One of the stars of the internet was in New York tonight, As’ad AbuKhalil, speaking at Alwan for the Arts, an Arab space on Beaver Street in the heart of the financial district. AbuKhalil has a tour-de-force blog, the "Angry Arab," and upped everyone's love temperature for him recently by overwhelming an Israeli consular official in a debate at the University of San Francisco during which he refused even to look at his opponent.
The New York room was packed and AbuKhalil sat at a table at the front. He is a large man with long wings of graying hair and a high forehead and long nose. He hardly moved while he spoke but his lips never stopped moving. He joked that he could speak for three or four hours--and his voice was too raspy or he would sing. I believed him.
His talk was about the culture of collaboration in the Arab world--collaboration with Israel. He was extremely critical of Arab governments and elites for playing footsie with the U.S. and Israel and suppressing real resistance to the occupation, by which he meant the Jewish state's presence in Palestine. These governments quashed the communist left years ago and are now stopping Islamic resistance to Israel.
The talk was so critical (he even took a shot at Avi Shlaim, and human rights workers, too) and so altogether cynical about official motivation that I could not at first place where AbuKhalil was coming from. Then I understood that he is a leftwing anarchist who doesn’t think much of any governments at all. It was therefore hard for me to take him completely seriously. He was an extremist at 15, and his mother has lately said that he is even more extreme today, at 49, he said in his delightful manner. He is a professor. It is difficult to believe that any of his politics are based on achievable goals. I have the feeling he would want to undo all of capitalism while he is at it.
That said, AbuKhalil is entertaining and brilliant and could hold a room as long as Fidel back in the day. The pleasure in listening to him is only slightly reduced by the fact that he is lecturing you, but there are wonderful moments. For instance, he compared the treatment by Hamas of collaborators to the treatment of collaborators by the French resistance, the Algerian resistance, and the anti-apartheid movement. "There is an artificial and semi-disguised attempted to impose on Palestinians standards that have never been imposed on any people resisting occupation... standards never imposed on any movement of national liberation before." Mandela rejected calls to give up violence. When Palestinians reject those calls, they are called terrorists.
During the Q and A, AbuKhalil was compelled to deal with real people’s political concerns. There were about 150 people in the room and most of them were young, striving Arab-Americans seeking guidance. One man asked, "What is the future of Palestinian resistance?"
It got AbuKhalil to be more forthright about his feelings about Israel.
“I am quite eager to witness the liberation of Palestine in my lifetime,” he said. This was suddenly a real possibility in a way it had not been before. “I am optimistic.” He then gave all the reasons for his optimism:
For a long time the Israelis were perceived as supermen who were better than Arab fighters. That feeling is over. The defeat of Israel in 2006 by Hezbollah was unprecedented, and the long Gaza assault must be compared with the ways that Ariel Sharon used to sashay into Gaza back in the 1970s. “Something has changed. Something major has changed.” During the 2006 Lebanon war, Hezbollah fought with only 2400 soldiers below the Litani river and they didn’t run, they stayed put. Music to the ears of the Lebanese was the cries and shouts of Israeli soldiers fleeing. “Compare that to 1967.”
"In general I am rather optimistic. I know that Israel is doomed. Zionism is doomed by its own making.” Back in the 70s and 80s Israel had a chance to achieve a two-state solution, “which I do not support. I am for one secular state in all of Palestine, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and their compensation.”
But the chance of a two-state solution died with Arafat. Abbas and Mohammed Dahlan have the same ability to bring a two-state solution to Israel and Palestine as James Zogby does in Washington. (Rim shot!)
It was good after a long and often contemptuous lecture to hear AbuKhalil actually embrace something. As for his hatred of Zionism, I will just say here that he witnessed the occupation and destruction of Lebanon in 1982 as a young man and has lived life since in resistance to that. When he reels off the list of countries that Israel has attacked in the last 30 years, it’s a long one. And I find it hard to argue with his statement that a country that has to resort to violence again and again has no faith that the people it is ruling will accept its rule.
My misgivings were about the sanctification of Palestinian violent resistance as the answer. AbuKhalil never referred to boycott or divestment. I felt there was something a little idle about his statements. He is a professor in California, and a blogger. Someone else will be doing the resisting.
Many have been blacklisted for expressing even a portion of AbuKhalil's ideas. But I take it as testimony to the internet and, yes, American society that AbuKhalil has a job and so much personal freedom. To hear him express heretical ideas, on Wall Street, to an overflow crowd, on a weekday night-- something major has changed, he is right. New ideas are getting out at last.
[an earlier version of this post said AbuKhalil took a shot at Ilan Pappe. Sorry; it was Avi Shlaim]
Thanks for this report, Phil. A good portrait of the complexities of Professor Abu-Khalil.
Well, similar to the desparate late 20's and early 30's, noone has a clear strategy to fairly reconcile the multiple problems.
Even the single democratic civil state proposal is regarded as a fantasy that more accurately functions as means for opportunists to engage in a power struggle.
The potential opportunists include Palestinian nationalists that once possessing majority in the river to sea land would not institute civil democratic law, color-blind in all respects. And, it includes neo-religious Jews that would take the opportunity to attempt to settle all of the land, as it would be legally inconsistent to restrict purchase on a basis of ethnicity.
A poll yesterday published by Haaretz stated that 70-80% of both Israelis and Palestinians seek a two-state solution still.
I hope that he shares the view with me that the rule of law applied equally in a color-blind manner (in contrast to politically defined rhetorical approach to law) has the prospect of shifting the status of title claims from contested (and fought over) to consented (and argued for).
Its got to happen in both locales for it to be regarded as sincere.
My discussions with Saif Amadous a year or so ago, described to me that he and others used language of democracy, but in fact were most concerned with the welfare of their own community. I get the same feeling from the nice-sounding writings of Abu Abunimeh.
I don't consider that necessarily a bad thing, if stated honestly. If stated honestly and accepting that there are other communities with similar needs, then tangible reconciliation is possible.
I agree with Leila, good report Phil. I didn't know much about the guy behind Angry Arab, I think you portraied him in a fair manner.
Great report. It shows how delusional the pro-Islamic Fascist side remains on the issues. With lunatics like the "The Loony Arab" leading the way, the Arabs of the Middle east are doomed for another 100 years.
Rather pathetic.
Chris and Phil with the ad hominum attacks..
"The Loony Arab". And also "pro-Islamic Fascist" labeling.
Come-on dudes. That's third grade criticism.
Phil. Good report,but then at the end,can't resist the ad hominum,eh? Does everyone who believes in armed struggle have to be a soldier? Cheap shot. Did the Russian and Chinese revolution divide the labor between the soldiers and the intellectuals?
And why is it either/or? Boycott,Divestment;or armed struggle?
That's the fallacy of the excluded middle (alternative)..
High school sophism. You can do better Phil.
Richard. Nice,that you can say what is "fantasy" and what isn't.
The one-state solution was considered such not long ago.
And now? Israeli govt is against it,and Palestinian militants
won't accept a postage stamp of a state without the "right of return".
Just for the record,Richard.
Do you think an exclusively run Jewish State for Jews is a "moral" endevor? Or,are all moral concerns an excercise in "fantasy". Only food for opportunists..
chris berel:
"Great report. It shows how delusional the pro-Islamic Fascist side remains on the issues. With lunatics like the "The Loony Arab" leading the way, the Arabs of the Middle east are doomed for another 100 years."
Exactly my sentiments.
When people talk about their silly one Islamic state solution it makes me think of my time in Egypt and the treatment of the Coptic Christians there. Copts murdered. Children taken from their families to force conversion to Islam. Coptic woman defiled. Houses of worship destroyed. Every depredation imaginable.
How much worse would Jews fare in a Hamas run state. The Israelis have a very good idea and want no part of it.
The anarchists are the ones most engaged in practical action to end the occupation within Israeli society. Do you mock the Jewish "Anarchists Against the Wall" or refuse to take them completely seriously, Phil? They've given blood to the dream of mutual coexistence.
The opposition to all hierarchical domination is the principle which allows a society of multiple identities to coexist.
People of course want to defend those communities they identify with first, Richard Witty, just as your concern (and mine) is most likely with Jews. All states allow some sort of marginalization and discrimination against those who lack political power (cf. minorities even in the most progressive democracies) but if you commit yourself beforehand to the idea of an ethnonational state you are writing discrimination and repression into the constitution.
That possibility certainly exists, and as the state was restored with the expressed purpose of providing a homeland for the Jews, it will be hard removing that from basic law.
Pakistan was essentially founded to be a Muslim nation carved out of Hindu India. Several Arab nations restrict citizenship to Muslims.
'[Abu Kahlil] was extremely critical of Arab governments and elites for playing footsie with the U.S. and Israel and suppressing real resistance to the occupation.'
The Arab governments are, of course, paid to do this (at enormous cost) by the U.S. Since Jimmy Carter's peace deal, Egypt's dictatorial Mubarak kleptocracy has received tens of billions from the U.S. Jordan has received smaller amounts, while Saudi Arabia has a U.S. air base and is a key U.S. arms client, ever since Frank Roosevelt paid a visit to the king in 1943 and cut a deal with him.
Calling any of these moribund Arab economies 'capitalism' is a mockery. They represent undemocratic socialism in pure form, with unimaginable wealth for the royalty and the elite, coupled with a dreary life of menial jobs, idleness and handouts for the disaffected masses.
The ugly irony is that in sponsoring such regimes, the U.S. itself is becoming more like them, as its looted, war-socialism economy erodes from within.
EH,
Unless you are a philosophical anarchist and hold that no borders are necessary or useful, then you have to define your nation by some identity.
The options are:
1. Geographically
2. Socially/ethnically
3. Philosophically/ideologically
The selection of political form should optimize the consent of the governed. If residents of Israel and Palestine consent to be one state, and that that manifests a higher level of consent of the governed than other options, then that would be best.
That is NOT the case now. Currently, a majority primarily identify with other references or combinations of references than geography.
The key word is OPTIMIZE. There is no perfection, no perfect consistency, no absence of flaws in anything. So, to optimize takes the intention to form a solution that optimizes, for one's own and for the other (and hopefully minimizing presumption).
You do get that for those that feel threatened or otherwise value their ethnicity as primary or divided, that a single state democracy can be an imposition, and a cruel one if it results in violence.
If the resistance movements were conditional in origination and practise, rather than unconditional, then your point about ethnonational state might provide guidance for an alternative.
Do your prefer sharia, halacha, naitonalism, or civil law? I prefer civil law. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad don't (sharia). Fatah doesn't (nationalism). Likud, Israel Beitanhu doesn't (Zionist nationalism). Meretz does (but has 2 seats in knesset, no office even anymore). Some of the Arab and communist Israeli parties do.
I love The Angry Arab News Service, because it is one of the few spaces in the English-language blogosphere where you can read about the Middle East from a truly non-Zionist perspective. But the constant "everything sucks, but I have nothing practical to replace it with" refrain wears you down. He cannot say a constructive word about anyone, unless they are dead. And even then you know if they had just lived a little longer they would surely have managed to do something to piss him off.
While nominally supporting Palestine and the Palestinians, his condemnation of everybody for failing to live up to his unachievable level of ideological purity ends up by making him sound like Lord Haw-Haw.
Phil says "new ideas are getting out". What, Phil, exactly is new about an Arab professor ranting about Israel in front of what you admit was a largely Arab audience? He is a real hero, an armchair patriot, sitting in California, preaching to the Palestinians to fight to the last man. I am very encouraged if you view someone like him as an ally in your war against Israel. You will alienate even the "progressives" in the Jewish camp.
A one-state solution is a hollow threat; it's a bargaining position. Remember, there are two peoples involved. Both are approximately of equal size and both are firmly in favor of a two-state solution, probably because they realize that it's a recipe for civil war.
Implementation of the Right of Return to Israel is also a non-starter. The international community will never let it happen. Not because it isn't just. But because the precedent it would set is just too costly. There are possibly 3-4 million refugees and their children who might want to come back (I doubt that Abu Khalil would want to leave his cushy job in San Francisco and return). What would happen to the millions of Israelis whom they would displace? But even more to the point, there are probably upwards of 10 times this number who would then demand that they also be allowed to return to their countries of origin and be compensated for their losses.
When push comes to shove, it isn't anarchy, armed resistance or divestment/boycotts that have any effect.
I don't think that in the South African case, for example, that the boycott and divestment really had as much effect as did the realization by the 20% white minority that their position was not tenable and that of the 80% majority that they were not going to be able to exact revenge and toss the white minority out. Apart from making some white university students in the US and Europe feel all warm and fuzzy, the divestment movement didn't have nearly as much of a negative economic impact as did the end of apartheid – only in this latter case building an economy together was worth the cost.
Armed resistance is a losing cause for the Palestinians. They've been trying it since the end of the 19th century, and holds even less promise today than it did then. There are simply too many Jews, who are too well armed with no alternative but to stay. When Abu Khalil speaks of the French Resistance and the Algerian Resistance or of the Hizballah victory in 2006, he's dreaming.
As for anarchy, perhaps you can explain to me EH what this means:
The opposition to all hierarchical domination is the principle which allows a society of multiple identities to coexist.
You see, I simply don't understand where you're coming from, and I certainly don't understand how you think that a group of rag-tag demonstrators playing tag with the Border Police once a week is having any effect.
I like the Angry Arab and it doesn't bother me much that he's not constructive. I disagree with him sometimes, but it's helpful to have a knowledgeable person in the debate who despises all the major players in the conflict–not the ordinary people, but all the governments and virtually all the political factions, Arab and Israeli alike. He doesn't whitewash Hamas or Hezbollah, for instance, but he also doesn't hold them to standards that nobody else meets.
I don't think you are listening to what Dr. Abu Khalil is saying. As an anarchist, he is advocating for one secular state as the optimal solution.
Dr. Abu Khalil is on record as being vocally against both "Islamic" and "nationalist" parties like Fatah and Hamas. He is also quite vocal about his opposition to Muslim and Christian theocracies, including his home country of Lebanon and the corrupt "secular" Arab regimes such as Egypt or Jordan which continue to repress their religious minorities.
If you prefer civil law, as you claim, then why do you oppose a state built on granting equal rights to all? Why is Dr. Abu Khalil's position so ridiculous to you?
Why don't you support the popular resistance of Palestine that is not hierarchical power-grabs of political parties, whether "Islamic" or "nationlist" in origin, but is genuinely grass-roots and community organized and expresses time and again its solidarity and support of Jews, Israelis and internationals who are willing to organize along similar lines?
Oh. and P.S. Dr. Abu Khalil is also a loud and frequent supporter of BDS, and if you want to strengthen and support nonviolence in the region, all Richard Wittys out there, you need to be too.
Why don't you support the popular resistance of Palestine that is not hierarchical power-grabs of political parties, whether "Islamic" or "nationlist" in origin, but is genuinely grass-roots and community organized and expresses time and again its solidarity and support of Jews, Israelis and internationals who are willing to organize along similar lines?
And yet Abu Khalil is not even willing to look at the Israeli Consul.
You see, EH, a big part of grass-roots solidarity is having respect for the other side, even if you don't agree.
And to all like JES (and Witty) and others who are vocal in telling Palestinians, Israelis and others what is "practical" or "reasonable" and what isn't, perhaps if you first acknowledged that the right of all citizens to be treated equally under law and the right of refugees and their descendents to return to the land from which they fled at gunpoint is just, legal and moral, you would have some credibility and a basis for sitting down as mutual equals and discussing a practical and reasonable solution to a difficult problem.
Oh. and P.S. Dr. Abu Khalil is also a loud and frequent supporter of BDS…
I see. So if you really want to get Jews, Israelis and internationals to organize along similar lines, you have to beat them over the head. How does that line up with your "opposition to all hierarchical domination"?
I approve of the right of all residents (beyond just citizens) to be treated equally under the law, and support it, and urge it in all forums (f2f and web) and to all audiences (left, right, center).
The right of return is not a self-evident right. Democracy, anarchy is present, not past oriented.
There is an enormous contradiction between anarchism and a new single Palestine state. (For one, its a state, with arbitrary borders between Jordan and Palestine/Israel, Lebanon and Palestine/Israel, Egypt/Gaza and Palestine/Israel.
You have the dilemma of the basis of voluntary association, which you are ignoring as a question EH.
Its either geographic, in which case a jurisdiction is chosen, adopted, consented, ultimately designed.
Or, its social (Palestinian self-governance – ethnic, Jewish self-governance – ethnic, Shia self-governance – ethnic, Christian self-governance)
Or, it is ideological (those that prefer a civil state, live in a civil state. Those that prefer a national state, live in a national state. Those that prefer a sharia state live in a sharia state. Those that prefer a halachic state live in a halachic state).
Otherwise you are imposing what looks currently ideologically just to you (but not to others).
I do believe that law of title must be perfected, that prior claims leave title questions unperfected.
If you look at Asad Abukhalil's comments, you will note TODAY or YESTERDAY that he did advocate for compensation to perfect title, NOT the forced removal of current residents.
I dont know much about the guy, but I enjoyed your generous portrait of him interlaced with your reservations. Nice feat.
…perhaps if you first acknowledged that the right of all citizens to be treated equally under law and the right of refugees and their descendents to return to the land from which they fled at gunpoint is just, legal and moral, you would have some credibility and a basis for sitting down as mutual equals and discussing a practical and reasonable solution to a difficult problem.
So, finally EH, we get to the moralizing. Good for you!
Where exactly does any other group have a right of return for refugees and their descendents? That's only reserved for the Palestinians and only as long as they fall under the protection of UNRWA. No other refugees in the world have that right.
If you are neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli, then I would advise you to let us take care of finding a practical and reasonable solution to our own problems.
@ JES
"If you are neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli, then I would advise you to let us take care of finding a practical and reasonable solution to our own problems."
So, Americans should just leave both sides alone? No exceptions? No foreign aid or special deals
involving US security in any way favoring one over the other? Americans should simply tell both sides, "It's not my job?"
No entangling alliances with either group? Actually that has been the US foreign policy stance
at various times throughout US history. It is essentially Ron Paul's stance.
It would certainly be different than writing endless blank checks.
I follow The Angry Arab from time to time. It's informative and entertaining, but erratic, like its proprietor. I was at the talk, and I think you got it about right. I found it rambling and undisciplined, but informed. On violent resistance, I never heard that the French stoned girls who had a beer with German soldiers. And as for necklacing in South Africa, the ANC did not endorse that and it did inspire international revulsion. So much for two of the arguments advanced by The Angry Arab in claiming that Palestinians are being held to an impossible standard in their resistance.
The Angry Arab blog is fond of taking what I find to be gratuitous pokes at allies and potential allies, without recognizing them when they do the righ thing. This is typical of the sectarian intellectual arrogance of so much of the left. It is self-defeating and I wish he would just wake up and see that.
But I like the guy and I wish he would find more of a following.
Further @ JES
""If you are neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli, then I would advise you to let us take care of finding a practical and reasonable solution to our own problems."
Isn't there a difference between a boxing match in a ring and a street brawl?
Remember the Hatfields and the McCoys? That was a famous feud here in the USA that erupted
close on the heels of the end of our Civil War; it grew when a returning Union soldier was killed.
A Hatfield (ex-Confederate) had killed a McCoy. That indicates the respective family sympathies (though their were a few Romeo-Juliet relationships on the part of the young). Mostly it was the two families who only decimated each other, but the feud disrupted public order affecting neighbors on both sides to the extent that the governors of both Kentucky and West Virginia called up their state militias to restore order.The Governer of West Virginia once even threatened to have his militia invade Kentucky. Extradition issues as between the two states
were finally decided by the US Supreme Court.
Is there a lesson here?
Richard Witty, I'm aware that anarchism and a Palestinian state are not the same thing. All states are problematic. I am advocating for what I see as the least problematic solution (one that is also generally, in my anecdotal experience, also the preferred solution of those voices that have been most silenced in this debate).
I'm suggesting that rule of law is in fact the best guarantor of minority rights we have for right now. And part of rule of law (as well as basic morality) is the right of people who have been forced out to return to their homes. To suggest that we have to look forward and not backward is to say that crimes not only have no consequences but need not even be acknowledged.
All I am asking (and the starting point, coincidentally, of most Palestinian negotiating positions officially) is recognition that a crime was committed by Israel and that morally and legally those who were kicked out of their homes in a war, whether it be in Palestine or Pakistan or Poland or Portland have a right to return to those homes.
JES (and Witty), I challenge you: I will not answer your attack about my personal identity or level of involvement, because it is frankly irrelevant and suggests you don't like what I'm saying but don't have a response to it.
If you are uncomfortable with discussing the right of return for refugee descendants (which is, of course, the right on which Israel's Law of Return is based for Jews-the descendants of a people forced off their land 2000 years ago, when no international law existed) will you acknowledge the right of return for refugees themselves?
I'm just trying to establish what basis we have for a common discussion here.
It's funny how all the pro-Israelis have assumed (wrongly) that the one state solution will be an Islamic state, so that it fits into their narrow perspective of them fighting the ugly Islamists for the sake of humanity, even though, everyone in this blog that has ever espoused the one-state solution, has wanted the state to be strictly secular and pluralistic in nature.
@ Evan
The French resistance carried out 6,000 executions of collaborationists before the Liberation and 4,000 afterwards. They shaved the heads of women that were suspected of having liaisons with Germans. It was called the Épuration sauvage.
You may have also seen the movie defiance, where Polish Jews had killed a fellow Jew for refusing to rescue some Jews that were about to be taken by the Nazis
@ JES
The reason why refugees AND their descendants have a right of return is simple – in every other situation, the refugees would have been allowed home immediately so their descendants would have been their too.
Oh, intellectual side note:
Many countries of the world (including EU countries like Italy, for example) grant citizenship if you can prove that a grandparent was a citizen, and most will if you can prove a parent was a citizen.
@ Chris:
haha, how the hell is Abu Khalid an "Islamic fascist"? Last time I checked, he's an atheist anarchist.
Typical, stupid Americans, stereotyping Arabs as "Islamic fascists." LOL.
The reason why refugees AND their descendants have a right of return is simple – in every other situation, the refugees would have been allowed home immediately so their descendants would have been their too.
Wrong Shafiq. Several million ethnic Germans who had lived in Russia were kicked out after WWII. None were allowed back to this day. Several million Muslims fled from India at partition and founded Pakistan. None were allowed back to this day. At the close of WWI with the break up of the Ottoman Empire, Turks and Greeks became refugees by the hundreds of thousands. None were allowed back to this day. Azeris were kicked out of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenians out of Nakhchivan. None were allowed back to this day. And the list goes on and on….
The only reason that the Palestinian refugees have not been absorbed into other countries is that it is politically expedient.
Many countries of the world (including EU countries like Italy, for example) grant citizenship if you can prove that a grandparent was a citizen, and most will if you can prove a parent was a citizen.
…or if you can prove that a grandparent had ethnic ties, which is pretty much like Israel's Law of Return.
If you are uncomfortable with discussing the right of return for refugee descendants…will you acknowledge the right of return for refugees themselves?
Of course, although there must be an accomodation to ensure that Israelis aren't displaced in the process. In other words, if a refugee can prove that he held title to a particular piece of land, he can't simply come back with his key and expect to find a house there. Nowhere does it say that a refugee has a right to come back (particularly after 61 years) to the exact same location from which he left.
Now, moving backward (comment-wise):
All I am asking (and the starting point, coincidentally, of most Palestinian negotiating positions officially) is recognition that a crime was committed by Israel and that morally and legally those who were kicked out of their homes in a war, whether it be in Palestine or Pakistan or Poland or Portland have a right to return to those homes.
First of all, for Israel to take sole responsibility is simply wrong – both morally and in historical fact. Shared responsibility – particularly with the Arab countries who went to war with Israel – is another matter.
Now, I want to make something clear that you don't seem to be getting, EH, refugees from Pakistan or Poland simply do not have the same rights under international law. That's something that should be changed, and the place to change it is to abolish UNRWA so that, for example, countries such as Lebanon would be forced to abandon their discriminatory laws.
Now, all I am asking as a starting point is that the Palestinians acknowledge my connection to the land and my inherent right, and the rights of the other 5.5 million Jews to live here.
Untrue. If Israel's Law of Return allowed citizenship if a grandparent had ethnic ties, then all Palestinians would be allowed to return under the law.
I take it, JES, that you disagree with the right of Israeli Jews to apply for European citizenship from the countries from which they or their parents or grandparents fled? Do these Jews have no rights to European citizenship? Living in Israel as you do, I'm sure you are aware that many Israeli Jews are taking advantage of this right, which by your previous comments it appears that you don't agree they should possess.
"If you are neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli, then I would advise you to let us take care of finding a practical and reasonable solution to our own problems."
Go pound sand, supplicant. I'm sure you got plenty.
hate for zionism is not hate its love for equal humans. hating zionism is not luxury its an obligation for all those who reject supremacy of one race or culture over another. I hate Zionism too and i didn;t have to personally witness the occupation to hate Zionism.
Evan
Shafiq was correct about the French resistance's violent treatment of collaborators. Its all there in the history books if you care to look. And prior to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising many Jewish colloborators within the ghetto were killed by their fellow Jews. Even during the American Revolution there was violence against Loyalists who were often publicly stripped naked, and then tarred and feathered, and their homes and property were vandalized or destroyed. Violence against civilians during resistance to occupation or foreign domination is more often the rule than the exception in world history.
Untrue. If Israel's Law of Return allowed citizenship if a grandparent had ethnic ties, then all Palestinians would be allowed to return under the law.
Ethnic ties to Israel as a Jewish state, just as ethnic Greeks are entitled to Greek citizenship, ethnic Germans are entitled to German citizenship and ethnic Irish are entitled to Irish citizenship. That doesn't exclude others from becoming citizens; it just gives preference to those who do.
BTW, if you read the Palestinian Basic Law, the provisions for citizenship by ethnic identification are pretty similar. You need to be an Arab. (If you read the Hamas Covenent…well…fuggedaboudid…)
Go pound sand, supplicant. I'm sure you got plenty.
Yeh? Make me!!
I agree wholeheartdly with As'ad that Zionism is doomed, you don't have to be rocket scientist to figure that out, ,Israel culture of racism will never be able to sustain itself….
Hi Phil,
Angry Arab is a very good personal friend, trust me he supports BSD and he when he comes across BSD news on the net he usually posts it on his blog. The problem is that BSD relies on non-Palestinians/non-Arabs to take action on behalf of Palestinians–most Palestinians don't have any hopes that the West or anyone else will do that on their behalf. Isn't it even illegal to talk boycott in the U.S.? Someone told me that once and I haven't had the time to research it.
As`ad has never called for suicide bombings or any such things against Israelis, but when Palestinians strap bombs on themselves to retaliate against what Israelis have done to them or their families (the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers have been imprisoned and abused by Israelis, have had a family member killed or imprisoned by Israelis, have had their land stolen from Israelis, I'm not making excuses just providing context that most people are unaware of) he doesn't feel the need to do what the West wants him to do, i.e., condemn the bombers, instead he usually points out the hypocrisies of the Western media who attempt to portray suicide bombers as committing these acts in a vacuum simply because they are "brainwashed Islamic terrorists."
I mean have Wapo or NYTs even mentioned the word "occupation" when they cover news of a suicide bombing?
About not being able to take As`ad seriously because he is an anarchist… is there a legitimate political party, affiliation, system in the Arab world that the West would embrace? They don't care for the "Islamists," Communists, Socialists, any of the leftist parties, the only thing that matters in Middle East politics is how far someone is willing to bend over and get sodomized by Israel and the U.S. and that can manifest itself as a "royal" dictatorship but it rarely involves anything democratic in nature.
Despite the attacks against him by some sectarian Arabs who wrongly accuse him of sectarianism (his mom is Sunni his dad is Shia and he is an atheist) I would say that As`ad speaks for most of the Arab world, he definitely speaks for the majority of Palestinians (he's an honorary Palestinian), I would be horrified if he didn't support the Palestinians. I find him refreshing, there is no hidden agenda and he is not bound to anyone. He will "attack" his own mother on his blog if the situation merited it and he does the same with friends, all publicly, I like the transparency. He Coming from a place where people are easily bought left and right, this is so damn refreshing…
Note that the correct correlation there should be "Ethnic Israelis", not ethnic Jews. Israel is the only one of the countries you mention that limits its entitlement to a religious or ethnic segment of its society, and does not apply it universally. It is also the only one that sets limits along religious lines. You may be "ethnically Jewish" but if you are religiously Christian you do not have a "right of return", unless you are willing to lie about your religion or claim to lack a religion.
"I felt there was something a little idle about his statements. He is a professor in California, and a blogger. Someone else will be doing the resisting."
Maybe Phil, but he's not just talking to talk. I mean, I'm sure his feelings towards resistance in Palestine and Lebanon are the same and his family still lives in Lebanon. His very old mother went through a lot during the Israeli war.
"And yet Abu Khalil is not even willing to look at the Israeli Consul."
ICG is in the U.S. as a propaganda spokesman for an apartheid regime, Abukhalil is to be applauded for not shaking the hand of that criminal. I'm sure you supported all the idiots walking out of Durban when Ahmadinejad gave his "speech" yet you now decide to talk about Abukhalil not shaking the hands of the ICG? God, seriously, can you people be anymore hypocritical?
Then I understood that he is a leftwing anarchist who doesn’t think much of any governments at all.
You say this like it's a bad thing. Like it's anyone's damn job to think highly of governments. If anything, the more important task is in highlighting their flaws and holding them accountable for every life and dollar they cost. When you start to do this, your perception of what government is changes drastically- this is especially true for Arab governments. Each and every single political party in the Arab world (or at least the vast majority of them, and there are a lot, every man has his own it seems) is corrupt- why do expect any sort of faith in government from Asa'ad or anyone else?
There is a lot of empty headed talk of Israel's "right to defend itself". Of course, when they mow down civilians in their own homes like so many bowling pins the civilians have no right to anger or responsive violence of their own.
There is all this hollow talk of a peace "process"- but peace is not merely the abscence of war. How many people living in "peaceful" Jordan have to worry about what they say publically or whom they are seen with? Does that sound like peace to you? Without justice- a fundamental accountability to humanity and morality, there can be no reconciliation of any kind. There has never been a true peace in this world without reconciliation, merely armistices of convenience. Hence the tired (yet true) cry, "No justice. No peace."
Meanwhile divestment and economic measures have been attempted and continue to be attempted, resulting in what, exactly? The Palestinians are sidelined from the Israeli economy, which precludes any attempt by them to resist through economic means. Meanwhile, you expect them to twiddle their thumbs while the apathetic world continues to turn, and expect salvation from the outside. What a galling example of a failure to attribute agency to a people.
I love how people assume that because Dr. AbuKhalil is Arab, he must also be not only Muslim but an "Islamist" arguing for one "Islamist state". If any of the racist troglodyte commentators here actually bothered to read the article, they'd see that he explicitly refered to a secular one state solution. As it happens AbuKhalil is a hardcore atheist secularist, but of course because he's a brown man the running assumption is that he must also be a religious fanatic.
The question of Boycott was raised, and I am surprised he didn't mention the Boycott Divestment Sanctions campaign. On his blog and in all of his recent appearances AbuKhalil has stressed his support for the BDS.
Angry Arab used a debate technique in avoiding looking at the Israeli consul. Big deal! Why does he have to show unwarranted respect to his opponent's positions?
As for BDS being illegal, it is only illegal for U.S. CORPORATIONS to support an Arab boycott against Israel. Individuals are free to shout from the rooftops: "BOYCOTT APARTHEID ISRAEL!! DON'T BUY ISRAELI GOODS!"
I'm so sick of Palestinians' "impure thoughts" being speculated on while Israel's blatantly murderous policies are ignored! Go, As'ad!
Israel is the only one of the countries you mention that limits its entitlement to a religious or ethnic segment of its society, and does not apply it universally. It is also the only one that sets limits along religious lines. You may be "ethnically Jewish" but if you are religiously Christian you do not have a "right of return", unless you are willing to lie about your religion or claim to lack a religion.
Absolutely wrong, Tree. Religion is only part of the ethnic identification, and, under the Law of Return it is optional. It is perfectly feasible that an openly practicing Christian could claim citizenship under the Law of Return on the basis of a single grandparent, and, in contrast to Jewish religious law, that grandparent could be his or her father's father. In fact, they have and do. (Which, BTW, has been a constant source of friction between Zionists and the ultra-orthodox.) In fact, even the non-Jewish spouse, parent or children of a Jew are entitled to immigrate under the Law of Return.
In fact the Greek citizenship law makes mention, I believe, of baptism in the Greek Orthodox Church. I don't know how it was resolved, but prior to the Olympic Games, no Muslims need apply for immigration (even though Greece does have a smalll native Muslim population). Armenians also are an ethnic group that has a specific religion as just one component of that identification, along with language, history, literature, food, dress and specific holidays.
When people talk about their silly one Islamic state solution it makes me think of my time in Egypt and the treatment of the Coptic Christians there. Copts murdered. Children taken from their families to force conversion to Islam. Coptic woman defiled. Houses of worship destroyed. Every depredation imaginable.
julian
That's interesting, given that Christian Palestinians are only being brutalized and murdered (in Bethlehem and elsewhere) by those fine multiculturalists, the Israelis…hebrew bacteria who need to be flushed down history's toilet.
Citizen
You sure do keep your cool around these vermin. And always nice, informative posts. Keep it up.