Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (39688)	8/25/2002 12:44:49 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for reading the Judt article. A few thoughts. I now see where your "Colonialism" argument is coming from. The beauty, to Judt, of using it, is that it ties in with the "Post Colonialism" approach of the left, here and in Europe, and allows them to "beat" Israel over the head with all of the rhetoric they have built up against "Colonialism." 1. On Judt's use of the colonialism argument. I don't think I've used that term for the Israeli-Palestinian situation; I certainly have not meant to. It might be appropriate but I haven't thought enough about it to defend it's use. I, have, however, used the term "occupation" to characterize the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza. I've used it for quite some time and was more than pleased when, a few months back, I was joined by Bush II. 2. Judt, at least nowhere that I've read, is known for working in the post-colonialism territory. He's been very critical of Left French academics. Several of his books are quite critical and he just wrote a fascinating introduction to an interesting collection of Raymond Aron's political essay. Aron was certainly not on the left. amazon.com So beating up on him as if he were a standin for post colonial thought, is a nonstarter. By using this approach, They set the Israelis up as a bad guys, and the Palestinians as the good guys who are at the mercy of the evil colonialists, and the Palestinians therefore deserve to win out because they are the "Victims." 3. Nope, his argument even in the text you included is more nuanced. It is that Israel as the stronger for the moment has more responsibility to bring things to the peace table. That's an interesting argument which you might wish to argue about. I haven't made up my mind about it but would be happy to discuss it. Right now I'm further into despair than Judt's text suggests he is. I'm at the lack of leadership point--Sharon, Arafat, Bush--which leaves us mired at a terrible point. 4. As for that inflammatory letter to the editor, it's clearly from someone who failed to read the Judt article. He does not argue any of the things the writer suggests. It's yet another indication of just how inflamed conversation gets around these issues.