A good indication at who is really the driving force of blockading peace is indicated in this little slip-up by both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
"An effort will be made to hold accelerated negotiations in the hope that it will be possible to conclude them in 2008... However, there is no commitment to a specific timetable regarding these negotiations."
This kind of elusion is best reminiscent of the American procrastination of setting some guideline for troop withdrawal, using the "when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" round-a-bout that always seems to keep US occupation a permanent fact. And as temporary as Israelis wanted the occupation to be back forty years ago, I doubt people will buy that line now after four decades of oppression and second-class status for Palestinians (especially Gaza since the "disengagement", which only gets worse and worse).
But what would be necessary for the Israelis to set up a timetable or a deadline for this "peace"? You guessed it: Palestinian concessions.
"Both Livni and Olmert said that from Israel's point of view, the most important aspect of the understanding was that any future agreement would only be implemented after the Palestinians fulfilled their security requirements under the road map."
And what are those requirements? Tony Karon laid it out in his blog:
"The Roadmap, of course, requires Mahmoud Abbas to dismantle Hamas. Fat chance. And the Israelis know it better than anyone — Olmert reassured Israelis straight after the conference that Abbas is weak and ineffective. In other words, this whole process is hypothetical.
Taking down Hamas and uniting “moderates” against “extremists” is the purpose of the Annapolis process, not moving the Israelis and Palestinians, and the wider region, closer to peace."
The Palestinians are meant to bend over backwards to help fulfill Israel's security requirements and then Jerusalem must not be negotiated over, as well as settlements have to remain, as even compensation efforts to evacuate these nationalist lunatics is being opposed in the Knesset. The fate of the West Bank is under Israeli control, and no sovereignty is conceded to a Palestinian authority. What you see in the West Bank now is what we're going to see as a potential Palestinian state under Annapolis. This is an area that has been split up by settlements, barriers and road blocks, pockmarked with soldiers and checkpoints and dissected by Jewish highways and a separation wall, leaving the proposed area for a Palestinian state to almost nothing. Here's what Sonka Karkar has said of the usurpation of the land that is going to be legitimised thanks to the US backing:
"Certainly, any Palestinian state proposed today would not be the state envisaged by the architects of Oslo. Israel’s Wall, the settlements and the Israeli-only roads have made sure that any Palestinian state will be forever compromised by the Israeli colonial settlement enterprise...
The way Israel has set it all up now with settlements, restricted roads, military reserves and no-go zones on 93 percent of the Palestinian West Bank seems much more like a settler state where Palestinians will only have semi authority in the enclaves allotted to them than the sovereign Palestinian state everyone is talking about.
Should the Palestinians acquiesce to some semblance of a state on the fragments of land remaining in these latest talks, they would find themselves in an impossible situation – completely subject to Israel’s whims and utterly and indefinitely dependent on humanitarian aid from the international community."
That is what is required for Israel's security: the total dismemberment of Palestine, their identity, their history and their future; the annihilation of their nationalism and their rights to humanity. In order for Israel to be recognised to "exist as a Jewish state" is to propogate the Palestinian's total deletion from today's society. They must accept that they will forever be ruled by their colonial aggressors and give up their fight for equality.
Will the international community be fooled by all of this? Will Abbas continue his path to becoming the Palestinian satrap for the Empire? We will all sit tight for this to pan out.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Annapolis and Iran
Gary Sick was a guest columnist at Rootless Cosmopolitan and revealed that the Annapolis summit is a way to schmooze back the Arab regimes into the peace process and getting their influence to counter the Shi'ites of Iran. Hence why the need for Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to all agree on the Palestinian question and be on good terms with Israel and more importantly Washington, and create a good alliance against the evil of today, Iran.
Also important was the shift in gears, more or less towards diplomacy rather than hubris against Iran.
"Over the past several weeks, there has been a quiet process of apparent concessions and small gestures of approval between the United States and Iran in Iraq. General Petraeus told the Wall Street Journal that Iran “made promises at the highest levels of the Iranian government to the highest levels of the Iraqi government. These were unequivocal pledges to stop the funding, training, arming and directing of militia extremists in Iraq. It will be hugely significant to see if that’s the case.” Only a few weeks earlier, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had noted that the discovery and use of improvised explosive devices (IED) of suspected Iranian origin in Iraq had declined, along with the general decline of violence associated with the U.S. military surge and new counter-insurgency tactics.
In between these two announcements, the U.S. military released nine Iranians who had been arrested and held for many months. Even more unusual was the fact that the release of these men, now officially labeled of “no continued intelligence value,” had been reviewed only a few months earlier and rejected. Stranger still, they were identified as members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its special intelligence division, the Qods Brigade, which had just been officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Shortly thereafter, the Iraqi government announced that a fourth round of direct talks between the United States and Iran would take place in the near future.
So, what is going on here? Obviously it is still very early to draw any hard conclusions. A U.S. military spokesman recently linked Iran to a bombing in Baghdad by a splinter sect of the Mahdi Army, so perhaps this episode of good will was only a tiny deviation in an otherwise consistent policy of hostility. Or perhaps this was a goodwill gesture not to the Iranians but to the Iraqis who had been insisting that the Americans release their Iranian hostages and proceed with the Iraqi-sponsored talks. Or perhaps this was merely an odd concatenation of events, purely a coincidence."
Yes, it is the work of one Condoleezza Rice,
"who is showing herself to be a consummate realist, particularly as the neo-conservative ideologues increasingly find themselves without government employ and quarantined from the policy process, and as the Office of the Vice President watches its policy influence evaporating almost by the day. I am particularly intrigued by the fact that administration policy toward North Korea and the Palestinian issue have effectively reversed in the past year (regardless of pro-forma administration claims that the policies remain steady and unchanging)."
Annapolis is still doomed.
Also important was the shift in gears, more or less towards diplomacy rather than hubris against Iran.
"Over the past several weeks, there has been a quiet process of apparent concessions and small gestures of approval between the United States and Iran in Iraq. General Petraeus told the Wall Street Journal that Iran “made promises at the highest levels of the Iranian government to the highest levels of the Iraqi government. These were unequivocal pledges to stop the funding, training, arming and directing of militia extremists in Iraq. It will be hugely significant to see if that’s the case.” Only a few weeks earlier, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had noted that the discovery and use of improvised explosive devices (IED) of suspected Iranian origin in Iraq had declined, along with the general decline of violence associated with the U.S. military surge and new counter-insurgency tactics.
In between these two announcements, the U.S. military released nine Iranians who had been arrested and held for many months. Even more unusual was the fact that the release of these men, now officially labeled of “no continued intelligence value,” had been reviewed only a few months earlier and rejected. Stranger still, they were identified as members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its special intelligence division, the Qods Brigade, which had just been officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Shortly thereafter, the Iraqi government announced that a fourth round of direct talks between the United States and Iran would take place in the near future.
So, what is going on here? Obviously it is still very early to draw any hard conclusions. A U.S. military spokesman recently linked Iran to a bombing in Baghdad by a splinter sect of the Mahdi Army, so perhaps this episode of good will was only a tiny deviation in an otherwise consistent policy of hostility. Or perhaps this was a goodwill gesture not to the Iranians but to the Iraqis who had been insisting that the Americans release their Iranian hostages and proceed with the Iraqi-sponsored talks. Or perhaps this was merely an odd concatenation of events, purely a coincidence."
Yes, it is the work of one Condoleezza Rice,
"who is showing herself to be a consummate realist, particularly as the neo-conservative ideologues increasingly find themselves without government employ and quarantined from the policy process, and as the Office of the Vice President watches its policy influence evaporating almost by the day. I am particularly intrigued by the fact that administration policy toward North Korea and the Palestinian issue have effectively reversed in the past year (regardless of pro-forma administration claims that the policies remain steady and unchanging)."
Annapolis is still doomed.
"Debasing" Facts in the air
Despite the fact that Nadia Abu El-Haj has been granted tenure at Columbia University, the attacks still come in, even from the 'liberal' Ha'aretz. Bari Weiss has once again disputed El-Haj's ability to qualify for tenure because "the only book upon which she was granted tenure" was her groundbreaking study Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, which was a winner in the 2002 Albert Hourani Book Award, "which recognizes outstanding publishing in Middle East studies".
Weiss accuses El-Haj of totally discrediting science as a non-partisan study but subjected to the biases of the people who make it.
"To argue that people, rather than evidence, create archaeological fact, El-Haj is forced to abandon the methodology of science altogether."
And not content with El-Haj, Weiss brazenly applies her criticism to the late Edward Said.
"El-Haj is hardly the first to employ this approach. Perhaps its most powerful trailblazer was Edward Said, who argued in his landmark 1978 book "Orientalism," that when dealing with Asia, the West was necessarily politicized. Said alleged that even the most well-intentioned scholars, if they were Western, were Orientalists, actively constructing a mythical "Orient" out of their own political motivations as the exotic, feminized, other. For Said, there is no such thing as objectivity in scholarship, and those who claim to strive for it may well be the ones with the most to hide."
Is it not accepted that there are biases all around? People can profess to be absolutely non-partisan but we are a product of our society, whether negatively or positively. Israel is so polemic that nationalism permeates to the very last bum. How else can it be explained that such nationalist fervour is a pinnacle of the settlement structure and violence we forsee today and yesterday? Or how archeologists are in such a hurry to prove that ancient Israel does exist that it is justified to plow more Palestinian homes and heritage sites in order for evidence to be shown? Certainly El-Haj's book has been vilified and praised (but what book on the Holy Land ever is free of politicisation nowadays?) and it is up to the reader to conclude for themselves whether the book is sound or not. Weiss cannot accuse the usual anti-Semitic line since El-Haj has been free of any form of it.
Weiss does let it slip:
"Let's be clear: Is it in the interest of today's Zionists to find evidence of an ancient Israelite kingdom in the Land of Israel? Of course. But recognizing such interest does not preclude the possibility of the application of fair, professional standards, and the ability of archaeologists, regardless of their ethnic group, to uphold them in good faith."
But during the tenure controversy, El-Haj had plenty of support, "particularly in her field, who say her book is solid, even brilliant, and part of an innovative trend of looking at how disciplines function." Yes there are opponents, such as Alan F. Segal, a professor of religion and Jewish studies at Barnard, who was quoted as saying "her work is not good enough".
“She completely misunderstands what the biblical tradition is saying... She is not even close. She is so bizarrely off.”
And we all know how much claim biblical tradition has. Michael Dietler, an anthropology professor at University of Chicago said,
"She is a scholar of the highest quality and integrity who is being persecuted because she has the courage to focus an analytical lens on subjects that others wish to shield from scrutiny."
Basically El-Haj has done the unthinkable and that is to challenge Israel's sole claim to the land of Palestine. By attempting to showcase that their facts are more contrived that evidence would suggest, then it's best to derail her studies, however praised it really can be. Weiss concludes:
"El-Haj's work does not remind readers of the need to be skeptical of the influence nationalism can have on the interpretation of archaeological facts. Instead, she has written a book condemning the notion of facts themselves. It is for this reason that those who care about the future of the veracity of facts - and not just the future of Israel - should take serious notice of her promotion."
Or more to the notice that her promotion is a step backward for the academic police of Campus Watchers.
Weiss accuses El-Haj of totally discrediting science as a non-partisan study but subjected to the biases of the people who make it.
"To argue that people, rather than evidence, create archaeological fact, El-Haj is forced to abandon the methodology of science altogether."
And not content with El-Haj, Weiss brazenly applies her criticism to the late Edward Said.
"El-Haj is hardly the first to employ this approach. Perhaps its most powerful trailblazer was Edward Said, who argued in his landmark 1978 book "Orientalism," that when dealing with Asia, the West was necessarily politicized. Said alleged that even the most well-intentioned scholars, if they were Western, were Orientalists, actively constructing a mythical "Orient" out of their own political motivations as the exotic, feminized, other. For Said, there is no such thing as objectivity in scholarship, and those who claim to strive for it may well be the ones with the most to hide."
Is it not accepted that there are biases all around? People can profess to be absolutely non-partisan but we are a product of our society, whether negatively or positively. Israel is so polemic that nationalism permeates to the very last bum. How else can it be explained that such nationalist fervour is a pinnacle of the settlement structure and violence we forsee today and yesterday? Or how archeologists are in such a hurry to prove that ancient Israel does exist that it is justified to plow more Palestinian homes and heritage sites in order for evidence to be shown? Certainly El-Haj's book has been vilified and praised (but what book on the Holy Land ever is free of politicisation nowadays?) and it is up to the reader to conclude for themselves whether the book is sound or not. Weiss cannot accuse the usual anti-Semitic line since El-Haj has been free of any form of it.
Weiss does let it slip:
"Let's be clear: Is it in the interest of today's Zionists to find evidence of an ancient Israelite kingdom in the Land of Israel? Of course. But recognizing such interest does not preclude the possibility of the application of fair, professional standards, and the ability of archaeologists, regardless of their ethnic group, to uphold them in good faith."
But during the tenure controversy, El-Haj had plenty of support, "particularly in her field, who say her book is solid, even brilliant, and part of an innovative trend of looking at how disciplines function." Yes there are opponents, such as Alan F. Segal, a professor of religion and Jewish studies at Barnard, who was quoted as saying "her work is not good enough".
“She completely misunderstands what the biblical tradition is saying... She is not even close. She is so bizarrely off.”
And we all know how much claim biblical tradition has. Michael Dietler, an anthropology professor at University of Chicago said,
"She is a scholar of the highest quality and integrity who is being persecuted because she has the courage to focus an analytical lens on subjects that others wish to shield from scrutiny."
Basically El-Haj has done the unthinkable and that is to challenge Israel's sole claim to the land of Palestine. By attempting to showcase that their facts are more contrived that evidence would suggest, then it's best to derail her studies, however praised it really can be. Weiss concludes:
"El-Haj's work does not remind readers of the need to be skeptical of the influence nationalism can have on the interpretation of archaeological facts. Instead, she has written a book condemning the notion of facts themselves. It is for this reason that those who care about the future of the veracity of facts - and not just the future of Israel - should take serious notice of her promotion."
Or more to the notice that her promotion is a step backward for the academic police of Campus Watchers.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Can't stop gloating
Yes, it has happened. A very minor detail but a long awaited result for many of us Aussies out there. But finally, after for what seems like an eternity, John Howard is on his way out, and thank god the clown has been taken down (to paraphrase an earlier article of my two years ago). I don't know exactly, but I believe Howard has been in office for four straight terms and this would have been a fifth one. It has been almost a dozen years as the head man of Oz, and we're still paying for every minute of it.
A much better schadenfreude is written by Glenn Greenwald. It's difficult not to smile at such a shellacking for Howard but the man did not really win plenty of friends amongst those in the left and even some in the centrist spectrum. And as Greenwald so poignantly noted:
"[But] nothing captures the core corruption and dishonesty of John Howard -- and that of other blind supporters of the war in Iraq generally -- quite as vividly as a May, 2003 speech he delivered to the Australian parliament, in which Howard hailed the Greatness of George W. Bush and praised Bush's "Strength and Determination" for having led the "American-led coalition" to "Decisive Victory" in Iraq...
The ignominious defeat of John Howard had many causes having nothing to do with his disgraceful pronouncements on Iraq (though his triumphant opponent, Labor's Kevin Rudd, did pledge to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq). Nonetheless, it is still satisfying to witness such a well-deserved ejection from power of one of the last political leaders slavishly loyal to the disastrous Bush/Cheney/neoconservative war agenda."
Since my departure from Australia, it has been rather difficult to remain focused on Australian domestic politics. Kevin Rudd is still quite unknown in my outlook, but I am always skeptical. It is the Labour Party: they're no saints either. But he seems to be on his way to showing some backbone. As I am writing this, Rudd is planning a withdrawal from Iraq and signing the Kyoto Protocols. Now that's quite a change from the last twelve years.
Consequently, Mahir Ali describes Rudd something closer to a neo-Tony Blair or a mini-John Howard.
"In fact, Rudd’s main strategy throughout the campaign was to reassure all and sundry that in key areas of policy a Labor government would not be remarkably different from its predecessor. This was largely intended as a gesture towards voters who had grown sick and tired of Howard and his ministers, but saw no particular reason to take issue with the Liberal administration’s social or economic policies."
But Rudd's two gestures has certainly put him in the right direction so far. And a third gesture to the Aborigines of Australia is a big step towards the healing. You cannot picture Howard doing something of high temerity as this apology.
Ali's article is a good synopsis of what took down Howard.
"...arguably the biggest factor was an insidious piece of legislation dubbed WorkChoices. Its purported aim was to enhance workplace “flexibility” - which is neoliberal code for further empowering employers at the expense of employees. The Howard government, despite its best efforts, was unable to disguise the fact that this was an attempt to snatch away more of the basic rights that workers had won through long and arduous struggles during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Howard was also wrong-footed by his failure to anticipate growing popular concern over global warming: until some months ago he was an outspoken sceptic, insisting in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the jury was still out on the likelihood as well as the causes of climate change. He eventually switched his tune, but remained adamantly opposed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which reinforced the impression that the primary motivation for his unconvincing conversion lay in political realities rather than a change of heart.
The nagging suspicion has also lingered that his blockheadedness on Kyoto is not so much a matter of conviction as a measure of Howard’s obsequiousness towards the Bush administration. This embarrassing relationship is epitomized by Australia’s involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A vast majority of the Australian public has consistently opposed this role, but this factor didn’t seriously hurt Howard electorally in the past, partly because the country’s small contingent suffered no combat casualties."
Howard had totally failed in most aspects of winning the public, and by pandering to a Bushite ladder of rich vs poor, it contributed to his spectacular downfall. The polls had him slipping in the eary months of the year, and despite some jargon that attempted to hide the discontent, Howard was deseated and with him the rejection of a ruling class that wanted to increase the growing divide between upper and lower classes. Yes, Rudd has not done anything to change it yet, and he may not do anything of major to note that could make a difference to the normal taxpayer, but it is a good feeling (an ephermeral at that) to see the back of Howard and his bullshit.
And I cannot help but rub it in, Howard was unable to even win his own seat of Bennelong.
So long Howard, and thanks for all the memories.
A much better schadenfreude is written by Glenn Greenwald. It's difficult not to smile at such a shellacking for Howard but the man did not really win plenty of friends amongst those in the left and even some in the centrist spectrum. And as Greenwald so poignantly noted:
"[But] nothing captures the core corruption and dishonesty of John Howard -- and that of other blind supporters of the war in Iraq generally -- quite as vividly as a May, 2003 speech he delivered to the Australian parliament, in which Howard hailed the Greatness of George W. Bush and praised Bush's "Strength and Determination" for having led the "American-led coalition" to "Decisive Victory" in Iraq...
The ignominious defeat of John Howard had many causes having nothing to do with his disgraceful pronouncements on Iraq (though his triumphant opponent, Labor's Kevin Rudd, did pledge to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq). Nonetheless, it is still satisfying to witness such a well-deserved ejection from power of one of the last political leaders slavishly loyal to the disastrous Bush/Cheney/neoconservative war agenda."
Since my departure from Australia, it has been rather difficult to remain focused on Australian domestic politics. Kevin Rudd is still quite unknown in my outlook, but I am always skeptical. It is the Labour Party: they're no saints either. But he seems to be on his way to showing some backbone. As I am writing this, Rudd is planning a withdrawal from Iraq and signing the Kyoto Protocols. Now that's quite a change from the last twelve years.
Consequently, Mahir Ali describes Rudd something closer to a neo-Tony Blair or a mini-John Howard.
"In fact, Rudd’s main strategy throughout the campaign was to reassure all and sundry that in key areas of policy a Labor government would not be remarkably different from its predecessor. This was largely intended as a gesture towards voters who had grown sick and tired of Howard and his ministers, but saw no particular reason to take issue with the Liberal administration’s social or economic policies."
But Rudd's two gestures has certainly put him in the right direction so far. And a third gesture to the Aborigines of Australia is a big step towards the healing. You cannot picture Howard doing something of high temerity as this apology.
Ali's article is a good synopsis of what took down Howard.
"...arguably the biggest factor was an insidious piece of legislation dubbed WorkChoices. Its purported aim was to enhance workplace “flexibility” - which is neoliberal code for further empowering employers at the expense of employees. The Howard government, despite its best efforts, was unable to disguise the fact that this was an attempt to snatch away more of the basic rights that workers had won through long and arduous struggles during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Howard was also wrong-footed by his failure to anticipate growing popular concern over global warming: until some months ago he was an outspoken sceptic, insisting in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the jury was still out on the likelihood as well as the causes of climate change. He eventually switched his tune, but remained adamantly opposed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which reinforced the impression that the primary motivation for his unconvincing conversion lay in political realities rather than a change of heart.
The nagging suspicion has also lingered that his blockheadedness on Kyoto is not so much a matter of conviction as a measure of Howard’s obsequiousness towards the Bush administration. This embarrassing relationship is epitomized by Australia’s involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A vast majority of the Australian public has consistently opposed this role, but this factor didn’t seriously hurt Howard electorally in the past, partly because the country’s small contingent suffered no combat casualties."
Howard had totally failed in most aspects of winning the public, and by pandering to a Bushite ladder of rich vs poor, it contributed to his spectacular downfall. The polls had him slipping in the eary months of the year, and despite some jargon that attempted to hide the discontent, Howard was deseated and with him the rejection of a ruling class that wanted to increase the growing divide between upper and lower classes. Yes, Rudd has not done anything to change it yet, and he may not do anything of major to note that could make a difference to the normal taxpayer, but it is a good feeling (an ephermeral at that) to see the back of Howard and his bullshit.
And I cannot help but rub it in, Howard was unable to even win his own seat of Bennelong.
So long Howard, and thanks for all the memories.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
All Bullplop at Annapolis
The much-heralded summit is fast approaching, and with it the new hopes that finally there will be peace in the Holy Land, that Israel has finally found a "willing partner to negotiate" with and that it is a mere formality that two states will become of it. But most of us are not fooled; after all, how many summits and meetings can we go through this lifetime and still expect anything concrete to come out of it? Oslo; Camp David; Madrid; the Road Map; and etc. We've seen it all, and we're still stuck at where we began back in '67 (and to a much larger contextual view, in '48).
Lifting the veil, it is well known that this is going to go nowhere. It is being peddled by one Condoleezza Rice, who in a desperate effort to maintain diplomacy is basically backing both Olmert and Abbas in a corner. Rice is determined to see some progress in an already turbulent and misguided tenure as Secretary of State. And Bush is eager to see some rewards come his way, and what better way to do it than by brokering peace between what many has seen is a conflict that is eternally divided. But what is more evident is not that there is any real plan here, but that both Olmert and Abbas are too dependent on Washington not to go ahead and do as they're told. Olmert is hanging by a string and Abbas does not even have legitimacy with his own people. Both are pulpits of America, and both are reliant on the US to maintain their power.
But the skepticism is not just left to us analysts. Jim Lobe has reported that much of the Israel right-wing is doing its best to sabotage the Annapolis talks, and setting the stage for more failure that could prevent any hint of Israel giving up a thing (aka no territory).
"Hard-liners...close to...Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu...are mounting a concerted attack against next week's meeting which they fear could result in pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions."
There are familiar names, members of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Freedom Watch, but Danielle Pletka, the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies of AEI, "was particularly scornful of Abbas, whom she described as "powerless" and a "pretender," and of Rice who, she complained has "recently sought advice from not just Bill Clinton but, of all people, Jimmy Carter". Although Pletka did nail Abbas, seeing that he had no authority at all over the territories. (Perhaps it's because his government is illegal?) But Pletka sees that negotiating in accordance with "North Korea" is something of a terrible folly, even though North Korea did end up freezing their enrichment without a single bomb being dropped on them.
Interestingly enough, there is enough maneuvering going on that is leading to an entrapment for the Palestinians. Not only is the sole body who represents the Palestinians not invited, but Ehud Barak has already stated that if the talks fail, it is purely the fault of the Palestinians. If Israel concedes to not one single point of Palestinian contention, and if Palestinian concedes to everything but one, then it is still all the Palestinians fault.
"We mustn't allow ourselves to be blamed for the failure of the upcoming Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, because we didn't make enough concessions to the Palestinians."
So can Israel be blamed at all for any failure? Or is the continued settlement construction, annexation of more land, a total completion of the Separation Barrier, the encirclement of East Jerusalem and usurpation of all the water resources just not part of the negotiation?
And what can happen if the talks fail? Well, total annexation of the West Bank.
"[I}f the summit does not yield the desired results...an increased international pressure on Israel to annex the Palestinian territories and establish a bi-national state within its borders."
That's all part of the bargain, is it not? If it were the fault of the Israelis, should the Palestinians have a claim to the Galilee and the Negev? Or how about Tel Aviv?
Those "stubborn" Palestinians are only rejecting what they are meant to reject. Every document offered to them has been totally unacceptable, and only acceptable to one who just wants a share of power, some kind of figurehead, to do another superpower's bidding. I am still unclear whether Abbas is that candidate but he sure is sidling close to it. He has been known to call for the blood of his own brothers. But he is not just another demagogue; he knows what he his doing, or he seems to know the game to play it so well. But Abu Mazen is not well-liked amongst the common people, and Hamas is on its way out also, despite the fact that they did win back in 2006. Hamas has been demonised and targeted, and they have been resilient but they are not impervious to all that is happening. They joined the political wing that was a figment of Israeli occupation, and now they're paying for being a part of it. The movement is slowly petering out, and with it, the hopes of a somewhat moderate leadership. Gaza is embroiled with tiny factions all wanting a piece of Hamas and Fatah for renouncing their armed struggle against the occupier. Now the Palestinians are caught with no one really to represent them.
So why are these talks going to fail? Ultimately, it is because they are no different from the other 'talks', that it is a 'joke' and it has no muscle in it at all. Annapolis does not discuss anything of importance to the Palestinians, and that is deliberate because every one of those points is "off the table", and are too extremist to even talk about, let alone attempt Israel to concede to it. So what are those points?
Well, East Jerusalem seems to be left out. This is the most important city for a future Palestinian state. Any process that leaves out the impending capital city is surely only a pathetic theatre of fools which leaves the West Bank totally cut off and split into isolated enclaves, all surrounded by Israel's military and their hardcore settlements. And that barrier seems unphased, and it is not going to be moved back to the Green Line, so the Palestinians are left with a fraction of what was proposed back in '67.
UN Resolution 242? Nope. This has been slowly removed from every talk until it was stripped totally. This is the core issue that sits deep down in every Palestinian, from the occupied territories and throughout the Diaspora. The omission of UN Resolution 242 further limits the context to a '67 issue, and not a '48 issue, absolving any crime that Israel perpetrated upon their Independence and what act created a refugee problem in the first place. And it is no accident that the Right of Return is left out; it is a callous act that enables Israel to do the unthinkable, and that is declare itself a state of superiority, Zionism that rules above democracy.
And that is the most odious distinction that Palestinians will ultimately reject. This insistence of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is sure to leave plenty to scratch their heads over. For how is anyone meant to accept the fact that they are morally inferior to another ethnicity? How is a normal Palestinian meant to act when there is a state that embarks their rule over them? How is a child meant to know that he is an equal in every other country but not in Israel because the Jews have rights and you don't?
This is what Annapolis means, and the Road Map, and Olso, and etc. It is meant to deprive the Palestinians with anything remotely familiar to what we know as equality. Uri Avnery, probably the most active proponent of the two-state solution, sees through it:
"The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition "Jewish state" turns them automatically into – at best – second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives."
Oren Ben-Dor wrote a brilliant article over the insidious question of the Jewish state. The article needs to be read in its entirety, but Ben-Dor asks that in a post-colonial century where human rights is what is asked for in every country, then why is it necessary for the Palestinians to accept a state that regularly tramples on their human rights?
"In our world, a world that resisted Apartheid South Africa so impressively, recognition of the right of the Jewish state to exist is a litmus test for moderation and pragmatism. The demand is that Palestinians recognise Israel's entitlement to constitutionally entrench a system of racist basic laws and policies, differential immigration criteria for Jews and non-Jews, differential ownership and settlements rights, differential capital investments, differential investment in education, formal rules and informal conventions that differentiate the potential stakes of political participation, lame-duck academic freedom and debate."
Anyone pretending to adhere to human rights must not see Israel as a Jewish state, for it is the perfect anathema to a democracy. You cannot have both. Avnery has stated that there is no such thing as recognising the USA as a
"Christian" or "Anglo-Saxon state"? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a "Communist state"? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a "Catholic state", or Pakistan as an "Islamic state"?"
The two-state solution would only protect Israel, and the retooling of Zionism would only be of little importance when the Palestinians have given up that demand of a Jewish state. Ben-Dor again:
"The path of two states is the path of separation.Its realisation would mean the entrenchment of exclusionary nationalism for many years. It would mean that the return of the dispossessed and the equality of those who return and those non-Jew-Arabs who are now there would have to be deferred indefinitely consigned to the dusty shelved of historical injustices.Such a scenario is sure to provoke more violence as it would establish the realisation and legitimisation of Zionist racism and imperialism."
So if Israel is seen as a Jewish state, what was wrong with South Africa being an Apartheid state? Aren't we justifying the same thing since Israel can separate itself from non-Jews, treat non-Jews as if they had no rights in their state, and destroy any hint of resistance that could "threaten" the existence of a Jewish state? Is it not, once again from Ben-Dor,
"[an] accepted recognition of Israel right to exist is, as Joseph Massad so well puts it in Al-Ahram, to accept Israel claim to have the right to be racist or, to develop Massad's brilliant formulation, Israel's claim to have the right to occupy to dispossess and to discriminate. What is it, I wonder, that prevent Israelis and so many of world Jews to respond to the egalitarian challenge? What is it, I wonder, that oppresses the whole world to sing the song of a "peace process" that is destined to legitimise racism in Palestine?"
Everything we have fought for in the Palestinian cause would be to naught. Sure, there may be a state, or what everyone will call a state which does not resemble one, and the bloodletting may slow down immensely, but it would mean that the Palestinian is under total control of the Israelis. The Jews would have trumped non-Jews. And they would have no right to say otherwise because they have accepted Israel's right to do so. It's in their constitution. (Wait, they don't have one yet.) And not only that, the civil rights movement, the outcry against Apartheid, the struggle for equal rights for women, gay rights, human rights abuse, corporate abuse in Third World nations; all that we know and to uphold as the right thing to do is destroyed when we speak of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Partition is a flawed idea that has never worked, and right now we're seeing the true dilemmas that are ensuing because of it. The whole facade of Annapolis is only really propelled by Bush and co. trying to salvage something from an Administration that is largely known as the worst in recent history. While the record books is still for those in the future to judge him, Bush wants to leave his impression, and now just the bad one that people will recall in Iraq. Iran may be in the cards, but Israel-Palestine is definitely number one.
And with such a hollow preparation for peace, it is predicated for failure, dutifully upon the Palestinians. The cycle can only begin yet again. Nothing is asked of Israel; everything is asked of Palestine.
There may be two peoples, but they are both equal in the one land. It remains to be seen if Annapolis is going to undermine the egalitarianism we have all learned to take for granted and support those who are without rights. Whatever happened to fighting for (true) democracy? Why all the furore about Pakistan and its state of emergency, Afghanistan's repression of women, and Cuba's so-called dictatorship? Isn't it all about our belief in the equality of all men and women to live free from oppression and colonial rule? Here is the litmus test: will we pass it, or will we continue to deflect the Palestinians into something close to sub-human levels, not obligated to have any water, land, or citizenship of their own; no identity, no history and no future?
Lifting the veil, it is well known that this is going to go nowhere. It is being peddled by one Condoleezza Rice, who in a desperate effort to maintain diplomacy is basically backing both Olmert and Abbas in a corner. Rice is determined to see some progress in an already turbulent and misguided tenure as Secretary of State. And Bush is eager to see some rewards come his way, and what better way to do it than by brokering peace between what many has seen is a conflict that is eternally divided. But what is more evident is not that there is any real plan here, but that both Olmert and Abbas are too dependent on Washington not to go ahead and do as they're told. Olmert is hanging by a string and Abbas does not even have legitimacy with his own people. Both are pulpits of America, and both are reliant on the US to maintain their power.
But the skepticism is not just left to us analysts. Jim Lobe has reported that much of the Israel right-wing is doing its best to sabotage the Annapolis talks, and setting the stage for more failure that could prevent any hint of Israel giving up a thing (aka no territory).
"Hard-liners...close to...Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu...are mounting a concerted attack against next week's meeting which they fear could result in pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions."
There are familiar names, members of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Freedom Watch, but Danielle Pletka, the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies of AEI, "was particularly scornful of Abbas, whom she described as "powerless" and a "pretender," and of Rice who, she complained has "recently sought advice from not just Bill Clinton but, of all people, Jimmy Carter". Although Pletka did nail Abbas, seeing that he had no authority at all over the territories. (Perhaps it's because his government is illegal?) But Pletka sees that negotiating in accordance with "North Korea" is something of a terrible folly, even though North Korea did end up freezing their enrichment without a single bomb being dropped on them.
Interestingly enough, there is enough maneuvering going on that is leading to an entrapment for the Palestinians. Not only is the sole body who represents the Palestinians not invited, but Ehud Barak has already stated that if the talks fail, it is purely the fault of the Palestinians. If Israel concedes to not one single point of Palestinian contention, and if Palestinian concedes to everything but one, then it is still all the Palestinians fault.
"We mustn't allow ourselves to be blamed for the failure of the upcoming Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, because we didn't make enough concessions to the Palestinians."
So can Israel be blamed at all for any failure? Or is the continued settlement construction, annexation of more land, a total completion of the Separation Barrier, the encirclement of East Jerusalem and usurpation of all the water resources just not part of the negotiation?
And what can happen if the talks fail? Well, total annexation of the West Bank.
"[I}f the summit does not yield the desired results...an increased international pressure on Israel to annex the Palestinian territories and establish a bi-national state within its borders."
That's all part of the bargain, is it not? If it were the fault of the Israelis, should the Palestinians have a claim to the Galilee and the Negev? Or how about Tel Aviv?
Those "stubborn" Palestinians are only rejecting what they are meant to reject. Every document offered to them has been totally unacceptable, and only acceptable to one who just wants a share of power, some kind of figurehead, to do another superpower's bidding. I am still unclear whether Abbas is that candidate but he sure is sidling close to it. He has been known to call for the blood of his own brothers. But he is not just another demagogue; he knows what he his doing, or he seems to know the game to play it so well. But Abu Mazen is not well-liked amongst the common people, and Hamas is on its way out also, despite the fact that they did win back in 2006. Hamas has been demonised and targeted, and they have been resilient but they are not impervious to all that is happening. They joined the political wing that was a figment of Israeli occupation, and now they're paying for being a part of it. The movement is slowly petering out, and with it, the hopes of a somewhat moderate leadership. Gaza is embroiled with tiny factions all wanting a piece of Hamas and Fatah for renouncing their armed struggle against the occupier. Now the Palestinians are caught with no one really to represent them.
So why are these talks going to fail? Ultimately, it is because they are no different from the other 'talks', that it is a 'joke' and it has no muscle in it at all. Annapolis does not discuss anything of importance to the Palestinians, and that is deliberate because every one of those points is "off the table", and are too extremist to even talk about, let alone attempt Israel to concede to it. So what are those points?
Well, East Jerusalem seems to be left out. This is the most important city for a future Palestinian state. Any process that leaves out the impending capital city is surely only a pathetic theatre of fools which leaves the West Bank totally cut off and split into isolated enclaves, all surrounded by Israel's military and their hardcore settlements. And that barrier seems unphased, and it is not going to be moved back to the Green Line, so the Palestinians are left with a fraction of what was proposed back in '67.
UN Resolution 242? Nope. This has been slowly removed from every talk until it was stripped totally. This is the core issue that sits deep down in every Palestinian, from the occupied territories and throughout the Diaspora. The omission of UN Resolution 242 further limits the context to a '67 issue, and not a '48 issue, absolving any crime that Israel perpetrated upon their Independence and what act created a refugee problem in the first place. And it is no accident that the Right of Return is left out; it is a callous act that enables Israel to do the unthinkable, and that is declare itself a state of superiority, Zionism that rules above democracy.
And that is the most odious distinction that Palestinians will ultimately reject. This insistence of recognising Israel as a Jewish state, is sure to leave plenty to scratch their heads over. For how is anyone meant to accept the fact that they are morally inferior to another ethnicity? How is a normal Palestinian meant to act when there is a state that embarks their rule over them? How is a child meant to know that he is an equal in every other country but not in Israel because the Jews have rights and you don't?
This is what Annapolis means, and the Road Map, and Olso, and etc. It is meant to deprive the Palestinians with anything remotely familiar to what we know as equality. Uri Avnery, probably the most active proponent of the two-state solution, sees through it:
"The sting is, of course, that this formula is quite unacceptable to Palestinians because it would hurt the million and a half Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. The definition "Jewish state" turns them automatically into – at best – second class citizens. If Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues were to accede to this demand, they would be sticking a knife in the backs of their own relatives."
Oren Ben-Dor wrote a brilliant article over the insidious question of the Jewish state. The article needs to be read in its entirety, but Ben-Dor asks that in a post-colonial century where human rights is what is asked for in every country, then why is it necessary for the Palestinians to accept a state that regularly tramples on their human rights?
"In our world, a world that resisted Apartheid South Africa so impressively, recognition of the right of the Jewish state to exist is a litmus test for moderation and pragmatism. The demand is that Palestinians recognise Israel's entitlement to constitutionally entrench a system of racist basic laws and policies, differential immigration criteria for Jews and non-Jews, differential ownership and settlements rights, differential capital investments, differential investment in education, formal rules and informal conventions that differentiate the potential stakes of political participation, lame-duck academic freedom and debate."
Anyone pretending to adhere to human rights must not see Israel as a Jewish state, for it is the perfect anathema to a democracy. You cannot have both. Avnery has stated that there is no such thing as recognising the USA as a
"Christian" or "Anglo-Saxon state"? Did Stalin demand that the US recognize the Soviet Union as a "Communist state"? Does Poland demand to be recognized as a "Catholic state", or Pakistan as an "Islamic state"?"
The two-state solution would only protect Israel, and the retooling of Zionism would only be of little importance when the Palestinians have given up that demand of a Jewish state. Ben-Dor again:
"The path of two states is the path of separation.Its realisation would mean the entrenchment of exclusionary nationalism for many years. It would mean that the return of the dispossessed and the equality of those who return and those non-Jew-Arabs who are now there would have to be deferred indefinitely consigned to the dusty shelved of historical injustices.Such a scenario is sure to provoke more violence as it would establish the realisation and legitimisation of Zionist racism and imperialism."
So if Israel is seen as a Jewish state, what was wrong with South Africa being an Apartheid state? Aren't we justifying the same thing since Israel can separate itself from non-Jews, treat non-Jews as if they had no rights in their state, and destroy any hint of resistance that could "threaten" the existence of a Jewish state? Is it not, once again from Ben-Dor,
"[an] accepted recognition of Israel right to exist is, as Joseph Massad so well puts it in Al-Ahram, to accept Israel claim to have the right to be racist or, to develop Massad's brilliant formulation, Israel's claim to have the right to occupy to dispossess and to discriminate. What is it, I wonder, that prevent Israelis and so many of world Jews to respond to the egalitarian challenge? What is it, I wonder, that oppresses the whole world to sing the song of a "peace process" that is destined to legitimise racism in Palestine?"
Everything we have fought for in the Palestinian cause would be to naught. Sure, there may be a state, or what everyone will call a state which does not resemble one, and the bloodletting may slow down immensely, but it would mean that the Palestinian is under total control of the Israelis. The Jews would have trumped non-Jews. And they would have no right to say otherwise because they have accepted Israel's right to do so. It's in their constitution. (Wait, they don't have one yet.) And not only that, the civil rights movement, the outcry against Apartheid, the struggle for equal rights for women, gay rights, human rights abuse, corporate abuse in Third World nations; all that we know and to uphold as the right thing to do is destroyed when we speak of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Partition is a flawed idea that has never worked, and right now we're seeing the true dilemmas that are ensuing because of it. The whole facade of Annapolis is only really propelled by Bush and co. trying to salvage something from an Administration that is largely known as the worst in recent history. While the record books is still for those in the future to judge him, Bush wants to leave his impression, and now just the bad one that people will recall in Iraq. Iran may be in the cards, but Israel-Palestine is definitely number one.
And with such a hollow preparation for peace, it is predicated for failure, dutifully upon the Palestinians. The cycle can only begin yet again. Nothing is asked of Israel; everything is asked of Palestine.
There may be two peoples, but they are both equal in the one land. It remains to be seen if Annapolis is going to undermine the egalitarianism we have all learned to take for granted and support those who are without rights. Whatever happened to fighting for (true) democracy? Why all the furore about Pakistan and its state of emergency, Afghanistan's repression of women, and Cuba's so-called dictatorship? Isn't it all about our belief in the equality of all men and women to live free from oppression and colonial rule? Here is the litmus test: will we pass it, or will we continue to deflect the Palestinians into something close to sub-human levels, not obligated to have any water, land, or citizenship of their own; no identity, no history and no future?
Friday, November 16, 2007
No nukes is 'unacceptable'
So International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed El Baradei confirmed what has been known for quite some time, and that is Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, finding "Iran to be generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history". Naturally, all of that is nonsense to the Israelis, continuing with their invectives towards El Baradei, and to a lesser extent, the watchdog IAEA. But then again, Israel has never been fond of anything affiliated with the UN, ESPECIALLY the NPT. Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs and noted advocate of ethnic cleansing, Avigdor Lieberman, expressed great displeasure with the report as well as with El Baradei, saying that "This [report] is further proof of El Baradei's one-sided and pro-Iranian position."
The latest report just iterated what is plain to see; after all, does it really matter if Iran were enriching to gain nuclear weapons? Perhaps if they did, it would have a deterrent that North Korea had to prevent a strike against them. But Iran is not foolish enough to provoke a (pre-emptive) retaliation that could enflict the destruction of their own regime, even though that's the intention of all this tough-talk. The intrasigent nuke-enriching is just providing the perfect pretext, along with the "supporting our enemies in Iraq" and "funding" Hamas and Hizbollah. Remind me again where Hamas is meant to get aid when there is a worldwide embargo against them?
Typically, Britian and the US also took a hit against the report, insisting that Iran "are in continuing violation of their international obligations under two unanimous UN Security Council resolutions," all the while missing the point that what Iran is doing is perfectly legal under the NPT. Unfortunately, Iran did not have the veto backing of the country who leads in vetos of UN Security Council resolutions.
So this will lead in more threats of "sanctions" and more rhetoric. Iran continues to enrich at the behest of the world, thumbing its nose at the UN because it is operating with "impugnity", or better yet, a rogue state. If only Iran could do it as good as Israel, with its good arsenal of nukes and ignorance of numerous resolutions.
What good would sanctions do anyway against Iran? Is the West going to stop trading with them for their oil and gas reserves? That seems rather far-fetched considering they are having a hard enough time keeping oil afloat in Iraq.
The latest report just iterated what is plain to see; after all, does it really matter if Iran were enriching to gain nuclear weapons? Perhaps if they did, it would have a deterrent that North Korea had to prevent a strike against them. But Iran is not foolish enough to provoke a (pre-emptive) retaliation that could enflict the destruction of their own regime, even though that's the intention of all this tough-talk. The intrasigent nuke-enriching is just providing the perfect pretext, along with the "supporting our enemies in Iraq" and "funding" Hamas and Hizbollah. Remind me again where Hamas is meant to get aid when there is a worldwide embargo against them?
Typically, Britian and the US also took a hit against the report, insisting that Iran "are in continuing violation of their international obligations under two unanimous UN Security Council resolutions," all the while missing the point that what Iran is doing is perfectly legal under the NPT. Unfortunately, Iran did not have the veto backing of the country who leads in vetos of UN Security Council resolutions.
So this will lead in more threats of "sanctions" and more rhetoric. Iran continues to enrich at the behest of the world, thumbing its nose at the UN because it is operating with "impugnity", or better yet, a rogue state. If only Iran could do it as good as Israel, with its good arsenal of nukes and ignorance of numerous resolutions.
What good would sanctions do anyway against Iran? Is the West going to stop trading with them for their oil and gas reserves? That seems rather far-fetched considering they are having a hard enough time keeping oil afloat in Iraq.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Women of the IDF
Ha'aretz has done it again. Dalia Karpel writes about a documentary film, "Lir'ot im ani mehayekhet" ("To See If I'm Smiling"), directed by Tamar Yarom, who served in the IDF "as a mashakit tash (welfare officer) in an infantry company in the territories. She was drafted in 1989 and served at a basic-training base near Jerusalem until her unit was transferred to Gaza." Yarom's film gathers testimonies from many other Israeli women who enlisted in the IDF and chronicles their experiences in the Occupied Territories. And alot of them are quite gruesome; embarrassing the whole facade of the "most humane army" in the region. The article is a great insight into the inner workings of the IDF soldier's psyche, and as well as the gripping atmosphere of being in a war-like state. (For more into how war permeates our every day lives and attributes, see Chris Hedges' timeless book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.)
The documentary shines the light on how brutal the occupation can be, and how far Israel goes in trying to cover up the operations that may be a public relations disaster. Read the story of Meytal Sandler, who
"...had to handle the corpses of Palestinians...They [the authorities] then come and take the body to the clinic and tell us that before it's returned to the Palestinian Authority, we have to clean it, so there won't be any signs of blood on it, so they won't see what we've done to it. This was my task. Because he'd been struck in the head, but didn't die right away, and only bled and died slowly, he lost control of his bowels - that's what happens..."
The perversions not only get out of control, but also the lust for blood, for revenge, and for superiority. Libi Abramov was a Border Policewoman (at a checkpoint), and when her friend was a casualty during the first intifada, she punished every Palestinian, as
"[her friend] Hani in my mind. In one shift, there were as many as 70 or 80 people whom I delayed. I stood them in a line and decided that they would stay with me for the whole 12- to 14-hour shift, in the sun, in the heat. I made them stand there with me and had them do all kinds of exercises. I stood them in threes, as if they were my soldiers. I started shouting at them and asked them 'Why did you do that to Hani? What did she do to deserve it?' No one else was around except my fighters, and they accepted this; it didn't seem strange to them."
And to the point of complete humiliation; stripping down Arabs to their underwear. All of this is routine: the Palestinians are subject to the desultory IDF soldier. A bad day for a soldier could mean a disastrous one for those waiting at checkpoints, where many have called it their final breathing spot. Further in the article, after a couple of Palestinians disguised as women took a couple of lives, the women then was given the pat-down, as well as an exaggerated knife attack that got a Palestinian woman accosted and taken away (presumably for further punishment). An example of daily humiliation:
"The women are wrapped in layers and the smell is strong, and why should I be prying around their bodies? I passed a metal detector over them, including their private parts. Two or three security guards stood with their backs to me, but nearby. I tried to speak gently, but was horrified by the way I had to intrude."
Inbar Michelzon describes Gaza's checkpoints pointedly:
"It was like mouse cages. I was in shock. I'd never seen Palestinians from Gaza carrying sacks on their head, dressed in rags. The poverty stunned me. This is Israel's backyard. I had to change my skin to fit in there - everything was said there with shouting, everything's a matter of life and death."
This is a reality that Israel wants to shield from the world, and what former soldiers are finding harder and harder to come to grips with. Yarom's film shows that many do have a conscience in the actions that they undertake against the Palestinians, even though many more are rather zealous in their bigotry. The more that speak out, the more encouraging it will be for others to dare to speak out with them. Even though their crimes are well in the history books, it could provide the blueprint for more objectors to the IDF operations which violate international law and the Geneva Accords. Although still talking with a great deal of bias, which is clear from the following statement, Dana Behar's quotation does ring bells, because we can't go on pretending that nothing is wrong when there clearly is something askew with all of this, or we can't stop turning the other cheek, because
"it's important for people to know that something bad happened there. The IDF makes great efforts for it not to happen and I've never seen such big efforts made anywhere else, but still it happens. Because the reality is horrible. I want as many men and women soldiers as possible to talk about what happens there, for it to be a part of the discourse. I served there because my parents brought me up on the values of Zionism, on the idea that wherever I'm most needed is where I should go. I wanted to make a difference and I'd do it again despite everything."
Sadly for Dana and co, who are at pains to illustrate that Israelis are also victims of the occupation: a good-hearted individual who is corrupted by the violence and debasement that ensues from the trauma of battle, albiet a better off individual than the Palestinian, there are a coterie of examples that give credence to the contrary. I recall another references article from Ha'aretz, (included in another poignant piece by William Cook), that gave many testimonies of a different kind; one that suggests that the soldiers revel in the dismemberment of Palestinians.
""We Israeli Soldiers were put there to punish the Palestinians, says Ilan Vilenda, an Israeli soldier who served in Rafah during the first Intifada." "The soldiers enjoyed the 'intoxication of power', and had pleasure from using violence," according to the researchers. "What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel that YOU ARE THE LAW; you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories YOU ARE GOD." "We drove through Rafah. A man of 25 walked nearby. He didn't hurl a stone at us or anything. Then without any reason "X" shot him in the stomach. We left him lying on the sidewalk." "He captured a kid and broke his elbow. Broke the kid's elbow! Damn me if I'm not telling the truth! Then the NCO treaded on the kid's stomach three times, before he moved on. We couldn't believe our eyes But the next day we went on patrol with that guy and the soldiers started to imitate him." "A woman threw a stone at me. I kicked her with my foot at her crotch. I broke her. She can't have children any longer. Next time she won't throw sandals at me and when another woman spat at me she got the butt of my gun in her face. She can't spit now." "He was real big, some 30 years old. He refused detention. We hit him but couldn't force him down. We beat him and told him to lie down. Till he finally did. We drove to the base with him. By that time he had lost consciousness. He died some days later." These are the compassionate humanitarians that oversee the International laws that govern the responsibilities of the occupying forces. These are the soldiers we support. This is the way we protect America."
This story suggests quite a different view of what sort of integrity the IDF really purports. (Also not forgotten is the military censureship that prevents anything from going into print unless it passes the litmus test of the military, who is the body responsible to determine if the article or opinion piece is allowed to see the light of day.) The visions of granduer is not lost on those who still wish that a stint to police Palestinians is something to put in your resume. But the latter excerpt is the practice that is preached within the IDF.
The biggest difference Dana would has done is step out and take part in such a film. While it claims not to have any political stance, and it pains to do so in order to accommodate a dismal attempt at non-partisan, it still has a leaning towards the Zionist view, and the hope that something is to be done to rectify what is rotting at the Zionist core, and that speaking out is the best way to save Zionist Israel. Or possibly that is too harsh an accusation. Certainly most who are involved in the film shared the values that a Jewish State is meant for the Jews alone, but seeing what Zionism can do to the elephant in the room (the Palestinians), they could be questioning if it really is worth their humanity, or if all of this oppression is the epitome of the democracy they call Israel. It's reality like this that makes the most ardent Zionist question their values. Here I note Avraham Burg, former speak of the Israeli Knesset,
"Yes, we Israelis have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvelous theater and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or antimissile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed. It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know."
It is no wonder that almost two thirds of the Jewish people choose to live elsewhere. And isn't that the way it should be? There should not be a need for a Jewish state, as a last refuge for Jewish people. They are accepted everywhere and usually reach the upper echelons of society. Because of such a progression, Zionism is now left to fade into the history books, as the allure of a haven for the Jews is rather alien when real anti-Semitism is minimal in the Western world. The inflation of anti-Semitism is a self-defeating purpose which only can hurt the Jewish population rather than help.
The documentary shines the light on how brutal the occupation can be, and how far Israel goes in trying to cover up the operations that may be a public relations disaster. Read the story of Meytal Sandler, who
"...had to handle the corpses of Palestinians...They [the authorities] then come and take the body to the clinic and tell us that before it's returned to the Palestinian Authority, we have to clean it, so there won't be any signs of blood on it, so they won't see what we've done to it. This was my task. Because he'd been struck in the head, but didn't die right away, and only bled and died slowly, he lost control of his bowels - that's what happens..."
The perversions not only get out of control, but also the lust for blood, for revenge, and for superiority. Libi Abramov was a Border Policewoman (at a checkpoint), and when her friend was a casualty during the first intifada, she punished every Palestinian, as
"[her friend] Hani in my mind. In one shift, there were as many as 70 or 80 people whom I delayed. I stood them in a line and decided that they would stay with me for the whole 12- to 14-hour shift, in the sun, in the heat. I made them stand there with me and had them do all kinds of exercises. I stood them in threes, as if they were my soldiers. I started shouting at them and asked them 'Why did you do that to Hani? What did she do to deserve it?' No one else was around except my fighters, and they accepted this; it didn't seem strange to them."
And to the point of complete humiliation; stripping down Arabs to their underwear. All of this is routine: the Palestinians are subject to the desultory IDF soldier. A bad day for a soldier could mean a disastrous one for those waiting at checkpoints, where many have called it their final breathing spot. Further in the article, after a couple of Palestinians disguised as women took a couple of lives, the women then was given the pat-down, as well as an exaggerated knife attack that got a Palestinian woman accosted and taken away (presumably for further punishment). An example of daily humiliation:
"The women are wrapped in layers and the smell is strong, and why should I be prying around their bodies? I passed a metal detector over them, including their private parts. Two or three security guards stood with their backs to me, but nearby. I tried to speak gently, but was horrified by the way I had to intrude."
Inbar Michelzon describes Gaza's checkpoints pointedly:
"It was like mouse cages. I was in shock. I'd never seen Palestinians from Gaza carrying sacks on their head, dressed in rags. The poverty stunned me. This is Israel's backyard. I had to change my skin to fit in there - everything was said there with shouting, everything's a matter of life and death."
This is a reality that Israel wants to shield from the world, and what former soldiers are finding harder and harder to come to grips with. Yarom's film shows that many do have a conscience in the actions that they undertake against the Palestinians, even though many more are rather zealous in their bigotry. The more that speak out, the more encouraging it will be for others to dare to speak out with them. Even though their crimes are well in the history books, it could provide the blueprint for more objectors to the IDF operations which violate international law and the Geneva Accords. Although still talking with a great deal of bias, which is clear from the following statement, Dana Behar's quotation does ring bells, because we can't go on pretending that nothing is wrong when there clearly is something askew with all of this, or we can't stop turning the other cheek, because
"it's important for people to know that something bad happened there. The IDF makes great efforts for it not to happen and I've never seen such big efforts made anywhere else, but still it happens. Because the reality is horrible. I want as many men and women soldiers as possible to talk about what happens there, for it to be a part of the discourse. I served there because my parents brought me up on the values of Zionism, on the idea that wherever I'm most needed is where I should go. I wanted to make a difference and I'd do it again despite everything."
Sadly for Dana and co, who are at pains to illustrate that Israelis are also victims of the occupation: a good-hearted individual who is corrupted by the violence and debasement that ensues from the trauma of battle, albiet a better off individual than the Palestinian, there are a coterie of examples that give credence to the contrary. I recall another references article from Ha'aretz, (included in another poignant piece by William Cook), that gave many testimonies of a different kind; one that suggests that the soldiers revel in the dismemberment of Palestinians.
""We Israeli Soldiers were put there to punish the Palestinians, says Ilan Vilenda, an Israeli soldier who served in Rafah during the first Intifada." "The soldiers enjoyed the 'intoxication of power', and had pleasure from using violence," according to the researchers. "What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel that YOU ARE THE LAW; you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories YOU ARE GOD." "We drove through Rafah. A man of 25 walked nearby. He didn't hurl a stone at us or anything. Then without any reason "X" shot him in the stomach. We left him lying on the sidewalk." "He captured a kid and broke his elbow. Broke the kid's elbow! Damn me if I'm not telling the truth! Then the NCO treaded on the kid's stomach three times, before he moved on. We couldn't believe our eyes But the next day we went on patrol with that guy and the soldiers started to imitate him." "A woman threw a stone at me. I kicked her with my foot at her crotch. I broke her. She can't have children any longer. Next time she won't throw sandals at me and when another woman spat at me she got the butt of my gun in her face. She can't spit now." "He was real big, some 30 years old. He refused detention. We hit him but couldn't force him down. We beat him and told him to lie down. Till he finally did. We drove to the base with him. By that time he had lost consciousness. He died some days later." These are the compassionate humanitarians that oversee the International laws that govern the responsibilities of the occupying forces. These are the soldiers we support. This is the way we protect America."
This story suggests quite a different view of what sort of integrity the IDF really purports. (Also not forgotten is the military censureship that prevents anything from going into print unless it passes the litmus test of the military, who is the body responsible to determine if the article or opinion piece is allowed to see the light of day.) The visions of granduer is not lost on those who still wish that a stint to police Palestinians is something to put in your resume. But the latter excerpt is the practice that is preached within the IDF.
The biggest difference Dana would has done is step out and take part in such a film. While it claims not to have any political stance, and it pains to do so in order to accommodate a dismal attempt at non-partisan, it still has a leaning towards the Zionist view, and the hope that something is to be done to rectify what is rotting at the Zionist core, and that speaking out is the best way to save Zionist Israel. Or possibly that is too harsh an accusation. Certainly most who are involved in the film shared the values that a Jewish State is meant for the Jews alone, but seeing what Zionism can do to the elephant in the room (the Palestinians), they could be questioning if it really is worth their humanity, or if all of this oppression is the epitome of the democracy they call Israel. It's reality like this that makes the most ardent Zionist question their values. Here I note Avraham Burg, former speak of the Israeli Knesset,
"Yes, we Israelis have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvelous theater and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or antimissile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed. It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know."
It is no wonder that almost two thirds of the Jewish people choose to live elsewhere. And isn't that the way it should be? There should not be a need for a Jewish state, as a last refuge for Jewish people. They are accepted everywhere and usually reach the upper echelons of society. Because of such a progression, Zionism is now left to fade into the history books, as the allure of a haven for the Jews is rather alien when real anti-Semitism is minimal in the Western world. The inflation of anti-Semitism is a self-defeating purpose which only can hurt the Jewish population rather than help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)