I was at the NYU event Qadir wrote about and several things he wrote bothered me.The David Project folks didn’t arrange seats at the front, but took the existing empty front row seats (I was in the 2nd row). They were not disruptive, even though one of them was about ten years old. Qadir exaggerated their influence, although I think he was right about their comprising maybe a quarter of the audience.The native American whose name he did not get (Melissa Franklin) is a college senior at Haskell University and frankly admits to being new to the issue. The first question was directed to her — the absurd one that "Palestine" is a Roman term for an area that was originally called "JEWdea." Her response — "I don’t know Arabic and can’t speak to the name, but I do not understand how people who have suffered so much oppression can turn around and oppress others" — drew the largest applause of the evening. More effective, I would say, than burying them in facts. If anyone got short shrift in the Q and A, it was Melissa. Why would Qadir want to discredit her voice because she and the other panelists didn’t answer as he would have done?
From where I sat, which was closer to the back of the room, there were constant interruptions by the David Project people, and it made the first speaker pretty hard to hear. Maybe I’m off about this, but I was surrounded in a "U" shaped pattern by those people, about four behind and one on my right and left, and their regular jump-ups and outspoken interjections and sneering made it difficult for me to hear the first speaker at all, until the crowd was basically instructed to remain civil by the university monitor. This was only a portion of the total group of the overall "Buy Israel" crowd, but their behavior was impossible to ignore from where I was seated, and they were not the only members of this group reacting like this. I think plenty of the other attendees around me were really put off by their actions as well, and I think I’m right in assuming that the resentment in the rear in the beginning of the session about their display led to the escalation of clap-offs and woo-hooing later in the evening.
To my recollection there was no row of chairs at all in the front of the room where the late arrivals took their places. The initial first row seemed to be filled with organizers and paper carriers, until the entrance and "standing show" of the David Project folks, and they took their place at the forefront (and I believe this was deliberate) though it may have been organizers who provided the seats to accommodate them.
Emotional points are fine, and often necessary. However, when 2 of the 3 speakers trafficked mostly in gentle heartfelt fuzziness, in the absence of facts that reshape the vague and mainstream story in the US of an embattled democracy doing all it can to combat subhuman terrorist monsters bent on destroying their state, I see the entire effort as having self-neutered its potential by de-emphasizing hard evidence.
Most of the mainstream of the lobby politely claims to sympathize with some suffering of the Palestinians, before moving onto the standard corollary of the blaming their leadership for their plight, or the few Palestinian extremists that ruin it for the rest of them. But, unless this session was, in fact, intended just as an opportunity to reinforce solidarity and refuel the fire in the hearts of people already on-board for justice for the Palestinians, I really don’t see the point in holding such a meeting, in an academic setting, open to the public, if persuasion was not the primary goal. If this were a tactical meeting discussing boycott strategies, then maybe these kinds of emotional appeals would be helpful for refreshing the consciences of the already converted, and keeping them motivated. However, there was *zero* discussion of boycott strategies, or specific companies to target or methods at all, so that clearly could not have been the intent of the event. Also, if tugging heartstrings and emotional appeals were the goal, this also could have been done much more sharply. I don’t recall any pictures of corpses, checkpoints, any recollection of local testimonies of life under occupation/siege that could have enhanced the spirituality in the room. Again, the format implies that this was in fact meant to be an informative meeting, the session was open to a general audience for a reason, and it certainly wasn’t publicized by accident.
If changing the narrative and dispelling the vulgar propaganda that passes for history on this issue were important, then I think this meeting could have done much better. When I concluded that The David Project won by default, I’m saying this because right now, in 2010 in the United States, *their* story is much closer to the picture of what the average American believes about the conflict, and is the true conventional wisdom in this country, perverse as it may be. When taking into account the number of factual-sounding, reasonable-sounding-to-the-uninformed lobby talking points that went unanswered, I think I’m correct in saying that very little of this conventional wisdom was dispelled for any audience members in the crowd undecided on the issue. There is absolutely nothing to look forward to but a guarantee of failure for this movement if this battle of information is not engaged with full force. Look at the information sheets handed out at any campus pro-Israel meeting, for f—’s sake. We’re currently on the fringe of the fringe of the fringe of the left in America, and our personal refusal to buy Sabra Hummus is not going to alleviate the suffering of any Palestinian, nor provoke a response from any American elected official, nor bring this issue into the public discourse.
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I remain unconvinced that nothing but extreme scrupulosity on the facts and laws, *followed* by the outrage knowledge of them provoke, is our only chance of taking on our much better-funded adversary and convincing an otherwise unaroused and ignorant public.
I wasn’t at the meeting so can’t comment on whose reporting is closest to the truth, but that aside, everything Qadir says sounds right to me. Emotion and tugging at heartstrings is important, but he’s absolutely correct that the mainstream claims to have compassion for Palestinians, and then goes on to weep and weep over the lack of progress, at which point they either blame both sides equally or put most of the blame on the Palestinians. And the average American is probably about as ignorant as it is possible to get on this subject (which is saying a lot). I’ve known well-educated liberal NYT-readers who, not surprisingly, have repeated some of the dumbest hasbara talking points you’ve ever heard as though they were simple common sense. That was a few years ago, but I doubt things have changed. And even the mainstream dissenters like Bill Moyers first find it necessary to paint Hamas in as dark as light as possible (not that they shouldn’t be criticized) before offering some diffident criticism of Israel’s over-reaction.
RW is on the left end of the respectable discussion in the US. Facts are what we need to change this.
Though on the other hand, facts are stupid things, as a great American once said, channeling what might have been the truest feelings of his supportive voters. Facts just bounce off some people. But maybe not everyone.
I’ve known well-educated liberal NYT-readers who, not surprisingly, have repeated some of the dumbest hasbara talking points you’ve ever heard as though they were simple common sense. That was a few years ago, but I doubt things have changed.
That observation holds a deeper insight into this discussion. This stream of ignorance was not assumed by the American public, it is what is fed to them on a daily basis, in the publications of liberalism, the New York Times and The Washington Post et al., who on the surface acknowledge Palestinian misery, but at its core are some of the most ardent Hasbara mouthpieces. The right, of course, is transparently and obnoxiously pro-Israel.
If there is any support for the Palestinian cause, which is willing to accept that Israel has decisively manufactured this system of oppression on this people, in the mainstream, then I have not come across it. As I see it, the media landscape today in America is dominated by primarily two types of commentators
1) Those who pay lip-service to peace and reconciliation but then go on to place most of the blame on Palestinians and/or refrain from accountability of Israeli crimes.
2) Those who are flat out in the pro-Israel camp, advocates or members of the Israel lobby.
There is considerable overlap between the two, especially when the so-called liberal zionists commentators are examined.
There are dissidents, yes, but they are the very few exceptions, and from my own assessment I would even place Chomsky within the first group.
An interesting article in Nature, on “cultural cognition” and the communication of facts. The article refers specifically to science, but the basic idea can easily be transferred to the subject of I/P:
Great piece. Thanks, Shmuel. I also read the linked editorial about communication problems with climate change science. One phrase in particular in the article jumped out at me “advocates indulge in partisan rhetoric, ridiculing opponents as corrupt or devoid of reason”. Anyone here who questions any aspect of climate change now is ridiculed savagely by the broadcast press (at least the press I watch regularly). I mean: savage, sneering. Their new expert is “Bob The Science Guy,” a mechanical engineer and actor/artist who creates science shows for kids. The problem I have with Mr. Bob is that he doesn’t know the basics of the science he is now purporting to represent. He thinks, for example, that dumping melted fresh water (melting icebergs) into the Arctic Ocean will alter the Thermohalide Conveyor, when science textbooks and scientists say it is the wind that controls it. By Bob’s logic, rain water is a culprit.
I know climate change is a focus of yours. I wonder if you ever saw this lecture by MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen at Oberlin College (Nov 2009, about an hour). link to youtube.com
He is the MIT Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and an IPCC scientist; he was in charge of one chapter of the 1999 IPCC report, which means he is a big cheese in the biz. He was so upset at what he considered IPCC’s lax scientific procedures in the 1999 report that he complained before a US senate committee in 2000 or 2001. Now, comedians and sports broadcasters denigrate him as a climate science denier, which I have a major problem with: he’s been involved with climate change science since the 60s, before it became named as such in 1979.
MRW,
The proponderance of scientific evidence is of course not the same as scientific unanimity. Lindzen is actually one of the few credible voices questioning climate change science, and he’s not the only one to criticise some of the practices of the IPCC. The phrase “advocates indulge in partisan rhetoric, ridiculing opponents as corrupt or devoid of reason” is certainly correct, regardless of where one stands on the issue itself. It’s also interesting that politics and the MSM have, on the whole been “converted” to the rhetoric, but continue to act as if its all a big hoax anyway (see Copenhagen, cap and trade schemes, biofuels, etc.). They’re perfectly willing to insult the “deniers”, but are no more willing to accept the actual significance of the science than those they ridicule. They’re just way cooler (so to speak).
In terms of popular attitudes (as opposed to cynical exploitation), the implications of climate change are too scary, on a number of levels. Most importantly perhaps, they undermine our faith in the system and “life as we know it”. Under the circumstances, denial (in the psychological sense) is a very reasonable evolutionary strategy (like eating as much as possible and moving as little as possible).
The situation with I/P is analogous, in the sense that accepting the kind of approach you and I advocate implies asking a lot of very uncomfortable questions about our society, the institutions we are supposed to trust, the values and people we identify with, etc. Talk of extreme bias in the NYT, for example – a common theme on this blog – makes a lot of people very nervous. If you can’t trust the Times (both as the voice of the establishment and the campfire of the liberal intellectual elite), who can you trust? You must be lying, an anti-Semite, a conspiracy loon, or all three. What do you mean the government is controlled by powerful interests? Sure the lobbies have influence, and there’s corruption in DC, but deep down, democracy is of the people by the people and for the people, isn’t it? Are you telling me my vote doesn’t count, that the system is a farce? You’re nuts! OK. A Big Business lobby makes some sense, but an Israel lobby that powerful? You’re nuts!
Add the Jewish family-community-tribe component, and you’ve got a lot of people whose emotional well-being depends on not believing a word we say on I/P. Facts can thus be very subjective (although I also agree with Qadir). Jews like Phil or me can mitigate that, but we can also exacerbate it, because we are “the enemy within”. Chomsky and Finkelstein are just too scary for words.
This is a really important topic, especially in the context of this blog.
Shmuel,
It does resemble a religious conversion.
Chomsky and Finkelstein present “facts” that are too scary for words, because they don’t present proposal, an alternative approach that is confident.
And, if you live and have experienced transitions in psychology during your life, cathartic ones, you’ll note the reality of “Before Enlightenment, Chopping Wood and Carrying Water; After Enlightenment , Chopping Wood and Carrying Water”, meaning that life doesn’t change with changes in consciousness.
The political realities and difficult choices to balance remain.
A big shift is the spiritual shift to recognizing the humanity of all living, all people, all peoples, that compels an abdication of “which side are you on” or any version of politically correct thinking and discipline, in order to be consistent with the realization that all are human beings.
It compels conflict resolution methodology and attitudes to resolve conflicts, not BDS for example, at least as currently constructed.
A spiritual shift that results in “my side is more equal than yours”, contains some manipulation and/or psychosis.
Cura te ipsum
—————–
Chomsky and Finkelstein present “facts” that are too scary for words, because they don’t present proposal, an alternative approach that is confident.
Huh? Wtf are you talking about?
Chomsky and Finklestein have been very clear about what should be done to remedy the I/P conflict in a manner that would even guarantee a “Jewish” state that would satisfy racists like yourself.
Chomsky and Finklestein merely suggest that International law be upheld, and that Israel abide by international law.
Whats so complicated about that? But then again I think you already knew their position on that and merely posted your inane bullshit in a sad attempt to get new readers to see the “liberal Zionist” viewpoint as the “moderate” view. The truth is their is nothing moderate about Zionism as it is practiced in Palestine.
A big shift is the spiritual shift to recognizing the humanity of all living, all people, all peoples, that compels an abdication of “which side are you on” or any version of politically correct thinking and discipline, in order to be consistent with the realization that all are human beings.
Beautiful words Witty. To bad your a hypocrite.
None of us deny the Israelis their humanity, this is why we have proposed and endorsed BDS. We realize that the Israelis are human and that political and economic pressure (which they currently don’t face) may prompt them to reconsider their policies towards the indigenous population of Palestine.
Furthermore, we recognize that the Israelis are human and this is why we propose a non-violent method of helping Israelis understand that continuing the occupation, blockades, and ethnic cleansing of Palestine is not only bad for the Palestinians but also bad for the Israelis.
It compels conflict resolution methodology and attitudes to resolve conflicts, not BDS for example, at least as currently constructed.
Finally, BDS does not call for a halt to food, fuel, medicine, clean water, and building materials from reaching Israel. It merely targets big business, exploitation of Palestinian labor, and cultural groups that white wash the crimes of Israeli apartheid.
This is in direct contrast to the sanctions Israel enforces upon the Palestinian people. Sanctions so severe that they deny food, clean water, medicine, fuel, and even shelter to the Palestinians.
If your against BDS, then you should speak up against the far more serious sanctions Israel forces Palestinians to endure every single day. Israel enforces sanctions on a people, many of whom live on less than $2 a day and were already miserable before the sanctions.
“This is a really important topic” and a great reply, Shmuel.
Pingback: Do I Really Need To Worry About SEO? | Delirium Propaganda | Search Result Secrets
“life doesn’t change with changes in consciousness”
<b<Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
jesu christi, you managed to completely miss the point, and I might add, be completely unaware that there are three parts to that Enlightenment metaphor (like the Enlightenment itself in between the Before and After).
Qadir: well done, and although I wasn’t there I know from experience what you’re advocating works, and the emotional back and forth doesn’t.
First of all: someone is “new to the issue” shouldn’t be put up on stage in the first place. This is a tactical mistake, big time.
When the David Project person said “It’s Judea not Palestine”, the person on stage should’ve said, “Whether it’s called Judea or Palestine, the people living in that land deserve to have equal rights and their human rights. For 42 years, one group of people has been dictating and controlling every aspect of another people’s lives. Each and every one of the 500,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. They are subject to a separate set of laws then than the Palestinians. In fact Nelson Mandela and the former Archbishop of South Africa, Desmond Tutu have deemed this system “apartheid”.”
You have to know ahead of time how the lobbyist crowd think and talk. Their talking points are right on their websites. It’s very easy to spend a few hours reading them and preparing proper responses to them which reframe the issue to human rights and away from back and forth emotional finger pointing.
If you’re speaking in front of an audience, there’s nothing wrong with having notes you glance at when needed. Why not include a bulleted list of facts which are important? Also, why not hand this “fact sheet” out to the entire audience?
At our outreach table for SJP at CSUN, we made posters of some of the photos I took from my trip over there in December/January. One of the posters is of the Qalandia checkpoint. I show it to people, and I say, “Imagine what it would be like to be stuck in this LAX airport security for hours, possibly not ever being allowed to pass, just in going from Northridge to Woodland Hills or Van Nuys to North Hollywood? What if you had to study for a test and you were stuck in a checkpoint? What if you had a job interview that you missed because of the checkpoint wait?” Then I say, “I’m an American with a passport, and a Jewish last name. If they made me wait 2 and a half hours in this cage, what do you think it is like for Arab Palestinians?”
I’ve found that checkpoints are the most effective way to explain to people the situation. People think “oh god more poor people killed by war what can I do” when you bring up the Israeli attacks at first. People relate more to every day things like not being to study for a test because of a checkpoint. They can understand a water shortage and not being able to take showers. That is what freaks people out. Only after they already understand the basics of the matrix of control: the checkpoints, the separation wall, THEN the settlements, emotional appeals, and talk about the war dead will be effective.
Then, I bring up divestment. I don’t talk about boycott really, because we don’t have much power over that on a college campus, and if you say to people we’re going to end this oppression by boycotting Israel it seems outlandish to them.
Divestment is effective with people. I say, “This is how the apartheid in South Africa was ended, one college at a time took their investments out of the country. When it cost more to keep the apartheid going than it would to end it was when things changed and Mandela was released from prison.”
Then, “This is what we can do right now. We are organizing and raising awareness on this campus. It is totally possible in the near future to organize a resolution to be passed which will take CSUN’s investments out of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. There are movements like this already at San Diego State, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Riverside, USC, etc.”
It makes people feel like they’re not alone on the issue. I always try to remind people that SJP is national and international, and if each school does their part, we can divest from Israel and make a change.
It’s not about what amke
Pingback: Pictures of phentermine hcl ionamin mastercard.