Amazing interview with Amira Hass on Democracy Now. Hass is here to accept a lifetime achievement award from a women’s journalism organization.
Amy Goodman: Those are the words [in the New York Times] of Robert Bernstein, criticizing his own group, Human Rights Watch. Your response, Amira Hass?
AMIRA HASS: It’s very Orwellian, very Orwellian. It’s Israel which attacks the Palestinians. I mean, I read the article. The word “occupation” does not appear there even one time. He says that Israel is a democracy of seven-million-point-something Israeli citizens. He forgets four million Palestinians, who have to be registered in the Israeli population registry in order to exist. All the Palestinians are registered. He forgot the four million. So what kind of democracy it is, where four million who are in the Israeli Ministry of Interior have to be registered and Israel decides if they are—if they exist? How can you call it a democracy, when half of—when one-third, not to mention the one million Israeli Palestinians, don’t have rights, the same rights? What kind of democracy it is? It is really twisting all facts around. I was surprised to read this article, because it very much sounded—much of it sounded like propaganda of Israeli officials. Parts of it, not all.
… We know that attacks on democracy cannot—and on rights, do not only happen in the closed societies, in the unopen societies. And we also have learned that we should come with more demands to societies which claim to be democratic.
Every American Jew has more rights in Israel, potentially has more rights in Israel, than any Palestinian who was born there, who lives there, or who was born to Palestinians who were expelled. Every American Jew. I mean, this gives—this gives an obligation to Human Rights Watch to monitor Israel. I mean, there are no Americans who have a potential right to become automatically Saudi citizens or Chinese, or I don’t know what. Only Israel. So you have an obligation to monitor in what—to what extent it protects or abides by internationally accepted obligations and human rights. So these things are completely forgotten, and many more. I mean, it’s—factually, I mean, there are many things to argue with him, I think, and also value-wise many things to argue. And maybe—I’m sure that people will answer.
… this discrepancy, this Israeli control over every step of Palestinian life, still goes on, and it’s even worse. And the world doesn’t know. People do not associate now the Israeli regime with the terrible restrictions on freedom of movement, like it was in South Africa. Everybody knew during South Africa, during apartheid, that there is pass system. Now people do not know about. I was asked by a very nice Jewish woman, close to Peace Now—she asked me, “Are there any Palestinian journalists doing like what you are doing, living in Israel and reporting about Israel?” I said, “They wish they could, but Israel would not allow them even to go and cover a press conference in Jerusalem, let alone live in Israel.” We mean Palestinians who are residents of the West Bank or Gaza. She was surprised. So people do not grasp the extent of the restrictions of movement, which is the worst of all. I mean, it completely shrinks people’s life, not to mention how Gaza is a huge, how would I say, detention camp for one million and a half people who could not move more than thirty kilometers or forty kilometers in the past ten years or twelve years.
Amira Hass is NOT commenting on the truthfulness of Bernstein’s assertions, or reasons for stating them, only that from her experience the focus is misplaced.
And, as I said earlier, a LARGE portion of the reason that the focus of attention is distracted to side shows, IS the negligent performance of the left in educating.
Rather than regard presentation of information as a communication, with the recognition that many just don’t know what you or others have experienced, the approach of the left is to browbeat.
You can blame the rest of the world for not being as “enlightened” as you, but that is a vanity. (But, you would have to acknowledge that your reading on Israeli and Zionist history may be limited. I don’t know. In spite of recurring inquiry, you’ve declined to respond on the degree and scope of your study. And, that your journalistic inquiry into Israeli society, even the politics of the wars, is at best second hand.)
You are arguing about the press. I guess that’s a choice of scope. “I’m going to be an expert in the limited range that is within my expertise.” I would expect you to be more curious, at least to be able to defend against your critics.
I am a very moderate one, compared to those I encounter on other blogs and in face to face even. I historically have defended you. I’m having reservations recently, with your emphasis on partisan and condemnatory approaches.
I’m glad that the Bernstein op-ed stimulated discussion. I wish it had stimulated inquiry, and the Goldstone report should have stimulated inquiry within the IDF, rather than an effort at dismissal.
“Amira Hass is NOT commenting on the truthfulness of Bernstein’s assertions”
Yes she is. She’s saying that Israel is a major violator of human rights from her own knowledge and the fact that it is a democracy for some doesn’t change the facts regarding its treatment of Palestinians. That wipes away a large chunk of Bernstein’s piece right there.
“Rather than regard presentation of information as a communication, with the recognition that many just don’t know what you or others have experienced, the approach of the left is to browbeat.”
You’re conflating your perception of “the left” with HRW’s role. HRW is not “the left”–it’s a human rights organization which gathers facts about the human rights violations of various actors (in this case, Israel, Hamas and the PA) , analyzes its data, and then presents the facts and its conclusions in reports. Bernstein and critics like him are trying to browbeat HRW into giving Israel special treatment. All defenders of abusive governments do this.
People here do browbeat–you do it all the time in your prissy way, and people react with great hostility to your evasions. Sometimes you make legitimate points, but you aren’t taken seriously because of all the other times when you don’t. It’s unfortunate, but it’s mainly your own fault. And none of this has anything to do with the stupid slanders of HRW, which you try to justify.
“I am a very moderate one, compared to those I encounter on other blogs and in face to face even”
True. One of the things I started noticing decades ago was how nakedly racist and power-worshipping much of the defense of Israel actually is. I could give numerous examples of the sorts of arguments I’ve read and sometimes heard firsthand.
“I’m having reservations recently, with your emphasis on partisan and condemnatory approaches.”
Good God, Witty, who cares? There are some liberal Zionists whose opinions should be treated with respect because they are honest and forthright in admitting Israel’s crimes and while they defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (for reasons such as providing a haven for Jews), they don’t lie about the past or try and pretend it was only those bad Likud types who did all the bad things. If they criticize Phil, they should be listened to. You, not so much.
America: An entire nation in the grip of kosher Stockholm Syndrome
Psychopathic–
I didn’t click on your links, but I’m very skeptical of claims about how members of some group are trained to do this or that.
Of course some members of a minority group will use false accusations of racism or (in this case) antisemitism to win arguments. That’s no secret. And many or most liberals are horrified at the thought of being accused of antisemitism (rightly so, as it is a serious charge) and so they may walk on eggshells on the subject of Israel. That’s no secret either.
She is saying that the situation is a totalitarian nightmare and that Bernstein’s remarks are another indication of this. His remarks bear no relation to the reality.
If you did not assert that you were being serious, your arguments could easily be mistaken for parody. Unfortunately they are pseudo arguments, and an embarrassment to anybody reading them. Obviously, embarrassment is not an issue for you.
Fact: Richard Witty, born, raised, and educated in the USA & protected by the USA military throughout, and who was never a part of that military, has more rights in the state of Israel, should he exercise them at any time on a whim or whats0ever, than any non-Jewish citizen of Israel who’s family has lived on that land for centuries. Now, there’s a choice of scope, nicht wahr?
That would be the same Amira Hass that was recently arrested for going into Gaza right Richard?
You again ignore the important questions for the unimportant.
Rather than ask yourselves, “how can we OURSELVES be more effective at communicating the condition of Palestinians”, you direct ALL of your attention at what irritates you.
Can we talk about that? Maybe we can get more onto the same page, than the confrontational arguments about what we are stimulated to agitate about.
Richard, part of the activism is not just “communicating the condition of Palestinians,” it is communicating the Zionist bias of the major media instruments that shape the opinions of policy-makers.
Are we allowed to discuss that, or does it hurt your feelings?
“You again ignore the important questions for the unimportant.”
Wrong. Bernstein’s attack on HRW wouldn’t matter if he were some lone ranting crank , except that he is not alone. Virtually all of Congress and Obama take the same line regarding Israeli war crimes–basically, they don’t exist, unlike Palestinian rocket fire, which is the only “violence” in this conflict that Obama ever condemns.
“Rather than ask yourselves, “how can we OURSELVES be more effective at communicating the condition of Palestinians”
Part of the solution to that is pointing out that human rights groups agree on this question and their critics are lying. Seriously, this happens with every human rights issue–torture under Bush was another example. There’s no magic wand one can wave to make the atrocity deniers go away, but treating them as though they were making serious points does a disservice to the real victims that HRW writes about (some of whom have been victims of Hamas). I hate to go Godwin, but Holocaust deniers don’t make serious points and responses to them should never include any hint that they are making valid arguments. I grew up around white racists–there’s not a way to reason with people like that if they don’t want to face the truth about the ugliness of some aspects of their culture, and it’s pretty obvious that some Israeli-defenders in the US have a lot in common with the Old South romanticizers I knew growing up. I noticed that similarity many many years ago (long before Phil with his Jim Crow analogies), though of course it is still taboo to suggest there’s more than a whiff of racism in much ostensibly pro-Israel talk.
“Maybe we can get more onto the same page, than the confrontational arguments about what we are stimulated to agitate about”
Well, you could start by not jumping on virtually every post Phil types with some reactive comment, one generally suggesting that you are the morally superior peace advocate. The act has gotten very old, to the point where I started writing Witty parody posts in my head the other day. And I’ve got a few other suggestions as well–employ single standards on human rights and don’t sympathize with every criticism made of human rights groups just because the “far left” uses human rights reports as part of its critique of Israel.
You confuse my use of the term “far left” to include the comments by Human Rights Watch.
The term is descriptive in the question of whether Human Rights Watch has become partisan in any material way, to the point that its reports become distorted in emphasis or fact.
Bernstein suggests the question, which the board determined wasn’t worth their time to seriously consider, and you defended.
The IDF similarly mistakenly didn’t consider that Goldstone’s report was worth their time to consider seriously. Goldstone’s report was far more substantive and potentially helpful to a military seeking excellence, than was Bernstein’s briefs or op-ed.
The commonality was the denial to inquire sincerely any further.
Phil blames the messenger that blames the messenger that blames the messenger.
Who is blaming the messenger, all of them, Phil included.
An appropriate response from Human Rights Watch would be, “we are aware of the possibility of bias in presentation of fact, and even in selection of content to investigate. We internally undertake x procedures to ensure that we avoid bias. We regard even the appearance of bias as a diminution of our standards of excellence. We will gratefully entertain substantive criticisms towards that end.”
On Phil,
His posting has shifted to consistently negative, from an even thinly balanced approach.
“You confuse my use of the term “far left” to include the comments by Human Rights Watch.
The term is descriptive in the question of whether Human Rights Watch has become partisan in any material way, to the point that its reports become distorted in emphasis or fact.”
Word salad. I think I can figure out what you mean, but it would be easier if written in English. You write more clearly when you have actual facts on your side. When that is not the case, your pieces are often nearly incoherent. The point becomes slightly clearer next–
“Bernstein suggests the question, which the board determined wasn’t worth their time to seriously consider, and you defended.”
Bernstein “suggested” nothing. Bernstein wrote a screed denouncing HRW for alleged bias against Israel. It was an attempt at poisoning the well, discrediting their work and making it that much tougher to cite them in showing that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses. And it will probably have some success–the “founder” of HRW claims HRW has gone off the rails–every apologist for Israeli war crimes will cite this whenever HRW criticises Israel. It makes it easy for Congress and the President to ignore what they say. And you treat this rather typical example of atrocity denial as though it was some sort of criticism offered in good faith.
“The IDF similarly mistakenly didn’t consider that Goldstone’s report was worth their time to consider seriously. Goldstone’s report was far more substantive and potentially helpful to a military seeking excellence, than was Bernstein’s briefs or op-ed.”
Good, a recognition of the blindingly obvious in that last sentence, buried under a false equivalence between war criminals and those who report on them. Still, this is better than what you usually write.
“The commonality was the denial to inquire sincerely any further.
Phil blames the messenger that blames the messenger that blames the messenger.
Who is blaming the messenger, all of them, Phil included.”
More false equivalences. Bernstein slandered a professional human rights organization which has been doing a good job on Israel and the PA, covering the violations of both of them. And you defend this as a legitimate contribution to the conversation. There’s a commonality here, between atrocity deniers like Bernstein and you.
“We will gratefully entertain substantive criticisms towards that end.”
Taken as a subtle slam against Bernstein’s attempt at well-poisoning, this would work fine, but I am afraid people might take it as you intended, which is that Bernstein wrote a serious piece of criticism. He’s an atrocity denier, not a constructive critic.
As for blame, I don’t consider that much of a criticism. And neither do you–all you ever do here is blame Phil, day in and day out. Unfortunately most of your blame pieces are poorly reasoned or worse.
“good job on Israel and the PA, ”
I meant “Israel and Hamas”. I can’t recall offhand if HRW has done a good job covering the PA’s human rights violations lately.
On the term “Orwellian”.
Both the left, right and center regard the “other” as utterly ignoring their concerns. Likud sources use the term “Orwellian” to describe the failure of the Arab world to establish diplomatic relations and to consider any military response to rocket fire on civilians as excessive.
The left uses the term “Orwellian” to describe the excessive military response as only defensive.
The liberal community uses the term “Orwellian” to describe the insistence on exageration and denial by both far left and far right.
We’re all “converted”.
Of course “far left” is a part of Witty’s tautology, essentially a figment of his imagination.
Consider the demands for human rights:
If discussed in the context of Zionism, it’s “far left.”
If mentioned in the context of Iran, it’s eminently reasonable, right down the center, moderate.
Not in the slightest.
If its presented informatively, coherently, in context it is a description of human rights, an urge to reform to a status of law.
When selective, anecdotal only, associated with propagandistic slant, it is a confusion of human rights.
How come whenever human rights need to be applied to Palestinians, you find that confusing? Seems to be an, ahem, ideological problem on your end, Witty, not an anyone else’s.
Richard, really, how dishonest can you be.
Your fear-mongerng here about Iran is the definition of “selective” and “anecdotal.” Are you going to renounce your many attempts to present Iran as an “aggressor” based on these new standards you’re proclaiming?
Fear-mongering is somehow the same as fear-describing or fear-considering in your view?
Yes, Richard, just as yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater is not mere “description” or “consideration.” Fear and hysteria are easy to multiply because of our own evolutionary instincts to flee first and trust second, and you are doing your part to build fear towards Iran, not trust, despite the total lack of evidence of aggression. (Meanwhile, Israel aggresses, aggresses, and aggresses, and you can only muster the tamest of rebukes, if that.)
We really need to get you a sandwich board, Witty, so that we can have the complete image of you standing on the street corner trying to shout the rest of us down while we try to have a legitimate discourse.
I’ve not heard much “legitimate discourse” from you.
I’ve heard contempt, anger, dismissal of any perspective that differs from the anti-Israeli in any form.
A one-note piece.
There is a lot that can be said with one note, one theme. There is much more possible.
Well, I’ll grant you that, Witty, you’re a pretty solid data point for the whole notion that randomly banging on a keyboard long enough will eventually produce something semi-coherent.
Also? If you needed somebody to tell you what “Orwellian” means and what it’s a reference too, you really only needed to ask. Because clearly, you are confused about that.
Pingback: Amira Hass: NYT runs Israeli propaganda, and U.S. is blindered to absence of Palestinians’ rights | JewPI
Madcap Zionists love nothing better than to boast the ‘liberal democratic’ values of Israel, especially when compared to their ‘third world’ neighbours (We Rock! They Suck!). But mention Amira Hass and they’re pretty unanimous in their condemnation of Hass as a ‘traitor’: seems to me these people don’t cherish their free press too much. From the (admittedly extremist) Masada S.H.I.T. list on Hass, a bit of ‘fun’:
Pingback: ABUNIMAH: There is a tremendous struggle to be waged, to force Israeli introspection, and change