I keep forgetting to post perhaps the most important event in journalism about Jewish identity in the last couple weeks, the NYT’s publication of Rina Castelnuovo‘s amazing photograph from Hebron, which has been widely republished in the Arab world. The Times could do a further service by having Castelnuovo blog about how she took this picture… As well as do more thorough reporting on how Jews could become so brutalized, a story Americans still aren’t hearing.
P.S.: Mississippi, 1963:
More photos from Hebron:
Settler Graffiti
Interesting to see how much of that is in English. American settler graffiti.
Interesting to see that one says ‘White Power’ on it.
Shafiq – maybe our visitor from last night was there
link to palestinethinktank.com
A Palestinian female and minor, was apparently sexually abused by an Israeli jailer.
Here is more info:
link to wofpp.org
“how Jews could become so brutalized”
This is inappropriately in the passive voice. I think you mean “how Jews could become so brutal”.
Good point. Phil, in referring to the Mississippi 1963 photo, would you have asked “how whites could become so brutalized“? I doubt it.
Yeah, it’s what some call a freudian slip–and Freud would have known about that, no? Phil does it in many ways when he talks about his wife, as seldom as that is.
Note also the Stars of David graffiti scrawled on at least two doors (I believe four actually…)
A commenter at JSF remarked about the photo that Netanyahu would have spun this as an example of ‘how the Arabs reject even our wine!’
And in the midst of this, Clinton obliviously keeps calling on the Arab states to normalize relations with the settler state. In exchange for …
link to haaretz.com
She must think the Arabs are suckers.
Rather, she thinks more that American Jews hold a lot of power and influence and Arabs–very little; no different that the real Christian Zionist, Truman who kicked the can in the first place to advance his career.
American Jews hold no power and influence with the governments of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. But I very much doubt if Israel cares whether they have normalized relations with their Arab neighbors or not – at least, they don’t care enough to give up anything.
The Arabs really would be suckers to give up some advantage with no prior concessions on the part of Israel.
This kind of thing goes back a long ways. In Tom Segev’s “One Palestine, Complete”, he quotes the early Zionist Ahad Ha’am complaining about the behavior of his fellow Zionists all the way back in 1891–
“treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason and even take pride in doing so.” He goes on to say
“The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile and suddenly they found themselves in a land with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination to repressive tyranny, as always happens when a slave rules.”
One can question the explanation, but it sounds like this photo could have been taken almost 120 years ago.
Yeah, the test of virtue is power and no group illustrates this historically better than the Jews;
as Truman said, when they get on top nobody can surpass them for being pricks. Go to the Truman Library Archives online and you will see his exact words that convey
this meaning clearly.
Citizen – Do you agree with Truman? Do you believe that Jews have a greater capacity for being pricks “when they get on top”, than members of any other human group?
No. I believe they are human, all to human. Truman was actually disappointed, not merely pissed-off; he had read
the OT and NT many times as a kid, and liked being compared to the biblical gentile
king who had saved the ancient Israelities, which the Zionists flattered him with;
and his business partner and arguably best friend was a Jewish American–friend enough to be able to walk right into the oval office without a prior invitation. I doubt he ever read Nietzsche, for contrary spirit, and as he also said, he had no domestic
Arab voting and campaign donating constituency. I’ve never been disappointed as my expectations have been low for any group in power at least since grammer school grade 6, and my independent study of world history in my later years does not change my early view, it supports it in endless detail.
Tom Segev, in One Palestine, Complete, discusses the unrealistic, Bible-based philosemitism of Balfour, Lloyd George and other British leaders who allowed themselves to be taken in by Chaim Weizmann’s Zionist blustering. I bet they were disappointed too.
The picture from Hebron was of a single individual harrassing another. I don’t doubt that the individual was abusive, criminal.
But, that is a different picture than the Mississippi example of a mass of angry white harassing a single black and two white supporters.
Yes Witty I agree that it is different, it is different that in Israel there is an entire state apparatus which condones the persecution with impunity. You indeed like to twist reality don’t you? You would claim the exact opposite if there was a photo of Nazis breaking schetl business windows, would have no problem identifying it as a symptom of the whole. The same sensitivity should have informed you, indeed, should have sent shock waves of indignation at the breaking of glass which occurs in the occupied territories. In fact, the initial acts referred to as the Nakba should have shook the conscience of the Zionist participants, and caused a wave of memories if not by experience than by the stories of horror which were told –
SHATTERED
v, do you get the feeling that Zionist-supporters like Witty think they are dealing with slow children, to whom they can tell the same tales over and over again?
He always seems so hurt when we don’t accept his excuses.
I don’t know Mooser, he seems to think if he says something askew and keeps a calm cool demeanor we are supposed to accept it as a valid observation. It is probably the overemphasis on “he who speaks softly and keeps a low profile” is perceived as someone who is more acceptable – the same format is used in Israeli response to atrocity, although lately they have tried to use the female who is seen as a nurturing persona for their denials.
Not that I compare Witty to this next example, but Dr. Mengele was known to have a calming cool demeanor. He was gentle as he injected dye in the eyes of children and other horrific “experiments” –
“Now it was clear what had occurred: Each had had one or both testicles removed … I was summoned into the operating room. The last young man was lying on the table with eyes open; the surgery was done on him with local anesthesia. Now I understood what all the screaming was about, and the strange silences that followed: SS sentries surrounded the operating table with their guns pointing at the patient. They appeared to be enjoying a fascinating show. I glanced at Dr. Mengele’s face: it was calm, as if he were performing a humanitarian, life-saving operation …” ”
MENGELE’S ERRAND BOY
It is just an example of the extremities the principle of calm and collected persona can be carried too, even sociopaths have this calm. Some people say that as long as no one curses or becomes obscene they should also be listened to, no matter what their particular message might be. I also consider it to be a last refuge, that when an individual is totally routed in an argument, they can just calmly come back with more spurious assertions. They really have no viable import at all, their “opinions” and skewed observations, they can retort “well at least I did not blow up,” which is as valid as a pedantic who cannot undo an argument so they try to pick it apart by poor sentence construction, punctuation, and misspells.
Another form of argument is to reduce to a minimum a horrific incident, while dismissing the entire context of the scenario. In this instance Witty isolates the incident, but dismisses everything I previously mentioned in his statement (…”there is an entire state apparatus which condones the persecution with impunity.”).
We can remove this to another more serious situation, in an exchange of wild fire an innocent Palestinian child is killed by an Israeli occupation soldier – lets say during Operation Cast Lead. The plea is that the soldier did not mean to kill the little boy, the defenders say “see, he was not aiming at the little boy, it was an accident, he was just trying to get the terrorist [actually in Cast Lead there was no exchange, it was just a massacre, we are just proposing this for arguments sake].” Forget that it is an illegal invasion of the occupied territories, forget that the rules of engagement were set for maximum carnage, forget that these people have been under brutal siege for years now, forget the entire history of a slow genocide. Forget it all, because the occupation soldier did not “mean” to kill the little boy.
Mooser,
Do you know of Buddhist thinking?
One element is that a fixation in opposition, is similar to a fixation in attachment. For example, if I am an ex-smoker, and I am pre-occupied with tobacco smoke everywhere I go, I am still fixated, not free yet.
It may be a necessary first step to actual psychological freedom, or it may be vain dance leading to a relapse.
But, one thing that fixated people do, is they misrepresent others and misrepresent reality, because they are seeing and imprinting from the confusion of their private fixation.
The condition of “which side are you on” is a condition in war. In war, human beings are dehumanized. The objective of victory takes precedence over the humanity of anyone.
I’m not at war. My effort is to mutually humanize, the opposite of picking sides.
I see mutual humanization, humanization of BOTH communities, as the means to achieve decency for any of them.
If I thought that a single-state were possible (or desirable even), then I would be an advocate for the single-state and through the method of mutual humanization. I don’t see that as possible, and I don’t see the BDS or single-state movement working for mutual humanization.
So, I prefer the two-state for two-peoples approach, emphasizing mutual respect of the two peoples.
And, I urge constructive work towards that end, not lists of litmus tests of required (but uninformed) outrages.
I spent the week with my mother. She is old, cranky, very critical almost all the time, warring with the world. It takes a great amount of patience to remind myself, her and others to get to getting her needs met, NOT to joining in her condemnation of this, that and the other.
I think of you and the fixated angry left on this issue as similar to my mother. I can’t not be involved with my family of families. But, it is trying. My own try my patience, and those that react to my own try my patience.
But, it is necessary and good.
You don’t live up to your ideal, Richard, not in any useful way. You do keep your temper under harsh criticism, but most of the criticism is deserved, because you constantly whitewash most of the atrocities committed by your side. To paraphrase something from my religious tradition, if you are patient when someone criticizes you for doing wrong and you have done wrong, what sort of virtue is that? (I gotta find that passage).
You’re like a Gandhi that, with a Gandhi-like polite style, spends most of his time defending the crimes of the oppressing state and putting the bulk of the blame for the situation on the oppressed. You think because you’re patient and polite you’re one of the good guys. Doesn’t work like that. One can patiently and politely say monstrous things.
Your argument against BDS would have more credibility if you weren’t such a whitewasher. I don’t know how much boycotting and divesting should be done (one surely shouldn’t send bulldozers to Israel, for instance, but how far does one go?), but your opposition just comes from a person who supports the blockade on Gaza, only allowing it to end on terms that prevent any chance of weapons going to Gaza. That the same argument can be used against Israel is something you can’t take seriously because of your bias.
What horrible things have I said?
On the blockade. To CLARIFY, what I said was that so long as Hamas (at war with Israel) insisted on controlling the Gazan ports, that Israel would be right to blockade, BUT that if a consented international body controlled the port, that that wouldn’t be justified.
So, if that is in fact plausible, that that describes a path not taken by the “solidarity” here.
Richard, that was a monstrous thing you just said. Until the conditions you set up (which I think is reasonable in itself, but should be applied to both sides) are met (international control of the ports), you think Israel is justified in practicing collective punishment against all the Gazan civilians. Even Ethan Bronner in the NYT has repeatedly said that part of the motivation for this is to turn Gazans against Hamas. Being in a state of war doesn’t justify all tactics–collective punishment is a war crime.
Also, the exact same reasoning can be applied to Israel. They are engaged in apartheid and practice terrorism against Palestinian civilians–until that ends, by the very same moral justification you give for Israel, there is sound justification for blockading Israel, to the point where they couldn’t even build new homes. And that blockade should be maintained until or unless the international community takes control of Israeli ports, so that we can know that no bulldozers and weapons can be transported in or out. I don’t support something this draconian for the Israelis, for the same reason I don’t support it for Gazans–it is utterly immoral. You support it for Gazans (though preferring the international control of ports option), but not for Israelis, because you are a tribalist on moral questions. You ain’t Gandhi and Gandhi is not a friend of yours.
I’ve pointed this out before, and also other examples of your moral blindness and double standards. It really is not a virtue to remain calm and patient while expressing grotesquely one-sided opinions. I grew up down South among white racists and they weren’t all frothing at the mouth types who used the “n” word (though some were). Some were polite, upper-middle class people who would never use crude language, and would condemn the KKK and other crude racists, but somehow always found a way to blame blacks for their problems and excuse themselves, and they thought they were non-racist. I see the same thing with many Israel supporters–that is, the ones that aren’t openly frothing at the mouth anti-Arab racists. In fact, noticing this sort of attitude is one of the things that made me begin to suspect that I wasn’t getting the full story on the I/P conflict. Someone said this the other day–being calm and polite is an extremely effective technique for sounding reasonable even when one isn’t reasonable at all. It’s why pro-Israeli spokespeople often come across so well on American TV–they know this rhetorical trick and they know that if they sound “Western” and “American” that’s nine tenths of the battle won. In your case, you’ve got yourself convinced you are virtuous because you are polite and patient. Again, though politeness and patience are good in themselves, they are no guarantee that you aren’t saying horrible things.
Witty’s “angry left” is like the angry black man canard. You’re not supposed to be outraged at atrocities, because than you lose “credibility.” My statement is he has not seen real anger yet but we are going to bring it to a new level, because when institutions, governments, and authorities do nothing than it is time for the people to act. BDS is going to take the wind out of the sales of this wholesale national atrocity swiftly when it gains momentum, it is just starting but it is going to hit like the impact of a freight train.
Donald –
Everything I know I learned from C Span.
Michelle van Cleave, a counterterrorism/counterintelligence operative, spent a highly polished half hour on Washington Journal link to c-spanarchives.org
perfectly composed, from her botoxed face to shoulders to carefully calm arms and hands; her rhetoric equally measured, talking points recited with nary an um or uhh.
Until a caller asked about Israelis who spy on the US.
Hands fidget, then fling palms down on table — woops, losing control, pull hands back to folded position; get the camera off me, get the camera off me… rhetoric goes into overdrive: obfuscate the question, toss in big words to confuse the listeners, end up reframing the question in a new way that allows her to make the points that she’s been making all along….
It was a masterful performance. Chilling, but masterful.
And in the end, not at all in the best interest of Americans, or of reducing that “ignorance” that someone mentioned in another thread, that is at the heart of bigotry. In fact, performances like van Cleave’s, and they are legion,* create the atmosphere for bigotry rather than defuse it.
*Robert Lieber of Georgetown University comes to mind, perhaps because he’s something of a hack at the dissembling rhetoric — you can see the shabby edges in his presentation, like noticing that the elegant silk curtain has holes in it; Danny Ayalon was one of the first who infuriated me with his measured, polished performances; calm-and-quiet Mark Regev is master of the technique; Gary Ackerman is fun to watch because he quickly descends to the level of a street thug; Robert Kagan is particularly noxious — always two steps smarter than you, how dare you challenge my superior wisdom….
Donald,
If there is a path, a proposal, why do you NOT urge for it?
Why are YOU passive about it? Instead choosing to villify my comments for seeking a solution to a real quandry?
I hope you get that Hamas’ history of war-making is a real quandry, and that Hamas is not a state subject to the accountability of states.
Did you mean “Hamas” or “Israel” in that statement? Remind me again which of the two have been in a constant state of war and territorial expansion since 1948?
Re Witty:
“One element is that a fixation in opposition, is similar to a fixation in attachment. For example, if I am an ex-smoker, and I am pre-occupied with tobacco smoke everywhere I go, I am still fixated, not free yet.”
When one first stops smoking after many years it takes time for the smoke to be
gone, e.g., from their home. Eventually they are disgusted by even the sight of a used ashtray. Eventually they can even smell on a co-worker whether that peer had just gone out for a quick smoke, a sensitivity impossible while regularly smoking. I suggest, Mister Witty, you refrain from barely veiled Hasbara for a month here,
quit buying two packs a day of Hasbara; I realize that will be difficult since you
grew up an early smoker. But eventually, you might actually get why many here
lose patience with you. You reek of smoke and they stand it as long as they can. Many are even willing to put up with it for themselves, but your second-hand hasbara smoke, they know, has and will affect their children too.
Re Mooser’s question to V:
Can anyone here imagine a more pompous and arrogant individual than Richard Witty? That he does not know it despite all the responses to his comments over the last two years sure does indicate some kind of arrested development. He endlessly repeats the same canards and ignores the macro for the micro in the I-P situation.
Re V’s comment a la Mengale: Michael Oren is a perfect example of what you mean
with this type of character; N knew it, which is why he made O the Israeli diplomat
for the USA–he will play well on CNN & MSNBC.
Re V & Donald’s responses to Witty–many of agree here with you two, but Witty?
He will come right back with his exact same imperial hasbara, wondering why
the blind cannot see if they are motivated by concern for the best interests of
all involved. Reminds me of the old neocon adage “a liberal is a conservative who has yet to be mugged.” Something like that anyway.
“If there is a path, a proposal, why do you NOT urge for it?
Why are YOU passive about it? Instead choosing to villify my comments for seeking a solution to a real quandry?”
I advocate a more even-handed approach, since I don’t think there’s any chance of the US acting as an honest broker unless people’s minds are drastically changed. I criticize your opinions because your sort of peace advocacy is part of the problem–you reinforce the Orwellian distortions that dominate discussion of this issue, so that to the extent you have any influence it’s likely to do more harm than good. We’ve long had people in the US who pay lip service to the idea that some of what the Israelis do is bad, but they invariably follow up with comments that put most of the burden of change on the Palestinians. They consciously or unconsciously treat the Israelis as the good guys, People Like Us, the civilized ones who have to be treated like delicate hothouse flowers, while the Palestinians, who they admit suffer, have mainly themselves to blame. You’ve contributed something new–it’s also the fault of lefties.
The rule of thumb is this–if someone describes the Israeli crime solely as settlement building (which is very bad, of course) and then “balances” this with the atrocities of the Palestinians (chiefly Hamas, never PA atrocities against Palestinians) and talks about terrorism and not about Israeli war crimes or about the blockade–well, that person is a hack. They might want peace, but not enough to be truthful about the situation. Conversation in the US is almost totally dominated by the struggle between the moderate hacks who criticize settlements and nothing else, and the uberhacks who don’t criticize settlements.
You doubt that such photos exist?
Lets not get ridiculous now, it was a rhetorical device not a denial. I mean, if you are talking to me why would you ask such a question?
My reply was meant for RW.
Oh, for a threaded discussion format!
I was wondering what kind of delusional nonsense Witty would post. What a loony tune racist.
“I don’t doubt that the individual was abusive, criminal.”
Was he arrested and charged? Did a dozen Jews rush out in the street, shouting “shame,shane” at him, and wiping the wine from her clothing with their own shirts, and apologising to the women, and offering excuses (“he’s drunk, nice Jewish boys don’t do that”) ?
I know Witty, we don’t know if that’s what happened next, and darn it, you are sure we shouldn’t judge until we can prove that it wasn’t. Right?
RE: “a single individual harrassing another”
SEE: “Jews protect Palestinians in harvest of hate”
Israelis cross religious divide to shelter olive farmers from settlers’ attacks
By Donald Macintyre in Awarta, West Bank – Friday, 10 October 2008
(EXCERPT) In the shade of the trees where they have been picking olives all morning, in this wadi, south-east of Nablus, a Palestinian farmer, Jamal Otman Koarik, and two of his daughters share a lunch of home-baked bread, zatar, oil, courgettes and salad with three visitors. It’s a bucolic scene that could have happened any time in the past century. But what makes it notable in 2008 is that the guests who have been helping Mr Koarik pick the olives are Israeli Jews: a rabbi, an anthropologist and a youth worker, Hellela Siew.
Born in Tel Aviv, Ms Siew served in the army, took a university degree, then a teacher’s diploma. Thirty-six years ago, she took the tough decision to emigrate to London, telling her parents: “I won’t come back until there’s peace.” Ms Siew, who is now 64, remains an Israeli citizen but now lives with her British husband in Hebden Bridge. She has kept to her word, except that each autumn she comes back to stay in her hometown with her relatives and spends each day of the two-month harvest season picking olives on Palestinian farmland in the West Bank……
…..Last year, she was in a group in the South Hebron Hills confronted by settlers who fired shots from a pistol and an M16 assault rifle, despite the presence of the army and police. “Then one of the soldiers said, ‘Look, one of them is coming down with a jug of water for you’. The settler emptied the jug over me. It was full of human sh*t.”……
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to independent.co.uk
P.S. – In case “someone” is to dense to figure this out, the Israeli soldier (or soldiers) knew that the settler was about to dump sh*t on Ms Siew (no doubt because they have seen it happen before), but rather than warn her or stop the settler he told her that the settler was just bringing her water. So this was not just “a single individual harrassing another”.
RE: “The picture from Hebron was of a single individual harrassing another. ”
SEE: “IDF soldiers filmed humiliating bound Palestinian face court martial”, By Haaretz Service, 11/14/08
(excerpt) …Last week, soldiers from the Golani infantry brigade posted a video on YouTube depicting a blindfolded Palestinian being forced to repeat phrases in Hebrew as the soldiers manning the checkpoint laugh in the background.
One of the lines is: “Golani will bring you a log to stick up your ass.”
As the detainee repeats the words, the soldiers are heard laughing raucously in the background….
ARTICLE / VIDEO – link to haaretz.com
Because sometimes people apparently need a reminder…
“In particular, Holocaust denial begins with the premise that the Holocaust as it is understood by mainstream history did not occur.[9] Evidence that conflicts with that premise is routinely minimized, misrepresented, or ignored.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Witty do you remember Emmet Till who was murdered in Missisippi in 1955. Very big story in the civil rights movement at that time. But do you realize it was just two white guys killing a black. I am sure all the southern cracker witty’s at the time defended thise as saying it was just an individual criminal act, no political implications her folks, just look the other way.
BTW, looking up a little background on this I ran across an attempt by Rod Sterling to dramatise this case in one of his stories. His screenplay was considered too controversial, so instead of a 14 year old black child being lynched, it was changed into an elderly Jewish man.
link to ithaca.edu
Amazing. Can’t quite rap my mind aroung this one. But today Witty is trying to deny the relevance of Israeli oppression of Jews and in the 1950s our culture was still trying to deny the evidence of white oppression of our black citizens.
oops, not ‘Israeli oppresson of Jews’ but oppression of ‘Palestinians’.
Another element of difference is that the protesters in Mississippi were that, protesters. They knew that they were doing something conspicuous, intentionally so. They were civil disobedients, willingly accepting abuse.
This picture isn’t that. It is of a woman abused by a jerk.
I don’t believe that the IDF sponsors this personal abuse. If you have evidence to support that contention, please present it, and open it it to scrutiny.
I think you two guys over-react and simplistically react. It is very sad when dissent’s only response to a criticism of presentation (that the conclusion is not demonstrated by the “evidence”), is of accusation of “hasbara”.
Emmet Till was just a person and he was attacked by two random white guys. Nevertheless, it became a major political story. And anyone who tried to excuse that crime at the time as just some criminal jerks, and not a reflection of the racist attitudes in the south at that time, would today be considered racists apologists. Is that the legacy you seek Richard?
I don’t believe that the IDF sponsors this personal abuse.
No but it creates the necessary context, in which these things MUST happen on a daily basis.
Richard, the occupation, power versus humiliating rituals dictated by the occupying state apparatus, your live blocked and hindered at every step, keeping you waiting, forcing a days journey on you to reach a village, your school, your university, that would take you half and hour under different circumstances, including inexperienced young man fearing for their live with loaded rifles pointed at you, creates the necessary scenario for such personal abuse over and over again. One dead Palestinian is provided by a tiny spark under these conditions, the wrong movement, denied servility, to keep up the last bit of your self-respect. How can you possibly deny this?
You demanded of Phil to go to Sderot, when was the last time you visited the occupied territories, and how did you travel, whom did you meet? Did you move freely, could the Palestinians around you? Or did you prefer to not line up in their queues?
“Richard, the occupation, power versus humiliating rituals dictated by the occupying state apparatus, your live blocked and hindered at every step, keeping you waiting, forcing a days journey on you to reach a village, your school, your university, that would take you half and hour under different circumstances, including inexperienced young man fearing for their live with loaded rifles pointed at you, creates the necessary scenario for such personal abuse over and over again. ”
These are great wrongs. The next and CRITICAL question is how are they changed?
There is the stupid presumption among the knee-jerking here, that I support that they not be changed. That is 165 degrees off.
I just conclude that the proposed methods of BDS to make change there reduce the likelihood that significant change will occur, and that they harbor and encourage literally evil attitudes, similar evil attitudes to what the photograph here suggests.
The last time I was in the West Bank was in 1986. I traveled alone (not always), stayed at Palestinian hostels or individual Palestinians’ homes in Ramallah, Bethlehem, and other day trips. I didn’t stay in Hebron overnight. I was scared to, and warned of the polarization even then.
The IDF refuses to end this personal abuse. Their troops stand around and watch it, sometimes participate, but never stop it. They have the power, they refuse to use it, the enable it, they are responsible for it.
Did you notice those green metal doors? Do you know why they are there? To keep the Jewish terrorists from breaking into the houses. If the IDF were commited to stopping the violence, this would not be necessary.
When you see evil and do not act to stop it, when you make excuses for it, you own the evil. It is part of you. That’s you, Richard Witty. By making excuses for evil, you become responsible for it.
That’s your logic? “They were asking for it”?
If you don’t think the IDF sponsors this sort of activity than clearly you are unaware of that T-shirt craze that made the news a while back. Funny how the IDF only took a stand on that after it was bad publicity.
“they were asking for it”?
Show me where I stated anything resembling that?
You don’t get how your very negative caricatures of liberals, really hurts your cause (if you have one in fact).
For someone who claims to be well-read you are remarkably obtuse. There are numerous testimonies from former and current IDF soldiers, as well as from Btselem and CPT on the IDF’s indifference to, or participation in, violence against Palestinians by the Jewish settlers in Hebron. Have you bothered to read any of the soldiers’ testimonies from Breaking the Silence, or is that another source, alongside the Goldstone Report that you have no intention of reading?
Here are some samples:
1) “I’d come home, then go back to Hebron and feel as though I’d gone abroad,
really… as though in one go I simply cut to a totally different place. Whatever
I used to call democracy here, would simply vanish in Hebron. Jews did as
they pleased there, there were no laws. No traffic laws. Nothing. Whatever
they do there is done in the name of religion, and anything goes – breaking
into shops, that’s allowed… ”
2) “First week, first time at the checkpoint, at the passage between the Palestinian
area and the street where only Jews can go. You need to have a fence. Those
guys, they have to stop, there’s a line, then they hand you their ID cards
through the fence, you check them, and let them through.
There was this guy with me who… We’d just finished advanced training,
got to the assignment and he yells, “Waqif! Stop!” The man didn’t quite
understand and advanced one more step. One extra step, and then he yells
again, “Waqif!” and the man freezes in fear. He didn’t quite understand what
the soldier said. Actually, it’s a procedure nobody pays attention to, stopping
them exactly on the line. So he decided that because the guy made this one
extra step… they should obey us, therefore he’ll be detained. I said to him,
“Listen, what are you doing?” he said, “No, no, don’t argue, at least not
in front of them, what are you doing, I’m not going to trust you anymore,
you’re not reliable”… Eventually one of the patrol commanders came over,
came from up there, and I spoke to him. I said, “Listen, what’s the deal, how
long do you want to detain him for?” He said, “Listen, you can do whatever
you want, whatever you feel like doing. If you feel there’s a problem with
what he’s done, if you feel something’s wrong, even the slightest thing, you
can detain him for as long as you want.” And then I got it, a man who’s been
in Hebron one week, it has nothing to do with rank, he can do whatever he
wants. He had been there a week, he was hardly even there, like… Really, he
had no idea what was going on there, he didn’t have a clue! He’d been there
a week! But everyone can do whatever they want, it’s like there are no rules,
everything is permissible.”
3) “I was on routine security duty with recruits in Hebron. On our first day
we were patrolling in town, and the company commander showed me the
outposts etc., and I had no idea yet who’s who and what’s what. It was curfew,
the streets totally empty of Arabs, and a 12-year old kid with a skullcap and
side-curls was walking around, all jolly. He went into a yard, as we walked
by, and we saw the Arab family that lives in that house, sitting behind the
barred windows on the second floor, peeping out. In the garden of that house
grew a pomegranate tree. The kid picks a pomegranate, and throws it at the
window, breaking the glass right where they’re sitting. They yell at him from
upstairs, so he picks another pomegranate. I started stepping in his direction,
to stop him. I asked him to move away, perhaps lay a hand on his shoulder
to try and stop him. Two adults walked by just then, so I was glad I could
ask them to take the kid away, he was only causing trouble. To make a long
story short, they yelled at me for being just another leftie-softie soldier: “Go
handle Arabs and leave us in peace” or something of that nature. Anyway,
another incident where you suddenly realize that the children’s violence is
nurtured by their environment.”
4) “Concerning the IDF, the ease in which you actually do whatever you
want to do unsupervised, that is, enter people’s homes, conduct random
searches. Every officer, every commander can decide now I’m entering a
home, ordering the family out, ransacking the house… In fact, I think that
in Hebron, I was disturbed and frightened most of all by the unregulated
and uncontrolled power, and the things it made people do. On one occasion
we were told: “Peace and quiet is not necessarily good, and if there isn’t
mayhem, we’ll create it.” To demonstrate power, to demonstrate that we are
everywhere. A soldier like me felt embarrassed in situations in which I was
confronted with adults, old people. There are things, I believe, that an army
shouldn’t do, like close schools; simply enter a school and: no school today.
Without asking too many questions. That’s it, in a nutshell.”
5)”It was in the middle of an operation in Jabal Johar, actually in all of Hebron
but specifically in Jabal Johar, where my company took position. As part of
the house to house searches, there were lots of Border Police in the street.
One of them overhears some guy insulting a sergeant from my unit. So they
came and said, “No problem,” took the Palestinian and brought him back
about 20 minutes later. He’s trembling in fear. They tell him, “Okay, now
start singing ‘Carnival in the Nahal’ [name of an army unit].”
Q: How did you feel then?
I didn’t like it. It looked like everybody there thought it was funny, so okay, I
just sat there and kept quiet. I won’t start fighting with my comrades.”
Q: Why did you keep quiet?
I don’t know. Maybe it wasn’t important enough for me to say anything… I
don’t know. You just take a deep breath and keep doing what you’re doing.
It’s the duty with which I’ve been entrusted. Right now I’m just a little cog
in the wheel. I do my job and live from one furlough to the next, until my
service is over. That’s how it was all the time.”
6) ” In one of our conversations with the Border Police in Hebron, two of them
were bragging about how much they liked to take a Palestinian whom they
caught throwing stones or just throwing a word at them, or looking at them
the wrong way. They’d put him into an armored jeep and then hit him with
the spark-mufflers of their weapons in the chest or the stomach or the neck.
Then they’d bet how fast they could take the turn in the road where they’d
throw him out of the armored jeep. If you ask me, then yes, it really bothered
me, but what could I do about it?
Q: You know that the Border Police did this to someone afterwards and
he was killed. They murdered someone.
That’s very sad. And, so?
Q: Did you recognize any of the murderers, the guys who are standing
trial now?
No. I didn’t recognize anyone. I don’t know them. I just heard ‘em talking. ”
7)”Be it during the day or at night, whenever I feel like it, we choose a house on
the map, according to the geographic position of our unit at the time. We feel
like it, that’s the one we choose, we go on in. “Jaysh, jaysh… iftah al bab”
[army, army, open the door] and they open the door. We move all the men
into one room, all the women into another, and place them under guard. The
rest of the unit does whatever they please, except destroy equipment—it goes
without saying—no helping yourself to anything, and causing as little harm
to the people as possible, as little physical damage as possible.
If I try to imagine the reverse situation: if they had entered my home—not
a police force with a warrant, but a unit of soldiers, if they had burst into my
home, shoved my mother and little sister into my bedroom, and forced my
father and my younger brother and me into the living room, pointing their
guns at us, laughing, smiling, and we didn’t always understand what the
soldiers were saying while they emptied the drawers and searched through
my things. Oops it fell, broken… all kinds of photos, of my grandmother and
grandfather… all kinds of sentimental things that you wouldn’t want anyone
else to see, wouldn’t want them infringing on your privacy, your home is
your place.
There is no justification for this, it definitely should not be happening. If
there is a suspicion that a terrorist has entered a house, okay, so be it. But
just to enter a home, any home: here I’ve chosen one, look what fun, there’s
a number on it in Arabic numerals that I can’t even read. I felt like going in
there. We go in, we check it out, we cause a bit of injustice, we’ve certainly
asserted our military presence… and then we move on.”
8) “Q: What were the army’s procedures? The settlers run wild, what
then?
Crass, cowardly procedures. At the end of the day, this is the source of all
evil in this city at present, that’s what gives the settlers their power. The
leniency, the crassness and cowardliness with which the army handles them.
Since there is no law in effect there, they can do whatever they please, one
always feels as if the brigade commander is saying to himself: “I have a
million other things to deal with, this is not important. We’re not messing
with them. So they’ll burn another shop, trash another home, occupy another
dwelling, no big deal.”
9)” I had a friend who carried a weapon equipped with a grenade launcher, and
everybody with a launcher got ammunition for dispersing demonstrations.
[And he] got lots of tear gas grenades, and he really liked to fire this gas,
so he would also steal them from other guys who were equipped with gas
grenade launchers, and he would fire them whenever he came on duty and
before he went off. He would simply fire on groups of people who were just
standing around and talking, to see them running and coughing, he got a kick
out of it.
Q: How did the guys in his unit react to that?
I don’t know, even the ones who were bothered by it didn’t lay into him
about it or… I don’t know, everybody just took it as normal.”
10) “But one of the things that really bothered all of us, was this aspect of
authority that we did not have to deal with the settlers. I am a soldier. I don’t
know how you arrest a Jewish person. I don’t know the law. I wasn’t told I’d
ever have to do anything like that. In Hebron I was actually told, “This is not
your job. That’s what the blue (civilian) police is there for”. But the police
wasn’t there. I remember that the chief of police explained to us that they
don’t have the budget to post enough policemen to answer any call. So we
were very helpless, and that was a policy decision. By the same token they
could have decided that we wouldn’t be so helpless, that we’d have more
police on the spot, or give us the authority to arrest settlers. I’d see children
doing something and had to call the police, I couldn’t really do anything
myself. I’d have to catch them myself on the spot, so I catch one, and my
partner catches the second kid, and meanwhile, another three kids go around
and throw stones at some house, and no one would do anything about them
because they’re minors. The police would arrive only after an hour, because
they come from afar. And the police would sometimes… I mean, I’d report
some incident, then a policeman would arrive, debrief me, sometimes with
a video camera, but the bottom line was – nothing special. I mean, if they’d
wanted to, they could. In this case, they didn’t especially want to…”
11) “That morning, a fairly big group arrived in Hebron, around 15 people or
so, of Jews from France. They were all religious Jews, French Jews, they
didn’t really know Hebrew, and spoke half English, half Hebrew, and half
French. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent
my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them
from destroying the town. In other words, this is what they were busy doing
for hours. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw off
the ground, and started throwing them in Arabs’ windows, and overturning
whatever they came across. A gang of Jews from France simply came along,
to the area we were responsible for, and did whatever they wanted. And
there’s no horror story here… he didn’t catch some Arab and kill him or
anything like that, but what bothered me about this story is that along came
a gang of people from France, and I have no idea how in tune they are with
what’s going on here, and without… maybe someone told them that there’s
a place in the world where you can just, I don’t know… that a Jew can take
all of his rage out on the Arab people, and simply do anything, do whatever
he wants. To come to a Palestinian town, and do what ever he wants, and the
soldiers will always be there to back him up. Because that was actually my
job. I guess I could have tried to keep the rock from being thrown, something
I can’t do, of course. I couldn’t run after them all the time, not successfully at
least. But my real actual job was to protect them and make sure that nothing
happened to them. And that’s how the job was also explained to us. Not to
stop them. To try and stop them. But mostly to protect them.”
There are many more here and here.
“They knew that they were doing something conspicuous, intentionally so. They were civil disobedients, willingly accepting abuse.”
You mean like that? By the way, the only one negatively caricaturing liberals is you, Mr. Blue Dog.
Tree,
The most insightful of the posts was of the absence of color-blind mutually accountable law, that those settlers that violate Torah by abusing others, do so without legal accountability.
Where do you think consented law would come from? The responsibility of an occupying power is certainly not to provide cover for abuse or expropriation, but to function as the administrative basis of law in the region.
Two questions then:
1. How can Israeli temporary administrative occupation provide rule of law more mutually accountably? (I assume that you are not advocating for that).
2. If sovereignty were to transfer to Palestinian responsibility, would that result in more just law in Hebron or less just? And, what could be done to enhance Palestinian practice of law and policing so that it did result in better more mutually accountable application of law?
THAT is exactly what Fayyad’s efforts entail. It is not just removal of occupation, but transfer to a viable Palestinian Authority.
And, that is exactly what you’ve criticized, that Fayyad is somehow a “quisling”.
And, that somehow your approach yeilds improvement for the Palestinian people more intently and more sustainably than the “quislings”.
Witty talks to himself. So do all the other regulars at the “pro-Peace” rallies.
Witty is the model for hypocrisy. Nobody does it better. He has no clue that he is. He is a replica of Heydrich (not Himmler). If I were G-D I would boot his ass out of the USA in a second. Instead, I am coherced to support him and his ilk.
even so, Witty has accomplished his objective: nobody is discussing the outrage of a Palestinian being humiliated; everybody is talking about Witty. Palestinians once again become of lesser importance.
Jews are as susceptible to nationalism and racial superiority as any other population, which might be an argument against anti-Semitism.
Why is every day an entirely new world for Zionists? For God’s sake, when the Zionists came to Jaffa they simply mortared the Arab civilian quarters of the city to kill them and scare them off. This is recorded, not by “the Arabs”, but by the British.
They started with expansionism, never accepting the partition offered by the British, turned on the British, and never looked back.
But now they seem to be running out of friends, and patience is running thin in the US.
But every day Witty is shocked, shocked, that there is brutality by Israelis in Palestine.
I tell you this Witty: The new generation of Jews in America, and very probably those in Israel, will not be enslaved by your colonial dreams.
RE: This is recorded, not by “the Arabs”, but by the British. – Mooser
HASBARA: The British are just a bunch of anti-Semites. Take the BBC, for instance!
“We create reality!”
I look forward to the day when we take back control of our language.
These are not “settlers”. They are land thieves,vandals, thugs, and punk-ass bullies with AK’s.
And I refuse to call these a-h’s “Israelis” because they are Jews of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews. Every synagogue in America by it’s silence is complicit with this crime in Palestine.
I look forward to the day when we take back control of our language.
These are not “settlers”. They are land thieves,vandals, thugs, and punk-ass bullies with AK’s.
And I refuse to call these a-h’s “Israelis” because they are Jews of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews. Every synagogue in America by it’s silence is complicit with this crime in Palestine.
I don’t get into claiming that every synagogue is responsible for this for the same reason I don’t claim every church is responsible for some example of Christian anti-semitism or for that matter support for Israeli terrorism, or every mosque responsible for Islamic terrorism. Now if people in a particular church, mosque or synagogue support some vicious policy, then they are fair game for criticism, but if it’s mere silence then, to quote a famous Jew, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Probably very few of us do everything we could or should be doing to oppose crimes that we are linked to in some way.
Also, I read a lot of the threads around here and I am not responsible for writing a rebuttal to every anti-Jewish statement that someone makes–if I used your logic I would be. Fortunately I’m not, because life is too short.
RE: “Also, I read a lot of the threads around here and I am not responsible for writing a rebuttal to every anti-Jewish statement that someone makes–if I used your logic I would be. Fortunately I’m not, because life is too short.”
MY COMMENT: This goes for me as well. In fact, I often decide not to read the comments because I’m afraid I”ll have to spend too much time trying to distance myself from ‘intemperate’ comments. Having said that, I do consider it my duty to devote a certain amount of effort at rebutting comments that contain offensive negative stereotyping of Jews (and sometimes Israelis). It just “goes with the the territory”.
I don’t think I’ve been in a synagogue that didn’t fly the Israeli flag. I’m sure there are some. Probably most have raised money for the JNF too. Should I think of them more as like the “good Germans” who turned a blind eye to Hitler’s program even when it was going under their noses? I don’t know. All I can say is a number of my Jewish friends and aquaintances have totally bought the Israeli line. I don’t really know how to counter the somewhat robotically quoted figure of 7000 “rockets” from Gaza.
When the JNF asks for money to plant trees in Israel, it sounds like such a worthwhile cause – ecological, and so on. They never to my knowledge asked for money to plant trees to cover up the remains of a Palestinian village whose people had been murdered or expelled – which is what a lot of the trees were used for. When the pro-Israel crowd asks people to support Israel as a bastion of democracy and western values and equal rights and so forth, fightin Islamic “extremism” and and all that it sounds like a worthwhile cause I’m sure. The war on Gaza was advertised as a war on Hamas – there were even claims that Israel was doing the Palestinians a favor getting rid of them. But it’s really just cover and justification for mass murder, and even an incitement to mass murder.
sorry, I didn’t close the italics tag. And now I have to vote.
“Every synagogue in America by its silence is complicit with this crime in Palestine.” – from cogit8 above
Donald, in spite of your reluctance to jump on every statement you regard as hateful of Jews, I notice you did it again. You objected to the above statement as being prejudicial to Jews, if not hateful.
Me, I hate to see analogies with the Holocaust. But I’ll do it just this once.
Suppose you were a young adult back in the year 1942, say. Suppose that what the Nazis were doing to the Jews that year (or pick your own year) were fully known to you and “every” (or at least most of the) synagogues in America. Suppose that most of the synagogues remained silent about it.
Now pretend that you heard some non-Jewish person say something like this:
“Every synagogue in America by its silence is complicit with this crime in Europe.”
Would you assume that this person was motivated by hate for Jews? Dislike? Contempt? Would you merely suspect it?
Bearing in mind that there is one glaring lack of symmetry between these two historical situations (the Jews were the victims in the earlier instance), I would like to know your answer.
If you think that you, cast back to 1942, would not have heard anti-Jewish prejudice in the statement of my hypothetical figure, why not? Tell me what the difference is.
I don’t know about you, but I think that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is heinous. Deserving of very many expressions of outrage and anger. I also think that “most” (not all) of the synagogues in America give a lot of support to Israel. And I think it is shameful that only a “few” of them publicly criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (just as it is shameful that more American churches do not).
No, we don’t want anti-semitism here. But I also think we don’t need unneccessary suppression of free expression with over-zealous enforcement of PC.
Uh-Oh! I jumped too soon with my previous analogy just above. From the original comment that Donald objected to, I should have noticed the sentence just above the one I quoted (and that Donald referred to).
That sentence does appear to cross the line in its intent. I agree with Donald; the entire comment is not acceptable. Free expression must have limits here.
“Free expression must have limits here.”
You put your finger on it, CMI. I am sure that almost all participants here agree that there should be few if any restrictions on speech in general, and that dialogue is severely and dangerously limited in our “democratic” societies. That is not to say that one may exercise that right at any time and in any place. This blog presents certain ideas, and allows readers to contribute and discuss them. Discussion becomes impossible however, when any and every comment is tolerated. It’s Phil’s blog, so he gets to decide. As active participants however, we certainly have the right to criticise those decisions, or even act on our own – choosing to ignore trolls, who stifle rather than add to the discussion. For example, I have suggested that Witty be ignored, not because he does not have the right to voice his opinions, but because his tactics and general dishonesty severely affect the quality of discussion here – even to the point of making entire threads unreadable, when he’s on a roll (it even rhymes).
Another important contrast between the Mississippi poster and this discussion, is that the individuals being harrassed were actually courageous. They put themselves into some very real jeopardy to make a point, coolly, calmly, insightfully.
That is NOT the case with the proponents of BDS here. Most are distant, alarmed from the “comfort” of their American or European media centers.
Better to see for yourself. Read widely (differing perspectives, avoiding the hot ones on either side if possible if you want to actually see), visit, talk respectfully so as to understand people’s actual motivations.
I don’t even know what to say to this post, Richard – or to your preceding posts on this page.
I’ll leave it at, go to the West Bank for yourself and then attempt to peddle the same lame excuses for the disgusting behaviour you’ll see there.
You hear my comments as “excuses for the disgusting behavior you’ll see there”.
Did you read my first post?
Shafiq,
I’ve seen some Jews (not so many Israelis as I’m not there) do and say what I consider inhumane statements and actions. My response to them is “You demean Torah by such actions.” They either take the remonstrance seriously and research Torah and themselves to remedy their behavior, or they are exposed as faux-Jews.
I did. I saw you condemn the individual act and then attempt to qualify it by saying it’s not comparable to the Mississippi example. Then you claim that the IDF does not sponsor such activity, which I find very hard to believe judging by their actions when settlers routinely attack Palestinians. Then you attack people supporting the BDS movement, which has nothing to do with the picture really.
Is the woman being attacked courageous? The Palestinians who continue to live in Hebron, despite the abuse? What about the foreign peace activists that attempt to make Palestinian lives more bearable, sometimes risking (and losing) their lives in the process?
This is not an isolated incident like you have made it out to be, this is systematic abuse of Arabs by Jewish settlers, and not much different to the Mississippi picture.
You confuse a comment on a single picture, with advocacy of a behavior.
Read my actual post please.
There is another troubling aspect to the picture which has been levied at journalists all over. If they saw the abuse occurring, why didn’t they themselves do something about it? Why the preference for taking a picture rather than stopping the harm?
That might suggest that the harm was not sufficient to merit stopping. It could say that the photographer was afraid. Or, that they made a banal judgement (as soldiers are accused of banality) of considering the picture more important “weapon”.
There is another troubling aspect to the picture which has been levied at journalists all over. If they saw the abuse occurring, why didn’t they themselves do something about it? Why the preference for taking a picture rather than stopping the harm?
What if this wouldn’t change a think if they reported it? But interesting turn, so the photographer is the most guilty?
Let’s imagine a scenario? You decide on the photographers “guilt”.
Imagine a photographer took it to document something he is told actually happens on an almost daily basis, but people don’t believe. Reporting is absolutely useless, it has been tried nothing has come of it. He is a foreigner and will leave soon, what do you think is more efficient. To defend the woman this one day, knowing it will happen again the next or the day after? Or taking a photograph, to force the authorities to listen, take action? Let’s assume it is in fact the favorite past time for the kids in the special settler community.
Which of course leads us back to the argument that all these photos are falsified.
Yeah Richard, the picture is a weapon where the individual condemns himself, he holds a knife to his throat and acts as if he will slit it.
I’LL KILL MYSELF
So why didn’t the photographer help the woman?
What if the photographer DID help the woman?
I don’t understand what pains you so much about the photograph.
What Richard is doing with the question about the photographer’s duty is a form of “concern trolling”. He’s oh-so-concerned about anything and everything except the main point–racism in Israeli society. He thinks this blog is too critical of Israel, and so virtually everything he posts is either a direct defense of Israel’s actions or more commonly, a way of deflecting attention from a point Phil or someone else has made.
I think the photograph is a good one. It was presented in the New York Times (so please don’t state that the NY Times censors).
I criticized the juxtaposition with the Mississippi freedom riders. They are not parallel stories.
The presentation of them as parallel WEAKENS the argument, except to the already converted, those that are stimulated to anger by a Pavolovian picture.
Those that you imply that you desire to persuade are more skeptical. Phil is smarter than to present a pictorial (as a thousand words) that is just emotional.
I get his point. “How come this doesn’t upset you, but this other picture did?”.
How dare you!
A Palestinian in Hebron needs courage to walk out of her own door, to walk on her own street, knowing that abusers are waiting there for her. A Palestinian child needs courage to go to school, knowing that mobs are waiting there with stones to throw at her.
How dare you say they don’t have courage!
Let me see you have the courage to walk past a bunch of skinheads with swastikas day after day, while they throw beer and garbage on you, throw stones at you, trip you so you fall and kick you when you’re down. Let me see you have the courage to walk your small child to school past that bunch of skinheads. Every day. They tear her backpack off her back and kick it around, scatter the papers and tear the books, piss on her homework. Every day. Do you have the courage to do this?
There’s a policeman on the corner with a gun. If you ask him for help, he’ll laugh at you. If you try to defend yourself or your child, he’ll arrest you, beat you up, beat up your child. The only thing you can do is keep walking, keep hoping that this time maybe they won’t hurt you too much.
Or stay home. Keep your child inside and not allow her to go to school. Stay inside behind the locked metal doors where it’s safe for the moment. Because taking one step outside requires more courage than you possess.
And some moral midget in the safety of his own home thousands of miles away, where the policemen protect him instead of abuing him, says the abuse you suffer doesn’t matter because it doesn’t take courage when you face it.
Well, and it’s twice as easy for Richie boy because, I’m guessing he’s white. So American cops do protect him… as opposed to how they treat Hispanics or African Americans.
It would be a good thing if you would apply those standards to yourself. You refuse to read the Goldstone report, and have not read Breaking the Silence, and you don’t listen to hear what other posters motivations here are, you simply castigate them because they disagree with your own and then pretend to some moral superiority because you do nothing to upset or challenge the Israeli status quo.
I castigate the dissenting view, the negative-only view in which the sum total of dissenters’ investment in the issue, people affected is to complain.
In contrast, I ask you (individually and collectively) to attempt to do something, to propose and do.
And, please don’t equate a negative “action” (agitation), with actually doing something.
That is what is described as activists’ vanity (in both meanings of the term: self-aggrandizement, and inneffectiveness).
A silhouette rather than work.
I’ve read plenty Tree, present and historically.
The question that I end up with is “what do I do with this?”. What proposal changes this, so that it doesn’t repeat?
What proposal changes this, so that the relationships co-created are more effective, more fulfilling ones?
Again, the content that the picture presents is reprehensible.
Even, on the question of effective dissent against criminal behavior (likely organized in some hateful way), what is the appropriate and effective response?
What makes the change, ACTUALLY?
Well, while you’re contemplating your navel trying to figure out how to get a bunch of Israeli land squatters to stop burning down orchards, stealing homes and assaulting elderly women and schoolchildren without hurting the feelings of those selfsame Israeli land squatters…. orchards are being burnt down, homes are being stolen and elderly women and schoolchildren are being assaulted.
Way to prioritize, Richard.
RW – “And, please don’t equate a negative “action” (agitation), with actually doing something.”
Do something, but don’t actually do something.
Maybe we could send the terrorists a case of nice white California wine so the stains would be easier for the Palestinians to get out of their clothes?
Maybe you should read, prepare accurate compelling presentations/films, raise money for artfully transformative initiatives,.
Israel definitely stepped into shit in Gaza. Today, the largest Egyptian media conglomerate announced that it would not interview or cover anything Israeli.
Somehow they regard their partisan statement as more important than their professional standards.
Its a bad trend for Israel, hopefully a message will get to Netanyahu that expansion and suppression add up to reduced Israeli security, rather than enhanced. Hopefully, a no confidence vote will occur forcing another Israeli election.
But, if Israel does not respond to communication in that way, then much more devastating war will be the result.
1400 dead is bad. But all out war multiplies that number by 100. If you are advocating for any political pressure that likely results in that, then we are truly opponents.
Netanyahu and likud will be idiots (as I’ve consistently stated), but Egypt, Hamas, and all solidarity with BDS will be as well.
This past week, senior US generals opined that more and more judicious use of ground forces were needed in Afghanistan. The republican House whip (I think) Kyl, stated unequivocally that delay to study, to actually form a feasible strategy, endangered the existing troups, and Obama needed to ACT, not think.
Rather than consider what is the most effective and mutually kind way to realize improvement for Palestinians, the advocates for BDS apply the same logic. “Act”, don’t think.
I say think, then act.
Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu
Be warned that, at the advice of Richard Witty, I am sitting here at home reading. If you do not immediately withdraw your troops from the West Bank and ground your bombers, I must advise you that I am prepared to read some more.
God, seriously Richard, you frame every reaction to what Israel is doing into something immoral and unethical. Holy freakin’ blind spot, that you will spend hours criticizing everyone except Israel and you can’t even spare a breath for even a single Gazan child that was murdered in Operation Cast Lead.
You’re such a glowing example of humanism, Richard.
But there aren’t any Palestinians, and they are all Islamic Florescent Nocturnal Terrorists anyways. So the most morally moral precious gift of light unto the nations was just killing Terrorists. Terrorist women, children, elderly, ill and injured. Terrorist hospitals, schools, mosques, police academies.
Anyways, stop talking about Israel that way. Remember the Holocaust?
The Mississippi poster shows some people sitting at a public lunch/soda fountain counter–by doing this they knew they were breaking local law and/or custom. They are being abused for this act. Considering all the don’t the Palestinians live under daily, and all the abuse they take, often much harsher than getting a soft drink poured on their head, I’d say any Palestininan who even stares or glances cross-eyed at any Jew is very brave. The Palestinian women trying to make her way down the street
is purposefully looking away from the Jewish kid–she get’s a rain of wine for her
lack of courage to make a point. Pals lose either way. Witty quibbles on.
There is another element to this aggression that no one seems to have mentioned here. This traditional Muslim woman (judging by her clothes) was not doused with soda, but with wine – forbidden by Islamic law. Devout Muslims not only refrain from drinking alcohol, but will often avoid coming into any contact with it. A Muslim cashier at our Jerusalem supermarket used to ask Jewish customers to handle all bottles of wine or beer on the counter themselves. I’m guessing the miserable little thug’s choice of wine was not a coincidence. Of course he could have doused her with bacon grease, but religious Jews aren’t too fond of that stuff either. Wine (kosher) is the perfect solution.
Wow, yeah. Good point. Something else that’s rather glaring when you look at the photo — the sealed up shop behind here is clearly an Arabic-owned shop — check the sign over the door — and the graffiti on it is very prominently the Star of David.
Way to cheapen and degrade a symbol of your religion by wielding it in much the same way as Nazis (then and now) wield the swastika against Jewish shop owners, crazy fanatic Hebron settlers.
The irony of that is tragic and not at all funny, incidentally. I’m not an expert in anthropology, but I understand that the swastika had relatively harmless religious and symbolic connotations (from religions that aren’t really practiced anymore I think, but still) before it was appropriated by the Nazis. This doesn’t bode well for how people are going to look upon the Star of David a century or so from now.
The perp’s sidelocks also strike a sick note of irony for me. My grandfather told me that when he was a lad, in Poland, the sidelocks he and his friends wore were often targeted by non-Jewish thugs – who would tug at them and even cut them off.
I read widely, visit and talk respectfully so as to understand people’s actual motivations.
For Palestinians, the motivation is resistance to occupation. For Jewish Israelis the motivations is racially motivated need for Arab-free lebensraum.
I’m glad somebody else is saying it. You look at what the Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza and it really right out of the Mein Kampf playbook. But of course, Zionists did something really clever and lobbied to have the legal definition set up so that comparing ethnic cleansing done on Jews to ethnic cleansing being done by Jews is somehow inherently anti-Semitic. And that’s an insult to honest, socially conscious Jews, particularly those who do have to put up with genuine anti-Semitism now and then.
A photographer records, he does not interfere. And if he does his (or her) job well, he pays a price which which requires much courage. A person recording these kinds of incidents is likely to be set upon by either side, or both.
Well, and the argument stands to reason that documenting what is happening and making it available to the rest of the world. If the photographer rushed in and stopped the young man, then got arrested by the IDF and thrown in jail for a few days, weeks or months for “assault on an Israeli citizen,” a lot of people wouldn’t know this was happening at all.
By informing a wider range of people, the photographer is, in fact, bringing about more action to stop this sort of thing.
I criticized the juxtaposition with the Mississippi freedom riders. They are not parallel stories.
It is true that both stories are not parallel. The Mississippi whites didn’t have planes, tanks and choppers to support them as they abused blacks. Also, they were not usurpers of their victims’ land. And there are myriad other differences.
But it is striking to see how similarly racists think and act. Be it in Mississippi or in the West Bank, they think that pouring liquids on the targets of their abuse is a good way of humiliating them and proving who the master is.
That’s why the juxtaposition is particularly apt.
This is a very important contribution. May I pick what I find essential?
I think this and the following paragraph is what it’s all about in a nutshell. The humiliation and degradation of the “victim/enemy/other” essentially serves to project the shame onto the other among ritualized collective laughter. He is the one that has to feel it to free yourself of it.
The Nazis practiced this custom par excellence, and you better do not stick out your head from the crowd’s laughter in dissent, it’s not that he doesn’t know, he knows it very well. If you do this, you turn into the target. You endanger the ritual that allows the many to not feel any shame. Only the declared victim and the dissenter has to feel it. That’s the false safety inside the crowd under such circumstances.
This is one of the rituals that left its traces in post-War II Germany. The peculiar mindset that seems to enjoy to shame the dissenter in front of whatever collective. It took me ages to understand. One of the ways to deal with it is to freeze your feelings. A very dangerous thing, since feelings do have warning functions too beyond our rational ways of dealing with matters.
Every American school yard contains this portrait; there’s always a bully and pals. There must
be a thousand teen movies out of Hollywood that have depicted this same theme; each film decade has its own style and music, but the theme LeaNder isolates, focuses on, remains the same.
Why do you ignore the evidence that this seems to be based on a deliberate decision? It must be, since soldiers have to obey orders, they act inside a given frame. Do you think what you demand above hasn’t been demanded before? Are you honestly believing you are the only thinking person in the world?
Couldn’t this be the reason why the young Palestinian law prof (if I remember correctly?) has disappeared behind prison walls based on “secret” information no one –least of all he himself–is allowed to know?
LeaNder,
Why did you not include my comment about Fayyad in your criticism of my post?
It is actively misleading to take single lines out of context.
Yes, let’s all focus on ONE LITTLE PIECE of your post and completely ignore all the faulty stuff in it.
Nice dodge.
Witty’s the ultimate weasel. It’s how he entertains himself I guess–I bet his accounting clients have liked his work.