The best comment on the horrifying Desmond Tutu blacklisting in Minnesota comes from Tony Karon, who grew up in South Africa and notes that he heard the same maligning of Tutu from the apartheid leaders. (God does Karon's blog look nice; wish I knew how to do that!) And Richard Silverstein points out that ZOA is misrepresenting Tutu... who once had the temerity to blast "the Jewish lobby."
For many years, advocates for Israel have had to struggle with the fact of its affiliation with apartheid South Africa. Once they were allied. That made for a p.r. headache, when talking to liberal American Jews. When Jimmy Carter said Israel was practicing apartheid in the territories last year, defenders ran to the parapets to boil the oil. Joseph Lelyveld wrote in the New York Review of Books that it isn't nearly as bad as apartheid. Jeffrey Goldberg argued in the New York Times that such analogies are antisemitic, as I recall, the argument he wheels out again against Walt and Mearsheimer. Defenders of the faith! Still the analogy won't go away. Alas for good reason...
Tutu is really pushing the envelope with his incendiary rhetoric:
"Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?"
What if they have? What is he quoting from, 'The Handmaid's Tale?' A Jack Chick tract? Is Tutu advocating a theocratic totalitarianism, where everyone's actions are measured against some myth, some fabulist morality play? Who needs sanctimonious lectures from this guy? What does he know about apartheid anyway?
There does seem to be a huge double standard in the way almost all American Jews made such a big deal about Apartheid in South Africa but can't seem to find much problem with what their very own Israel does in Palestine.
The primary excuse for imposing separation upon Palestineans is that they are terrorists. How ridiculous is that when one considers that terrorism was one of the primary tools used by the African National Congress? In fact, the greatly celebrated Nelson Mandela was himself a terrorist and now the US Congress and President award him medals! Mandela has also been the bestowed honors by both New York City and Miami Beach.
Were there not such a huge double standard Israel would be the recipient of sanctions not US largesse.
How does Tony Karon have such a sweet looking blog?
I was just looking "under the hood" at his code. Seems the man is using Word Press: link to wordpress.org
/>
You can read more about it at link to en.wikipedia.org
/>
And I think Tony has geeky friends at Time that help him out.
Me, I use Google blogspot, I like to use lots of pictures that I steal magpie fashion and Google is really easy for that. The "template" is flexible too. The only thing is that you would be "Mondoweiss.blogspot.com" instead of your own URl.
Another nice thing about Google blogging is that it is written to be easily searchable by Google… naturally, so if you do your tags right people find you… But of course, that's not your problem.
Anyway Phil, your blog looks a helluva a lot better today than when you started.
——————————————————————————
This is funny–
'JEWISH LOBBY' MODEL FOR ATHEIST
link to jta.org
/>
"Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it monopolizes U.S. foreign policy.
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told — religious Jews anyway — than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see," Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." "
"Who needs sanctimonious lectures from this guy? What does he know about apartheid anyway?"
Oarwell, the answer to your first question is: the Bible thumpers who believe in some divine scenario for the Middle East (at any case: what do you expect a bishop to do? Quote from the Rotary code?). The answer to your second question is: a helluva lot? He was for years on the receiving end of it.
And what is that about 'incendiary rhetoric'? Did somebody misuse your alias?
See and hear William Fletcher's comparison of apartheid South Africa and Israel:
http://www.freshnews.in/video/video/Fletcher/dAKoqVTsGkU/William_Fletcher_on_Apartheid_in_South_Africa_and_Israel
Fletcher's comparison between such settler colonies as the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa on the one hand and Israel on the other has its limits. Let us not forget that Benny Morris has been using this same analogy to argue for, if need be, genocide on the Palestinians (see his interview with Ari Shavit).
I have argued before on this blog that eighteenth century Englishmen could assume in good faith that Australia, to take an example I am familiar with, was 'terra nullius'. There seemed to be an empty continent there with only a handful of 'natives' and no sign of cultivation.
So their settlement was in accordance with the moral standards of the time.
That moral loophole never existed for the Zionists. Nineteenth century Palestine was relatively densely settled compared to eighteenth century Australia (by the factor 500 : 1) and it was in the appropriate places also intensely cultivated. By no stretch of the imagination could it be called 'terra nullius'.
So the ultimate aim of the Zionist enterprise was land theft, right from the start.
Christisons on KPFK last night talking about Mearsheimer and Walt
Here is the direct link for the for the Christisons last night (their articles regularly appear at counterpunch.org):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/kathleen-and-bill-christison-on-phone.html
Here is a tiny URL of the above one:
link to tinyurl.com
/>
The Lobby on Trial:
link to antiwar.com
/>
link to
/>
I am shocked, shocked I say, that neither Richard Witty nor any other Zionist apologists have come around to REFUTE this VILE, anti-Semitic, existential threat of a comparison.
Look at South Africa–the whites are all floating in the ocean now, after being driven there by the country's new citizens and their terrorist human rights agenda. South Africa has practically been wiped off the map. I only see Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland… where did South Africa go? The South African white people have disappeared, their culture has been irrevocably plundered, and now that it can no longer conduct war on neighboring countries, South African white hegemony in the region has been equalized. In short: a complete, total disaster.
Therefore, if we are to call ourselves progressives and humanitarians, we must learn from this history, and we must support Ariel Sharon's Bantustan pipedream. It's the most sustainable, equitable, peace-favoring solution there is.
Interesting satire, MM.
A little misrepresentative though.
For one, I agree that the condition of Palestinians is deplorable and demands remedy.
The equation of South Africa with Israel/Palestine, implying a single-state democratic solution IGNORES that in South Africa it was a 15% minority ruling an 85% majority.
In Israel/Palestine, the numbers are nearly exactly 50/50% with populations that many of which regard themselves as oil and water, requiring separation so long as violent emotions and violent actions continue.
Partition is a MORE DEMOCRATIC approach, than agitation for a single state.
Maybe it will change at some point in the future. I hope that the communities' incompatibilities will melt somewhat.
But, I don't impose a fantasy on a difficult reality.
What you -really- "don't impose," Richard, is any standard of responsibility on the Ashkenazim who decided they had an inherent right to dominate that stretch of land, and launched a plan to do it.
It's pretty clear who instigated this.
Jews, Christians, and Arabs in Palestine weren't "oil and water" before Zionism, Richard.
That's the essential fact, which you clearly try your hardest not to see.
Does "liberal Zionism" mean kvetching a little about "the settlers"? or about "the conditions" of the Palestinians (pretty good as far as euphemisms go, Richard.
(Speaking of euphemisms, just for general reference, here in the U.S., since the late 19th century, we call people illegally occupying someone else's land "squatters," not "settlers.")
My point: If peace existed before Zionism, I'm pretty sure it will have a chance after it, too.
The terms and details of the arrangement are for the Palestinians and non-militarist representatives of the Israeli people to iron out. (The Zionists should be too busy preparing their war crimes defenses anyway to have much input.)
Peace never existed for Jews in the Middle East, or in Europe.
Your "ashkenazim" reference is irrelevant to the Jewish people. The Ashkenazi and the Sephardim are one people.
Jews speak a hundred different native languages (including Farsi, Arabic, Urdu, Chinese, as well as English, French, Spanish, Yiddish, Ladino, German, Polish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Rumanian, at least from my first-hand experience) and have many different skin tones and features.
They are Jewish because they identify as Jewish.
You don't like it, don't identify as Jewish. Be something else if you like.
The land was not expropriated, it was settled. The "original" Palestinian inhabitants similarly settled there at some point (with some degree of expropriation and occupation).
And, it was largely vacant. Consider that in 1917 there were less than a million residents in the region. Now there are around 10 million.
Where did those additional 9 million move to? AT least partially empty land, or else the glass would have already been full.
It doesn't remove the existing problems of crowding and needs for minimum necessities.
But, it does dash the rhetorical "the land was already occupied" partial misrepresentation.
The debate about the Tutu ban at St. Thomas University erupted at firedoglake.com yesterday – link to firedoglake.com
– changing what's usually a fairly civil liberal blog into a battle zone for several hours. People engaging in the debate over the meaning of Archbishop Tutu's remarks in his 2002 "Occupation is Oppression" speech quickly devolved into name-calling, ending late last night with one very liberal commenter who is also an ardent Zionist proclaiming "I’ll fight any man in the house for $10. No takers? Okay, I’m the champion. I outlasted all the fucking anti-Semites! So there!"
Sheesh…The reality at St. Thomas was actually discussed between tirades, but lost in the clutter were some simple facts. Some of the St. Thomas faculty members most disturbed by the ban are Jewish. And, it turns out – link to stthomas.edu
– Ann Coulter spoke at St. Thomas University back in April, 2005.
Coulter equals "good girl," Archbishop Tutu equals "bad, bad boy." Is there a racist subtext here?
Also, and I can't find the link, Tutu has been invited to speak at another Minneapolis college now, and will be doing that in April, 2008, IIRC.
"And, it was largely vacant. Consider that in 1917 there were less than a million residents in the region. Now there are around 10 million."
This is a very misleading way of presenting the data, Witty. Presently this tiny area is one of the most densely populated regions in the world. The fact that it was less so in 1917 did not make it 'vacant' back then. In 1914 the territory that would become British mandate Palestine (Israel plus West Bank and Gaza Strip) had roughly three times the population density the USA had then and not far from the population density the USA has now. It would be news to a great many of us if the USA was delared to be 'vacant'.
Or to give another comparison:
Israel plus the occupied territories have approximately the size of Vermont. In 1914 this region had, according to the most competent demographer of the region (Justin McCarthy), a larger population (738,000)than Vermont has today (608, 827 – Wikipedia). Would you call Vermont vacant?
Happily, though you indicated the increase in population over the last one hundred years or so, you did not indulge in Joan Peters' lie about this. As you know she attributed the increase in the Palestinian population largely to the immigration of Arabs who had, allegedly, been attracted by Israel's economic success. This furphy was once accepted by quite a few prominent intellectuals with Zionist leanings. Today it is still being broadcast by the likes of Dershowitz and his ilk.
The point is to counter the idiotic argument that the land was thoroughly populated, and that there was no room for others to settle.
The population of the land has increased tenfold and predominately due to the efforts by Zionists of increasing its carrying capacity.
It wasn't empty and it wasn't full. There was room.
"It wasn't empty and it wasn't full. There was room."
Yes, but not for people who came with the declared intention of seeking sovereignty over the established population (and the desire to push them out).
To stick with the example of Vermont: there is still room there as well. But people there would be very much opposed, I imagine, to new migrants of, let us say, the Jehovah's Witnesses creed, who sought sovereignty in an independent state for Jehovah's Witnesses there (and had the more or less open design to push the original Vermontese out).
"The population of the land has increased tenfold and predominately due to the efforts by Zionists of increasing its carrying capacity."
That game was stacked right from the start and certainly so after 1948 (when the Arab population still outnumbered the Jews by two to one – there were less Jews then than there were Arabs way back in 1914)).
If you monopolise the land for yourself and take care that capital, jobs and land go predominantly in one direction your boast about having increased the 'carrying capacity' of the land becomes not only empty but utterly offensive.
Israelis are not leaving.
The best that Palestinians can hope for is reconciliation and a decent life. That it can take the form of a state is really amazing, and worth working to make happen.
There is no shame in surviving.
On Vermont,
I've lived in Vermont. Vermonters are protective of their isolation and have tended to resent immigration (even as the majority of current residents are immigrants).
Ironically, although the development in resort towns (many) is an enormous intrusion on Vermont life, they are accepted. There is no ecotage in Manchester, Stowe.
With the prospect of some dissolution in the ability of suburbs in particular to provide a sustainable living, rural areas do face the prospect of qualitatively increased immigration in say 20 years. (Though people likely won't move to Vermont as much. Quaintness is not particularly sustainable. Ability to grow food though, is.)
And, the prospect of insensitive (personally and ecologically) people moving there upsets those that now believe it is "theirs".
That is a reality, foreseeable, even as it is not happening currently.
Many Vermont greens (whom I interact with frequently) similarly respond in reaction. They cite their "responsibility" to protect the earth as justification. It is truly felt in MANY cases.
But, humane people KNOW that those that will need to move to the countryside are also human beings.
The best that can occur is substantive guidelines that identify the needs of the earth and of the community, and structure accommodation of those objective needs.
Its a VERY different process than the reactionary resistance to change, the reactionary resistance to real need.
Palestinians' angers are understandable and real. They demand remedy.
But, a reactionary remedy is not remedy. Its something else.
The world changes.
You just talk on, don't you Richard. Perhaps you hope that if only you talk long enough you will stumble on an argument of some sort.
Arie,
What do you really think?
Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state within the green line, or other mutually agreed boundary?
Or, after the PA and Israel negotiate a settlement, you will continue to agitate?
Or, will you accept the reality, and move on?
Will Iran?
I have given my opinion on Israel's 'right to exist" a few posts back.
If the Palestinians accept a settlement, and not under duress, why would we keep objecting to it?
But that doesn't seem to be in the offing. I believe that the right wing Israeli game is to make life so intolerable for them that those who are not murdered will leave of their own accord.
Right wing Israel might not be able to follow that scenario to the bitter end however, was it only because there are preciously few places for the Palestinians to go to. The crucial variable seems to be American support. If that is withdrawn, or even mitigated, things might start to look quite different.
They both know that a settlement for two states is the only path, and they will come to an agreement.
Hopefully soon.
I didn't see your opinion on Israel's right to exist.
Can you be more explicit?
Arie – You and I have the same position on Israel and Palestine as regards the need for a negotiated settlement that is truly acceptable to both parties (i.e. not made under duress). I don't find Mr. Witty's comments to be particularly offensive or contradictory to that position. I do find your commentary to be boorish and obnoxious. You do yourself no favor carrying on as such. Those who demonstrate a lack of class will ultimately be ignored.
Can you tell me, Kenneth, why I should give any weight to your opinion on who will or will not retain the readers'attention?
I am not aware of you having made any contributions that would inspire confidence in your judgment on that or any other matter.
My general experience in this sort of discussions is that those who object to your manners really are out to discredit your opinions. That is probably why you suggested some agreement between us which would break down, I bet, as soon as we went into some detail.
Given the fact that Witty is cluttering up this blog with endless non-arguments and banalities in which he almost never addresses the points made by an opponent I think I have dealt rather gently with him.
You are free to think otherwise or to pretend to do so. It doesn't particularly bother me.
No specifics on your position regarding Israel's right to exist?
I didn't see it in this thread.
Was it clarified in another?
Arie,
This site is Phil's. If he wishes to change the protocols for posting, its up to him.
Richard Witty, the Rod McKuen of the Middle East.
David, the arsehole in front of his computer.
Ed*ward Teller: Tutu will be speaking at Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis.
link to startribune.com
Some Turkish friends of ours were planning to attend a dinner party at our home. I checked with my Armenian neighbors to see if they would be offended if I had some Turks over and they said that they would. I disinvited our Turkish friends because I didn't want to insult our Armenian neighbors.
Can you believe the nerve of those Armenians. I mean really.
Arie,
I've written quite a few articles. Perhaps you've read some of them. I think you're acting like a bit of a turd too.
It is interesting that the real abuse comes from your side of the debate. None of you has surpassed 'Fred' yet – but you are getting there.
Richard Witty, what is your position re: European colonialism (in Africa, Asia, the Americas, the Middle East)?
Are there any other colonialist projects (besides Zionism) that you support or supported?
If one reads the universal declaration of human rights, one quickly arrives at the conclusion that colonialism is barbaric and in gross violation of said rights.
Should there be a double standard for Zionists, Richard? Is that your official position? Or are you in favor of other colonial projects as well? (Please name which ones. Thanks.)
Richard can answer for himself, but I think that Zionism is different than the other colonial projects you refer to in so far as a large portion of the Jews in Israel have a historic and ancestral connection to the land there (As do the Palestinians). While it is not kosher to keep the Palestinians from living there, it is not kosher to keep Jews from living there as well. That being said, the Israelis must be willing to share the land in order to have any credibility.
Love the analogy to the Turks and Armenians Volunteer. Had to think about it for a minute and then I got it.
that states don't have "rights to exist" has already been discussed–
Here is an email of interest which I received from an internet acquaintance.
Ed Corrigan
http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=37050&s2=09
Facts About the Relationship between Zionism and Terrorism
Peace For Palestine
October 9, 2007
Below are some rarely-mentioned facts about the relationship between
Zionism and modern-day terrorism:
1. The first aircraft hijacking was carried out by Israel in 1954
against a Syrian civilian airliner.
2. Grenades in cafes: first used by Zionists against Palestinians in
Jerusalem on 17 March 1937.
3. Delayed-action, electrically timed mines in crowded marketplaces:
first used by Zionists against Palestinians in Haifa on 6 July 1938.
4. Blowing up a ship with its civilian passengers still on board:
first carried out by Zionists in Haifa on 25 November 1940. The
Zionists did not hesitate to blow up their own people in protest at
the British policy of restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine.
The ship, Patria, was carrying 1,700 Jewish immigrants.
5. Assassination of government officials: first carried out by the
Zionists against the British in Cairo, when on 6 November 1944 Lord
Moyne was assassinated by the Stern Gang. Yitzhak Shamir, a member of
the Irgun and later leader of the Stern Gang and Israeli prime
minister, was behind the plan.
6. Use of hostages as a means of putting pressure on a government:
first used by the Zionists against the British in Tel Aviv on 18 June
1946.
7. Blowing up of government offices with their civilian employees and
visitors: first carried out by the Zionists against the British in
Jerusalem on 22 July 1946. The toll was 91 Britons killed and 46
wounded in the King David Hotel. Menachim Begin, who masterminded and
carried out the attack and later became Israeli prime minister,
admitted that the massacre was coordinated with and carried out under
the instruction of the Haganah Zionist gang.
8. Booby-trapped suitcases: first used by the Zionists against the
British Embassy in Rome on 13 October 1946.
9. Booby-trapped cars in civilian areas : first used by the Zionists
against the British in Sarafand (east of Jaffa) on 5 December 1946.
10. Beating of hostages: first used by the Zionists against the
British in Tel Aviv, Netanya and Rishon on 29 December 1946.
11. Letter bombs sent to politicians: first used by the Zionists
against Britain when 20 letter bombs were sent from Italy to London
between 4 and 6 June 1947.
12. Murder of hostages as a reprisal for government actions: first
used by the Zionists against the British in the Netanya area on 29
July 1947.
13. Postal parcel bombs: first used by the Zionists against the
British in London on 3 September 1947.
14. The massacre of Qibya, northwest of Jerusalem, was carried out by
Unit 101, under the command of Ariel Sharon on Wednesday 14 October
1953. The attack was the bloodiest and most brutal Zionist crimes
since the infamous Deir Yassin massacre. Forty-two houses as well as
a school and a mosque were dynamited over their inhabitants. Seventy-
five women, men and children were killed.
More! The list is endless!