At Columbia U. the other night the Israeli scholar Idith Zertal sought to explain Palestinian violence.
Zertal was speaking on the heels of Rashid Khalidi, a professor at Columbia who in faulting all parties to the Gaza crisis faulted Palestinians as well, and said that Palestinian attacks on the Israelis were "immoral, illegal and politically stupid."
Zertal said that Khalidi was being unrealistic. "You expect from the Palestinian side to be angelical... as if we were talking about a laboratory situation." At every step in the history of the occupation, Israel had acted to "thwart.. the growth of a democratic fabric in Palestinian society." The roadblocks and checkpoints were crucial to this thwarting project. There was no freedom of movement for Palestinians, no freedom to assemble. Israeli authority was violent toward the Palestinians in countless ways, she said.
"The asymmetry between the forces is so blatant, so enormous, that ...for Palestinians not to be violent I think is--"
That's where my notes end. I remember the room exploded with applause--from the many Arab students. Not from the pro-Israel students. They had taken up a few rows near the back of the room, on the right side. At least two asked pro-Israel questions. In American accents, they said that the speakers were excusing Hamas, or that they were ignoring the Palestinian acts that had resulted in the shutdown of Gaza. They cited specific incidents of violence, and invoked that maxim of Israeli life: the need for security.
I had an inkling of something that I have heard about in other settings: That western Jews are standing up to excuse anything Israel does while the actual Israelis in attendance are far more weary and dismal and despairing about what violence has done to their society, their identities and their history. This is another problem with dual loyalty. We westerners don't have to live in Israeli society. No, we get to exercise our freedoms in great security here. And still we feel called on to support Israel--to be an army for Israel here, as Ruth Wisse has put it. So young American Jews go to war on the Israeli Jews' behalf here, and meantime the Israelis are the ones who are suffering.
After the conference, an Israeli came up to me. I realized I had met him a year before: Elik Elhanan, an IDF veteran who toured the U.S. with Combatants for Peace. Elhanan is a brave, thoughtful man, now a grad student here. As I chatted with him, a thought kept going through my mind, He lost his sister, he lost his sister, how would I feel to lose my sister? For as Elhanan had described in temples in N.Y. a year ago, his sister was killed in Jerusalem by a suicide bomber. He spent years trying to understand how he should answer his sister's murder and honor her. Spent years struggling with his commanding officer's advice that he "revenge" his sister's murder in his military service.
And here is the epiphany that Elhanan had, which brought me to tears a year ago:
"My sister didn't die for the security of Israel. She didn't die because the Arabs are a lower breed, or because Islam is a fanatic religion or because of a clash of civilizations. She died very simply because there is an occupation. Over a disputed piece of land...I should struggle against the occupation, is what I should do."
It almost goes without saying: Elhanan and Zertal have had to deal with Palestinian violence in a way that few of us here have.
"You expect from the Palestinian side to be angelical."
This is off the point.
The response of shelling civilians is accurately "immoral, illegal and politically stupid".
That it is understandable that people under stress act in sometimes immoral, illegal and politically stupid manner, doesn't make it less so.
The difficulty in the language of "opposing occupation", is similar to the generalization of Walt/Mearsheimer of "THE Israel Lobby". It is vague, impossible to distinguish who is advocating Islamic incremental expansion, who is advocating decency for Palestinian fellah and other civilians, who is advocating to run the Jews off the face of the continent if not earth.
For those of us that DO support Palestinian decency, but do NOT support Islamic expansion, or revengeful or opportunist political agendas, it makes it difficult to join our voices.
Not unlike two demonstrations that I attended in opposition to the Vietnam War. One was in late April, 1970, a peaceful liberal entertaining march, emphasizing opposition to the draft. There were CPUSA, SWP, Sparticists, RCP, in the march, loud and brash, but a small minority. The tone of the march was electoral and educational.
The following weekend on Mayday of 1970, there was a more confrontational demonstration. Active civil disobedience, and intifada type low level violence. I did civil disobedience, and broke two ribs from police excesses on a 16 year-old meditating in the street, not resisting arrest.
Others turned over cars, threw rocks, shouted insults, hit police when they could, and more often got hit hard by police. I saw my first police excesses, of kids run over by horses, motorcycles, beaten with clubs for 15 minutes.
The intention of the MayDay demonstration was to stop Washington, to take it to the streets, to "stick to the pigs".
The MayDay people felt like cadre, leaders, doing something, even though they accomplished LESS than nothing.
The prior week's march also felt like they had done something, and probably felt better than they actually accomplished.
But, when the education and non-punitive march took 2 steps forward, they actually did so, without collateral damage.
When the militants took 2 steps forward, they also passed on 3 steps back, just that others had to bear the consequences of.
Its the same in Palestine, as understandable the stupid tactics are.
Among American Jews there are many like me that love Israel, and criticize Israel. The caricature of blind loyalty to Israel, without any conscience or knowledge, is a false characterization.
Last weekend when you met my oldest son, did you speak to him about his attitude towards Israel politically, and socially?
Privately, you expressed to me that you respected him personally, and I assume his perspective.
He wears a kipa all the time, he prays daily, three weeks ago he visited Israel on a birthright program.
AND he reads of the nakba, and of the Zionist formative period. He certainly listens to my comments both supporting and criticizing Israeli policies and practises.
Struggle includes him, includes Zionists, not only those that refuse.
What yeilds improvement for Palestinians?
What yeilds improvement for Israelis?
Someone here seems a little delusional. Shouldn't we be talking about Israeli violence. I think since Hamas has had any political power in Palestine B't Selem has reported the violent deaths of 193 Palestinian children to 3 Israeli children. Why can't apologists for Israel ever get the facts straight. I guess there is a reason for that.link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
I believe what Khalidi is identifying as "immoral" is the retaliation acts that only hurts more Palestinian life since more reprisal from the occupier is sure to come at the expense of Palestinian resistance through violence. I've noted many times that Rashid Khalidi stresses over and over that the occupation must be at the forefront of any discussion about the conflict: "these people are occupied", thus explaining Palestinian despair and the resort to extreme measures to show Israel that it has consequences for oppressing the Palestinians. Whether it be illegal is a matter of semantics over the Geneva Accords about "occupied resistance".
Perhaps we also suffer from the outsider syndrome: we can condemn such Palestinian violence as "stupid and immoral" as we do not suffer their indignity daily. With our scope, we can see that it is very futile to take an Israeli life since it leads only to more crippling measures for other Palestinians. But they also can't just sit on their hands and let themselves be trampled…
I agree to some degree with Richard here. Palestinian terrorism is immoral, illegal, and stupid, and also understandable.
I think, though, that in America the "understandable" part needs to be made very clear, while not backing off the "immoral, illegal, and stupid" part. I see and hear too many Americans who trivialize Israeli crimes and focus solely on Palestinian ones.
Of course in other countries where the I?P conflict is discussed maybe there needs to be more stress on "immoral, illegal, and stupid".
Another day, another Witty plea to tone down the criticism of Zionism, another ridiculous attempt to make Israel "family" instead of the expansionist and ruthlessly discriminatory and militarist rogue state it has become.
Nearly everything Witty has to criticize about the Palestinian menace is classic projection. Substitute "Israel" for "Hamas" and his countless analyses become much more accurate.
Much the same disconnect happened during the Crusader States, with Westerners being more fanatical than the Christians who had to actually live in the States and who couldn't afford to "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out," as they said during the Albigensian Crusade in Southern France–against Christian heretics by the way.
MM wrote:
"Nearly everything Witty has to criticize about the Palestinian menace is classic projection. Substitute "Israel" for "Hamas" and his countless analyses become much more accurate."
You're right about that:
Israeli suicide bombers strike Palestinian Cafe.
Israelis abduct, murder Arab hikers in Hebron.
10,000th Israeli rocket aimed at unarmed Palestinians in village.
Israelis storm Palestinian kindergarten, throw children off roof.
UN overwhelmingly condemns Palestinian attack on Israeli infrastructure.
It's scary!
OK, just one more, MM goes apoplectic when Israeli shepherds are mooned by Palestinian soldiers.
Elhanan is right. It is the occupation.
In the American civil war cousins killed cousins, previous friends killed each other. Not over the slave issue but because their particular land was invaded.
When you agressively go into someone elses land you are going to get killed..that's a fact.
I have said before…if the Israelis had pulled the same act in some part of the US they have pulled in Palestine every Jew on earth would be dead and Israel nothing but a three sentence footnote in history.
It works the same among all people and their land everywhere.
The current status quo for Israel won't last. Too much of the world is now against them…and against the US.
Wise up Israel suporters, if you want it to survive in any way, shape or form at all.
Observer wrote:
"When you agressively go into someone elses land you are going to get killed..that's a fact. . .
I have said before…if the Israelis had pulled the same act in some part of the US they have pulled in Palestine every Jew on earth would be dead and Israel nothing but a three sentence footnote in history."
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? On the one hand our gay Observer is justfying victor's justice, on the other hand he's attempting a moral argument. Let's see how he likes it this way:
When you agressively go into someone elses land you are going to get killed..that's a fact. . .
I have said before…if the Arabs had pulled the same act in some part of the US they have pulled in Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973 every Moslem on earth would be dead and Palestine nothing but a three sentence footnote in history.
Logic demands you accept this. If not, go back to giving handjobs for quarters behind the Walmart and leave politics to the big boys.
"You expect from the Palestinian side to be angelical."
This is off the point.'
Something no-one knows more about than you Richard. Your hair-splitting and subject changing and non sequiturs are a good example of what is most maddening about liberal Zionists. Simplicity is anathema because simplicity is the high road to the truth.
The occupation causes Palestinian violence. Simple. Try getting off their land – even simpler.
You know Glenn I'd like you to explain Palestinian terrorism before 1967. Of which there was plenty. I'd also like you to explain how Israel could withdraw from every inch of south Lebanon for example and yet Hezbollah starts a war. I'd also like you to explain rokect attacks from the Gaza strip. Please enlighten me has to what territorial disputes are involved here.
And Observer, what you don't know about the Civil War could fill several volumes. Try secession and slavery has the cause of the war. Not northern aggression.
Pork Sword of Gideon,
"I'd also like you to explain how Israel could withdraw from every inch of south Lebanon for example and yet Hezbollah starts a war."
Ever hear of the Shebba Farms?
And by the way, would you please remind me how many Lebanese national "bargaining chips" Israel is currently holding (and most likely torturing – it's their MO, you know) in the dungeons?
"You know Glenn I'd like you to explain Palestinian terrorism before 1967. Of which there was plenty. "
I'm always amazed when people trot this one out. Palestinian terrorism pre-67 was a reaction to Israeli massacres and ethnic cleansing in 1948, and Israeli massacres afterwards. Some of those Israeli massacres were reactions to Palestinian terror. It's called the cycle of violence and it really is a cycle.
Benny Morris says in "Israel's Border Wars" that Israel killed somewhere between 2700 and 5000 Palestinian infilitrators in the years following 1948 and he adds that only a fraction of these people were terrorists. You can see where that could lead to Palestinians sneaking across with weapons.
None of the atrocities are justifiable on either side, no matter which side you think is more responsible for the conflict.
'I'd also like you to explain'
Sure you would – more minutiae to mull over so the bigger picture is lost. Good short term tactic, but poor long term strategy, a bit like Israel's behaviour generally.
'Please enlighten me'
oh go and enlighten yourself. Are you unaware of the giant prison Israel has created in Gaza? Do you not know that the buggers do not even allow power to hospitals?
Don't believe me? Read Neve Gordon from Ben Gurion University:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/020808/020808w.htm
Here's the first para:
'The experiment in famine began on Jan. 18. Israel hermetically closed all of Gaza’s borders, preventing even food, medicine and fuel from entering the Strip. Power cuts, which had been frequent for many months, were extended to 12 hours per day. Because of the electricity shortage, for several days at least 40 percent of Gazans have not had access to running water, which is channeled through electric pumps, and the sewage system has broken down. The raw sewage that has not spilled onto the streets is now being poured into the sea at a daily rate of 30 million liters. Hospitals have been forced to rely on emergency generators leading them to cut back, yet again, on the already limited services offered to the Palestinian population. The World Food Programme has reported critical shortages of food and declared that it is unable to provide 10,000 of the poorest Gazans with three of the five foodstuffs they normally receive.'
You say 'You know Glenn I'd like you to explain Palestinian terrorism before 1967.'
Don't you think having their country stolen from them might have had something to do with it? Wouldn't that rile you just a tad?
It's a little difficult for Israel to seal Gaza hermetically when Egypt is in charge of one of the borders, number one. Second, perhaps if the Palestinians would use some of that aid for I don't know, a hospital, and perhaps if they didn't try to shell the power plant in Ashkelon their life might get a tad better. Lastly Glenn you see any Arab attack on Israel has justified jihad. I don't, its a gulf I grant you. But let me ask you this. Why is it important to you that the Jews in Israel are either killed or dispersed and an Islamic theocracy takes its place. How would your life be better. Serious question.
A simple mind like "gideon" waves his letter-opener and thinks he's a knight.
"gideon," you manage to make Richard Witty look well-informed and reasonable. That is quite the feat. Do you have any other magic tricks?
Maybe you can make 1.4 Palestinians just… ::disappear:: ?? Your side is still trying to pull that one off. Maybe get Copperfield or someone like that in there?
David the lesser,
Witty talks about Islamic expansionism, as if the Jewish supremacist state didn't go from 0 to 50 to 75 to 100% control of mandate Palestine in less than a century, and continue to militarily threaten neighboring states such as Syria.
Witty talks about extremist propaganda, when he himself is part of one of the largest propaganda outfits the world has ever known, the Zionist lobby. (I don't know if Witty gets paid or not for his propagandizing, or if he merely judges it to be in his self-interest to work pro-bono.)
Witty says that Muslims are intolerant of Jews. Actually, ethnic exclusion in that region was conceived with the Jewish supremacist state, which continues to withhold basic human rights from Palestinian Arabs, and exclude even Israeli Arabs from living in certain neighborhoods, or flying for El-Al, or visitng their relatives, etc.
Just for you, David the lesser, I will begin cataloguing Witty's projections as he makes them. In the next several weeks we're sure to hear how Palestinians and Arabs are the ones starving Israelis (through their boycott), slaughtering innocent civilians (with their bottle rockets), renegging on treaties in bad faith, choosing extremist policies for their own financial gain (big bucks in bottle rockets i hear), etc etc etc.
The great thing about Zionist lobbyists is their infinite capacity for hair-splitting and up-is-downism means that wannabe political comedians like me posting here will likely never run out of material.
Elhanan's sister died because racist Eastern European Ashkenazim murdered Arab Palestine.
That said, in judging Khalidi's remarks, one has to keep in mind that the Khalidi family are players in the politics of the secular Palestinian elite and that Hamas is a populist competitor to the leadership Khalidi would support.
Khalidi is not an expert on international law, and he is simply wrong when he argues that attacks on Israelis are "immoral, illegal and politically stupid."
Morality is a nebulous term because most Jews today apparently believe that Jews have the moral right to plunder or kill non-Jews with impunity under some sort of ridiculous Holocaust-based argument.
Because the State of Israel does not respect the Geneva conventions, Palestinians are left with proportionate response, and Palestinian attacks certain conform to jus in bello within that framework.
Under the International Convention against Genocide, the State of Israel is a criminal genocidal state founded in genocide while the Israel Zionist population constitute a conglomeration of genocidal criminals with no international legal rights whatsoever.
While Palestinian efforts might be better spent in focusing on developing a strategy to work with Americans against the criminal American Zionist elite that calls the shots in the State of Israel and that manipulates the US government to subordingate US interests for the sake of the State of Israel, without attacks on the Zionist population, the State of Israel would long ago have completely consumed anything that remained of Arab Palestine.
"ethnic exclusion in the regions was invented by Israel". You have got to be kidding or your mentally retarded. Which is actually insulting to people that do have problems. Try Saudi Arabia for one when your talking about ethnic sepremacist states. Jordan, Egypt, well actually the whole Moslem world. But riddle me this asshole. If Israel is such a hell on earth for Arabs why aren't they fleeing, en masse. Why would they want to live among Jews, under the Zionist jackboot. Is it possible that it's better than living under sharia law, the law of the jungle, just maybe.
The Coastal Road Massacre is the name given to a Palestinian terrorist attack on an inter-city bus driving along Israel's Coastal Highway. The attack was masterminded by Abu Jihad and undertaken by the PLO faction Fatah.
[edit] Attack
On the morning of March 11, 1978, Dalal Mughrabi and her Palestinian Fedayeen unit of eleven members (including one other woman) landed by Zodiac boats on a beach near Ma'agan Michael north of Tel Aviv, having departed from Lebanon. They killed Gail Ruban (some sources spell Rubin), an American photographer who was taking nature photographs nearby, and then hijacked a loaded bus on the Coastal Highway.
Mughrabi and her unit opened fire at the military vehicles in the vicinity. An Israeli army unit, headed by Ehud Barak (who, in the 1990s, became Chief of the General Staff and later Israeli Prime Minister) pursued the bus until it was finally stopped near Herzliya. A long shooting battle between the Palestinians and the soldiers ensued. The Palestinians started shooting the passengers that attempted to escape. Eventually, the Fatah members blew up the bus which became a large deathtrap of fire. The attack left thirty five civilians and six Palestinian guerillas killed (38 by some sources) and seventy-one civilians wounded.[1][2] [3] There is lack of certainty over the fates of all the Palestinian attackers. Extensive searches were undertaken in the Gush Dan area for additional attackers, but they weren't found and were likely killed.[citation needed] Some claim that 2 Palestinians, designated terrorists, were arrested by Israel.[citation needed]
Mughrabi's leadership role in the attack marked the emergence of women as full-fledged members of militant movements.
The Palestinian Authority named a Hebron girls' school in honor of Mughrabi. Her name has also been given to summer camps and both police and military courses.
The attack was the immediate trigger for the Israeli Operation Litani against PLO bases in Lebanon three days later.
"I have said before…if the Arabs had pulled the same act in some part of the US they have pulled in Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973 every Moslem on earth would be dead and Palestine nothing but a three sentence footnote in history."
Err….Dildo,- I think you better get busy and pronto behind that Wal-mart if you think that the 'Arabs' pulled the 'act' you are accusing them of in 1967 – or in 1948,
for that matter.
One of the 'big boys', aye? More like a pompous and weak twat I would opine.
I come here for the laughs I do….
Its amazing that many Americans have no idea about the violence going on in the area. Read the exchange here:
http://www.thepolitrick.com/?p=69
Hi Steve:
I see you fixed that bug in your computer that causes your messages to be repeated. Always up for a good historical debate, as long as we stick to history. Are you suggesting, as Arab apologists used to before the Egyptian archives were opened, that Egypt didn't plan an invasion of Israel in 1967 and that Israel's pre-emptive strike started an otherwise avoidable war? Well the archives are open now, and we have definitive evidence to the contrary.
Better get caught up on the literature and fast! Best to start with Six Days of War by Michael Oren.
I hate to do this, but have to agree with that last post. The evidence for a massive Egyptian invasion in 1967 is pretty much incontrovertible.
Best to start with Micheal Oren?
Oh right – Mr.IDF war hero himself. I believe he was in Lebanon there or thereabouts a couple of summers ago – he was in '82. A real throwback, like a 19 century British imperialist champion – only Oren's a zionist jew fighting in Israeli colonialist wars and then playing the part of impartial historian. Probably not somebody one would think would be able to offer a unblemished historical narrative from 1967 – but that's just me, I guess – I'm a bit weird like that.
Charles – I'm enthralled. I'd love to hear this incontrovertible evidence.
And then pass that on that to former U.S secretary's of state, defense secretary MacNamara that say in an easily accessible PBS oldy(80s), "The 50 years war" that there was absolutely no threat of an Egyptian attack when Israel decided to bomb their grounded air force. And then attack Syria after playing chicken with them in the DMZs – again admitted by those proud zionists – provoking by building settlements and other instigations the like so they could justify attacking them and stealing the Golan.
Or you could explain that to an number of former Israeli officials – e.g Moshe Dayan – who said casually in his autobiography that there was no threat from Egypt and they "knew it". No – the real reason was to grab land and take advantage of their CLEAR military superiority over their enemy. Which they did.
That Charles is incontrovertible. But I'm all ears – eyes.
"Well the archives are open now, and we have definitive evidence to the contrary."
But I ain't gonna give you a link to it! Nyah, nyah, nyah.
Let's calm down everyone. No one can possibly take that murderous fool MacNamara seriously. You'll just have to do better than that!
Oren was a soldier so, therefore, his perspective is invalid? Is this the Chikenhawk School of Historical Truth? I suppose those of us ho have served will always seem strange to people like you!
MacNamara was a murderous fool – no dispute there.
But that wasn't my only point – though it is in fact a very good one(though to be fair I'm not quite sure that it was Mac – I'll have to watch the DVD again to be absolutely sure). But the point stands – the U.S knew that Egypt had no chance against Israel and were in constant talks with the Israelis during that period telling them in no uncertain terms that they would not get any support if they premptively attacked Egypt who they were also in talks with and were quite sure the situation would calm down. Until Israel attacked.
Chuck – if I have to do better than that – than it only seems obvious that you will have to do the same. Simply saying that the evidence is incontrovertible isn't quite doing that.
But I am seriously interested in these archives if anybody has a link….
MacNamara was a murderous fool – no dispute there.
But that wasn't my only point – though it is in fact a very good one(though to be fair I'm not quite sure that it was Mac – I'll have to watch the DVD again to be absolutely sure). But the point stands – the U.S knew that Egypt had no chance against Israel and were in constant talks with the Israelis during that period telling them in no uncertain terms that they would not get any support if they premptively attacked Egypt who they were also in talks with and were quite sure the situation would calm down. Until Israel attacked.
Chuck – if I have to do better than that – than it only seems obvious that you will have to do the same. Simply saying that the evidence is incontrovertible isn't quite doing that.
But I am seriously interested in these archives if anybody has a link….