My friend David Bloom knows far more about Israel/Palestine issues than I do. He has made the following smart responses to Israel defenders Steve F. and Richard Witty:
I. Steve's invocation of Nasrallah & moderation reminded me of the following. I wrote this article a month after the International Court of Justice verdict against the separation wall in 2004. Going to the ICJ was a non-violent, legal attempt by the Palestinians to secure their rights. Unfortunately, even though the UN adopted the verdict 150-6, the world has done nothing to enforce it.
Michael Tarazi, a legal adviser to the PLO, described the court's ruling
as "a real bolstering for Palestinian moderates who have long argued
that violence is not the way to victory." Tarazi warned that "if the
international community sends a message that this can be ignored, it
only enforces the extremists who prey on the fact that most Palestinians
feel abandoned." (Philadelphia Inquirer, July 10)
As if to underscore Tarazi's point, the day after the ruling, Hezbollah
secretary general Sheik Hassan Nasrallah opined: "What will remove the
barrier in occupied Palestine is the intention, will, jihad and
resistance of Palestinians and the [Arab] nation." Nasrallah pointed to
UN Security Council Resolution 425, issued in 1978, which demanded
Israel's immediate withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel did not pull out
until 2000, after years of Hezbollah guerrilla attacks. "This
international resolution was not able to return for us one inch of our
occupied lands," Nasrallah said. "Arabs might be happy for hours or days
because of the international court's ruling but everybody knows that
this ruling is non-binding." (Ha'aretz, July 10)
II. I would point out to Witty (whose comment is below), Hezbollah was created as a backlash to the stupid Lebanon invasion. Again, Witty says it's negligent of you not to address the Nasrallah question; but Witty is against any action against Leviev, the colonizer of the West Bank who has a fancy diamond shop in New York. Is Witty also against enforcing the ICJ verdict of 2004? It calls for sanctions to be imposed on Israel if they refuse to abide by it — and they have not abided by it (that means dismantling the fence anywhere it's built in occupied territory), nor has the world imposed sanctions to compel Israel to abide by it.
This is why the villages of Jayyous & Bi'lin have initiated the campaign against Leviev — it wouldnt be necessary if Israel complied w/international law & convention. So is Witty for enforcing international law, or is he for encouraging Nasrallah? it's either/or.
Richard Witty's comment follows:
Phil,
At some point you SHOULD address the question of Hezbollah COMMITTED to
remove Israel from the map, as was quoted.
That conflicts with your stated goal of a fair and sustainable two-state
solution.
And, it certainly confuses any simple "live and let live" relationship
to Iran.
To avoid those questions is frankly a negligence on your part, a
selective and prospectively intentional ignorance.
To intentionally ignore questions about Nasrallah and Hezbollah, not
incidental questions, leads to stupid conclusions, and then stupid actions.
Finkelstein ignores those questions. Chomsky ignores those questions.
Not exactly cutting through to truth, from my perspective.
Not good sources for the moral backbone to make peace. Resentful
"justice" is easy.
Real work is needed.
Posted by: Richard Witty | September 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM
