A few weeks back we ran a report from Pamela, an American journalist living in Ramallah for the summer. Here’s another.
Six years ago, during my first trip to the West Bank , I met a Palestinian woman named Rania who aspired to a college education. She was from a small village and her family wasn’t supportive, but she found jobs with international NGOs, saved enough to pay for one semester of college, and enrolled herself, knowing that would probably be all she could manage unless a miracle happened.
When I learned about her efforts to educate herself, I made an appeal to several friends and professional contacts to help her finish her second semester, and then her third. After four years, she graduated with a degree in social work and psychological counseling. In the meantime she met and married a man named Sharif and moved to the Palestinian city of Tulkarem . By the time I arrived in Ramallah this summer, they had a one-year-old son named Karim and a daughter on the way. Rania and Sharif were in the process of building their new home a little at a time whenever they could save some money.
Sharif is one of the genuinely nicest guys I’ve ever met. He supported Rania through the final semesters of her education, he loves his son Karim (Sharif’s mother died while giving birth to him, so the idea of an intact family is novel and wonderful for him), and he changes diapers and helps with the cooking and cleaning. He has a great sense of humor and a disarming smile. He’s had a difficult life, and so has Rania, but things were finally looking up for them. They both adore Karim (trust me, he’s impossible not to adore), and Rania is ecstatic about having a daughter and giving her every kind of love and support she wished she’d had growing up.
A month ago, there was loud banging on their door around 1:00 am. Frightened, Rania asked who it was. They said they were Israeli soldiers. Rania knew they were there to arrest Sharif, though neither of them knew why. This is standard operating procedure for Israeli army arrest operations—entering homes in the dead of night when people are at their most psychologically and physically vulnerable. She had no choice but to open the door, knowing it would be blown up or knocked down if she refused. They asked if her husband was home. She said no. They asked if they could come in and make sure. Again, she had no choice but to allow them.
When they found Sharif hiding in the bedroom, they gave a loud order, and twenty more armed soldiers stormed in. They beat Sharif in front of his wife and son, called Rania a lying sharmouta (whore) while holding a gun to her head, and took Sharif away. He’s been charged with car theft in Israel , an absurd charge. He’s never been to Israel , though he had recently been given a permit to work in Israel . Rania said to me, “It is very difficult for a Palestinian to get a permit to work in Israel . Why would they give him a permit if they thought he was stealing cars?”
An Israeli friend of mine guesses it might be to pad their statistics on cracking down on car theft, or they might be trying to recruit him as a spy—offering to let him go if he will inform on his neighbors or extended family members. This is one of the most devastating tactics an occupier has for tearing the fabric of a society apart, sowing suspicion and division between neighbors and family members. How can a man be forced to choose between lying about his neighbors and family members, or spending a year away from his wife, son, and soon new daughter, knowing that without his support, they may not have enough to live on? He may be in prison himself because another man chose to falsely inform on him rather than pay this terrible price.
I visited Rania in her brother-in-law’s home in Tulkarem as soon as I learned about the situation. She can’t stay in her own home because she’s too scared to be alone. She can’t sleep because every time she closes her eyes she sees Israeli soldiers. Every time she hears a car outside she thinks it’s an Israeli army Jeep.
Because she and her husband have been putting most of their savings into their new home, she was left with only about a month’s budget when her husband was taken. She has been trying hard to get a job, but unemployment is bad in the West Bank even for people who don’t have a small child and aren’t five months pregnant.
She’s spent much of the past month crying. She says the worst is when Karim walks to the front door (where he’s used to seeing his father burst in and scoop him up and hug him after work) and says, “Baba?” (Daddy?) He doesn’t seem to be scarred by the violence he witnessed. His first birthday happened to be the day I visited Rania (Sharif had planned a nice party and to buy him a little car he could scoot around in)—he’s too young to understand what’s going on. He’s actually one of the happiest toddlers I’ve ever spent time with. But when he asks several times a day where his Baba is, Rania says quietly, “Baba fi sijin, habibi.” (Daddy’s in prison, sweetie.) It’s a hard thing to witness.
‘Prison,’ by the way, doesn’t carry the same stigma in Palestine as it does in America, given that most Palestinians in Israeli jails are held not because they are criminals but as a form of collective punishment, as political prisoners, as bargaining chips (sometimes Israel agrees to release a few hundred prisoners in exchange for some Palestinian concession or as a ‘gesture of goodwill,’ which makes them look generous to the Americans and the international community, most of whom don’t understand the true nature of the situation), or to recruit spies. The statistic that ‘only’ 10% of prisoners are held in administrative detention (imprisoned without charge or trial) is misleading. Many are in prison simply for belonging to the wrong political party. Rania’s husband was charged, but the charge is bogus, the Israeli court system for Palestinian prisoners does not meet international standards, and many Palestinians can’t afford the exorbitant lawyer fees.
It’s not a stigma—it’s just a massive violation of basic human rights.
During my visit, Rania kept asking me Job-like questions I couldn’t answer.
“Why does this happen to me? I am a good girl, I always do right. I love my husband and my child. Why do they do this? What right do they have to take my husband? Why do they have human rights in other places, but not in Palestine ? How can I raise my children if I am alone? How can we have any security if soldiers can take my husband away any time they want, for no reason? I don’t hate the Jewish, but it makes it very hard for me to respect them when they do this. He is a good man, never any guns, no bad thing to anyone. He has had a hard life, but always he does his best. Why do they take him? If we do right and always bad things happen, maybe if we do wrong, something good will happen. I don’t know, I can’t imagine why the life is like this. What do you think?”
What can I say? “In my current understanding, they do this because they feel insecure (to an often delusional and self-fulfilling degree and/or as a post-rationalization for brute grabs of power and resources), and they have power and you don’t. They want to make life difficult for Palestinians so they will submit to Israel ’s dictates or leave. This is called power politics, or ‘Realism’ in American foreign policy circles.”
Does she really want a lecture on realpolitik?
“In my current understanding, you don’t have control over anything in this life but your own behavior. Behave with as much integrity as you can, and try to make peace with the things you don’t control. Unfortunately, you happen to have the short end of the stick when it comes to the things you don’t control.”
Of course I can’t say something like this to a frightened young mother. Not sure what else to say, I told her the story of Job (apparently it’s not in the Quran, unlike many Bible stories) and told her to take care of herself and her kids and be kind to her husband, that things would work out somehow, and in the end some good may even come of it (even though of course no one can guarantee any of this). It’s very strange for me to be in this position—I never imagined I would be trying to comfort a Muslim friend with Bible stories. I think more than anything it did her good just to be able to talk for hours about her fears and feelings. It’s ironic that she’s the one trained in psychological counseling.
Aside from the post-traumatic stress, she has some hard economic realities to deal with in the medium-term. If, as the family’s lawyer seems to think, her husband will be in prison for about a year, and if Rania doesn’t manage to find a job soon, she will be ten months without any way to support herself. Normally she would ask her family or her husband’s family for help, but most of them are either barely scraping by themselves (Israel has built the Wall around her family’s village, and it has isolated most of its land from its owners, forcing many to move out, find work in Israel or the settlements, or become charity cases), also in prison, abroad, or dead. It’s a miracle there is any sense of society left in Palestine, much less one as strong as it is.
I and some friends have pitched in enough to keep her going for another month and a half, and she has a couple of possible leads on jobs. If she didn’t have a university degree, she would be in an even bigger mess. As it is, the strangled economy due to the Wall and closures and the loss of her husband for a year due to the occupation nearly destroyed her young family, and might yet if she doesn’t find a job and I can’t gather enough money to keep her afloat through the birth of her daughter and the many months of separation from her husband.
Just one more of the millions of stories of what the occupation means for the civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza .
Related posts:
- American press reported on Roxana Saberi’s arrest in Iran; will it pick up Amira Hass’s arrest in Israel?
- Rawabi, and the American mission to civilize the West Bank
- While the world looks the other way, the colonization of the West Bank continues
- Max Blumenthal: How I Got Gassed in the West Bank
- US Non-Profit bankrolled West Bank colony that is hotbed for accused terrorists
{ 1 trackback }
{ 193 comments }
Welcome back. Hope you are well rested.
I wonder what Richard Witty has to say about this one.
He would probably say she will have to wait while we debate about what non-punitive we are going to use on Israel for the next 100 years.
rathe – “non-punitive surgery”
modern day gestapo techniques…. interesting how the jewish culture wants to perpetuate something it was supposed to be abhorred with..
here is a video making the rounds of my jewish friend..
So You Want to Boycott Israel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIQto3KPUM&eurl
Anonymous stories from anonymous people. Therefore it must be true.
This is the standard hasbara response; Palestinians never tell the truth because they’re inherently dishonest; they steal bodies from morgues or dig them up from graves and claim they were killed by Israelis. You can’t trust anything they say. And so forth.
This line of defense is so morally repulsive (and, one would think, so familiar to those using it) that it’s obscene.
Julian’s hasbaric dismissal of the story is symptomatic of the dehumanization of the Israeli population. Not a single shred of compassion for this heart-wrenching story, just snide sarcasm. This is what Americans get for our $3 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to our “best friend” and “staunch ally” in the region.funds.
It is a telling sign that a man, Illan Pappe, who had access to internal documents of the ethnic cleansing process in Israel wrote of many recorded atrocities from the Israeli government documents. One thing he found is that the testimonies of the Palestinians matched the record of what was recorded and later reported by him and many other historians. So who is lying?
However, this attempt to dismiss the Palestinians, and quite frankly any work from the ME region(s) by the inhabitants goes further than this, it is nothing but the continuation of the Euro-centric colonial narrative which has been fed to the general population in the West. It means that anyone who is not in the “old boys club” of historians, trying to fit with the lying process about atrocities by either Israel or the Euro-American alliance is not to be trusted.
In the states I found this to be interesting, that the same process is experienced by the black population that writes about the slavery and consequent persecution and penury that followed. So that even though dozens of black men had written about the process of post-slavery systematic penury and the thousands it imprisoned and killed, it was a lilly white man by the name of Douglas Blackmon that received a Pulitzer for repeating the same process in another book. He got all the exposure and all of the media, and during his reception of the prize mentioned that many before him had written of the same and similar incidents but were ignored, because they did not fit the right racial makeup, which was nothing but the deep current continuation of prejudice in society.
I have seen Pappe viciously attacked by the apologists for Israeli’s ethnic cleansing. Discrediting the messenger is one of their primary tactics.
I think Pappe found that some of the stories corresponded with accounts from others and others’ perspective, enough to merit further investigation, but not yet enough to merit reliance on the stories themselves.
There are many innocent ways that anecdotes can misrepresent history. One is that people see what they see, but not always accurately. I just watched the Russian movie “12″, a version of the play and film “12 Angry Men”, in which prejudicial assumptions and peer pressure resulted in witnesses misinterpreting.
The problem is when people fill in the blanks. They see a man running across a field, and a gun shot, and an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at a crowd, and conclude that the Israeli soldier shot into the crowd, and substantiated by a press report repeating the original misreporting.
Our experience is valid. Our interpretation of we actually experience, whether filling in blanks falsely or just allowing others to use our experience for political propaganda ends, isn’t always.
Further investigation to discern what is assumption from what is confirmed and coherent and relevant, is enough.
So Witty, do you believe eye witness accounts of Auschwitz?
I believe that personal accounts should be investigated, with a predisposition to believe the factual account, but not a certainty, and that interpretation of the events are more open questions.
Another story from the sewers of Israel. What’s that stench? Move along, nothing to see hear, more Palestinian lies. You must be so proud of that burgeoning democracy taking root. I am so glad we can call it our special relationship and our only ally in the Middle East. Very moral people…
Hard to see also how the Israelis can’t understand what kind deep hatred against themselves they’re sowing with such actions.
Israel is sleep walking into an abyss. Only anti-Zionism can save it from itself…
The only problem with your B.S. logic Richard is that its a story directly from the wife of the husband that was arrested. Her position of being there from the very beginning till those soldiers took her husband away, by definition, completely discounts your fanciful hypothetical.
Keep on rationalizing, eh? So as long as it makes you feel better, that is all that matters.
I was commenting on Pappe, not on the particular story.
How can I know if the particular anonomously reported story is accurate or not? I can’t when it is from the New York Times. I can’t when it is from Electronic Intifada.
Can you?
Quite right, Richard; the implication of your comment is that it is essential to research and analyse critically claims made from ANY and EVERY perspective on the debate.
You are in agreement, then, with this argument:
Thank you, Richard Witty, for standing firmly with those who are determined NOT to become “stranded in the darkness of ignorance…”
Thank you again, Richard Witty, for standing with those who seek knowledge “free from wrong ideologies” such as may prevail in New York Times and Electronic Intifada, put who seek pure truth.
As does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who spoke the words quoted above and below, at Columbia University in 2007:
You’re asking for a revised research to the hundreds of thousands of hours of documented research on the holocaust?
@Richard Witty: “You’re asking for a revised research to the hundreds of thousands of hours of documented research on the holocaust? ”
Why not?
More and more holocaust movies are produced.
More and more holocaust museums are established.
More and more US congresspersons are toured through Yad Vashem.
What is there to fear?
If the facts of the “hundreds of thousands of hours of documented research” are true, more research, from non-ideological perspectives, will validate all that research, no?
Psychopathic,
If you are so inclined, go ahead and do the research. There are hundreds of libraries and other official archives that are available to you to review. Go find the source material. Do it.
Don’t whine about some conspiracy to prohibit your research. That is just your or others’ laziness.
Its available.
@ Richard Witty, playing Change That Tune: “If you are so inclined, go ahead and do the research. There are hundreds of libraries and other official archives that are available to you to review. Go find the source material. Do it.
Don’t whine about some conspiracy to prohibit your research. That is just your or others’ laziness.
Its available. ”
The source material is available, and the research is being done, but if it does not comport with the demanded narrative line, researchers are jailed, legislators’ arms are twisted to make publishing a crime, scholars are denied tenure.
The next time will be different, RW; there are far more eyes and ears and minds who are watching “the whole offense” as it takes place.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence …
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at {Deir Yassim; at Tulkarem…},
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
If its important to you, take the risk.
You’re shifting blame currently.
You have a thesis? What is it? That the Jews invoked the holocaust on themselves, or that only 5.6 million Jews were killed, not 6 million, and only 2.6 million were in death camps the remainder was from starvation in slave labor camps?
“How can I know if the particular anonomously reported story is accurate or not?
It’s not as if hundreds of similar stories have not been fully investigated and verified.
@Richard:
Fascinating how YOU “shifted” positions:
My statement, “What’s to fear,” suggested that those who control Holocaust narrative should not fear the elucidation of facts if the facts are true.
You shifted the context to suggest that it is, indeed, risky to seek to bring to light a different narrative on the holocaust. And that is true, one risks imprisonment, one risks being shunned, as you noted elsewhere in this thread; one risks loss of employment, of position, even loss of life for merely bringing to light facts that reveal a narrative that differs from the established version of the holocaust; namely, as I just heard the odious Mike Evans capsulize it, that “Hitler was diabolical and thought Jews were vermin so he had them exterminated.”
I call that the Hitler trap.
As you, Richard, noted elsewhere in this thread,
When the holocaust narrative remains only in the Hitler trap, it avoids the other side of the dialectic. In the intensity of hatred ginned up for Hitler, any causal actions on the part of Jews is obscured, and the reality that the German people were victims of, for example, Rothschild’s market manipulations in both the aftermath of the FrancoPrussian war and WWI, is erased from the dialectic, leaving an unbalanced narrative.
First, I reject any other’s attempt to frame my thesis; the frame will be of my composing not yours.
I have hinted at my thesis above: Germans were victims of a series of Jewish economic and political behaviors and attitudes in the periods after the FrancoPrussian war and after WWI that caused Germans to experience oppression and feel resentment. Pushed too far, the oppressed struck back, victimizing their oppressors.
Several days ago I read a link on one of Phil’s articles that explored the notion of Jewish contributions to the causation of what ultimately became the holocaust. It was a dense and meaty writing, but I can’t seem to find it now. If anyone can help me out I’d appreciate it.
Nice song and dance Richard, but that is all it was, a song and dance…lol I like people who talk about volumes that presumably they have not cracked (either that or you have a very bad reading retention problem). I encountered similar “logical” meandering in regard to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book, proving that a lot of verbal foot shuffling that masquerades as informed apologetic is equally worthless (who did an excellent job pinpointing the lobby, but were rather silly in regard to US foreign policy motives).
Unfortunately there is no way to show you how far off the mark you are until you read Illan Pappe’s volume on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Your problem is not that you lack moot scenarios (of which you have an abundance) but the entire foundation of your statements making them wholly spurious in this instance. Your inferences of political propaganda are ridiculous on face value, and just proves to further expose your ulterior motives in general on this subject. Your plea for investigation should be your practice rather than a hypocritical retort.
If you are going to address what I post you have left the sphere of introverted pablum and rhetorical license and better deal with facts. This is because I have no intention of burying you with the facts, what you so sorely lack and continuously display no desire to attain. In the meantime look in the mirror and repeat percepi – accipio – cognosco until it sinks in.
I’ve read work by Pappe, not the recent “Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”.
I don’t recall the exact title. It followed a read of Baruch Kimmerling’s, “History of the Palestinian People”, and the Pappe book was on similar content.
The Kimmerling book was far more specific, and contained far less rhetorical terminology. It was therefore much more convincing to me, though it addressed very similar content and from a similar perspective.
I take it as granted that there were actions and even strategies that are definable as “ethnic cleansing”, and “brutal” in 1947-9. Personally, I find the 1950’s laws that prohibited return, prohibited Palestinians assertion of land rights in the Israeli courts, and then expropriated to state title any land that had been “abandoned”.
You misrepresent my understanding to assert either ignorance, absence of sympathy, or absence of support for Palestinian rights and claims.
I take issue with amateurish propaganda though, that seeks to only address the question of pro-Israel or anti-Israel. “Which side are you on?” Arab 1948 efforts at ethnic cleansing or Zionist?
Why not support co-existance consistently and confidently?
Correction:
Personally, I find the 1950’s laws that prohibited return, prohibited Palestinians assertion of land rights in the Israeli courts, and then expropriated to state title any land that had been “abandoned”, to be worse and more consequential.
The fact of the matter is that it does not matter what you think about my statements regrading your views might be Richard –
“You misrepresent my understanding to assert either ignorance, absence of sympathy, or absence of support for Palestinian rights and claims.”
The matter of your personal views is not really the subject at hand. It is views like yours that allow the atrocities that that occur with regularity continue. They are happening, these murderous activities daily and deeply, and all your “views” do is allow them to continue, so the Palestinian people die by attrition while you debate and mull over whatever event. So, in essence, whether active or passive you support what is currently taking place against the Palestinian people. It does not matter how much you object to pro or con in regard to Israel, you dwell in the ether-world which allows the atrocities to continue without current recourse. You keep calling for “co-existence” when it has totally been rejected, most formidably by those in power in the region, the Israelis.
Debate did not accomplish much during the Holocaust when people were being slaughtered – “should we let the immigrate, should we not – are they Bolsheviks or are they not – is there somewhere else they can go,” all this while atrocities were committed daily. The cost of doing nothing might not mean much to you, and it is no sweat off of your “level-headed” brow, but a slow burning genocide continues to move, and it does not happen at the same pace but is accelerating. So this is beyond pro and con, this is beyond your suggestions of propaganda, and the only course to follow is one of acting with all do diligence NOW. For what must be done see my other posts under Neve Gordon post.
One valid point by Julian is the observation of a Pavlovian response to cause celebre. Rather than journalistic or intellectual skepticism, is a rush to judgement.
Better that we apply skepticism and inquire to the level of confidence of our understanding and analysis of significance.
You think that skepticism “enables”, then I’ll quote Barney Frank, “what planet do you spend your time on?”
“I’ve read work by Pappe, not the recent “Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”.”
Then you should not have offered an opinion about it.
The reality is that in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Pappe mainly just draws the obviousl conclusions that most thinking people have already draw based on the existing research by people like Benny Morris and other historians who have studied the subject since the 1970’s opening of the archives for 1948.
Pappe is an historian.
Do you think that he believed every story that he was told before investigating. If he did so and stated that as fact, he’d be a lousy historian.
He selected. In interview and in earlier work, he acknowledged that he selected material to emphasize his points (that is valid), but he also acknowledged that not everything that he heard, read, discovered supported his theses.
Thats what being a historian is.
Witty writes
“Personally, I find the 1950’s laws that prohibited return, prohibited Palestinians assertion of land rights in the Israeli courts, and then expropriated to state title any land that had been “abandoned”, to be worse and more consequential. ”
Witty, I’ve tried hard to understand what it is you believe, you don’t make it easy. On a different website you said that you believe that Palestinian refugees lost any right to return to their homes in 1968. I asked what so special about that year, no answer. Here you complain about laws that forbid their return. What changed in the intervening years? The end of martial law for Palestinian citizens of Israel?
Here you complain about laws that passed control of abandoned properties to the ILA. Usually you talk about the “perfection of title” (I don’t know what that means, and you refuse to explain it) and the compensation of previous owners. As I understand it the ILA holds all land until a compensation agreement is reached. Why would you oppose that? That is the reason that most land is Israel is administered by the ILA, because it was land seized from the areas previous inhabitants by laws passed by knesset of Israel.
N,
You’re either lying about my “comment on another blog”, or entirely misunderstood. I don’t know what you are referring to.
“Perfecting title” is a common legal term that refers to the means of shifting the status of title from “contested” to “consented”. That does not mean that anyone can say “that land is mine” and therefore the status is “consented”.
In most legal systems there is some standard of a “reasonable man/woman” test, that an individual’s assertion is tested against.
Law is important. In some senses, all political discussion even is legal discussion, an attempt to shift prevailing assumptions about what is reasonable.
Witty, I tried hard to engage you on what you believe beyond your endless repitative slogans. You can find it at
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/07/06/u-s-government-profile-in-spinelessness-in-defense-of-u-s-citizens-imprisoned-by-israel/#comments
where you wrote “July 11, 2009 at 2:56 AM
I don’t believe that the right of return, now 60 years (3 generations) past 1948 is valid any longer. It would have been in 1968, but not now.
The only conditions that I would consider a right of return to Israel perse would be in specific cases, where the overwhelming balance of title questions on specific land claims overarch the relative rights of current residency.
I do believe that compensation for all title claims should occur, resulting from all expropriations.
All nomadic peoples are in a difficult state, now that the world is very crowded. There isn’t much room for nomadicism in the modern world.”
I understand this as pretty much being against the right of return. Maybe I misunderstood, but I don’t think so, you didn’t change your answer any later in the discussion. If you believe what you said, I don’t see how you could have a problem with the ILA, it holds the land until the title is perfected and compensation to the owners can be worked out. No problem in your world. I still leave you the question, what changed between 1953 and 1968?
As I suggested on Tikkun Olam when I pressed you on what you actually believe, start a blog. Write a manifesto. Endlessly repeating the same five lines on 20 different blogs makes a real chore to learn what you believe. I certainly didn’t know until this thread that you don’t think that oppression is the main problem, indeed, it is only a conflict, where both sides have more or less equal responsiblity.
I really don’t get the feeling that people misunderstand you, it is more that we disagree. You prefer to believe that oppression isn’t the problem, it is merely a conflict. I think that conflict is an outgrowth of the oppression. For all of your lectures about what you believe you make no effort to convince anybody that you are actually right. You don’t really make arguements, you don’t bring new facts to the debate, you just repeat yourself.
And what in the world is a “dissenter”? A dissenter to what?
N referenced a thread on Tikkun-Olam in which Richard Witty stated he believed the Palestinian right of return lost its validity in 1968. N still wonders, “what was so special about that year?” I found this in Phil’s post on Tom Friedman, a comment from Richard:
I’ve changed my perspective on right of return, though still I’m not clear specifically what is meant.
After hearing of some Palestinians’ personal experience first hand of being prohibited from visiting their parents’ gravesites, families, former homes, I concluded that it would be much preferable if boundaries did not exclude relatively free movement for Palestinians to travel through Israel.
The world has changed since 1948. The right of return for ancestors of former Palestinian residents is not an easy question, nor is any expectation of return of property to former homes.
But, borders will be managed, and as two countries. That will be different than what many activists hope, but that will be the reality of actual states. There will be times when the borders are closed.
Sigh, Witty, could you just try to show the slightest amount of intellectual respect? You really don’t understand what is meant by the right of return? You manage to write extremely lawyerly responses to questions that show a high level of understanding to the issue, and the extreme importance of exact wording in these discussions, and then you tell me that you don’t know what the phrase means? If you would show some respect for the people you wish to argue with you would get a lot more respect in return. As my 4th grade teacher said, “to have a friend you have to be a friend.”
You write “After hearing of some Palestinians’ personal experience first hand of being prohibited from visiting their parents’ gravesites, families, former homes, I concluded that it would be much preferable if boundaries did not exclude relatively free movement for Palestinians to travel through Israel.”
It isn’t about getting a tourist visa, you know that. It is about the ability to live in their homeland.
You write “The world has changed since 1948. The right of return for ancestors of former Palestinian residents is not an easy question, nor is any expectation of return of property to former homes.”
Actually, that is an easy questions, most of the ancestors are dead, the question is what to do with the descendents of the former Palestinian residents. Humanitarian that you are, you feel that they should not be allowed to return to their homeland because you wish to spare them the pain of living as a minority (see Tikun Olam thread referenced earlier) in their homeland. Presumably this pain is far less when they live as a minority in someone elses homeland.
As I, and many others have asked you to do over the last months/years, tell us what you believe. Tell us why. Show us some respect. I’ve read realistic dove, so I know that if you put your mind to it you can write english that isn’t completely stunted and repititive. The internet should be paradise for a guy like you, you like to talk about what you believe, and people are interested in what you believe. Have you noticed that people ask you questions all the time? To make it work all you have to do is show some respect for the rest of us. It seems immensely sad that it never occurs to you that so many people have stopped talking to you (Phil and Richard Silverstein come to mind) because of the way you present yourself.
That being said, it is unlikely that we will agree. Most people (I think) that post on this website are concerned with justice. You, not so much. That might be fine, we don’t all have to be concerned with the same thing. I think that we all realize that justice is unlikely. It does, however, present a problem for you, you have to make a special effort to cross that barrier. You wish to convince us to accept something that most of us find morally repugnant. I don’t envy you. It isn’t easy, but if you’re serious you have to make the effort.
The right of return defined as the right of ancestors (not former residents) of former Palestinian residents to return to sovereign Israel, will never happen in my lifetime.
It is an irrational and frankly illegal demand.
The way that Palestinian refugees are treated where they are still actual refugees, is a crime perpetrated by the host countries, not Israel. For example, three generations of individuals born in Lebanon STILL do not have civil rights there.
When Palestine forms as a sovereign state, they can offer the right of return to Palestine, just as Israel can legally offer the right of return to Israel, but not to Palestine.
If Richard and Phil won’t talk to me directly about these issues, that is their failing. My views are to the left of the prevailing Jewish perspective, actually fairly far to the left, but firmly in the peace camp, not in the resistance camp.
The majority of Jews, and the majority of citizens are in the peace camp, and will remain there. The peace camp is the right way to go. Moderate, sensible, compassionate.
I think you need to learn the definition of ancestor. The word you are looking for is descendant.
Witty writes “It is an irrational and frankly illegal demand.”
What is irrational and illegal about demanding that refugees be allowed to return to their homes? Please explain. I can understand how you think that it is a demand that Israel is unlikely to agree to, but “irrational and illegal”?
When I first posted that you were against the right of return you claimed that I was either a liar or misunderstood you. Do you still think that I misunderstand you? Was I lying? Given your positions on the issue I don’t really understand at all why you would be against the seizure laws. On Tikun Olam you said that the right of return disappeared in 1968, I ask again, what changed?
To be honest I now think that you were even more extreme than I thought. It wasn’t until this past month that you were moved by some anecdotes (I’ll try to leave out jokes about how you don’t think anecdotes of Palestinians lives are useful) to consider allowing the refugees into their homeland even on tourist visas. That’s cold, not only are you a refugee you must never even be allowed back to visit your cemetaries. And you complain about shunning?
Witty, you claim to be of the left but I don’t see any evidence of that. I have never seen you say anything even remotely leftist. But, even if you really are Mr.
Leftist himself, I don’t really care. I care about what you believe, and why. This blog is subtitled “the war of ideas”, ideas are what people come here to discuss, not whether you still have your order of lenin prize or whether you were the secretary of your SDS chapter.
If my friends stopped talking to me I would probably wonder if it was something I said or did. I have to give you credit, you don’t suffer from any self doubt.
Witty writes “The way that Palestinian refugees are treated where they are still actual refugees, is a crime perpetrated by the host countries, not Israel. For example, three generations of individuals born in Lebanon STILL do not have civil rights there.”
Something like “I might have stolen your house and land, but all the red cross gave you was a tent! The nerve of them…”
Is this a shock to anyone? I would be surprised if even one of the MSM outlets would pick this story up and run with it for what it truly is, without giving excuses or explanations for Israeli actions. That would be shocking! But no news of Israeli crimes of depravity is shocking to me.
I’m about 3/4 serious now, but with the constant attempts draw comparisons between Israel and the U.S., the only people I feel a sense of shared situation with is Palestinians. I can relate to Jewish media, cultural, financial and governmental overlords. And how can an American not relate to Jewish radicals who wish to play games with demographics for Jewish benefit? And replace Arab with any Jewish slur for majority Americans, and the statements are pretty much the same. We’re all lesser humans with a strong potential for violence in Jewish eyes. Patterns are what they are.
“The problem is when people fill in the blanks. They see a man running across a field, and a gun shot, and an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at a crowd, and conclude that the Israeli soldier shot into the crowd…” — Witty
This seems like an eminently reasonable supposition to me. Only a committed Zionist would naturally suppose otherwise. If that’s your situation, perhaps you should ask yourself why you wouldn’t make this supposition yourself.
My first reaction would be that space debris fell into the crowd. Really, what are the odds that an Israeli soldier would fire on a crowd? The chances of an innocent Palestinian being shot by an Israeli have to be less than the chances of an innocent Palestinian being hit by space debris falling to earth.
That from those four unrelated observations you conclude something nefarious, says to me that you would be unqualified to serve on a jury.
unrelated observations? Are you serious? One observation, in your own words, is “an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at a crowd” and another is “a gun shot”. I’m the one who’s not qualified to be on a jury?
I really can’t decide whether to laugh or to be glad that I’m not accused of a crime for which you’d sit in judgment of me, Mr. Witty!
Gellian,
I’m an auditor, and occassionally have been engaged to conduct “forensic” auditing (which is the search for evidence of fraud).
Indicators are not proof. Skepticism is the critical value.
You painted a picture from the blanks, that might have been true, but might not have. I won’t hang someone on that basis. You’d do well if I were in a jury, as the burden of proof for me is actually proof.
Right, Mr. Witty – you prove my point. I don’t hang people on flimsy evidence either. My point is, you come into a scene, a man is shot, and there’s an Israeli soldier holding the gun pointed in his general direction. My inclination is to suppose that the soldier shot him. Your inclination, as far as I can tell, is to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt — because he’s Israeli, and to look for some other cause.
Neither of us may be right. But which do you think is the more logical position to begin from?
In the set of facts presented, you don’t know if there were multiple parties with weapons, the only knowledge that there was a gun shot but noone saw who shot it. You don’t have a clue if the scene was a crime scene and the Israeli soldier arrived after the fact.
You imagine between the dots, like looking up at the night sky and declaring “there is certainly a lion there”.
Prejudice.
Richard – Gellian’s statement is that one does draw conclusions from observations, reasonably so – that is a manner in which one arrives at conclusions. You judge Gellian unfit to sit as a juror, because of her subjective statement. Presumably, you are not inhuman, so your opinions are subjective also, despite your lack of understanding that fact.
But a trial is held to hear evidence; from the totality of evidence, a judgment is arrived at by the body of jurors, not by one. You have prejudged her capability of hearing evidence and coming to an agreement with other jurors based on the evidence provided, without yourself having any evidence for your own conclusion. You demonstrate here the process of prejudice, Richard..
You consistently discount the views of others; consistently you judge others; consistently by such judgments, you contradict the more philosophical statements you make. You confuse the hell out of everyone, because your dialogue has no consistently beyond the repetition of that pattern.
I would assume that a dissenter that seeks to do good in the world would CARE whether they were “filling in the dots” or seeing clearly.
You don’t know what my assumptions and goals are, and how my arguments fit into that, ask.
I’m in the mood to quibble and inclined to start with myself. I assumed gender in my comment regarding Gellian – a habit which I fight against, for reasons I consider sound.
I find dealing with the comment dispersion difficult – but so worthwhile! Danaa, I can understand the basis for speculation about the person behind Richard Witty’s words.
I’m going to go to the end of the thread, and recapitulate.
circumstantial evidence:
Evidence that proves a fact by means of an inference. For example, from the evidence that a person was seen running away from the scene of a crime, a judge or jury may infer that the person committed the crime.
That is an example of evidence that would not be admissable in court. A person running and a crime committed is a coincidence, unless there is some other causative connection.
Rules of evidence support that assertion of unfair arrest.
Its just that the skepticism must be color-blind. You proved my point on the Israeli example, that you bring prejudices to bear (V, Todd, and Gellian).
I was merely trying to point out that circumstantial evidence is involved in many crime cases where there is no smoking gun, so to say. In a real court case there would be more dots connected. The court or jury may reason
from circumstances known or proved to establish by inference the principal fact.
BTW the Nuremberg trial is quite a case in that the rules of evidence were thrown out
intentionally, as well as criminal procedural law; forensic evidence was hardly used at all.
Wrong Witty.
A person running away from a crime scene would be admissible evidence.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
If that was all the evidence the prosecution had, the individual would not be prosecuted.
There is a distinction between what is admissible evidence–and it would be–and evidence sufficient to begin a prosecution–which it would not.
But if for some reason, the individual was charged based on that evidence, the evidence would be admissible.
“That is an example of evidence that would not be admissable in court. ”
You are wrong. In fact, fleeing is generally considered evidence of guilt. It is not sufficient to prove guilt, but it most certainly is admissible in court, and is frequently part of the body of evidence that is presented in a trial.
Fleeing is an indicator.
Assessing that someone is “fleeing” is already a biased interpretation. What is observed is that someone is running. To take that to “fleeing” means an interpretation of association with a specific event, that just ain’t necessarily so.
Skepticism is a better investigatory attitude.
Should have kept reading before posting above.
You are an auditor; you search for evidence of fraud. Yet,
…you imagine between the dots, like looking up at the night sky and declaring “there is certainly evidence of prejudice here.”
There is a qualitative difference between the conclusions reached by a juror, drawn from evidence, and the conclusions that a person makes based on observation. Your analogy is invalid; the two situations are not comparable. Your opinion is not objective; it is not evidence-based, it is a subjective conclusion, based on an observation!
Witty, someone running or fleeing or whatever you call it, from the scene of a crime has probitive value.
No one said it’s conclusive, nor has anyone said it establishes guilt. As you say, guilt is established by the totality of the evidence, not one tiny sliver.
And anyone confronted with that tiny sliver has the right to take the stand and deny it.
You would certainly agree that a soldier with a gun standing above a recently shot civilian, would have his gun seized for testing, and be thoroughly questioned.
It’s called pursuing a lead.
A suggestion to pursue a lead is a DIFFERENT question than evidence that proves.
Witty, it’s quite obvious you are not a lawyer. Why pretend to be one? Your words
contain amazing ignorance. I hope you are a better accountant for your client’s sake.
Not a lawyer here, but running from the scene would probably be admissible in court. I think the defense would question whether it proved anything, and by itself it wouldn’t, but just the fact of running would be allowed in.
BTW, a smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. If you didn’t see the shooting, you are still inferring an event that you didn’t see, though with very strong circumstantial evidence.
Jason: “If you didn’t see the shooting, you are still inferring an event that you didn’t see, though with very strong circumstantial evidence.”
The definition of the word ‘inferrence’ is: “The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.”
I would translate your statement in toto as: In a court of law, where there is evidence presented about an action, those who make a determination regarding the action, based on the evidence, still are making an inferrence.
OK.
Gellian’s statement: “This seems like an eminently reasonable supposition to me. Only a committed Zionist would naturally suppose otherwise.”
Definition of supposition: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation. Gellian’s statement is that one’s suppositions are a starting point, s/he’s inclined to agree but understands that whether one does or not reflects bias held by the person considering the situation.
Your ‘not a lawyer’ statement moves us into a courtroom, as others have, where evidence is presented and various issues are argued, and conclusions are drawn; that is the process by which legal judgments are reached.
No one here saw a smoking gun nor was that description included in the four items originally presented.
Your statement regarding a hypothetical “you” in a hypothetical courtroom doesn’t change the nature of Gellian’s statement, although it might be seen as raising once again the issue of prejudice. I’m responding because Gellian’s statement was clear: s/he considered the information given a starting point.
For reference, a soldier that is not under duress in fact, that does not apply skepticism before he/she “shoots” is a poor soldier.
Why would you suggest a lower standard for a dissenter?
“a soldier that is not under duress in fact, that does not apply skepticism before he/she “shoots” is a poor soldier.”
Oh, Richard Witty, sometimes you say the darndest things.
The analogy was to a dissenter that shoots first, finds out later.
And Witty has never been a soldier, nor has he been a dissenter to the hasbara orthodoxy that rules over the dissent comprising most of this blog and the very reason for its existence.
I have a report which shows specifics of the death of children in Gaza, it is gunshot fire to the head. Don’t tell me that these are “mistakes” or some other element, be skeptical on your own time with your own life.
I do not need to gain any more knowledge on what is taking place, I have seen things with my own eyes. There is more testimony by bystander than can be held in a hundred volumes, observers give us more testimony of the atrocities every day. Human rights organizations sing the same chorus, essentially you are skeptical to the level of being imbecilic, it is either that or you have other motives. There is no more debate in the subject, you may continue to converse with yourself.
I should have said the #1 reason for the violent death of Palestinian Children.
Yes, that is true. The majority of Palestinian children who die violently are shot in the head or the upper torso, indicating that in the majority of cases they were shot with the intent of killing them. The head is a small target, requiring precise aim, and is the target of choice if the intent is to kill.
These asses shoot through walls and doors into homes, they sniper on roofs and shoot innocent people in their own homes. They throw explosives and percussion grenades in neighborhoods at night as they go by in armored vehicles. They protect settlers while the pillage land and violently accost the Palestinians. They do not need your skepticism which is merely a device to inaction at this time.
You are not going to get anywhere with Witty! And I feel it only fair to warn you that the owner of this site has announced, in a special post, that he will not accept any “visciousness” towards Witty. The penalty for that is banning. Witty has not changed anything, and refuses to accept the plainest facts. It’s been this way since I’ve been reading this blog.
I guess it is how you interpret viciousness Mooser, apparently viciousness by abject denial of what has and is happening to the Palestinians must be acceptable, whereas polite protocol is the real issue we should tackle with abandonment. To each his own
V, you will have to ask Phil about it. As I remember, he posted a special post to lay out the rules for commenting. One of them was not being “viscious” to Witty.
So don’t say you haven’t been warned.
Funny, isn’t it? A guy who made his living by accounting, adding things up, but seems to start every new day by completely cancelling all of Zionism’s deficits and bad checks. Maybe that’s what made him so sucessful as an accountant?
Anyway, here’s what Witty works out to, when you get all the percentages figgered:
“give us back the third holiest site for Naive-Americans“
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/08/israel-clueless-racists-claim-right-to.html
1,300 Palestinians in Gaza murdered by Israel, and now Witty’s the victim?
On the issue of Israeli policy and practice Mister Witty keeps double books. He’s like
Madoff’s lone accountant for the larger enterprise that was the Madoff ponzi scheme.
The only solution for Witty is to send him to israel for a month and put him up with a nice so-called jewish family (ie, one that considers themselves jewish on the say so of their parents and ID card). Oh yes, we may need to give him a crash course in hebrew so he can actually follow the daily discourse israelis are having among themselves. If, within a month he is not shocked by the utter racism, meanness and incivility of people’s everyday conversation there – towards arabs, fellow jews and, especially the haredi (whom most seculars absolutely abhor with a passion) nothing will help, as he must be judged to be beyond the reach of reason.
of course, he may enjoy the concentrated derision directed at american jews (which he can understand – and hear only in Hebrew, alas) – most israelis consider them somewhere between pale pathetic jerks and useful idiots (useful with their wallets that is). lately though the average american jewish tourist is coveted for another prized possession – their american passport. I know few israelis who do not wish they could have gotten out and the younger once are running as fast for the door out as their means allow. Oh yes, they love israel and would dearly enjoy the occasional home visit.
That would be quite an experiment, won’t it?
You’re definitely not going to get to a one-sided denunciation.
I prefer the mutually positive approach of honoring each community’s concerns and attempting to solve problems.
As I’ve said numerous times, I gravely disagree with the conclusion by either propaganda mill, that the other is essentially corrupt or diseased. The most that I conclude, for both communities is that they require positive reform.
I already bear a great deal of sympathy for Palestinian condition and historical experience. Denial is not an accurate descriptor.
And, I am NO apologist for settlement expansion in the slightest. I am an advocate for law, but that includes law for all parties, not selective.
I hate to break the news to you Witty, we do not have two “equals” resisting each other here. If you apply the law you will be hated by every Zionist because this is not a “lets be fair” type of situation. What you do have is he oppressed and an oppresor, the colonists and the colonized toward non-existence. The 4th most powerful armed forces attacking a population of mostly unarmed civilians and half of them are children. You have people forced into pauperism and near starvation, and every known protocol of law between nations scoffed at and flaunted with impunity. Oh, but you know this already – but lets include “law for all parties, not selective.”
The article is merely a mild microcosm of one type of situation that is probably magnified one hundred fold with similar situations. However, why waste our time with the facts? Lets advocate for law, however, the plain truth be told there is no rule of law anywhere, least of all in this scenario we discuss.
NO apologist for settlement expansion? Now that’s big of you Witty. I take it you take the settlement expansion back to 1967? No? And no significant Palestinian right of return either, huh? What a guy! You call that mutal respect and mutal empathy?
I will continue to accurately describe the conflict as a conflict, and not primarily as an oppression.
If you don’t see Hamas in particular, participating in cycles of conflict, periodically controlling the progression, then you are blind.
Even in strongly asserting Palestinian rights and needs, I will never ignore Israel’s.
If you call yourself a dissenter, that is willing to ignore the rights of the other, then you are what you criticize.
Witty, that was a perfect reply, thank you for fully revealing who and what you are, and not what you have been striving to appear.
“I will continue to accurately describe the conflict as a conflict, and not primarily as an oppression.”
Perfect, outstanding!
Because with denying the oppression you will NEVER come to –
“Even in strongly asserting Palestinian rights and needs, I will never ignore Israel’s.”
Actually you ignore both in your above pronouncement, the misdiagnosis is indeed deadly, and I heartily thank you for coming out of the closet. You are not good for either the Palestinians or Israel. You can call me what you like, I do not need to describe you because you have amply showed what you are.
The significance of accurately naming the conflict as a conflict, is that the remedy is in mutually respectful negotiation, rather than armed conflict or in BDS forms of warring.
If you watch dogs fight, the period of fighting is temporary, and ends in some conflict resolution (one yeilding and both move on).
There really isn’t much genuine social role for those whose only identity is as solidarity. Its an artificial condition, usually promoted by opportunists.
It is also a uniquely male warring role. Much feminist analysis of conflict, is that the women work, and the men posture and fight and eat most of the food in exchange for “protection”.
By describing the oppression and its reaction as a conflict, you imply that it is an equal conflict between equal forces. Which in turn implies that it is not oppression.
This is like saying, since a wall divides Gaza and Israel, they are equally separated from each other, ignoring the fact that Israel has manned watchtowers on the walls, from which they shoot Palestinian farmers on their own land, within Gaza, who come within the range of their guns.
Was it a “conflict” when the Nazis surrounded the Warsaw ghetto with tanks, just because the Jews inside the walls had guns and sometimes shot back?
The significance of calling it a conflict is that the critical events that occur, occur by interactions in which each party affects the other.
Settlement expansion does not fit that profile. Settlement expansion is oppression in my description.
The initiation of a state of war in Gaza and in Lebanon, were descriptions of conflict. Hezbollah initiated and confirmed that it desired to be in a state of military conflict by escalating shelling of Israeli civilian towns.
Hamas initiated an active state of military war and confirmed that it desired to be in a state of military conflict by escalating the shelling of Israeli civilian towns.
Mutually reinforcing escalation is not oppression, but conflict.
The harms stop by conflict resolution, as they have in the past, and will more effectively if conflict resolution is invested in, rather than different tactics of war.
You could equally well describe the activities of Hezbollah and Hamas as “self-defense”. But this, again, would correctly cast Israel as the aggressive party.
The problem with “conflict” is that it is a morally neutral term for a situation in which the sides are morally incomparable.
This, of course, is the usual cry of the Hasbara Bird – “Moral Equivalence!” There is no moral equivalence in this situation. The guilt of the Israeli side is overwhelming because its power is overwhelming. Yet whenever evidence of Israeli crimes emerges, the Zionist apologists cry out for “balance.” But when Arab crimes are reported, any comparison to Israeli actions is condemned as “moral equivalence.”
Not primarily an oppression?
Hamas in particular is participating in cycles of violence, controlling the progression?
You are what you criticize.
Those myopic Warsaw Ghetto guys in the old days, why did they ignore so much
the rights of others?
I must hand it to Richard Witty, he is good at his job.
By the time I finished reading the comments, I forgotten about the pregnant Palestinian woman with 1 year old child facing hanger in less than three months, because her husband was arrested by Israelis.
Each of his arguments in the comments led people further from the article.
Which is the whole point. Lets spend time on splitting hair in four while another acre of land slips quietly into the Israeli pocket …….
The article was an anonymous anecdote, designed to evoke Pavlovian rage.
That was accomplished. You find that informative?
The article is what I described above, a microcosm of what goes on constantly. In any morally sound person it should elicit empathy and a desire to tear down a system that is so unjust (in fact, this should be the desire of the Israelis). No one displayed rage, but you display a delusional desire to make the true example what it is not. I found it informative because it is very difficult to grasp the whole or the magnitude of the atrocities unleashed on the Palestinians, and sometimes this is best displayed in a small part of the unseemly whole. What I do not find informative is you Witty.
V,
You should engage me in content discussion if you want to hear my insights, many of which you will agree with enthusiastically.
Even in this thread, you ignored a critical historical reference to the 1950’s firming of the exclusion of Palestinians from the land (three laws prohibiting return, prohibiting access to courts, and state acquisition of “abandoned” lands). Up until that point, the ethnic cleansing was solely a wartime series of incidents. At that point, the ethnic cleansing became institutionalized.
The primary polarity that we have is in the language of whether the conflict is an “oppression” disease, or a “conflict” disease.
An oppression disease is cured by resistance and solidarity. A conflict disease is cured by mediation. Even situations that are currently oppressions, ultimately cannot be resolved through those means. The goal of resistance and solidarity is to get to a status where conflict resolution is possible.
So, I don’t see conflict resolution in your quiver at all (you individually and you collectively). Not currently, not as a tool for the future. And, on that basis, I distrust the approach.
I reason that the prospect of “get them on the run” is equally possible from what I hear, especially from some of the less humane that post here.
Up until that point, the ethnic cleansing was solely a wartime series of incidents.
No, it was a plan. And the plan included the demolition of houses as part of the wartime strategy. The ethnic cleansing was planned from the beginning. The 1950s laws merely institutionalized it. And that created the oppression. The oppression you refuse to acknowledge.
And why does Israel conduct these raids, if not to provoke Palestinian rage?
About as informative as the Diary of Anne Frank. Or the bible anedotes–how about those for some coincidents? Who actually wrote any of that stuff? And why?
I certainly find it informative.
Not only the article, but your reaction to it.
Posting the article does NOT address settlement expansion. That is an example of a bait and switch, Eva.
You want to talk about stopping settlement expansion, then do it. We agree.
You want to talk about civil rights for Palestinians, lets do it. We agree.
You want to describe Israelis as demons, we disagree.
So, now settlement expansion and life under the occupation are not part of the same cloth? And the Warsaw Ghetto is not part of the cloth spun from the invasion of Poland? All just feeble and dishonest attempts to form a star pattern in the sky?
I think anyone with a moral compass would describe the Israeli occupation as demonic–and the settlements and the lack of civil rights for Palestinians are part and parcel of that occupation.
And the soldiers that arrested the man, the legal system that will likely keep him behind bars without due process are likewise part of the “demonic” occupation.
To preempt an expected highlight of your response, n.b., that I did not call Israelis demonic.
A plan.
It certainly was somebody’s and some organization’s plan. Coordinated actions don’t occur without some coordination (self-evident).
The attribution is of Pappe, is that ethnic cleansing was THE Zionist intent (perhaps meaning “every” Zionist, perhaps meaning just the weight of cumulative isolated efforts, and failing to distinguish between which actions were genuinely defensive versus which were opportunistic).
And, then after that definition of what actually happened, there is the question of interpretation of whether it was just or right or not. Around Zionism, to answer that question at all, whether to do something otherwise wrong – even evil, was necessary or compelling for some other reason.
A means-end question.
So, I am posing that certainly terror is a means-end question, that I regard as wrong nearly always (and I mean always), and that even BDS is punitive and causes harm, and unless is weighed as a wrong (that may be necessary), that dissenters are not sufficiently inquiring into their adopted strategy.
So, if this site is a discussion site, then those concerns should get the light of day. If its just a propaganda or rallying site (as are many many others), then I should not be permitted to comment (with the consequences of disrepute and violation of Phil’s fundamental aversion to censorship).
Historians are in conflict as to whether Dalet Plan D was essentially to be a defensive “temporary occupation” or an aggressive expansion, an occupation. Although the early phase of it was couched as defensive, the later phase was less clear; in fact
the military leaders were given blank checks. The proof is in the pudding of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
Here’s some context for Witty’s “means and end question.”
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2007/08/06/Commentary-Embarrassing-history/UPI-12481186413427/
And, if you want to talk about Hamas as universally virtuous, we disagree.
And, if you want to talk about Hamas having no influence on the direction of events, we disagree.
It would be a fruitful discussion to talk about goal(s) of dissent and then appropriate and prospectively successful means.
Witty, you’re way of picking apart a tree here and there to ignore the forest reminds me of the way
the Holocaust revisionists operate. further, you would call those people “Holocaust deniers;”
yet you object when people here see you as an Israeli occupation denier. You want
the American/English rules of evidence–are you familiar with how such rules of evidence were tossed out at Nuremberg?
“Even in this thread, you ignored a critical historical reference to the 1950’s firming of the exclusion of Palestinians from the land (three laws prohibiting return, prohibiting access to courts, and state acquisition of “abandoned” lands).”
Witty, you have a terrible habit of tearing events apart so nary the twain meet. You cannot have the expropriation (theft) without the expulsion. What is done with the land has been inextricably tied to what has been done to the people. You do not have a conflict, you have an occupation by forces light years ahead in strength to the people they oppress (militarily through weaponry, and instrumentally by the illicit support of the Euro-American alliance). This superiority which was bequeathed by those with colonial baggage is how EVERY colony has historically been established, it has nothing to do with a mere equal conflict – if it looks like a dog and acts like a dog it is dog. I must insist that you stop this silly spurious argument, you just proceed to make a fool out of yourself. The only thing holding back to some small degree this process of genocide is the watching world, it proceeds and is beginning to gain acceleration – it does not cease, it haltingly advances and the loser each time is the oppressed. End of story.
The expulsion occurred. It was temporary and tentative until the laws were passed. If you don’t acknowledge the institutional significance of the laws then you are not a great student, more a reactionary. “Everything my opponent says is false.” is not wisdom.
Why don’t you practice what you preach?
No one is ignoring the significance of the laws. Rather it is you ignoring the significance of the acts of expulsion. During the war Palestinians were expelled or frightened off, many times their homes and villages were completely demolished and those that weren’t were confiscated by the government and inhabited by Jews. The IDF issued orders to shoot to kill any Palestinian who was crossing the borders, even when the Israeli government was well aware that over 90% of those crossings were by Palestinians who were simply trying to return to their homes or tend their fields. Israel refused the petitions of Palestinians to be allowed to return to their homes in peace (those from Haifa made a specific appeal during the war), and as the war continued on into October the Palestinians, having seen what happened when they abandoned their homes in the face of violence, became less likely to simply flee. There is ample evidence from Israeli archives that the IDF became more violent and murderous during this time in the face of this growing reluctance of Palestinians to flee their homes, and committed more massacres and outright expulsions in this time period than they did earlier in the war. All of this is firm evidence that the expulsions were not in fact “temporary and tentative” prior to the legal enshrinement of the expulsions. You don’t destroy hundreds of whole villages as a “temporary and tentative” measure.
“Everything my opponent says is false.” is not wisdom. Again, heed your own general advice. It usually can be applied more aptly to your own “arguments”.
The expulsion occurred. It was temporary and tentative until the laws were passed
Shoot-and-cry meets steal-and-cry.
Before the new comment policy, I barely glanced at the comments here because they just seemed like a lot of pointless and unpleasant noise. After the change, things looked a little better, and I started reading and participating. I have since encountered the Witty phenomenon. There is some meaningful discussion here, but far too much of it is limited to senseless back-and-forths with a prolific, provocative and argumentative comment0r – posing as a moderate voice of reason – who seems to add very little of substance. If the moderators will not do anything about this (and Phil has explained why), I suggest that we ignore Mr. Witty’s tiresome provocations.
Yep, good idea. I should practice what you preach.
You prefer unanimity?
I prefer free and honest discussion. There is no reason to doubt the story in this thread. It is consistent with a huge body of evidence collected by Betselem, Al Haq and many other Israeli, Palestinian and international organisations. To express pseudo-rational reservation of judgement in such a case is dishonest, point-scoring argumentativeness. I am more than happy to discuss the Is/Pal situation with anyone who truly wishes to discuss it in good faith, as opposed to defending her “team” or scoring points. I have better and hopefully more constructive things to do with my time.
So participate in free and honest discussion.
If you want to turn a discussion from topic drift, bring it back to the issues that find relevant.
Please don’t assault me for following up on the invocation of Ilan Pappe as authority, and questioning that.
The story was of unfair and insensitive arrest.
You could take my repeated assertion of advocacy for equal due process under the law as the fulcrum of discussion with me, on the question of an unfair arrest.
I will remain a skeptic. Phil, as a journalist, should as well. It is my human responsibility. It is his human AND professional responsibility. Skepticism is non-judgement. Its neither belief nor disbelief.
Witty says he “will remain a skeptic.”
However, plese notice over the years how he has remained a skeptic plastered to one side of the coin of reality. This would not matter, except his side of the coin has dictated American foreign policy for many decades and is the only one flashed in
the USA MSM for public consumption. The basis for a free country, the give and take
of facts and ideas for citizens to become informed, their first duty, is negated.
No, tell us more about that “dog fight” you speak of, the one between the pit bull and the
poodle?
History never repeats itself in exactly the same way. How many American soldiers or Hessians (Blackwater, et al) or IDF or settlers have ever been punished for despicable acts against the occupied Palestinians? Propaganda apart, there was no mechanism in the Nazi administration of the occupied regions for protection, of the population against German abuses and atrocities. No German was ever found in the wrong and punished, no matter what he did to a Russian.
I am ashamed of my country and of its senior partner, Israel, both of which I support against my will.
Witty: “solely a wartime series of incidents”
Sort of like the Wannsee conference in 1942 up until when?
For God’s sake, I have been reading Mondoweiss for a year, and I see ever new sets of commentators trying to acquaint Witty with the facts, meeting with his complete obdurancy, and then leaving. He will kill this place. His unfounded accusations of Phil’s complete journalistic corruption (Witty maintains Phil was “minipulated” or yes “brainwashed” during his (Phil’s) visit to Gaza. Phil just sat there and took it.)
At that point, this blog was done for- Phil showed us exactly how much cared. Not enough to speak up and respond to Witty’s accusations. At that point Phil might as well have let Witty take over the blog for Hasbara! Of course, Phil is writing for an audience far above the proles in the comment section. Witty can have that, there’s no high-cless peoples there, none of the alrightniks.
I have asked, begged, Phil to get in touch with Mark Elf of JSF to get some direction on how to run a comment section in an anti-Zionist blog, from someone who has been sucessful at it.
Unfortunately, as Phil’s post indicates, since this blog has not met his expectations (gee, I wonder why) he is willing to let it languish, and leave the comment section to Witty’s guiding hand.
Mooser, not to worry, at least on my part – I know exactly what Witty is doing. Actually, I appreciate having a verbal football to show how silly and ludicrous these points are. People like Witty are a dime a dozen, they can be found all over the blogosphere. In fact, he is so ridiculous to any informed commenter it is almost a form of entertainment…LOL However if it disturbs you we can just launch an ignore Witty campaign and let him languish.
How is it that “ever new sets of commentators try to acquaint Witty with the facts” and
simultaneously you imply there are always so many “proles in the comment section?”
How do you differ from either of your characterizations? J accuse Witty?
Meh. The Wittys of the world are as the sands of the Sinai, and this one is far from the most annoying of the lot.
I think every anti-Zionist site should have at least one.
I agree that Witty is an important voice, otherwise Mondoweiss would be a one-sided anti-Zionist blog (whatever happened to Jake in Jerusalem, for example?). The frustration is that most of Richard’s postings are tapioca-bland, almost robotic recitations of his position that the situation in Palestine does not constitute “occupation,” but is a “conflict.” That makes Witty a polarizing figure, and a stimulant of heated conversation on the comments section.
I do not support posters going after Witty personally (such as signing a personally insulting post as “Richard Witty’s Momma,” or “Richard Witty’s Conscience,” for example). But does anyone here believe that this blog entry would have nearly 150 comments, if it weren’t for the venerable Witty tirelessly responding to every anti-Zionist comment? He’s an essential ingredient to the dialogue.
Oscar, quantity is not quality. Arguing red herrings and technicalities is just a waste of time and space. A reasonable Zionist interlocutor actually willing to discuss, convince and be convinced would have been nice. Unfortunately Witty is not it. I don’t see ideas being clarified and thrashed out here.
By the way, I used to be the “token” Zionist on an anti-Zionist mailing list, which I joined because I wanted to understand and learn, not preach and defend my side at all costs, or play the holier-than-thou moderate in a den of brainwashed extremists. End result: I was forced to rethink my positions, and I hope I helped others to do the same. I don’t see that happening here.
What we really have with Witty’s “sharing” is almost complete nonsense, the issue not wanting to roam from the deceptive tags of the MSM which is completely reprehensible on the issue. Until you come down to specifically what is taking place you have no remedies, you have a superstructure of nonsense built on a faulty foundation.
Unfortunately in the states you have a myriad of entities from so-called news to supposed ME expert organizations and laughable academic institutions singing the same deceptive song. With that atmosphere you learn and can properly approach nothing in this tragedy correctly. We have watchdogs of this spurious view regarding Israeli colonial occupation and the Palestinians resistance that even try to brand and expel individuals from any platform they have. In this type of atmosphere you learn nothing because the very facts are denied at the outset. It is the essence of freedom in any setting to be able to challenge the reigning orthodoxies, and when this is denied by constant haranguing about supposed propaganda, and attempting to paint any viable process as a mere political ploy is the opposite of any pretense to freedom an individual claims. This is true in any forum, and if you think this is a separate issue and not connected to a larger campaign you are sadly mistaken, if I might say it is the same shit just a different place –
CHALLENGING MONOLITHIC CONVENTIONAL IDEAS AND REIGNING ORTHODOXIES
Mooser and Witty
Conway Twitty
Itty-bitty
Polka dot
Bikini
Island 2 bomb
2 nuke
Neither is Cool Hand Luke
mooser
You give phil too little credit. He has done an outstanding job of limiting discussion of the Mid East disaster to those effusions falling comfortably within the “limits of acceptable discourse” (as Dershowitz, Abrams and others like to refer to it). Remarks outside these carefully circumscribed boundaries are swiftly eliminated.
A totally censored environment in which comments languish in the “awaiting moderation” vortex, often for eternity.
Tell me if this material is different than the “proles commenting on Mondoweiss”–
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/
What the heck is Mooser talking about?
So, you say the question of whether the situation is a primarily a cycle of violence, a conflict; or an oppression, is an irrelevant question?
You don’t consider that that determines the appropriate humane remedy (if that is what you seek)?
It’s all three, quite obviously. So it’s not even a question.
Who started it was relevant to the Hatfields and McCoys?
More relevant was that eventually the wider society had to get involved and allowing
the two extended families to continue was not in the interest of the larger polity.
There must be a divorce settlement enforced by the larger polity.
The same one that created the shotgun wedding in the first place.
I gave up on this site months ago specifically because of the utter banality of Witty’s distractions. It is tiring to see new commenters spar with him (as I did) as he beats the same dead horses in the same retarded English and manages to accomplish exactly what Eva points out – changing of the subject. Either everyone ignore him or, Phil, jettison this loser – he is an embarrassment and a major distraction to an otherwise great site that I can no longer tolerate as long as he is doing his loyal duty. We are not talking about useful discussions of opinions anymore. His is the most insidious of hasbara even if he is not exactly in cahoots with specific organizations.
If you must implore us not to be “vicious’ to Witty, who I understand is your friend (?)
then I will leave you with this
Witty = Mondo’s Village Idiot
Yes you can print that – it is not vicious – I actually feel sorry for him ….. sometimes
dear fultronix, don’t pity witty. he’s having so much fun. jim byers
Witty is akin to a “holocaust denier” who attacks some trees and misses the forest. Was there really 6 million killed; did they make soap out of jewish flesh; did they make lampshades out of jewish skin? Did they really exterminate jews like cockroaches with Zyklon B? Personally, I can’t distinguish Richard Witty from any Nazi. Can you? How so?
Witty, what is a “dissenter”? How do I know if I or my neighbors are one? Help a guy out…
I will agree not to respond to Witty, if everyone prefers that. Especially if this most recent episode of blindness was mutual – I thought it possible to prevail through discussion. One does at least often enough to make the attempt seem worthwhile.
I will await an indication of consensus.
@ Margaret, I wouldn’t expect anything like a consensus. I value my sanity (what little there is) and only read his comments sparingly. Over a couple of years at Mondoweiss I doubt that I have learned much of interest from him. Witty wants to alter my mindset, not supply me with additional information that could clarify my views.
After this, I will be limiting my response to him much more. Your advice was good, but . how others respond provides a lot of information. He seems more fluent than before, which interests me and provokes my curiosity. (Or is that just my perception?)
One more reason why Israel has to go.
Shunning as democracy.
The left and left/right.
What are the drawbacks you see shunning to hold for people, including yourself?
You don’t get feedback. You don’t learn what the other person has learned and is willing to convey. You learn how “the other” thinks (hopefully to develop sympathy rather than weapons).
It is the MSM that has been shunning the issues and facts presented on this blog for decades, shunning the Fourth Estate’s responsibility to the American public. Shunning as democracy. Our congress and executive branch have all also been towing the bipartisan line. A river of disinformation and obstruction carrying the highest stakes.
There was no internet in the last days of apartheid SA so we don’t know how the Richard Wittys of the time would have defended Sharpeville and the pass laws or the death of Steve Biko. We don’t have any internet fora dating from the days of Jim Crow and segregation in the US South so we can’t retrieve the words of those who defended that system. Thanks to Richard Witty for an insight into those dead mentalities.
There is very little in the press about Israel’s system of collaborators who are given the choice that the husband of this women will have- eat and feed us information or stay in prison for the rest of your life. Without the collaborators and their handlers Yesha would have been impossible.
Yesha is still impossible. It’s just temporarily manifest in concrete.
Israel isn’t demonic. It’s just run by morons lacking any sense of decency.
Citizen: “Historians are in conflict as to whether Dalet Plan D was essentially to be a defensive “temporary occupation” or an aggressive expansion, an occupation. Although the early phase of it was couched as defensive, the later phase was less clear; in fact”
Most of Israel’s crimes, including ethnic cleansing and land theft, are “couched as defensive”. Then there is this February 6, 1948 quote from Ben Gurion: “The war will give us the land. The concepts of “ours” and “not ours” are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning.
Benny Morris was interviewed on CSpan in May 2008, discussing his research on the actions of Israel in 1948. He explained that Jews killed many Arabs, many innocent Arabs, proportionally more than Arabs killed Jews. But, Morris explained, Jews HAD to do so because “their backs were to the wall.”
Morris seemed enamored of that phrase, “their backs were to the wall.” He repeated it, for emphasis?? for forgiveness??, several times.
Now, I suppose it’s a common enough phrase, “backs to the wall.”
But I must say, it was distressing to hear then-candidate Obama tell a crowd in Davenport, Iowa, in August 2008, that the US would have to do something about Iran because “Israel feels its back is to the wall. We had just come from holocaust [war was over in 1945] and the memory was deep…”
Israel’s killing of Arabs in 1948 was not and cannot be justified by morally childish claims that “our back was to the wall.” Furthermore, the holocaust is now 60 years– TWO generations!! — removed; that claim cannot be asserted any more with any credibility.
In addition, IRAN HAD NO PART IN THE HOLOCAUST ! Iranian Jews were safe in Iran during the war! So Israel can’t credibly claim that holocaust memory related to Iran causes Israel to feel its ‘back is to the wall.’
Finally, Iran is not a threat to Israel in any REAL way. Iran is NO THREAT to Israel or, even less, the US. Israel has spent since 1992 propagandizing itself (and the rest of the world) into perceiving Iran as the next Nazi Germany, but the relationship exists only in the “existential” rhetoric of Israel’s hasbara merchants. Tragically, Israelis have come to internalize their own hasbara, and even more tragically, so has the US president.
wish there was still an edit function — this line:
We had just come from holocaust [war was over in 1945] and the memory was deep…” —
was supposed to follow Benny Morris’s use of the “our backs were to the wall….”, not with Barack Obama’s use of the phrase.
Obama needs to read Robert Baer’s The Devil We Know for an objective view of
Iran, and, hopefully, towards a less insane and suicidal foreign policy in the Middle East. So do our congress people. Fat chance.
“Ben Gurion was so focused on his objective of creating the Jewish State that he set humanity aside for it. ”
This is true. He was a determined and focused man that offended a great many people with his zeal and tone.
“I have actually heard some personal stories involving European Jewish refugees from the Nazis who believed they were “screwed over” by the Zionists because they did not choose to take part in the project. ”
This is also true. Until the mid-70’s, Israeli citizens were not easily permitted to emigrate for example. There were exceptions, but it was only allowed in unusual circumstances. There were false statements made to potential emigres to induce them to immigrate to Israel.
At the same time, loyalty to Israel among citizens is high. The army is regarded as an admired institution mostly, not as shameful, not as something to fundamentally dissent from. People are more upset by military incompetence than anything. (Consider the post-Lebanon report that identified strategic and tactical criticisms, and only incidentally any moral or overtly criminal concerns.)
Ben Gurion regarded the establishment of Israel as the LONG-TERM means to save Jewish lives. The implication that he and others “considered the establishment of Israel as “more important” than individual Jews’ lives (holocaust)” is false and slanderous. Either you misread history, or the people that you listen misread history, and you believe it.
Yes, Shirin, you are correct. I wonder if Ben Gurion knew he was paraphrasing Hitler?
I’d guess he did.
Ben Gurion was so focused on his objective of creating the Jewish State that he set humanity aside for it. He even set Jewish humanity aside for it and was willing to – and did – sacrifice Jewish lives in the interest of achieving his objective. And he is not the only one who found establishing the Jewish State more important than saving Jewish lives during and immediately following the Holocaust. I have actually heard some personal stories involving European Jewish refugees from the Nazis who believed they were “screwed over” by the Zionists because they did not choose to take part in the project.
Again, much of my participation here is an attempt to dialog with Phil on these issues.
He won’t speak with me directly.
I would hope that he would open to discussion of political options and significance. In dialog, Stephen Walt does NOT advocate for resistance or for boycott from what I’ve read.
Norman Finkelstein does.
I read Phil and I hear shifts of who influences him, who he hopes will be the dynamic leader that inspires the masses, but sadly does not inspire to study and reason, but to join a mass movement.
On another progressive blog, I offered to jointly read a work by Finkelstein, or Ilan Pappe, to learn and also to question assumptions and political significance.
I got no takers. I started voluntarily with the Kimmerling book. Kimmerling is no longer alive, but I recommend that someone that knows Pappe ask him of his impression of Kimmerling, his recommendation as a study text.
I personally am very uncomfortable with the “which side are you on” version of politics. I consider myself more creative, more capable of addressing conflicting inferences than that simplicity.
There are some things that are new and particularly urgent, specifically the isolation of East Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine resulting from the specific strategy of settlement expansion.
I’m serious when I say that by adopting the “resistance” description of the political work that you are proposing, you are adopting language and a political approach that advertises to the majority of the world, the majority of your audience, that you aren’t serious about accomplishing your goal.
The hoped for mass movement of BDS, won’t take, especially directed at academic and cultural institutions, even among a sizeable minority or majority of Jews and others that support the assertion of Palestinian nation and color-blind individual rights.
To Phil, please consider if my aunt (as an example of a woman of political and moral integrity) would support a boycott movement against Israel stated vaguely and oriented to academia and cultural institutions. I’m not saying that to seek to change your personal view, but as an example of the UPHILL, literally vain (vanity and impossible) effort of BDS.
If you couldn’t get her, or me, who could you get?
Witty, we could have all saved a lot of time if you had told us up front that your talk of dialogue wasn’t directed at us, you only really want to talk to Phil. You have to make yourself clearer.
LOL. So Phil goes on as he does, leaving the regulars here to answer Dick Witty’s mental problems all directed at him. ROFL. Although the USA’s future is at stake,
it’s just another case of two jews disagreeing amongst themselves about the future
of the jews, the best way to assure jewish “continuity.”
I’m sure the founding fathers would be glad to hear it. And my children and grandchildren.
I dialog with you N (and others), when you dialog respectfully with me.
When you infer racism or “Israeli plant” or some fundamental (rather than incidental) ignorance, I have to relate to you other than as in conversation.
Richard, I read some of your comments at Realistic Dove, which impressed me differently than remarks made here. Because of the way you expressed yourself in comments there it seemed like we should be able to reach agreement about some things, but the willingness to do so never seems apparent when one reads your comments here.
Regarding BDS: Others here have presented information regarding BDS; imo, we all benefit from collective wisdom, individually evaluated.
Non-violent political resistance has been used effectively to achieve goals in the past. You state your opinion that it advertises a lack of seriousness; on what do you base that opinion?
I personally prefer to speak to people directly. To share my math, how I conclude what I do, and to learn from them (even if its just to learn how attitudes poll out).
I, like Phil, am somewhat of a contrarian. In a presentation by an Israeli booster, I’ll ask provocative but respectful questions. “Do you honestly believe that Israel is doing all that it can to realize peace?”, “Yes”, “So, you think that expanding settlements enhances the prospect of peace?” to a Jerusalem Post reporter that presented at a local shul.
Here, surrounded by anti-Israeli advocates motivated by a gamut of motivations (which very few will expose to the light of day, even their names), I prefer to offer an alternative to the angry.
But feedback, to be of value, requires the person who is feeding back to acknowledge more of what the other says than just that what was written has been read.
In receiving feedback, one gains understanding, and has more data on which to draw conclusions about what the other thinks. I don’t think one can learn ‘how’ another thinks – and the assumptions made about another may mislead one, even as assumptions made about oneself can mislead one. Misunderstanding; expectations, all sorts of things enter into our communications with others.
There is always the danger of misapprehension and projection certainly.
Actually talking though informs greatly, moreso than condemnation.
I think you’re uncomfortable with people knowing which side you’re on.
A.F.
Bulls-eye!
Anybody here wanna pick Witty as his foxhole buddy? How about Israel?
Richard Witty says:
There are many innocent ways that anecdotes can misrepresent history. One is that people see what they see, but not always accurately. I just watched the Russian movie “12″, a version of the play and film “12 Angry Men”, in which prejudicial assumptions and peer pressure resulted in witnesses misinterpreting.
The problem is when people fill in the blanks. They see a man running across a field, and a gun shot, and an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at a crowd, and conclude that the Israeli soldier shot into the crowd, and substantiated by a press report repeating the original misreporting.
Our experience is valid. Our interpretation of we actually experience, whether filling in blanks falsely or just allowing others to use our experience for political propaganda ends, isn’t always.
Further investigation to discern what is assumption from what is confirmed and coherent and relevant, is enough.
That from those four unrelated observations you conclude something nefarious, says to me that you would be unqualified to serve on a jury.
I’m an auditor, and occassionally have been engaged to conduct “forensic” auditing (which is the search for evidence of fraud).
Indicators are not proof. Skepticism is the critical value.
You imagine between the dots, like looking up at the night sky and declaring “there is certainly a lion there”.
Prejudice.
In the set of facts presented, you don’t know if there were multiple parties with weapons, the only knowledge that there was a gun shot but noone saw who shot it.
I would assume that a dissenter that seeks to do good in the world would CARE whether they were “filling in the dots” or seeing clearly.
You don’t know what my assumptions and goals are, and how my arguments fit into that, ask.
*** *** ***
OK, I’m asking?
Lets do this ongoing. I’ll tell you honestly what I see, how I conclude what I do, what I don’t know and what I am confident of.
The filth of Israel drop napalm on school children and flatten people’s homes with bulldozers while shouting “white power, fuck the niggers” and spray painting “Arabs to the gas chambers” on the walls of Hebron, but Witty insists one shouldn’t “take sides.”
How does one achieve such inspiring equanimity?
A brain tumor, perhaps?
Message to Richard Witty from Elie Wiesel:
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Dec. 10. 1986
I’m on the side of mutual sympathy, respect for the other, and in opposition to disrespect of the other.
But you are extremely disrespectful. To deny that the dispossessed and oppressed party is in fact dispossessed and oppressed, and to present a situation in which one party has been and continues to be dispossessed and oppressed as merely a conflict is to show extreme disrespect.
If you’ve read denial of the experience of Palestinians in my posts, then you’ve misinterpreted.
In looking at the dynamics of how the history unfolds, I conclude that it is more realistic to describe it dialectically, NOT as an oppression in which one side is only victim.
I conclude that each is both victim and cause, and each only partially within their own control.
I consider the description say of Hamas as only victim, or of only vanguard of victims, to be a disrespectful way to refer to them. For example, in seeking to participate in Palestinian politics, they prospectively shifted from resistance to participation. But, that didn’t bear out.
Just one more point about “vicousness” toward Witty. If Witty doesn’t like being treated viciouslessly, isn’t it up to Witty to modify his online conduct to stop provoking people to treat him that way? If we moralistically exempt Witty from the natural reaction to his own behavior, how will he ever learn to get along with people on reasonably normal terms? This may have a larger relevance.
Witty does not care; he lives in the USA, protected by hired goy cops in a gated comminity. If anyone verbally attacks him he can always cut off their head by charging anti-semitism. Witty’s got telflon, and he knows it.
Witty does not care; he lives in the USA, protected by hired goy cops in a gated suburban community. If anyone verbally attacks him he can always cut off their head by charging anti-semitism. Witty’s got telflon, and he knows it.
Maybe it would be good if I explain what I want to do, rather than just doing it. Phil’s not posting a lot of new material – which provides a window of opportunity of sorts. It gives us more time to consider what we are and have been doing in criticizing Richard Witty.
As I’ve mentioned, working effectively with comment threads and the distribution of comments, dealing with the limitations and the opportunities of the comment functions, is challenging for me. Which sometimes makes understanding what others say challenging, much less analyzing what is said. Yet we do so. Perhaps others won’t find it useful, but I started by posting what I thought were the most relevant statements Richard made regarding observation about a particular incident, and about Gellian’s response.
What I do when I criticize someone is make assumptions, draw conclusions and make judgments. We all do these three things, and we all have been criticizing Richard for doing them. Then I apply the same standards I’ve used regarding the other to my own behavior.
As he pointed out, “I would assume that a dissenter that seeks to do good in the world would CARE whether they were “filling in the dots” or seeing clearly.” That’s true of me, and I expect its true of most of us.
What I wish to suggest, to those who wish to participate, is that we consider his words and apply to them the standard he sets in this statement. And that we do this not just to his words but to our own. I copied definitions for four words I think important in doing this, three of his and one additional one, which I intend to post for this purpose.
I’ve never done anything like this, so others may have comments that are valuable -and useful- in doing this. Suggestions, more words, definitions from other sources, responses, all are welcome to me.
And of course, Phil might decide he prefers I not use his blog comment section in this way!
Prejudice:
(wiki) A prejudice is an implicitly held belief.
(merriam-webster) 1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights; especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic.
Assumption:
(wiki) An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
(merriam-webster) 5 b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted.
Conclusion
(wiki) Conclusion may refer to:
* A summary
* Conclusion of law, a legal term
*Logical consequence
* A summary
A summary or recap is a shortened version of the original.
* Conclusion of law, a legal term
In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law.[1] Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles, and are capable of being applied to many situations, rather than being dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a “conclusion of law”.
While questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, which in the common law system is often a jury, questions of law are always resolved by a judge, or an equivalent.
*Logical consequence
Logical consequence is a fundamental concept in logic. It is the relation that holds between a set of sentences (or propositions) and a sentence (proposition) when the former “entails” the latter.
Logical consequence is the relationship between the premises and the conclusion of a valid argument. These explanations and definitions tend to be circular; the provision of a satisfactory account of logical consequence and entailment is an important topic of philosophy of logic.
Judgment:
(wiki)
The term judgment (AE) or judgement (BE) generally refers to the considered evaluation of evidence in the formation of making a decision.
(free dictionary) The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.
We all operate on the basis of assumptions, draw conclusions and make judgments; we all act with prejudice, favoring, disfavoring. We do that about ourselves and about others, constantly. Sometimes injury results from our assumptions, our opinions, our judgments and actions based on all those things. That injury starts with our thoughts about our perceptions.
I think that Richard Witty deserves recognition, for the courage to withstand the continual judgment of others, if for nothing else. But consider whether he deserves recognition for anything else.
Many issues are involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. What standards do we use to make judgments about the conflict and those issues? Richard has brought up many aspects of this which seem involved in our evaluation of his behavior as well as in our evaluation of the issues we discuss, and in this exercise.
We have in this one situation an opportunity to evaluate ourselves as well as the circumstances described, where there are observers and certain data.
We, as well as Richard, made statements that were of our assumptions and judgments. Richard says Gellian lacks the qualifications to be a juror; she exhibits prejudice.
The circumstances of the situation are of particular interest because being a juror involves rights and duties; it requires capabilities; it has standards by which the juror is to arrive at judgment. We all have been acting, in a sense, as jurors, debating standards, rules and law, evidence, etc.
I concluded that Richard made a judgment, based on his observation and without further evidence, about Gellian. I am going to re-evaluate my own conclusion – once my thoughts clear from the circularity of the whole set-up.
I said “if Gellian formed a prejudicial conclusion about “what occurred” from four hypothetical unrelated observations, that she would not be qualified to be a juror.”
So, did Gellian conclude from my hypothetical that an Israeli soldier fired into a crowd. She confirmed that she did. I described a number of plausible alternative scenarios from the same observed facts.
My point of the whole exercise is that in almost all cases more than simplistic information is important to determine:
1. What actually happened
2. How it fits into the context of other events (including how the events may rationally be perceived by others with different roles)
3. Its political significance
4. What can be improved
If that process is undertaken as a positive effort to actually answer the questions, towards gaining either a shared or at least respected understanding, then much progress is possible.
But, it starts at skepticism, at questioning the prospect of one’s own prejudices. Being willing for something different than what you expected to be true.
Dick Witty – did you happen to notice the title of this thread ? or even survey its content ? WTF are you talking about ? – am I supposed to think you are thoughtful ? that you care about ANYTHING ? – do you ? seriously WTF are you talking about ?
Would people please stop responding to Mondo’s Village Idiot – it only encourages him
Fultronix – Please, ignore this area until we’re finished – we’re in the middle of an interaction and completing it isn’t going to encourage something that you can’t ignore for the moment, nor require anything beyond that.
Richard, you did not say that her conclusion was prejudicial. You did not say “If”.
I am going to post my conclusions. What you say regarding your own thoughts about the exercise and your own conclusions are interesting, but your conclusions about your activity differ from mine.
Again, we all do this – and I’ve drawn the same conclusions about myself as what I conclude about you more than once, with a couple of differences – chief of which is that I consider the harm to others I might cause. Sometimes I think I don’t do that often enough, or to a sufficient extent, but I try to keep it in mind in my interactions with others, and I check with them to see if my perception is accurate.
I am concerned that in focusing on you in this way harm might occur. You present yourself and your opinions, evaluate others in a highly critical manner, are sometimes impervious to the criticism of others, sometimes not. I meant this to cause reflection by everyone regarding their own prejudices – and there is no intention to harm you. I hope we all will learn and grow from it. I will check back with you.
‘m backing up and starting over again.
Richard, you did not say that her conclusions were prejudicial. You did not say “If.”
You said:
“That from those four unrelated observations you conclude something nefarious, says to me that you would be unqualified to serve on a jury.”
“You imagine between the dots, like looking up at the night sky and declaring “there is certainly a lion there”. Prejudice.”
Gellian did not say that she concluded from the information you provided that she knew what occurred or that the conclusion was true. She said “This seems like an eminently reasonable supposition to me.” about a conclusion already provided.
Will you look again at the information you provided? Was “the whole exercise” a set problem? It seems like it must have been. Your description of the sets of information is “those four unrelated observations.” What did you mean by observations? What did you mean by unrelated?
The words you wrote are related because of the form in which you present them; there are three “observations” and a conclusion – four sets of information. If one were an observer, writing down one’s response to a visual seen observed, there would be three sets of information about what was observed and one conclusion. Your words, in the four sets of information available to Gellian:
1. “They see a man running across a field
2. and a gun shot
3. and an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at a crowd
4. and conclude that the Israeli soldier shot into a crowd.”
The conclusion already is provided. Gellian says that the conclusion is a reasonable supposition. Then she says, If a certain set of circumstances exist, then… and makes a suggestion based on that set of circumstances being true.
Do you see the difference between what you actually said, what you wish you had said, and what Gellian said, after concluding that it was a reasonable supposition to make on the basis of the information provided?
I’m going to hold off writing anything more, until you have checked back in.
I think a reasonable conclusion from those three observations is that the conclusion is not directly related to the observations. The choice of a conclusion from disparate evidence, is the definition of prejudice.
The tone of the whole exercise was stated as an “if”.
I am making a point about the method of reasoning, not a “judgment” of another individual.
You don’t think that forming a conclusion from potentially unrelated disparate observations is prejudice? What other word would you use?
Sadly, I’ve heard both Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky use language, “what else could it be?” in situations where I constructed plausible alternatives.
Its thin ice relying on even potentially prejudicial conclusions, and then basing a forceful and potentially harmful course of action on that conclusion that one knows may really be something very different than portrayed.
The logic doesn’t just apply to dissent. The criticism of the Bush administration’s “they must still have a WMD program”, is the same one, prejudicially forming conclusions from disparate evidence.
Ignoring to ethically review the consequences to others if that conclusion is enacted.
This comment thread was initiated by a post of “Just one more of the millions of stories of what the occupation means for the civilian population of the West Bank and Gaza .”
An arrest on the West Bank there, an arrest of Judicial Notice of the Occupation here, courtesy of Richard Witty.
The devil is in both the details and lack of them.
The comment thread opened with a dare to me by Gellian, which I rejected taking up on the direct story, until I felt it was reasonable to question the false attribution of authority to Ilan Pappe’s writing.
Gellian opened by asking you what you had to say about Rania’s story.
“How can I know if the particular anonomously reported story is accurate or not? I can’t when it is from the New York Times. I can’t when it is from Electronic Intifada.
Can You?”–Witty
Assuming said story is reported accurately, what do you have to say about it–
other than pointing out it’s anecdotal?
Its a tragedy that the family experienced harrassment and arrest without due process.
The method that I would seek to remedy that institutionally, is to proceed quickly to define consented boundaries, and treaty with Palestine (including law prohibiting active harassment of Israeli civilians).
I regard a state of military law to be repugnant, and should motivate a respectful effort to evolve civilian based law with equal due process for all in each community.
‘Richard Witty’ said: “That from those four unrelated observations you conclude something nefarious, says to me that you would be unqualified to serve on a jury.”
“You imagine between the dots, like looking up at the night sky and declaring “there is certainly a lion there”. Prejudice.”
Without any evidence, you judge another person unqualified to serve on a jury.
You make that judgment of a person about whom in fact you know nothing. You are not talking about qualifications to serve on a jury; you are talking about your personal bias, by which you consider yourself fit to judge others as “unqualified” – substandard.
This is your personal judgment about another person’s abilities.
It is a judgment about a future situation, in a set of circumstances different from those you observed. It is not objective; it is not even an accurate reading of what that person said.
The judgments you make are based on your attitude about other people – your suppositions, opinions, conclusions, interpretations, your previous judgments, your beliefs, your bias, your prejudices.
On the basis of your prejudices, you would have, if you had the power to do so, denied Gellian a right and taken from her an opportunity – to serve on a jury.
“You proved my point on the Israeli example, that you bring prejudices to bear”
No, you failed to do so and doing so demonstrated your own bias and prejudices.
You think you know how other people think, but it’s your imagination, you “fill in the blanks” instead of hearing what is said. You call that being skeptical.
You say: “I prefer the mutually positive approach of honoring each community’s concerns and attempting to solve problems.”
And then you make comments like this: “Don’t whine about some conspiracy to prohibit your research. That is just your or others’ laziness.” “You’re shifting blame currently.”
“You misrepresent my understanding…” “You’re either lying about my comment on another blog, or entirely misunderstood.”
Others don’t lie, they don’t misrepresent you and they don’t misunderstand you.
This is how you see yourself, in denial about your behavior:
“I personally am very uncomfortable with the “which side are you on” version of politics. I consider myself more creative, more capable of addressing conflicting inferences than that simplicity.”
You contradict that with almost every comment.
you are not creative
your are not capable
you don’t “know”
you don’t “see clearly”
your assumptions are not what happened
your arguments make no sense
your conclusions are invalid
your interpretations are biased
your judgments are faulty
you are not respectful
you are not accurate
your assertions are untrue
Worst of all: you deny the harm caused by Israel’s policies and actions.
You waste everyone’s time, shred discussions until people are frustrated and give up. You do it on purpose.
You are not a well-intentioned “dialoger”; you’re a troll.
The ‘Witty’ hasbara propaganda mill
mutually respectful
Hezbollah initiated
Hamas initiated
You should engage me in content discussion
you ignored
The primary polarity that we have
bait and switch
A means-end question
I reason
fruitful discussion
appropriate and prospectively successful means.
if you don’t acknowledge
assertion of advocacy
appropriate humane remedy
That was a respectful approach?
You are overly personalizing my comments to infer some “assault” on Gellian.
Functionally, this space, like MANY other left-oriented “dialogs”, end up very suppressive of dissent from the unanimous thesis. There is so much emphasis on unity for the mass movement, that complexities of truth from multiple perspectives goes out the window.
It is a great irony that the thesis that Phil originally promoted relative to the Israel Lobby, that they functionally attempt to suppress alternative perspectives, occurs so prominently here, and so regularly among the left (not only among the left, did you see the Barney Frank youtube response at a health care debate?).
I think of progressive politics as a collective means to realize good in the world. The opposition of wrongs is a component of realizing good, but NOT the answer itself.
So, again and again, the first relevant effort is to identify the specific goal(s) of dissent and gain relative consent towards that. It can’t just happen from a stacked room though to get rubber on the road. That would yeild an innaccurate assessment even of dedicated and determined dissent.
Maybe I’m presenting too much territory of questions for you to digest, Margaret, from your dismissive list of my concerns.
I think the reality of the situation requires thinking through what is really effective effort, and towards what end.
Richard, I’m done talking to you.
Witty: “It is a great irony that the thesis that Phil originally promoted relative to the Israel Lobby, that they functionally attempt to suppress alternative perspectives, occurs so prominently here, and so regularly among the left (not only among the left, did you see the Barney Frank youtube response at a health care debate?).”
Richard, what planet do you live on? You think AIPAC and Phil are equally powerful?
How often has Phil or his take on issues appeared on TV? Does Phil get an annual dole from
the US taxpayers?
Comments on this entry are closed.