The Israeli newspaper is at it again, saying what should not be said about Israel. A fine piece by Uzi Benziman is the paradigm of what is wrong to those who view the Jewish State as incapable of doing anything wrong, whether it be human rights abuses, violations of international law, or outright aggression that goes unpunished (or even unnoticed) by the West. How many even recall the Israeli strike on Syria in early September? Has any criticism been notable as of yet?
In Benziman's article, he sees the mistake in collective punishment of Gazans, in the vain hope of stopping Qassam rockets terrorising Israelis in Sderot:
"Experience teaches that subjecting the Palestinians to collective punishment - roadblocks, curfews or economic pressure - has not brought the desired result. Just the opposite: it increases the terror organizations' motivation to strike at Israel, and increases the number of potential suicide bombers."
Such logic is missing in too many in these times. But those Qassams have to stopped, right?
"So what should be done to combat the Qassams? Instead of trying economic siege and power outages and limited raids and ground campaigns and targeted assassinations - how about trying to reach a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians founded on a genuine Israeli willingness to give up the territories?"
It makes sense to me. Gaza has been the playground for Israel's demented militancy; it's a giant prison, caged in with guards and checkpoints and IDF incursions imminent every day. With the recent declarations that enable any IDF soldier to be "above the law" to enflict as much damage to Palestinians as possible (in Gaza), Qassam rockets provide the perfect pretext for any future raid into the Gaza Strip. Benziman concurs that,"
"They call the move a 'test': If it works, fine; if not, they'll think of something else."
So anything that happens in Gaza is subject to Israel's whims and desires; if we want to try out some bombs, let's do it in Gaza; if we want to try to snuff out some Palestinians, Gaza is the place to do it. It doesn't matter if it works (although it would be better if it did), because it's just Gaza: they're "hostile" people; they have brought this on themselves. Let's starve them but just enough to keep them alive (to continue starving); let's cut their power and show them how primitive they really are; let's cut their medical supplies and fuel and even curb their banking. So what if it works? I quote Benziman again,
"According to reports by Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel in Friday's Haaretz, the Israel Defense Forces recommended the sanctions even though it knew they would not achieve the declared goal: to stop the rocket and mortar shells."
It won't work but let's do it anyway.
As was showcased in video documenting the Gaza debacle, groups like Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade, who responsible for the Qassam launchers, are involved in guerrilla warfare, all the while pushing Hamas from their moderate position into encapsulating armed resistance against Israel. In the video, the operation of Qassams were just a band of three to four people, with a tiny setup that has no centrality. A sanctions strategy is not going to deter these radicals who see violence as justified because of Israel's continued oppression and occupation of Palestinians. On the contrary, it will exacerbate an already fiery confrontation, vindicating all the rhetoric that extremist factions such as Islamic Jihad are preaching. While there are some who condemn the acts of sending Qassams (which allure Israel to strengthen its resolve), most Palestinians support them in their resistance against their occupier.
But this reality is something that the folks who unconditionally support Israel to the bitter end don't want you to read. They would rather the typical person be coccooned from all the bad things and bad people, so you can pledge your undying love to the Jewish State (while being in a foreign country). Palestinian suffering has no bearing; what counts is Israeli suffering (since they have suffered for an eternity and have finally found their way home). As of this writing, they are still giving it to Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, this time with two more pieces in the Washington Post. Philip Weiss attests that this is further evidence that such a entity as Jewish Power is an absolute in DC circles.
"I believe the Post has run a series of critical pieces on M & W. Shouldn't they give the authors or those who agree with them space to defend their point of view? (My sources tell me the Post has rejected a couple of pieces that would have backed M & W up...)"
This is only corroborated further by another piece (also commented on by Philip Weiss) that named figures such as John Hannah, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams as instrumental in opposing any initiative to implement the Road Map. When the Prince Abdullah (as well as Jordan's King Hussein) challenged Bush to do something about the Palestinian situation, the "cabal" in Rice's and Rumsfeld's offices opposed stating
"...that negotiation was just a reward for bad behavior. First the Palestinians had to reject terrorism and practice democracy."
So who is really impeding progress here? Any small measure to promote some kind of detente (at least) is rebuffed where it counts, and those who are not in line are derailed. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a struggle between the elites on what is accepted and what is to be done. We're seeing a strong campaign to keep the Israeli centred viewpoint (even though it still is, most criticism directed at what would be best for Israel's survival, with the Palestinians a mere side factor in the matter), respected public figures such as Tutu, Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer continually subjected to vitriol, and the crusade hitting the institutions to prevent these people to speak (or debate), as well as an offensive against Israel's liberal newspaper which prints what is not fit to be printed. Even more dangerous is the fact that the Larry Franklin case seems to be losing momentum, thanks to more delayed tactics of the defense. This is a man who is undisputably working for Israel's benefit at the cost of American intelligence, and yet we're meant to see this as nothing wrong, all in a day's work. If there ever was a doubt that a Lobby existed to promote Israel's interests, the Franklin case is the stamp that sealed the envelope.
But this is what they don't want you to know. They'd prefer we remain the coccoon, similiar to those Israelis who are just inured to the occupation that the Palestinians don't even entitle a story in the front pages. We will be insulated from all that could potentially harm us, agnate the 9/11 aftermath that had us protected from all covert operations that had "blowback" effects. In the end this will not be the way towards anything besides mutual annihilation. There can be no understanding unless we engage with those we disgree with, and there will be no basis for peace unless Israel recognises Palestinian dolour and their birth of exile. If not then we can expect more "tests" from Israel.
Showing posts with label Ha'aretz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ha'aretz. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Zionist panic!
The effervescent Tony Karon (I know, I cite him an awful lot, but if you read his priceless blog, you can see why.) observed more Zionist panic upon reading the Daniel Pipes entry that Zionism is in decline (that was posted here not long ago). Tony also quotes lengthy another favourite of mine, Philip Weiss, who was present at a CAMERA summit. Here's what Tony took out of Weiss' take on the Zionist gathering:
"The CAMERA people are losing and they know it. Near the end Cynthia Ozick was asked how we should go about delegitimizing the delegitimizers of the Jewish state and she sighed and said, “It’s hopeless.” Alvin Rosenfeld, the author of the disgraceful report on Jewish anti-Semitism put out by the American Jewish Committee, was mildly more optimistic. He said exactly what I say: “We are in a furious intellectual struggle. There is a war of ideas going on… it won’t end quickly…. It is steady work.” And it is “serious and worrisome” inasmuch as these ideas may now “enter the mainstream.” Amen.
…The reason It’s hopeless for the other side is that there was, in the basement of the synagogue, little to zero acknowledgement of the three great realities that are feeding Jewish post-Zionism.
1. the end of anti-Semitism. My old friend and I talked about a Jewish Daily News columnist who refused to hire Jews. That was 50 years ago. The injury is fresh. As the memories of anti-Semitism are for my parents. And they are virtually meaningless to young Americans. A panelist very briefly acknowledged this at the end, saying that Jews are so comfortable in America, how do we stir them?
2. the Israeli occupation of Arab lands and Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians were at no time acknowledged, but endlessly rationalized. The separate roadway system for settlers and Palestinian Arabs–rationalized. The incursion into Jenin–whitewashed. And so on. This sort of denial went on in South Africa during the campaign against apartheid. Young people don’t feel quite so defiant.
3. Not a word about Iraq. I have this feeling often in conservative Jewish gatherings. Iraq doesn’t touch them. It’s not a big deal to them, they are removed from it, they are for a hawkish policy in the Mideast and so they talk about Darfur/Sudan more than Baghdad..."
Weiss is then continued to be quoted:
"The heart of Levin’s concern was the American discourse. When Haaretz was just published in Israel, CAMERA didn’t care about its statements about the occupation and the destruction of Palestinian hopes and dreams and olive trees. “This all happened in Hebrew… causing little outward impact..”
Outward impact. She means: now Haaretz is affecting U.S. opinion and foreign policy. The most important statement Levin made was that she gets the brushoff from Amos Schocken, the Haaretz publisher, but with the American media, “there is an unwritten contract between them and us.” (Verbatim transcript to come later, when I have a little time…) An unwritten contract: to be fair to Israel, to print CAMERA members’ letters, to pick up the phone.
Isn’t that amazing and scandalous? Levin is explaining why there is a free debate in Israel and not here. Because of the lobby and its “unwritten contract.” Because U.S. support is crucial to Israel’s existence. And so Americans, who supposedly so love the Middle East democracy that they support it out of the goodness of their hearts, must not read the news from Israel."
And the final word is reserved for Tony himself:
"When the Zionist right in America “defends Israel” by going after one of Israel’s most respected newspapers which happens to tell the truth about the occupation and related matters, it’s not hard to see why Pipes & co. have little cause for optimism. The Zionist moment is over, because most Jews around the world (and even many in Israel) are not inclined to a nationalist view of their Jewishness. And remember, Zionism is not much more than 100 years old, arising along with the nationalist currents of late 19th century Europe that accompanied the breakup of the Hapsburg empire. It’s hardly surprising that in a 21st century where we have had a free choice, almost two thirds of us have chosen to live not in a “Jewish State” but wherever in the world we choose to. Many Israelis today are excercising the same choice. And Jews who are not prone to nationalism have no need to rationalize Israel’s abuses against others."
The allure of Zionism is lost to the younger generation, perhaps for the lucid fact that Semites are easily integrated into any society that they are found in. While Herzl argued that Anti-Semitism could not be fought and had to be accepted by the Jew so they could remove the illusion of assimilation into Europe, hence the need for a separate state for Jews, by today's standards this is too foreign to fathom. Most would identify themselves as American, Canadian, Australian, Polish, etc. first rather than Jewish. Entangled with this is the poor PR that Israel is continuely dogged by, and it is a recipe for estrangement from the Jewish State. Or maybe segragation is not the answer anymore to "Anti-Semitic" problems. I leave this from a quote from Sara Roy (who was quoting her mother):
"She told me many times during my life that her decision not to live in Israel was based on a belief, learned and reinforced by her experiences during the war, that tolerance, compassion, and justice cannot be practiced or extended when one lives only among one's own. “I could not live as a Jew among Jews alone,” she said. “For me, it wasn’t possible and it wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted to live as a Jew in a pluralist society, where my group remained important to me but where others were important to me, too."
"The CAMERA people are losing and they know it. Near the end Cynthia Ozick was asked how we should go about delegitimizing the delegitimizers of the Jewish state and she sighed and said, “It’s hopeless.” Alvin Rosenfeld, the author of the disgraceful report on Jewish anti-Semitism put out by the American Jewish Committee, was mildly more optimistic. He said exactly what I say: “We are in a furious intellectual struggle. There is a war of ideas going on… it won’t end quickly…. It is steady work.” And it is “serious and worrisome” inasmuch as these ideas may now “enter the mainstream.” Amen.
…The reason It’s hopeless for the other side is that there was, in the basement of the synagogue, little to zero acknowledgement of the three great realities that are feeding Jewish post-Zionism.
1. the end of anti-Semitism. My old friend and I talked about a Jewish Daily News columnist who refused to hire Jews. That was 50 years ago. The injury is fresh. As the memories of anti-Semitism are for my parents. And they are virtually meaningless to young Americans. A panelist very briefly acknowledged this at the end, saying that Jews are so comfortable in America, how do we stir them?
2. the Israeli occupation of Arab lands and Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians were at no time acknowledged, but endlessly rationalized. The separate roadway system for settlers and Palestinian Arabs–rationalized. The incursion into Jenin–whitewashed. And so on. This sort of denial went on in South Africa during the campaign against apartheid. Young people don’t feel quite so defiant.
3. Not a word about Iraq. I have this feeling often in conservative Jewish gatherings. Iraq doesn’t touch them. It’s not a big deal to them, they are removed from it, they are for a hawkish policy in the Mideast and so they talk about Darfur/Sudan more than Baghdad..."
Weiss is then continued to be quoted:
"The heart of Levin’s concern was the American discourse. When Haaretz was just published in Israel, CAMERA didn’t care about its statements about the occupation and the destruction of Palestinian hopes and dreams and olive trees. “This all happened in Hebrew… causing little outward impact..”
Outward impact. She means: now Haaretz is affecting U.S. opinion and foreign policy. The most important statement Levin made was that she gets the brushoff from Amos Schocken, the Haaretz publisher, but with the American media, “there is an unwritten contract between them and us.” (Verbatim transcript to come later, when I have a little time…) An unwritten contract: to be fair to Israel, to print CAMERA members’ letters, to pick up the phone.
Isn’t that amazing and scandalous? Levin is explaining why there is a free debate in Israel and not here. Because of the lobby and its “unwritten contract.” Because U.S. support is crucial to Israel’s existence. And so Americans, who supposedly so love the Middle East democracy that they support it out of the goodness of their hearts, must not read the news from Israel."
And the final word is reserved for Tony himself:
"When the Zionist right in America “defends Israel” by going after one of Israel’s most respected newspapers which happens to tell the truth about the occupation and related matters, it’s not hard to see why Pipes & co. have little cause for optimism. The Zionist moment is over, because most Jews around the world (and even many in Israel) are not inclined to a nationalist view of their Jewishness. And remember, Zionism is not much more than 100 years old, arising along with the nationalist currents of late 19th century Europe that accompanied the breakup of the Hapsburg empire. It’s hardly surprising that in a 21st century where we have had a free choice, almost two thirds of us have chosen to live not in a “Jewish State” but wherever in the world we choose to. Many Israelis today are excercising the same choice. And Jews who are not prone to nationalism have no need to rationalize Israel’s abuses against others."
The allure of Zionism is lost to the younger generation, perhaps for the lucid fact that Semites are easily integrated into any society that they are found in. While Herzl argued that Anti-Semitism could not be fought and had to be accepted by the Jew so they could remove the illusion of assimilation into Europe, hence the need for a separate state for Jews, by today's standards this is too foreign to fathom. Most would identify themselves as American, Canadian, Australian, Polish, etc. first rather than Jewish. Entangled with this is the poor PR that Israel is continuely dogged by, and it is a recipe for estrangement from the Jewish State. Or maybe segragation is not the answer anymore to "Anti-Semitic" problems. I leave this from a quote from Sara Roy (who was quoting her mother):
"She told me many times during my life that her decision not to live in Israel was based on a belief, learned and reinforced by her experiences during the war, that tolerance, compassion, and justice cannot be practiced or extended when one lives only among one's own. “I could not live as a Jew among Jews alone,” she said. “For me, it wasn’t possible and it wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted to live as a Jew in a pluralist society, where my group remained important to me but where others were important to me, too."
Thursday, October 4, 2007
And if it wasn't enough that Carter and Tutu say it...
What about those Israelis themselves? Bloody anti-Semites, the lot of them. Here's a nice post thanks to Mark Elf at Jews Sans Frontieres:
"Ha'aretz has editorialised that Israel has so 'normalised' the occupation that the state that has segregated Jews from Arabs since it's inception is 'becoming' an apartheid state."
The cat's out of the bag. Even an Jewish newspaper like Forward is not immune to the analogy of South Africa:
"Sure, there are similarities between the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those of black South Africans under apartheid. Indeed, in certain respects, the conditions Palestinians face are arguably even worse. But while the Palestinians’ circumstances may resemble those once faced by blacks in South Africa, the apartheid analogy ignores crucial context for why this is the case."
Elf says it best:
"The zionist movement never wanted the whole of Palestine but the Arabs goaded them into taking it all and more. And black South Africans never resisted apartheid by force of arms and were rewarded with the legal equality they have today. Except I ought to remind those on whom irony is lost, that the ANC did wage an armed struggle against apartheid and Nelson Mandela spent as long as he did in prison because he refused to renounce the armed struggle. And what did Lenni Brenner say? Forward is backward. He wasn't wrong."
"Ha'aretz has editorialised that Israel has so 'normalised' the occupation that the state that has segregated Jews from Arabs since it's inception is 'becoming' an apartheid state."
The cat's out of the bag. Even an Jewish newspaper like Forward is not immune to the analogy of South Africa:
"Sure, there are similarities between the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those of black South Africans under apartheid. Indeed, in certain respects, the conditions Palestinians face are arguably even worse. But while the Palestinians’ circumstances may resemble those once faced by blacks in South Africa, the apartheid analogy ignores crucial context for why this is the case."
Elf says it best:
"The zionist movement never wanted the whole of Palestine but the Arabs goaded them into taking it all and more. And black South Africans never resisted apartheid by force of arms and were rewarded with the legal equality they have today. Except I ought to remind those on whom irony is lost, that the ANC did wage an armed struggle against apartheid and Nelson Mandela spent as long as he did in prison because he refused to renounce the armed struggle. And what did Lenni Brenner say? Forward is backward. He wasn't wrong."
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Maybe there is hope for Europe
A good piece by Mariano Aguirre is featured in the French paper, Le Monde diplomatique:
"The New York Post editorial on 5 January 2007 read: “How did this man ever become president of the United States?” Readers might have thought this was a crack about President George Bush in a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. But the editorial went on: “He’s gone from failed president to friend of leftwing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America’s legitimate interests”; he wanted to “demonise Israel” and had secretly given “PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat”. The Post was damning not Bush, but Jimmy Carter, and it said Democrats should “cut all their ties” to him for “when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale”...
Carter insists that he was talking about Palestine, not the situation in Israel, but there has been vociferous reaction in sections of the US Jewish community. Like the Anti-Defamation League, they take any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. The protests have succeeded: both the chairman of the Democrats, Howard Dean, and their leader in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, distanced themselves from Carter. In this early pre-election period the affair was unwelcome and pushed them to take a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict...
In response to the attacks on his references to apartheid, Carter explained: “The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel… but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.” For Carter there are three essentials for peace in the region: guarantees on Israel’s security, an end to Palestinian violence, and recognition by Israel of the Palestinians’ right to a state in its pre-1967 borders...
Following [Chris] McGreal’s articles on [these] comparisons and the close military relations between the apartheid regime and Israel, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) accused him of falsehood and defamatory distortion of the facts (7)...
In 2006 there was a rise in tension around academics critical of Israel. There were strong reactions to an article published in London by two specialists in international relations, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (11), on the overriding influence of Jewish pressure groups in the US on its foreign policy in the Middle East; they claimed this had pushed the US into the war in Iraq. A few months later, Tony Judt, British and Jewish, and director of New York’s Remarque Institute for European studies, was attacked for “anti-semitic” views; he had maintained that the only solution to the conflict in the Middle East was a single, binational state (12). Judt held pro-Israeli views in his youth and is today regarded as a traitor. In October 2006, the Anti-Defamation League successfully pressed the Polish consulate in New York to cancel a conference Judt was to give on its premises. This caused shock, but Judt was later able to make his point – in Israel’s reputable Haaretz newspaper (26 July 2007) – that Israel’s future will remain in the balance as long as it continues repression and occupation in Palestine."
"The New York Post editorial on 5 January 2007 read: “How did this man ever become president of the United States?” Readers might have thought this was a crack about President George Bush in a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. But the editorial went on: “He’s gone from failed president to friend of leftwing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America’s legitimate interests”; he wanted to “demonise Israel” and had secretly given “PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat”. The Post was damning not Bush, but Jimmy Carter, and it said Democrats should “cut all their ties” to him for “when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale”...
Carter insists that he was talking about Palestine, not the situation in Israel, but there has been vociferous reaction in sections of the US Jewish community. Like the Anti-Defamation League, they take any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. The protests have succeeded: both the chairman of the Democrats, Howard Dean, and their leader in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, distanced themselves from Carter. In this early pre-election period the affair was unwelcome and pushed them to take a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict...
In response to the attacks on his references to apartheid, Carter explained: “The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel… but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.” For Carter there are three essentials for peace in the region: guarantees on Israel’s security, an end to Palestinian violence, and recognition by Israel of the Palestinians’ right to a state in its pre-1967 borders...
Following [Chris] McGreal’s articles on [these] comparisons and the close military relations between the apartheid regime and Israel, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) accused him of falsehood and defamatory distortion of the facts (7)...
In 2006 there was a rise in tension around academics critical of Israel. There were strong reactions to an article published in London by two specialists in international relations, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (11), on the overriding influence of Jewish pressure groups in the US on its foreign policy in the Middle East; they claimed this had pushed the US into the war in Iraq. A few months later, Tony Judt, British and Jewish, and director of New York’s Remarque Institute for European studies, was attacked for “anti-semitic” views; he had maintained that the only solution to the conflict in the Middle East was a single, binational state (12). Judt held pro-Israeli views in his youth and is today regarded as a traitor. In October 2006, the Anti-Defamation League successfully pressed the Polish consulate in New York to cancel a conference Judt was to give on its premises. This caused shock, but Judt was later able to make his point – in Israel’s reputable Haaretz newspaper (26 July 2007) – that Israel’s future will remain in the balance as long as it continues repression and occupation in Palestine."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)