not a fan of psychiatric approaches to political analysis. There are analytical problems of reification in that it's hard enough but reasonable to analyze one person's psyche; it's reification to do the same to states and/or political affiliations.
But more important, the consequence of such discussions, if not the intent (I don't think that's the case here), is to change the subject. An illustration from another universe of political discourse, discussions of affirmative action. The policy argument for affirmative action is about the way opportunity is structured and what should be done about it. The notion that such discussions spring from "liberal guilt" is an attempt to change the subject. We don't discuss, then, the structure of discrimination against women and minorities; we discuss something called guilt.
There is some of the same in consequence in this sermon.
2. A part of the structure of the argument, if you take it to the individual level, is that if you don't agree with its premises, then you fit in the writer's psychological categories. That's a sometimes clever way to argue but not a serious way to discuss politics.
3. The part of the argument that says the Palestinians are the bad guys and the Israeli's the good guys and thus let's forget about the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, just doesn't reach me. I think I've said that as clearly as possible. In the present moment, there is more than enough criticisms to go around for both sides, that Arafat has handled his side of the bargaining atrociously so far as the interests of the Palestinians are concerned (in fact, I vigorously agreed with Said's withering criticisms of Arafat the last time I read them); and that the Israelis should have listened to folk back in 67 and not occupied the WB.
As for right now, I agree with the quote I found from the Brookings conference, that everyone appears to know what the endgame is--the Palestinians give up the right of return, the Israelis move back to the 67 borders--but no one can see how to get there. In the meantime, many die on both sides.
So I've rambled on about this essay: what are your views?
One more note. I would relish a conversation. But if you wish to play "gotcha," I won't play. I think it's an unacceptable style of conversation and when I play it, I don't like the self I find there. In short, I can do it but plan to keep my less acceptable self in harness. |
