I'm somewhat sympathetic to the foggy style of argumentation outlined in the article here. I think that a deep scepticism think-tanks is warranted, and their beneficiaries deserve an extra critical eye, but in the end it has to actually lead somewhere.
In the spirit of the scientific method, your hunches don't have to be strictly rational (although it does help to have a finely tuned intuition), but you need to back them up with hard data before claiming them as fact.
Without the ability to back up your beliefs with hard evidence, you're at best a well tuned hypothesis generator. Potentially useful, but a lot of work is needed to make your output into something rigorous.
So basically, Kriss needs to discipline Alkhatib for failing to perform a Palestinian's rightful role as an opponent of American imperial power, construed as the entire order of liberal-ish nation-states linked up through international institutions, irrespective of whether that's actually in the best interests of Alkhatib as an individual or Palestinians' as a nation.
I won’t claim to know what Kriss’ opinion is on RfP’s actual policy positions but I will say that anyone (or any organization) who is still thinks a two-state solution is realistic, given the “facts on the ground” as the saying goes, is either ignorant or delusional. The military effort alone required to remove the illegal West Bank settlements would be like opening another front of the Gaza war, except the IDF would be doing it to their own citizens. If you think the Israeli public or political establishment has the appetite for taking military action against 450,000 well-armed Jewish Israelis, you are on another planet. (Or are a deliberately mendacious think tank…)
If it comes to it, they could just plop a whole bunch of busses in front of the settlements, tell them they have a month to pack up their stuff and get on the bus back to Israel-proper, and if they don't, they can take their chances as part of the state of Palestine.
That's a long way down the road, of course. Two-states are dead as long as something like RfP doesn't basically become the dominant position among the Palestinian population.
Alkhatib also loves talking about using the rubble in Gaza to create a shipping pier for humanitarian aid. I find this and the two-state solution to be delusional, but at the same time the fact that Alkhatib is pursuing them so earnestly is also what I admire about the guy. There's just no question in my mind that his heart is in the right place.
Sorry, but I have real problems engaging seriously with someone who can't bother to find the shift key on their keyboard so they can use capital letters. Does that make me a snob? Maybe.
Yassine, I read the exchange between you and Kriss about the killing of the young couple in DC. It did seem clear to me that Kriss was making a real distinction between killing people BECAUSE they are Jews, and killing people because they represent a government that one hates, and they also happen to be Jews. Whether or not the guy who killed them made that distinction, I don't know.
I think that permitting killing uninvolved civilians because they "represent a government that one hates" is a pretty weak moral position, since to be clear, this would equally justify Hamas' attempts to destroy Israel, and Israel wiping out the population of Gaza.
Hamas' charter, and record of action, would certainly justify Israelis hating it. If it's acceptable to kill uninvolved people in an entirely different country because you hate the government they represent, surely it's acceptable for the Israeli army to kill the people of Gaza, even if they're not directly involved with Hamas?
For anyone who's unhappy with Israel's policy towards Gaza, I think they should take a hard look at themselves if their response is to descend to an even lower moral standard.
I don't believe the distinction between antisemitism and antizionism is either coherent nor useful in the vast majority of cases. I've tried to get clarity from Kriss but it's been a tedious exercise for the same reasons I outlined above. He's not engaging with my actual argument and instead just asserting that they're not the same. I would love to talk to him in real-time about this so that I can better understand his position but alas.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the foggy style of argumentation outlined in the article here. I think that a deep scepticism think-tanks is warranted, and their beneficiaries deserve an extra critical eye, but in the end it has to actually lead somewhere.
In the spirit of the scientific method, your hunches don't have to be strictly rational (although it does help to have a finely tuned intuition), but you need to back them up with hard data before claiming them as fact.
Without the ability to back up your beliefs with hard evidence, you're at best a well tuned hypothesis generator. Potentially useful, but a lot of work is needed to make your output into something rigorous.
I agree
So basically, Kriss needs to discipline Alkhatib for failing to perform a Palestinian's rightful role as an opponent of American imperial power, construed as the entire order of liberal-ish nation-states linked up through international institutions, irrespective of whether that's actually in the best interests of Alkhatib as an individual or Palestinians' as a nation.
I won’t claim to know what Kriss’ opinion is on RfP’s actual policy positions but I will say that anyone (or any organization) who is still thinks a two-state solution is realistic, given the “facts on the ground” as the saying goes, is either ignorant or delusional. The military effort alone required to remove the illegal West Bank settlements would be like opening another front of the Gaza war, except the IDF would be doing it to their own citizens. If you think the Israeli public or political establishment has the appetite for taking military action against 450,000 well-armed Jewish Israelis, you are on another planet. (Or are a deliberately mendacious think tank…)
If it comes to it, they could just plop a whole bunch of busses in front of the settlements, tell them they have a month to pack up their stuff and get on the bus back to Israel-proper, and if they don't, they can take their chances as part of the state of Palestine.
That's a long way down the road, of course. Two-states are dead as long as something like RfP doesn't basically become the dominant position among the Palestinian population.
You outline half the reason the two state solution is unlikely, yes. I’m guessing that RfP is addressing the other half.
Alkhatib also loves talking about using the rubble in Gaza to create a shipping pier for humanitarian aid. I find this and the two-state solution to be delusional, but at the same time the fact that Alkhatib is pursuing them so earnestly is also what I admire about the guy. There's just no question in my mind that his heart is in the right place.
Sorry, but I have real problems engaging seriously with someone who can't bother to find the shift key on their keyboard so they can use capital letters. Does that make me a snob? Maybe.
I sure did unsubscribe from Kriss recently for unrelated reasons.
Yassine, I read the exchange between you and Kriss about the killing of the young couple in DC. It did seem clear to me that Kriss was making a real distinction between killing people BECAUSE they are Jews, and killing people because they represent a government that one hates, and they also happen to be Jews. Whether or not the guy who killed them made that distinction, I don't know.
I think that permitting killing uninvolved civilians because they "represent a government that one hates" is a pretty weak moral position, since to be clear, this would equally justify Hamas' attempts to destroy Israel, and Israel wiping out the population of Gaza.
Hamas' charter, and record of action, would certainly justify Israelis hating it. If it's acceptable to kill uninvolved people in an entirely different country because you hate the government they represent, surely it's acceptable for the Israeli army to kill the people of Gaza, even if they're not directly involved with Hamas?
For anyone who's unhappy with Israel's policy towards Gaza, I think they should take a hard look at themselves if their response is to descend to an even lower moral standard.
I almost addressed that in this post but then decided against it because I was essentially just repeating my argument from here: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/slicing-the-kosher-hate-salami
I don't believe the distinction between antisemitism and antizionism is either coherent nor useful in the vast majority of cases. I've tried to get clarity from Kriss but it's been a tedious exercise for the same reasons I outlined above. He's not engaging with my actual argument and instead just asserting that they're not the same. I would love to talk to him in real-time about this so that I can better understand his position but alas.
"Whether or not the guy who killed them made that distinction, I don't know."
The fact that he targeted a *Jewish* institution rather than an *Israeli* institution is suggestive.
That distinction might have been meaningful, were it not for the fact that the ultimate reason for his hatred towards Israel is antisemitism.