John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt write:
We think that the discussion on your blog about the recent poll commissioned by the Israel Project misses a critical issue.
The fact that 57 percent of the respondents "support" or "strongly support" Israel, while only 6 percent "support" or "strongly support" the Palestinians is not surprising and is consistent with past findings. As Jeff Blankfort correctly points out, this is due in good part to the fact that Israel's supporters stifle criticism of Israel in the media, while working hard to demonize the Palestinians. But even if we had an open and freewheeling discourse about Israel in this country, we believe that most Americans would still be sympathetic to Israel and certainly support its existence.
The critical question which the survey does not address is, what do most Americans think our policy should be toward Israel and the Palestinians? Specifically, do most Americans favor the "special relationship," where we unconditionally give Israel abundant material aid and firm diplomatic backing? This policy — which has been our actual policy for many years — means that we back Israel to the hilt no matter what it does to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We favor Israel over the Palestinians, and indeed, favor Israel in any conflict in which it is involved, like the Lebanon war in 2006.
The
answer to that critical question is that most Americans do not support
the special relationship. They are much more critical of Israeli policy
than their elected representatives are and they are far more willing to
support a hard-nosed approach to dealing with the Jewish state than
most policymakers would be. For example, a 2003 survey conducted by the
University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) found that 60 percent of Americans were willing to withhold aid
to Israel if it resisted U.S. pressure to settle its conflict with the
Palestinians. In fact, 73 percent of those surveyed said the United
States should not favor either side in the conflict. Two years later, a
survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League
found that 78 percent of Americans believed that Washington should
favor neither Israel nor the Palestinians. A July 1, 2008 poll ("World
Public Opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,")
conducted by (PIPA) found that 71 percent of Americans believe that we
should take neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; only 21%
think we should take Israel's side.
The Lebanon war in 2006 provides further evidence that the American public does not favor supporting Israel unconditionally. Polls at the time showed that U.S. opinion was sharply divided about Israel’s actions during that war. Two separate polls found that 46 percent of Americans held Hezbollah and Israel equally responsible for starting the conflict and a USA Today/Gallup poll found that 65 percent thought the that United States should take neither side in the conflict – which again is contrary to the idea of a special relationship. Nevertheless, the U.S. government emphatically took Israel’s side during the Lebanon war, as it has in every recent conflict involving Israel.
In short, the key issue is not where the sympathies of the American people lie, but what they think US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians should be. The survey done for the Israel Project did not address this issue. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the American people do not support the special relationship the US has with Israel. Specifically, they do not believe that the US should favor Israel over the Palestinians, even if they identify more with Israel than the Palestinians.
Related posts:
- 71 Per Cent of Americans Want Even-Handed Policy in Israel/Palestine
- Obama finds room to maneuver as Americans abandon one-sided support for Israel
- Touchdown! Americans Support Israel Over Palestinians, 57-6
- AIPAC should invite Walt and Mearsheimer to a debate at its spring policy conference
- The LA Times Gives Bestselling Walt and Mearsheimer a Forum
{ 37 comments }
W&M: “The critical question which the survey does not address is, what do most Americans think our policy should be toward Israel and the Palestinians…The answer to that critical question is that most Americans do not support the special relationship. They are much more critical of Israeli policy than their elected representatives…60 percent of Americans were willing to withhold aid to Israel if it resisted U.S. pressure to settle its conflict with the Palestinians.”
Indeed, the real critical question put to Americans should be: do you favor the current US government status quo that puts Israeli interests above American interests?
If Americans were given the choice to keep their portion of the tax money sent to Israel, I would bet that few people would give money to Israel. Also, if defending Israel truly meant going to Israel to defend Israel, Israel wouldn't get much support. We're left with propaganda and taxpayer extortion as a case for Israel. That's someting to throw in our faces!
Oh dear, I see that Walt & Mearsheimer are cherry-picking their data again.
For instance, they didn't mention that the 2008 PIPA poll reveals that 53 percent of Americans would support a security guarantee to protect Israel if it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. (In the same poll, 50 percent opposed a similar security guarantee for Arab states)
Also, regarding the war with Hezbollah, polls–such as one conducted by Pew–reveals that 15 percent of Americans were in favor more support for Israel, while 49 percent were comfortable with the current level of support for Israel. In other words, a plurality of Americans were perfectly comfortable with the U.S. taking Israel's side, but didn't want to get further mired in the conflict, and many others favored even additional support.
Also, the the NYT poll conducted during the war with Hezbollah revealed that only 7 percent of Americans believed that Bush should publicly criticize Israel.
Not exactly strong evidence that Americans are unhappy with the direction of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel.
Also, as a side note, I'm intrigued that Walt & Mearsheimer–who routinely claim that they are not singling out Jews in their critique of the Israel Lobby–nonetheless endorse Blankfort's view that coverage of Israel is influenced by "Jewish presence at every level of every facet of the media." So professors, if you're reading this, do you really believe that?
"Jewish presence at every level of every facet of the media."
Oh dear, Davey, I don't mean to frighten you but I'm afraid this is beyond debate. It's not a matter of opinion, but of simply reading the bylines.
It's clear the world's masses, including the Americans, are more intelligent and wise than their own governments–what could be
more damning than this poll, what more revealing of the power of
money and power, than this poll? (next below straight to the crooked road):
http://poll4palestine.blogspot.com/2008/10/international-poll-marks-shift-in-us.html
Democracies and Kingdoms–the difference seems to be a few more
bones shoved under the table, not that that is nothing to the masses.
On the cherry-picking theme.
I find that the terms "even-handed", "fair", "equal", "neutral" are similarly loaded poll words.
They are words that most humanists cannot object to. Of course, we want America to be more even-handed.
What does "even-handed" look like? Its as useful a word as the opportunistic usage of the term "terrorist". In Walt/Mearsheimer paragraph above, the term "even-handed" has a predisposition, a should. Its NOT a "realist" statement, not a description, but an advocacy.
The 2006 Lebanon war is a sore. Different well-meaning individuals rationally bore entirely different conclusions as to cause, blame, aggression, hypocrisy.
There is a continental divide about that conflict (certainly phases of it) in which individuals that advocate for very similar outcomes as far as viable Palestinian sovereignty, conclude 180 degrees differently.
I personally believe that the US policy SHOULD be as ally (in word and in writing), and should commit to Israel's defense if attacked from without. Further, I think US policy should respect the stated obligation of the Israeli state as being primarily responsible for the safety of its civilians, and express consistent sympathy with that obligation of a state.
And, the US should distinguish the status of Palestine and Lebanon as in deferred civil war between extra-legal militias, from the status of a state that successfully and peacefully transfers administration by election, and honors the continuity of state by executing agreements made by prior administrations (unlike Hamas).
With respect for genuine defense as boundary of policy, the US should do everything that it can, asked and intuited, to enhance the prospects of peace, rather than enable aggression (as the Bush dealership enabled).
Sympathies should be MUTUAL, not either/or.
Support for civil Israel AND support for civil Palestine.
Also, as a side note, I'm intrigued that Walt & Mearsheimer–who routinely claim that they are not singling out Jews in their critique of the Israel Lobby–nonetheless endorse Blankfort's view that coverage of Israel is influenced by "Jewish presence at every level of every facet of the media."
There is one problem with the above–I am assuming–outing of antisemites, you should read more carefully:
As Jeff Blankfort correctly points out, this is due in good part to the fact that Israel's supporters stifle criticism of Israel in the media, while working hard to demonize the Palestinians.
There is no trace of singling out "the Jews", although they seem to be a strong part of it. A fact that strictly can be checked. The relevant term is: Israel supporters. A very professionally organized network, if you ask me, down to the many, many foot soldiers on the net, who are easily enraged: Israel is here to stay, you better get used to it!
It's pretty easy to stifle the debate since there is a powerful weapon: anti-Israel merging with criticism of Israel = antisemitism. You just used it.
Jewish presence at every level of every facet of everything
Witty asks, ""What does "even-handed" look like?"
Even handed as you construe it is a German Panther tank commander rolling up to the Warsaw Ghetto.
I find that the terms "even-handed", "fair", "equal", "neutral" are similarly loaded poll words.
Could you elaborate on what makes them loaded?
Would you consider these terms loaded too if they were used in opinion polls concerning any other conflict?
What specifically makes them loaded in our context?
Do you think you would object if all questions that were asked uniquely mirrored Israeli need? Would you consider that objective? Or is objectivity not the problem here. Do the polls have to mirror power relations and "fair" or "even-handed" or "neutral" seem to threaten that power position that produced the stalemate?
They are loaded terms in that there is an inherent self-censorship to not be "even-handed".
Would you ever describe yourself as not even-handed, in not advocating for fairness?
How many would?
So a question asked, "do you favor that the US be even-handed in the middle east?", I doubt that there would be 20% that would say, "No, I think the US should be biased, and harm unilaterally."
A loaded question, pretending to inform.
If accompanied by genuinely clarifying questions, than a reader can be informed.
Stated alone, or as a headline, its questionable.
The more I think about this poll the more I think it is total bull****.
Where was this poll taken – a local synagogue?
Look at the comments at reddit:
http://tinyurl.com/6d4zgz
Very, very few shills for Israeli actions in Gaza there.
Something is not right.
I stopped trusting the news in America before, perhaps it is time for me to re-think polls.
Especially when taken by a partisan organization pushing its skewed point of view.
Would you ever describe yourself as not even-handed, in not advocating for fairness?
A poll is usually anonymous, no one needs to pretend anything under these conditions.
I looked at the polls. Just as you object to "fairness" or "even-handedness" as criteria, I instinctively responded to the highly elaborated Iran atom bomb scenario.
The two camps we are dealing with again. The camp of the agenda setters in clearly discernible in the dictation of the poll questions.
*******************************************
And, the US should distinguish the status of Palestine and Lebanon as in deferred civil war between extra-legal militias, from the status of a state that successfully and peacefully transfers administration by election, and honors the continuity of state by executing agreements made by prior administrations (unlike Hamas).
This argument would be much easier for the world to accept if Israel hadn't settled the "occupied territories/Judea Samaria" in defiance of international law. And if Israel wasn't deeply ensnared in the developments there.
So strictly you halfheartedly support the "War on Terrorism"? Or at least the Euston manifesto variant? Terrorism has to be dealt with by war not by specialized police units? With Israel providing the expertise on terrorism, security and especially the "Arab mind"?
Strictly, if these statements were missing, I could understand your position a little better: the basic desire to move beyond frontiers, fences.
And if Israel wasn't deeply ensnared in the developments there.
That's not the word I wanted. think: ensnarled.
Sorry, I am tired. MRW, are you looking? Now I did it again. In bold this time.
SORRY!!!
Thank you W&M! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I posted the exact same thing two days ago on this thread….
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/11/touchdown-americans-support-israel-over-palestinians-57-6.html#comment-139379088
The zionist, the Jews, the Israelis, the evangelical nutcases, the lobby, the orgs, the media…can all dissemble,propagandize, prevaricate, revise, poll, rant and rave and scream into the dark…the facts are what they are and they aren't going to change.
Americans do not believe Israel should be treated any differently than any other country we have relations with.
Americans think countries we deal with should be treated according to how they behave.
Americans want their government to be fair and even handed in their dealings with the rest of the world.
Those are the facts, that is the foreign policy set out by our founders. That is the original AMERICAN principle…it hasn't changed, only our government's failure to live up to that principle has changed.
The American public isn't going to change..the idea of 'all men being equal" is what draws even today's economic immigrants and others to the US, it's imbeded in the brain of those who accept the concept of America whether as a personal benefit to their aspirations or a higher concept..it's thought of as simple 'fairness" and people therefore don't limit the 'all men are equal" part just to those within our boarders…it goes beyond that.
Support for civil Israel AND support for civil Palestine.
Posted by: Richard Witty
>>>>>>>>>>
Not going to happen. Americans aren't and won't, especially when they have the facts, going to support Israel.
We don't have to support BOTH Israel and Palestine. We will choose who to support, whether both or one or none according to our own principles.
We will support who ever is most "in the right". And in this case that isn't Israel. Israel is the larger criminal in this deal.
If Israel and the zionist want the American public's support they are going to have to de-nazify themselves and make amends to the people they have harmed just like the nazis had to do. Without that you are not acceptable to the world…and the world will put an end to your regime. The only question is will we end your zionist outrages before or after the final Israeli rampage. If it's after, it will only be worse for you, there will be no hope of a come back for you in that event.
American,
You should see further than either/or.
It is possible to support both. That is by respecting the other.
BOTH communities are stuck in their hatred. You are too.
American,
You should see further than either/or.
It is possible to support both. That is by respecting the other.
BOTH communities are stuck in their hatred. You are too.
Posted by: Richard Witty
>>>>>>>>>
It's only possible if Israel changes it's behavior. They 'are' the larger criminal in this conflict.
Yep I do hate them, not all Israelis of course, but the society of zionist that bred this 21st century throwback to the nazis and made my country complict in it.
I am perfectly happy to be judged by what I despise.
Arranging The Exodus
The latest tightening of Israel's chokehold on Gaza – ending all supplies into the Strip for more than a week – has produced immediate and shocking consequences for Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants.
The refusal to allow in fuel has forced the shutting down of Gaza's only power station, creating a blackout that pushed Palestinians bearing candles on to the streets in protest last week. A water and sanitation crisis are expected to follow.
And on Thursday, the United Nations announced it had run out of the food essentials it supplies to 750,000 desperately needy Gazans. "This has become a blockade against the United Nations itself," a spokesman said.
In a further blow, Israel's large Bank Hapoalim said it would refuse all transactions with Gaza by the end of the month, effectively imposing a financial blockade on an economy dependent on the Israeli shekel. Other banks are planning to follow suit, forced into a corner by Israel's declaration in September 2007 of Gaza as an "enemy entity."
There are likely to be few witnesses to Gaza's descent into a dark and hungry winter. In the past week, all journalists were refused access to Gaza, as were a group of senior European diplomats. Days earlier, dozens of academics and doctors due to attend a conference to assess the damage done to Gazans' mental health were also turned back.
Israel has blamed the latest restrictions of aid and fuel to Gaza on Hamas' violation of a five-month ceasefire by launching rockets out of the Strip. But Israel had a hand in shattering the agreement: as the world was distracted by the U.S. presidential elections, the army invaded Gaza, killing six Palestinians and provoking the rocket fire.
The humanitarian catastrophe gripping Gaza is largely unrelated to the latest tit-for-tat strikes between Hamas and Israel. Nearly a year ago, Karen Koning AbuZayd, commissioner-general of the UN's refugee agency, warned: "Gaza is on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution."
She blamed Gaza's strangulation directly on Israel, but also cited the international community as accomplice. Together they began blocking aid in early 2006, following the election of Hamas to head the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The U.S. and Europe agreed to the measure on the principle that it would force the people of Gaza to rethink their support for Hamas. The logic was supposedly similar to the one that drove the sanctions applied to Iraq under Saddam Hussein through the 1990s: if Gaza's civilians suffered enough, they would rise up against Hamas and install new leaders acceptable to Israel and the West.
As AbuZayd said, that moment marked the beginning of the international community's complicity in a policy of collective punishment of Gaza, despite the fact that the Fourth Geneva Convention classifies such treatment of civilians as a war crime.
The blockade has been pursued relentlessly since, even if the desired outcome has been no more achieved in Gaza than it was in Iraq. Instead, Hamas entrenched its control and cemented the Strip's physical separation from the Fatah-dominated West Bank.
Far from reconsidering its policy, Israel's leadership has responded by turning the screw ever tighter – to the point where Gazan society is now on the verge of collapse.
In truth, however, the growing catastrophe being unleashed on Gaza is only indirectly related to Hamas' rise to power and the rocket attacks.
Of more concern to Israel is what each of these developments represents: a refusal on the part of Gazans to abandon their resistance to Israel's continuing occupation. Both provide Israel with a pretext for casting aside the protections offered to Gaza's civilians under international law to make them submit.
With embarrassing timing, the Israeli media revealed over the weekend that one of the first acts of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister elected in 2006, was to send a message to the Bush White House offering a long-term truce in return for an end to Israeli occupation. His offer was not even acknowledged.
Instead, according to the daily Jerusalem Post, Israeli policymakers have sought to reinforce the impression that "it would be pointless for Israel to topple Hamas because the population [of Gaza] is Hamas." On this thinking, collective punishment is warranted because there are no true civilians in Gaza. Israel is at war with every single man, woman, and child.
In an indication of how widely this view is shared, the cabinet discussed last week a new strategy to obliterate Gazan villages in an attempt to stop the rocket launches, in an echo of discredited Israeli tactics used in south Lebanon in its war of 2006. The inhabitants would be given warning before indiscriminate shelling began.
In fact, Israel's desire to seal off Gaza and terrorize its civilian population predates even Hamas' election victory. It can be dated to Ariel Sharon's disengagement of summer 2005, when Fatah's rule of the PA was unchallenged.
An indication of the kind of isolation Sharon preferred for Gaza was revealed shortly after the pullout, in December 2005, when his officials first proposed cutting off electricity to the Strip.
The policy was not implemented, the local media pointed out at the time, both because officials suspected the violation of international law would be rejected by other nations and because it was feared that such a move would damage Fatah's chances of winning the elections the following month.
With the vote over, however, Israel had the excuse it needed to begin severing its responsibility for the civilian population. It recast its relationship with Gaza from one of occupation to one of hostile parties at war. A policy of collective punishment that was considered transparently illegal in late 2005 has today become Israel's standard operating procedure.
Increasingly strident talk from officials, culminating in February in the deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai's infamous remark about creating a "shoah," or Holocaust, in Gaza, has been matched by Israeli measures. The military bombed Gaza's electricity plant in June 2006 and has been incrementally cutting fuel supplies ever since. In January, Vilnai argued that Israel should cut off "all responsibility" for Gaza, and two months later Israel signed a deal with Egypt for it to build a power station for Gaza in Sinai.
All of these moves are designed with the same purpose in mind: persuading the world that Israel's occupation of Gaza is over and that Israel can therefore ignore the laws of occupation and use unremitting force against Gaza.
Cabinet ministers have been queuing up to express such sentiments. Ehud Olmert, for example, has declared that Gazans should not be allowed to "live normal lives"; Avi Dichter believes punishment should be inflicted "irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians"; Meir Sheetrit has urged that Israel should "decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it" – the policy discussed by ministers last week.
In concert, Israel has turned a relative blind eye to the growing smuggling trade through Gaza's tunnels to Egypt. Gazans' material welfare is falling more heavily on Egyptian shoulders by the day.
The question remains: what does Israel expect the response of Gazans to be to their immiseration and ever greater insecurity in the face of Israeli military reprisals?
Eyal Sarraj, the head of Gaza's Community Mental Health Program, said this year that Israel's long-term goal was to force Egypt to end the controls along its short border with the Strip. Once the border was open, he warned, "Wait for the exodus."
This article originally appeared in The National.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did the scorpion sting the frog? Because that's his nature. So it is with the Israeli nazis. The 'transfer' of the Palestines may be Obama's first challenge.
And "The National" is what?
It is a dilemma for Hamas, whether they want to be a nation or permanently a faction.
The vagueness of references to "the occupation" is a dangerous line.
If "the occupation" is clearly defined as objection to Israel's occupation of the West Bank (I too use that word), then their objections are reconcilable.
If "the occupation" is ANY Israel, then their objections are a euphemism for the removal of Israel from the map, which is a state of war.
So, what do you mean, American? Do you mean the euphemism, or do you mean the occupation of the West Bank?
And, if you conclude that your meaning is the occupation of the West Bank, but their meaning is the political Jewish self-governance/occupation of ANY of the land, what do you do with that conflict of goal?
THAT ambiguity as to what is meant by "the occupation" is a VERY big problem for me in solidarity with the Palestinians. When I attend demonstration (the few that I've attended on the issue), and there are ANY signs "death to Israel", or "Zionism is racism", I walk away.
I will not participate in that expression of non-acceptance, PRETENDING to be dissent.
How about the favorite term of American politicians, "pro-Israel?"
It is consistently used by them as an expression of non-acceptance
of any view critical of any aspect of the Israeli government's policy relating to the Palestinians.
It is colloquially among many.
However, it is ALSO true that the Walt/Mearsheimer statement that in order to be pro-Israel in the current setting, is to be pro-reconciliation, pro-acceptance of Palestine. And, that position is respected, and is likely THE position of the Obama administration, INCLUDING Rahm Emanuel.
And, it is wonderful that Fatah and the PA adopts a similar position.
Its not wonderful that Hamas doesn't. Its not wonderful that you don't.
There are "nazi"-like parties and powers in Israel. And, that is a big fight for liberals, a fight that will be public in a couple months, in their coming campaign.
I looked up Blankfort on google. I discovered a less than pleasant, less than endearing, exchange between him and Michael Lerner (an e-mail exchange posted without Lerner's permission). A man at war apparently, maybe I'm wrong.
Cut the crap, Witty.
You've probably never been to a demonstration to demonstrate against Israeli fascism.
And Zionism IS fundamentally racist – so the term "Zionism is racism" is appropriate – though not all encompassing.
Personally I think "Zionism is Fascism" is far more accurate…..
I've come to the conclusion that it is high time we started calling what is happening in Gaza genocide – as the population is clearly being set up to die of disease and starvation.
That the international community can sit and do nothing in the face of such appalling fascist policies on the American dollar is truly unbelievable.
If another country were to attack Israel as a result – I'm sure there would be some kind of legal allowance in international law for strikes against the fascist regime as a humanitarian effort.
Isn't that what the U.S did to Yugoslavia?
Wasn't that accepted by the UN?
"So, what do you mean, American? Do you mean the euphemism, or do you mean the occupation of the West Bank?"..witty
Oh come on witty, quit playing obutse. Occupation is occupying any Palestines lands not originally given to Israel in the UN accord.
The "Occupation" that has been defined by the UN and the World Court as "illegal"…and define as collective punishment…about 200 times.
If Israel had defended their legal land and only their legal boarders and not pursued their land confistcation and transfer of Palestines and greedy delusion of Greater Israel they wouldn't be a problem and the conflict would have petered out long ago.
I don't know where you get your information and news but you don't remember this…?
"With embarrassing timing, the Israeli media revealed over the weekend that one of the first acts of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister elected in 2006, was to send a message to the Bush White House offering a long-term truce in return for an end to Israeli occupation. His offer was not even acknowledged."
I remember it and it was not the first time Hamas had made a cease fire offer to Israel or an offer to begin talks.
Israel always refuses these offers just like they always ruin any peace talks because their goal is to keep the conflict going and collect as much land as possible and keep the US shoveling money to them for their 'war on Palestine and Muslim terriers' who want to "shove them into the sea, boo hoo".
It's bullshit. Every time any kind of possible progress raises it's head the Israelis go to their usual provoke, respond and confiscate game to keep the conflict going.
I am sure you won't do this but go to a recent map and compare the original Israeli boarders of 55 % of the Palestine land given to Israel to the current maps of Israeli "settlements/colonies" which show that Israel has now stolen up to 80% of the original Palestine.
I can tell you one thing, if the jews had been given a portion of my state as their homeland then responded the same way they have done in Palestine there wouldn't be a jew/zionist/Israeli left alive…Israel would have been the shortest footnote in history.
Israel has created their own jewish ghetto, plusher than than the Warsaw ghetto, but still a ghetto. They walled themselves into someone else's land.
They have been told and told and told to cease taking Palestine land and cease their collective punishment. There is a last straw coming. I have no sympathy for the whole jewish/zionist thing or Israel any longer, neither does 90% of the rest of the world.
I've been to demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights since the early 80's.
Its always been hard. There have always been IDIOTS that parrot "Zionism is racism" and loudly.
Blankfurt doesn't believe that there is a possible humane Zionism. From what I've read Walt/Mearsheimer do.
So, taking the Walt/Mearsheimer approach, the question is one of behavior NOT one of identity or nature.
"If Israel had defended their legal land and only their legal boarders and not pursued their land confistcation and transfer of Palestines and greedy delusion of Greater Israel they wouldn't be a problem and the conflict would have petered out long ago."
I agree with you that the conflict would have petered out, and reconciliation would be the norm now.
I disagree with your shifting sands siting the UN partition definition of Israel. The Arab states don't even use that definition in their proposal. The Green Line is an armistice line from 1949.
I am more than disapointed that the promise of Oslo has gone so far delayed.
The shifting sand of what is called "occupation" IS a great danger.
"I can tell you one thing, if the jews had been given a portion of my state as their homeland then responded the same way they have done in Palestine there wouldn't be a jew/zionist/Israeli left alive"
I am UNWILLING to harm innocent others. But you're "angry". How do you survive near a reservation?
You didn't address my comment that Zionism is fundamentally racist.
And if you "just walk(ed) away" from demonstrations where you heard "Zionism is Racism" that you wouldn't be at too many demonstrations for very long.
Nor would you be there to protest Israeli policies, you'd just be policing the crowd.
Very telling….
There's often people I disagree with at protests at the like – some people who are blatantly racist against jews.
But I'm not there for that. I'm there to protest what are serious human rights abuses, war crimes and atrocities against a mostly defenseless population.
Why are you there?
Richard Witty wrote, "I've been to demonstrations supporting Palestinian rights since the early 80's."
I don't mean to put you on the spot, but what was the most recent one? Was there a good crowd?
Zionism is in no way "fundamentally" racist.
Zionism is fundamentally the assertion that Jews are a people, and have the right to self-govern, rather than be governed (and ruthlessly as has occurred too damn frequently).
Its a LIBERATION movement.
Expansion is NOT Zionism, it is expansion.
Its like the distinction between American expansion and American identity. Are you racist, because you are the beneficiary of historical and present American racism and imperialism?
I am a proud Zionist, a liberal non-expansion one.
I know that you hear my advocacy for settlers' day in court as participating in colonialism, but it is the oppossite. It is humanism, a declaration that EVERYONE (friend or foe) deserves their day in court.
I hold the same view for Palestinians. They'be been denied the opportunity to argue their case, and deserve to.
Its color-blind, unlike what too often passes for "dissent".
The result is lawful reconciliation.
Hamas "cease-fires".
Show me one in fact. THIS one lasted a few months, and during the time that it was in effect, the Gazan border functioned like any other tight border.
Like the border between the US and Mexico.
I doubt that the "libertarians" that post here actively advocate for open borders between the US and Mexico.
Do you?
The most recent Palestinian solidarity demonstration was in 2004 at a local university.
It turned my stomach. I attended with a group carrying Palestinian and Israeli flags and peace signs. Some, mostly leftists (and probably mostly Jewish) taunted us.
I routinely speak on behalf of Palestinians' getting their day in court in Jewish gatherings for peace, and in pro-Zionist gatherings. I describe the series of laws in 1949 – 52 that structured the institutionalization of the Nakba.
I get that you guys are distrustful, but it speaks more about you.
You think that anyone that loves Israel is a racist, and that Jewish self-governance is racism (but somehow Palestinian self-governance and legal prohibition against Jews owning land, is not, and that anyone that loves Israel cannot also respect and appreciate Palestine).
When I ask, "Is Israel doing all it can to realize peace" at a pro-Zionist presentation, I get criticized for being anti-Zionist.
Its an irony how I'm treated among the few more "dissenting" blogs.
You went to a Palestinian solidarity gathering carrying an Israeli flag?
You're a sick puppy, Mr. Witty.
I went urging peace and mutual dignity.
The OPPOSSITE of sick.
Comments on this entry are closed.