My friend Hannah Mermelstein has filed this piece from Palestine saying that the "civil war" between Israel and the settlers masks the true source of the conflict, a landgrab that goes back 60 years. The settlers say, What's the difference between the villages we took in '48 and the ones we took in '67? Good point. Both are just facts on the ground. The real issue is the treatment of Palestinians. If Israel became a nation of its citizens rather than the state of the Jews, and provided full rights to minorities, in all the areas it controls, it wouldn't be facing an international campaign of delegitimization.
It used to give me a frisson when I met Jewish anti-Zionists, or Jewish critics of Israel. It was for much the same reason that the American Jewish Committee put out its report two years ago singling out Jewish critics of Israel as being anti-semites, smearing great people like Alisa Solomon and Tony Kushner in the process. Because the AJC understood the power of these pioneers.
Now that thrill is gone. I realized this last week when I learned from Steve Lendman--another Jewish critic of Israel--that Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur who was expelled lately from Israel because of his humanitarian stance on Gaza, is Jewish. Wikipedia says so too. I'd been hearing from Falk for months and never heard about his religion. It goes to show What the brave forerunner Jews achieved: they normalized criticism of Israel. They've splintered the monolith, the identification, and shown that you can be a balanced Jewish person and still be harshly critical of the state of Israel. They've opened up room for a lot of non-Jewish critics, and in the process, broken down the special connection between Israel and American Jews. It's sort of the opposite of 1967. 1967 made Israel the pet cause of every American Jew. The occupation, the apartheid wall, the invasions of Lebanon, the breaking of hands--all these events have severed the connection. I think Phyllis Bennis tried to explain this to me years ago, and I didn't get it. It doesn't matter that I'm Jewish, she said. Now I agree...
Falk wasn't expelled. He was just not admitted.
It really will be 'inverse 1967' if Israel proceeds with military action against Gaza, as it's contemplating.
Instead of identifying with 'brave little Israel' as it did in 1967, the world will identify with brave little Gaza.
And the Lobby may find that its 'three billion a year forever, for nothing' for Israel is suddenly a very hard sell indeed.
But hubris can lead to bad decisions.
The settlers say, What's the difference between the villages we took in '48 and the ones we took in '67?"
A land grab is a land grab, pure and simple?
How about settlers saying, "What's the difference between the villages we took in '48 and the ones we took ever since '67–in fact every bit of land we took and kept thru Christmas of '08? Try to stop us, it will cost you dearly!"
great stuff,
truly great
im with you all the way.
I am member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada
'Falk wasn't expelled. He was just not admitted.'
Oh well, that's OK then.
'Instead of identifying with 'brave little Israel' as it did in 1967, the world will identify with brave little Gaza.'
Only if enough of it knows what is happening. A Zioblanket of omission and obfuscation will descend when it happens. Remember Lebanon 2006.
'And the Lobby may find that its 'three billion a year forever, for nothing' for Israel is suddenly a very hard sell indeed.'
Your optimism, like Phil's, is comforting Jim, but not absolutely convincing.
Happy Xmas Jim, or maybe Happy Holidays, to be safe.
I don't know if jews control the media or not but it is safe to say someone is responsible for the slant or more accurately the total lack of reporting and news on Isr-Pal,..and who would have any reason or desire to influence that except the zionist?
I find it even more suspicous because there is no lack of talking about Israel during political campaigns, no lack of politicans pledging alleigence to Israel…so why the total blackout on Israeli news otherwise since they are treated as if they are part of the US?..To keep as many Americans as ignorant of the facts as they can is the obvious answer.
I remember back in 02-03 when Ashley Banfield was reporting from Israel and doing a bang up job of presenting both sides of the conflict…she was fired for her effort. She let the Palestines look too much like human beings to suit MSNBC.
But I think it is more than safe to say that 90% of the people who get their news from the internet and foreign papers are outraged about Israel-Pal and the US part in it.
Unlike Phil I think there will be fireworks before all is said and done. It is the zionist nature to think they can forever get away with anything. They will push the envelope until it rips.
I've been extremely skeptical about the pro=Israel Jim Haygood, but then I saw this.
"Instead of identifying with 'brave little Israel' as it did in 1967, the world will identify with brave little Gaza."
That's not Jim Haygood either. The old Jim Haygood was not a Zionist, but he wasn't a fucking idiot like this guy.
BRING BACK THE REAL JIM HAYGOOD!!!!
"They've opened up room for a lot of non-Jewish critics,"
Hold on there…I don't know any jews who opened up anything, at least in the USA. Before the jews started speaking up it was people like myself and other gentiles who were telling the truth about Isr-Pal-USA …
We are the ones who spoke out who screamed and yelled and took the slurs and finally made the anti Israel= anti semite slur meaningless.
I didn't see a lot of jews get the balls to join in until they realized that a sizable portion of Americans were on the warpath and the tide of opinion was eventualy going to turn.
As it has.
So let's give credit where credit is due.
Sen Hollings first editorial after he retired was in the Charleston Gazette saying the Iraq war was made by the jewish lobby and no one in congress would go against them.
Then came James Bamford, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu..gentile public figures that got the general US public's attention on Israel.
Although some jewish bloggers and lesser figures do a good service on Israeli truth there is no way they made possible anything…it was prominent gentiles,authors, politicans and academics, willing to go against AIPAC and congress and the zionist propaganda in front of the public and on the record who led this parade.
Not to mention relentless commenters on blogs like this willing to put up with the
SOG's and tiresome wittys to get a little truth out there.
And we are going to stay relentless so if the jews want to be able to claim they were part of it they better kick it way up.
I will believe that jews have real juice in this issue when they start taking down Israeli congressmen like Shumer, Engle and a others who have poisoned our congress on Israel. Until then they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
***********************************
Joseph J: You 'potty-mouths' are all alike!
American:
I will believe that jews have real juice in this issue when they start taking down Israeli congressmen like Shumer, Engle and a others who have poisoned our congress on Israel.
Colin:
Don't forget Diane Feinstein, who is slated to become Head of the Senate Committee on Intelligence. And Congress wonders why the intelligence community doesn't keep it in the loop. :rolls eyes:
Feinstein: Bad Choice for Intelligence
link to fpif.org
/>
Jim Haygood:
Instead of identifying with 'brave little Israel' as it did in 1967, the world will identify with brave little Gaza.
Colin:
However one interprets the above sentence, read the Haaretz article "ANALYSIS / A hard look at Hamas' capabilities." link to haaretz.com
Messrs Harel and Issacharoff suggestion that Iz al-Din al-Qassam is avoiding 'policing operations' to focus on combat training would be a MAJOR display of measured good sense for Hamas. 'Police' operations in the OPT are one of the reasons for the marked degradation of Israeli combat capability, in spite of their staggeringly superior material resources. 'Fighting' thoroughly cowed civilians doesn't prepare one to fight against well-armed and well-trained folks willing to die to defend their homes. If the Israelis do invade it will be interesting to assess the 'arrogance' factor (Arabs can't fight) that was part of their downfall in south Lebanon. I have read several articles in Israeli publications where the sea-change in Hamas' fighting competence was mentioned, so elements of the IDF do know that they will be facing a different opponent, but whether that awareness has actually spread to spearpoint elements who would be the ones paying the price for overconfidence, is anybody's guess.
Note this important sentence in the article: Hamas has acquired antitank missiles from the Eastern bloc, although the exact models and capabilities are not known.
If Hamas manages to shoot down a few helicopters and destroy a few tanks, Israel may be forced to adopt a new approach, i.e., depart from their traditional 'stand-off' way of battle. I simplify the problem, for my own gratification as an amateur analyst throwing something together in a couple hours before I go to bed (and in the full knowledge that my rambling narrative is likely rife with errors), and seeing how right or wrong I turn out to be, as having three degrees of freedom which we can abstract as variables, the relative magnitudes of which Israeli planners must try to optimize in order to achieve 'victory', however they define it. There are many ways they could define it, assuming that an agreement between the different political and military constituencies can be achieved at all. The various factions will undoubtedly have different time scales upon which they are trying achieve their objectives, i.e. one can imagine some political planners wanting to minimize the perceptual 'blowback' amongst an increasingly skeptical international audience (especially the unbelievably critical American market), and military planners wanting to keep as many of their people alive as possible in the 'here-and-now'.
The variables are:
(1) the amount of heavy equipment losses and (2) the amount of personnel casualties Israeli command authority is willing to sustain, and (3) the amount of civilian casualties and infrastructure devastation they are willing to inflict upon the Palestinians.
The balance will obviously depend a great degree upon just how good Hamas turns out to be. If Hamas turns out to be a paper tiger, as many suggest, then this whole exercise is moot. However, if they turn out to be able to inflict enough helicopter and armored vehicle casualties to convince the IDF that they will continue to suffer equipment casualties at their usual stand-off distances, then the Israelis could decide to 'tough it out' and wait until Hamas runs out of munitions and trained weapons operators, which they would do long before the IDF runs out of tanks and helicopters. Obviously, if they go that path, they will win in the sense that they can gain 'control' of the battlefield in the same way that they control the West Bank. Of course, maintaining that 'control' will require a duplication of West Bank population control measures, in a vastly more difficult environment without the critical tool of colonization to provide the organization and purpose necessary to ensure long-term public support. Please note that this would be the booby prize for local military victory. And behind curtain number 3, a brand new hostile ghetto! I know it's what you've always dreamed of. And never forget the deep Israeli concern with always appearing to be the decisive victor. Hamas may very well view the loss of their current stock of munitions and trained anti-vehicle weapons crews as a great trade for inflicting major Israeli equipment losses, as long as a cadre remains to train the next wave. It would be a serious error (via arrogance) to assume that Hamas would be stupid enough not keep enough back to carry on the struggle. If Hamas does indeed have Iranian technical advisers, who proved their superb competence assisting Hezbollah with the defense of Lebanon, the rules of the game will change. However, I won't assume this is true just because Israeli or American MSM claim it. It is certainly in the Zionist interest to convince Americans that 'their enemies are our enemies' and vice versa. Never forget, as Bush administration apparatchiks repeatedly did (and some probably still do) that Palestinians are Sunni and Christian, and Hezbollah and Iran are Shiite.
If the IDF is faced with serious vehicle losses, they may decide to 'send in the infantry', which they half-heartedly did in Lebanon after Hezbollah's spectacular success with anti-tank missiles. This would reduce vehicle casualties and increase personnel casualties, the IDF being forced to go building-to-building in one of the most urbanized pieces of real estate on Earth where Hamas can operate amongst 1.3 million sympathetic civilians. And of course they could just 'go Stalingrad' (not the best analogy I know) and reduce areas of Gaza to rubble, and bulldoze it back, which will merely push back the frontier, but not solve the underlying problem. I think that significant IDF losses will be considered a major victory in the Arab world, irrespective of Hamas' losses. And 'going Stalingrad' will catalyze the ongoing dissolution of international belief in the 'traditional' Zionist narrative, as will any re-occupation of the interior of Gaza (it is already occupied in both legal and common senses).
I don't see any possible 'victory' for Israel in a strategic sense, i.e., what will strengthen the stability and legitimacy of the state, by military means. My assessment is that the optimal solution for Israel lies on the negotiating table. However, I think there is ZERO chance that will happen until very large numbers of IDF have bled out in the slums of Gaza, even if it takes 20 years before they decide to go in. The Israeli government has a pitiful record of good-faith negotiations. Their society will have to be rigidly polarized, such that the basic sovereignty of the state is under existential attack, before their stunningly uncreative leadership is forced to clamp down on their extremists. They may just continue to punt and hope that it will all just go away. Anyway, I haven't a clue what will actually happen. I would love to be monitoring the debate that Israel command authority must be having right now. Books will be written about it.
What's the difference between the villages we took in '48 and the ones we took in '67?
Or the ones they took between 1919 and 1948 when the British army was performing the IDF function?
Don't forget Walt & Mearsheimer in the small list of total American Goys who stood up to the Zionists. There's a few Jews in their ranks too, e.g., Finklestein.
The use of ethnic vocabulary, the conflation of The Arab and
the conflation of The Jew: Roots in late 19th Century racist theory right up to the present state of affairs:
http://www.counterpunch.org/portis12262008.html
Colin:
It was interesting to see Al Jazeera reporters on TV this a.m., grilling the IDF spokesperson, asking: did you learn nothing from Lebanon?
Of course this interview was juxtaposed to images of the carnage and the stacks of corpses in the makeshift morgues in downtown Gaza…
Israel just keeps learning; even as we comment here, its American
funded and made jets and helicopters are raining death from the air
on Gaza while Americans rest over the Xmas holidays:
http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2937155/Israel-attacks-on-Gaza-leave-scores-dead.html
See if this appears on your TV news.
I saw a breif clip on the Gaza attack this morning on MSNBC….as usual it was poor Israel and the dirty Palestine terrorist.
It's all about the rag tag rockets that don't ever hit anyone or at best one injure a jew one in a thousand times.
Nothing about what Israel has done to Palestine for 60 years to warrent their fighting back against to Israel.
The bloodiest day in Palestine in 20 years.
Typical low-down tactics by Israel to avoid unwanted publicity – attack during a major holiday in the western world.
If all else fail, in light of Colin's insightful analysis, Israel can use whatever unknown chemical weapons they've used in small amounts in the past, against the Gaza populace.
What a disgrace.