August 26, 2005

No Mourning for Greater Israel

I briefly felt sympathy for the Israeli settlers forced to evacuate Gaza and some of the northern West Bank settlements. But it didn’t last long. They should never, ever, have moved there in the first place. Anyone with sense should have known the Palestinians who lived there already would need to be made citizens of equal standing in a new larger Israel if Israelis would not eventually withdraw from the territories acquired in the war of ’67.

The Greater Israel movement in no way excuses the Greater Palestine movement to abolish the state of Israel “from the river to the sea.” Likewise, the Greater Palestine movement can not excuse Greater Israel. I am not playing a moral equivalency game here. Far better to build a house where it does not belong than blow up a cafe or a bus. But it is not necessary for the Israeli settler movement to be as morally bad as Hamas or Islamic Jihad for the movement to still be morally bad.

In a perfect world, both “greater” movement would be defeated simultaneously. But the world is far from perfect, as it always has been, and Palestinian society is more dysfunctional and corrupt than Israeli society. So the Greater Israel movement is being defeated before the Greater Palestine movement, if only because the intifada has been largely walled off from Israel proper. (Critics of Israel’s security fence should acknowledge that it is the very thing that makes Israeli withdrawal even possible.)

Leon Weiseltier in the New Republic says those who support Israel’s right to exist and it’s right to defend itself should not shed any tears.
Even faced with the idea of Greater Palestine, it is impossible not to rejoice in the defeat of the idea of Greater Israel. It was always a foul idea, morally and strategically. It promoted the immediate ecstasy of the few above the eventual safety of the many; it introduced the toxins of messianism and mysticism into the politics of a great modern democracy; it preferred chosenness to human rights; it subordinated laws to visions, and the Jewish state to the Jewish millennium; it worshiped soil in a primitive, almost un-Jewish way. The settlers of the West Bank and Gaza are not a Jewish vanguard, they are a Jewish sect; and in their insistence that the destiny of their state and their society should be held hostage to the fulfillment of their metaphysical and historical conceptions, they have always displayed a sectarian self-love.

In the settlement of Netzarim earlier this year, the settlers published a book whose title might be translated as Super-Natural Living: Tales of Life in Gush Katif, a collection of testimonies about the idyll of Jewish existence in Gaza. It is chilling to read, because of its unreality. "The Arabs say to each other, and to their Jewish neighbors, that until the Jews arrived to settle in this region, there was almost no rain. It was impossible to grow anything in the sands. But since we returned here, the rains have started to fall, and the land generously produces its bounty. ... This is without a doubt the fulfillment of the prophecy [in Ezekiel] about the redemption of Israel: 'But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to my people of Israel.'" There are no mountains in Gaza, but never mind. The settlers in Gaza created a magical world for themselves, an introverted universe of endless miracles. They were indifferent to, or contemptuous of, the decidedly unmagical and unmiraculous effects of their enterprise in the bitter world beyond.

For this reason, when I behold the photographs of the settlers in Gaza uprooted by Israeli soldiers, empathy almost completely deserts me. I seem to have a heart of stone, and I am not entirely embarrassed by it. More precisely, I regard the eviction of the settlers as the appropriate reward for their own hearts of stone. For many other Jews gave their lives and their limbs so that these Jews could grow their holy tomatoes and study their holy texts in this desert. In order to satisfy their individual and collective aspirations, the Israeli civilians who lived in Gaza required the sacrifice of Israeli soldiers in Gaza. In the years of Jewish settlement in Gaza, 230 Israelis were killed there. A substantial number of them were soldiers. Why is the life of a Jew in a uniform worth less than the life of a Jew in a greenhouse? That is stone-heartedness. And yet one hears mainly about the sacrifices of the settlers. Surely the same stirring revival of Zionist agronomy could have been accomplished in the equally arid zones a few miles to the north or the east, in a place called Israel…

These settlers were not pioneers, they were pawns--the eager and fervid pawns of various Israeli governments acting on a grandiose geopolitical scheme whose futility has finally become apparent to a majority of the citizens of Israel. For a few decades the settlers seemed to be winning, and now, at least in Gaza, they have lost. That is all. It is a tragedy for their movement, but it is not a tragedy for their nation. "As Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza," wrote a prominent rabbi in New York, "it is not only natural but also proper that we experience a keen sense of mourning over our loss." But the disengagement from Gaza is not our loss. If our interest is in the delineation of defensible borders for Israel, it is our gain. The withdrawal is an act of historical wisdom. I will not squander my powers of sorrow over these dangerous and delirious places. In the years in which 230 Israelis were killed in Gaza, moreover, 2,600 Palestinians were killed in Gaza. Many of those deaths are plainly attributable to internecine Palestine violence, and more generally to the virulently rejectionist character of Palestinian nationalism; but Palestinian costs are human costs, too. Empathy is not a tribal faculty, it is a universal faculty, and such universalism is also a teaching of the Jewish tradition. The suffering in Gaza has been everywhere too great.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 26, 2005 02:16 PM
Comments

I agree with your logic in the sense that it is theoretically unfair to the Palestinians who were peacefully living in Gaza/West Bank to be annexed. And from a practical standpoint, leaving Gaza is (I think) a "no-brainer." I am not so sure about the West Bank in that respect. But from the "moral" aspect, I disagree. If it is immoral for Israel to be in the West Bank and Gaza, then it is immoral for any nation to hold territory that was gained in a war. Which, of course, is just about everybody. And considering what the Jews in general have gone through over the millennia, and what Israeli Jews have gone through since 1948, I especially disagree.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 26, 2005 04:08 PM

If it is immoral for Israel to be in the West Bank and Gaza, then it is immoral for any nation to hold territory that was gained in a war.

The morality of such things depends on the time. When there is a general sense that both parties are part of a larger whole governed by law, then it is illegal. When it is a free for all, then it is governed by the winner. These days resemble the former more than the latter. And that is probably a good thing. I mean, what sort of nation would we have today if I could recruit my friends to evict my neighbors so I might enjoy the use of their property? By your argument I could justify this by pointing out that my neighbors claims were no more valid than mine because the land was forcefully taken from the Indians in the first place.

So one size does not fit all. We must make distinctions, distastful as that might be when we are searching for the one true morality that fits every situation.

Posted by: chuck at August 26, 2005 04:49 PM

If it is immoral for Israel to be in the West Bank and Gaza, then it is immoral for any nation to hold territory that was gained in a war.

It is not about land. It is about the people who live on that land.

Israel can go right ahead and keep that land if they nationalize the people who live on it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 26, 2005 05:06 PM

Caroline,

Might be worth a try asking Sistani what he thinks: Sistani.org.

Posted by: chuck at August 26, 2005 07:15 PM

If it is immoral for Israel to be in the West Bank and Gaza, then it is immoral for any nation to hold territory that was gained in a war

I think you have totally lost your moral compass.
It is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will.
Which is why we didnt make Germany and Japan into American states. Its why we (eventually) gave the Phillipines and Cuba their independence. Hey, they were won fair and square in a war! Its why we all supported the freedom of Eastern Europe from Soviet rule - also land won fair and square in a war.

Posted by: Observer at August 26, 2005 07:26 PM

israel will eventually have to leave the majority of the West Bank, holding it without including the inhabitants as citizens is wrong. But the Palestinians would speed the process along if they would get the non-PLO armed organizations under control. Having an armed organization that proclaims the right to the destruction of Israel and would not stop attacking if the entire West Bank was given back tommorrow can not be ignored. Hamas uses the same reasoning for pre 67 Israel as you use for the West Bank. And they have armed and emotional support from a large portion of Palestinians.

Posted by: kevinpeters at August 26, 2005 08:15 PM

"it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will."

This seems like a good reason to support ethnic cleansing, so as to NOT rule over such folks.

The successful US ally supported Czechoslavkia's cleansing of Sudentenland Germans comes to mind (or was that the Czech empire?).

There's also a lot of fuzziness about what a "nation" is as compared to "another people." Were the Jews in Europe pre-WW II another people, or another nation, or what? (What about the thousands of Jews expelled from ME countries since WW II?)

The 25 million "Kurds" are the largest nation without a state.

It looks to me like Sharon is pushing for an "only slightly greater" Israel than the pre-67 boundaries. One more militarily defensible.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 26, 2005 10:29 PM

This seems like a good reason to support ethnic cleansing, so as to NOT rule over such folks

Wow. You people are really losing it over this, arent you....

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 12:06 AM

Tom: This seems like a good reason to support ethnic cleansing, so as to NOT rule over such folks.

Surely you can think of a better solution than that.

The U.S. acquired Puerto Rico and the Phillipines from Spain. Look what we did in those two cases. We nationalized the citizens of one and withdrew from the other.

Those are the only defensible options.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2005 12:34 AM

I agree that Gaza is indefensible and should be evacuated, and isn't worth the trouble to maintain, but, playing devil's advocate here:
There never was a generalized, Versailles-like or Congress of Vienna like treaty after WWII, but Germany lost all the land east of the Oder-Neise line (Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia). Italy lost all of the Istrian peninsula except for Trieste. Anybody aware of any Germans or Italians who haven't gotten over that yet? (That's not a rhetorical question-I really don't know-no snarkiness intended.)
Warren

Posted by: Warren at August 27, 2005 01:46 AM

not quite sure what it has to do with Israel, but to this day there are plenty of Germans who "haven't gotten over it"(most of whom used to be associated with the far right-wing, since West-Germany accepted the Oder-Neisse line as the factual Polish border in the 70s and made it official in 91, but things have become slightly less heated) cf. eg. "benes decrees" "sudeten"

Posted by: novakant at August 27, 2005 04:18 AM

Just anecdotal evidence, but I've heard interviews with Spaniards who are still very upset with the U.S. for taking Cuba away from them.

Posted by: David Fleck at August 27, 2005 05:50 AM

Michael, I agree with your position in principle, and at some point Isreal HAS to abandon both outposts. In practice, however, I am worried that this isn't the best time for Isreal to be doing this. Given the reality on the ground in West Bank in Gaza, a pullout is going to give the terrorist gangsters who are the defacto rulers of both regions even more power to carry out their murderous ambitions -- and not just against Isreal.

I know you addressed this concern in an earlier post, and you raised some good points, but I still feel uneasy about this gamble. I hope my suspicions prove unfounded (and, unlike most people who say such things, I really do mean it), but I could see this ending extremely badly for all concerned.

Posted by: Sean P at August 27, 2005 08:36 AM

One of the sticking points in "land for peace" negotiations is the demand for a land bridge between the Gaza and Samaria - which would deny a land bridge between northern and southern Israel. Assuming that the Arab Palestinians deserve self-rule in the first place, riddle me this: why a single state? The Egyptian Palestinians of Gaza and the Jordanian Palestinians of the West Bank (and formerly of the East Bank) aren't the same people. And why do the Palestinians have first dibs and not Egypt and Jordan, respectively?

And when do the Palestinians give Israel something in return for all of this?

I wish Israel could do in its own country something similar to what the US did in Iraq. We knocked off an evil regime and are helping more reasonable folks put together a functioning democratic republic. Hamas, Heznbollah, PFLP, Fatah and others need to be brought to justice, and people who don't want to liquidate Israel need to replace the status quo in Palestinian political and cultural leadership.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 27, 2005 09:34 AM

it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will.

Consistency check: imagine Jefferson Davis saying those words.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 27, 2005 09:53 AM

Alan, Egypt has renounced its claim to Gaza, and Jordan its claim to the West Bank. Begin actually offered to give back Gaza along with the Sinai at Camp David, but Sadat turned him down. He knew better than to assume responsibility for that hornet's nest.

Likewise, it's an open secret that King Abdullah and his friends aren't thrilled with the idea of an independent Palestinian state emerging, given its potential to destabilize the political climate in majority-Palestinian Jordan.

Posted by: Eric at August 27, 2005 09:57 AM

Does the Palestinian Authority bear any responsibility for getting control of the armed militias that are operating freely and openly state that the destruction of the state of Israel is their primary goal? I am for the Gaza pullout. I am for a negotiated pull out from the West Bank. But I do think that if the palestinians want to have a seperate state,which I agree with, they have to get a handle on independent armies that are operating on the soil it wants to call Palestine. Israel has made many errors and I hold them accountable but that does not mean that Palestinians should be able to conduct a war and expect no reprisals. I do not think that Israel will just go back to the 67 borders and hope that the Palestinians will then decide to reign in Hamas and all the other offshoots that state that the idea of Israel itself is unacceptable.I don't know if they can't do it or they won't do it but either way it will not work until they show a real effort, not just slogans in English that are often contradicted in Arabic. If they can't show that they can control them then peace will never happen. Israel needs to take action and they did with the Gaza pullout.This is not the end of what they need to do. Palestine needs to do something beyond words.

Posted by: kevinpeters at August 27, 2005 11:44 AM

it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will
"Consistency check: imagine Jefferson Davis saying those words"

Huh? If Davis could have brought himself to say that, perhaps he would have advocated a freeing of the slaves, and thus the Civil War would not have been necessary.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 01:31 PM

Kevin
Hamas et.al. - in fact all political movements can only thrive to the extent that they speak to attitudes and aspirations held by significant numbers of average people. So long as Israel was in expansionist mode, denying the Palestinians existence, or denying them rights to self determination, and stealing their land, there was considerable popular support for viewing Israel as an enemy in a rather absolutist sense.

To the extent that the Israelis seriously embrace the notion of a Palestinian state, encompassing nearly all of the WB and East Jerusalem, and that they are willing to live in peace with that state, there will be a significant decline in the view of Israel as an absolute enemy amongst the average Palestinian - and hence a decline in support for Hamas et.al. unless their position evolves as well.

In the end, most normal people want a normal life. Palestinians have felt that Israel was determined not to allow them such a life. As that changes, Palestinian attitudes will change. If the general sense becomes that they can have a normal life, with basic dignity, and political control over their own lands, then any call to absolutist war against Israel will increasingly be met with deaf ears, as normal people go about persuing their normal lives.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 01:42 PM

As that changes, Palestinian attitudes will change. If the general sense becomes that they can have a normal life, with basic dignity, and political control over their own lands, then any call to absolutist war against Israel will increasingly be met with deaf ears, as normal people go about persuing their normal lives.

Twenty years ago that may have been true. These days the Palestinian government, in so far as it exists, is deeply corrupted. I suspect there will be many years of conflict and infighting before any thing decent emerges. Which is to say, I think you are far too optimistic and tend to view Palestine as populated by well meaning and civic minded folks such as yourself who have the power to pick their government and the desire to clean up the mess.

The assumption that everyone in the world is really just like us is a variety of American parochialism that seems pretty common. America, and the Anglosphere in general, are exceptional. More typical are the Indonesian elites who partied while the Americans and Ozzies labored to bring relief to Aceh after the tsunami. The Palestinians have received a good bit of aid and done very little with it; this is not solely the fault of Israel.

Posted by: chuck at August 27, 2005 02:06 PM

My argument was against the principle, and followed this form:
Some principle - A (that sounds good)

Such principle is used to justify bad action (ethnic cleansing).

You seem to criticize me for advocating the bad action. Sorry to be misunderstood.

I oppose the principle:
it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will

The "Republican nation," after duly winning free and fair elections, has the moral right to create rules that are against the will of the "blue people." This is also true of majority Slovaks in Slovakia over the Hungarian minority citizens.

Our Turkish NATO ally currently rules over a very large minority Kurdish nation -- it is not immoral.

In Europe, and throughout the world, there are complex interrelationships between "nations" and "peoples" and citizenships.

What is immoral is the denial of human rights to any individual, regardless of their group membership. (I misread as Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis -- and it's still immoral.)

Morality is not the same as law. And "rule of law" requires an enforcement mechanism that works. Sudan, like Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Cambodia before, show the UN enforcement more often fails.

It seems to me that Israel is not denying human rights to the Palestinians -- but their own PA/Fatah & Hamas terrorists DO deny the rights of free speech and free religion. As Israel lets Egypt take over the Gaza - Egypt border (brilliant!), it will be Egypt that's keeping Palestinians inside.

Did you see Big Pharoah's Oh My God? The Egyptian state TV actually criticized the Egyptian gov't. Tiny shoots of democracy/ human rights are beginning to sprout. I wish Bush will talk about how long it should be expected to take, even when successful.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 27, 2005 02:18 PM

Tom: You seem to criticize me for advocating the bad action. Sorry to be misunderstood.

Okay.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 27, 2005 02:21 PM

The "Republican nation," after duly winning free and fair elections, has the moral right to create rules that are against the will of the "blue people

By participating in the free and fair elections, the "blue people" accept the right of the winners of those elections to determine policy within the constraints of the system. This is not an example of ruling a people against their will.

Our Turkish NATO ally currently rules over a very large minority Kurdish nation -- it is not immoral

It would be if they denied the Kurds equal citizenship and an equal voice in choosing leaders. Or if they had conquered the Kurds by force and the Kurds never consented to participation when it was offered. Neither of those cases exist, so the Turkish rule is not immoral.

It seems to me that Israel is not denying human rights to the Palestinians

They certainly have been denying them the right to rule their own lands and to have those lands be secure from foreign expropriation.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 02:32 PM

Neither of those cases exist, so the Turkish rule is not immoral.

Come again? For many years it was forbidden for classes to be taught in Kurdish, radio could not play Kurdish songs, etc., etc. Do you think the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey was less justified than that of the Palestinians? I think the leaders of the rebellion were the typical left wing swill, but if you only go by the justice of the cause I fail to see why you dismiss it. Your smug nonchalance with the facts and complacent ignorance about history pretty much destroys my faith in any of your arguments. Here is a link to a short article on the Kurds in Turkey.

Posted by: chuck at August 27, 2005 02:48 PM

Chuck,
As even the obviously pro-Kurdish site you linked to points out "..the majority of Turkey's Kurds do not openly support separatism from the Turkish state". Kurds are full citizens, have full voting rights, and many have positions of prominence within the Turkish "establishment". There is no sense whatsoever, as the quote above conveys, that the majority of Kurds are being ruled against their will. That they have a long series of very legitimate complaints, many of which can be legitimatly considered repression is certainly true. The Turkish government has much to be ashamed of, and much left to do to rectify it. Many of their specific policies can be considered immoral. But that does not make the control of Kurdish regions by the Turkish government inherintly immoral.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 03:15 PM

Do you think the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey was less justified than that of the Palestinians

Absolutely. Palestinians in the territories are not citizens of Israel, and have no democratic rights at all. Were that the case (essentially a "one-state solution"), it would be an entirely different matter there.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 03:18 PM

Ob:

If there was no desire for the destruction of Israel before 1967 your occupation creates terrorism excuse might carry more weight. But the PLO and most Arab groups were calling for the destruction of Israel pre-1967 so occupation is only part of the reason. They wanted Israel removed from the map when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan. They still want it. Does The PA bear any responsibility or do they have the duty for curtailing the independent Armies or not?

Posted by: kevinpeters at August 27, 2005 07:05 PM

Kevin,
Yes they wanted Israel gone long before the occupation of the territories. That is because they viewed Israel itself as representing a horde of Europeans (mainly) who came to occupy Arab lands in what is now Israel.

Look, the people there were living their lives, minding their own business, with a jewish population in their midst, when all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of people from thousands of miles away descended on the land claiming it for themselves. You see how (especially conservatives) here in America react to waves of immigration that seems out of our control - immigration that has no danger of becoming a majority, nor which seeks to establish a state reflecting exclusivly the immigrant's culture.

Over time the Palestinians have had to come to peace with the fact that this mass migration happened, and much of the land that many of them were born on is now in the hands of one group who build a nation reflecting their own culture. The PLO managed to officially come to peace with this in 1988 - a step taken by Arafat - for which, oddly, he seems to get little credit in many circles. Given the fate of any Arab leader who accepted Israel at that time, it was a courageous step.

So I think it fair to say that the majority of Palestinians have come to peace with the existence of Israel as a nation that rules over the land where the jewish people live. They cannot, and should not, ever come to peace with Israeli rule over the terrotories.

Yes, the PLO has responsibility for leadership with regard to enforcing the acceptance of Israel within Palestinian society. But the Palestinian people are not going to become completely resigned to their fate until that fate includes a decent life for them, in whatever is left of Palestine. I do believe that if the settlement movement had never happened, then things could have proceeded after 88 in such a manner that the Palesinians, having accepted the existence of Israel, could have made the necessary deal to give Israel the security it needed in exchange for political control over the territories.
Sadat made that deal in Sinai. What prevented it in the other territories was the settlement movement and the idea of a greater israel.

Posted by: Observer at August 27, 2005 07:28 PM

Observer:

Like many critics of Israel, you prefer to nurse the historical grudge, rather than see the problem for what it is today. The problem today is terrorism, pure and simple. Were it not for terrorism, the Palestinians would have their state, or be well on the way to it. You state that Hamas, like all political movements, requires the will of the majority behind it. Terrorism changes this equation. A small group can hold the majority hostage by committing atrocities that lead to retaliation and preclude any peaceful process. This is exactly what has happened in the ten or so years since Oslo. What started in an atmosphere of optimism and good will has ended with Israel reoccupying territories it initially conceded to the PA, instituting necessary but oppressive defensive measures like roadblocks, generating more hatred and resentment from the Palestinians, etc.

This is the real issue today. Not what happened in 1948. If you have any suggestions as to how to break out of this vicious cycle, short of Israel passively accepting terrorist atrocities against its civilians (something no country in the world would do), many of us would be intensely interested to hear it.

Posted by: MarkC at August 27, 2005 10:15 PM

Observer:

"Kevin,
Yes they wanted Israel gone long before the occupation of the territories. That is because they viewed Israel itself as representing a horde of Europeans (mainly) who came to occupy Arab lands in what is now Israel."

In other words, you feel the Arabs' instigation of the 1967 war for the purpose of annihilatng Israel was justified. By the way, the majority of Israeli Jews are not of European descent. But I'm sure you have an answer for that too, that blames it all on the Jews.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at August 27, 2005 11:57 PM

MarkC,
I think you are being quite unfair. I made brief mention of some history, but most of my comments had nothing to do with refighting 1948, but were specifically focused on the here and now.

You claim that the only problem today is terrorism, and that is the root of whatever delay there is in reaching a Pal state. Not true. You somehow fail to acknowledge that the settlement movement was advancing right through the Oslo years - it continues TODAY!

I detest terrorism. But it is a simple fact of life that a people with a deep grievance, under occupation, will fight. And it is often the most brutal men, the ones least willing to compromise who rise to the fore in such a situation. And if the average person sees no other option, they will give support to the fighters. The "they may be bastards but they are our bastards" phenomenon is pretty common amongst humans.

The way out is to make the average person see some real hope down another path. One of the tradgedies of the Israeli situation is that there have been many people, even political parties in power for a time, that could credibly claim to be offering options to the Palestinians. But at the same time, the settlements were continuing, the palestinians saw more and more of the land and their future disappearing, and the result was a total loss of trust (or inability to grant trust in the first place) - and hence continued support for the fighters, including terrorists.

Maybe that can change now, but it will continue to be undermined by the continued encroachment into the WB.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 12:26 AM

Gary,

I made no claim as to the geographic background of Israelis today. I merely stated what the perception of the Arabs was regarding the wave of immigrants that came at the time of the founding of Israel. A correct account of their correct percetion.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 12:33 AM

Observer;

It's funny how people can take the same set of events and see them so entirely differently. I detest the settlements just as you detest terrorism, but there the similarity ends.

For you, peace attempts were undermined by settlement expansion. For me, they were undermined by terror. The settlements may have played some indirect, indefinable role during this period, but you're really talking about a political solution that was torpedoed by murderous, rejectionist terrorists and a dysfunctional Palestinian state that could not or would not confront them.

Clearly we won't convince each other. But please don't play the moral equivalency game. You seem too intelligent and too honest for that.
I'm quite certain that you would not say: "They may be bastards, but they are our bastards" about American troops who intentially murdered women and children in Iraq. This is not a necessary part of human nature, even among the oppressed. You do the Palestinians an injustice this way. Also, don't equate the intifada with other wars of liberation. If the Palestinians had only played by Gandi's rules, they'd have their state by now, and a lot less people would have been killed.

Posted by: at August 28, 2005 02:15 AM

it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will

"Consistency check: imagine Jefferson Davis saying those words"

Huh? If Davis could have brought himself to say that, perhaps he would have advocated a freeing of the slaves, and thus the Civil War would not have been necessary.

I didn't say that Davis was consistent.

Even without slavery, I fear that the Civil War would have been inevitable. The regions had been engaged in a cold war since the nation's start, to see who takes over the federal government. Without slavery, there would have been some other identifying label to mark which new states and territories would be allied with whom. (Agrarian/Industrial states? Tariff/free trade states?)

My point is that an unqualified statement that "it is immoral for any nation to rule over another people against their will" assumes the right of secession. From a legal standpoint, the justification for secession in this country is listed in our first national legal document, the Declaration of Independence. Since the Founders waited until a certain set of transgressions was committed by the Crown, that list of grievances serves as the benchmark.

(Considering that the Feds weren't dissolving Dixie legislatures in the fashion of George III, the Southern case for secession fails the DoI test on that point.)

The DoI is our law and nobody else's, so assessing secessionist movements outside the US is a judgment call.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 28, 2005 03:02 AM

MT:
It is not about land. It is about the people who live on that land.

Israel can go right ahead and keep that land if they nationalize the people who live on it.

Interesting. So, Michael, wouldn't you rather the Palestinians agree to nationalize the Israeli settlers as a precondition to "going right ahead and keeping that land (Gaza)"?

Remember, Israelis were in Gaza before 1948 (look up the history of Kfar Darom). They were driven out by the Egyptians in a bout of ethnic cleansing, and returned in 1968 to re-settle Kfar Darom on the same site. If the Palestinians want Gaza, why should they not be required to nationalize the Israeli settlers there? Why should they be permitted to insist on a 100% Jew-free mini-state? Imagine if Israel were to insist on the Palestinians repatriating Israeli Arabs into Palestine as a precondition for any final settlement - how is that any different from requiring Israel to remove its settlers from Gaza as a precondition to considering the occupation over?

(Bear in mind, as well, that many settlers declared themselves willing to become Palestinian nationals. Dismiss that as a publicity stunt if you will, but shouldn't they have been given a chance to put their money where their mouth was?)

Posted by: Michael Gray at August 28, 2005 08:58 AM

If the Palestinians had only played by Gandi's rules, they'd have their state by now, and a lot less people would have been killed

I would join you in wishing that the Palestinians had produced a Gandhi. It is perhaps the optimistic strain of humanist in me that makes me want to believe that a Gandhi-approach would always be successful. The more skeptical part of me wonders whether, if there had been a Palestinian Gandhi, we wouldnt now have a greater Israel. Unlike the British in India, who always and obviously knew that they were occupying a distant colony, the settlers believe that the WB is their country, based on a grant from the highest possible authority. Could they have been shamed out of there like the Brits from India? I cant say that with certainty.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 09:10 AM

Even without slavery, I fear that the Civil War would have been inevitable

Sorry Alan, I think that is utter horseshit. Conflicts between the interests of agricultural regions and urban regions are a constant in every human society, and exist today in America. They do not, by any stretch of the imagination, lead inevitably to war. The Southern political leaders wanted to protect the institution of slavery by insuring that a sufficient number of new states would be slave states. Safeguard the tyranny by extending the tyranny. Without slavery, there were NO issues that were not amenable to political solution.

The DoI is our law and nobody else's, so assessing secessionist movements outside the US is a judgment call

Well, actually the DoI has no standing as law at all. But as to the judgement call thing - well yeah, I offer my judgements. As do you.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 09:19 AM

Bear in mind, as well, that many settlers declared themselves willing to become Palestinian nationals

Was it the Palestinians who rejected that or the Israeli government?
To the larger point, I think that the Palestinians would always have been amenable to a deal in which Israeli settlers would be allowed to live wherever they wanted in the territories, if the Palestinians were given the same right (i.e. in Israel). I think that it is the Israelis who are far more opposed to that than the palestinians, for it is the Israelis who have, to a far greater extent, the notion of an ethnic/religous national identity to protect.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 09:27 AM

A Palestinian Ghandi would be the worst nightmare of the far right in Israel. As long as Palestinians continue to kill innocent people, greater Israel types can hide their ideological motives behind a security rationale, and the world will more or less buy it. If there were a massive, non-violent protest to get Israel out of the West Bank, the whole world would be on the Palestinians' side (as well as the majority of Israelis), and the pressure on Israel would be unbearable, worse than all the previous terrorist acts combined.

By the way, something like this already happened. It was called the First Intifada, and it led straight to Oslo.

Posted by: MarkC at August 28, 2005 09:35 AM

Michael Gray: Interesting. So, Michael, wouldn't you rather the Palestinians agree to nationalize the Israeli settlers as a precondition to "going right ahead and keeping that land (Gaza)"?

Jews in Hamasistan? No, that's crazy. They would not survive.

Only in a much better world than the one we live in would that be wise.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 28, 2005 10:48 AM

The Southern political leaders wanted to protect the institution of slavery by insuring that a sufficient number of new states would be slave states.

But slavery wasn't in any danger after the 1860 election. Why did the first wave of secession happen? (The second wave was a response to Lincoln's invasion of the South, which many viewed as a sort of Janet Reno operation on steroids.)

You're right - ag vs. industrial isn't the proper dichotomy. The signature special interest of the North wasn't industry but mercantilism and protectionism. The South getting rid of its crooked special interest doesn't guarantee that the North gets rid of its own.

There's another dichotomy: ethnic:

Families of zealous, literate Puritan yeomen and artisans from urbanized East Anglia established a religious community in Massachusetts (1629-40); royalist cavaliers headed by Sir William Berkeley and young, male indentured servants from the south and west of England built a highly stratified agrarian way of life in Virginia (1640-70); egalitarian Quakers of modest social standing from the North Midlands resettled in the Delaware Valley and promoted a social pluralism (1675-1715); and, in by far the largest migration (1717-75), poor borderland families of English, Scots, and Irish fled a violent environment to seek a better life in a similarly uncertain American backcountry.

The divisions in Britain were transplanted here. The first two concentrated in the North, the third in the South, and the fourth in both but leaning South (the Irish portion leaning North) - and having little political representation, at least when voting rights were tied to land ownership. Each of these groups left Britain to do their own thing, but the people they tried to get away from wound up coming here, anyway. The interstate cold war was inevitable.

Maybe if voting had been untied from property ownership sooner, the "rednecks" would have had a powerful voice in government sooner - at the expense of the planters.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 28, 2005 11:54 AM

Yeah, and maybe if the rednecks had refused to fight to defend the institution of slavery that profited mainly the large plantation owners, then things would have turned out much better.

Perhaps this is the great insight arising from all this - the tradgedy of southern average folks who buy into the notion that the interests of their region, and by analogy, the nation, are always properly defined by the interests of the leading businessmen.

As in "whats wrong with the South"?

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 12:14 PM

Back to the topic...if there are lessons for the Middle East in this Civil War talk, it's that a) insularity breeds contempt, and b) heavily centralized government breeds contempt. Israel must walk a tight line between constant war readiness and reasonable separation of powers between national and local governments. Somehow the Palestinian agitprop machine must be overcome, and Israel must convince more everyday average Palestinians that the high state of alert can exist without interfering with average everyday folks making a living and hanging out with friends at the mosques and coffee houses and whatnot, and that if normal life is not possible, it's because of Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their ilk.

As far as the insularity issue goes, one would hope that commerce and cultural exchange between average everyday Arabs, Christians, Jews, etc. would be possible even in this environment. We know it won't be happening within Gaza.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 28, 2005 12:45 PM

Ah, I see I've already been responded to.

The rednecks weren't defending slavery (why should they have thought that the Yankees who passed the Fugitive Slave Law would end it?), but were protesting a perceived abuse of military force. I can imagine the conversations: "Beauregard takes Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and they invade VIRGINIA?" (State factionalism was a lot stronger in the days when the country was called "these united States.") Recall that it was the planter-heavy states that seceded first, and the more redneck-heavy states that were the second wave. Slavery didn't even enter the war rhetoric until mid-war.

Got chores to do now.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 28, 2005 12:57 PM

Greater Israel is over. Sharon pulled out of Gaza and is closing down four settlements in the West Bank right now.. And just like Barak and Peres he will get booted out of office. Showing that doing the right thing regarding the Palestinians will always cost you your job because like clockwork there was another suicide bomber yesterday. I was never fond of Sharon as a politician so I do not weep at the prospects of his future political defeat. But instead of treating the Gaza pullout and the beginning of a slight West Bank pullback as a positive sign do the Palestinians stop the suicide bombings, even for a couple of weeks? of course not, the bombings progress whether land is given or not. I always thought that the settlements were a mistake and most of the land will be given back but that will not stop the attacks. They are going to a part of Israel until one of their enemies figures out a way to drive them into the sea. That lovely line has been uttered non-stop since 1948 and it is time to give up the hope that it will ever be retired. Israel will eventually come to an agreement with the Palestinians on the West Bank and a seperate state but the war will not stop. And when there is a two state solution the push for a one state solution will begin with all the vigor, violence, and talking points that are being uttered today.

Posted by: kevinpeters at August 28, 2005 01:00 PM

do the Palestinians stop the suicide bombings, even for a couple of weeks?

Oh come off it Kevin. The "Palestinians" did not commit the latest suicide bombing. It was A palestinian - an adherent of one particular extremist strain. The Palestinian Authority is not a totalitarian regime that can control the actions of all of its citizens on a minute-by-minute basis. Just like the IRA continued to commit terrorist atrocities, often timed to undermine hopeful moments, to the frustration of those who were trying for peace. And just like in Ireland, when the average person senses that their legitimate concerns can be met, even if that does not include the hoped-for ideal (no more Israel, a united Irish island) they will increasingly make manifest their loss of support for the extremists. And the extremists either adapt or go extinct.

So long as one plays the game of hiding behind the fact that some people use horrible means, to deny the existence of legitimate complaints, no progress is made. Fortunatly there are plenty of wiser heads in Israel - maybe even Sharon has wised up. It would be pretty pathetic if you are right that this will cost him his job. Do you really think there is an endless well of folly amongst the Israeli electorate? I actually doubt it, since it seems that his latest moves are pretty popular.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 01:49 PM

Israel must convince more everyday average Palestinians that the high state of alert can exist without interfering with average everyday folks making a living and hanging out with friends at the mosques and coffee houses and whatnot, and that if normal life is not possible, it's because of Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their ilk

Yeah, only one problem with that strategy. The Palestinians are not fools. They know damn well that it is not simply the Israelis trying to establish a basic level of security for themselves. It is the constant and ongoing landgrab, and the security apparatus necessary to defend it, which is making normal life not possible. So no, they are not going to buy the utterly dishonest notion that it is Hamas and their ilk that is the only thing standing between themselves and a normal life.

If the Israelis show some commitment to a large-scale withdrawl from the WB, not necessarily all of it, but at least to the extent that was on the table at Taba, or in the Geneva accords, then, and only then, could one make the argument that continued violent resistance was the only thing blocking a normal life for the Palestinians.

Posted by: Observer at August 28, 2005 01:56 PM

I am reminded of a line from The Right Stuff (Mercury Space program) about what puts astronauts into space. NOT science.
Funding.

The US has some multi-billions of US$ pressure available to use on Israel, to achieve peace. But it will NOT use that pressure as long as the Palestinians commit terrorist murders.

And most USA folk don't care much about a few hundred square kilometers more or less. I think Sharon should claim more territory (first wrote terroritory) for every Israeli death by terrorism, perhaps 10 or 100 Palestinian houses around the WB for each terrorist caused death.

Peace, and mercy, require "forgiveness" -- meaning accepting a not-fully just situation.

Michael: Jews in Hamasistan? No, that's crazy. They would not survive.

If the point is to NOT survive, but become martyrs to show the barbarism of the Palestinians, it might not be crazy. Neo-Suicidal, yet prolly great political drama. "Peaceful Israeli Settlers murdered by Hamas."

If it was Sharon ordering the military to remove the settlers, was this enforced protection a violation of THEIR rights? (to be murdered?)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 28, 2005 02:39 PM

Observer - I see in your many comments that you appear to be a big spectator fan of the game Russian Roulette. More than willing to make all sorts of assumptions as long as the gun is being held to the heads of Israel's and not your own. At least that's my impression.

Posted by: Caroline at August 28, 2005 02:45 PM

Tom Grey: "I think Sharon should claim more territory (first wrote terroritory) for every Israeli death by terrorism, perhaps 10 or 100 Palestinian houses around the WB for each terrorist caused death."

Or, for every 3 months of no attack from the Pali side, dismantle one settlement and for every attack on the Pali side, advance one settlement further into Pali territory. Land for peace.

"If the point is to NOT survive, but become martyrs to show the barbarism of the Palestinians, it might not be crazy."

It's not crazy at all. It seems rather evident that the world is putting the pressure on the side that they know is humane. Evidently, decency loses you points. The corollary is that indecency gains you points. So become indecent - strand your settlers and refuse to take them back. Turn them into refugees. That's evidently how you win international support and gain land. That's how it appears to me in any case.

Posted by: Caroline at August 28, 2005 03:06 PM

In a perfect world, both “greater” movement would be defeated simultaneously. But the world is far from perfect, as it always has been, and Palestinian society is more dysfunctional and corrupt than Israeli society. So the Greater Israel movement is being defeated before the Greater Palestine movement, if only because the intifada has been largely walled off from Israel proper. (Critics of Israel’s security fence should acknowledge that it is the very thing that makes Israeli withdrawal even possible.)

Michael, I have seen NO evidence that the greater Palestine movement as you called it will ever be defeated. The supporters of the Palestinians have never been honest enough to admit that all of the political actors in Palestine are part of one sort of "greater Palestine movement" or other.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at August 28, 2005 04:47 PM

Observer says:

"Oh come off it Kevin. The "Palestinians" did not commit the latest suicide bombing. It was A palestinian"

We'be been hearing this for years, that suicide bombers are just desperate individuals so traumatized by the infinite cruelty of the Jews that they cannot help themselves.

Bullshit.

Every single suicide bomber has been recruited, incited, trained, armed and dispatched by organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad - organizations with wide support among Palestinians and which are richly funded by the oil moguls of the Muslim world (Arab and Iranian).
The nadir (if indeed any suicide bombing can be considered more reprehensible than the others) came when they sent out a retarded teenager, who the IDF disarmed and sent home.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at August 28, 2005 05:36 PM

1 - land for peace is a cool idea - but the israelis have given up and land and NOT gotten any peace.at best the deal with egypt has led to a "cold peace/war."

2 - a two-state solution is abstractly practical, but actually it requires that the israelis have democratic republicans (small d small r) on the other side of the border and not jihadoterrorists bent on anti-Semitic genocide.

3 - if israel is - (and can be - and can remain-)- 20% Arab Muslim, then why does Gaza or the West Bank have to be JUDENREIN?!

The fact that palestinian Arabs demand that all Jews leave their domain PROVES that they are dominated by racist genocidal maniacs, and israel will never ever have peace with the likes of them.

when arabs a jews can live side by side in gaza and the west bank as they do in israel, then there will be peace.

4 - the ethnic cleansing of gaza was morally reprehensible and will lead to more terror.

HOWEVER: because the military assets of israel can now be deployed more efficaciously, the REPRISALS for future attacks - if they occur will be BRUTAL.

The PNA must confront the jihadoterrorists; if they don't - and the jihadis do attack, then the jihadis will be counter-attacked by israel and they will die, and the PNA (not israel) will have to pick up the pieces.

Posted by: reliapundit at August 28, 2005 07:12 PM

"Just a palestinian." A palestinian that will soon be a hero and will have his pre-suicide "martyr" tape snatched by a vast number of the Palestinian population. When the Israeli soldier murdered the Israeli arabs he was not held up as a hero, he was called a murderer and a terrorist by almost every major Israeli politician.There is even talk about not allowing him to be buried in any religous cemetary. Was that awol soldier given years of propaganda by government media telling him the glories of killing innocent non-combatants. When Arafat started losing street cred he formed his own martyrs brigade so he could get in on the action.The PA calls it terrorism in English and then will praise it in Arabic. It is not just a radical segment when the government encourages its people to copy those actions. It's called policy.You can't have the papers calling for it, have the friday sermons call for it, and have the "martyrs' made into heroes by the government press organs and then try to claim that it's just some bunch of wild kooks.

Posted by: kevinpeters at August 28, 2005 07:59 PM

when arabs a jews can live side by side in gaza and the west bank as they do in israel, then there will be peace

Thats the ticket! Let all the jews who want to live in gaza and the westbank do so. And all the palestinians who want to live in israel can do so to. And to make sure everyone is safe, let the israelis and palestinians administer the entire area together. In fact, we can learn a lesson from the most peaceful and successful society on earth - we can have them set up a secular government over the entire area with a seperation of state from mosque/synagogue, and guaranteed freedom of religion for all, and an effective policing force to keep the entire regions peaceful.

Posted by: at August 28, 2005 08:54 PM

Nameless commentor, was that post sarcasm or extreme naivete, I can't tell.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at August 28, 2005 10:43 PM

It is the constant and ongoing landgrab

What landgrab? You make it sound like Israel has expanded its borders lately. The only ones getting land nowadays are Palestinian Arabs.

Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at August 28, 2005 11:34 PM

Alan, don't confuse him with facts. Propaganda always takes precedence over reality with that sort.

Posted by: Joshua Scholar at August 29, 2005 09:05 AM

Michael, you've been doing good, sane, intelligent work on this issue. Much appreciated.

Posted by: rosedog at August 29, 2005 09:25 AM

Michael -- I appreciate your decent moderate stand on the Israeli/Palestinian question in your recent posts.

Lots of people against Israeli peace efforts point out correctly that the primary outstanding question remains the fundamental Arab acceptance of a Jewish state in its midst. There is some truth to the assertion, though it is exasperating or obnoxious when the argument is made by those who under any circumstances would prefer not to grant any political rights to Palestinians. Previous conditional Palestinian or Arab acceptance of Israel has left too much "wiggle room, raised too many questions of duplicity, sincerity, all that. The biggest problem isn't current Arab leaders, most of who have made it clear that normal relations, not necessarily friendly, with Israel are possible, but rather with the proverbial Arab street. We'll have to see how Hamas does in the democratic elections, and if Hamas becomes more moderate if it starts to get some institutional power.

Once this primarcy acceptance question is settled, the questions shifts to details: borders, refugees, land-swaps, water rights, Jerusalem. On these and other specific issues, I'm mostly with the Israeli left or the Palestinian moderates, and I think most fair-minded people should be as well. On Jerusalem, for instance, an agreement allowing the city to be the capital of both nations makes it much LESS likely that the Republic of Palestine, or whatever its called, becomes a revanchist state. Saying that the city must remain the undivided and indivisible (as if border changes have not happened naturally in the history of many cities) strikes me as irresponsible ethnic/religious chauvanism.

What I'd really to see is for Bush and Rice to assure Palestinians, and the rest of the world, that if Palestinians, in addition to stopping their terrorist groups, start to talk sense, in Arabic, about "right of return", that the United States in return will press Israel hard about concessions on Jerusalem, about a fair land swap for the settlement blocs, and on water rights.

Posted by: markus at August 29, 2005 11:54 AM

Given that what is now the West Bank is the heart of ancient Israel, I find it hard to understand why Jews "don't belong there." In fact, there is ancient Jewish history in Gaza too, as well as periodic residence through the diaspora, and in what is now Israel proper.

Withdrawing from Gaza makes sense for strategic reasons. Withdrawing from parts of the WB make sense for strategic reasons. Withdrawing to the indefensible 67 borders does not, and in fact is contradicted by R 242, which allows for Israel to have secure defensible borders.

One has to make a case why "Palestinians" belong there which at the same time establishes why Jews should not.

Posted by: Yehudit at August 29, 2005 04:53 PM

I am sincerely hoping that someone can educate me on this:

large numbers of palestinians kicked out of Kuwait and Jordan with no fanfair whatsoever

This is admittedly just one random article but it cites facts I've heard many times. But could someone tell me - how many Palestinians were booted out of Kuwait and out of Jordan "for security reasons" with no international fanfare whatsoever. Again - someone please explain this to me and how you see it relating to the current I/P conflict...

From the article:
"Ordinarily, if one country invades another and loses, the invaders are lucky if they get to flee in their underwear with whatever possessions they have left in a suitcase under their arm; they'd beg for mercy and at least pretend to worship the people who allowed them to survive. Consider what happened to the Palestinians in Jordan and Kuwait. The Palestinians did not attack Jordan, as they did in Israel, but Jordan nevertheless decided to kick them out of the country. The Palestinians became victims of a hideous massacre that saw thousands of their people slaughtered.

Similarly Palestinians were massacred, murdered, or expelled from Kuwait -- even though, as in the case of Jordan, the Palestinians never evidenced a determination to attack or destroy the country. Strangely, virtually none of the Palestinians who were kicked out of Jordan or Kuwait ever demanded any right to return to their homelands. Why is it that there are no international agencies that attack on any moral or political level Jordan or Kuwait in the way they've attacked Israel for not allowing the Palestinians' "right of return"? When did anyone hear of Jordan or Kuwait offering to give up parts of their land or holy sites to the Palestinians?"

Posted by: Caroline at August 29, 2005 05:19 PM

I do hope that someone with expertise will come and give us some numbers but googling around I get the imression that we are looking at roughly 300,000 Palestinians kicked out of Kuwait for representing a "security threat" and approximately how many kicked out of Jordan?

Of course approximately 1 million Jews have been kicked out of the ME with nobody advocating for their right to return there because... because ...uh, because obviously Israel, being an eminently decent society like the U.S - that would be us - has and will take the Jews in and everyone knows it?

Someone (Observer, Markus) shed some light on the number of Palestinians kicked out of Jordan and soneone please explain to me the onus on Israel to take responsibility for these people when the Arabs obviously refuse and WILL NOT, despite their enormous, absolutely ENORMOUS land mass relative to Israel, take any responsibility whatsoever, for these people.

This is a fun map : Map for children! Find israel!

And that big grey section to the left - Africa - is already rapidly falling to Islam as we speak and type.

It looks to me like there's a jihad on against Israel. Plain and simple. And I cannot for the life of me understand why people insist on looking at the trees instead of the forest...

Posted by: Caroline at August 29, 2005 06:03 PM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn