This fundamental contradiction between Israel's deeply "moral" national identity and the colder realities of the world around it is ethically - and politically - unsustainable.

For a country who's very existence remains controversial, it has had to rely on the moral right of the Jews to have a homeland to, in part, justify its position against the palestinians and maintain US support. But 60 years down the line, this becomes a harder line to swallow, given the fact that Israel has been compelled to act in its own interest against the will of others just as much if not more than any other country. Situations such as this expose the disconnect between the country's purported fundamental values and its deeds.

Israel is no more rightious a country than any other. The burden of real-world decisionmaking, war included, has long overshadowed the burden of moral obligation. The same is true for the rest of us. Israel is no more shamed for refusing more Darfur refugees than we is the US are. Their only shortcoming is their inability to admit that their sense of moral purpose as a nation is not, in fact, so unique from the rest of the world. That is to say, it is just as fickle as the rest of us.

Israel must begin to acknowledge that it is just another collection of people, united under a flag and government, regardless of how religious or justified its citizens may feel. Come to think of it, that goes for the rest of us too.

And the first step would be for people like Rosner to stop using Orwellian terms like "action-oriented morality," and admit that Israel's actions are what they are: normal, everyday compromises.

but isn't this exactly what Rosner was saying? he admited that Israel follows the rules of all countries, even if it's expected to act in a different way because of the history of the Jewish people. He even gave you 3 examples of such behavior. What else do you want - and how is "action-oriented morality" Orwellian? I think you're over-reading something he really didn't mean to say.

But JW, the only problem is that without righteous countries, we'd have an even worse world than we do right now.

Being "righteous" has its own host of problems for sure. Take for instance the United States and its sense of being such a special or "indispensible" country. On one hand it is totally arrogant and we end up rushing into, say, Middle Eastern countries and taking them over. On the other hand, it has led us to do a lot of good around the world, most of it quiet good, for no other reason than doing so is the right thing and we want to live up to this standard, even if such as standard is a myth or a self indulgence.

It is why so many Europeans in particular have been so disappointed in the US since the Iraq invasion, including with the Abu Graib and Guantanamo shames. "The US does that?! Say it ain't so." It shocks the world. But does it shock anyone that people are routinely tortured in China? Of course not. It doesn't even make the news.

My point is simply thank God certain countries put themselves up on pedestals and hold themselves to a standard which is more than just a utilitarian, "what's in it for me?"

The fact is, there is nothing in it for Israel, or for any other country, to take in masses of traumatized, unskilled, utterly impoverished, uneducated wretches, but for the sake of being able to look itself in the mirror. Don't expect that from China, or Russia, or even Canada or Mexico to do it. Look to the US, Israel and some Western European nations, who have decided that there is more to the equation, countries which hold themselves to a higher, perhaps even arrogant, standard.

I see what you mean, but I think we're looking for a different type of "rightiousness." The values that the US (used to - and should hurry up in resuming to) promote are based on an idea of universal equality. "All men are created equal." This nets some different results than "never forget." The former espouses values that are intended to be inclusive; at our most ideal we see ourselves as a global nation, doing our best to move everyone towards the vague but all-appealing goals of freedom and individual potential. Israel is a state founded and sustained by a sense of Justice, as it applies to one specific religion. This is not wholly bad, but it is distinct from the message of personal empowerment that characterizes much of western culture. They are the chosen people, in the chosen land, etc. We may say these things about America, but somehow, when I hear Israelis talk about their destiny, it strikes me as both more hardcore and self-centered on their own personal ideas of what's right. "Moral" of the story - its better to focus on achieving morally right outcomes than judging the morality of identities.

Hm..interesting. But Israel's "purpose" was to be a homeland for jews. Isn't the USA's "purpose" to be a homeland for everybody?

No, and it never has been. I believe you are misconstruing the events of the 1900, 1910's, and 1920's. That whole "Give me your tired, your poor." poem on Liberty Island is not meant to be construed as US policy for all time. Emma Lazarus wasn't a senator or congresswoman.

If he did say it, he said it badly enough so that people didn't understand him.

However I must ask why he chose to single Israel out - assuming his point wasn't to attack them.

IMO, that fundamental disconnect was there in 1948, when Zionists began to take their chunk of Palestine away from the Palestinian Arabs who'd lived there for centuries. They basically committed mass land theft in the name of an ancient and entirely spurious religious claim to the land recognized by virtually no one but themselves and a few Western enablers.

The U.S. mistake was to help make this happen and then to hang our Middle Eastern policy (eventually) upon this essentially rogue state.

Truman was wrong...Sec'y of State Marshall was right. Supporting Israel's existence was a mistake.

"masses of traumatized, unskilled, utterly impoverished, uneducated wretches"

They are people who have overcome insurmountable odds, escaping a place of unimaginable horror where their families and friends were murdered and their homes destroyed. They traveled countless miles on foot in the desert, eventually reaching Egypt to face yet more bigotry and subjugation. Finally, they reach Israel, which in order to avoid a massive influx of refugees fleeing relentless Arab hatred will turn them away, a cruel irony in a number of ways.

They have shown the ultimate in human determination and perseverance, something you seem to have a hard time grasping while you sit on your ass in front of your computer pontificating… which lies at the opposite end of the human spectrum.

They are people... what the hell are you?

FOJ,

Are you really that stupid? Are you so filled with indignation and moral superiority that you can't even read? Do you believe my comment about the condition of these people was meant to be an insult to them?!

"Pontificating?!" About what? Was it the entire point of my post, which was to state that Israel and any number of countries should take these poor people in, "pontificating?"

Are you against taking these people in?

Of course they have endured unimaginable horrors. They have nothing. That's why my entire post was to state that Israel and any other country for that matter, should take them in.

You're impossible!

yes, in many parts of the our world life sucks....i wonder if the people so concerned about the lives of people on the other side of the world are just as concerned with the people who's lives suck here...you want to level the playing field and make everyone equal..fine..but be prepared to spend the rest of your life in a mud hut..you see, there are far more of "them" than there are you....charity begins at home, and THEN should reach out to others...

Where do you live?

I have some homeless people who want to move in.

You have no moral right to say that you have any right to live without taking in everyone someone else choses that you have a duty to take in.

Or if you are opposed to me sending all of these homeless to your place, please speak up.

You hypocrit.

Horus you seem to be ignoring that Palestine was a British protectorate before 1948 and it was the UN who partitioned the area into Palestine and Israel. You object that millions of jews immigrated to that area? Why? With that many immigrants I'm sure some squatting occurred but that is hardly a unique event in history. The majority of Palestinians didn't have to move and abandon their land and houses. They chose to leave, knowing the cavalry would soon arrive, and the united Arab coalition would soon push all the jews out. Many are still waiting for that to happen.

In the meantime, Palestinians had from 1948 to 1967 to create a nation but didn't. I do think Israel should exit the West Bank as it did Gaza and let the Palestinians create the sort of nation they want and deserve, as we have seen happen in Gaza. But, it isn't really my business.

No, I am not stupid. Impulsive, maybe, but not stupid.

I interpreted your “comment about the condition” of them as a condescending objectification of people who are suffering. Along with Arab collusion and the “African Union” illusion, a major factor their continued suffering is that people around the world cannot or don’t care to bring themselves to relate to their condition. Categorizing or labeling them and their abuse rather than reacting to it with an emotional and visceral urgency (as I did) perpetuate indifference and inaction.

My intention was to focus the discussion on the people who most desperately need the attention rather than the countries and governments who view their situation through ideological and political prisms.

In doing so, I essentially accused you of afore mentioned indifference and overlooked the core intention of your post. My apologies.