In response, many critics of Israel have defended their position by contending that the extent of Palestinian suffering compares with or even exceeds the misery of other global victims. While I find this argument to be factually convincing, there is something fundamentally unsound in engaging in such comparisons at all. Why should activists who seek to change Israeli policy be expected to first familiarize themselves with every other worldwide human rights violation, and resolve those that are deemed more pressing, before they can legitimately attend to the Palestinian situation? In any other context, such demand would be considered unreasonable, even ridiculous. For example, the Olympic games in Beijing were met with demonstrations all over the world against China’s oppressive policies. The Chinese government defended its suitability as an Olympic host, but never accused protesters of anti-Asian racism because they were ignoring greater evils.
But in the service of Israel, no argument sinks to a level that is unutterable. If it can be imagined, it can be articulated, because there are legions of the willingly gullible who are eager to grasp any line of reasoning to shield the moral superiority of their beloved country from challenge. All skepticism is tossed aside. There is no recognition that this claim is analogous to that of the hapless lawyer who argues that his client should not stand trial for burglary because there are murderers at large. And that analogy holds only if the questionable factual premise is true, and the suffering of others greatly exceeds that of the Palestinians.
The China-Darfur distraction serves the additional purpose of reinforcing the conviction that "the world’s oldest hatred" is the ubiquitous explanation for protest of Israeli policies. "You are singling out the Jewish State for condemnation while letting much worse violators of international law and human rights off the hook." The target audience, predisposed to swallow any pro-Israel argument, will be especially happy to embrace one tinged with implications of anti-Semitism.
The accusation is cynical as well. Those who make it are not agitating for relief for the unfortunate whose suffering supposedly outranks the Palestinians’. They are defending Israel from pressure to remove its stranglehold on Palestinian life, and exploiting the misery of other human rights victims as a convenient pretext for portraying protesters against Israel as anti-Semites. They can make no credible claim that the Israeli critic’s attention would be better spent elsewhere, since their attention is also focused on Israel, but in defense of "second-rate" oppression rather than opposition to it.
So regardless of whether you believe that Palestinian suffering is the single most troublesome international tragedy, the fifth worst, or the fiftieth worst, there is no need to justify efforts to alleviate it. Israel’s treatment of its own Palestinian citizens is reminiscent of the era in American history that gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement, and its treatment of non-citizen Palestinians under occupation is far, far worse. If it’s broke, it should be fixed, notwithstanding dubious claims that there are more urgent wrongs in need of repair. Those who bring up China or Darfur in defense of Israel are just engaging in the world’s most common faux accusation of racism. Their time and energy would be better spent actually working to solve those other problems, instead of adding to this one.
Americans should be most concerned, considering how much enabling foreign aid we give to Israel
in comparison to what we give any other country and with no strings attached–the next highest recipient is Egypt–big string attached there: Egypt must kowtow to Israel.
Is it responsible to cut off all foreign aide? Or just to Israel, or Just to Israel, Egypt and Jordan?
I think what’s more to the heart is, what is our foreign aid being used for? In Israel, it’s being used for cluster bombs, settlement support, white phosphorous and the interdiction and destruction of other foreign aid, namely to Gaza.
In Egypt, it’s used to support a massive agency of secret police to prop up the Western-backed puppet government that is rumored to number at least a million people.
I can only speak with less authority about how it’s used in Jordan. I’ve heard mixed things about Jordan — it’s a far better place than it was a decade or so ago, and it’s a far cry from anything you see in Israel or Egypt.
The US has many times cut off foreign aid to countries with policies the USA dislikes;
in this case it’s not responsible to enable the military oppression of the Palestinians.
Its a LIE to state that the description of atrocities in Darfur, all elements of it, are strictly a PR distraction on the part of Israeli advocates.
The point about BDS advocates that solely focus on Israel/Palestine are mostly hypocritical in CHOOSING Israel to criticize, rather than by magnitude or ability to relieve human suffering by their actions.
There are many that are motivated to criticize Israel by a sense of personal integrity, that a society that they are actively directly associated, are acting in ways that conflict with their personal integrity.
That is a different motivation than those that rationalize that because they were brought up by Jewish families, or have Jewish names, and will be associated by some of their friends with injustices in Israel.
And, it is a different motivation than those that rationalize that they are not anti-semitic in their choice to criticize Israel rather than other countries because they are really criticizing Zionism.
And, there are some that express genuine compassion in their dissent resulting from what they have seen and studied, and are genuinely trying to remedy injustice kindly and non-violently, that circumstance has presented them.
You can’t tell whether someone is motivated by compassion or by malevolent anti-semitism or cynicial Zionist distraction, by the subject itself.
It takes further inquiry.
The point is for dissenters to THOROUGLY examine their own motivations or else risk being accurately described as anti-semitic.
Wow, now even Witty’s getting into the liberal slapping of anti-Semite labels on other people. This is about the most rabid I’ve seen him frothing.
Stuck home a bit closely, one wonders…?
The point immediate here, Witty, is you dissent from the logical content of Samel’s article but have no logical response, so you
attack the messenger by suggesting he (and others who think as Samel does) is a liar, hypocritical, and motivated by anti-semitism. You need to examine your own motivations for the comment you’ve written. Or else risk being accurately described
as a cheap ZioNazi finally coming out of your closet cave.
You think that I was calling David “anti-semitic”?
Read again.
You read again the article, then your response to it.
How, one wonders, do the smear merchants who label people as anti-semitic for criticizing Israeli crimes know whether the critics have examined their motivations or not?
“There are many that are motivated to criticize Israel by a sense of personal integrity, that a society that they are actively directly associated, are acting in ways that conflict with their personal integrity.”
Of all the choices you gave us, I think this one can describe 100% of American taxpayers, since the government uses its power to separate us from our money and sends it to Israel to finance immoral actions, thereby making us all accomplices. No need for us to waste time THOROUGHLY examining our motivations to the point of paralysis!
By the way, why is it OK for anti-abortion activists to hold up health care reform over the financing of abortion but noone says a peep about the financing of the military, and how people who object to the killing of post-natal human beings might be offended by having their taxes going to finance this atrocity? Why is it OK to kill children but not fetuses?
Great question, AnaSanchez! I guess the Christian fundies (especially) believe
fetuses are innocent, but not children once born. Their version of just war.
Actually, dont Christian fundies believe that unbaptized children who do not take Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (including beliving that 1+1+1=1) will burn in eternal hellfire?
I’m not sure if any of the fundamentalist strains of Christianity have this, but Catholicism holds (or held, at one point, not sure if they revised this) that there’s a limbo to which unbaptized children go. The idea being, they aren’t punished for being sinful but neither are they rewarded for demonstrating commitment to the faith. So the “limbo” is basically a sort of eternal day care center, I guess.
Your information is a little out of date, Chaos. You really should get to church more often – or are you (gasp) a Lefebvrian?
In 2007, the Catholic Church officially abolished limbo, declaring that unbaptised children (as well as aborted foetuses) are automatically saved.
Nobody said that. If I were you, I would gruffly demand you “READ IT AGAIN.”
Charlie Brown: Why’s everybody always picking on me? (The Coasters), ATCO.
The point about BDS advocates that solely focus on Israel/Palestine are mostly hypocritical in CHOOSING Israel to criticize, rather than by magnitude or ability to relieve human suffering by their actions.
There is no hypocrisy in singling out Israeli when we are paying in blood and money to enable Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization. The last time I checked, there was no Sudanese Lobby essentially blackmailing the United States Congress into giving stacks of cash and crates of weapons to murder, torture, and dispossess indigenous people.
Those who know and stand idly by are complicit. We not only have a right to criticize Israel and American Israel-first Zionists, but a duty to do so, and to spread the word as widely as possible to build a consensus for the end of the current incarnation of Zionism.
Maybe if you Zionists reform your movement, the latter obligation would vanish, but I won’t hold my breath that you are capable of pushing through necessary institutional reforms. When liberal Zionists like you actively provide cover for and excuse neocons and other pro-ethnic cleansing and colonization extremists, they sure as hell aren’t going to change.
Also, I agree with Chaos4700 (@December 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm) that you are using the anti-Semite label as a political weapon (if I am not reading too much into your comment, Chaos4700). Richard, I have been reading Mondoweiss long enough to know that you are not a stupid man. Indeed, I think it likely that you are far, far more intelligent than you sometimes come across when your verbiage is inadequate to explain notions more sophisticated than that usually found in blog comments, the format of which, with abbreviated lengths and short comment ‘lifetimes’, is not conducive to more thoughtful higher level analysis.
Thus, I don’t believe for a second that you are not deliberately ignoring both American culpability in the horror that Israel is perpetrating and the LACK of American culpability in the horror that the governments of Sudan, China, etc, are likewise inflicting on innocent people whose land and resources they covet. Suggesting that people are antisemitic when they can clearly see a personal connection with associated responsibility to one tragedy, and know that they have nothing to do with others, crosses a line that seriously degrades your credibility. Why do you feel the need to do this?
You’re right, citizen. The aid the US gives to Egypt is also ultimately given for Israel’s sake: it’s a bribe paid to the Egyptians so that they won’t make war on Israel.
As for the Tibet argument, while it is true that it’s simply a distraction and its proponents aren’t in the least concerned with the fate of the Tibetans, it must also be observed that the argument itself is flawed. Both situations are by no means analogous.
Tibetans are Chinese citizens and enjoy exactly the same rights as the majority Han population. In a dictatorship like China these may not seem to amount to much, but they include the right to use the same roads as the Han, as well as the highest railroad in the world that was built by China for the region. By contrast, Palestinians in the West Bank not only can’t choose the authorities that will build roads on their expropriated lands; they also can’t drive on those roads.
Hasbara Buster,
Egypt won’t make war on Israel because they would get there asses kicked, again. The $$$ is to keep radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood from assassinating another Egyptian leader.
Mooser! We have another overdose of ziocaine over here. If this guy’s feelings of Zionazi supremacy swell up any more, his head’s going to burst. And then so is his other one.
Yonira: The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood did not assassinate Sadat. The Brotherhood today is a peaceful organization that is not allowed to operate freely; hundreds of its members are regularly arrested. Many observers believe the Brotherhood would win free elections in Egypt. I wouldn’t vote for it, but misrepresenting it does no one any good.
By the way, if you are Israeli, or even just a supporter of Israel, I find it hard to believe that you are so ill-informed about Israel’s neighbor, the most populated Arab nation, which has already fought four and one-half wars with Israel.
The original purpose of financial formula aid to Egypt under the Camp David Accords
is for Egypt to keep peace with Israel, and in conjunction with that prime motive,
to aid the Egyptian regime in suppressing radical Muslim citizens so as to keep
that regime in power–again, to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt; as a
parallel, use Egypt as a USA affirming model for the arab world.
link to docs.google.com
The last time Israel fought a war with Egypt, Egypt was winning and probably would have won without American intervention. Israel came within a hair of ceasing to exist as a Jewish state. I hardly call that an ass-kicking.
“Without American intervention” sounds like the Americans fought on Israel’s side. They did not. They resupplied Israel and Israel did the fighting. (But certainly before the resupply it was touch and go and it was not an ass kicking, I concede.)
Actually, it seems that Sadat was only interested in regaining the Sinai, as opposed to liberating Palestine.
Supplying munitions certainly counts as intervention.
It is generally believed that Israel blackmailed the US into this by threatening to use their nukes.
The only advantage Israel has is technological. Well, that and they tend to strike first, strike hard and have no compunctions about bombing civilians.
Generally believed- can you be specific? Nixon was strongly pro Israel because he didn’t want a soviet victory.
Nixon was also strongly anti-intellectual and anti-law abiding. What’s your point, exactly?
My point exactly is that the Soviets backed the Egyptians in that war and therefore Nixon backed Israel as a response to that. No blackmail was necessary.
Of course, ignoring decades of Israeli terrorism against the West, US citizens among them (Lavon affair and the USS Liberty, for starters) was necessary, somehow.
“Tibetans are Chinese citizens and enjoy exactly the same rights as the majority Han population.”
Progressive spin.
Among many other discriminatory practices this came up:
“One practice uncovered by the Mission that is inherently discriminatory against women is virginity testing to determine the job applicant’s “fitness” for employment. According to one person interviewed, “all the girls had to submit. . . . A women put her hand inside us to check for virginity.” According to this witness, if the women and girls passed the virginity test, they had to sign a contract promising that they would not get married or engage in sexual activity for three years. Reportedly, men and boys had to sign similar contracts. Further investigation is needed to determine how widespread this practice is.”
link to tibetjustice.org
What’s interesting is that this dynamic often goes in both directions. Brutal regimes and/or despicable practices are often justified, at least here in the region, in the name of resistance to Israel. This includes Sudan, and in my experience, many people who are vocally critical of Israel go out of their way to defend Sudan.
The solution, I think, is to be both critical of Israel and Sudan — and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, just to name a few.
At the end of the day, though, we can’t expect everyone to be knowledgeable about every conflict or abusive regime in the world; we’re not Human Rights Watch, after all. (For example, I have little to no knowledge about Latin America and so don’t really have an opinion one way or the other about politics there.) What we can, and should, expect however, is for those who criticize Sudan to not have a double standard when it comes to Israel and vice versa. In short, we should expect honesty, if not an attempt at impartiality.
I don’t think it’s intentional, but the title of this post discounts real human suffering in Darfur, and in China for that matter, and is symptomatic of a Middle East-centric view of the world. The conflicts in Darfur, Chad, Xinjiang, Tibet or elsewhere are not “distractions,” if they’re being discussed and debated in good faith. But I think many people who are primarily concerned with Palestine/Israel have a bad tendency of using them as rhetorical bludgeons in an argument that’s about something else instead of dealing with them on their own terms.
The key words, Sean, are if they’re being discussed and debated in good faith. Do you know how often I’ve had Zionists throw at me, “Well why aren’t you protesting about human rights violations in Sudan! Hey, you’re an American! When are you going to turn your land back over to the Indians, huh?”
Never mind that A) I do advocate on issues other than I-P when I can, and B) I don’t actually even own any land.
Yeah, you’re right, the discussion has to be in good faith (which is often not the case). But I see more and more the assumption that if you’re concerned about something else besides, or even in addition to, Palestine/Israel, then you’re accused of ignoring Palestinians or even worse, defending Israel.
Also, there’s often an Arab solidarity that has it that there should be some kind of united front against Israel and the US, which would be fine, if it didn’t mean supporting anything the US is against in a knee-jerk fashion, even when it’s indefensible. To give an example, many Arab leftists, and Europeans as well, seemed to support the regime in Tehran over the opposition this summer primarily because that’s the opposite position that Washington took. One can support Ahmadinejad over Kerrubi et al., but it’s disingenuous when that support is just opposition to the US and not based on any actual principles — or even worse goes against principles that the person claims to espouse in other situations.
Maybe I have a different viewpoint than you but I don’t see that happening. Then again, I’m in the middle of the United States and so therefore liberal reactions aren’t calibrated as anti-US. Opposition to what Ahmedinejad’s regime was doing in Iran is pretty much universal, no matter what one believes about the nature of the opposition protests — there’s very significant evidence that the vote count was corrupted, and whoever provoked the protests, Iran’s reaction was clearly condemnable.
I totally agree about the regime, but there was a lot of Arab (and even a fair amount of leftist European) support for the regime here, and not just from pious supporters of Hezbollah, also from Lebanese and Palestinian leftists. Many people, though, supported Tehran for self-interested reasons, as a counterweight to the US and Israel, and because the regime is an ally of the opposition here.
Then you must see different sources than I do, because I see the Gulf Arabs engaged in deep subversion against Iran and its allies, leaving Syria hanging out to dry because of its connection with Iran, withholding support from Hezbollah and Hamas because of their support from Iran.
“The Arabs” hardly represent a united front.
If Muslims and leftists are showing solidarity with the Iranian govrnment, its because they do not want to see Iran turned into another Iraq where legitamate criticisms of a regime that the US dos not like are cynically used as full-blown propoganda for a war of neo-colonilization.
Its like Americans who hate Bush defending the US from forign criticisms. Imagine if the Chinese used the crimes of the Bush administration as an excuse for “regime change”. Any American, liberal or conservative, would understandably oppose such a project.
The problem I see is that too many Muslims are NOT showing solidarity with the Iranian govt.
The problem that I see, actually, is that US hostility toward Muslim states are pushing places like Iran toward the anti-democratic end of the spectrum, for exactly the reasons Olive lays out.
I remember way back when before Ahmedinejad was elected and how idiotic I thought the Bush Administration was for summarily labeling Iran in the “axis of evil.” It seemed to me like Iran was looking toward some real reform candidates, but because the United States was threatening military action, Iranians decided to go with the “stronger” candidate.
potsherd- If I am accused of hypocrisy for favoring Iranian democracy/freedom and opposing Palestinian democracy/freedom. Why aren’t you guilty of the same hypocrisy only in reverse.
You aren’t in favor of Iranian democracy/freedom, WJ. The Zionist position on what Iran is supposed to be vis-a-vis Israel is pretty well established by what happened in 1953 and again in 1980 with Israel’s relationship with CIA and joint operations with regards to Iran.
It’s not that you’re a hypocrite, WJ — you’re consistently anti-democratic. That is the problem.
Chaos- Thanks for informing me of the Zionist party line on Iran in 1953 and 1980. I didn’t get the memo.
Chaos- you’re assuming that I support every Israeli decision in the last 61 and a half years. But that’s not true. I oppose the 56 war and I think it was a mistake. I think Israel did certain moves in the run up to the 67 war which were stupid in that they forced various Arab countries to ratchet up their rhetoric and lead to a war that might have been avoided. I think Israel could have avoided the 73 war if Golda Meir had been more forthcoming in moving back from the Suez Canal. I think the settlement enterprise has been for the most part very unwise.
Well, you like to put words in our mouths, I just figured it was fair to return the favor. Like I said, it’s your little terrorist state that’s been helping the US destroy and contain the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
…Unwise? Not criminal, not racist, not inhumane, not a total betrayal of everything Jews suffered under in the 20th century and before, just merely “unwise,” huh.
Gee, wow, yeah, your criticism of Israel is absolutely scathing. I’m sure the Palestinians feel better knowing that they have such a staunch supporter of human rights and dignity behind them.
if they’re being discussed and debated in good faith.
I agree with Chaos that this part is crucial. I think the article itself was clear about addressing the “bad faith” arguments only and not trying to discredit good faith efforts on those issues. However I do agree with your criticism sean that the title of the post can be construed as discounting the significance of real problems in China and Darfur.
If the Tibetan’s are looking to be free a l’americaine they’re gonna have to ditch the Dalai Lama; the man is a toothless boob.
Richard W – I did not interpret your remarks as accusing me of anti-Semitism, but you do appear to accuse me of spreading the LIE (your caps) that all aspects of Darfur were concocted to protect Israel from criticism. To use your own phrase, Read again. I also disagree with your claim that critics of Israel must THOROUGHLY (why shout that word?) engage in self-examination or “risk being accurately described as anti-semitic.” Why is it any more incumbent on those who advocate on behalf of Palestinians to thoroughly examine their motives? Do pro-Tibet independence advocates have a duty to make sure they are not racist against the Chinese? Are you really worried about legions of closeted anti-Semites who are too timid to admit their racism and hide behind a facade of anti-Zionism?
Critics of Israel have no special obligation to account for their time and their focus. I firmly believe in the right of women to decide on abortion, but spend much more time on this issue. That does not make me a misogynist or anti-Semite. We all have a limited time to spend on our political pursuits, and the question is whether our analysis is sound and fair, not why we choose to spend our time as we do.
The problem lies not with the critics but with those who hurl this bogus accusation at them. They are not trying to improve anything for anyone, but are simply trying to erect a wall of immunity around Israel because it is identified with a particular ethnic group that has a long history of victimization.
Some other comments have raised the issue of the enormous sums we as US taxpayers have lavished on Israel as a legitimate basis for concern with the situation there. It surely is, as is the fact that for those of us who are Jewish, Israel purports to speak and act in our name, and we have been taught from an early age to hold “our” State in high regard. But such “defenses”are not available to a gentile from another country. My point is that no one needs such a defense. If an Icelander decides to get involved in promoting Palestinian human rights, he/she should not have to explain any lack of interest in Sri Lanka..
Finally, sean, I did not mean to insinuate that discussion of China or Darfur is a distraction by itself, but only that it is a distraction to raise those issues in the context of discussion about Israel/Palestine. Surely, the converse is true as well.
David,
I do think that you lie in presenting some specific event or events in your experience as something more general, that “Zionists do”, rather than the specific individual cases, or even qualified patterns.
I personally know religious individuals that did get very involved in Darfur politics, relief, fundraising, and even partially from a sense of selective tragedy about “them” Arabs.
The contention that dissenters are singling out Israel is a real one, and one that indicates to many that there is some latent anti-semitism as a part of that selection.
For both Jews and non-Jews.
Those dissenters that are concerned about their integrity, should undertake thorough self-inquiry into their motives (as ill-motived actions often result in harms). And, I would recommend that that self-inquiry extend beyond rationalization, but include the definitions of Jews, even Zionists, in the inquiry.
If your not particularly concerned about your integrity, that is a different issue.
The question is not a “distraction”. You might find it irritating, but it has relevance.
I believe that you read a lot on this issue, Richard, so I suspect that you’re not being honest (with yourself, probably) when you say you don’t see a pattern of Israel apologists using these kinds of arguments.
In my experience with student activism, this exact argument (“there are more and worse human rights offenders, so don’t criticize Israel”) was used in a calculated manner by organized Zionists as a tool to negate Palestinian rights advocacy, rather than to affirm the rights of other oppressed groups.
And I hope your request that activists “examine their motivations” is meant universally, and doesn’t apply only to critics of Israel. Because certainly there is just as much danger of anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, or anti-Muslim prejudices underlying certain political positions, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes. Common cause is not made.
I never said that I don’t observe some Jews using Darfur as a means to distract.
I am addressing the willingness of the left to dismiss Darfur atrocities (from whatever cause) as inconsequential because some Israelis refer to it.
Its a fixation on Israel/Palestine that distorts. The scale of atrocity is very real.
As Palestinian solidarity points to the undeniability of ratios of Israeli dead vs Gaza dead, they should also acknowledge the undeniability of the scale of Darfur dead to Gazan (or even Darfurian faction to Gazan category).
For those that advocate for a two-state solution, viable, the prize is coming. For those that form their politics on the basis of fixation on past-oriented “justice”, there is no possible prize, only disappointment.
Quit attacking the left, you asshole. I am so goddamn sick of you fifth column neocon war hawks waltzing in here and telling the left what we “apparently” believe.
You don’t represent anything other than your own warped ZioNazi theology, Witty, and you never will.
And I would add that apart from those “College Zionists” who cynically used others’ suffering to argue in bad faith for an unrelated agenda, there were ingenuous student groups concerned with the genocide in Darfur, for example, which I did my best to support. (Without, of course, giving up my focus on justice in Palestine, as I would certainly not ask them to give up their focus on abuse victims elsewhere.)
Great article, David Samel — I agree with you; I usually do: you’re so level-headed — and I also liked your response to Mr. Witty.
Thanks, MRW. As for Witty, I don’t get as angry at him as some others do, but I usually don’t engage him because I rarely understand what he’s saying. Even with his latest accusation that I lie, I’ve read it three times, and … Anyway, I appreciate the compliment.
You’ve read it, but no comment on it?
Please understand what I mean when I say lie. I mean that you exagerate the meaning of something that is specific, to a general and political significance.
So, what you meant what you said that he was lying, was that he wasn’t lying. Right.
Seems Witty by his own admission uses “lie” rather than “exaggerate” when it suits his agenda. Does Witty ever really say what he means? Conversely, does Witty ever really mean what he says? Hard to tell. The psychological option he apparently chooses at any given time is that if you agree with what he says, he has said what he means; conversely, if you object to what he says, he didn’t really mean what he said
David: I agree with you. Without being nasty, I wish Richard would try and be a little more clear when he posts. I also agree with your overall argument, and I think you put it very well.
Why would that be to Witty’s advantage? If his posts weren’t so obtuse, they’d be spotted out for the obvious lies and propaganda they are at first blush.
David: “I rarely understand what he’s saying.” Me neither.
If I were French or Chinese, I probably wouldn’t care as much about Israel-Palestine. But for an American, it’s not just the amount of foreign aid we give Israel–it’s the constant necessity to praise Israel in our public discourse, the 430-2 votes in the House, etc. And the influence of the Israel lobby on key elements of policy–Iraq, and possibly Iran. (I would agree with W&M that the Israel Lobby was a necessary but not by itself sufficient force to ignite the Iraq war. ) It’s as if there’s some false god of the super-virtuous Jewish state that Americans have to pay homage to, and it’s a bit much after a while. The fact that there are negative consequences for saying anything negative about Israel–for an American politician, is outrageous. No politician would face major consequences for saying something negative about any other country.
Scott,
The walking on eggs that you describe applies to many sensitive situations.
To say that walking on eggs is unnecessary, would be to say that the situation is not sensitive, not volatile, not with potentially harmful consequences.
It requires more care than issues that are of less consequence.
I couldn’t agree more, Scott. I love the line: “It’s as if there’s some false god of the super-virtuous Jewish state that Americans have to pay homage to, and it’s a bit much after a while.”
Dr. Mark Goulston wrote a great book called “Just Listen.” Normally, I dont read books like this, but Goulston has a necessary insight into people and their troubles, he’s used as a hostage negotiator, and he has a significant practice apart from police work. Bottom line, he says, is that people need to vent; you cannot resolve any situation without it; Goulston says you that no matter how ugly what you’re hearing is to your ears and sensibilities, you cannot resolve the problem unless you allow this ‘venting’. My analogy is the boil. You have to lance the boil to get it to drain.
The major problem that people like Abe Foxman, et al, have done with respect to anti-semitism is keep it alive by refusing the venting, or the draining. Ditto the horrific practice in Europe of making it a crime to even discuss the Holocaust. They are keeping what they claim they want gone by their practices; they are keeping the memory raw and unresolved. And this insidious practice must end. So when you write, Scott, “it’s a bit much after a while,” it’s way more that. And when you write, “No politician would [should] face major consequences for saying something negative about any other country,” this needs to be burned into the consciousness of this nation in order to save it.
From what I’ve seen over my lifetime, you could hold in a thimble the number of
USA politicians who have suffered major consequences for saying something negative
about a foreign country–with one glaring exception to this general rule, in which case, only positive statements are nearly always voiced, and as often as possible. Israel.
The problem is, why wouldn’t they, when there is a profit to be made?
@David & Richard
Please check out the argument I made here, which, I think, is complementary with the one presented in this post.
I think David hits the nail on the head when he states “Critics of Israel have no special obligation to account for their time and their focus.” And I think that when Richard claims that we must THOROUGHLY search our consciences for antisemitism he’s actually asking us to renounce our freedom of thought.
Inquiring about someone’s motives for fighting Zionism is, apart from an evident ad hominem, a nasty form of thought-policing.
Oh boy, this post raises multiple issues. To take on just one:
The movement to declare what is happening in Darfur genocide, is to a large part led by zionist organizations in the west. It was the holocaust museum in Washington that so declared the civil war in Western Sudan a genocide even though most of the observers on the ground recognized it as a particularly bloody civil war. In 2002 – 2004 about 100,000 people lost their lives. The war was between pastoral people and more stationary farmers. It was over grazing rights for the most part that was aggravated by a prolonged drought. The conflict involved over a dozen different tribal groups that were competing for limiting resources. They were basically ethnically the same people, most were Moslem though some were what we call “animist”, and Arabic was their common language though for many their primary language tribal based. The interesting question is why did Darfur become a cause celebre for many zionist organizations especially the holocaust museum of Washington? I really do not know but I would venture the reasonable hypothesis that Israel saw an opportunity to divide the nation of Sudan into multiple countries to support their general policy of dividing Moslem states into more manageable units.
Did you ever use the term “genocide” to describe Israel/Palestine?
If so, I hope you acknowledge the difference of scale of a couple hundred thousand killed, and a million displaced, compared to 6000 killed over 60 years.
I think it was Sean that said that they BOTH deserve attention.
That is one thing that really bothers me about David’s post, that he implies that the concern about Darfur is solely a smokescreen, only an intentional distraction, or even primarily.
Its really too bad if that point is irritating to him, repetitive, made by people that don’t know so much. The anti-Zionist points are similar to Zionists. Irritating, repetitive, made by people often quite ignorant of recent and long history.
We live with it.
Witty, the problem we have with you, is that you sleep soundly with it.
witty asks: Did you ever use the term “genocide” to describe Israel/Palestine?
No I never have, why do you ask? But I have used the term massacre to describe what Israel has done in Lebanon and Gaza.
witty then brings up the issue that we should spend equal amounts of effort on the IP problem as well as Darfur. Nope I should not. The reason is quite simple. Darfur represents a civil war that has grown out of an ecological disaster resulting from a long term drought. The US did not cause the drought nor have we funded any of the parties involved in the resulting civil war. But the IP war is quite different.
The US has become the major backer of Israel in its war against the Palestinians. Not only that but the US has been sucked into that war. Our troops are now fighting in Iraq in a war that was urged upon us by Israel and their agents inside the US. That is the reason that I am now concerned about Israeli oppression of the Palestinians to the extent that I will publicly oppose it. We are not outside observers of some random civil war, the US has become a partisan force fighting Arabs on Israel’s behalf. These are my tax dollars at work. As horrible as Darfur (or what is happening in China, Darfur, the Congo, Chechnya or whatever) the US is not expending military lives and funds to support one side or the other. But we are doing so on Israel’s behalf. Should we decide to become neutral in the Israeli war against Arabs, I suppose I would become less interested in criticizing Israel. I happen to agree with you, witty in one respect — there really are worse atrocities going on in the world today outside of Israel. But to repeat, the US is not responsible for them.
And you don’t think that the Israel/Palestine conflict has not grown up out of ecological and historical conflicts?
No, in fact it grew out of a European colonial movement. Israel could have just as easily ended up in Uganda or Alaska, considering early Zionists were “shopping around” as it were.
It is seems pointless to answer because you are not interested in the truth of these matters but here goes anyway. The war in Darfur began as a conflict between herder and farmer tribes. Traditionally the farmers allowed the passage of the nomadic herder people across their land as they moved from on area to another. Obviously this is a potential source of conflict for if the herds linger too long they will consume crops. The drought brought this to a head. Reduced grazing land and farm yield resulted in the farmers restricting passage and the herders responded with violence.
Now I have looked at the IP conflict for many years and I really do not see some ecological crisis causing the problems though to be sure we can look at stealing land and resources as an ecological crisis for the Palestinians.
What syvanen says about the Darfur scenario is accurate. It’s been a costly civil war, as was the USA civil war–neither amount to genocide. Just because more people died here or there, does not excuse what Israel has done, and is doing, to the Palestinians, over whom they have virtually total control. In short, comparison-pointing to Darfur’s scale of
deaths and misery is an attempt to distract people from what’s going on in the I-P situation.
I mean, bringing up Darfur when the debate is about the I-P situation.
“f so, I hope you acknowledge the difference of scale of a couple hundred thousand killed, and a million displaced, compared to 6000 killed over 60 years.”
More likely tens of thousands killed–there was a war in Lebanon in 1982, for instance. And the number displaced was about 700,000 in 1948, with more since, and millions living under a brutal occupation.
You have a legitimate point in saying that we shouldn’t trivialize what’s happened in Sudan, and then you go on and trivialize what happened to the Palestinians. It shows your own motivation here.
I agree, btw, that the word “genocide” is used inappropriately with respect to the I/P conflict. Apartheid and ethnic cleansing are accurate, but “genocide”–well, the defense I’ve seen of that word is that it supposedly fits the strict definition. Maybe, maybe not. But in common usage the word has impact because people associate it with either killing on a massive scale (Rwanda, East Timor, Cambodia, Nazi Germany) or with the near or total extermination of a small group (say, various Native American tribes in the Western Hemisphere).
I don’t know enough about Darfur to say whether the word fits there–I’ve seen some of the arguments syvanen and others cite, but haven’t read deeply enough to have a firm opinion.
The problem is that the knee jerk defense from Zionists goes something like this:
“Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is morally wrong and needs to stop.”
“What? How dare you accuse the Jews of genocide! Do you even know what the definition of genocide is? You know it’s anti-Semitism to compare Jews to the Nazis, right?”
The word genocide usually doesn’t enter the debate from the anti-Zionist spectrum, in other words.
There are lefties who use the term “genocide” on the I/P conflict–I’ve seen it myself in the comments sections of some blogs–Helena Cobban’s, for instance,not that she herself used it. I can’t remember if I’ve seen any commenter here using it.
I think it’s also been used about Hamas, for that matter, but then there’s a long history on the Zionist side of equating Palestinians with Nazis.
I’ve frequently seen the term used to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians – seen it here, I suspect.
According to some definitions of “genocide” it does fit, but I think those definitions overly-broad.
Thanks for writing this, Syvanen, because this is how I understand it as well. One of the reasons Israel is involved is the water under Darfur. The lake is the size of Lake Erie. And, IMHO, it allows Israel to proselytize its so-called social welfare values, which I know perceive as bogus all around.
uhhh….which I now perceive as bogus all around.
Of course, not everyone can touch or remember every element of an argument, this is sometimes why we blog to a certain subject. In the case of Darfur a couple of years ago I posted an article – Will The Real Darfur Please Stand up?
In our community (Jewish) there is a tendency among many (this is rapidly changing) to look away from the atrocities committed on the Palestinians in the name of the “Jewish people” (another pretentious phrase), and this is true in both the right and left aspects of the political spectrum – among Zionists it matters little whether one is left or right leaning when it comes to Israel. So that in the community itself, some would rather not address what is taking place in this conflict by saying you can do aliyah elsewhere and on other subjects rather than Israel – “doing Jewish” is not limited to the boiling cauldron of the conflict.
When you get to the subject of Darfur you can see the central thrust and force in not only the distraction from Israel, but is played up by Israel itself as a cause in the context of the “dirty Muslims,” etc. So that they try to center it is this fight which is merely a religio-centric phenomena, because we are all supposed to know “how violent and terrible the Muslims are.” So Israel plays it up –
ISRAEL TO GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO HUNDREDS OF DARFUR REFUGEES
So it is not hard to see where the root of the appeal in regard to Darfur comes from, it services the ever accusing and universal cry from Zionists against all “nasty Muslims.” So it is indeed used as a distraction from Israel and the atrocities against the Palestinians (who refuse them right of return while giving citizenship to hundreds of others out of PR appearance) by the Israeli government itself. It helps to assuage the liberal conscience of many Jews who would rather avoid the obvious contradiction of doing Jewish with a country that practices murderous colonial ethnic cleansing. Israel can almost see it as a half-way compromise that does not give them more Zionist adherents, but helps them spread the propaganda about the “horrible Muslims” wherever they might be.
However, it even does something worse in regard to the suffering people of Darfur (outside of making the cause a political football), it obscures the real reasons for the atrocities and unrest in Darfur. When it is a confluence of interest by many countries, including China and India doing the same dirty work as other Euro/American neocolonials in the continent of Africa.
WILL THE REAL DARFUR PLEASE STAND UP
(remember this above link is circa 2007)
It is equally repugnant that a country like Israel which has nothing but exploit the African continent would pose as the savior of the victims in Darfur. When it has done nothing but supply arms to puppet dictatorships set up by itself and its mentors, has mercilessly robbed it of its resources like a second wave of Cecil Rhodes. So in conclusion there is much more afoot, and specifically evident in the oversimplification by the “Save Darfur” crowd, although I suppose in the middle of this pile of dung there might be a few sincere people who are trying to help that do not know their right hand from their left politically.
For further emphasis there are what I call “Jewish mobsters” (actually words used by Lupe Fiasco in his “Conflict Diamonds” video), that act like vultures swooping down and eating the remaining carrion of the African people after the “developed countries” have practiced (and still do practice) their massacres direct and proxy. I do not need anyone informing me otherwise, because I have extended family involved in this atrocity (I hail initially from New York – New Jersey area), and your uninformed disagreement is just a waste of time –
JEWISH MOBSTERS
“[Chorus]
Diamonds are forever
They wont leave in the night
I’ve no fear that they might desert me
Allow me to break down the game
behind the bracelets, earrings, chains, watches and rings
The bling
the crystal encrusted, princess flooded
canary studded, blue colored and blood stained
Yeah, the older brother of the drug game
the giver of fame, the take awayer of lame
The empowerer of the kings that came with claims and disease
to leave where the native peoples were staying
Believe, my engagement ring received
And flossed at the cost of a bondage child minus pain
Long ago kings use to wear them in their armor when they fought other armies
Because it use to scare them
If you wasn’t rich, couldn’t wear them
Witches use to marry them
They’ll shoot you before they share them
The gift and the curse, the venom and the serum
Most hated lady’s best friend, get murked for a cerium
[Chorus]
Cecil Rhodes sold war and genocide
Into the countryside just to get his shine on
I fear what De Beers and his peers use to do
Before the world really knew, just to get their mine on
Making paper with slave labor
And hitting little kids with life time bids making them cut and shine stones
Inflating the price and making them look nice
And I wasn’t thinking twice when I was putting mine on
About a young shorty in Sierra Leone
Or other conflict countries that people call home
I figured I would never go to Angola
So it never did affect me there, maybe indirectly
That my neck leash was funding a rebellion or a military coup
Started by militias that don’t believe in following none of Geneva’s rules
I was brushing off the haters, trying to be cool
Didn’t have a clue that the rapper was helping the rapers
Raiders of the villagers, pillagers of the schools
Shooters of the innocent, torturers of the witnesses
Burners of the businesses and my bracelet was the fuel
Uhh, I ain’t pushing an agenda homie
I’m just pushing the facts, fuck Bush
Cuz there’s people doing worse on this earth and there black
I took it for years now let me bring it back
We all know on foreign shores that they finance wars
But ask yourself do they finance yours
When I first got mine I took them out on tour
Didn’t know they lost half the value when I took them out the store
Or it was full of moissanites and cubics
But the jeweler knew I was stupid
And that I couldn’t prove it
Feeling like I need it because I do music
To impress the groupies and the interviewers
So I didn’t appraise it, nor did I loop it
Even gave them to my girl, thinking I was cupid
Homies was all hate hoping they could make me lose it
Creeping through my own hood knew I had to remove it
I see the Russian Mafia, the Jewish Mobsters
The undercover terrorists and the traps for the hustlers
Homie it’s a wrap for the nonsense rhyming
Props to Kanye I call this Conflict Diamonds
[Chorus]“
Ahhh, the old “Don’t argue with me because I am right and you are wrong” argument.
Upset that someone’s walking your side of the street, yonira?
Thanks, David. Well said. Citizen’s comment is right on the money (so to speak), when he cites disproportionate US aid to Israel as sufficient cause for taking a special interest in Israel’s actions. There’s more to it than that however. For various reasons, Palestine/Israel has been at the heart of Western interest since before the establishment of the Zionist state. Israel has reaped huge benefits from this interest – which it has actively cultivated and played upon. It has never wished simply to be left alone, but rather demands constant material and moral support, solidarity and sympathy, from the entire Western world. It is the height of chutzpah to say “Look at me! Look at me!” 24/7, and then complain “Why are they always looking at me?!” To paraphrase a Hebrew expression, if you don’t like the sting, just give up the honey.
True, Shmuel. Let us count all the ways basic universal morality should be focused
especially on Palestine/Israel… But the fact remains, the USA, as the only superpower, as Israeli’s main foreign funder and enabler at the UN, is the aider-and abettor in chief. How many overt acts are needed to charge against the USA-Israeli conspiracy to nullify the Nuremberg Trials and return to Goering before he took
his poison pill?
David, great post. One thing I’d add is that the using Darfur to argue against, say, BDS, is particularly disingenuous b/c BDS is exactly the strategy that many actors, especially churches, have used to engage Darfur. My church, the United Methodist Church, passed several resolutions calling for the church to examine its investments in companies doing business with the Sudanese government at our 2008 General Conference. At the same time, the committee that dealt with divestment resolutions regarding companies profiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land released an argument against divesting based entirely on fiduciary responsibility.
Note the double standard: divestment re: Sudan is based on the situation on the ground, divestment re: Israel is based on “fiduciary responsibility.”
So actually, not only is the claim that activists for justice in Palestine and Israel should have bigger fish to fry questionable, it ignores that obvious alliances between groups working across “issue” lines. The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation coalition, for example, includes member groups that work on Iraq, Afghanistan, China, groups that also serve as local chapters of Amnesty International, etc. Churches that engage on the I/P issue and are roundly accused of promoting anti-Semitism are at the same time engaged in Sudan, in Colombia, in the Philippines.
Note, too, that the areas that are raised–Sudan, Burma, China–are not U.S. funded conflicts, unlike the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Colombia, which are.
Finally, I wonder if those advocating against an end to genocide in Sudan examine themselves THOROUGHLY for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment, as per Richard Witty’s suggestion? Or does this only apply to anti-Semitism? As if somehow Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment is not deeply ingrained in Western culture? How about those advocating for human rights in Zimbabwe? Does opposition to Mugabe necessitate that I examine myself for racism based on skin color? I’m all about examining our own assumptions and deconstructing racism in our own perceptions–but this is hardly something that should prevent us from working against other forms of oppression.
Thanks, David. That was extremely well said.
Hello all,
I just wanted to thank David Samel for his well written article. I am a long time lurker on this blog (have been reading it for years on an almost daily basis and occasionally posted a comment in the past) and a very vocal supporter on many forums and in real life of the Palestinian people suffering under Israeli occupation. The points brought up by Mr. Samel are very true and I am often confronted with these diversion tactics by scores of unconditional Israel apologists.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Philip Weiss, Adam Horowitz and many others who post interesting articles on this subject and for providing this platform. I also very much appreciate the comments from many other readers who are obviously well informed on this issue. Please continue to share your awareness and knowledge with the world and be a voice for those many victims of the ongoing occupation and oppression whose voices are hardly ever heard in the morally bankrupt MSM. Hopefully, we can eventually contribute to a change that will benefit both those Palestinians and Israelis who are genuinely looking for peace and help bring about a just solution to this tragedy.
P.S. the only reason I hardly ever post here is that a find the comment software a bit hard to follow and English isn’t my native language.
Thanks, Andre. Your English is excellent, by the way.
Cheers, David. I wish I could say the things I really want to say in my native tongue but my English is slowly getting better thanks to reading websites such as this one.
If Chinese or Darfurians had an iron grip on our general circulation media I guess I’d be more interested.