Comments on: If Lincoln and Douglas Debated the Occupation

By: Marc Gopin

Marc Gopin — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:55:39 +0000

Y. Ben David, you raise an important question that goes to the heart of the tragedy. Seeing the plight of Jews in Eastern Europe, who, from a moral perspective, would have seen a minority suffering persecution with ancient roots in the Holy Land, would not have agreed to the idea of a return to Zion–right up until they were faced with all the facts, all the methods of colonization, and all the consequences for residents with a very different narrative. The vast majority of Jews were never given all the facts, let alone Lincoln. Moral judgment that is decent changes and nuances with every new fact.

By: The Other Alan

The Other Alan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:58:27 +0000

More apropos is what Lincoln say about partition?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Think about that Zionist secessionists, as both Israelis and Palestinians have become slaves to one another!

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:18:05 +0000

I also might add that President Lincoln supported the creation of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel (that was an actual political issue dating back to the 1840′s when it was first suggested by CHRISTIAN Zionists in the US and Britain-you know, people sort of like Hagee). What did he think about the rights of the Palestinians?

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:15:49 +0000

Wasn’t President Lincoln the one who suspended Habaeus Corpus (sp?)? Didn’t he say that sometimes that portions of the Constitution had to be suspended in order to save the entire Constitutional system? Didn’t Lincoln, as part of his Presidential election campaign of 1860, agree to support a Constitutional Amendment GUARANTEEING slavery in the existing slave states as long as its spread was halted? Weren’t residents of the District of Columbia deprived of representation in Congress during Lincoln’s time (in fact, down to the present day) and the right to vote for President? (they finally got that in 1960).
Apparently, there is no perfect democracy.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:46:38 +0000

The next book about that time in history you should read is one about General Sherman!

By: fiddler

fiddler — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:23:21 +0000

Adam, I haven’t read the book, but I understand Gershom/Guelzo are saying there is no conflict between morals and procedure as long as you don’t allow the latter to supersede the former. If following procedure leads to immoral results then the procedure is wrong, or at least exceeds its due authority. For the same reason most of the world since Nuremberg doesn’t accept anymore “I was just following orders” as an excuse for war crimes.

As for your other point, you forget that those Jews themselves got to settle on “their” land only because others were expelled from it, regardless whether every single square meter now occupied by settlers was formerly inhabited by a Palestinian Arab. Surely you aren’t saying it’s only immoral to expel Jews from their homes, but not goyim, or that a people’s history of oppression especially entitles them to act immorally, or that only Jewish history counts at all?

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:10:12 +0000

One could easily make the reverse argument– that regardless of ‘process’ it is immoral for a government to expel Jews from their land against their will, particularly given thier history of oppresion. (just saying…)

Also, you seem to imply that the wish to abolish slavery on moral grounds was somehow at odds with democratic and federalist principles; a notion which Lincoln and the Republicans never held.

By: Clif

Clif — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:34:01 +0000

You said “Lincoln would argue from Jewish experience of oppression that people should (not) be denied rights simply on the basis of what group they’d been born into. What Jews should learn from their history was not to become the overclass, but to create a polity free of such oppression.” Exactly so! This has constantly been on my mind regarding the occupation. How could the Jews, of all people, be doing this?

“this is our land” appears to trump “this is our experience”