Here is an important piece at Electronic Intifada by Faris Giacaman, a Palestinian student in the United States, on the fecklessness of the "dialogue" movement that says that if only the two sides got together in bull sessions, Israel/Palestine would be healed. No, only pressure works when there’s such an imbalance in power. The piece is significant to me for two reasons. 1, Its moral intelligence is so high and clear that it reminds us what a gift young Palestinian intellectuals who are empowered are now bringing to the world. Recalls for me my Jewish cohort, as we climbed over the concertina wire of antisemitism; and underlines the urgency of getting more Palestinians to the U.S. on scholarships. 2, Years ago Zack Wales, a Columbia student, explained to me that the dialogue groups, which Columbia was funding to a faretheewell, always left Palestinians feeling awful because the pro-Israel kids walked away feeling expiated of their responsibility, and of course did nothing. Giacaman understands this better than either of us. Excerpt:
With the beginning of the Oslo accords in 1993, there has been an entire industry that works toward bringing Israelis and Palestinians together in these "dialogue" groups. The stated purpose of such groups is the creating of understanding between "both sides of the conflict," in order to "build bridges" and "overcome barriers." However, the assumption that such activities will help facilitate peace is not only incorrect, but is actually morally lacking.
The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the "other" point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to "coexistence" or "reconciliation."
Such an approach is deemed "balanced" or "moderate," as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the "moderate" view of this so-called "conflict." Even the word "conflict" is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.
In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and "talking" will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.
The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion. Similarly, during the Indian struggle for emancipation from British colonial rule, Mahatma Gandhi would not have been venerated as a fighter for justice had he renounced satyagraha — "holding firmly to the truth," his term for his nonviolent resistance movement — and instead advocated for dialogue with the occupying British colonialists in order to understand their side of the story.
Indeed an excellent analysis of the “peace industry”. One of the main problems with the Israeli “left” (those must likely to participate in “dialogue”) is a distorted and highly flattering self-image. The film “Waltz with Bashir” is a very good example of this. More often than not, “dialogue” groups reinforce this delusion of goodness and magnanimity, giving it the additional kick of “some of my best friends are Palestinian”. BDS shocks the Zionist left, and hopefully will make some of them ask themselves a few painful questions. Giving them peace prizes and massaging their egos certainly hasn’t helped.
Talk of non-violent resistance and demands that Palestinians act like Ghandi has inspired me to share this excellent debate with ya’ll. Do people honestly think that Westeners will ever put pressure on their client state, Israel?
link to video.google.com
The answer to my above question is no and here is the answer why from a British Prime Minister in the early 1900′s:
“There are people (Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”
- British Prime Minister Henry Bannerman, Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907
Chilling, just chilling.
You know the BDS movement has also been promoted for 30 years, and has achieved nothing, as the terror movement has also been conducted for 80 or so in varying forms and has also achieved nothing.
In fact both have achieved less than nothing, in that they contribute to the fear that exists in Israel that they are under assault.
The goal of BDS remains vague, feelings of anger, NOT specific criteria and objectives that can tangibly be addressed.
The anger is understandable. But, the failure to clarify the objectives of civil disobedience is negligent, potentially to the point of mass criminality if it loses control and doesn’t settle on LAW as its goal. (Law not being afforded to many Palestinians, and the shift from excluded from law to included is substantive. It was what Nelson Mandela was working for an achieved. NOT power, NOT exclusion of the other.)
The assessment of dialog is also innacurate, resentful more than observing. What occurs in Israeli’s consciousness from those encounters is not primarily vanity, but primarily the recognition that Palestinians are human beings.
Ironically, to criticize those humanizing efforts is to compel a situation in which there is NO basis, no means, by which Israelis may confront their assumptions. Their assumptions will remain.
To not note that Israeli consciousness is rationally stimulated by decades of horrific terror incidents is also a moral failing.
To not have the courage or patience to allow Israelis to change to see that Palestinians are human beings, equals, and not only terrorists, is counterproductive.
Its an action, a strategy, NOT a palliative. It changes consciousness, reduces animosity, and is not magic.
And, the change in consciousness is needed to change votes. And, change in Israeli votes is needed to change the politics of political relations to Palestinians, so that they don’t in fact get truly ethnically cleansed.
The assessment of Gandhi is 120 degrees innaccurate, mostly. He was clearly determined and consistent, but part of his consistency WAS understanding the needs (not the advantage) of the opponent, NOT offending them existentially, and limiting his objectives to clear and specific symbolic issues.
Your position Phil? Or just to stimulate dialog?
You now think Israel should not exist?
Can’t you read Mister Witty? Here’s Phil’s stance: “…history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure… The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion.”
The question is not, should Israel exist, but how can Americans support it the way it is and sleep at night, and ditto any Jew who claims universal moral values.
By overlooking the manner of Israel’s founding and the manner of its maintence and expansion–and the reality of power politics, you insult everyone who bothers
to spend time on this blog. No wonder Phil does not bother to talk to you.
Phil says nothing in his article that has not been explained to you endlessly on this blog in the comments section.
What Israelis have to realize is that the assault they perceive they are under is the direct consequence of their assault on Palestinian land, lives and freedom.
Israelis have to come to grips with the idea that the situation is their own fault, that they are not the victims but the perpetrators.
The perpetual process of balanced dialogue only serves to keep them in denial about these necessary truths.
Israel has had 60 years to alter its consciousness, and it has altered it constantly for the worse, embracing racism and dehumanizing brutality. It’s time for a new approach. “Israel only understands force.” Show them some force.
Actually, postherd, you are exactly in agreement with the British Muslim activist in the above video that I linked. I’m glad that there are people who can tell it like it is. I highly recommend that folks watch it since all three people on the panel know that Israel is the oppressor in this regard but put forth different solutions.
can we dialogue with the IDF? they rule the WB
link to haaretz.com
The absence of ANY acknowledgement of the very very negative effects of decades of terror on civilians is a GROSS ommission in the article.
The reality of the relationship between Israel and Palestine is dialectic, and NOT suppression alone.
“We have nothing to apologize for. We are fighting an effort to resist colonial oppression.” (Not a direct quote.)
Well, yes Richard, settlers died here too, and remember Custer and his troops. Try to frame the bigger picture–I’m sure you would readily do that with Custer, as you would readily honor the death of American civil rights carriers, especially the famous three. That was all dialectic too, no? Didn’t we fight WW2, followed by the Nuremberg trials and the institution of crimes against humanity? Hegel dealt in
point, counterpoint, synergy. You need to acknowledge facts on the ground. Apaches terrorized; were they wrong? The Warsaw Ghetto arose, were they wrong? The GROSS ommission is yours, not Phil’s.
The real absence is the acknowledgment on the part of Israel that the “terror” is the direct result of their own oppression. Actions have consequences.
Instead, the Israelis and their apologists howl and moan that the nasty Arabs are killing Jews for no reason at all! “We never did anything to them!”
Israelis have to relinquish their illusions of innocence and victimhood and fact the reality of their responsibility for the Palestinian response.
it could be argued that police have negative affects on criminals, who hate being locked up and executed for their crimes, but the criminals always have the choice to cease the activities that produce negative consequences.
So while Israel might have been traumatized by decades of terror, they had a choice to stop inciting terror. Of course, the terror that Israel have experiences pales into insignificance compared to the terror inflicted by Israel.
“We are fighting an effort to resist colonial oppression”
Talk about Orwellian. Another way to put it would be, we are denying them the right to defend themselves while we break their arms.
Another tragedy of BDS, is that it is likely to extend the period of Israeli occupation of the West Bank, rather than stop it or reduce it.
Tell us, Richard, without reverting to abstractions, and in detail, what you think
Obama should do regarding the I-P situation. For starters, what should he do about the settlements? What should he say about N’s conditions for peace by way of
a two state solution?
The only thing that will stop the Israeli occupation is force.
The fallacy is that somehow, failing to engage in BDS or any other anti-Zionist activity will eliminate the occupation. All it will do is make the Israelis more comfortable as occupiers.
Oh Please Brer Fox, don’t throw us in de briar patch!!!!
In 1993 this dialogue movement made perfect sense to me. At that time it appeared as if the Israelis had finally agreed to allow the Palestinians their state on the West Bank lands. Given the years of struggle against the Israeli invaders, this was seen as an opportunity for reconciliation. I thought it was a great idea. What most of us didn’t realize is that the Israelis were playing this process for time to steal more West Bank land. It was a major deception. I remember Eward Said warning that this was not a serious process, but much to my embarrassment I dismissed him as “extreme”.
Today we know their game. They will give up nothing unless forced. They will happily talk for the next 100 years since that is called winning in their playbook. Only fools would sit down and dialogue with these thieves. Just like Ghandi did not bother engaging in endless negotiations with the British or MLK bother with the white racists, active resistance is the only course left.
Nonviolent acts on the part of the Palestinians and the BDS movement here in the west are the only forms this resistance should take when we realize that the Palestinians can win, but they can only do so by winning the hearts and minds of the western public. BTW don’t let our resident zionist fool us, it is true that boycotts have had little impact over the last 30 years because they were honored only by small groups on the left — today it is beginning to work especially in the Nothern Europe.
Dialogue is just another opportunity for Zionists (like Witty) to engage in their special pleading whereby they control both sides of the discussion and veer it away from anything they find unpleasant. And then, through their media control, they purport to judge the whole issue objectively, and any opposition to their intransigence is called “extremism” or “terrorism.” BDS all the way!
Hegel got synergy, Citizen? You folks are like a library, full of all the stuff I don’t know. And all I need to do is remember to check the little box!
Thanks.
Actually Hegel dialectics: thesis-antithesis-sythesis
i mean synthesis
I need a study program that provides a way to discuss ideas, because dialogue *is* important to understanding – reading isn’t enough, on it’s own.
Thanks for the message – wakes up, shakes head, heads out to water…
oh noes it’s too late to water until after six
instead of “once more unto the breach,” looks like it’s time to go grocery shopping.
Dialogue is the means to humanize the other.
Resistance is the means to de-humanize the other.
Absent an attitude of “love your enemy”, BDS is a war tactic. Anyone that quotes Gandhi without that component, is misquoting Gandhi.
Absent clarification of objectives, and clear definition of scope, BDS is worse than a war tactic, it devolves to a mob tactic, an ethnically or politically based persecution.
Witty, you have just given me another good reason why we should take part in BDS ASAP!!
However, I think the only way to stop Israel is if the Muslim world marshals its armies against it. BDS and throwing rocks at Merkava tanks can only get you so far.
Olive, that’s been tried and it hasn’t worked.
The only way to stop Israel is for the US and Europe to act.
You like war, Olive?
You get pleasure from seeing hundreds, thousands die and bleed?
No, Witty, I don’t like war….
But I do come from the Qur’anic framework which says “Persecution and oppression are worse than killing.”
Now you may not like this, Witty, but the answer to occupation is liberation. I do not foresee the Israelis realizing the errors of their ways, so it is the duty of the Muslims armies to give this new Crusader state called “Israel” a Saladdin-style makeover.
What do you think about assertive but peaceful reconciliation efforts. Is that better or worse than killing?
Thats what dialog is.
You must be a likud plant, justifying the over-reactions of the IDF, in a rationalization of “all the Arabs know is force”. Salahuddin?
Yes, that gives you a backbone. You can shoot a gun straight.
But, you, like the neo-orthodox religious settlers, cannot put their intelligence and skill to organizing and motivating for peace.
What do you think about assertive but peaceful reconciliation efforts. Is that better or worse than killing?
Thats what dialog is.
You must be a likud plant, justifying the over-reactions of the IDF, in a rationalization of “all the Arabs know is force”. Salahuddin?
Are you serious?
Yes, that gives you a backbone. You can shoot a gun straight.
But, you, like the neo-orthodox religious settlers, cannot put their intelligence and skill to organizing and motivating for peace.
Witty, let me answer your questions/points:
Witty: “What do you think about assertive but peaceful reconciliation efforts. Is that better or worse than killing?”
Answer: Worse, since theese “efforts” are nothing more but a stalling tactic to steal more land but keep the “Arabs” (as the Israelis like to call them) pacified. As I said, if there is an occupation, you need liberation. Not stalling tactics.
Witty: “You must be a likud plant, justifying the over-reactions of the IDF, in a rationalization of “all the Arabs know is force”.
Answer: Well, there is a Likud sympathizer who blogs regularly here but it ‘s not me:) What the IDF is doing is not over-reacting but ethnic cleansing and oppression. the Zionist project has been in the works in Europe since at least the 19th century, so its nothing to do with “over-reactions” and everything to do with following the playbook of European colonialists and Jewish nationalists.
Witty: “Salahuddin?”
Answer: Yes, Salahuddin. If its true what they say about history repeating itself, you guys are going to be in a whooolle mess of trouble.
Witty: “Yes, that gives you a backbone. You can shoot a gun straight”
Answer: (yawn)
Witty: “But, you, like the neo-orthodox religious settlers, cannot put their intelligence and skill to organizing and motivating for peace.”
Answer: Sure I want peace. But after the whole “Salahuddin”-thing.
Advocating for war is different than advocating for democracy.
A war tactic is when Israel shoots and kills Palestinians in Gaza who come close to the prison walls.
But you would have us be sympathetic and understanding to the killers. Do you think the soldiers in the watchtowers engaged their victim in dialogue before they shot him dead?
Love your enemy as yourself, is the context of non-violent civil disobedience.
Do the prerequisite and the the civil disobedience will succeed. Do it as solely an alternative tactic to harm, and it will result in escalation.
Let’s have all the Gazans line up to march around the prison perimeter, singing Kumbaya. Then, when they are mowed down by Israeli machine-gun fire, they can die with love in their hearts for the IDF.
This seems to be the Witty proposal for peace.
Love your enemy as yourself, is the context of non-violent civil disobedience.
Hmmm? I thought love your enemy was Christian, and Matthew and John were antisemitic.
Resistance also happens to be the means to avoid being killed.
Ifg BDS is a war tactic, then so be it. Israel ha used it for 40 years or more, and is doing so right now in Gaza.
The objective of BDS is clear and unambiguous and as always, Israel has the choice to change it’s policies if it wants to avoid BDS, thus it could in no way be described as persecution.
What an absurd statement. BDS is clear and unambiguous.
Work on it.
Thank you for the reminder, ‘Richard Witty.’
It might not be to your likng Richard, but the aims of BDS are indeed clear and umabiguous, but as the boycott of Africa was.
Don’t blame me if you can’t get your head around it.
The boycott movement invoked here is anything but clear and unambiguous.
And, if this is a clear as it gets, it will never get rubber on the road.
And, if dissent is applied vainly and punitively, it only reinforces the right.
I want the right to weaken, not be strengthened.
What ambiguous about demanding a lift of the blochade of Gaza (Israel’s own BDS), the cessation of home demomlitions and the dismantling of settlements?
Nice list. Lets see what it includes in a week.
The same?
Or some imprecise revision?
How about the targets of BDS? The criteria by which the boycott determines whom to boycott in a disciplined manner? (Excluding those it “likes”. Say Neve Gordon, or Gideon Levy, or Amira Haas, or Tom Segev, but likely not Bennie Morris, or Gershon Gorenberg, or Bradley Burston?)
Postherd, I disagree…
Egypt alone has 220 F-16 fighter planes and 450,000 soldiers. If the despotic, pro-American regime in Cairo wanted, it could liberate Gaza tommorow. Allow me to post the conclusion of an excellent article titled “Understanding the Myth of Israeli Superiority”.
The myth of Israeli superiority has historically been spread by the Muslim rulers to hide their own treachery, how can a region that outnumbers Israel by 10 – 1 and require trade and oil to traverse Muslim lands be superior, the sums just do not add up.
Israel came into existence because King Abdullah 1 of the then British created and rewarded Transjordan had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine. His brother Faisal king of Iraq even eclipsed Abdullah’s treachery in January 1919. Faisal signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist organisation where he conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration based on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of independence to the Arabs. King Farook the British agent at time of Egypt sent a battalion of volunteers rather then the army to take on the onslaught of the Jews in 1948.
The six day war of 1963 was held up by the Muslim rulers as Israel managed to defeat three Arab armies single handedly However in reality the defeatism and conspiracy of Arab rulers is what gave Israel military victory. This is clear in the lack of preparation for war by the Egyptian regime, the withdrawal of the Jordanian regime from the West Bank and its surrender to Israel and the announcement made by the Syrian regime of the fall of Qunaitrah, which was behind the Syrian army lines that were still fighting in the Golan Heights.
Egypt from this defeat began diplomatic relations with Israel and gave up the cause of the Muslims of Palestine. The PLO officially endorsed the two state solution through the numerous occasions they compromise with their call for a Palestinian state, today the PLO calls for a mere 8% of historic Palestine and has accepted the Israeli state in return for a Palestinian state.
The treachery of the Muslim rulers has been the supply line that begins in Washington travels through the region and ends in Israel, without such logistical support Israel just could not have survived.
OMG Olive, try to be sensible. What you advocate has not worked nor is it likely to work in the near future. Right now, the Palestinians can defeat the Israelis but it requires an approach of passive resistance within Israel and her colonies and the support of progressives in the West. Look at South Africa. The ANC tried the military course and it did not work. What finally crushed apartheid was the internal resistance along with the BDS movement inside the western countries.
Sit back and show a little patience. Right now the only forces that really want active war in Israel are the Israeli zionists themselves. They know that they win those fights. They have yet to confront a real nonviolent resistance coupled with an international BDS movement.
Syvanen, I am being sensible. what I am advocating HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE. Just look at the conclusion of the article titled “Understanding the Myth of Israeli Superiority” that I posted in the comments above.
The South Africa strategy required great external pressure from the West (including the governments) in order to be succesful. Since Israel is considered to be a strategic asset (and was created for this purpose, i believe) for the West, Western governments will never pressure Israel to do anything meaningful EVEN if the lobbies never existed.
Well, Olive is right on that one. The western governments will never join an all-Arab military assault on Israel, in fact nearly certainly the opposite.
If anything the neo-conservative logic of civilizational conflict would be demonstrated.
olive,
While I agree with the arguments raised by “Understanding the Myth of Israeli Superiority”, your suggestion that Egypt is in a positino to free Gaza is an absurd argument.
Egypt received those F-16′s on thew same terms that Israel did, without paying for them. It woudl not dare make a move without US consent and it would not get away with such a move without severe US reprisals.
Shingo, you misunderstand my point. My point is not to say that the puppet Egyptian regime would ever lift a finger to liberate Gaza (as a matter of fact, the Mubarrak regime is actually helping in blockading Gaza!). My point is that IF the Egyptian government wanted, its military could liberate Gaza tommorow. If Israel was having so much trouble in its 2006 summer war, imagine how much trouble it would be in if it has to face a professional army like Egypt’s!
Hey Guys,
Why just continue to perpetuate the same polarization that is splitting the world?? I live in Jerusalem/AlQuds and invite you all to get off your high horses and come here. YES visit the West Bank (your American passport is the ticket) but YES visit Ashkelon or Sderot too. See how ordinary citizens are pawns in the bloody games played by power hungry politicians/thugs on both sides – and while you’re at it, stop in Damascus and Tehran, and see how they’re fanning the flames too. Black and white is so last century…..
I was impressed by Harvey’s website. You should take a look at it.
He cuts through a lot.
I would buy your story Harvey if your assertion (that this is a conflict between equal sides) was true, but we know it isn’t don’t we? Ashkelon and Sderot don’t get a great deal of sympathy given that they sit where Palestinian villages, destroyed in 1948, used to lie. Yes, the Israeli civitzens are indeed pawns, manipulated to fear a world that they are told insitnctively hates them, but alos owes them a living.
As for Tehran, the 25,000 strong Jewish population still has not accepted the briobe to migrate to Israel.
Black and white might be very “last century” but reality is back in vogue.
Shingo, the interesting thing about your response was you assumed I meant a “conflict between equal sides”! You’re right, even with the aid of Damascus and Tehran, Hamas military is only maybe 1-2% as powerful as Israeli one. So yes, in some sense, the Israelis bear more blame (or to use a more helpful word, RESPONSIBILITY) for the tragic stalemate. And so they are being intransigent in refusing to be leaders in peacemaking.
Non- black and white thinking (non-ideological) means we’re stuck with many shades of grey, means we actually have to think, and see a world where NO ONE is all victim, or all perpetrator. So all you writers (Olive!!) here who seem like you enjoy placing all the “blame” on Israel are living in some kind of Descartian fantasy. Comparison to South African apartheid (and promoting BDS, etc.) shows shallow thinking. From 2000-2005, over 1000 innocent Israelis were murdered in cafes, on buses, on streets (of course, several thousand more Palestinians were murdered in that same period). Nothing like this ever happened in South Africa. In addition, not taking the time to look (at least SOMEWHAT objectively) at Israeli psychology (the Holocaust wound, etc.), also contributes to simplistic solutions…and I’m NOT excusing Israeli behavior, only looking for strategic, practical thinking….
If some of “us” wanted to visit West Bank we would end up being refused entry due to stamp in a passport called: “Israel only”. To visit West Bank “we” would need to end up flying to Jordan and attempt entry to West Bank via Allenby Bridge and have stamp “West Bank only”. “We” can no longer visit West Bank from Israel – the border has been quietly slummed shut to all those troublesome foreigners who have any links with Palestine end could conceivably slow down destruction of remains of Palestinian society.
Olive – the closest the Arab states ever came to defeating Israel was in the 1973 war, but this was a proxy battle in the Cold War. The Arab states were supplied by the Soviets to be at military parity with the Israelis. It was probably US intervention that tipped the scale towards Israel.
Now, most of the Arab states, including Egypt, are supplied by the US, but at a level well below parity with the Israeli military. This is deliberate policy, not to allow any of Israel’s neighbors the ability to challenge it militarily. This is the same policy that has the Israelis going batshit at the thought of an Iranian nuke.
Should the Arab states ever make an aggressive move against Israel, the US would cut them off at the knees.
As I said to Witty below, you guys attribute way to much power to the US. The Arab regimes not only were never serious in liberating Palestine, but actually collaborated with Israel in order to make their Western masters happy. If you dont believe me, read Ilan Pappe
You forgot to mention that the reason the Arab regimes collaborated with Israel in order to make their Western masters happy, is becasue those regimes are dependent on the West to maintain their hold on power.
Exactly, Shingo.
Olive,
Your arguments fit right into Netanyahu’s hopes. He wants people like you to speak up loudly. It gives him justification, international justification for any rationalization invoking the term “defense”, he can imagine.
Obama for example would have NO influence. He would be asked and would commit to give Israel $50 billion in arms.
Every square inch of Palestine would be guarded. The 500 checkpoints would be 5000. Unemployment would be 80%.
Shortly, the land would be entirely ethnically cleansed, and the UN would be powerless to address it, as 2/3 of the security council would reject any general assembly proclamation, however worded.
If disorder subsequently occurred in any oil producing state, the United States and Europe would expropriate all of the oil-producing wells, compensate the monarchs for their loss, but the peoples would be bankrupt, undeveloped, alone.
Your proposals sound good in a crowded room with no prospect of dissent. That is the reason you need to question your self-talk.
Don’t give Netanyahu that much PR ammunition. Take away his reasoning. Support Fayyad’s work.
Now, Witty, surely you don’t excpect me to believe this…
If Israel is going to make the 500 checkpoints 5000, in addition to all the other stuff the that you say the West will do, then it is all the MORE reason for the replacement of the pro-American regimes in the Muslim world and a massive military liberation campaign of all Muslim lands from Western interference.
You attribute way to much power to the West in continuing their imperialism in the Muslim world. All that seperates the Muslim world from a global united Islamic State are the despotic, western-backed regimes; not the US (which could barely hang on to Afghanistan and Iraq, as we speak) and certainly not that rubberstamp department called the U.N.
Face it, the winds are changing and the party is almost over…
And you are willing to expose the world to the war that results from “purity of the Muslim lands”.
How cruel.
Quran offers multiple approaches to your formula about preference for war over anything that you can rationalize as oppression.
Just like the neo-orthodox settlers that pick the selections from Torah that support their collective land-lust (and ignore the more important commandments), you use Quran similarly.
Its offensive to those that value peace and mutual respect.
The language “Muslim lands” is the same language as “Jewish lands”, both an addiction like any other, pretending to be the word of God.
So, you have a problem with Muslims choosing their own political destiny? Why am I not surprised?
Witty, lets not patronize each other. You are not a Shariah scholar, so stick to the things that you know. This is why you dont see me deriving rulings from the Tanakh, because I do not have the training. Muslim scholarship may have differences of opinion on certain issues but as far as kicking the West and their puppets from the Muslim world, classical Islamic scholarship is at unanimus consesnsus.
And yes ,they are Muslim lands. Your false anology with the term “Jewish lands” does not work here because when Muslims ruled lands, they did not ethnically cleanse anybody!! Besides, during the era of the Caliphate both Christians and Jews lived peaceful and dignified lives. While Jews were being oppressed in Christian Europe, they lived in happily in Muslim lands and even were given the option to rule their affairs by their own rabbinical courts (even though Jew prefered the Shariah courts most of the time.)
So let us be clear. I am not againts Jews. As I have shown, Jews lived dignified lives under Muslim rule for centuries.
I have no problem with self-government.
I have a problem with imposition on a mass scale. The long history of Islamic dominance in those areas is mixed. It includes large movements of forced conversion (or death), and security with subordination for minorities (only few of them. Ask a Bahai.)
In Jewish tradition, once Jewish rulership is firmly established, there is a requirement to honor the stranger as well. Untested, as Israel is the first Jewish nation in modern history. I would expect that the status of Israeli Muslims is comparable to the status of Islamic Jews. There are some that are thriving, economically and culturally, more that are struggling.
I’m glad that you are proud of Islamic tradition of acceptance of minorities where it is applied. I hope that you advocate for that in the PRESENT, not just present it as PR.
I personally regard BOTH the assertion “this is Muslim land”, and “this is Jewish land” to be an artificial and oppressive assertion.
There are Jewish communities that deserve to self-govern, and Muslim communities that deserve to self-govern. Land is just land.
The scale of historical Zionist expansion, although stressful and unjust to Palestinians forced to move, is tiny compared the range of territory and historical means of conversion of Islam.
I don’t know the specifics of Quran. If you mean your invocation of Quran to be sancrosanct, a holy writ that only you have permission to read and interpret, then don’t quote it. It becomes a subject of public debate at that point. I acknowledge very limited knowledge of the specifics of Quranic passages, but have done enough reading to note that there are multiple tones adopted in different passages, that opportunistic may expropriate and manipulate for their own private lusts.
In Jewish thought, the assertion that one is employing Torah for opportunism is not praise.
Before I post an excerpts of an article by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis that should indirectly answer your points ( read the whole thing here: link to hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com
I will quickly answer your objections to me specifically: No, I do believe in what I say and not just say things for PR. I do not disagree with you on Jews governing themselves, I do however have a problem if they decide to govern themselves through ethnic cleansing and oppression. As far as the Quran is concerned, I’m not saying that i am the only one who should talk about it. You can have differing opinions on it if you want, but I personally think that people should not comment on things that they do not know about. With those comments out of the way, here is a small part of the article as promised:
Tolerance and Popular Rule
Reinhart Dozy, an authority on early Islamic Spain, states with regards to Islamic tolerance, “…the unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.”[30]
Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion,
“Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.”[31]
These historical realities were as a result of the cohesive values of Islam. The Qur’an states,
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”[32]
Justice
The Qur’an resonates with teachings of justice,
“O You who believe! Be upholders of justice, bearing witness for God alone, even against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, God is well able to look after them. Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, God is aware of what you do.”[33]
“… God loves the just.”[34]
“O You who believe! Show integrity for the sake of God, bearing witness with justice. Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to faith. Heed God [alone]. God is aware of what you do.”[35]
In Islamic history, where the cohesive values of Islam such as justice were propagated, the conclusions made by some historians are unparalleled, an Italian Rabbi, Obadiah Yareh Da Bertinoro, travelled to Jerusalem in 1486 CE and he wrote a letter to his father telling him about the country and its people under the Islamic Social Model,
“The Jews are not persecuted by the Arabs in these parts. I have travelled through the country in its length and breadth, and none of them has put an obstacle in my way. They are very kind to strangers, particularly to anyone who does not know the language; and if they see many Jews together they are not annoyed by it. In my opinion, an intelligent man versed in political science might easily raise himself to be chief of the Jews as well as of the Arabs…”[36]
The Jewish historian Amnon Cohen states that the Jewish minorities sought justice from the Islamic courts rather than their own,
“The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…”[37]
Distribution of Resources
The distribution of wealth and resources constitutes the macro-economy of the Islamic economic model; the Qur’an repeatedly mentions distribution of resources and charity.
“Do good to the indigent till their economic imbalance is no more.”[38]
“Feed the indigent, without wishing any return from them, not even a word of thanks.”[39]
The famous letter from a Rabbi found in Phillip Mansel’s book ‘Constantinople’, reflects the Qur’anic reality of distributing resources,
“Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom…”[40]
Justice, kindness, tolerance and the distribution of resources are just some of the cohesive values that are propagated in the Islamic Social Model. It can be concluded that under this model people lived under a cohesive society full of justice and kindness, the type of society that is needed today.
Wonderful values:
Tolerance,
Equitable distribution of income/wealth
Both values are prominent in Torah.
Your insistence on “Muslim land” rather than land where Muslims live, is the idol worship of the ideology.
Quran nor Torah countenance the “spiritual materialism” of that fetish. There are suggestions of principles, that opportunists twist for their collective land-lusts.
It is more than possible to incorporate those values into one’s personal, familial, community, national, global life without adopting exclusivist positions.
The humane Zionist perspective is based on the principle that the Jewish community and Islamic communities in Israel/Palestine are so distinct as to require self-governance for each.
It asserts, “we are a distinct community – Zion”, and respects “you are a distinct community – Islam”.
That is different than expansionist Zionism, which asserts the land fetish, rationalized by a gamut of strained reasons.
I like Tutu’s invocation this morning. “The lesson that Israel must learn from the Holocaust is that it can never get security through fences, walls and guns”. (Fences, walls and guns actually are component of real security, but as an adjective in a long sentence of “accountable AGREEMENT and reconciliation”.)
How do Olive’s ideas relate to the original post?
I don’t see them as identical by any stretch. Ali Abunimeh’s advocacy of a single state, originating from the “opposing wrongs” definition of Palestinian approach, imagining exact parallels to the South African anti-apartheid struggle, claims to regard democracy and democratic justice as the primary values.
The implication is that the appropriate jurisdiction is river to sea, and that all inhabitants have equal voting and other civil rights within that jurisdiction. NOT, that it is “Muslim land” even by majority vote (hopefully they would resist that as well), as they would resist the imposition of the land as “Jewish land” by majority vote, if that came to be.
Faris is arguing that the choice to adopt BDS is an either/or choice. It requires choosing the political means of improvement, over the social (even if that neglects needed clarification of positively stated political goals – no distinction in his writing whether he advocates for single state or two state). The political being BDS. The social being efforts at mutual humanization and integration both from Palestinian (Fayyad’s institution building) and from Israeli sides (dialog events).
Both Faris’ advocacy of BDS, and Olive’s advocacy of Muslim sole sovereignty, are exclusive and punitive to Jews (humane/liberal and expansionist, baby and bathwater).
Like all politically motivated efforts (rather than social), the Palestinian BDS effort neglects the prospective post-success status. Gandhi’s and Mandela’s message to their opponents was “we want change, but we want to remain friends after that change, and we will work to ensure that.” As angry as they were.
That is ABSENT in the Palestinian BDS message. There is no “love thy neighbor as thyself”, no “love thy enemy”.
I would suggest that you go to Hamza’s original site to read the whole article to get the full effect since it also talks about the failings of secular liberalism (which is also Israel’s paradigm). I dont want to post the whole thing here because I don’t want to be accused of spamming.
Richard Witty:
“Your insistence on “Muslim land” rather than land where Muslims live, is the idol worship of the ideology.
The humane Zionist perspective is based on the principle that the Jewish community and Islamic communities in Israel/Palestine are so distinct as to require self-governance for each.”
Translation: Your insistence on “Muslim land” is idol worship; ideology. My insistence on a Jewish state is humane. It has nothing to do with idol worship, and is not ideology.
Simply let the “humane zionists” keep the land ‘my people who are different from Muslims in ways so distinct as to preclude commity” have restored to those God wishes to own the land.
Honest, we won’t take any more land, as long as you are willing to accept the 22% left, and forego any of the means by which self-governance is enabled.
The “Israel runs the US argument.” So effective if one disregards the people of the US, which those who support Israel’s actions and policies so often do.
All part of the increasingly frantic effort to regain control of the “dialogue”, which leads to threats that, as time goes on, have moved from the subtle to the vague to occasional reminders of the big one.
Which, from the ease shown in discounting the international community, this argument appears headed toward.