Jerry Slater has a unique way of looking at the terrible situation in Israel/Palestine, inspired by Jonathan Swift: What if the Situation Were Reversed? He writes:
There has been growing outrage at Israel’s attack on
Gaza. It is hard to understand this
entirely unfair and one-sided criticism once you understand the wider
context.
Why do so many commentators forget that since 1967 the Palestinians have occupied Israel; colonized it with
settlers; invaded it a number of times, killing, wounding, or otherwise
destroying the lives of thousands of Israelis, including women and
children; assassinated its leaders (including those democratically elected by
the Israeli people); repeatedly attacked its political, security, and civic
institutions; deliberately attacked its schools and universities; closed its
trade and commerce with the outside world; bombed its roads and bridges;
destroyed much of its electrical power system; imposed severe restrictions on
Israeli drinking and agricultural water;
prevented thousands of farmers from reaching their lands and orchards;
disrupted its private and public health systems; surrounded Jewish areas with
checkpoints and military outposts; built Palestinian-only roads that the Jews
are not permitted to use; humiliated the Israelis in a variety of ways on a
nearly daily basis--and more?
Even so, it may be argued, the Israelis should never have unleashed their inaccurate rockets against Palestinian town. For such actions are justly labeled as terrorism, even though only a few Palestinians have been killed. And terrorism—deliberate or indiscriminate attacks against civilians—is rightly condemned by everyone, no matter how justified the cause (the end of the Palestinian occupation of the Israelis and the creation of a genuinely independent Jewish state), or how long the history of the failure of every other alternative.
Still, in our heart of hearts, do we really mean that all terrorism is equally to be condemned? Isn’t the thought going to occur: What are the poor Israelis to do, given the vast military power of the Palestinians as compared to their own meager resources, not to mention the enormous economic, military, and diplomatic assistance given to Palestine by its unwavering and entirely uncritical ally, the United States, the world’s only superpower?
Alright: Consider a purely hypothetical counterfactual. Suppose the situation were reversed, and it was Israel that was actually the occupying power, the oppressor, the impoverisher, the assassinator, and so on? In those circumstances, wouldn’t the civilized world be increasingly outraged at Israel’s behavior?
Of course, I understand that this may seem preposterous, since it is impossible to imagine that a Jewish state—a Jewish state!—could ever behave in such a manner. Still, it may be that such a “thought experiment” could be useful.
This is brilliant stuff. I think the 'trying to imagine walking a mile in another man's shoes' approach will be very effective.
"Why do so many commentators forget that since 1967 the Palestinians have occupied Israel;"
Shouldn't it be mentioned how it was that the Palestinians came to occupy Israel? Did they invade Israel in a land grab? No. Everyone knows how they came to occupy Israel, and to leave that out of your analogy amounts to a distortion. You've been blinded to the Palestinian side of the story.
Ah yes, the "fakestinian" hasbara malarky. (Was that from Joan Peters?)
Why do I think that these reversal narratives are useless? Because they don't get at the real problem–which is that the Israeli elite have used every suicide bombing and every homemade rocket the way that Bush and the neocons used 9/11. That is to say, if you invoke the holocaust every time a bomber explodes or a rocket lands, Israelis come to associate bombers and rockets with the holocaust.
What I'm trying to say is that these reverse analogies appeal to REASON. The association between rockets and the holocaust happens on a whole nother level of consciousness–an irrational level. You can't appeal to reason if reason is not involved. Israelis don't need reason; they need therapy.
As for the American Zionists, a comment made here a couple of days ago about the US as the Promised Land that many Jews cannot fully trust–a comment about these American Jews as check-book Zionists–goes a long way in explaining them. This, too, is not rational. The reasonableness of reverse analogies will do absolutely no good. These check-book Zionists also need therapy.
Pat Buchanan debated neocon Cliff May on Gaza yesterday on MSNBC's "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
"… a blitzkrieg against the palestinians"
"Gaza… is an israeli concentration camp"
"a million and a half people are locked up…"
"the israelis continue to steal their land"
"why haven't they given back the golan heights?"
"you sit here and tell me that the israeli people, the israeli nation have treated the palestinian people with any kind of justice?"
"those towns hit by the rockets are former palestinian towns…"
"i tell you how to create people for hamas, you kill 675 people, you wound and injure 3000. What do you think the brothers and sisters of those 5 little girls who died, what do you think they're going to be when they grow up?
Nice clip there, chimpsky. Thanks.
It don't look good for apologists. I agree with Phil that things have changed a lot. It was only a few years ago that we couldn't even dream of the kind of informed criticism that is now out there, finally shaping American opinion. The genie is out, but it will take time for actual policy to change in any meaningful way.
I have been saying for years that the Jewish Establishment in the US and Europe completely failed to realise the impact of the internet. What once required years of research and specialised information (like books by the new Israeli historians for example) is now available within minutes to anyone interested in this tragedy. The new generation has escaped the stranglehold of the gatekeepers, not just because of their formidable bs-detectors but also because of this wealth of readily available information.
In my experience, no one – other than some Jews carrying the baggage of holocaust indoctrination for political ends, thus ending up in serious cognitive dissonance- has ever dared look deeper at the actual history of this conflict without ending up being completely disillusioned with the Zionist Project.
from History News Network
Robert KC Johnson
Walt's World
After the last eight years, we need the highest quality work from international relations theorists. Instead, alas, we have the anti-Israel obsessions of Stephen Walt.
Walt’s latest came in the new (and very good, as a whole) blog, foreignpolicy.com:
Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. Imagine that the victorious Arab states had eventually decided to permit the Palestinians to establish a state of their own on the territory of the former Jewish state. (That's unlikely, of course, but this is a thought experiment). Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip. Then imagine that a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties . . . Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
Ross Douthat and Chris Brose have already taken apart Walt’s arguments. But, it seems, Walt doesn’t know very much history, either.
Since he bases his hypothetical on Israel losing the 1967 war, Walt assumes that the State of Israel existed 19 years before its destruction. In that respect, Walt’s hypothetical Israel resembles the Baltic States, which were independent for 21 years before they were overrun by powerful neighbors—first the Soviets, then the Germans, finally the Soviets again—and lost their independence.
Throughout the Cold War, U.S. policy supported Baltic independence, and the United States never recognized the Soviet annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Perhaps Walt’s newest book will be The Baltic Lobby, explaining this policy as a result of the Lobby’s intimidating Congress, aided by well-placed Balts in high-level U.S. executive positions who were more loyal to their ethnicity than to their country. But for now, I’ll go with the argument that U.S. policymakers perceived it as in their national security interests not to recognize the Baltic States’ losing their independence.
By positing an independent Israel (for 19 years, anyway) which then lost its freedom, Walt’s hypothetical doesn’t apply to the Gaza. No independent Palestinian state was overrun by Israel in 1967, or in any other year. In this respect, in terms of international relations, more appropriate analogies for the Palestinians would be the Kurds in the Middle East, or the Ruthenians in Eastern Europe. Would the United States support the Ruthenians if they started lobbing rockets into the Ukraine from eastern Slovakia; or the Kurds if they started lobbing rockets into Turkey from northern Iraq? I doubt it.
Perhaps the biggest flaw with Walt’s hypothetical comes in the following: “Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory.” Hamas is obtaining weapons from a state—Iran. In Walt’s hypothetical, which state would be supplying arms to the rump Jewish entity? France? Russia? Saudi Arabia?
But then, of course, this is the same Stephen Walt who demonstrated his knowledge of how U.S. politics functions with the following assertion, “[T]he mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about.”
Groups devoted to causes like gay rights or civil rights also have lobbies. Perhaps Walt’s admirers on the academic fringe might want to ask themselves if their champion is also suggesting that gay rights or civil rights aren’t in the “American national interest” as well.
From TPM:
AIPAC Goes Ballistic: Says It Is "Outraged" & Blasts Bush for Supporting Ceasefire
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/09/aipac_goes_ballistic_says_it_is_outraged_blasts_bu/
Hmmmm. It seems the guys at AIPAC are losing it.
Here is the correct TPM link:
link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
/>
I didn't know these Israelis blew themselves up in Palestinian restaurants and elected an organization which refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Arabia.
delia wrote:
"You can't appeal to reason if reason is not involved. Israelis don't need reason; they need therapy."
I think this goes too far delia. I'm as much against Israel keeping the occupied territories as anyone, although contrary to some of the posters here I also feel that Israel has the right to exist within it's pre-'67 borders and that the world should guarantee that.
But I do think one has to acknowledge that Israel going back to those pre-'67 borders might not be a panacea, and that there is indeed some reason for Israelis to distrust that it will.
Do you for instance know for an absolute certainty that if Israel were to return to those borders that Hamas and Hizbullah and etc. would indeed stop? That they would accept those borders? And that none of the arab states would change hands into regimes hostile even to the existence of Israel proper? If so, tell us the source of that certainty.
Sure, the *present* signatories to the Abdullah/Arab League Plan say they would recognize those pre-'67 borders. But how many of those signatories are democratic states whose signing leaders actually speak for their masses legitimately? And how many of those masses actually feel bound by same?
And sure the world *now* says it likes those '67 borders. And forget even any sense you might find "irrational" on the part of Israelis/the jews of being eternal victims of abandonment.
But, still, look at how easy the world finds it to rationalize away actually *doing* anything for *anyone* when push really comes to shove. Look at Rwanda: all the tear-jerking and hand-wringing. And yet even having the *in-place* U.N. troops do anything to stop the slaughter was too much for the world to authorize, much less sending in the miserable few troops it would have taken to put a stop to much of that madness. Or look at how long the world took to do anything in the Balkans even, and remember Srebenica. And think about what's been going on in Darfur or the Congo and what little it would likely take to stop the bloody nutballs there, which is still beyond what anyone is willing to do apparently.
What's that old Shakespeare observation? "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip," right? Well that's not only right but disguises how ugly and cowardly post-hoc rationalization can be. So Israel withdraws to its '67 borders and suddenly Egypt falls to the Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanon falls completely to Hizbullah and Syria falls to an Iranian-style bunch of fanatics and maybe so does Jordan, and gee, you and I and everyone here might man-up to our principles and be talking about how justice demands the world step in and guarantee Israel's now much-diminished and more-difficult to defend self, but will the world really do it?
Or, as per most of its history (if not all?), will it just … wring its hands once again, tsk tsk, and say "oh it's a shame what some of those crazy arabs believe but my God *our* self-interest certainly isn't served to go mano a mano up against them in this religious thing. No, gee, we better get back to minding our oil supplies and our global warming concerns…."
Don't get me wrong, I still think Israel should return those territories and that it's situation would be better for doing so. But I think it's wishful thinking to believe that same is a sure-fire panacea. And wrong to think that there's absolute no reason to believe that in fact it won't be a panacea at all and will instead just be a prelude to an equally terrible if not worse situation.
Here's a few hard questions that I think anyone thinking about this issue has to deal with:
A.) If *you* were Israel and those regime-changes such as I mentioned above took place, what borders would you rather have in terms of defense, the pre-'67 borders, or those now?
B.) If it was *your* country that lived in a tough and hostile environment, do you really believe that it would be at *all* smart for it to minimize its defenses in any way in exchange for a so-called guarantee from the world to come and protect it from the negative effects of same?
I'm not saying this captures the whole picture here, but they do at least seem somewhat rational and relevant, don't they?
"Would the United States support the Ruthenians if they started lobbing rockets into the Ukraine from eastern Slovakia; or the Kurds if they started lobbing rockets into Turkey from northern Iraq? I doubt it."
Would the United States support the Ukrainians if they starved the Ruthenians, destroyed such economic activity as they had by cutting them off from the outside world, brand their democratically elected representatives as terrorists,kill them and every one remotely connected to them at will causing, in "collateral damage", the death of many civilians among whom hundreds of children, destroy their housing and infrastructure, bomb their places of refuge even if these had been advised to them by the Ukrainian military,fire on UN-convoys with supplies, ignore the wounded? I doubt it.
Over 1,500 protesters today at the Israel Embassy in Tokyo. Over 10 times the number that showed up last week. If Israel keeps this up, I suspect there'll be 15,000 in a week.
As Michael referred, the Swiftian analogy doesn't end up looking good for anybody.
It would be useful if dissenters were equally condemning of Palestinian ruthlessness, so that the issue could be addressed as a mutual conflict.
There is good reason for change, good reason for anger. But there is NOT good reason for murder, successful or not.
Is there at least a half-baked model here in the continued application of affirmative action within those areas where whites are, and have been for a significant time, a demographic minority?
"I didn't know these Israelis blew themselves up in Palestinian restaurants and elected an organization which refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Arabia".
Yes, certainly can't imagine Israelis blowing up innocents or believing that Arabs were conspiring against them.
I think the problem with these thought experiments is that they are literally unworkable with ethnocentric types – such people are utterly incapable of imagining themselves in the place of the untermenschen.
"I didn't know these Israelis blew themselves up in Palestinian restaurants
They don't. I mean, they don't blow THEMSLEVES UP in restaurants. They blow up Palestinian restaurants from the air, with their "smart" bombs. Why, if you can avoid blowing yourself up and at the same time blow others up, that's what you would do. Then Mark Regev or Avichai Adarai get on TV and announce that Israel is terribly sorry for any loss of innocent lives but that "terrorists" were present in the "vicinity" of the restaurant (or schools, etc,). So the fact that Israeli soldiers are all over Israel, in what supposedly are civilian areas — buses, restaurants, malls, etc. — makes it legitimate for Palestinians to blow up such places. Right?
Or are you saying that you just find the METHOD problematic? The fact that Palestinians, in the process of blowing up restaurants, blow themselves up too, whereas Israelis do a "cleaner" job without loss of Jewish lives (which are of course more valuable than a 1000 Palestinian lives — or how did that "rabbi's" saying go, one Jewish fingernail is worth more than a million Arabs?). Or are you saying that you are just as outraged by a Jewish terrorist who opens fire on "Israeli-Arab" civilians on a bus and kills them? Or a Jewish terrorist who opens fire on Palestinian worshippers in a Mosque ?
"and elected an organization which refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Arabia."
What are you talking about? The Israeli government — AND PEOPLE — as well as the zionist fifth column in America and Europe are the AUTHORS of the Protocols of the Elders of Arabia.
"It would be useful if dissenters were equally condemning of Palestinian ruthlessness, so that the issue could be addressed as a mutual conflict."
Palestinian ruthlessness? Such as? The killing of invading soldiers?
Witty tries to portray himself as presenting a "moderate" zionist position; in reality, it is a call for equating the victim and the oppressor, the occupied and the occupier, the slaughtered and the mass-murderers, the starved and those imposing the starvation.
No, the Israelis don't elect people who refer to the Elders… they elected flat-out war criminal Ariel Sharon.
The fake post no. 7 at 1:50 a.m. is not mine. The losers only come out at night.
Talk about the Israelis getting in over their heads. The UN is seriously pissed off, as a Guardian article reveals this morning:
————
The United Nations' most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire.
Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, has called for "credible, independent and transparent" investigations into possible violations of humanitarian law, and singled out an incident this week in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City, where up to 30 Palestinians in one house were killed by Israeli shelling.
Pillay, a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident "appears to have all the elements of war crimes".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/10/un-human-rights-gaza-zeitoun
————
It's a lovely irony that an official from the world's next-to-last colonial apartheid state is lowering the boom on the only remaining one.
For better or worse, if an official UN investigation into Israeli war crimes gets underway (provided that the United Snakes don't block it), the 'Holocaust guilt' era will have officially ended.
Zionists, beat your Holocaust museums into Ikea stores. It's ovahhhhhhhhhhh …
Naomi Klein spells it out, in the Nation and the Guardian –
Enough. It's time for a boycott
The best way to end the bloody occupation is to target Israel with the kind of movement that ended apartheid in South Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel
Boycott Israel — product code 729
http://www.mylinkspage.com/israel.html
<>I think this goes too far delia.
I like delia's response a lot.
But I like Slater's mindgame too. I think, she isn't right, I think that it actually triggered her response. Since it contains associatively exactly that strain of thought. The example both reverts sides but also highlights the Israel-is-in-endangered tale in a refracted manner, by taking what the tale leaves out.
Israel don't 'get it' yet –
————
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip The Israeli air force has dropped leaflets on the Gaza Strip warning residents that it plans to escalate its two-week-old offensive.
The notice says Israel is about to begin a "new phase in the war on terror." It says Israel will "escalate" an operation that already has killed more than 800 Palestinians.
The army said Saturday that it has dropped the fliers throughout Gaza. It says the notices are meant as a "general warning."
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/world/story/462535.html
————
General warning? Naw. It's a psy-op … to demoralize a caged population by telling them they're about to get whacked again, when there's not a god-damned thing they can do about it.
Consult the extensive scientific literature on 'rats, electric shocks.'
Meanwhile, the ghastly Condaleezza Rice acts as the Tokyo Rose of the Israeli state, giving their hasbara campaign an official U.S. imprimatur:
————
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it is difficult to protect civilians in a place as densely populated as Gaza – an area just 25 miles long and roughly six miles wide.
"It's also an area in which Hamas participates in activities like human shields and using buildings that are not designated as military buildings to hide their fighters," she told reporters.
————
This apologia from Condi, while 'in the day's bloodiest incident, an Israeli tank shell landed outside a home in the northern Gaza town of Jebaliya, killing nine people as they sat outside in their garden. Separately, a woman was killed by an Israeli airstrike in the southern town of Rafah.'
Time to walk off the world stage for good, jackbooted bitch.
by taking in
To say that shelling civilians for seven years is not an aggression is ignorant.
If you want to say, "I oppose the existence of the state of Israel, or the right of Jewish and Israeli civilians to safety", do so.
It would be more honest. (Although nameless).
It would label you publicly as an inhumane fanatic though.
Ah Jim, beats me again by one minute.
Impressive image. But:
pleased don't insult us night hawks collectively. ;)
If you want to say, "I oppose the existence of the state of Israel, or the right of Jewish and Israeli civilians to safety", do so.
It would be more honest. (Although nameless).
This is exactly the game that Bill plays in his spoofing. He writes what he thinks people would say, or what they would write IF they were honest. He is frustrated that they do not give "frankly" him what he suspects they "really" think.
I am sorry, it's a very, very weak approach.
Israel's right to exist surely is the core of the trauma, but why are people both forced to repeat it ad nauseam, and suspected of not supporting that right? Do you think these ritual get us any farther?
Could it be essentially the mirroring of repressed guilt? Psychologically speaking.
To say that 38 years of COLONIZATION and occupation, following by 2 years of occupation, following by 1 year of starvation blockade is not an aggression is ignorant.
If you want to say, "I oppose the existence of a sovereign state of Palestine, or the right of Muslim and Palestinian civilians to safety", do so.
It would be more honest. (Although nameless).
It would label you publicly as an inhumane fanatic though.
Was a bit to rash and felt wrong, yes it's wrong:
Do you think these rituals get us any further?
"following by 1 year" -> "followed by 1 year"
no health insurance -> no ADD med -> constant errors :)
SARAYA AL-QUDS ANNOUNCES THAT ISRAELI SOLDIERS RAN AWAY RATHER THAN CONFRONT ITS FIGHTERS, LEAVING BEHIND THEIR WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION, AMONG OTHER ITEMS.
FOR PICTURES, SEE:
link to reportsfromgaza.wordpress.com
"It would label you publicly as an inhumane fanatic though."
Richard, I agree that Palestinian violence against civilians is wrong, but I have never seen you use terms like "inhumane fanatic" to describe Israeli militarists or settlers or their supporters here, yet surely they deserve the label if anyone does.
you're so kind to a nitwit Kraut, Colin. My heartfelt thanks.
Nameless one,
"but I have never seen you use terms like "inhumane fanatic" to describe Israeli militarists or settlers or their supporters here"
I've described some settlers as fanatics, and some as simple working people. I've certainly described Israel Betanyu and some in Likud as fanatic.
You haven't been reading.
I'm PRO democracy, pro Zionist, pro humaneness, pro rule of law, pro equal civil rights in ALL jurisdictions, pro mutual respect for peoples' experience, pro reconciliation, pro creating paths for people and peoples to meet their needs.
I'm anti-terror (defined as attacks directed at civilians), anti-fanatic, anti-political, anti "anti".
Richard, honestly, your arrogance is absolutely amazing. How DARE you sit there and smugly say "you haven't been reading" to someone uninterested in your hair-splitting regarding likud vs. beiteinu? You imagine your half-baked moral judgments are required reading?
And yet Richard, you still debase the Hamas movement with no equivalence to the settler movement or even Israel.
"I've described some settlers as fanatics, and some as simple working people."
I understand your despair with the comments from Phil's blog (and it does get frustrating at times) but you are afflicted with the direct bias you accuse of those anti-Israel: your attempts at "balance" only highlight your sympathy and affinity for Zionism and that is no crime in itself but it is NOT the exculpatory facts you presume it to be.
"I'm PRO democracy": so support the vote and speak to Hamas; no need to recognise them per se, just speak with them.
"[I'm] pro Zionist": does that infringe on Palestinian rights to self-determination? Or is the pro-Palestinian voice that you are against because you feel it is an existential threat to Zionism?
"[I'm] pro humaneness": Hamas may not be to your liking but they are an effective body and are more than capable of maintaining order. They're human too, just like your settler fanatics.
"[I'm] pro rule of law": both sides can use "law" to their advantage; this is really a non-issue here.
"[I'm] pro equal civil rights in ALL jurisdictions": urge Israel to write up a constitution. Give Arabs equal rights.
"[I'm] pro mutual respect for peoples' experience": the expulsions on both sides are really not mutual here but both are tragic (relative to their own experiences). There is a major difference: Israelis have a state.
"I'm anti-terror (defined as attacks directed at civilians), anti-fanatic, anti-political, anti "anti"." Heartwarming but can it be anti-political when you are pro-Zionist? Zionism is a political movement that is one of the root causes that complicates this issue instead of a normal human rights issue where a resolution can be passed (aka Sudan) or a state can be created under false pretenses (aka Kosovo) here. Maybe this run-a-round can be erased if Zionism and Palestinian nationalism can be kept at bay (which we know it won't be) and they can just go back to their homes. But you know as well as I do that that is not possible (at least not yet).
'67?
you forget all israel is a stolen land and a lie.
the lying, invading savages started in the 19th century.
Witty, please answer 5ds. Let's get to the nut of the problem regarding the Palestinians plight. No? Didn't think so.
'It would be more honest. (Although nameless).' — Richard Witty
I am pretty sure that Richard picked up this bizarre formulation from engrish.com. You have to be Japanese to fracture the language that way.
You're grasping at straws in the manner that you criticize my comments.
If you are going to post about what I think, bother to find out. Otherwise, you are defrauding those that read your comments.
Joshua,
If you read my comments, you'd note that I stated that I appreciated the degree of discipline that Hamas exhibited and committed to in maintaining the cease-fire for the six months (give or take) that it did.
I know a couple of people that live in settlements. The individuals are NOT fanatics, not harassers of Palestinians. Exceptions or not, they are real people. I oppose the religious ideology that claims that the land was given as property to Jews. It conflicts with other parts of Torah. It is a form of using a selection of Torah for private and communal opportunistic purposes.
I criticize the relationship of the state process of incremental transfers of title from Jordanian state land, to Israeli state land, to military outpost, to residential military outpost, to exclusive residential.
I don't get to speak with Hamas. Who do you think I am? I'm just an accountant in a small town. If they are willing to speak to others, and just speak, then that is a good idea.
The soldiers in Hamas are soldiers, not civilians. Those in Hamas that are more focused on social service, deserve a great deal of respect (in the world as a whole, and in Palestine, and in Hamas circles). Sadly, they are the ones that were ignored when Hamas resumed shelling Israelis. (Even if there were angry exceptions.)
By, pro rule of law, I mean that consistently, to be applied, not as PR. I observe it largely applied in Israel (much less than perfectly), and I observe it NOT observed relative to Jews in Palestine, Lebanon, Gaza. Jews are NOT permitted to own real property in much of the Arab world now, including the West Bank (and the law is stated in language that does not distinguish Jew from Israeli). There was and is ethnic cleansing of Jews, by the Arab world leadership.
Israelis have a state, while the Palestinians do not, for two reasons.
1. Development of proto-state institutions, leading to first commitment to self-govern, and later to declaration to self-govern
2. International law (The UN recognized the state of Israel. NO Palestinian state sought recognition from the UN. What would have been a Palestinian state was militarily expropriated by Jordan, Egypt and Syria).
Palestine would be close to that same status currently, if it were not for the intra-Palestinian civil war.
Delayed certainly, and compromised from original intent, but real nevertheless.
Unlike with Israel, Palestine's neighbors (including Israel) would recognize it and quickly normalize relations with it.
The narrative of Israel as demon is an incomplete narrative, incomplete enough to DISTORT one's understanding.
It is possible to hold and respect multiple accounts of the same events. Not unlike a husbands and wives describe shared experiences almost skew to each other.
"Gary, in Colchester" (reprisals, antisemitism)
"The George Galloway Show" (TalkSport Radio, London studio, broadcast through the U.K., January 9 2009, about 11:34-11:38pm) http://www.spideredvideos.com/GeorgeGalloway/content/audio/2009-01-09-SpideredNews_Galloway.mp3
———–
{Start}
George Galloway: Thank you very much for that call.
Here's Gary, in Colchester.
Go ahead Gary.
Gary: Good evening George.
GG: Good evening.
Gary: I'm a first time caller.
GG: You're welcome, lot's of first time callers tonight, that's marvelous.
Gary: Well, I was very interested in your view, from the first hour of the show, that Israel-Palestine conflict has got nothing to do with religion.
GG: Nothing at all.
Gary: Well, on Monday, Khamas spokesman, Mahmoud Zahar, called for the murder of Jews worldwide.
GG: Actually, he didn't.
Gary: Well, if you let me finish.
GG: No, I'm not going to let you finish, if you're going to state things which aren't true.
He didn't say anything of the kind.
Gary: Well, he said–
You can–
GG: No. You can continue, Gary, for as long as you like, but I'm not going to allow uncontested statements, that are false, to be made on my show.
Gary: He–
Well, you can–
When I finish, you can contest what I say.
GG: Well, I'll contest what you say, whenever I like, Gary, because you are phoning my radio show.
Gary: Well, you said you accept–
You–
GG: Gary. I'm going to allow you to speak, for as long as you like, so why don't you get on and speak.
Gary: Thank you very much.
So, well, also, I was looking today on the Internet, at article 7 of the Khamas covenant.
And that says–
GG: Why do you call it Khamas, Gary.
Gary: — Muslims–
GG: Gary, why do you call it Khamas.
Gary: — so Khamas–
GG: Gary, why do you call it Khamas.
Gary: –antisemitic–
GG: Gary, why do you call it Khamas.
Gary: –land.
GG: Gary, are you listening to me, son?
Why do you call it Khamas.
Gary: Why do I call it Khamas.
GG: Why do you call it Khamas.
Gary: Well that's how they pronounce it on television, I'm afraid.
GG: Well, that reveals which television you listen to.
{"Israelis tend to say "the Khamas" or "the Khizbullah" using a sound like the kh in German. To be sure, Arabic does have that letter/sound, but that letter is not used in Hamas or Hizbullah." (Dan Sisken (editor), Mideast Brief, quoted by Philip Weiss, "I'm Wrong About 'Nakba.' The Spelling, Anyway").
Just go on–
Gary: I watch all the channels–
GG: –I was just interested.
Gary: –but you haven't answered my point, George.
GG: No, I'm going to, when you're finished speaking.
Gary: Thank you.
GG: Go ahead.
Gary: I have finished speaking.
GG: You're sure.
Gary: How do you explain these–
GG: Are you sure.
Gary: –viciously antisemitic comments–
GG: Are you sure.
Gary: –by Khamas, or Hamas, however you want to pronounce it.
GG: Are you sure you have finished, Gary?
Gary: Yes.
GG: Excellent. Now let me answer it.
What the spokesman for Hamas — because we're British people, let's use the English language, and call it Hamas, H-a-m-a-s –
What the spokesman for Hamas said, was that–
As Israel had targeted Palestinian children, Palestinian women, Palestinian ambulance personnel, Palestinian emergency services, Palestinian mosques–
Then Israeli mosques, Israeli women, Israeli children, Israeli ambulance personnel, Israeli emergency service personnel, were now legitimate targets for them.
There's a difference, Gary, and this is the difference:
Israel has the ability to destroy mosques, women, children, ambulance personnel, emergency service workers, in exceedingly large numbers.
And, guess what Gary, are presently doing so.
Hamas does not have that capacity.
This is a battle between Mike Tyson, and a small child, in a boxing ring.
Secondly, if support for the Palestinians is antisemitic, why is our march tomorrow going to be led by a substantial contingent of Jewish rabbis.
Why are Jewish organizations, by the score, of secular as well as religious Jews, deeply involved in the movement against this aggression.
Why is Tel Aviv, the streets of Tel Aviv, full of Jewish demonstrators.
This has nothing to do with religion.
Here's a bit of advice for you, Gary.
If somebody came to our country, and said, that 2,000 years ago, the Old Testament had promised them, that this land was their land, and drove us out of our country, as refugees, say, over in the Irish Republic, whilst the people came from all round the world, claiming a 2,000 year old land title, lived on our land, in our houses, and occupied our streets, and regularly bombed our refugee camps, over in the Irish Republic–
D'you know what Gary?
There would be hell to pay.
And so there is.
Mohamed in Bournemouth's up next, after this. [Adverts].
{End}
Belligerent reprisals: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/israel-us-war-blockade-reprisals.html
Stop the War Coalition website suspended, censored — redirects to :
"Visitors, we are sorry, however, this site is experiencing difficulties at this time. Please return later.
Webmaster, please contact us by email at support@lunarpages.com or via Lunarpages Helpdesk at link to
Thank you for choosing Lunarpages (link to lunarpages.com).<
2006 © Lunarpages Web Hosting"
>
"Company Overview
Lunarpages Web Hosting was born from Add2Net in 2000, and our company continues to be managed by Ron Riddle and has never been traded or compromised since its humble beginnings. Several years ago, Ron and the company branched out from simple shared hosting to include Windows, Dedicated, Reseller, and most recently, VPS Hosting Plans.
With four datacenters (Los Angeles CA, Riverside CA, San Diego CA and one in Las Vegas, Nevada), an optimized call center in La Habra, California, and several satellite technicians in various parts of the United States, Lunarpages is the premier web host in the world, hosting over 150,000 satisfied customers with more than 100 staff members worldwide. We truly love what we do and have never compromised our security, management, pricing, or services, while constantly remaining competitive to the industry's ever- changing atmosphere.
* * *
Copyright © 2000 – 2008 Add2Net, Inc. "Lunarpages", "Add2Net" and the "Lunar Symbol" are the trademarks or the Registered trademarks of Add2Net, Inc.
awww, thanks, I missed that. I've been puzzled if there could be a special meaning behind the pronunciation for quite a while.
Sin Nombre: "Do you for instance know for an absolute certainty that if Israel were to return to those borders that Hamas and Hizbullah and etc. would indeed stop? That they would accept those borders? And that none of the arab states would change hands into regimes hostile even to the existence of Israel proper? If so, tell us the source of that certainty."
I have no such certainty. In fact, I am convinced that neither the 67 borders nor Greater Israel will stop the deep-seated paranoia. Only therapy can approach that kind of condition–and even then, it may not work.
The fact of the matter is, one cannot persecute a nation of people for 1700 years and not expect that sooner or later someone will have to pay. It's just damned unfortunate that it's the Palestinians, who had nothing to do with those antisemitic horrors, who are doing the paying–them and the American taxpayer, of course.
1. For the record: The start-end time, on the mp3 file of the George Galloway show excerpt ("Gary, from Colchester," transcribed above) is 1:38:12-1:42:25. U.K. radio is digital (as well as am/fm), and I typed the transcript from my recording of the broadcast, citing the broadcast time. The mp3 maker includes the "trailer," before the show starts (GG adumbrating the presenter of the preceding show, what he has planned). I forgot to cite it's a 3-hour show, 10pm-1am GMT, Friday-Saturday).
2. Immediately following the transcribed excerpt, and the adverts, GG interviews Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), in Israel, working for PJTV, as Philip Weiss reported previously, a new online TV/video source which I posit is paid for via the Israel lobby laundry — the biggest political slush fund in the history of the world — $3-billion cash, annually, deposited in Israel's NYC bank account each year, no strings attached, no questions asked, no accounting required, by the members of Congress who want to facilitate Israel's violent war crimes (settlements) and in addition (presumably) expect to be paid for their favor (free trips to Israel, for all vetted Americans, campaign contributions, by this or that method, whatever).
"We admit we are biased in favor of Israel, in favor of the side we view as the good guys in a moral struggle. So bear that in mind when you tune in, but tune in every day for our [1] Gaza Update."
"So that brings us to Pajamas TV. We have decided to help right this imbalance in our small way by emphasizing coverage from Israel as long as this crisis is going on. We have a live camera in Jerusalem and we are going to feature the following talent there, among others: Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, our own Middle East Editor Allison Kaplan Sommer (a Tel Aviv resident), Richard Landes of Boston University and a part-time Jerusalem resident and Nitsana Leitner of the Israeli Law Center." Roger L. Simon, "The MSM, Gaza and Pajamas TV" (January 6 2009).
3. I'm sorry, the visual clutter, my runaway link above ("Stop the War Coalition website suspended, censored"), from an errant right carat (>). I reinstalled my text editor and wasn't done yet, sleuthing where my usual macros were (now fixed).
4. Just above: "Do you for instance know for an absolute certainty that if Israel were to return to those borders that Hamas and Hizbullah and etc. would indeed stop?"
If bank robbers give back the money, will the police stop
shooting at them?
That's a surrender, and a restitution, so yes, they'll stop shooting.
Then, it's for prosecutors to bring their case, for 40 years of violent war crimes. Details, "Prosecuting U.S. complicity in Israel settlement confiscations".
The rule of law.
Prof. Mark LeVine, writing at Al Jazeera this morning, also notes the psychological pathology in Israel's behaviour:
Who will save Israel from herself? Israelis are clearly incapable. Their addiction as a society to the illusion of violence-as-power has reached the level of collective mental illness. As Haaretz reporter Yossi Melman described it on January 10, "Israel has created an image of itself of a madman that has lost it". (link to english.aljazeera.net
Israeli politicians aren't making any sense when they respond to questions about this war. How can one expect to succeed with appeals to reason and logic, if Israel has become a stranger to reason? If comments by Livni and Barak are any indication, Israel no longer knows why it made war on Gaza. Like Bush and the neocons vis-a-vis Iraq, Israeli leaders are no longer in a position to make sense of their present behaviour.