Today in the Washington Post Richard Cohen says that Jimmy Carter "waved the bloody shirt of racism" when he said that Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Territories. Cohen is blinding himself and his readers to the harsh conditions of the occupation. Consider Mazin Qumsiyeh an outspoken Palestinian geneticist, author, and activist who is traveling in the U.S. and sent out this report on his family in Beit Sahour, the occupied territories:
The Israeli army invaded our neighborhood at 1:30 AM Tuesday morning waking up my mother, wife and sister. Heavily-armed soldiers blocked roads during "the operation". When my family opened the door, they demanded to see me. They were told I have already left to the US. After many more questions, they left a paper that states I am to appear at the military liaison office next Monday. My sister and wife told them I will not be back by then. Clearly the warning from that military officer at Ush Ghrab that I mentioned in my last email, was based on knowledge of this. I guess I am a wanted man now for engaging in nonviolent protest! Those who were at that event and have video, please contact me. What disturbs me is not the risk to me; any action against oppression is taken knowing there are personal risks. What disturbs me is that this has an effect on my family and thousands of friends around the world who care and some of it unpredictable. My 76 year old mother asks that I not go back and that I work in the US for a while, a very painful suggestion for a mother to make about her only remaining son near her! I try to assure her that I have done nothing wrong and will remain…but she brings up many examples of people who also did not do any violence and were arrested, imprisoned, and their families had to go through a lot. A friend who heard about this stated I have nothing to worry about, that this was to hassle me to get us to stop being active. Another lost sleep trying to figure out what we can do. I assure her that I will carry on with my speaking tour as planned and that this will blow over one day. (the song “we shall overcome someday” comes to mind).
But I am not different from hundreds of others. Israel is cracking down on all popular/civil resistance activities because: 1) there is no armed resistance now, and 2) Civil resistance is escalating and portending a new powerful uprising. Israel’s repression of dissent reinforces in our minds the importance of civil resistance and that there is a price to pay for it. Over 30 activists were arrested in Bilin over the past year, many others in Ni’lin, Al-Ma’sara and elsewhere. The repression reveals the bankruptcy of the Zionist regime and its excessive paranoia that will IMHO eventually lead to its demise. It is paranoia inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of the ideology. That ideology embraced by a subset of Jews (Zionism) simply teaches that “we are God’s chosen people, He gave us this land, we cannot go wrong when behaving against the Goyim especially those who happen to be here when we arrived to reclaim and cleanse our lands, and International law and human rights laws do not apply to us.” It is self-destructive delusions that are inculcated during early education and perpetuate the myths of uniqueness. It leads to the kind of behaviors that are now difficult to hide (the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was only a beginning).
I have to consider various options in terms of responding to this particular event… My initial thought is that we should intensify our work in this critical and historic period we live through, write to the media, the politicians, neighbors and anyone who would listen. Below is an action call for March 30th (Land Day) which I urge you to heed. We can’t be neutral on a moving train and there are times whether in the US in the 1950s and 1960s or in South Africa under apartheid, when silence is indeed complicity.
Touch to deal with the referenced sub-set Zionists:
link to atlanticfreepress.com
Here’s the prequel to the harrassment of Prof. Qumsiyeh and his family – his account of the Ush Ghrab protest at which an Israeli intelligence officer tried to intimidate him:
And of course should he ask for political asylum, he would be turned down.
I’ve been listening to a set of lectures titled, “A History of Hitler’s Empire” by Prof. Thomas Childers.
In Lecture Seven, Childers describes how “Hitler’s regime was one of totalitarian aspirations….
When will the Palestinians produce their Gandhi? Surely they can see that a non-violent movement will quickly produce an everlasting peace? Woe unto Israel that it is only faced with rabid hatred and irrational violence.
If the Palestinians only give up violence, they’ll have a state and freedom and everything!
So where’s Witty? Witty’s still back, right? Witty doesn’t have a comment about Israeli soldiers going after Palestinian civilians even after armed, violent resistance inside Israel from the West Bank has effectively ceased?
Oh, I’m sorry, is this supposed to be just another “cause celebre?” Totally not like Gilad Schalit, right?
Why does Hamas have to keep hiding behind women and children? And shooting rockets at Israel? If only they would –
Wait… Hold on a minute… This just in:
According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in all of 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, 54 Israeli civilians (including 13 settlers, 18 children, and 8 killed by Qassam rockets) and 23 soldiers were killed by Palestinians, for a total of 77 Israelis killed.
11 of them were killed by Fatah-affiliated groups. 16 were killed by Hamas. 18 were killed by Islamic Jihad. 32 were killed by lone gunmen or people with unknown affiliations.
In other words, Israelis lost fewer than twenty people per year during these four years, nearly half of them to lone angry criminals — fewer than the 30 soldiers they lose to suicide each year, surely far fewer than they lost to non-political crime, and probably fewer than they lost to food allergies.
As for Palestinians, in 2006, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, 657 Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers.
In 2007, 384 were killed.
In 2008, not including the offensive on Gaza called Operation Cast Lead, 460 were killed.
This adds up to more than 1,500 Palestinians killed in those three years, including nearly 300 children. (Israel has consistently killed about 20% children since September 2000.)
When you add in Operation Cast Lead and the rest of 2009, you double the total number killed, and the number of dead children jumps to 661.
Thus the total number of Palestinians killed in the past four years is about 3,000 — more people than live in my home town of Stigler, OK. This is about 750 people per year for the past four years — two people dying violent deaths every day, a child every other day. Despite the stunning drop in Israeli casualties (which reached a sharp peak in 2002 when 269 civilians and 153 soldiers killed and was in the single digits by 2009), the rate of Palestinian death has actually been slightly greater over the past four years than it was during 2001-2004, the height of the Second Intifada!
But again, casualties tell only part of the story. There’s also the fact that Palestinians aren’t building Muslim-only colonies inside Israel while Israel continues to expand Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank, that Palestinians are holding a grand total of one Israeli soldier prisoner while Israelis hold more than 10,000 Palestinians in jail, many of them without charge or trial, hundreds of them children, or that Gazans (and to a lesser extent, West Bankers) are held under a state of siege while Israelis are free to travel almost anywhere in the world and import, export, and purchase whatever they like. Etc.
link to fasttimesinpalestine.wordpress.com
Why oh why won’t the Palestinians rein in Hamas? *cries*
Please keep writing. I wish I had the patience to spell the facts out as cogently as you do, Ms. Olson.
I had to do this research for my book anyway. Thought I’d spread it around a li’l.
Very cool. Let us know when your book comes out. I certainly want a copy and I know a few friends who would appreciate your hard work.
Count me in too, Pamela. I love your web site, and will buy your book. You are a treasure. Thanks for sharing so much!
The harassment of Professor Qumsiyeh reveals that the current government of Israel (and most of those that have come before it) does not possess a viable strategy vis a vis the Palestinians of the West Bank (and Gaza) who want their freedom.
Nonetheless one shouldn’t confuse his rhetoric with that of Doctor King. MLK Jr. attempted to convince the American people that their basic documents spoke of freedom and in order to live up to those documents, the American people had to favor the freedom for which he was fighting.
Certainly Israel and Zionism today are not on the level that Americanism (as espoused by Northern whites) was on in the 1950′s and 1960′s. But the professor’s rhetoric does not refer to the declaration of independence which declared that the new state
will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Instead he refers to the state of Israel thus:
“It is paranoia inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of the ideology. That ideology embraced by a subset of Jews (Zionism) simply teaches that “we are God’s chosen people, He gave us this land, we cannot go wrong when behaving against the Goyim especially those who happen to be here when we arrived to reclaim and cleanse our lands, and International law and human rights laws do not apply to us.” It is self-destructive delusions that are inculcated during early education and perpetuate the myths of uniqueness. It leads to the kind of behaviors that are now difficult to hide (the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was only a beginning).”
His rhetoric is not of recognizing the potential for improvement contained in Zionism, but of condemnation of Zionism as paranoia and warfare. I don’t blame him for his negative attitude towards Zionism for it has never lived up to its potential. Still one should not confuse his rhetoric of condemnation, with Dr. King’s inspiring rhetoric.
And exactly which aspects of Zionism have manifested, WJ, in such a way that they aren’t predicated upon ethnic cleansing and occupation of native Palestinians? Was there a way to create a Jewish majority before trifling with democracy without the Nakba? If Zionism isn’t about racism, how come the right of return for refugee Palestinians is a threat to it, according to you and other advocates?
Also, “and most of those that have come before it,” you say? Can you name any Israeli government that hasn’t engaged in racially oriented military oppression on non-Jewish civilians in occupied territory?
Rabin made an effort to change. And there was no occupation before 67.
I would not put sole blame on the Palestinian Arabs for the Nakba, but one must take into account the violence of the uprising of 36 to 39 and also the casualties suffered by the Yishuv in the war of Independence, when condemning the decisions of Ben Gurion.
Today the right of return, given the current zeitgeist of Islamism, threatens not only one specific definition of Zionism, but all non Islamic individuals who would reside in the area after the return.
How magnanimous of you. I’m sure David Duke doesn’t put sole blame on Jews for the concentration camps, either.
No occupation before 1967? What, you mean besides what Zionist militants conquered in excess of the UN 181 partition? Do you think Bedouins in Israeli-controlled territory would agree with your assessment?
And finally, did Rabin succeed? Was there an actual change?
And finally, did Rabin succeed? Was there an actual change?
That’s actually a fact that Zionist hasbara types prefer to ignore. You see, a fanatic Jewish extremist…..no, make that an Israeli Terrorist murdered the Israeli leader who was prepared and willing to make peace with the Palestinians.
The tragedy is that there simply is no one on the Israeli side with whom to make peace. And unlike the lie often passed off by propagandists concerning Palestinian leadership, this one about Israeli leadership is actually true.
As for the occupation, it bears mention that between 1948 and 1966, Palestinians inside Israel, that is within the borders of 1948, were living under an Israeli military rule, otherwise known as martial law.
As one occupation was coming to an end, Israel started another.
The entire so-called state of Israel is essentially an illegitimate entity, built on occupied lands that were never legally purchased. And the UN recognition of its “independence” in 1948 is trivial seeing how the great powers of the time were pressured to “recognize” it through the various lobbies in American and European cities.
WJ: Rabin made an effort to change.
I was a big supporter of Rabin and the Oslo process. I went to every peace rally in TA, including the one at which he was killed. Yet Rabin offered little more than hope for change, not actual change. I was in Ramallah right after the signing of Oslo, and the hope for change was wholeheartedly embraced by Palestinians. As it turns out however, Rabin did not really make much of an effort at all. In the one area in which he could have made a difference to ordinary Palestinians – settlement construction – he failed them miserably. Although he promised the Americans a freeze, there were so many exceptions and loopholes that huge tracts of Palestinian land were expropriated and construction and settlement growth actually increased. After Rabin’s death, Peres pursued the very same policies. The physical transformation of the landscape in the West Bank under Rabin and Peres was such that it could be seen and felt in just about every Palestinian village and town.
After the failure of Camp David, settlement construction was the reason most cited by Palestinians for their disaffection with the peace process. They felt they had been had, and that even Rabin had never been serious in the first place.
“the current zeitgeist of Islamism”
Yesiree Bob, Wondering Jew, that’s what I always say when I see my Islamist friends! “Hi-Ho, Achmed, how’s the old zeitgeist going? Got a lot of current in the old girl?” Cause if there’s one thing an Islamist has got to have, it’s a rip-roaring, top-drawer, Fust Cless, zeitgeist with two pair pants, and a wild and untamed vest.
“I was a big supporter of…first place”
Absolutely breathtaking, the differences in the perception of Israeli events and policies between American Zionism supporters and someone (of humane sensibilities) who was there.
Yeah, the zionists declared their country would be based on freedom, justice and peace at the same time as they were conducting a campaign of mass murder, ethnic cleansing terror and conquest of territory by war. Denying even as they spoke the social and political rights of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, murdering many who made any attempt to stay. The problem is, a main tenet of zionism was getting rid of the original inhabitants of Palestine to make way for Jews from pretty much the start of the project in the 1890′s. It really is an underpinning of the ideology of zionism.
Your defense of zionism reminds me of the very public apology Zionists made after the massacre at Deir Yassin. Showing, I guess, great moral character, expressing their horror at lining up whole families and gunning them down. Then in other towns they went around with bullhorns, warning people to leave or suffer what the people of Deir Yassin suffered. Meaning, rape and massacre. Zionism living up to its potential – mass murder.
On the vacuity of Israel’s declaration of independence and the systemic apartheid practised in Israel – even within the Green Line – see Salman Masalha’s op-ed in today’s Haaretz.
The new state of Israel “…will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The overiding principle of interpretation, seemingly Israel’s litmus test comparable
to America’s “endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them,
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is “as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.” There’s no deist god here. Which Israel? The Old Testatment’s? All of them? Or the Zionist founding fathers’ Israel? Is the Talmud meant to be incuded also
as a source for interpretation, for guiding “prophets?” America’s founding fathers’
source for their overridng principle seems to be the Enlightenment’s “prophets.”
The story of Adam and Eve and the Apple is a core tale illustrating “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness common to both sets of founding fathers, the ultimate “rock” upon which their respective authority stands while declaring their independence. Anybody want to elaborate on these thoughts?
which they both stand for their respective
Citizen,
We could engage in such “exegesis” until the sacred cows come home, but I believe it would be pointless, because there is sufficient evidence to show that there was no serious intention on the part of Israel’s founders or their successors, to adhere to even a minimalistic interpretation of the values expressed in the DOI.
Yes, I don’t disagree with you Shmuel. I was suggesting the difference between
a country founded on Enlightenment principles of natural law, common sense and basic human equity, social contract, and one founded on faith Gott Ist Mitt Uns, so to speak. The Deist, the Hebrew prohets of the bible version of G-D.
And, concerning the early drafts versus the final US Declaration Of Independence, deleted were the statements on slavery and those that might be seen as villifying collective England; fundamental principles of the final US Declaration of Independence were later codified
in the US Constitution.
link to newworldencyclopedia.org
Zionism at work:
…Islamsim, as opposed to Zionism itself, having driven all non Jewish individuals in huge swaths of what would become Israel.
Bonus hasbara points to wondering jew for lying (Or being utterly ignorant about? Is that more generous? I’m not sure?) Palestinian Christians who would be entitled to that right of return as well.
Clueless Jew is a hypocrite and a liar like Dick.
zeitgeist of Islamism
Now there’s another lie and a strawman argument.
Perhaps Clueless Jew can explain why Israel and its bitches, Canada and the US, are targeting human rights organizations. I mean, who’s a threat to humanity, Radical Islam (which is confined to two or three nation states in which native populations seek self-determination and independence from foreign interference), or the powerful nations that seek to destroy what basic protections humans still have in this world?
Let’s look at the number of deaths since 2000.
Israel, the US, and NATO (including Canada, Australia and other European states) have killed more than 6,500 Palestinians, more than 1 million Iraqis, created 5 million refugees in a matter of months and destroyed historical sites and infrastructure in more than 6 countries.
By contrast, “Islamists” killed about 3,000 people on 9/11 ( of various nationalities), along with a few dozen Israelis and about 5,000 US troops. I’m not sure what the number of NATO casualties or civilian contractors happens to be, but it certainly does not exceed that of US troop casualties.
Do “Islamists” have the mandate and the power to change international law and human rights protections? The answer is no.
So, who, pray tell, is a greater danger to the average human being on this planet?
The answer is rather clear. But, since Clueless Jew is a typical garden variety racist and colonialist, he believes that he is part of the abstraction known as “the civilized world”, and that everyone else is a terrorist.
See a shrink about that delusional schizophrenia!
Avi,
You seem to be under the impression that every time you call someone you disagree with a racist, hypocrite or a liar that you are bringing freedom for the Palestinians closer to reality. It isn’t so. I cannot say with any confidence that you are furthering it, but you definitely are not bringing it any closer and the vehemence seems to indicate some lack in yourself.
OK, WJ, beyond any name calling, please respond to comparative death stats since 2000. And to Avi’s logical conclusion therefrom. Thanks ahead of time for
your response–many here look forward to it.
You seem to be under the impression that every time you call someone you disagree with a racist, hypocrite or a liar that you are bringing freedom for the Palestinians closer to reality. It isn’t so. I cannot say with any confidence that you are furthering it, but you definitely are not bringing it any closer and the vehemence seems to indicate some lack in yourself.
I actually do that on purpose because I feel sorry for you, so I try to give you as many opportunities to dodge the subject and avoid a response.
That same self-righteous indignation you exhibit is popular among many Republican Neo-Cons who run their mouth, but the minute they are treated to their own medicine, they suddenly cry foul. And that seems to be an inherent part of your psyche and that of Dick’s and the other fools.
For the record, this isn’t necessarily about advancing anyone’s “cause” as you seem to assume. It has more to do with the truth, which more often than not, Israeli hasbara seeks to revise and obfuscate and you are its stalwart agent.
And for the record, even if racism or hypocrisy do not fit you, a high sense of exceptionalism sure does describe you to a T.
“a high sense of exceptionalism “
What sticks out like a sore thuimb in everything WJ writes is this: his sense of exceptionalism consists entirely of the panic he feels when his Jewish ethno-centric world view is threatened. Not the boxcars, he’s not worried about that, just the world-view is threatened, but that sets off a full fledged panic. That is so pathetic! Even more so, considering it’s entirely inculcated.
WJ,
Apart from the fact that Israel’s declaration of independence was never a binding document (unlike the US Consitution), it was empty rhetoric from the very beginning. There has never been anything “to live up to”, because Israel’s actions in attempting to dominate Palestinians, driving them out, refusing to allow their return, creating the fiction of “present absentees”, imposing martial law, discriminating against its Palestinian citizens, spoke much louder than the admirable words of the declaration of independence. There was never, in the actions of the Zionist movement in Palestine, any indication that it wished to treat Palestinian citizens as equals.
You may argue perhaps, that none of this was supposed to happen and that Zionism was twisted by virtually all of its exponents and leaders, but it is not so very implausible that there might be a fundamental flaw in Zionist ideology.
Prof. Qumsiyeh is not a Zionist, and so feels no need to treat his harrassment (and that of so many Palestinians) as an isolated incident, reflecting the policies or inadequacies of the current Israeli government, while preserving the positive core of Zionism (about which you yourself expressed some doubt). I attended a lecture of his a couple of months ago, and he makes a very convincing case against Israel and Zionism – not from 1967, but from the late 19th century. He is deeply affected by the suffering of his people – so much so that he left a good job at Yale and a comfortable life in the US (he is a US citizen) to return to Palestine. He is also committed to non-violence and democracy, and envisions a joint future with Israeli Jews. Yet he argues that Zionism, as an ideology, is an obstacle to justice and reconciliation. Is that position so untenable?
Shmuel- It is feasible that Zionism as an ideology is an obstacle to justice and reconciliation. It is also feasible that there is more than one form of Zionism and that if Professor Qumsiyeh was less apt to use terms like chosen people and goyim, he might not scare potential allies away by impressing them with his enmity.
Shmuel- The Declaration of Independence, which MLK quoted some times, was not binding law either.
The U.S. independence was declared with the rule of British monarchy and tyranny in mind, and with a war against the military of Britain in mind. Israel independence was declared with a war against Arabs both Palestinians and others in mind. Despite the fact that the U.S. constitution said nothing against slavery at the time of its formulation, slavery or animosity towards Africans was not at the root of the US declaration of independence or the war of independence. But in fact a civil war had to be fought and amendments to the constitution had to be enacted before the US went on record for the freedom that MLK fought for a century later.
Israel’s birth involved a war against the very people who are now fighting for freedom and thus the enmity involved is more direct than anything that existed in the United States vis a vis the white and black populations. To achieve freedom for all populations in I/P would be revolutionary beyond the civil war and the civil rights struggle added together.
Yet Professor Qumsiyeh’s rhetoric struck me as enmity rather than anything resembling MLK’s.
WJ: Yet Professor Qumsiyeh’s rhetoric struck me as enmity rather than anything resembling MLK’s.
Who said that his rhetoric resembles that of King? King was not always nice or comfortable (many even saw “enmity” in his words), and I think that Prof. Qumsiyeh’s beliefs and approach to Palestine have a lot in common with those of MLK with regard to civil rights, but where did this comparison arise and why is it relevant? Qumsiyeh obviously makes you uncomfortable. He made me uncomfortable too, when I first started reading him. I learned a lot from my discomfort.
Just an aside, but in Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration, he had a paragraph on the evils of slavery and a reference to King George III’s participation in the slave trade. It was edited out by Congress as many of the members of Congress were also involved in the slave trade.
Point being, slavery was part of the Declaration…once.
Fundamental principles of the US Declaration of Independence were codified in the US Constitution. In that sense the Declaration is binding.
WJ,
“Despite the fact that the U.S. constitution said nothing against slavery at the time of its formulation, slavery or animosity towards Africans was not at the root of the US declaration of independence or the war of independence. But in fact a civil war had to be fought and amendments to the constitution had to be enacted before the US went on record for the freedom that MLK fought for a century later.”
Emancipation occurred in 1844. Overnight — not two days later, not a week later … overnight — Bermuda mirrored the US decision and granted their Black population full property rights and freedom. The US subsequently went to internal war because it couldn’t accept the changes.
WJ,
How would you suggest that Prof. Qumsiyeh address the flaws of Zionism without discussing what he sees as its inherent racism. Earlier, you criticised the fact that he did not “recognize the potential for change contained in Zionism”, but that is precisely the point. He does not recognize any such potential. So is the problem one of semantics or tactics, or do you simply reject the essence of his argument that Zionism is the problem and so cannot be a part of the solution? Zionism is the elephant in the room, and ignoring it has gotten Palestinian negotiators absolutely nowhere. Palestinian civil society however, calls it like it sees it. It may be unpleasant to Zionist and/or Jewish ears, but people like Mazin Qumsiyeh believe that the conflict will never be resolved without honestly addressing the roots of the problem – while rejecting violence and recognising the basic humanity of both sides.
I thought one of the goals was to see beyond the zero sum game. The language of the professor is that of the zero sum game.
The professor’s own words regarding the song “we shall overcome” are designed to bring to mind the civil rights movement. My mentioning MLK was appropriate.
And did MLK ever toss the term paranoia around?
On the contrary. It is Zionism that has insisted on a zero sum game, striving to preserve Jewish privilege and refusing to recognise the equal rights of Palestinians. In attacking Zionism, Qumsiyeh seeks to remove the main impediment to just co-existence and mutual benefit. Looking beyod the zero sum game doesn’t mean being nice or diplomatic or not hurting anyone’s feelings.
WJ,
MLK was not the powerhouse in the civil rights movement. It was Ella Baker. As she said, “The movement made Martin. Martin Luther King didn’t make the movement.” She started community organizing in the 1920s, before MLK was even born. She was the first paid community organizer of SNCC; created the Freedom Movement, taught and trained Stokely Carmichael and the others, and organized the Freedom Rides.
I first heard about Ella Baker from a post here, and bought the book: “I’ve Got The Light of Freedom,” by Charles M Payne. I’ve been devouring everything about this remarkable woman ever since.
============================
Mandela’s power was his threat of violence. de Klerk understood that; de Klerk knew one word from Mandela in jail or out could turn S.A. into an immediate tinderbox and cauldron, and Mandela was not above using it. Tony Karon wrote about this. I also heard it myself in S.A. The rich White landed gentry who thought their world was over when Mandela took power now revere Mandela for what he did. I’m talking about the rich landowners who controlled S.A. I dont know about the diamond owners, I didn’t talk to them.
Aw, Shmuel, you beat me to stating the obvous that WJ ignores. He turns
logic on its head. Zionism is indeed predicated on a zero sum game model.
As was another country’s regime once upon a time in the 20th Century.
Both Lincoln and MLK pointed to fundamental principles of the US Declaration of Independence (codified in the US Constitution) in their most famous speeches. The threat of violence did not need to be stated during those respective times.
Notice that we are once again discussing how Palestinian leaders measure up to King or Gandhi. Here we have a man who lives under brutal occupation, yet advocates civil and human rights for all and actively practises non-violence, and is being hounded by occupation authorities for it. But it’s not good enough. His rhetoric is not quite right. He shows “enmity”. How dare he compare himself to MLK (which he doesn’t)? How dare he compare his struggle to the civil rights movement? Let’s talk about Israeli leaders. Why does Israel seem incpabale of producing a Clement Atlee or a JFK or an FW de Klerk? And more importantly. Let’s talk about the substance of Mazin Qumsiyeh’s arguments and proposals, and the subtsance of oppression and injustice.
Well said, Shmuel. You and Avi would make a ferocious combination against hasbara’s best. (I’ve been off in Equatorial Guinea, without much access to internet, and I’ve missed the two of you, plus the other voices on Mondoweiss.)
de Klerk told a USA audience that the first lesson to learn is you can’t dictate who you will negotiate with, and who not; you have to sit down eyeball to eyeball with your most bitter enemies. Neither Israel nor the US picked up this lesson. Of course, the difference is, Israel, unlike Apartheid S Africa, immune from outside pressure thanks to the only superpower in the world. It costs Israel nothing to refuse to negotiate with
HAMAS; instead such refusal buys it more settlements.
link to docs.google.com