Joseph Glatzer is a poli sci major at California State University/Northridge who will be going on the march in Gaza. He writes:
It’s assumed if you’re Jewish you must be “Pro-Israel” and if you’re Arab/Middle Eastern/Muslim you must be “Pro-Palestinian”. There’s no possible way to be consistently “pro human rights”, and to simply be against the killing of children. The “side you take” in the “conflict” is based on nothing more than your religion and/or ethnic background. There is no objective truth available. Evidence is seen as “biased”, because no matter how damning it appears to be; there’s always “another side to consider”.
The point of view I have in regards to Israel/Palestine is based on nothing more than having a conscience and knowing the difference between right and wrong. I have no connection to the Middle East: I’m not Muslim or Arab. Besides the heartbreaking reality of the plight of the Palestinian people, what else would motivate me to care as much as I do? I wasn’t always this way…
A few years ago I had a professor say that Israel made Gaza into “the biggest open-air prison in the world”. I had no idea what or where Gaza was, but he criticized Israel. I loudly protested, calling him: anti-Israel, Anti-American, and an Anti-Semite. When I later told my friend how offended I was, I claimed the professor blamed the Jews for all the problems in the world.
This was part of my experience being a knee-jerk, uncritical defender of Israel. Nobody taught me McCarthyism specifically; labeling any defense of Palestinian human rights as anti-Israel came naturally to me. It’s truly what I thought being Jewish–I’m half–was about.
My world was shaken by a book I read called The Israel Lobby. I learned details of Israeli actions I had never even heard of before. I always rationalized the deaths of Palestinian civilians by saying Israel had to defend itself from terrorism. It was just too bad: if the Palestinians didn’t like having their civilians killed, they should stop being terrorists. In the book I learned about “home demolitions”. Israel has demolished over 24,000 Palestinian homes since 1967, making these families homeless. What possible justification could there be for this kind of cruelty? I couldn’t think of any.
I wondered how this could be possible, and why no one did anything about it. I wondered how the facts of what’s going on in the Middle East could be so different from what I’ve seen in the American media my entire life. Finding out that my Orange County Right-Wing Republican fetishized ideal of Israel wasn’t what I thought it was was truly earth-shattering for me. I couldn’t believe Israel wasn’t actually the defender of democracy in the Middle East as I was raised to believe.
At first I never even knew anyone else who felt the way I did. So, here I was a half Jewish critic of Israel living in Valley Village walking past the ultra orthodox every day. Where did I fit in? Throughout my years at LA Valley College all I ran into was clichéd misrepresentative slogans about how wonderful everything Israel did was.
I never dared speak out, because I was afraid of being called an anti-Semite and being smeared. Then Israel’s massacre of Gaza in December 2008 happened. I couldn’t believe after their daily suffering and imprisonment, Israel was now bombing the entire population. White phosphorous melting the faces off children, just because they were guilty of attending a UN school. Civilians waving white flags were shot; the UN warehouse of food aid for the victims was bombed and exploded by Israel.
The story of Palestinian-American Astrophysicist Suleiman Baraka will live with me forever. He was working with NASA at Virginia Tech when he found out his eleven-year-old son Ibrahim was critically wounded in the attack. On January 5th Ibrahim died. Tragically, he wasn’t the only child killed by Israel’s attack. According to the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, 320 Palestinian children died. These images and stories would haunt me forever. It convinced me I had to do something. Hearing about the innocent children killed, like Ibrahim, made me not care anymore about what anyone would say.
When I got to CSUN, I met Sara, my first Palestinian friend. Through our friendship, I learned on a personal level the suffering of her family, and how they are just desperate to live their lives in freedom. When I hear people attack Palestinians and deny their Nakba, I now take it personally. I feel it in my heart. It’s not just a statistic anymore: it’s my friend in
I finally met people who I could share my deep passion for justice in the Middle East with. Along the way, I met so many more amazing people that have each contributed something special to my life and my understanding of Islam, the Middle East, and Palestine. The bottom line is the killing has to stop. All Palestinians want is equal rights under the law.
Glatzer is the president of a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter he founded at his school. Their first event was hosting the Shministim at CSUN. And here’s a link to an article he wrote for the school paper, titled, Shut Up About The Two State Solution.
A superior message. Thanks.
keep up the great work Joseph.. we need more people in the world like you that are able to get beyond race and religion to look clearly at what is going on, instead of subjectively based on their own personal past…
It’s people like you are are really keeping the honorable traditions of Judaism alive. Thank you.
It strikes me as funny that Glatzer would blame his actions on McCarthysim when he obviously wasn’t conditioned by McCarthyites. He seems to have changed sides since he now takes attacks on Palestinians personally. But my guess is that he still hasn’t examined the root of his behavior. While many people are worrying about Jews or Palestinians, I’m worrying about Americans.
He’s making an metaphor between his earlier responses and those who were “conditioned by McCarthyites.” You don’t think that’s an appropriate comparison?
It’s clear that his views were not influenced by McCarthyism, so why use metaphors when doing so isn’t needed?
The part below stood out to me, and is very familiar, but I wouldn’t call it McCarthyism. Why not call it what it is? Would you consider the Neocons to be McCarthyites?
“I had no idea what or where Gaza was, but he criticized Israel. I loudly protested, calling him: anti-Israel, Anti-American, and an Anti-Semite. When I later told my friend how offended I was, I claimed the professor blamed the Jews for all the problems in the world. This was part of my experience being a knee-jerk, uncritical defender of Israel. Nobody taught me McCarthyism specifically; labeling any defense of Palestinian human rights as anti-Israel came naturally to me. It’s truly what I thought being Jewish–I’m half–was about.”
What makes you think the metaphor isn’t needed? Most Americans recognize McCarthy and the events surrounding them. Most aren’t privy to what it’s like to function in Zionist-dominated Jewish society.
Also, why are we arguing about this? Really?
a minor distraction is all it is… here is a mythology perspective that might be useful to remember…
“”Herakles was making his way through a narrow pass. He saw something that looked like an apple lying on the ground and he tried to smash it with his club. After having been struck by the club, the thing swelled up to twice its size. Herakles struck it again with his club, even harder than before, and the thing then expanded to such a size that it blocked Herakles’s way. Herakles let go of his club and stood there, amazed. Athena saw him and said, ‘O Herakles, don’t be so surprised! This thing that has brought about your confusion is Aporia (Contentiousness) and Eris (Strife). If you just leave it alone, it stays small; but if you decide to fight it, then it swells from its small size and grows large.”
Why would you think that we are arguing, Chaos? I don’t think my point is much different than the one that Cliff made to Yonira in the ‘Going to Gaza’ thread.
McCarthyism is an accurate description of the tactic – to condemn and smear anyone who dares speak up against your ideology.
I agree, but McCarthyites did not invent the practice of smearing enemies, and I don’t believe that McCarthyism is the issue here. Maybe I’m wrong in this case, but supporters of Israel often use inexact comparisons to deflect from the issue or the roots of the thinking that makes the actions possible. I’m not even sure if Israel is really the problem.
It’s not the central issue, but it accurately describes a common tactic used.
Good for you, Joseph. A great and human post.
Mr. Glatzer, it’s a shame you aren’t Catholic because then you could do penance. I hope you’ve gone to the professor you demonized in public (in class?) and at least apologized to him. You probably put his career in jeopardy.
It’s nice and great that you are going to march in Gaza but that doesn’t excuse your shameful past actions toward a person who was trying to teach you something.
Gellian, I think your criticism is most unfair. You speculate, no doubt wrongly, that Joseph somehow put the professor’s career in jeopardy. The fact is that Joseph, while still a young man, has been courageous enough to change the opinions that were spoonfed to him. He has nothing to apologize for.
I’m sure an apology would be welcomed, and the professor might be happy to know that his words may have helped strike a light.
You may well be right. Still, Gellian’s criticism was way too harsh, and he/she did not suggest a thoughtful apology the way you did.
I would acknowledge that most Palestinians want the right to live decent lives, justice.
Not all. Some actually are at war with civilian Israel, not only occupying military.
That’s mighty generous of you.
“That’s mighty generous of you. ”
I think the proper reply to the Witty sanctimoniousness would be “That’s mighty white of you,”.
Bingo, tree. Because that’s what really motivates Witty.
same is true of israel witty… on that we hear nothing from you….
As opposed to Israel, apparently, who if one looks at the voting records, through the support for the IDF, up through the settler activity and the even the apartheid application of law in the Israeli judicial system, from top to bottom the entirety of Israeli society — with some few notable and often suppressed dissidents — is engaged in the extermination of Palestine.
Mr. Samel,
“Most unfair”? Are you serious? Trust me, despite what the rightwingers are always claiming the only career-safe option on a college campus is ‘support’ for Israel. I don’t know whether you are an academic yourself but I speak from experience. Even those who are tenured shy away from discussing Is/Pal because they fear long-term damage to their reputations or advancement. And it’s obvious that the untenured know the rules.
You will not like me saying so but what other organization promotes sending children off to summer camps to sing patriotic anthems, meeting fellow members of the group, and so on? And what other group runs ‘watchdog’ websites that encourages students to challenge their professors’ statements in gotcha moments, and then posts trashy and negative profiles and such of these professors?
Universities are supposed to be the one place where you can explore any thought free of intimidation. That’s the ideal if not always the reality. You would think that students are there to learn, not spy on them or try to win debates.
I stand by my criticism of Mr. Glatzer. After all, it’s by his own admission that he didn’t know what he was talking about when he defamed his professor as an anti-Semite.
I do not dispute your perception of academia, but I still think you’re way off. The prof knew what position he was taking and the flak he might get for it. Joseph didn’t lie about him, but just expressed an ignorant opinion that the professor was anti-Semitic by virtue of his remarks. I certainly hope the prof experienced no recriminations for his remarks, but if he did, I can’t imagine that Joseph is even minimally responsible. Lots of people equate strong criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and every critic of Israel knows it. Joseph’s former membership in that large group, a membership he now repudiates, does not deserve your condemnation, especially given his current activism. His story is a positive one, and for you to lecture him seems shrill and petty. And what about your bizarre suggestion that he could better repent for his past sins if he were Catholic? I hope someday you recognize how inappropriate that was, and for my part, I promise to forgive and forget when and if you do.
Sorry, let me clarify: I think the ‘Catholic’ bit was mistake and I agree it’s inappropriate. I didn’t mean to make a point at all about the superiority of one religion over another, merely that I think the Catholic idea of actually making people go out and make amends for doing wrong when they have done something wrong is a good one, or at least would be in this case. So let me certainly retract that. It was a poor choice of words.
Let me rather illustrate my main criticism by quoting your words, Mr. Samel:
1. “The prof knew what position he was taking and the flak he might get for it. ”
2. “Lots of people equate strong criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and every critic of Israel knows it.”
Do you see how your vaguely threatening language, whether you realize it or not, is a manifestation of exactly what I am talking about? Israel is a country. So it Mexico, so is China, so is Canada, so is Saudi Arabia, so is North Korea, so is Russia. A professor should be able to criticize each of these countries’ foreign and domestic policies without incurring a public charge of anti-religious (or any other) bigotry from the very students who have signed up to learn something about a subject.
In other words, Mr. Samel, if this is how you think you are part of the problem.
If I am part of the problem, I don’t know what the problem is. I utterly reject the misuse of the anti-Semitism slur, and completely agree that profs should be free to criticize Israel without fear of consequences, and that students who act as watchdogs for signs of anti-Israel “bias” act shamefully. My point is that it takes courage to speak out as this prof did (you already agree on that), and he was not blindsided by Joseph’s in-class comments or his comments to his friend afterward. And anyone in a position of power at this university who would take Joseph’s criticism seriously, assuming he/she knew of it at all, would be predisposed to feel the same way. And most importantly, Joseph seems to be making amends quite nicely, without you coming down so hard on him. I do not defend what Joseph did in the past, but defend present-day Joseph from present-day criticism that I find unwarranted.
And while you’re quasi-apologizing for the Catholic remark, let me quasi-apologize for saying that Joseph had nothing to apologize for. As potsherd pointed out, an apology could well have been appreciated by the prof.
Mr. Samel, with all due respect… have you ever had to deal with being labeled as an anti-Semite? Especially in an academic purview?
Honestly, I stand behind Gellian’s comment, even (or really, especially) the ‘Catholic’ bit, and I’m someone else who has been raised Catholic himself. Mr. Glatzer is to be commended (greatly) for taking a stand, certainly, but that in and of itself doesn’t rectify the potential damage he did to that professor’s career and doesn’t shield him from his culpability from his prior actions. Ignorance is no excuse.
Sorry, Chaos, I just disagree with you, both about the potential damage he did, and about the necessity of harshly criticizing someone who has, to use Scott McConnell’s well-chosen word, “deprogrammed” himself. Ignorance may not be an excuse, but Joseph is no longer ignorant.
To go slightly off-topic, what would you think if you saw a six-year-old talk about “niggers.” Would you think he was a monstrous kid, or would you think it is a shame the way he is being raised? Obviously the latter. At some point, the kid grows up and becomes responsible for his own behavior. I think whatever age he is when he comes to the realization that racism is wrong, his change of heart should be welcomed. Like Joseph, I grew up Zionist. He changed his opinion at an earlier age than I did. Good for him.
I would still discipline the child for using a racial epithet. And honestly? You really do not understand what a threat it really is to one’s livelihood to be labeled an anti-Semite in US society — certainly in an urban and especially in an academic setting. No offense, but as (I presume) a Jew, that’s really nothing you’ll ever have to worry about.
As Mr. Glatzer pointed out, he’s come to the realization that the label is used more for its value as a tool of disenfranchisement anyone with a spine who stands up to speak out against Israeli war crimes, not any longer, generally, as any credible accusation of genuine bigotry. As potsherd has pointed out repeatedly, the term has virtually been drained of its actual usefulness by honest people as a result.
Yes, but if someone told you today that he was raised a racist and used racial epithets until he was 16, would you discipline him, or even say his past conduct was “shameful” and he should do “penance” for it? Or would you admire him for overcoming his upbringing? And I do understand the stigma of the anti-S label and the potential threat of the smear, especially in academia. But Joseph’s prof surely understood that as well, and courageously defied that atmosphere and spoke his mind about Gaza. Joseph is not responsible for creating this deplorable tactic, but merely for parroting what he had been taught. He did not increase the risks faced by the prof. You and Gellian seem to hold him responsible for inventing the smear. If the good prof unfortunately paid any price for his sensible remarks about Gaza, it was not because of Joseph’s conversation with his friend or even his in-class outburst. Why throw his past back in his face? He’s on the good side, now.
I was that hard on myself.
But then again, like Gellian says, Catholics are big on the whole penance thing. :)
Actually, I am Catholic. My parents divorced when I was young and I was raised by mom in a Christian Right Wing Republican home in Orange County, CA.
I was raised to believe in American exceptionalism and certainly part of that is “Israel is our greatest ally for democracy and freedom against the crazy Muslim terrorists” type of thing.
However, I got more of my Zionist education from listening to Dr. Laura, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh every day.
Re: the incident in class, it was a big rowdy class of like 50 people, so comments came and went fast. There was a Syrian guy in class who jumped in and said, “Professor — has been to Israel and he has met with families which were victims of suicide bombings too. He is simply a man of peace”.
So, there was no retribution or risk for the teacher. Everyone knows he’s a 60′s era hippie for peace, who has peace and “citizen of the world” posters around his classroom. He’s a beloved guy at Pierce College, I was the one who looked like a jerk to the class.
I think Gellian was too hard on Joseph, but I still think an apology was appropriate. You apologize for your actions, period. Anything else is an excuse.
The white woman who, as a teenager, was famously photographed abusing a black child being escorted to school, was raised to be a racist. She didn’t create the racism that she expressed. Nonetheless she correctly saw the need to apologize to her victim for what she did.
I must say I’m genuinely impressed with the intelligent give and take of the comments and response we’ve had this afternoon.
Mr. Samel, I don’t think your analogy of a 6-year-old using racial epithets in general is spot-on (we would need to make him not 6 but 19, and not using the epithets generally but calling an otherwise respected black man those things to his face in public – though I still don’t think it would be as damaging….). That said I see your points and while I don’t agree, your magnanimity is appreciated. I’ll keep an eye out for your comments.
Mr. Glatzer, you are to be congratulated for being a man and for your various new activities, which really are beneficial.
It’s good that you provided context for your comments. As you phrased them earlier I was envisioning you as the lone student who stands up in lecture hall to harangue the professor from an advocacy point of view (which happens periodically), or perhaps worse one that profiles and documents (i.e. records audibles) to contribute to the various pressure groups that are trying to keep your profs in line; indeed as you probably know there are student organizations on campus that are designed to do just this. Your comment is more understandable in the context of a heated discussion.
That said, it’s unforgivable. The others think I was too harsh on your but I don’t think so. The slur of anti-Semite is a weapon; it’s worse than racist or bigot and is something closer to rapist – it never goes away and can and does and will ruin professional reputations. It’s an appropriate epithet to use when circumstances justify it. I’m sure you can tell I don’t think circumstances justify it in an academic setting in which the politics of a foreign country are being discussed.
I’m more impressed with your candor in admitting that it’s the Hannity-hype that got you thinking this way. My friend, that is called propaganda. Just because Hannity wears a suit and tie rather than a brownshirt or blackshirt or some other flamboyant costume does not make him any less dangerous. Don’t forget this. Remember that Hitler was an elected official in the beginning.
I will also keep an eye out for your posts in the future, which I bet will be good.
Quick clarification: by “Mr. Glatzer, you are to be congratulated for being a man” I meant of course not as opposed to a woman, but for having the cojones to first of all post a confessionalistic piece, and then for coming here and not biting my head off defensively but rather thoughtfully responding to me.
That would be, perhaps, a mensch?
I’m glad you see the good points of Joseph, but I still think you are overheated on this issue. All of your anger would be appropriately directed at a target like Dershowitz, whose use of the anti-Semitic slur – against Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer, Goldstone, Cockburn, Finkelstein, to name just a few off the top of my head – is truly reprehensible. There are some wrongheaded arguments that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism that have a superficial appeal and require a little sophistication to debunk. I see Joseph as a naive victim of hasbara in his teens who has been both candid and very timely in recognizing and correcting his mistakes. His moving post fully acknowledged his regret. He doesn’t deserve your accusation of “unforgivable,” and there are far more culpable people out there who do.
I’ll certainly agree with you that it wasn’t unforgivable by any stretch.
A striking post. One of the things that struck me is that the Zionist, “everyone who disputes Israel is an anti-Semite” ideology may be less deeply entrenched than one supposes. When one encounters those people, they often seem so polemically aggressive, sure of themselves, speak with such “moral clarity” –at least in their own eyes. Which is dispiriting, because a lot of them are smart, and powerful. But if a young person can be “deprogrammed” by merely reading the The Israel Lobby (but– a digression Joseph–how did you happen to allow yourself to read that book, after all Obama said that he would never read it, though he knew its arguments were wrong) then the struggle to change minds may be less difficult than it seems.
I had actually gone through a liberal transformation already a few years before; but I was a proud PEP for a while at that point. I actually saw Janeane Garofalo on Real Time with Bill Maher in September 2007, talking about Palestinian rights and arguing with Bill. I was really intrigued at the possibility of a new hidden issue to discover.
I bought the Israel Lobby a few weeks later out of sheer curiosity, while still being skeptical. When I read the part about home demolitions and the utter indefensible nature of them, my walls came down and I sat there in shock and horror.
Your comment is an excellent example of the fact that most people just don’t know about these things, that allowing the truth to be told would change the equation.
Janeane Garofalo is such an awesome person, in my opinion. :) And Bill Maher, incidentally, is a blatant Islamophobe and Zionist. Ever see Religiosity? So he does a movie in order to criticize organized religion, especially where it intersects with politics. He’s fairly harsh on the Christians he documents (and I mean “fairly” in every sense of the word), but then basically slanders every Muslim he runs across as a terrorist.
The real dawning realization for me was when Bill himself suggests to a Christian early in the film that maybe the dictates of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally… but when a Muslim woman says, without prompting, that she thinks the same attitude should be taken toward the some of the harsher parts of the Qur’an, Bill accuses her of lying about her belief.
But that wasn’t his biggest hypocrisy. Bill’s harshest criticism of Judaism in Zionist Israel?
Air-powered wheelchairs.
I generally like Maher, with a few exceptions, but his comments over the past years on this subject have been utterly disgraceful. I think he’s a genuinely independent thinker, and relatively fearless. Sometimes I wonder whether arch-Zionists are cynical, craven liars, or sincerely and genuinely misguided (they have to be wrong because they disagree with me), but in his case, I think it’s the latter. He’s usually impressive and intelligent, but it seems to me that he let himself get convinced by a hasbara master years ago, and he won’t allow himself a second look. Considering how good he can be on most (but not all) other issues, he is extremely disappointing on this one. As for Garofalo, I saw the same show and was quite pleased with her challenge to Maher.
If you want to figure out where Maher’s perspective really derives from, I would suggest maybe closer scrutiny of just who funded Religiosity.
I disagree, Chaos. Maher has been quite consistent on this issue since his old show on ABC which was cancelled in 2001. I never saw Religiosity, and I’m not at all surprised by the description, but if there’s a funding issue, perhaps you’re switching cause and effect – maybe the donors were attracted by his long-standing opinion.
You might be right, I dare say.
Maybe M & W should put out a new edition of their book to incorporate later events, e.g., more on this trajectory:
link to marcovilla.instablogs.com
Did Obama ever read M & W’s book? I bet those 12 house reps that voted against
Berman’s Iran sanctions did…
Over-use of the “anti-Semitic” charge has weakened it to the point where it is becoming an absurdity. A fanatical settler rabbi is now calling Ehud Barak guilty of a “blood libel” against him, for saying that rabbis can’t order IDF recruits to refuse orders.
If it weren’t for the existence of actual anti-Semitism, this sort of thing would be laughable.
As it stands, it’s quite deplorable because it gives an awful lot of cover to genuine anti-Semites who will (and do) attack Jews for being Jews.
When you say it like this: “Netanyahu is an anti-semite.” It’s not so absurd.
I had the oppossite experience of Joseph. I was brought up by Zionist supporters, went to Israel with my family at 14, and regarded the rationalizations of some of the likud tourguides as self-talk, unjust.
It was never a particularly important issue to me personally until the 1990′s when I first encountered the more far left approach to the issue. I was thoroughly relieved by the Oslo agreements that acknowledged Palestinian presence, identity, rights, in then prospectively hopeful terms, NOT animosity.
In the early 90′s I encountered personal friends of Ed Said, in running a progressive spoken word lending library that included 200 lectures of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, a couple by Norman Finkelstein, many other progressives.
That I included advocates for Oslo in the library, invited harsh criticism from two sources of far left material, malevolently so. I then began posting dissenting peace-oriented posts on the formerly Utne Cafe, and gradually was harrangued by the left (who had stacked the room, after Utne stopped its management and sold it to independant left conferencers).
I was alienated by the left. The final straw of alienation from the far left came when attending a pro-Palestinian rally with my rabbi, carrying a sign with a Palestinian and Israeli flag inside a peace symbol, wearing yarmulkes. We were taunted. At one point a rock was thrown at the rabbi. At least two of the people harrassing us were Jewish, whom the rabbi knew of.
I’m STILL committed to mutual decency, still committed to MUTUAL good, but entirely unwilling to adopt rhetorical and simplistic either/or formulas.
Witty? Do you acknowledge that Israel made a mockery of the Oslo Accords by accelerating settlement activity? Because unless you understand the reality of what is really happening, you will continue to be mystified and out of touch.
Peace with Israel would be really nice, but Israel makes that thoroughly impossible by blockading (sometimes quite literally) and subverting each and every reconciliation measure that is extended to them — right down to the cease fire of 2008.
I don’t think you realize that the subtexts of what you espouse here gives everyone much more insight into what you really think and how you really operate, and how easy it is for the rest of us to infer that you are shining your actions in a positive light by leaving out choice details in your anecdote.
Because there is no MUTUAL decency in your attitudes toward Palestinians versus those toward Israelis. Crimes against Palestinians, you ignore completely.
Richard: I appreciate the personal details. I have no doubt that what you call the “far left” has been out of line, including ‘throwing a rock’ at you and your rabbi. My own experience over the years with the ‘far left’ is that many of them end up on the right as they age.
But we are discussing here the Gaza Freedom March, a nonviolent effort to show solidarity with the besieged Palestinian people, more than a thousand of whom were killed a year ago, raise the visibility of the injustice done them, and put pressure on the Israeli government and their allies in the lobby in the United States and the U.S. Congress.
Alongside these worthy aims, can’t you set aside the rock that was thrown back in the 1990s, and endorse this nonviolent march, which is completely in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (who had more than rocks thrown in his direction)?
Excepting the effort to overturn the borders, I think the march is wonderful.
The attempt to break across the border in any process other than orderly willingness to be incarcerated in genuine non-violent civil disobedience, will declare the march to be adolescent, and dismissed.
The consequences of walking in a disorderly manner will be attention to the problem, but likely with unnecessary suffering due to nearly inevitable military response. And, the same problem as to the borders will remain, with Israel within its right to control its own border, Egypt within its right to control its own border, and the necessity for Hamas to thoroughly reconcile with the PA in a first step towards Palestinian actual sovereignty.
If the civil disobedience is orderly, then Israel will undertake a mass arrest and hold the individuals for probably a week, treat them well, then release them to their countries of origin. If civil disobedients undertake a hunger strike or some other radical protest, again, they will likely be simply deported.
What borders? Does Israel have defined borders now? Have the settlements been retracted from Palestine? Has the “security” wall been removed? Has Golan Heights been returned?
Of course Israel isn’t just controlling its own borders–it also blockades Gaza by sea. And it determines who can go in and out.
“I was alienated by the left. The final straw of alienation from the far left came when attending a pro-Palestinian rally with my rabbi…”
Is that why you hang out here Richard? LOL Because you like alienation? The issue is not left or right to be frank, it is right and wrong. You cannot even be honest in your “criticism.”
I hang out here to speak my mind, to remind of the importance of mutual acknowledgement and the implausibility of political approaches that deny the other, in this case that deny Israelis.
I keep my eye on the prize.
I agree that the issue is right versus wrong. Militancy is wrong. (likud, Hamas, far left)
Your “prize” seems to be supporting the very militancy you claim to abhor. Right down to funding settler violence in the West Bank and endorsing military action against the besieged civilians of Gaza.
“I hang out here to speak my mind, to remind of the importance of mutual acknowledgement and the implausibility of political approaches that deny the other, in this case that deny Israelis.”
Ha! Yes, you are the embodiment of “truth, justice, and the American way!” hehe
Outside of the “borders,” which Chaos handled well –
“The consequences of walking in a disorderly manner will be attention to the problem, but likely with unnecessary suffering due to nearly inevitable military response…If the civil disobedience is orderly, then Israel will undertake a mass arrest and hold the individuals for probably a week, treat them well, then release them to their countries of origin….”
What Witty is interested in doing is defending the Israeli armed forces obvious violence and penchant for unfairness in advance. He does this by inferring that there will be “over the top” activity, and even if there is not by the marchers, to soften the blow before it comes to make Israel “look good.”
“If the civil disobedience is orderly, then Israel will undertake a mass arrest and hold the individuals for probably a week, treat them well, then release them to their countries of origin. If civil disobedients undertake a hunger strike or some other radical protest, again, they will likely be simply deported. ”
That is right Richard, make it look and sound as good as you can – “treat them good…release them to their countries of origin…simply deported.” Now that was an “orderly and humane” suppression of freedom of expression and human rights, eh Witty? You are so obvious.
Can you imagine if sheriff departments in Alabama or Mississippi had someone like Witty on the PR staff they could have had during the 1960′s?
“I wondered how the facts of what’s going on in the Middle East could be so different from what I’ve seen in the American media my entire life.”
GREAT.
Now feel free to apply this “my eyes are opened” to all kinds of topics and how American mainstream media covers them (or doesn’t cover), not just AIPAC.
The power of the Israel lobby is very significant also because it shows how ludicrous the political system is in the USA, when a foreign power holds the major say in American foreign policy.
Now look at the healthcare insurance lobby, the private prison lobby… the list is endless.
The Israeli Lobby is just the most ludicrous example of a wider problem.
“The Israeli Lobby is just the most ludicrous example of a wider problem.”
Well of course you are right americangoy, I have no problem with that. To be really frank, the entire system needs to be dismantled.
I wish I could see a relatively painless way that could happen.
Real campaign finance reform would go a long way in dismantling. This would seem to require the average voter to realize a tax is needed to fund campaigns and televise them and the issues. Eliminate the need for special interest lobby money.
Use Nuremberg Protocols to prosecute Israeli leaders.
I think Maher’s film was called not ‘Religiosity’ but ‘Religulous’, which as an attack on Xtianity (my religion) was occasionally effective and funny, I thought, but not really incisive or profound.
Maher represents the generation when Israel was a left-wing cause and the more recent conviction that objections to Israel (itself founded, as Sand has reminded us, on an appeal to the Book of Books) can be based only on religion, easily dismissed as superstition and fanaticism, rather than simply on morality. Thus moral outrages perpetrated by Israel look like a rational defence of civilisation against savagery and protests that really are rational look strange and disturbing. A friend, engaged in a failed attempt to get some paintings from Gaza exhibited, has just been experiencing this. This is the UK, where Ms.Livni fears to tread.
Still, it’s easy to be self-righteous. Do we who don’t see any good reason for Zionism interrogate ourselves enough? What follows if we recognise the monstrous prison of Gaza for what it actually is? Presumably challenging the borders, the prison camp perimeter and therefore a moral abomination, is the least of what we want to do or at least, depending on our resources and levels of courage, to see done. What can we think of the prison guards and of those – just as important – who urge them on? We may say that this does not amount to being against Jews ‘because they’re Jews’: but we salve our consciences too easily if we refuse to recognise anti-Semitism except in the form of plainly unreasoned nonsense.