Nakba Hits Upper Broadway (When Will It Hit Times Square?)

This morning students at Columbia put up 1000 posters, 
each bearing the name of one of 418 villages wiped out
in the Nakba. Says Saif Ammous:

"It is vital to inform our fellow students
of the roots of today's conflict, since it
is the Nakba that has defined the history
of the Palestinian and Israeli people until today.
...the Nakba is not merely a historic event, but
a continuing reality that persists every day, in
every refugee camp,  at every check point, with
every Palestinian home destroyed and land confis-
cated by Israel.  Only when the root injustice at
the heart of this conflict is addressed can there be hope
of a peaceful solution."

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Nakba

{ 12 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:

    How is it presented?

    Either/or, or witness?

  2. Maybe it is time for Germans to forget the Holocaust and embrace the NakbaCaust for a change.
    Curly Headed West Bank Savages Attack German MP's…IDF Stands By Scratching War Criminal Asses
    link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com

  3. Jim Haygood says:

    .

    "How is it presented? Either/or, or witness?"

    Excuse me, but … what ARE you talking about?

    As the linked photographs show, some students have posted the names of disappeared Palestinian villages, along with maps and population figures.

    I'm afraid this is one of those concrete, unambiguous actions which just doesn't fit into your obfuscationist program of kicking up blinding clouds of deconstructionist bafflegab to obliterate all meaning. They just posted the names of some lost villages; deal with it.

    The northeast U.S. is dotted with Native American place names. It never occurred to anyone to deny their former presence. So why did Arab place names get wiped off the map in Israel? To retroactively buttress the central Zionist Big Lie: that Palestine was a land without people for a people without land.

  4. Richard Witty says:

    Please stop your harrassment Jim.

    Its an important tactical question. I support education about the nakba. I just find it ineffective if it alienates, and forces people into a "which side are you on" status, rather than "how can we reconcile fairly and confidently?" status.

  5. saifedean says:

    Richard,

    Your claim to find Nakba education ineffective is some of the most interesting form of Zionist obfuscation I've seen in a while–which is saying something.

    These are the clear unambiguous undisputed facts. Exposing them can only possibly be a good thing. If you see those facts and decide to become alienated, then that's simply because your delusions and biases make you averse to reality, and you prefer to continue to operate in your bubble of Zionist nonsense.

    It is amazing how of all the great tragedies of the 20th century, only when talking of Nakba do you ever get seemingly normal adults actually have the gall to say that educating about the tragedy can be bad.

    You and your Zionist friends need to continue to believe meaningless lies in order to continue justifying your belief in Zionist bul1sh1t. In America, you've succeeded in propagating these lies for quite a while, but now you've given up on these lies, and have instead resorted to pathetic moral relativism and deconstructionist nonsense. The good news is that this is the end of the very long tether of Zionist lies.

  6. Jim Haygood says:

    .

    "I support education about the nakba. I just find it ineffective if it alienates, and forces people into a "which side are you on" status, rather than "how can we reconcile fairly and confidently?" status."

    So, is posting the names of disappeared Palestinian villages alienating or reconciling? My intent was not to harass you, but to solicit a straightforward opinion.

    My view is that presenting some factual but little-known history is a fair tactic. If some viewers get alienated, that's their problem, wouldn't you say?

  7. saifedean says:

    Richard,

    Your claim to find Nakba education ineffective is some of the most interesting form of Zionist obfuscation I've seen in a while–which is saying something.

    These are the clear unambiguous undisputed facts. Exposing them can only possibly be a good thing. If you see those facts and decide to become alienated, then that's simply because your delusions and biases make you averse to reality, and you prefer to continue to operate in your bubble of Zionist nonsense.

    It is amazing how of all the great tragedies of the 20th century, only when talking of Nakba do you ever get seemingly normal adults actually have the gall to say that educating about the tragedy can be bad.

    You and your Zionist friends need to continue to believe meaningless lies in order to continue justifying your belief in Zionist bul1sh1t. In America, you've succeeded in propagating these lies for quite a while, but now you've given up on these lies, and have instead resorted to pathetic moral relativism and deconstructionist nonsense. The good news is that this is the end of the very long tether of Zionist lies.

    It can only get better from here.

  8. Charles Keating says:

    Those villages were erased.

    There it is.

    Some Americans think we should continue in Iraq as is, and go farther, to Iran, considering its geographical location, a peace advocate for its modern history.

    How zealous are you? Where do you live in your heart?

    Highest number of Jewish American youths enlist in IDF this year with Israeli officials describing them as 'most enthusiastic'
    link to ynet.co.il

    "Phil never served in the military either. He was too smart to, also too lucky, as the draft ended just before he was eligible.
    I regard most that don't serve in the military as SMART. We need a military (not nearly as large or as imposing as we have), and those that do so out of a sense of community service, deserve the world's respect. If only a very small portion of Jewish adults served in the American professional army, that is wonderful. It is a great shame that any more than a small number should anywhere."–Richard Witty on Phil's blog, September 20, 2007 at 06:25 PM

    More from Witty on the interest of his heart:

    "Also, my father served in the US military. I never asked his father, but I suspect he did as well. I didn't. Phil didn't. If he had children, I pray that his children wouldn't. I pray that my children don't. (Its unlikely, they have other options thankfully excepting the prospect of the draft."–Richard Witty on Phil's blog, September 20, 2007 at 07:07 PM

    Richard Witty, on Phil's blog, 05/10/07:
    "The sympathy of desiring to defend one's even distant relatives, is real and laudable. In some ways, I feel better about the prospect of my 18 year-old son joining the IDF, than if he announced he was joining the marines."

    This brought a rejoinder: "To Richard Witty, what's the problem with Phil alleging disloyalty on the part of those who wish for war without being willing to participate in it? Those who don't desire military conflicts on the other hand should be able to avoid military service without having their motives impugned, that I think we can agree on."– MM | September 20, 2007 at 10:01 PM

    Witty sang on: "I continue to feel better about my sons joining the IDF than the marines. If they joined the IDF, they would likely be asked to defend. Whereas if they joined the marines, they would most likely be asked to attack or occupy.

    The comments about English papers are that in a few cases, I believe cited earlier in related discussion (if not this one particularly), the emphasis was that "if Jews didn't support Zionism, then people wouldn't be angry at them, and there wouldn't be hate crimes."

    That conveys "Jews deserve whats coming to them."

    The hate crimes happen. The condition that makes them happen AREN'T the support of Jews of Israel, but the attitude that it is acceptable to harm another on the basis of their ethnicity, association, sensitivities.

    Do you think its an acceptable outcome that random vulnerable Jews are singled out because they are Jews?

    Posted by: Richard Witty | September 21, 2007 at 08:08 AM

    Richard Witty: "I regard most that don't serve in the military as SMART."

    Which means, I suppose, that those who do serve in the military are DUMB.

    As for your preference that your son join the IDF over the US Marines, spoken like a true Israeli-firster.

    Posted by: Gene | September 21, 2007 at 12:03 PM

    "As for your preference that your son join the IDF over the US Marines, spoken like a true Israeli-firster."

    I guess you didn't read my comments.

    They are based on the sense that defense is legitimate, while the majority of American wars have been fought over "interests".

    Posted by: Richard Witty | September 21, 2007 at 12:17 PM

    Richard Witty, are Judea and Samaria not Israeli "interests"?

    Because IDF has "defense" in their name, that must mean they're legitimately defensive.

    And the Irgun were just defending themselves, too.

    Posted by: MM | September 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM

    "If they joined the IDF, they would likely be asked to defend."

    Ignorance joined with malevolence is impregnable.

    Posted by: Christopher Brown | September 21, 2007 at 12:43 PM

    Sorry, I was born an American, and I did volunteer to serve in the military. I don't like Jews born in America who push the neocon doctrine, next up Iran and Syria. I actually know those who will pay the price, as they are doing now. I don't agree with the default my country, right or wrong, but I don't like those pushing
    death for what they think is a good cause when they won't join the military to aid them in their quest. Of course, I'm voting for Obama, as the less of the three evils.

  9. Richard Witty says:

    Saif,
    You didn't read my posts. Don't let yourself be so stimulated to reaction only.

    And you haven't bothered to actually dialog with me personally.

    I said that nakba education is necessary, if it is education and not brow-beating.

    Take it in. You will end up talking to mostly yourself if you browbeat.

    You say you want a civil single state, then work for it. If you want a single Palestinian dominated single state (with a close majority/minority relationship say 52/48, you will end up oppressing 48%, unless you establish the CIVIL as the link, rather than the national and rather than the rhetorical).

    I DON'T want a civil Israeli dominated single state, partially because I don't want to oppress the current 47% (LARGE) Palestinian minority from the river to the sea.

    The geography of the politics is that Zionism WAS necessary for Jews' cultural survival, and appears to still be given the degree of hostility that is willingly expressed as murderous violence towards Israeli civilians.

    If you can argue successfully and accurately that Zionism is no longer necessary (by facts on the ground), that would be a good in the world.

    Currently, we can form common cause around opposition to intra-Palestine roadblocks, settlement expansion, anti-civil law in Israel (marriages, prejudicial building permitting, etc.), even to 67 borders (if that is a desire of yours at all).

    We won't form common cause around brow-beating, as obvious as the "facts" seem to you.

    And, as I and other Zionists regard our assertion of national aspiration as a good, we won't be able to find common cause around anything that resembles the generalized slogan "Zionism is racism".

    As a compassionate person, I'd rather hear witness, than rhetoric. Even witness to anger, but NOT conclusions born of anger stated as objective fact.

    I don't bear a collective guilt. I bear a mix of determination for the Jewish community, and compassion for the Palestinian people.

  10. Richard Witty says:

    I prefer NOT to regard the Jewish youth or the non-Jewish youth of America as fodder for a fight between xenophobic form of Zionism, and reactionary "progressive" anti-Zionism.

    I will treat them as human beings, NOT as propaganda targets.

  11. Richard Witty says:

    Charles,
    Most often when people take quotes out of context, they do so to editorialize, to unfairly paint a picture of the other, to condemn the other, rather than to understand.

    In this case, I LIKE your selection of my quotes.

    I think that the US is too militarily oriented. If you are sincere in your respect for Ron Paul's stated orientation to reduce America's military adventurism and instead adopt a strictly and limited defensive military, then you would agree that the US military is too powerful and too unaccountable an institution in the US.

    The US military need NOT be as domineering as it is.

    In contrast, even with the imagined negation of the settlements, the Israeli military will still be needed to be far far more prominent in Israeli politics, as it does have enemies, physically close ones.

    While too large a portion of Israeli military is committed to defending settlers and expansion, it is FAR more defensive in orientation than the US military.

    I believe that the Israeli people are my people (as well as the American, but in different ways), and my son definitely regards his Jewish and prospective Israeli identity as important. For me thankfully, he does not feel motivated to serve in either.

    I don't know if you regard Michael Lerner positively. He is the publisher of Tikkun magazine, a dissenting publication. He informed me that his son joined the Israeli paratroopers, which I'm sure caused him great confusion and potential embarrassment.

    As a political statement, even as I value the spirit and commitment to public service of many of the people in the American military, I regard the identity of the American military stated politically, as excessive and confuses the sense of honor that that service would otherwise afford.

  12. Charles Keating says:

    Richard, I agree with your take on the US military and the IDF.