On his American lecture tour, Times correspondent Ethan Bronner will be talking about the "opposing narratives" of Israel/Palestine. This is surely a reference to the Israeli narrative vs. the Palestinian one. Racial/ethnic opposition, ala the OJ trial. Well, for those who can’t make the lecture, here’s a different kind of opposing narrative:
Last week The New York Times (Bronner reporting) sandbagged the Goldstone report on the specific question of whether Israel had meant to destroy Gaza’s only flour mill a year ago:
The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen.
The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime.
Comes now England’s Guardian, one week later, challenging Israel’s response, with a story saying that there is proof that Israel targeted the al-Badr flour mill.
The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January. Photographs of the front half of the bomb have been obtained by the Guardian.
This evidence directly contradicts the finding of the Israeli report, which challenged allegations that the building was deliberately targeted and specifically stated there was no evidence of an air strike. Goldstone, however, used the account of the air strike as a sign that Israel’s attack on the mill was not mere collateral damage, but precisely targeted and a possible war crime.
Which narrative makes more sense to you? Do you think the Times will follow up? Somehow I doubt it. Thanks to Henry Norr.
The full Israeli whitewash of Cast Lead can be read at:
link to mfa.gov.il
Most of the paper is taken up with detailed explanations of the methodology of Israeli military investigations, but some individual incidents are covered.
This is part of the report covering the El Bader Flour Mill is from page 47 (para 163), onwards:
Sorry only the first part of my post turned out, when I submitted it.
The full Israeli whitewash of Cast Lead can be read at:
link to mfa.gov.il
Most of the paper is taken up with detailed explanations of the methodology of Israeli military investigations, but some individual incidents are covered.
This is part of the report covering the El Bader Flour Mill is from page 47 (para 163), onwards:
164. From the outset of the Gaza Operation, the immediate area in which the flour mill was located was used by enemy armed forces as a defensive zone, due to its proximity to Hamas’s stronghold in the Shati refugee camp. Hamas had fortified this area with tunnels and booby-trapped houses, and deployed its forces to attack IDF troops operating there.
For example, 200 meters south of the flour mill an IDF squad was ambushed by five Hamas operatives in a booby-trapped house; 500 meters east of the flour mill another squad engaged enemy forces in a house that was also used for weapons storage; and adjacent to the flour mill, two booby-trapped houses exploded.
165. 165. The IDF ground operation in this area began on 9 January 2009, during night time. Before the ground operation, the IDF issued early warnings to the residents of the area, included recorded telephone calls, urging them to evacuate. Such telephone calls were made to the flour mill as well.
166. While preparing for the operation, the commanders identified the flour mill as a “strategic high point” in the area, due to its height and clear line of sight. Nevertheless, in the planning stage, it was decided not to pre-emptively attack the flour mill, in order to prevent damage to civilian infrastructure as much as possible.
167. In the course of the operation, IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas
positions in the vicinity of the flour mill. The IDF forces fired back towards the sources of fire and threatening locations. As the IDF returned fire, the upper floor of the flour mill was hit by tank shells. A phone call warning was not made to the flour mill immediately before the strike, as the mill was not a pre-planned target.
168. Several hours after the incident, and following a report about fire in the flour mill, the IDF coordinated the arrival of several fire engines to fight the fire.
169. The Military Advocate General reviewed the findings and the records of the command investigation and other materials. In addition, the Military Advocate General reviewed the information included in the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report, as well as the transcript of the public testimony of Mr. Hamada to the Fact-Finding Mission.
170. Taking into account all available information, the Military Advocate General determined that the flour mill was struck by tank shells during combat. The Military Advocate General did not find any evidence to support the assertion that the mill was attacked from the air using precise munitions, as alleged in the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report. The Military Advocate General determined that the allegation was not supported in the Report itself, nor in the testimony to the Fact-Finding Mission by Rashad Hamada, who had left the area prior to the incident in response to the IDF’s early warnings.
Photographs of the mill following the incident do not show structural damage consistent with an air attack.
171. The Military Advocate General found that, in the specific circumstances of combat, and given its location, the flour mill was a legitimate military target in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. The purpose of the attack was to neutralize immediate threats to IDF forces.
172. The Military Advocate General did not accept the allegation in the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Report that the purpose of the strike was to deprive the civilian population of Gaza of food. In this regard, he noted the fact that shortly after the incident, the IDF allowed Palestinian fire trucks to reach the area and extinguish the flames, as well as the extensive amount of food and flour that entered Gaza through Israel during the Gaza Operation.
173. Although the Military Advocate General could not conclusively determine that the flour mill was in fact used by Hamas’s military operatives, there was some evidence of such use. The Military Advocate General noted that Mr. Hamada testified before the Fact-Finding Mission that after the operation he found empty bullets on the roof of the flour mill. This could not have been the result of IDF fire, since – as was evident from the findings of the command investigation – the IDF forces which occupied the mill’s compound three days after the incident did not occupy the roof of the mill, where they would have been exposed to enemy fire.
174. Accordingly, the Military Advocate General found no reason to order a criminal investigation regarding the case.
Mr. Hamada testified before the Fact-Finding Mission that after the operation he found empty bullets on the roof of the flour mill. This could not have been the result of IDF fire, since – as was evident from the findings of the command investigation – the IDF forces which occupied the mill’s compound three days after the incident did not occupy the roof of the mill, where they would have been exposed to enemy fire.
But we are asked to believe that Hamas fighters did so
in the planning stage, it was decided not to pre-emptively attack the flour mill, in order to prevent damage to civilian infrastructure as much as possible.
unreal. i thought the whole point of the new dahiya docrine was to destroy civilian infrastucture to teach them a lesson or something. i thought civilian infrastucture’s were ‘military zones’.
hmmm, who to believe? UN mine action team, goldstone and mr hamada…or the idf who have a reputation for repeatedly spinning the truth. cough.
The flour mill was in relatively open country, west of Jabaliya, so no ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ was necessary. The Israelis did plenty of that in Jabaliya itself and to towns between there and the border, and to Rafah, in the south on the Egyptian border.
See UN satellite damage map at:
link to upload.wikimedia.org
the whole point of Jabotinsky zionism is to “destroy civilian[s,] infrastructure, [Arab culture, Arab will to resist Israeli dominance] teach them a lesson” and to persistently do so in an egregiously disproportionate fashion until, as Ian Lustick said, “the message is beat into their heads pedagogically” that Israeli takeover of Palestinian Arab lands WILL BE.
link to books.google.com
link to edmaysproductions.net
It might be worth comparing the air photos in the Israeli report with the very precise damage shown in a full-face view of the factory at Adam’s previous blog on the flour mill on 27 January – link to mondoweiss.net
Further confirmation of the El Badr air bomb comes from The Independent today:
link to independent.co.uk
with the extra detail that only half (unexploded) of the bomb was found and finally defused on Feb 11.
Maybe it was after that when they brought the tanks in, to finish off the job
There is also an excellent piece by Robert Fisk (required reading) on his attendance at the Herzliya Conference in Israel this week, headed: Israel feels under siege. Like a victim. An underdog
link to independent.co.uk
You might check out his other listed articles as well. He is probably the best commentator going on the Middle East.
Bronner’s theme is more accurate and relevant than your proposal.
Did YOU know whether the shell that destroyed the flour mill was an airborne shell or a tank shell? You are an addict to the theme of “the mass media is complicit in hasbara”.
Stimulus/response. No?
How can you say Bronner is ‘more’ accurate when you have not read the source material?
Have you read the Goldstone Report?
The dual-narrative that Bronner is commenting on is the theme that both histories are accurate and that political struggle that results in peace and justice would acknowledge the validity and truth of both communities’ experience.
The question of “this is true” vs “no, that is true”, is a petty disagreement, that on the factual example that Phil raised is literally impossible for a journalist writing from far away to discern. The choice of which story to believe is only that, a small narrative, a single fact.
Bronner’s longer thesis is more important. It comes right out of Bennie Morris, “Righteous Victims”. Have you read that?
An unemployed accountant lecturing an employed journalist, on journalism?
I have not read ‘Righteous Victims’.
However, I think it’s evasive to engage in these abstract discussions.
It’s quite simple – did X happen or not? Can you provide for me the context for X, if it happened?
That’s a discussion Witty. What you want is a way to mitigate the opposition’s fact-finding reports.
That’s all.
Both histories are accurate? What does this mean? How can two separate histories be true?
You live in your head too much Witty. There is apparently no ‘truth’ so long as it ‘hurts’ Zionism.
Why haven’t you read the Goldstone Report? That is the subject-matter. Not ‘Righteous Victims’.
I would say that you live in your head too much, if you don’t experience two different individuals or two different communities experiencing two distinct experiences, by emphasis of what’s important, by being in two different places at different times, by living.
You apparently thought that the subject matter of Bronner’s thesis was two different stories on Gaza. He may allude to that, but likely the theme is what I said, that each community experienced validly, accurately, different stories about what was going on.
That you choose to emphasize that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians occurred, is your choice of story. Others emphasize different events as THE important events, “what really happened”. Others acknowledge that BOTH occurred.
“The Goldstone Report” is what Phil and you are talking about, that is a distraction from what Bronner is talking about.
Two narratives right here.
Witty, this is not a poem. The conflict is very real.
Why do you insist on equating the Palestinian experience to the Israeli experience?
There is no comparison. One is dominating the other.
I can understand the tactical reasons for pushing this false paradigm of parity between the two parties.
It is a language that mystifies the conflict.
Do you think Palestinians – who are living their lives over there under occupation and colonization, will have the patience to listen to you equate them to the Israelis?
Do you think any people under oppression give a damn about the Holocaust or the history (keyword HISTORY) of Jewish suffering, when they themselves are enduring unbearable suffering?
This is my point. You employ all this obfuscation because without it, you cannot ‘leave’ the territories in the way you wish.
You have gotten all you wanted out of Palestine, and now you want to leave, before you end up compromising the project as a whole.
Your intentions are transparent. Why should a Palestinian give up their claim to One-State, when a member of the ‘lost tribe’ of Indian Jews, from India, can go settle in the West Bank?
This is utter insanity.
And that is why the Two State solution is a scam. That is why Zionism is a scam.
“Do you think any people under oppression give a damn about the Holocaust or the history (keyword HISTORY) of Jewish suffering, when they themselves are enduring unbearable suffering?”
They do if they are concerned about their future, which is inevitably as neighbor to Israel. Better that it be a good neighbor relationship.
The only way that the Israeli narrative can be considered “true” is if there is no truth and thus both narratives – any narrative, in fact – is “true.”
In short, RW is desperately grasping at the moral subjectivism of deconstructionist theory.
Is that a threat, Witty? Disgusting.
Palestinians do not owe you anything.
You are very wierd, if you think that I am issuing threats.
Bother to find out before you judge and then shoot.
“any narrative, in fact – is “true.””
I hope you don’t hold that dismissive view relative to your spouse, or friends.
People experience different things in the same building (not necessarily the same room).
Witty, you said:
Palestinians should object outright any kind of acknowledgment of the ‘legitimacy’ of Zionism.
The Native Americans do not have to accept Manifest Destiny.
Zionism to the Palestinians means ethnic cleansing and oppression. They suffered from Zionism, and you profited from Zionism.
That is what the you want from them. It doesn’t matter if Palestinians ‘think’ about Jewish suffering. That has no value.
Jewish suffering, within respect to ZIONISM, however, is a whole other issue.
That is what you want. Not the former, but the latter. You want them to consider Jewish suffering and then RE-consider Zionism.
And I say, as I hope all Palestinians say, in defiance: GO TO HELL!
And, neither “go to hell”‘s result in coexistence, justice for those Palestinians with valid land claims, does not result in Palestinians’ self-governance in any form.
“Zionism” is not ethnic cleansing. It is settlement and self-governance. That some interpreted zionism to mean exclusive is a tragedy, as it is a tragedy that some interpreted Palestinian and/or Arab nationalism to mean exclusive.
Again, in 1947, the local Arab population undertook a civil war partially to remove Jews (not Zionists) from the land in a true effort of ethnic cleansing, from intent to application (thankfully failed). Similarly, the 1948 Arab states invasions actively used the theme of “drive them to the sea” to motivate sympathizers.
And, they lost that ethnic cleansing effort, which instead resulted in a 20% Arab minority in Israel, and a .001% Jewish minority in then Jordan.
You exagerate. Maybe you repeat what you’ve heard, but the people that you’ve heard it from also exagerate then. It doesn’t make their experience untrue, or even their interpretation unimportant. To to inflate that to “the truth” is a choice on your part, not an observation solely, and certainly not a prediction depending on how you form your goal.
As an advocate for single-state, we are in opposition. In the current setting, I regard that solution as much much less democratic than the partition solution at the green line.
witty, you are consistent with the Leon Uris-scripted narrative in Exodus –
is the equivalent of “justice is an abstraction devoid of reality; to speak of Jews and justice in the same breath is a logical uncertainty.”
Don’t forget the recent converts from Peru who are settling the West Bank. Can’t take away their promised land!
Ahh, the “dual narrative” idea. It is a trademark of left-wing Zionists as a way of acknowledging the existence of Palestinians while giving no heed to their suffering or their ideas.
It’s really a derailing tactic. It says well, “you have your narrative and I have mine, so I don’t need to hear about your little nakba because I thought that was a miracle which gave me my own state.” This sort of thing is the reason I went from a left-Zionist to an anti-Zionist when I started to read about/talk to Palestinians. It’s just dishonest and condescending.
Exactly.
The sad thing is, is that in ignoring Witty, we’re inadvertently contributing to ‘dual-narratives’.
IMO, he’s a liar, opportunist and hypocrite. Nothing more, nothing less.
However, if we’re just talking amongst ourselves then we aren’t growing.
In any case, I still have hope. I’m confident that the Palestinians will not accept the Two-State prison.
And the movement will only get stronger because Israel can only become more violent, which in-turn creates more solidarity. BDS!
Sorry, screwed up the html. I meant to quote Cliff on “However, if we’re just talking amongst ourselves then we aren’t growing.”
“They do if they are concerned about their future, which is inevitably as neighbor to Israel. Better that it be a good neighbor relationship.”
Listen to the tough Jew!
Witty, get real. If an expert can precisely identify the bomb used, as to its brand name and type of fuse, then he won’t confuse it with a tank shell.
“the mass media is complicit in hasbara”. Yes, of course. The American mass media certainly are. That’s why I get first opinions from respected British newspapers, the BBC, Ha’aretz and Ynet.
And I only read the crap published in American newspapers by the likes of Bronner, when Phil gives me a link to a particular outrageous article.
Witty read Manufacturing Consent
Or at least provide a counter-argument to the general questioning of the MSM’s integrity.
Apologies to all if I seem to be hogging the airwaves, but I am so incensed by the Israeli lies about this particular incident (El Badr Flour Factory) that I felt I must speak out.
So far as Bronner is concerned, I don’t, as a matter of principle, read the NYT, because I think it is a crap hasbara-enabling organ. If Phil wants to read it, and pontificate about its errors, then good luck to him.
You illustrate the pettiness of the radical dissent, which is to focus on real but incidental issues, rather than broader themes.
You pick the “ethnic-cleansing” narrative as “what really happened”, when in fact MANY important themes happened.
By actually respectfully addressing the larger themes respectfully, you might be able to influence Israeli and world opinion to voluntarily adopt a humane view, which would then avoid war.
And, as we ALL know, civilians bear the brunt of war, inevitably. Better that war be avoided by paying attention to the big themes, rather than just bark at the smaller.
The consequences of the Gaza scandals that Goldstone suggests (improper formation of policy and orders) can be reformed. The Israeli military can learn, and the next that it faces shelling of civilians, and chooses to respond militarily it can conduct itself professionally.
The narratives though cannot be magically reconciled without respectful recognition.
How can someone who supports ‘ends justifies the means’ tactics, involving rape/massacres/torture/etc. – all contributing to ethnic cleansing, be taken seriously?
You cannot talk about universal principles Witty, when you have admitted to being opportunistic and hypocritical.
Your ‘enough! Israel’ Zionism is illustrative of the double standards of ‘humanism’ that you impose on the opposition.
And you have still not read the source material. You have not read the Goldstone Report. You have no credibility. Do your homework.
However, why don’t you actually communicate to us, using the sources YOU have read, and ‘fill in the blanks’ as it were, from your POV.
Yup, the “ends justifies the means” should have been the end of Richard, as far as being taken seriously as a commenter.
Cliff,
You support ends justifying the means as well. You support BDS which is a harmful means to realize a potentially just goal (or maybe not depending on how it is applied), and you apologize in many ways for Hamas shelling of Israeli civilians and prior terror (partially by ommission, partially by the rationalization that it is “understandable”).
You don’t accept any Zionism. I accept “enough” Zionism, and seek to get there.
I do NOT adopt the Malcolm X slogan of “by any means necessary”, which many here refer to periodically, and adopt as guiding mode of resistance.
Are you equating BDS to rape/torture/murder/massacres and general terrorism, to induce ethnic cleansing?
Witty, this is the point I am stressing about your politics – no matter how big your constituency is.
You are intellectually dishonest.
Anything can be ‘harmful’.
I can organize a protest of Operation Cast lead, and you could say that it is ‘harmful’ to the citizens of S’Derot whom were targeted by rocket attacks. You could say that I am legitimizing their suffering by protesting a military operation that was carried out to address their grievances.
So, I do not accept your ridiculous equivocation.
BDS is not harmful in the same context as the terrorism that the Israeli army and Jewish militias utilized against the Palestinian civilian population.
BDS does not in any shape or form compare to the tactics that Israel has utilized against the Palestinian civilian population from 48′ onwards.
I reject your characterization of BDS as ‘harmful’ – in any just sense.
We live in the real world, Witty. There is a threshold for which one tolerates these kinds of comparisons.
Technically, by your definition, no form of protest is productive. All dissent is ‘harmful’ to the opposition.
Israeli society supported the Gaza operation. Israel is a democracy for Jews. Every Israeli administration has adhered to the same basic principles with respect to the Palestinians. The political climate has changed, so there have been adjustments – however, the same strategy has been put into place.
You must first explain what ‘harmful’ means to you – as a Zionist. And then, explain why BDS is ‘harmful’.
The occupation and colonization of Palestine is ‘harmful’, Witty.
I don’t know what reality you live in, but you can kiss your Two-State get-out-of-jail-free-card solution good-bye.
I am not a Palestinian. I am not suffering like they are. BUT – they deal with your political worldview on a daily basis in PHYSICAL terms Witty.
So you can keep preaching but no one will take you seriously.
I do not support Hamas. I do not support the rockets.
And I have only ever said, that the rocket attacks are not cartoon-like in motivation.
You cited a Hamas official, yet you gave no source. Your paraphrase was hysterical in tone. Later on, another commentator found what would seem to be the original and actual quote.
It seemed much more understandable. That doesn’t mean I agree with the consequences.
Like, I think every single Palestinian has the right to fight back against the IDF and the settlers abusing them. They have the right to fight. They are not caged animals. They are human beings – every bit as human as a Jew, as an Israeli, as a Zionist.
So I can understand why Hamas fired those rockets – but disagree with the actions. I do not defend them, I just give context where none were originally supplied. I do this because people use these actions, like the rockets, to bash the Palestinian cause entirely.
This focus on the Hamas rocket attacks implies some kind of parity between Israeli violence and Palestinian violence – which is completely false. There is no comparison.
Palestine is not occupying and colonizing Israel. Israel is occupying and colonizing Palestine.
You arguments serve to establish a fictional parity between the two conflicting parties. No parity exists. And I am pointing that truth out to you.
You want a Two-State solution? Then be honest for once.
I’m describing the hypocrisy of your criticism of “end justifying the means”.
I believe that you are more sympathetic with Malcolm X’s theme applying to suppressed peoples of “by any means necessary” (hopefully including some sensitivity to the degree of violence), but definitely adopting the theme of “ends justify the means”.
My view is FAR more moderate than Malcolm’s.
“Like, I think every single Palestinian has the right to fight back against the IDF and the settlers abusing them. They have the right to fight. ”
You’re young. You weren’t around for the period when Hamas actively employed very gruesome and very intimate terror inside Israel, directed entirely at civilians, and on a proportionally massive and traumatic scale. The firing of rockets is their “moderation”. Sorry. Its not yet forgotten.
Frustration is understandable. Ruthlessness is less so.
You want to paint the picture as Gazans, Palestinians as solely victims. Certainly the civilians (those willing to live and let live) are caught in the crossfire. But, Hamas is no victim. Islamic Jihad is no victim. Even Fatah is no victim. They’ve just realized that there is no success in militancy. (Sadly, the idiotic policies of likud and even labor governments also gave them only very limited success in negotiation.)
But, that is changeable IF militancy relaxes. If militancy doesn’t relax its pressure and attacks on Israeli civilians, then Israel will respond intensely.
You’re just assuming I want Hamas to represent ‘the Palestinians’ and to also carry out suicide bombings on Israeli civilians.
You’re assuming that is my conception of ‘resistance’.
It isn’t. I want the Palestinians to refuse to pass through checkpoints. I want them to break those walls down. I want them to resist with every part of their being, the occupation, the colonization and Zionism as a whole.
They can do this non-violently as well and pursue One-State.
I support all Palestinians right to fight the IDF and the various artifice of Zionism that obstruct daily Palestinian life and fragment Palestinian society. If it’s violent, so be it.
I do not support attacks on civilians. I do not support attacks just for the sake of venting.
I think the Palestinians have a right to fight.
You frame the Palestinians as suicide bombers. That is how you present their resistance.
Yet, you don’t talk about the non-violent movement. Well, actually you do. You equate BDS with ethnic cleansing and the terrorism that facilitated it.
Witty, whatever happens on this blog between you and the anti-Zionists – it won’t convert Palestinians to Zionism.
I believe history is with them now. And I think in time, you will lose your exclusionary ‘Jewish State’.
“You frame the Palestinians as suicide bombers. That is how you present their resistance.”
I frame suicide bombers as suicide bombers. The generalization “Palestinians” CONFLICTS with my understanding and expression. Its a lie for you to put those words into my imagined mouth. Please take the time to research the extent and period when suicide bombing was one of the main chosen methods of resistance.
It is a form of the assertion “by any means necessary”.
We agree on the repugnance of Israel boxing in West Bank Palestinians into isolated enclaves. We disagree on the relevance of how to deal with Gaza and Hamas. (You assume that there is some proposed answer on the table, whereas I don’t see any in fact, so long as terror on civilians is attempted.)
I think adopting a militant approach is a negligence, a FAILURE to apply democratic method and commitment, in that it represents an attempt to force a conclusion, rather than to take the time to persuade. Some individuals’ approach to BDS is not militant, not punitive in their intent.
I’m not seeking to convert anyone to Zionism. I am attempting to convert people to the view of persuasion rather than agitation as the means adopted.
This is in particular addressed to Phil, who might have the means to persuade American Jews and even Israeli Jews to adopt more democratic approaches, humanizing Palestinians in Jews’ eyes.
A couple weeks ago, he commented that he regarded bludgeoning as largely ineffective in changing hearts and minds, but hasn’t yet figured out an alternative approach that he commits to, that defines his editorial work.
“Are you equating BDS to rape/torture/murder/massacres and general terrorism, to induce ethnic cleansing?”
Technically, no, he isn’t, because he would never come close to being that honest about Israel’s actions. He’s comparing BDS to Hamas suicide bombing–he’s quite forthright about Palestinian terrorism and never forthright about what mainstream Zionists did (he can be critical of Irgun, but not Haganah) and he equates any form of nonviolent resistance to suicide bombing if the resistors say things which hurt his feelings.
The blockade on Gaza, on the other hand, is entirely justified in his mind. Regrettable that ordinary Palestinians suffer, but until Hamas concedes it is justifiable, to his way of thinking.
Evidence. The story of which type of bomb was dropped is discernable as you referred upon objective investigation. If Israel is intentionally fabricating a story to avoid reform of it military policy-making and cover for institutionalized indiscipline, that is repugnant and ineffective to the objectives of a valid defense even.
On the more important questions as to what goals to pursue, the evidence that I incorporate includes primarily reading of history and personal story. I’ve met enough Palestinians to know that the Palestinian experience of “catastrophe” relative to personal suffering and grave political/social disappointment is real, undeniable. And, I’ve met enough Israelis and non-Israeli Jews, to know that the history of persecution and non-acceptance of Jews associating as Jews is real, undeniable (and also that only really beginning in the sixties were Jews fully accepted in modern American and European life for example, and then still swimming upstream), which gave rise over a century and more to the urge and later necessity for Zionism.
Two large theme narratives, each true, potentially reconcilable and transformable if the other is accepted, and if demonization for political ends or bias is rejected.
False dichotomy. False paradigm.
Palestinians are not responsible for Jewish persecution. Palestinians are not responsible for the Holocaust.
Judaism is not Zionism. Jews are not Zionists by definition.
Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine. Not ‘Jews’.
Zionists are responsible for the ethnic cleansing, the occupation and the continued colonization and the institutional racism/violence/etc. that follows. Not ‘Jews’.
You’ve read little. When you’ve studied sufficiently of the history of Israel, then comment.
Its not a question of responsibility for the holocaust. The chain of persecutions is not a ping-pong game. Its almost always a persecuted people migrating elsewhere, then conflicting.
In the case of Jews and Israel, Jews did have a long historical link to the land, which was so long as to give the impression on the ground that that link had been severed, but was never actually the case.
ALL ancestral connection to land is by story, and in all cases there are qualitative phases to the changes in that story. The story for third generation diaspora Palestinians is shifting from memory and second-person memory (a grandparent telling a first person account) to myth or sentimental memory.
Zionism was a necessity post-holocaust for Jews (European and then later Asian and North African). And, the effort to settle the land (even Jabotinsky referred to multi-cultural state), was rejected by local residents and responded by efforts at ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land (not of Zionists).
Read some more. The long-term is in people’s memories. Real.
On the “empty land” theme. The land was largely empty, as evidenced by the current population of both Israel and Palestine now 12-15 times what the population was in the 1920′s when the statement was first made.
No where in your original post, do I require a ‘history’ lesson on Israel, to comment on the obvious FALSE dichotomy you are constructing of the Palestinian experience and the Jewish or Israeli or Zionist experience.
Any comparison has to have a point. So what is your point in comparing these two peoples?
Jewish suffering is no excuse for establishment of a State – a political entity – on top of an indigenous population.
Now if we want to get into the history of the conflict. The violence, the motivations, etc. Then I’ll happily debate you.
However, if you attempt to justify the Jewish State by past suffering, you have no credibility.
What your intention is, is to mitigate the Palestinian experience (which is a direct result of Zionism) by false paradigms. By putting these two people together and making it seem like it’s all just a misunderstand or a humorous dispute amongst neighbors.
I don’t need to get into the ‘feelings’ of Jews or Israelis or Zionists. Their feelings do not justify their actions.
This is exactly how you justified the terrorism, the physical, real, brutality employed against Palestinian civilians to create a Jewish State.
What was the purpose of Deir Yassin, Witty? What were the ‘feelings’ involved in that? How does Jewish suffering factor into the atrocities committed against an entire people, and that which still exist in the present?
If you hadn’t noticed, there is an occupation going on. Israeli policy hasn’t changed, it’s simply adapted to the current social taboos. So 800K Palestinians won’t get kicked off their land in more or less a ‘one fell swoop’ – however, the ethnic cleansing is still happening. Israel has fragmented the West Bank, such that no viable Palestinian State can exist.
I’ve already cited Sara Roy’s book, on the Gazan economy and how Zionism (ideology) plays the dominating role in manipulating Palestinian daily life. Palestinian economy is dictated by Zionism.
So try and issue apologetics for this behavior which began back then, and continues up until now and easily into the foreseeable future.
Read before you rant. Bother to.
There is no replaying the history. AGAIN. Most migrations of people have resulted from either ecological (over-population or climate change) and/or persecutorial motivations. I would say every, but there have been some that are just greedy (few) or whimsical.
The migration of European Jews following the persecutions in Russia early, and the holocaust later, was no exception. You can refute perennial history if you like, but EVERY people migrated to where they are, displacing some other if the community itself desired to remain of separate identity.
The Islamic theme in region is an imposed theme. Later accepted. The theme of privatization of formerly common land is more ecological, resulting from increases in population and changes in law, that also extended beyond Palestinian origination, but was true nevertheless.
The seeking to retain the old, or return to the old, is more of a fascist theme than a progressive. I get that when those themes are invoked to justify Israeli dominance, it is repugnant. I don’t make them as justification. I similarly though resent when progressives adopt a fascistic modality and seek to squash that into a progressive box.
Describing only the Palestinian or the third-world sympathetic narrative to the situation is a falsehood, a half-truth. Important that Palestinian experience and Palestinian math not be omitted, but also important that it not be exagerated to be “the whole truth”.
The purpose of Deir Yassin, undertaken by Irgun, was to terrorize, using strategic mission as a rationalization. Thankfully, the massacre was discovered by orthodox Jews who confronted the Irgun. The purpose of a massacre though is to leave survivors, or else the communication of the terror does not occur.
I am NOT a supporter of state sponsored settlement for the purpose of annexation. If you’ve heard otherwise, then you were listening to your own or others prejudices.
‘Orthodox Jews’ huh. Why would you add that detail in there?
And what was the value of the confrontation? The massacre occurred. And other massacres have occurred since. Clearly, no matter WHO ‘confronted’ Irgun, nothing has changed.
And you were the one who said that while you could not imagine yourself committing acts of terrorism yourself, you would not do anything to stop it.
You admitted to being an opportunistic and hypocritical Zionist. You explicitly stated that the ends justified the means.
I don’t remember which thread this exchange took place in. Mondoweiss has an awful search feature. I can’t search comments AFAIK. I’d love to be wrong here. Anyone know how?
I can dig it up if you insist on lying.
I never “admitted being an opportunistic and hypocritical Zionist”. That is your twisting of my words.
Again, EVERYONE adopts the theme of the ends justify the means. You do. Again, your language is nearly exactly the same theme as Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary”.
My application of the term is far far more moderate. I consistently urge, if ever asked ahead of time, to adopt the least violent and least harmful means to achieve limited and justifiable ends. After the fact is water under the bridge. The odd leftist measuring of people’s morality by what they condemn after the fact is petty compared to what they observe and propose.
For example, in the week between the end of the cease-fire, the escalation of Hamas shelling, and the Israeli response, Phil did not mention a word about the shelling, did not regard it as a consequential act worthy of discussion in the slightest. That was before the fact, during the fact.
It was a large negligence on his part, in that he might have some influence, far more than I, on the actions of solidarity.
“if you insist on lying”
A brilliant approach Cliff.
Witty, I am going to find your exact comment. You are blatantly lying.
And by the way, I do not accept ends-justify-the-means.
There is a context to that phrase.
You are applying it so superficially – JUST to bring me down to your level.
That’s my point. You are dishonest.
I can study hard to get into college. The ends justify the means, Witty?
The phrase has a negative connotation. Meaning, often, deplorable means.
So don’t equate BDS with rape, torture, massacre, etc. (the means -> ethnic cleansing).
Tell me Witty – who will you discuss ‘your’ Two-State solution with? What Palestinian would ever accept it?
Even the puppet leaders of the Palestinians don’t accept it. Like I said, you live too much inside your bubble, your head, your perspective only. Outside of reality.
You definitely adopt the “ends justify the means” theme, far far more than I, in speaking of the Palestinians right to resist “by any means necessary”, deferring to their judgement as to what is necessary and ethical.
I get that you are using the phrase to condemn me personally, more than criticize specific ideas.
“So don’t equate BDS with rape, torture, massacre, etc. (the means -> ethnic cleansing).”
Rape, torture, massacre is usually not equivalent to BDS (depending on how BDS is framed and applied). Zionism is not equivalent to rape, torture, massacre.
Zionism is solely the self-governance movement of the Jewish people that and to reside in Israel, and safely. Flavors of Zionism extend beyond defense to expansion and oppression, flavors that I reject.
There is no format by which the Jews that comprise the majority of Israel will consent to a single-state currently. They identify as Jews strongly, as Zionists, and for good reason.
You might not like the reasoning, but if you are a realist, then you will acknowledge that that is true, and accept it.
Witty, I have a simple request. Quote me and explain where I expressed explicitly or implicitly “by any means necessary.”
You are a liar. I have never supported ends-justify-the-means. I have never made an argument that expressed ‘by any means necessary’.
Support your argument with a direct quote from me, or stop your lies.
I never said Zionism was simply rape/torture/etc.
Zionism is an idea. Like any idea, once it becomes subject to the laws of physics it ceases to become simply an idea.
It affects others.
It is not just ‘self-governance’. A Jewish State would not exist today as it does, without the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The end.
Even today, Zionism means colonialism.
You say today, Israelis would not welcome an influx of Palestinians into their society. Well, the Palestinians did not welcome that massive immigration of Jews into Palestine.
Except, because you are a hypocrite you do not factor this into the Palestinian experience (as you see it) and into the Israeli experience you advertise.
One-State for Israel is like abolishing slavery and the Civil Rights movement.
Palestinians are not some alien entity. They are refugees because of people like you. They didn’t migrate from Europe or Russia or America.
That is their land (too, now).
I just realized that Witty is weasel wording the phrase…
You are pathetic.
Yes, in that case, we’re all ‘by any means necessary’.
Like I always say, your dishonesty will facilitate the creation of One-State.
All that people like you can, physically, is brutalize the opposition. So you support Israeli crimes.
However, in the intellectual arena, the Palestinian solidarity movement will not waste time on liars like you Witty. So keep it up.
I do not think Palestinian suffering should be hostage to Israeli intransigence.
Sorry, that was a mistake.
Richard: You are changing the subject. Bronner failed in his first duty as a reporter, which is to try and establish what actually happened at the flour mill. The British Guardian — an established mainstream newspaper, well over a century old — succeeded. Phil is questioning whether the the New York Times has enough integrity to pursue the truth for its readers.
Any lofty discussion of “larger themes” during Bronner’s lecture tour is irrelevant. If he made the same kind of mistake in your field, accountancy, he might lose his job.
Phil likes to juxtapose skew facts.
“Narratives” and “narratives”. Again, one is on long-term historical themes, the other is on the facts of incidents. (Incidents are discernible. The significance of the longer themes takes thought.)
Trouble writing in English? Can’t make a coherent point?
MM Educational Services™ has online tutors standing by to help you formulate complete sentences and support your ideas with clear, plainspoken language that is sure to help you win friends and influence people, even on online forums that you despise but can’t seem to leave.
Is reading comprehension a challenge?
Sign up with MM today and we’ll include our guide to processing unpleasant information — absolutely free! Learn the essentials of link clicking, vertical scrolling, and, through the magic of IDR (Intentionally Delayed Response), how to avoid falling into the same emotional loop every time someone disputes one of your cherished notions.
These are the same time-tested techniques used by professionals and respected online personalities, and they can be all yours if your order now.
The problem with your thesis is that Israel has often used a tactic to discredit negative news by discrediting a single element of the issue and using that to disavow the entire issue. Bronner was merely sounding the trumpet of Zion. I hold he is part and parcel of the process to deflect the Goldstone report.
“Mahmoud Hamada said last night that the 110cm-long front of the bomb had mercifully not exploded but had destroyed a 4-tonne milling machine. He did not know what had happened to the other half but thought it might have exploded in the air.”
link to independent.co.uk
Interesting. While the bomb was gliding in half of it the part without the explosive charge exploded and the other half continued on to hit the target spot on, perfectlty.
Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Of course the part with the explosive charge didn’t explode. Nothing wrong with this story.
So, Julian, you are a munitions expert, are you? There is a simple question to be answered: Were the remains of munitions designed for use by aircraft found at the site of the flour mill or not? You and Witty are the intellectual equivalent of a team of pickpockets.
And, Witty, over 100 lines of ‘responsive’ text completelly devoid of substance. Amazing. You don’t produce anything of value, but you certainly do it well.
Julian, the detonator portion went off (triggered one of many ways) but the main charge failed to explode. Not all that unusual.
What’s the opposing narrative to this one:
link to independent.co.uk
Look, I’m sure a lot of readers (they say the commenter/reader ratio is about 10 to 1) just skipped over Richard’s pseudo-rational emesis and went right to the end.
So let me sum it all up for you in just a few lines:
1. Israel Rocks!
2. Arabs Suck! (Even if they call themselves Palestinians)
3. You Suck!
4. Okay, the Whole World Sucks!
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
And there you have the hole of Richard Witty.
Witty is equating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to BDS as well.
Oh and, he’s changing the definition of ‘by any means necessary’ or ‘ends justify the means’ to cover his tracks (he accepts the terrorism of 48′ that created a Jewish majority).
So, let’s see reality, Witty’s son has joined which group? And Witty has said what about that? While you think about that, don’t forget you need to pay your USA IRS taxes.
““Narratives” and “narratives”. Again, one is on long-term historical themes, the other is on the facts of incidents.”
This is an absolutely asinine statement, you do not have “long historical themes” void of facts, and various facts make for long historical themes. The problem you are having Witty is you’re not wanting to follow the facts, which reveal a trend because it is something you wish to hide from at all costs.
You cannot have a discussion about “narratives” disconnected from reality, however you can choose a narrative void of facts. Unfortunately RW, this is the world you live in.
I might add, it is also the world that Bronner lives in, and both you and he communicate your narratives void of facts (or disjointed facts with no background, or a background void of facts).
A practice of creating narratives rather than culling facts = cover-up.