Yesterday we ran an anonymous journalist's account of how the Israel lobby flexed its muscle to destroy the New Jersey freeholder candidacy of a Lebanese-American politician. The article had never run before. Where could it appear? In exchanges, the journalist said that it had taken him a long time to get to this political understanding. We asked what that meant, and he sent us this piece describing his path to understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the influence of the Israel lobby over his own work.
I still remember the day I realized that two of my friends were anti-Semitic. It was in the summer of 2006, a hot weekend afternoon in July. Both of them, one from an Indian background, the other Egyptian, were sitting on adjoining couches in the living room of my apartment. When I walked downstairs to join them, they were in the midst of an intense discussion.
At first, I just sat down and listened, trying to discern the subject matter. Before I could, one of them turned to me, looking for support. “They control the whole foreign policy, don’t they?” he asked.
“Who?” I replied.
“AIPAC. The Israel lobby.”
I was secretly glad he’d added that second part, because I was only vaguely familiar with AIPAC – even though I reported on politics for a living. In part because I like to argue but mostly because the term “Israel lobby” smacked of the kind of conspiratorial anti-Semitic thinking that I’d been conditioned to reject, I threw him a disapprovingly skeptical look.
He persisted, telling me that the reason we’d gone to war with Iraq was because AIPAC wanted it. (At this point I surmised that AIPAC was a political action committee or a lobbying organization.) Suddenly, I realized what I was dealing with: my friend was just like my crazy great-uncle, the old coot who would rail against “the Jews” at family functions and with whom my liberal-minded mother would get in heated arguments. And here was my friend, spouting the same kind of blame-the-Jews conspiracy nonsense.
My other friend chimed in. He was less exercised and absolute, more willing to see nuance and gray, but the heart of his argument was no different: He didn’t like “the Jews” either.
I pushed back intensely. We’d gone to war because of oil, I said, and most Jews I knew hadn’t even supported it. And anyway, it’s not like there are that many Jews in the Senate or House. Back and forth we then went for at least an hour, and not just about Iraq. They brought up a host of issues relating to the lobby and Israel itself. They had a deep grasp of names, dates, history and geography. Most of it meant little to me. But I wouldn’t give an inch. When they mentioned the Palestinians, I mentioned suicide bombers. It felt right to me: I was the liberal Westerner standing up for tolerance and multicultural values to these two guys who came from places where anti-Semitism was the norm. Good for me.
We resolved nothing, obviously, and somehow remained friends, never bringing it up again. This was actually pretty easy for me, since I generally devoted zero minutes and zero seconds of every day to thinking about Israel and the Middle East. (In fact, it was only in hindsight that I realized why they were having that discussion on that July day in the first place: Israel had just launched its war on Lebanon, and it was on their minds; at the time, I only knew that Israel was engaged in some kind of war with Lebanon, but it’s not like I’d been following it at all.) So we just went back to talking about sports and domestic politics. But I still believed their instincts were anti-Semitic.
Believe it or not, I’m not (and I wasn’t) as intentionally ignorant as this makes me sound. My upbringing was fairly typical for an upper middle-class American. I grew up in a quiet suburb, the kind of town where everyone was proud of their tolerance, even though there were basically no blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Jews around. My public school curriculum heavily emphasized diversity and multiculturalism; I took it very seriously, and at home my parents reinforced it. There was no uglier sin, I was raised to understand, than being a racist or an anti-Semite (something my mother would try to demonstrate when she’d argue with racist and anti-Semitic older generation members of my father’s family).
My grades in school were good, I was never in trouble, and teachers told me I’d go far in life. In high school and college, I developed an interest in politics, mainly in its personality and campaign aspects – not policy. I considered myself more of a Democrat, mainly on cultural grounds; the Republican Party was for intolerant people, and I wasn’t one of them. I was forced to take a basic international relations course in college, but only skimmed the required reading. I remember one chapter was about the Iranian revolution of 1979; I was surprised to learn how much the U.S.’s support of the Shah had led it. For the next few years, this became my default observation if foreign policy ever came up in conversation and I needed to say something.
After school, I found my way into journalism, covering politics – again, campaigns and strategy, not policy. Except for once instance, the significance of which I didn’t appreciate or understand at the time, Middle East issues never intruded on my work, and I never thought or read about them. Other than following the run-up to the Iraq war (which I told people I opposed), I simply tuned out news stories about foreign policy.
I did know that it was fashionable among some on the left, particularly in academic circles, to criticize Israel from a human rights perspective – mainly because one of my best friends from high school had become one of those left-wing academics. I listened to her once, sensed there was something to what she was saying, but ended up mostly dismissing it – every message I heard in the media told me that hers was a fringe view. Whatever Israel might have done wrong, I figured, there had to be a reason. They were the good guys over there, the ones who were most “like us.” Then I went back to not thinking about it.
If at any time prior to my 27th birthday you’d asked me to tell you the difference between the West Bank and Israel, I wouldn’t have been able to answer. I’d occasionally hear the term “right of return” in the news; had no clue what it meant. Ditto for “settlements.” I had no idea when the Six Day war had been, or what it had accomplished. If someone mentioned Yasser Arafat, I’d repeat the only thing I’d heard in the media: Why the hell did he turn down the offer for his own state – it’s the best deal he’ll ever get! When I saw Benjamin Netanyahu on television, my instinct was to like him, because he looked and sounded so “American.” If compelled to discuss it, my position on Israel was this: They are our ally and they are surrounded by crazy backward fanatics who hate Jews and like to blow themselves up.
That was the attitude I carried with me into the living room on that summer day when I found my two friends fuming about “the Israel lobby.” I conceded nothing that day, and raised my voice often. But something bothered me in the weeks that followed: From a factual standpoint, I really had had no idea what I was talking about. I had faked it well, bringing their detailed arguments back to my basic points (Israel is threatened by terrorists and talking about the “Israel lobby” is for quacks who subscribe to Lyndon LaRouche newsletters) and still believed I’d been on the right side, but I wanted to know more. There was no excuse for being 27 and not being able to find Lebanon on a map.
So finally, some time late in 2006, I found myself in Barnes and Noble, seeking a not-too-intimidating-looking book that could serve as an introductory course in Middle East issues. I found a copy of Tom Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem.” I picked up the New York Times every day, but had probably read his column three or four times – ever. But I’d seen him on television and heard him described as an authority, and the book was billed as an excellent Middle East primer. It was a little dated, but history is history, so I picked it up.
It really was an extraordinary volume: thorough, personal, balanced, comprehensive. Nowadays I’m stunned that the Friedman I read on the NYT op-ed page is the same guy who wrote that book. For the first time, I understood the basic contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I no longer wondered what the right of return was, or what the term “West Bank” referred to. I found myself stunned at the basic injustice that the Palestinians had experienced; their story was not quite what I’d imagined.
I wanted to know more, and I went back to B&N again and again. Gradually, the various titles and jacket descriptions started to make sense to me. I went from not knowing what the settlements were to wanting to know all about the British Mandate period. I read from different perspectives: Bernard Lewis’ “The Crisis of Islam” one day, a collection of essays by Edward Said the next; Alan Dershowitz’s “The Case for Israel” before going to bed, Karl Sabbagh’s “Palestine: A Personal History,” on the subway the next morning. And so on. I sought out more objective voices, too: Margaret MacMillan’s “Paris 1919,” for instance, vividly brought to life the arrogance and ignorance that ruled the Paris Peace Conference and set the Palestinians on a three-decade course to lose their land for good.
The essential tragedy of the Palestinian narrative became undeniable. So did the utter phoniness of the American media’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The cliché about converts making the best preachers began to make sense. How could I have ignored all of this for so long? How could so many Americans do the same thing?
In late 2007, I read John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s “The Israel Lobby.” The old me would have heard of the controversy surrounding the book and dismissed it as a collection of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The new me read it. It resonated deeply with me, helping me to connect every practical lesson I’d learned about the campaign side of politics with the Israel/Palestine issue. Yes, there most certainly was an Israel lobby; it was hard to define precisely and my friend had painted it in too simplistic terms that day back in 2006, but it was certainly there – and that it had been the whole time I’d been reporting on politics.
I knew I was a full-fledged believer in the Palestinian cause when, a year or so ago, I heard someone casually mention that Arafat had turned down his own state in 2001 and then turned around and launched the second intifada. The old me would have just nodded and agreed, or made some benign observation about how “tragic” the whole situation was. The new me pointed out that Arafat was actually offered a state in name only and that second intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon’s intentionally provocative appearance at the Temple Mount.
I continue to read all I can about the Middle East, and not just Israel and Palestine. Recently, I finished Ali Ansari’s “Confronting Iran,” an eye opener about the frustrating history and missed opportunities that have plagued America’s relationship with Iran. I’m perfectly comfortable with my new perspective; it’s a natural fit with my upbringing, which stressed tolerance and compassion for the least fortunate among us.
That said, it can be awkward. I worry that articulating these views could hurt my career, a concern that some of my media-savvy friends have impressed on me. There have been times, too, when it’s complicated friendships. One of my best friends is Jewish, raised in a predominantly Jewish town. He has one of the quickest and funniest minds I’ve ever known, and he shares my love of contrarian thinking.
One day, I brought up my new thinking on Israel to him. I probably shouldn’t have. It didn’t get ugly and I backed off quickly and apologetically, but he clearly regarded my words the same way I’d regarded my Indian and Egyptian friends’ words in 2006. He still gives me a hard time about it – jokingly, I think – from time to time. Recently, when I received some good career news, he relayed a touching email to me from his mother, who had written to tell him how proud she was of me and the fact that I was friends with her son. In forwarding the message to me, he (jokingly, I think) wrote that “This is from the woman whose people you hate.” I was so touched by his mother’s note, and felt terrible that my friend might ever think that I’m anti-Semitic in any way.
It bothers me, as well, that my position is shared by some people who are truly anti-Semitics – who actually embody the Larouche-ish stereotype I used to associate with Israel lobby talk. I don’t want anything to do with these people and the fact that we share a common viewpoint has given me pause – many times. Then again, I’ve heard many vile and hateful words directed at Arabs and Muslims from Jews and Israelis (and their supporters). And it helps to remember this: For all of his whining about “the Jews,” I’ve never met a more fervent supporter of Israel than my great-uncle. The world is a lot more complicated than I used to think it was.
The secret of Laroucheanism is old Lyndon's decision way back when to use the methods of the Right: conspiracy theory and flim-flam. Nevertheless, he still seems to retain the loyalty of the extremely talented Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg (IIRC), and until a few years ago, the marvellously entertaining maverick Webster Griffin Tarpley was also a protege.
Another essential thing to bear in mind about this school of thought is that it tries to keep more or less in step with the general view of the Right, that capitalism would work, if the banks could only be taken care of somehow. This is an abandonment of the central finding of Marx, which was that even the productive, industrial side of capitalism is doomed, irrespective of the banks, by the long-term tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Great piece. Thank you.
"The old me would have heard of the controversy surrounding the book and dismissed it as a collection of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The new me read it."
The most beautiful lines in the essay.
"the Larouche-ish stereotype"
I've always seen LaRouche as a Judas goat, put out there to make sensible things seem "far out" and unacceptable. Who funds that guy and his newspapers anyway?
I've always wondered
It's not Anti-Semitism to criticize Israeli policies with which one disagrees. In America, it is our inalienable right to criticize political views with which we disagree. Here we defend to the death your right to say what you think, even if we disagree. It is also our duty as American citizens to reject behavior that amounts to thought control, such as smearing good people as Anti-Semites because they voice empathy for the plight of Palestinians or dismay at the brutality and callousness of settlors and occupation forces. Such efforts are an example of "tyranny over the human mind," against which Jefferson vowed eternal hostility.
It is also our duty to expect and demand that our politicians not allow themselves to be led around by the nose by foreign lobbyists. And to protest to our newspaper editors when they fail to report the news, and instead publish an article a month about the Holocaust, which ended 64 years ago, but have never allowed their papers to mention the Nakba, which began our own shameful period of brutality 60 years ago and which continues to this day. Americans need to be comfortable with our core values, as they are the best history has yet provided.
The key is to stay focused on the merits, and not allow distractions like name-calling and personal attacks to distract from the merits. The truth will set us free. And open and free debate are the best and only avenue to the truth.
"For here we are not afraid to follow the truth, wherever it may lead us, nor to tolerate error, so long as reason is left free to combat it." – Thomas Jefferson
"O Lord, we pray that you will give us the courage and the patience and the wisdom to seek always after the truth, come whence it may, cost what it will." Motto of the Virginia Theological Seminary.
Sic semper tyrannus.
There's some high-quality writing on this blog.
i have never run across anyone who "hates jews" or is a "racist". i am not saying they are not there, but their presence, in any way that counts, is exaggerated.
me neither. I have yet to encounter a an anti jew bigot all my life. I have only heard about people like that. Where are they? On the contrary I have seen heard read so many Jews being hateful to Muslims. many many many Jews from different walks of life and economic cultural background.
What sheltered lives you two must lead. It must be wonderful.
Adam,
There are OTHER options besides the virulent anti-Israeli and the virulent anti-Palestinian.
If you are concerned about your integrity, conscience and accurate scholarship, I would recommend that you navigate a path that acknowledges BOTH narratives as partially true, and renounce either/or thinking unless it is absolutely necessary, and by that I mean that which you personally are willing to die for.
By that math, the current setting of conflict becomes a mutual, and mutually aggressive, tragedy.
It is a tragedy for Israel to continue expansion beyond what is necessary, and it is a tragedy for Hamas, Hezbollah and others to resort to taargeting civilians, no matter how its rationalized.
The only relevant metaphor that I can see to describe the situation is a knot, constructed of layers and layers of "ANTI"- sentiments.
And, the remedy to the knot is to construct layers and layers of pro-sentiments and relationships that are as independant of political litmus testing as possible.
Seriously, the remedy is NOT punitive, as that tightens the knot. Even if resistance remotely unties the knot in three decades, that is too long a period to wait for normalcy, and for an utterly uncertain end.
Something for Chris: Jew Bites Dog
Anti-semite: someone that Jewish groups hate.
I have yet to encounter a an anti jew bigot all my life.
I have. I nearly went to a well known BBQ joint in North Carolina until I found out they distributed both racist (KKK) and anti-semetic stuff at their counter. Apparently it was owned by a well known klaner. I chose another place.
Good article.
Richard Witty has been starting to make sense.
What and who would Richard Witty die for? He's not served in the US military, nor in the IDF. Certainly he would never serve in HAMAS.
That's all we know for sure. On the other hand, he's actually starting to look faintly American next to the onslaught of pure Hasbara on this blog, all recruited by Israel proper.
This journalist is a smacked-ass rich kid who loves Diversity. Much like the comical webite "Stuff White People Like", this guy was taught by parents and teachers that Israel was good and Palestinians are bad. It is much easier to go through life and accept these teachings because if one were to recognize the truth, it would be hurtful to his career and possible ostracization by other sensible, liberal whites.
These type of people feel guilt about the holocaust and slavery and feel good about Fair Trade Coffee and Homosexual marriage. They feel they are enlightened because their condo neighbors are multi-culti and look down their noses at people who cling to "guns and religion."
It is good that he has now researched the subject, but he is apprehensive because he shares similiar beliefs as the reviled Patrick J. Buchanan.
I learned from my father about the mass killings of Christian Eastern Euros by Bolsheviks and the defender of the Faith, Francisco Franco. In high school, I listened to the teachings of Lefty priests who exalted the Sandanista Daniel Ortega and vilified Augusto Pinochet and his American backers.
By the time I went to college, I absorbed the teachings of the Left and Right. And at a big state U, I received more left influence.
However, this self-absorbed asshole glided through college and journalism school oblivious to the world. Our country is fucked with lightweights like him contributing to our public thought.
This reminds me of a Dave Chappelle show skit where a black family and a white family exchange fathers for a week. The black dad is taking a dump in the white family's bathroom and picks up a magazine and exclaims, "Who the fuck is Renee Zeelweeger?"
Next scene, the white dad is dumping in the black household and picks up a magazine and is shocked to learn "that white police officers beat black folks?."
People need to learn about both sides.
If you are concerned about your integrity, conscience and accurate scholarship, I would recommend that you navigate a path that acknowledges BOTH narratives as partially true, and renounce either/or thinking unless it is absolutely necessary, and by that I mean that which you personally are willing to die for.
We could get philosophical here, Richard, and start asking if there are any objective "truths", or simply opinions based on personal experience. If we admit that there is an objective truth, can we ever know it anyway? I guess that's why we're talking (those of us who don't have conscious agendas).
I think the important thing here is that the Israeli narrative has been so overwhelming, so predominant throughout American society (even more so than in Israel itself), that the Palestinian narrative needs to be more magnified now in order to get to a point of equilibrium, which will help the Palestinians and the Israelis.
If you're playing a game of basketball, and your team has 5 players and the other team has 3 players, and you jump ahead by a score of 60- 4, it isn't going to satisfy the shorthanded team to now allow them the 2 extra players they've been lacking, but to continue the game from that point. No, in order to be fair, the game must start again at 0-0.
A simplistic analogy, I know, but sometimes that's the best way to shed light on a situation.
The public needs to know about the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing, the militant words of Zionist leaders and their agenda which preceded the WWII genocide by decades. We need to know the whole history, and then people can make up their minds going forward.
We need to start at 0-0, with each team having the same number of players. I think this is what scares the hell out of many Zionists.
The only person I know who hates Jews was married to one and her father is also a Jew, so I don't take her seriously.
So we must reduce the Arab population from 300 million to 16 million? What about the Muslim population of 1.2 billion excluding the arab protion. Do they need to go?
Knowing the entire history gets you back to the team in Texas, both having 5 players, and the better team winning 100 to 0. So they fire the coach of the winning team.
Actually, Israel would be much better off if the entire world knew the entire history. The arab nations would be worse off. I think you'd better hope for ignorance.
Both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives and objectives are distorted by the significant presence of non-compromising fanatics among each.
There is no simplistic accurate metaphor, no good guy to reward or bad guy to blame.
There are needs.
FEW are modeling of the method of respect for the other's experience.
Wow. Great piece by that journalist you sponsored here, Adam.
Same to you, Doppler. Wonderful post.
In part because I like to argue but mostly because the term “Israel lobby” smacked of the kind of conspiratorial anti-Semitic thinking that I’d been conditioned to reject, I threw him a disapprovingly skeptical look.
That used to be me.
"I have yet to encounter a an anti jew bigot all my life. I have only heard about people like that. Where are they? On the contrary I have seen heard read so many Jews being hateful to Muslims. many many many Jews from different walks of life and economic cultural background."
Some people are oblivious to the smell of their own stench.
Ouch!
Great piece – it resonates with my own experience, a slow dawning of consciousness of the truth.
although i wouldn't put it as strongly as you did, patrick, i appreciated your pointing out the dark side of this piece.
i was shocked no one said anything about this guy being a political journalist, having opinions, apparently, yet being so amazingly uninformed. not only uninformed, but bullshitting his way through conversations where he was outclassed. AND NOT REALIZING THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT THAT.
but bullshitting his way through conversations where he was outclassed. AND NOT REALIZING THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT THAT.
Posted by: peters
Actually, I have come to accept that many successful professionals owe their very success to this ability. It is not right nor is it wrong, it is just the way it is. At least this guy is trying to do something about it.
Ouch! Posted by: chris berel | January 30, 2009 at 05:25 PM
This seems to be a perfect example of the common Russian observation that, while he is kicking you, the Jew cries out in pain.
So we must reduce the Arab population from 300 million to 16 million? What about the Muslim population of 1.2 billion excluding the arab protion. Do they need to go?
The 5 players to 3 players analogy I used was in reference to the overwhelmingly bloated presence of the Israeli narrative in this country, compared to essentially no Palestinian narrative. It had nothing to do with actual numbers of people.
Knowing the entire history gets you back to the team in Texas, both having 5 players, and the better team winning 100 to 0. So they fire the coach of the winning team.
I don't know what the hell this means.
Actually, Israel would be much better off if the entire world knew the entire history. The arab nations would be worse off. I think you'd better hope for ignorance.
Absurd. Deserves no comment.
Both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives and objectives are distorted by the significant presence of non-compromising fanatics among each.
There is NO Palestinian narrative, Richard, and I know that you're bright enough, and not so fanatical, to know that. The idea that people in this country are sufficiently educated about what happened to the Palestinians, as a result of the Zionist project, is absurd.
There is no simplistic accurate metaphor, no good guy to reward or bad guy to blame.
The metaphor I used is sufficient enough, in fact it was too generous to the Israelis. The Zionists/Israelis have been playing with 5 players, and the Palestinians have been playing with 1 player, i.e. the Israeli narrative is overwhelming in this country – it's absurd. And there is NO Palestinian narrative to speak of.
When is the last time you visited a museum that celebrated the Palestinian culture that was destroyed, the people killed and displaced, so that YOU'LL NEVER FORGET?
There are needs.
Obviously.
FEW are modeling of the method of respect for the other's experience.
This statement is ridiculous, Richard.I am sure the Palestinians would have the utmost respect for the Jewish experience during WWII if the Zionists hadn't turned around and brutally ethnically cleansed them from their land, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE SPEAK.
Also, the Zionist project in Palestine began BEFORE the atrocities of WWII, and most Palestinians know this. Yet, despite all this, most Palestinians STILL speak respectfully and understandingly of the horrors that were committed against Jews during WWII. They just don't understand why they have to suffer for it to this very day. And again, many are aware of the true history of the Zionist project, which was begun decades BEFORE WWI, and which went on to use the horrors of WWII as an impetus to carry out its agenda in full force.
On the other side, apart from a few peace organizations and other notable dissidents, the majority of the Israeli public and of American Jews (or at least the powerful segment that seeks to speak for all American Jews and whose voice, until recently, was the only one that was heard) fully support Israel's ongoing brutality against the Palestinians.
The playing field is not even, Richard. Not close. It hasn't ever been.
Let's allow the Palestinian story to be heard with the same force that the Zionist story is.
Personally, I think a good majority of the Zionist narrative has been proven to be completely false. It's been proven by Israel's own respected historians, just as America's original narrative was proven to be largely a bunch of lies by American historians.
The Zionists can still hold onto their story, and tell it, as is their right in a free country. The intentional suppression of the other side, however, is criminal, and cannot be allowed to continue in the current manner.
Prior to WW2, Zionism was a utopian idea, rejected by most of the, world's Jews. (My grandfather on one side, a Zionist, was an exception. His best friend, a socialist, was anti-Zionist.)
The idea of long-term intention to annex the whole country is a false repetition. Absent the late nineteenth and twentieth century (not just WW2), there was no need for Zionism.
The tide of prejudice and persecution has waned from that, largely because of the presence of Israel, and largely in spite of it. But, it functions similarly to a tide, hopefully never again reaching the peaks of even 1880's.
There certainly is a Palestinian narrative, and you are right that it is not deeply known. Part of that is that there are few histories written, excepting the research of the New Historians (led by Bennis Morris, Baruch Kimmerling).
Its important to know about. Its also important not to make an ideological fetish about it, if you seek a just solution to past wrongs, and MUCH MORE importantly, a design for future reconciliation.
It is not a horrible motive to migrate to a place when there are no other options. Its how the options are structured that makes a difference, and what decisions you make when you do have options.
Palestinians have experienced a great tragedy, but a large part of their tragedy is the unwillingness of their "solidarity" to assimilate them. Palestinians that have lived in Lebanon for three generations, can't vote there for example.
Please include that in the Palestinian narrative. Its not just Israel.
NEEDS, not invective.
Prior to WW2, Zionism was a utopian idea, rejected by most of the, world's Jews.
It was still rejected by most of the world's Jews AFTER WWII as well.
The idea of long-term intention to annex the whole country is a false repetition. Absent the late nineteenth and twentieth century (not just WW2), there was no need for Zionism.
There has never been a need for Zionism.
Zionism as an idea was conceived well before Herzl, but Herzl brought it to the forefront in the late 1800's, and was certainly intending to ethnically cleanse much of Palestine. Though from what I've read, Herzl himself wasn't especially militant, he was certainly devious, intending to buy off the indigenous population.
Ben Gurion wasn't initially so militant – once the tragedies in Europe unfolded, he became quite militant. The agenda was conceived and worked on well before the outbreak of the war, however, and the intention all along was to ethnically cleanse much of Palestine.
Herzl thought he could pay the Palestinians to leave; Ben Gurion, after witnessing the atrocities of WWII, took a liking to Jabotinsky's ideas, and became quite militant. In the face of it all are the Palestinians, who did absolutely nothing to warrant any of it.
There certainly is a Palestinian narrative, and you are right that it is not deeply known. Part of that is that there are few histories written, excepting the research of the New Historians (led by Bennis Morris, Baruch Kimmerling).
There are also Arab historians who have done excellent work, much of which has yet to be translated or is extremely hard to find. Aref Al-Aref wrote a book called the History of Gaza, as well as Nakba and the Lost Paradise. Hopefully these volumes will become mainstream one day, just as so much Zionist literature is today.
Its important to know about. Its also important not to make an ideological fetish about it, if you seek a just solution to past wrongs, and MUCH MORE importantly, a design for future reconciliation.
Ideological fetish? That would seem to be the definition of Zionism.
Palestinians have experienced a great tragedy, but a large part of their tragedy is the unwillingness of their "solidarity" to assimilate them. Palestinians that have lived in Lebanon for three generations, can't vote there for example.
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'm sure Israel and its apologists would love for the Palestinians to be "assimilated" right out of the occupied territories. This is about Palestinians in Palestine, who want to stay in their homeland.
NEEDS, not invective
The more I read and study this issue, and the more I deal with Zionists from across the ideological spectrum, the more I'm convinced that Israel and the majority of its supporters are not interested in peace.
The IMMEDIATE NEED for Palestinians is solidarity and resistance in the face of brutal occupation, coupled with a continually growing voice internationally, especially here in America.
We are interested in peace. We are not interested in suicide. Paying someone to sell their home is devious? I guess if it's a Jew doing the buying.
Something worries me about the article and most of the comments. Of course there is an Israel lobby. There are also lobbies for everything under the sun, all of them legal, some effective, others ineffective. The problem comes when we turn the Israel lobby into a modern equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – and we know where that has led and where it leads today. It is also crass to claim that the Israel lobby is virtually all-powerful when Israel is so widely condemned almost everywhere. Jews can't be dominating and weak at the same time. Those who have never encountered anti-Semitism are more worrying. No-one has ever said something anti-Semitic to me, but I'm very well aware of the growing rampage of anti-Semitic hatred throughout Europe and elsewhere. In some places, it has started to look like a re-run of the 1930s, with radical Muslims taking the place of the fascists. That's one of the many reasons why Israel is important: it is still a potential haven for Jews fleeing persecution. In our Brave New World, liberals spit on Israel and give people like Hamas a free ride. I suggest readers of this piece by and digest The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism by philosopher Bernard Harrison. After that, you will never be able to claim 'It's not anti-Semitic, it's just anti-Israeli'. Trust me.
Trust me, even after reading it, they'll still claim it. It is their mantra. It is what they think will save their souls.
"The idea of long-term intention to annex the whole country is a false repetition. Absent the late nineteenth and twentieth century (not just WW2), there was no need for Zionism.
I tend to disagree with this. My understanding is that Germany had traditionally been tolerant of Jews (which is probably why it flourished as it did). But that is not the case for much of Europe.
I'm not sure why you're overlooking sporadic pograms and denial of full citizen rights in places like France, Spain, and England (we don't need to go into Russia and surrounding neighbors)–where in the best of times they were simply viewed suspiciously as powerful opportunists and Christkillers and left alone (as long as they served the interests of those in power).
In retrospect, Jews should've started planning for a homeland in the 1300s, imo. Somewhat of a brain drain for Europe…but hey…
"Yet, despite all this, most Palestinians STILL speak respectfully and understandingly of the horrors that were committed against Jews during WWII. They just don't understand why they have to suffer for it to this very day. And again, many are aware of the true history of the Zionist project, which was begun decades BEFORE WWI, and which went on to use the horrors of WWII as an impetus to carry out its agenda in full force."
Please stop projecting your own sentiment onto Palestinians. I seriously doubt you've met ANY Palestinians or Israelis and had an honest dialogue.
While it's true that you can't make a sweeping generalization about what people believe–there is a lot of documentation that the Arabs were sympathetic to Nazi Germany. That crap did not start after 1948.
I'm not interested in some wheezing left wing proclamation of WHY they were sympathetic to Germany (and currently carry on propaganda campaigns today that are copycat offshots of Nazi tactics)–the fact is they made their choice, they made their bed, and now they're sleeping in it.
Israel is not going to prettify its war to make whiners like you happy.
The only people Israel should be listening to are well-balanced critics with a deep understanding of human nature and an ability to meet the needs of both sides.
Everybody else should just go back to their opium haze.
Paying someone to sell their home is devious? I guess if it's a Jew doing the buying."
Paying SOMEONE to sell their home? You make it sound like a typical real estate deal here in America.
This is devious:
We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."
If you can't see the deviousness in that, let alone the base racism, then you're blind. Or pathologically induced with a Jewish-centric mindset.
You certainly did not expect Herzl to promote a plan that would have totally humiliated the Arabs by exposing their poverty to world?
And you find overpaying retail to be devious?
Oh, Jews are doing it? And you wish to accuse others of racism?