I was at the Apartheid Week event Thursday night at NYU, "The Indigenous Struggle: A Call for the Boycott of Israel." The talk was a BDS call against Israel by groups of Native Americans, South Africans, and Palestinians. The speakers were Nada Khader, the director of WESPAC, a Native American woman whose name I didn’t catch and can’t find, representing the Indigenous Delegation to Palestine, and Gilad Isaacs, an NYU graduate student from South Africa. Seemed like it was going to be a pretty unremarkable night in the anti-war movement until a few minutes into the talk, when streams of pro-Israel jihadis began streaming into the room. I’d say that between a quarter and a third of the audience were members of this group, obviously organized, wearing blue and white, along with printed T-shirts countering the BDS movement, encouraging folks to "Buy Israel" or Israeli products, with "The David Project" emblazoned on the back.
I really thought these activists were kind of losing their stomach to make it to these places after that ruckus at Columbia a few years ago, and the massacre last year, but I was pretty impressed with their presence at this meeting. It was very clear that these folks were there to disrupt and intimidate, as all of them arrived dramatically late, filling up all the aisles in swarms. When some were asked to sit, instead of taking the scattered individual seats left, they pulled together chairs to make a new row for themselves at the very front of the seating area, just feet from the speakers. The kids were interjecting repeatedly, when Gaza was compared to the Warsaw Ghetto, a couple of folks fumed and shouted out "that’s not true at all, there’s no comparison," hands flying up and hissing and all. The crowd was reminded that a question and answer session was coming up after the talk, but this didn’t seem to restrain the noise much, nor did it stop the activists from repeatedly photographing the speakers and audience and even the Powerpoint slides from the presentation. Only after NYU security and a university monitor showed up did the nastiness wane. In fact, I’d say it scared a good deal of them quiet.
There were plenty of weak points in the presentations of the speakers that gave openings for the activists to go on the offensive during the Q&A session with generic lobby talking points and deliberate obfuscations like "Oh, please explain to me how is Israel apartheid when its Arabs have the right to vote?", and truly idiotic semantic statements like "Palestine comes from Philistine, which is a Latin word, whereas Judea comes from Jewish, so I don’t understand how can you call the Palestinians indigenous people", a barb directed at the Native American speaker. The entire Q&A degenerated into a Springer-type pissing contest, with various supporters of Israel as well as activists for the Palestinians making vague statements about freedom, democracy, and terrorism, state terrorism, etc. followed by countering cheerleaders in the audience trying to outbark the other side. Very few questions of course, just impassioned, rambling speeches or bland platitudes for one side or the other, followed by "EXPLAIN THAT."
All in all, a pretty bad night, as nearly all the substance of the presentation was composed of inspiring freedom talk, with an almost complete absence of any citations of death figures from the presenters (aside from Gilad Isaacs, who didn’t get nearly enough time in the Q&A session), legal rulings, findings from human rights groups, Israel’s protection from international sanction in the Security Council by the automatic American veto, "Peaceful Settlement Of The Question Of Palestine", UN 242, the ICC decision about the separation wall, the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article Six of the US constitution (the treaty clause), the Saudi Peace Plan of 2002, anything. My own frustration watching this was exponentially compounded by the unending allusions to human rights and international law without any elaboration on the specific findings of any bodies dedicated to such. It would have been simple, in my mind, to overwhelm the other side with facts with this kind of preparation.
Also missed was any opportunity to link the conflict to the United States, aside from two brief mentions of the military aid supplied to Israel by the United States. This was an opening to broadening the appeal of the movement to critics of American wars. Pathos prevailed over logos in this meeting, which does nothing but help dismiss the cause as a difficult battle between "two rights". At the end of the session I watched an argument between an impassioned Palestinian student, and members of The David Project, where he yelped out something like "you don’t bomb hospitals! I don’t care what the reason is!", countered by "it’s their fault for hiding weapons in hospitals". It could easily have been pointed out that not a single report from any human rights group has corroborated this, nor the demonic Goldstone report; the sole source for the claim was the IDF press office, etc. The "eight thousand rockets fell on Sderot since 2000" claim also went unanswered, when it could easily be pointed out that more Israeli missiles and bombs (real weapons, of course) fell on Gaza in just the first four months of 2008 than projectiles on Sderot in the entire eight year period preceding Operation Cast Lead. Over and over again, truly embarrassing incompetence (again, except for Gilad Issacs, who barely got the chance to address any of these points in the Q&A session).
I’d say with the exception of Abunimah, Finkelstein, and Chomsky, the lack of command of facts by supporters of Palestinian rights makes it extremely simple for even well-meaning liberals to write off the conflict as some extremely complex, unsolvable clusterfuck that isn’t worth the mess of dealing with, which is pretty damn useful for maintaining the liberal peace-seeking facade of the lobby and the status quo simultaneously. Incidentally, The David Project projects itself as a pro-peace movement as well, which is really cute of them.
One last note that I found pretty interesting about the talk was a well-meaning question about the need to hold dialogue between the sides by a seemingly liberal supporter of Israel. I chuckled when she tried to call the BDS movement in fact a form of violence directed against the Jewish state that is unhelpful for digging us out of this mess. I think it would have been very easy to point out the obvious lack of symmetry in a conflict between occupier and occupied and the ridiculousness of such efforts. I think holding such dialogue to help solve the conflict (which has been going on for years between synagogues and mosques) is as ludicrous as saying we could have peace in Iraq if only there were more dialogue and understanding between the Iraqis and American soldiers holding their country by force. But, again the speakers disappointed again on what seemed to be another chance to score points for their position, and turn the tables on weak AIPAC copypasta.
All in all, I’d say us anti-war activists really have a lot of homework and Googling to do before any persuadable liberals or the anti-interventionist right begin to take our efforts seriously on this issue, especially when there’s a vast, well-funded cottage industry in the United States dedicated to pumping out propaganda in support of Israeli atrocities to fight against. This is the information age, and it’s doesn’t take much effort at all to access primary documents about this and other critical issues, yet even the activist left seems to choose this path of inaction. This was a wasted night, with The David Project winning by default.
Too bad someone didn’t film it to compare with the UC Irvine event with Ambassador Oren; and that they didn’t plan for security ahead of time.
I was thinking the same thing, MRW. The visual juxtiposition would be eloquent.
Citizen. Especially in light of efforts now at UC Irvine to kick those students out, and charge them with criminal action.
link to pulsemedia.org
Yep, you are right again. This is a case to watch closely. Thanks for the link.
One of the students has written an op-ed in the OC Register
link to ocregister.com
wow, what a great letter and congratulations to the Orange county register.
It’s important to participate in the bds debate even when presenters’ arguments are not particularly effective job. In the early days of opposition to the US war against Viet Nam, there was a similar situation. Nevertheless attendance at debates was necessary to build the numbers if there was to be an antiwar movement. Supporters of the war then, like opponents of bds today, didn’t want the facts discussed at all. The more people learn the more they become opponents of occupation and ethnic cleansing. A step at a time but the beginning of a personally liberating journey. How many Jews were so horrified at Cast Lead that they felt they had no choice but to separate themselves from the state of Israel? The next step for them was to educate themselves about Zionism and to reject that.
If you considered how BDS is a form of violence against Israel and against Jews (in the way that its practiced and proposed to be, not the rosy ideal of it), you’d have more to say in response to David Project adherents.
They find the demonization of Israel to be offensive, demonization as distinct from criticism of policies and practices.
Was BDS as applied to apartheid a form of violence against South Africa and against
whites? If not, why not? Be specific. Thanks.
Also, have the congressional resolutions putting economic pressure on Iran been a form of collective punishment of all Iranians, and a demonization of Iran? If not, why not? Be specific.
You’re not holding your breath for a clear reply, Citizen? No wonder Witty’s vigil for the Palestinian Gandhi will never be rewarded: Refusing to buy Israeli feta and oranges is an act of violence.
There really is no difference between him and the likes of Avigdor Lieberman or Abe Foxman or Dersh. They would all prefer it if Palestinians simply rolled over and died. But, in today’s world, they can’t say that and retain a semblance of credibility. It would “hurt their cause”. So, instead, they engage in deceptive rhetoric and mental gymnastics.
You’ve reminded me of a very thoughtful article by Nir Rosen on the nature of colonial power, and how resistance of any sort – violent and non-violent – is prohibited legally by the colonial power.
link to guardian.co.uk
That this is the case for the Palestinians is screamingly obvious and becomes even more as the violence of the second intifada recedes: the weekly demonstrations at the Wall are described as violent riots though posted footage show the IDF to consistently be the provocative party. The recent shift in debate to rights and Int’l Law is characterised as lawfare / soft-jihadism (whatever sounds most alarming to your audience). And I’ve been waiting for this one, the newest kid on the block: Economic Terrorism or “Econojihad”:
link to themedialine.org
Naturally the theory of Econojihad – described as a “very new theological concept” is originating from Israeli universities – freshly minted in 2009. Until now the who / when / where has been rather vague, not coincidentally there has been a flurry of articles in the last few days, timed to coincide with Israeli Apartheid Week when BDS will be being widely discussed and reported. The March 2nd Media Line article above is the first I’ve seen that quietly associates the concept with the Israel / Palestine conflict.
That Israel is speaking of Economic Terrorism while pushing for ever tougher sanctions against Iran is obviously and patently ridiculous.
Otherwise who cares if the David Project gang are offended? I’m offended each time I hear hasbara talking points thought I doubt that would elicit much sympathy. Ethnic cleansing and military occupation is violence on a monumental scale. To even try and associate BDS with “violence” is offensive.
The key phrase was “you WOULD have something in response”.
That is because you would understand the other and be able to persuade. Its the demonization and the unwillingness to accept the other (in this case “Jews” and/or Zionists), that gets in the way of persuasion.
Shame on me for forgetting: far worse that the blabbering about Iran sanctions is Israel criticising BDS while slowly strangling Gaza.
Pretty thin-skinned, such people–OTH, what’s thin-skinned about those T-shirts so popular in the IDF graduation ceremonies, such as the “One Shot, Two Kills” one, showing the sniper target as a Palestinian woman with baby?
Yeah, Dick, you’re a regular Martin Buber. Is calling a public speaker who criticizes Israeli policy de facto a “Hitler” or “Amalak” demonization? Or is
it respect for, and acceptance of, the Other? How about calling someone an “anti-semite” in the same context? Or just inferring it?
“That is because you would understand the other and be able to persuade. Its the demonization and the unwillingness to accept the other (in this case “Jews” and/or Zionists), that gets in the way of persuasion.”
There are some people on the pro-Palestinian side who go too far, but you miss a big part of the problem since you are part of it–that’s the problem of people who shout “demonization” whenever someone says something that hurts their feelings. I grew up around people like this down South–white southerners were extremely touchy about the subject of white southern racism and they remind me very much of many so-called liberal Zionists.
The problem is that the norm of dissent on Israel is too far.
It indicates that too many dissenters, including prominent leadership, have not done their thinking as to dissent as a communication process.
Its as if dissent has no goal, only release. Dance, do cathartic yoga, or get good aerobic exercise or make love for release.
You confuse sensitivity for acquiescence in comparing liberal Zionists to southern racist apologists.
It depends on what your goal is. If your goal includes respect for the right of Israelis to self-govern, then there is a path to reconciliation. If your goal is the elimination of Israel as a sovereign state, as Israel, then non-violent dissent is merely the flirtation that when denied instead chooses force, like BDS.
I think Mr Witty would like us all to do our best Neville Chamberlain impersonations.
The oppossite Jimby. I would like that you attempt some dissent that will actually make some real change that leaves both communities standing and friends.
“You confuse sensitivity for acquiescence in comparing liberal Zionists to southern racist apologists.”
Perhaps that would make sense if translated into English.
“If your goal includes respect for the right of Israelis to self-govern, then there is a path to reconciliation. If your goal is the elimination of Israel as a sovereign state, ”
See, that sounds very much like those white southerners I knew. White southerners were (and maybe still are, but I don’t live there now) very big on their culture, their heritage and this self-determination thing was especially high on their list. Nevermind that their self-determination involved the determination to keep blacks in their place if possible. I noticed the similarity between the way Israelis and Israel-defenders talked about the Palestinians and the way many southern whites talked about blacks when I first started reading about the conflict–the condescension and racism were unmistakeable, though of course in the case of Israel it’s still hard for many to wrap their heads around the thought of a Jewish racist, and just to say such a thing brings on shouts of “anti-semite” from people like Richard Cohen. You even had the same phenomenon of the white moderate–the people who would never use crude vulgar racist terms, but who were, often unconsciously, racist in their assumptions of how to deal with the problem of race relations. (The sort of people MLK complained about).
As a practical matter, it would be stupid to use force in an attempt to make Israelis adopt 21st century secular democratic values, just like it would be stupid to do this in other parts of the world. But that’s a recognition that we don’t live in an ideal world, not some concession to a purely imaginary right for Zionists to steal land and call it self-determination. If Israelis refuse to accept the Palestinian right of return, then (as Norman Finkelstein was quoted as saying somewhere in this thread), it becomes the obligation of Israelis to make a counter-offer that the Palestinians are willing to accept. But the moral burden here is on the Israelis, not on the Palestinians and not on leftwing dissenters. The only moral burden on the Palestinians should be to avoid the use of violence against civilians–the same also applies to Israelis. But it is the wrong committed against the Palestinians by the Israelis (with the assistance of the US for much of it) which is the root of the problem.
Is it proportionality you are concerned about, Witty?a
does Israel respect the civilized concept of proportionality, or does Israel create its own moral norms and hold that Israel somehow has the right kill 1400 innocent civilians to ‘avenge’ the kidnapping of two soldiers?
Dick, listening to you is offensive because post after post you provide nothing but juvenile rhetoric. Your posts lack substance, they lack sincerity. You sound like a used car salesman trying to hock Zionism. Worse yet, “addressing” the points you bring up would be like engaging a 1 year old in a conversation with ” goo goo ga ga” utterances. Sure, one could respond to the content, but the content is incoherent.
and what do you bring the conversation Avi? other than lies and deception? All you do is bad mouth people who you don’t agree with. Its pretty juvenile.
yonira you are a fucking troll who bring nothing than hate on others, shut up your filthy ….
Shut the hell up yonira. Avi very rarely IF EVER insults others here. If you wana QQ at someone for insults, then I’d be a better example. And even then, it’s not as though you’re not a complete douchebag troll.
Don’t lecture anyone here about civility. We have much better manners than you AND we’re not racist scumbags.
link to mondoweiss.net
yonira said:
Just one of many disgusting things you’ve said on this blog. Meanwhile, you’ve never once chastised the countless hateful comments made by your fellow cult members on this site.
Who are you kidding? Hypocritical tool.
Cliff,
Did you catch this the other day? It’s Not about Islam & Judaism, It’s About Anti-Colonialism, Territory, Liberation, and Lives by Nir Rosen
link to thewashingtonnote.com
yonira’s complete lack of understanding of “Sharia Law” made me think of it.
The key distinction is whether the relationships are “oppression” or “conflict”.
Ironically, in describing Jews being subject to pogroms, and real genocide, Phil (sadly) and others flirt with the “reality” that the relation of Polish “populists” to the Jewish community (some of whom were communists), was of conflict.
But, the concept that Israel and Israelis that have objectively been the target of intentionally very brutal terror on civilians solely, comprises a conflict, is too big a stretch for you.
Civilians get caught in the middle of fights between partisans, and civilians are used as ideological “human shields”, whether literal or not.
The way that conflict is resolved is through a mediative process, starting with “I acknowledge that you exist, and that you have the right to define the basis of your self-governance.”
When that happens, things can move forward. So long as Hamas continues “we will never recognize Israel as Israel”, nothing happens.
No one has the absolute right to define the basis of his or her self-governance.
Case in point” A bi-polar person has the right to to what he or she wants, and the right to refuse, take, or not medications, and the right to have regular blood tests to see if a dosage or other change in medication is needed for normal stability, etc. But when said free person with full civil rights, at least in the USA, endangers other people and/or their property, they forfeit that right. Pretty simple concept. Same goes for sovereign nations, or else is there no Nuremberg standard? If the
absolute right to self-governance existed, there’d be no criminal laws.
Oppression and conflict are not unrelated phenomena. Quit playing word games, Witty. Grow up.
To recognize “Israel as Israel” is also to recognize the Nakba. To recognize the USA as the USA, is to also recognize its real history–Israeli schools don’t teach
the Nakba, just as USA schools once didn’t recognize full American history (and MSM is not recognizing breaking news regarding the I-P situation, nor has it for decades–as the neocons say, you scribble, we will move on–then you can write about that),
and Turkey probably doesn’t teach about the Armenian genocide in its formative school.
You’re full of crap as usual Witty. Keep speaking in ABSTRACTIONS. Avoid real debate, and concrete ideas, sources, etc.
Just keep theorizing and issuing equivocations. You’re pathologically narcissistic.
If you think that the articulation of goals and means is abstraction, then you are in a different universe.
The distinction between a conflict resolution approach and a resistance approach is a big deal. One accomplishes success, the other makes the reality much worse for all concerned as war is again initiated.
“The distinction between a conflict resolution approach and a resistance approach is a big deal. One accomplishes success, the other makes the reality much worse for all concerned as war is again initiated. ”
Translation. One hurts Israel and the other enables them to keep doing what they are doing.
Witty prefers the latter and like a truly insane person, insists this will bring abotu change.
“If you considered how BDS is a form of violence against Israel and against Jews (in the way that its practiced and proposed to be, not the rosy ideal of it), you’d have more to say in response to David Project adherents.”
But you support violenve against Gaza right?
“They find the demonization of Israel to be offensive, demonization as distinct from criticism of policies and practices. ”
There is no demonization distinct from criticism of Israel’s policies and practices. Like all Hasbarats. they are insisting that holding Israel to account is calling for it’s destruction.
For two years, I was a very enthusiastic supporter of Wespac in White Plains, NY, working on anti-nuclear, anti-draft, and anti-racism projects.
So did you participate in WESPAC’s Middle East Committee’s organized film and speaker events, e.g., when Professor Norman Finkelstein spoke in Yonkers on distortions in U.S. media coverage regarding Israel-Palestine coverage? Or when WESPAC’s Director participated in the debate at the Tarrytown Music Hall on the topic of political Zionism? How about the event where Alison Weir was invited to speak locally as the founder of “If Americans Knew” as well as representatives from “Just Foreign Policy” speaking out on U.S. posturing towards Iran? The Middle East Committee was also instrumental in fundraising for The Jenin Freedom Theatre in the Jenin Refugee Camp in the West Bank and helped organize a nationwide tour that attracted NPR media attention–you fund or participate in that event?
You think a draft has no pros; it’s all cons? Just asking. Israel has a draft you know.
Doesn’t a draft vest more immediate interest in US foreign policy, as during the Vietnam War? How much grass roots anti-war protest would there have been without the
draft looming over young male heads? Like, as it is now? Is that all to the good?
Just asking, I am anti-draft myself, but there is a price to pay, and I think the USA
will pay it increasingly in full.
I was active in Wespac in 1978 and 1979. Connie Hogarth was the executive director and Charlie Sheiner was the co-director. Both Jewish, both close friends at the time.
I’m CERTAIN that they, as I am, were and are highly critical of Israeli policies and practices.
Anti-Zionist I don’t know. Pro-BDS, maybe.
I hope WESPAC still has an anti-draft agenda. It is floated periodically, even by Phil.
A volunteer army makes it easy for the PTB to do what they want; that’s really been a boon to the USA both financially, morally, and ethically, right? Who cares
about 5,000 or so dead young guys and girls or their families, strangers to most
of the 300 million plus USA citizens–congress doesn’t have to sweat any mass
uprising. Basically, those US troops are tantamount to Hessians; the other half of Americans over there are for sure, the ones with the military contracts.
And let’s not forget those 30,000 on fake legs and those with PTSD.
Next stop Iran.
So Richard, you seem to want it all your way. In fact Israel is quite willing even maybe anxious to initiate boycotts. I can think of Gaza right away, let’s not forget the call for boycotts of Iran etc…… they love to dish it out.
Main Entry: boy·cott
Pronunciation: \ˈbȯi-ˌkät\: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.
Qadir is correct in pointing out that many proponents of the Palestinian cause operate more from their heart and their gut than from a command of facts, but while Ali Abunimah is an excellent source as well as an example of one who does know what he’s talking about, Chomsky and Finkelstein are rather poor examples, particularly Chomsky when it comes to describing the history of US-Israel relations which he habitually distorts with the intention of making the US, not Israel, primarily responsible for Israel’s crimes (as opposed to the enabler) thanks to the pressure from the Zionist establishment/lobby whose power Chomsky, as well as Finkelstein, dismisses. Both, not coincidentally are opposed to the current BDS campaign as well as the Palestinian right of return and, needless to say, a single state solution.
Here’s Abunimah and myself responding to Chomsky in a virtual debate since Chomsky refuses to go one on one with any critic from the Left:
link to vomena.org
fyi. Chomsky is scheduled to be the speaker at the closing plenary of the 2010 Left Forum Sunday March 21 at Pace University.
Jeffrey B, I went to the site but the audio did not work; I tried a couple of other sites
but got a malware notice, so I didn’t enter them.
To those here not familiar with Jeff’s POV, here’s a great introduction–written in 2003 by Jeff–and yearning to be updated and republished, or updated, with a reference back:
link to ifamericansknew.org
Are you sure Finkelstein is opposed to right of return? From what I understand he’s made a strategic decision to discuss his own personal opinion as little as possible and focus on International Law as the only suitable framework to solve the I/P conflict. Which would mean in principle he has to support right of return because it’s a fundamental and entirely uncontroversial tenet on Int’l law. Perhaps because supports the Arab Peace Initiative which will accept whatever is negotiated between the parties? The same for his emphasis on a two-state solution: he describes that as the best and fastest way forward since – and especially in light of the 2004 ICJ Wall decision – that battle is already legally won. In fact he describes the ICJ ruling as the Palestinians Balfour Declaration and UN Partition Plan neatly rolled into one. What remains is buildings enough support to get that rulings enacted.
If you have any links on Finkelstein and BDS I’d be interested. I quite like his approach – very little which is controversial – an awful lot which is solidly grounded in utterly conventional and accepted International Law. It’s very reasonable. So reasonable in fact that those who debate him often end up sounding completely ridiculous and over the top.
I put the question to Finkelstein in an email and he had this to say:
“(1) It cannot be doubted that Palestinians have a right to return. Representative international institutions (United Nations General Assembly) and human rights organizations (Amnesty, HRW) have upheld the right;
(2) A distinction needs to be made between the existence of a right and the exercise of the right: one can choose not to exercise a right;
(3) I was denied tenure at my last university. The consensus was that I had the right to tenure and that if I went to court I would win back the right to return;
(4) I decided that rather than engage in a protracted legal battle I would elect a settlement;
(5) The burden was on the university to present terms for a settlement such that I would choose not to return;
(6) Ultimately such terms were mutually agreed upon;
(7) In my opinion the same logic and principles (obivously, not suffering) applies in the case of the Palestinian right of return:
(8) The right is theirs; no one has the right to tell them to forego the right; the obligation on the rest of us is to support their right;
(9) If Israel does not want them to exercise the right, it must present terms for a settlement that would be acceptable to Palestinians;”
Thanks, matt. Would be fun to watch Dershie spout on about this line of reasoning. Everyone has the right to be free; you can choose to be an indentured servant. The adhesion contract theory applies also. I guess that’s the real way the US as “honest broker” fits in?
That’s an extremely reasonable position–in fact, it seems irrefutable to me. If people like RW were guided by real concerns for human rights, he’d have nothing to say in objection to this.
It should also lay to rest the idea that Finkelstein is some sort of closet Zionist, a theory Jeff seems to be pushing upthread for whatever reason.
Yes it is, Donald. Israel would need to offer to make it worthwhile not to return. Of course, this means, volunteering to stay where one is, or move to a new single state or a new sole Palestinian state. Give the choice between moving to a a rump state with less than full real sovereignty overshadowed by the powerful neighbor, or moving back to Israel proper where the ancestoral home lies, Finklestein’s reasoning regarding the Palestinian choice whether or not to relinquish his or her right of return seems to favor a one-state solution–of course the gamble there is that the increase in Palestinian numbers in the new single state will (at least eventually) assure
equal rights there. Or am I missing something?
One could imagine the Israelis offering financial compensation or, alternatively, a larger chunk of land than the 22 percent that the Palestinians get with the 67 borders or maybe something else I can’t think of right now. Many Palestinians might not want to live in the same state with Israelis and so they might accept something like this.
I have more trouble picturing the Israelis offering any of this.
It will happen because it makes sense. It might take some time and effort to convince, and it is worth making the effort.
Right, Sumud, that’s how I understand Finkelstein’s stance as well.
Speaking of international law, this is well worth a listen. Very informative.
Blankfort,
Abunimah spoke in Houston for the first time two weeks ago. The Zionists showed up with their cameras and filmed the audience, taking long shots of every person that they possibly could.
In the emal exchange between them and the organizers they had said to get ready for some tough questioning. But Abunimah spoke with such authority and facts that they didn’t make a sound during the entire event and sate motionless during the question and answer session. They left with just their films.
Abunimah—that’s one impressive speaker.
Sounds like the pro-Palestinian organisers need to be filming their audiences – for “security” reasons, of course.
I’m sure they gave their film to the PTB and got a pat on the back. Then trying to ID the people filmed came next; and the personal information on each was next sought, looking for ways to ween them away from criticism of Israeli actions, looking for
weak spots and pressure ponts in the profiles they came up with… Sumud makes a good point.
The platform speakers sound, to use an analogy from Christian history, rather like a Chidren’s Crusade coming up against more numerous and better trained fighters. But these organised disruptions cannot, for all their temporary successes, really appeal to any fair-minded observers.
I don’t really think that it’s a question of ‘knowing facts’ but of knowing how to package factual assertions – and every factual assertion in this world has the potential to be misleading – to rhetorical effect.
As an ancient world obsessive I haven’t heard before of Zionists’ claiming that ‘Philistine’ is a Latin word, when in fact it appears in a twelfth-century Egyptian inscription, four centuries before Rome even existed. Some Zionists say it is a Semitic word meaning ‘marauders’, but I think no one calls themselves marauders or robbers. So I think ‘Philistine’ is a Greek word, with the rather nice meaning of ‘people of the hearth’.
As Professor Walt has remarked, this is asymmetrical conflict and one wins by staying in the game. I’m hoping to get to a similar event in London and will see how it goes.
Mhughes,
I don’t think there is any doubt that the name Philistine/Philistia comes from the Semitic Pelishtim, probably from the root plš – to penetrate or invade (the same root as the Ethiopic Falashah). There is no reason to assume that that is what the people(s) known as the Philistines actually called themselves. From the perspective of the authors of the Hebrew Bible, the name makes perfect sense.
The Septuagint transliterates/translates Philistines Φυλιστιιμ or ἀλλόφυλοι, which become Philisthim or Philistini in the Vulgate, which also uses Philistaea or Palaestina for the land of the Philistines.
Well, maybe some doubt. Or so it appears from Wikipedia and suchlike. It is thought that the Egyptian ‘Peleset’ of c.1175 is a transliteration of the name rather than an abusive nickname. Moreover Herodotus (who does not notice the Judaeans, as far as I know) refers to them under a version of the same name, meaning that they were still there in the fifth century. Surely this would be the name they used for themselves and it’s hard to think that they would for 600 years have called themselves marauders or robbers. An Indo-European name doesn’t seem too unlikely, particularly as some Philistine personal names also seem to be IE.
I recently went to a lecture wittily entitled ‘All you need is Luvian’ about the relationships between these very ancient languages: similarity between ‘Goliath’ and the Lydian ‘Alyattes’ was taken seriously.
That the name may have originated with the people itself does not mean that it is not Semitic, and it may or may not derive from the root plš. It is not inconceivable however, that a people would call itself “invader” or “pirate” or something along those lines (Viking?), if only to frighten its enemies. That Herodotus refers to them as such in the 5th century BC, which is more or less contemporary with the book of Genesis, doesn’t surpise me – whether or not the appellation originated with the people itself.
I don’t know about the similarity between Semitic and IE names, but from what I have read of attempts to find similarities between Semitic and IE words, coincidence is generally a far more likely explanation. There is even a fellow who tried to make fun of such attempts by demonstrating, using similar methodology, that all world lanaguges are related to Basque.
Philistine:
O.T. people of coastal Palestine, who made war on the Israelites, mid-14c., from O.Fr. Philistin, from L.L. Philistinus, from Late Gk. Philistinoi, from Heb. P’lishtim, “people of P’lesheth” (“Philistia”); cf. Akkad. Palastu, Egyptian Palusata; the word probably is the people’s name for itself.
Thanks Qadir for some great points. I too believe self criticism is the way to go to improve in this arena. My club, Students for Justice in Palestine at Cal State Northridge, designed fact sheets breaking down the apartheid. In fact, we use almost exclusively Israeli Jewish sources, which are cited on the paper, to give us the maximum cover possible for anything we say.
If a Zionist comes up to our info table and tries to argue with us, we say something like, “Look, this is what Israeli Jews say about their own society, because they want it to improve and they believe the most Jewish thing you can do is guarantee human rights to everyone including Palestinians”
This is a winning message. Not getting into emotional arguments. We stick to the human rights message. When people ask what is the solution you’re for, one state or two state solution? We say, “the human rights solution”. When we get stuck in arguments about what was wrong about this war in 1967 or do the Jews have a right to a Jewish State, etc. it plays right into their hands. They do that to distract from the real issues of the crimes right now. Let’s contantly reframe and refocus the discussion to current injustices on a mass scale: checkpoints, settlements, the separation wall, the blockade of Gaza, etc.
Once they are interested in learning more, and you see you “have them”, then it’s time to talk about Nakba, refugees, etc. But, if you start out with that stuff first, people think “God, who cares about what happened in 1948, boring!” We’ve learned through trial and error that the most important thing is to start in the present and work backwards.
I forget to mention the sources….I’ve found the best ones are B’tselem, Peace Now, and the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions. Then the human rights groups: Goldstone Report, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations reports, etc
Joseph, would you be willing to make your fact sheet available. I was at that meeting on Thursday and got into a debate with one of the David Project people. I was disappointed with myself for getting emotional and losing my ability to focus on the facts only. I also get defensive against their ridiculous false claims of human shields and arguments like that. I definitely need help in staying calm and knowing how to present the facts.
Regarding human shields, the exact opposite is true. When they say Palestinians used Palestinians as human shields, ask them for the evidence. There is none. The most they can do is quote the Israeli government.
If they quote Israel government, ask if there is any other human rights source in the world like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, United Nations which backs up these claims. They’ll probably say, “No, but that’s because those groups like Amnesty International and UN have a known anti-Israel bias”, you then won.
You just forced them into admitting no respectable group in the wold backs this up, and in fact you made them look ridiculous to the general audience by forcing them to assert universally respected bodies like Amnesty International are “biased” and “anti-Israel”.
You can say something like, “So Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’tselem, and Richard Goldstone: who is a Jewish Zionist who’s spent much of his life in Israel; all are wrong and are all “anti-Israel” liars, and the Israeli government is the only one telling the truth!?”
Then, I would mention the people by name who were in fact used by Israel as human shields.
IDF in Operation Cast Lead used Palestinians human shields: the story of Majdi Abd Rabbo has to be read to be believed…It’s on page 219 of the Goldstone Report (link to www2.ohchr.org) starting with paragraph 1033
“He then called his daughter, aged 14, who was told to press
her clothes to her body and turn around. His wife, who was holding their baby daughter, was also told to press her clothes to her body, and then to take the baby’s trousers off.
1037. Majdi Abd Rabbo stated that the soldiers then forced him to walk in front of them as they searched the house, room by room, holding a firearm to his head.”
Also, the use of human shields is documented in this Amnesty International report (link to amnesty.org) starting on page 48.
This is a tough struggle to stay calm and respond to their “out there” arguments. Always reframe and refocus the issue to current human rights violations, and if possible use Jewish sources like B’tselem or Richard Goldstone. Getting caught up in arguments about Phillistine/Palestine, Judea/Jewish are distractions and losing battles because the Zionist people know more about minutia that has no significance, so if the audience sees you lose a battle about minutia they think Palestinians seeking human rights are universally wrong! Don’t get caught up in that game!
You can find me on facebook under my name, email me on there and I will get the fact sheet and tip sheet to you via email!
also BTW: Myself and my group have fallen victim last semester to “StandWithUs” at the Shministim event we hosted at CSUN. The embarrassment and shame we suffered motivated me to never let that happen again. We have all been through this mess. Unless you are prepared in advance, there’s no way to not be blindsided and frozen by these bizarre attacks.
I would suggest familiarizing yourself with these groups talking points in advance, they are all pretty much working off the same script: link to points.stand4facts.org
The arguments of the David Project and others, including my own, are relative to the unstated.
We suspect, and is confirmed, that many of the leadership of solidarity desire that Israel not exist as a sovereign state, at any borders with any good or bad internal processes, and seek to impose that by external sanctions.
The idiocies of the greater Israel agenda, give fuel to the idiocies of the anti-Zionist approach.
Moderates LIVE and LET LIVE. Ideologs on the left and the right take positions that deny people, in the name of affirming democracy.
The question of “what do you propose?”, and “what do you work FOR?” are the most important questions. The questions of what irritates you, what prompts you to demonstrate, are secondary.
So, Joseph, what are you working for? What is your goal?
“Moderates LIVE and LET LIVE. Ideologs on the left and the right take positions that deny people, in the name of affirming democracy.”
In other words, say and do nothing that will upset the Israel supporters or you’re a terrorist.
It means, form your positions by reason and compassion, not by mechanical ideology that rests on litmus-tested conclusions or judgments of others’ sufficient condemnation or not.
Be goal-oriented. Find common ground and encourage it, rather than distrust.
If you are radical and seek no Israel, rather than Israel at the green line, then there is likely little common ground, or common ground will quickly evaporate.
Witty: “We suspect, and is confirmed, that many of the leadership of solidarity desire that Israel not exist as a sovereign state, at any borders with any good or bad internal processes, and seek to impose that by external sanctions.”
Who’s we? So you’re part of the David Project? Which solidarity leaders? Name a few. Should be easy since you say there are many. And where is your confirmation? Show us. Otherwise you are just launching a conspiracy theory here. What’s it called, The Protocols Of The Elders Of Solidarity?
Here is a very good source of facts on the occupation
HDIP is an NGO in Ramallah
link to hdip.org
I attended this event, and I could not agree more with this excellent assessment. Given the wealth of compelling information that could have been, but wasn’t, presented at the two IAW events I attended this year, I’m tempted to conclude that the organizers of this movement (at least here in New York) are incompetent. But the actual problem, as I’ve learned from speaking with them, is that they are simply not interested in educating people, but rather in “building solidarity” among activists who are already predisposed to support leftist causes. This may be an effective stratagem in Europe, which has a thriving left and a media that does not distort the I/P reality. But here, you’re always going to be a voice in the wilderness unless you adopt a reasoned, fact- and law-based approach. IAW, to the contrary, traffics in emotional appeals and unexplained, decontextualized accusations which, however accurate they may be to the well-studied, do nothing to educate the general public about Israel/Palestine and in fact just provoke an equally emotional backlash by Zionists some of whom otherwise might have been convinced to tone down their rhetoric.
Too bad someone didn’t beat the crap out of those Zionist terrorists.
Administrative detention would be much more defensible.
about two years ago a smaller-scale version of this same organized “presence with intent to intimidate and disrupt” occurred at a speech by the Syrian ambassador to the US on a campus in Pennsylvania. The disrupters were not as emboldened as the NYU incident. They were not wearing T Shirts but were readily identifiable as a group by the “Hasbara Handbook” each groupmember carried (a newer version than the WUJS 2002 ed. available online). They were definitely organized, had obviously planned to dominate the Q&A, and gathered afterward with a reporter from a Jewish newspaper to record their experiences.
That event was frightening to me at the time. I wrote about it on the orange money machine and was banned as an antisemite.
OT, perhaps: same orange money machine is running outrageous advertising that overtly states that Iran is waging war on US in Iraq.
Pingback: How to Overcome Post Traumatic Stress Disorder | Mental Help For Anxiety
Pingback: C# Recorder – C# | C# WebDev Insider
For the benefit of us foreigners, what is the orange money machine?
link to dailykos.com
thanks potsherd.
speaking of same: interesting essay on how Framing works. link to dailykos.com
Perhaps the Palestinian peace movement could take some pointers. However, it is extremely difficult to overcome the money advantage enjoyed by Israel. Several days ago an article (that I can’t find right now) described how a very wealthy Jewish American businessman funds training programs for pro-zionist college students, preparing them to be comfortable and ready to defend Israel. To be fair, Liberty University and others in its category carry out the same sorts of programs, with similar intent: to prepare their students to take over influential national posts to ensure that their world-view prevails.
Hey just get a gander at those US congressional aides.
Pingback: Miami Dolphins Week 17 Response | Miami Dolphins NFL Announcer
Pingback: Calif. woman, father wanted in mortgage fraud case · Mortgage News … | Kern County CA Real Estate
Pingback: WSOP 2009 E07 3/5 Main Event Day 1 World Series of Poker 2009 | World online health review
yes, pro-peace activists have a lot of work to do, but realize, also, that thugs like those who swarmed the NYU event deliberately pick on the weak. Articulate interlocutors are to be avoided.
link to muzzlewatch.com
Barghouti did
Yes, and Waskow came off as a thug clown–discussed recently under past Mondoweiss post.
Anybody who missed it can use the Mondoweiss search function to get to it.
I thought Waskow made his point well, with the exception that he did not fully describe what is involved in isolating a community (not a government), and worse, randomly.
Isolating a community that currently has strong and important relations with all of the world excepting most of the Arab world (that doesn’t accept Israel’s existence yet), is a violence.
Barghouti did not answer the question about the distinction. His insistence on the right of return for Palestinians, again not distinguishing between those that lived in Israel proper and those that are ethnically Palestinian (a very vague definition that ingnores borders), is a breaker.
If you are going to make the case that a Jew born in New York is an American, then you’d have to consistently assert that a Palestinian born in Amman or Beirut is a Jordanian or Lebanese. (At least Jordan offers Palestinians citizenship. Lebanon still does not.)
Being born in New York stops no Jew from exercising his or her right of return to Israel now, so, what’s your point, Witty? BTW, you always sneer at borders when
it comes to the demands of patriotism, preferring continuity of your community–should the Palestinians deserve less?
QADIR, I was also in attendance at this event and to be honest I disagree with alot of the points you mention. I actually feel that this entire review, in addition to a list of inaccuracies and exaggerations, is a rather immature reaction to an event that you, had you been an organizer, would have taken advantage of to do something entirely different. Yes, you as an activist are being stuck-up and self-righteous. Your review is unnecessarily negative and harsh. In fact, how does this help Palestine activists at all? I thought the event was quite successful.
While there was alot of tension in the room, I didn’t notice any hissing, and interjenctions were not a big deal as they did not disrupt the speakers and the comments had no substance anyway. While I agree that Gilad Isaacs performed wonderfully, during q&a, while the microphone was in front of him, he spoke as much as he wanted to. No one denied him time when speaking during q&a whatsoever. You are basically saying that all questions should have been directed at Gilad. You are basically saying he was your favorite speaker. Which is fine. But the panel consisted of three, so get over it. You fail to give any credit to Nada Khader, which is frankly just stupid of you. As for bringing the conduct of the US in terms of its Middle Eastern wars into the event, that would have been entirely unrelated to the subject matter. No one likes the US’s foreign policy and we all know that, but Israeli Apartheid Week is exclusively about Israel’s behavior, not the US. As for dialogue question, I think Nada handled that quite well. I also think you must have been sleeping or otherwise playing with your phone during her presentation. I actually have to say honestly that I think you are being obnoxious and arrogant. You would have handled these people’s questions quite differently, and the entire point of your post is to assert that you’re the greatest activist around and we all should learn from you.
The David Project did not win. They showed up dramatically late and wearing t-shirts by coincidence actually. There was a Zionist event of buying Israeli goods that evening at 6:30 at Trader Joe’s, where the t-shirts were given out for free. So it was a convenience for them to show up at an Israeli Apartheid Week right after and attempt to agitate. But the Zionists did not succeed in disrupting. They asked some challenging questions, but I feel that the speakers handled themselves quite well, without needed to regurgitate facts and figures. There is humanity in the midst of this conflict, and considering the title of the panel “The Indigenous Struggle,” the emphasis is on human suffering. It was not, to your dismay, a legal analysis. The other side was not overwhelmed with facts. I think the success is that they had to sit and listen to it all, in terms of very understandable and powerful language, not bombarded or bored or confused. If people want facts, the internet is a great tool for anyone. But the David Project and all their buddies had to sit through this, like it or not, and many were not given the chance to upset the speakers. The q&a was brief enough to leave at least 20 people with their hands still raised. I think you are underestimated this entire event and its message. This post is completely pointless, serving only to put down the NYU Palestine activists, and I think Mondoweiss should remove it.
And FYI, the Native American woman’s name is Melissa Franklin.
Simsim, one of the things we all like about Mondoweiss is its openness to different points of view and alternative interpretations. We had several different takes for example on the recent March on Gaza event , and people clearly did not agree even when taking off from the same basic set of facts, and sharing similar convictions. Still, though acrimonious at times, the various voices remain, each giving their take, each coming no doubt from a unique personal perspective. In the end, when the cacophony of the measured and the emotional has run its course, the casual late arriving reader may realize that it did, in the end, add up to a whole, in that way the human condition does.
Over time, we’ve had highly emotionally charged posts here about many difficult issues – each soliciting both passionate and dispassionate comments – and most of us feel the site was better for airing them all – just as they came in, were retracted or reinforced, or just kicked downfield in the hope of a better day.
Mondoweiss is a smorgasboard of ideas with a few common themes. It may seem chaotic at times, maybe unfair to some, maybe even off-the-mark or misguided at other times. But the divergence among the opinions presented and the range of levels of emotion – from over-the-top-pure-anguish to cool-as-cucumber is what give the site its strength.
As one who was not at the aforementioned event, the different takes on the way it played out are interesting. Much to be learnt from the different points of view . As a bonus we get Joseph Glatzer’s tips-of-the trade above. besides, we’ve all learnt – the hard way – that in the absence of direct experience, it’s best to hold both fire and ire.
Rest assured that your viewpoint will stand right along with that of the poster. Besides, on the most fundamental level, I believe that most of us who are not living the occupation mired in its ugliest underside, know full well that it is not possible to truly comprehend what it must be like to actually be one of a brutally subjugated people trying to eke out some life while living under the boot of occupation. Racuous meetings in NYC and marauding Davidians notwithstanding, I try to remember what it’s really all about.
Now I’ll be off to dailyKos where i have a long-standing fight with a posse trying to smoke out ‘anti-semites”.
From Coteret:
The JDL is a recognized terrorist group in the US. How are they going to get away with this?
I understand, when Nazi leaders spoke, there was a need for their stormtroopers to stand near by, which was always done.
ACORN sometimes had theirs too; of course they weren’t armed, just resplendant
in crisp military-style clothing, a beret, and a tough glare. The idea was to intimidate
within local gun laws. They’d stand around at the entrance, on the steps to it, etc.
The 11 students were attested for disorderly conduct, and released as far as I know; they may bet suspended from school–that would be too drastic IMO; they did nothing more than what Code Pink does when they interrupt congressional meetings.
They are always virtually immediately cut off and taken away–the same thing happened to those students, who’d pop up shout for 2o seconds or so, then voluntarily proceed out to the cops standing in the main aisle, sometimes with their hands up to show no violence.
What if a school gave out a rule that if a student disrupted a speaker, tried to shout
the speaker down, they would forfeit their right everafter as a student to attend
such events? Simultaneously, the school would have to have a transparent method
of not subjecting students to a biased filter to enter, and as to what questions are asked in the end Q & A; the school could also make the speeches shorter, the Q & A time longer, to allow more Q & A? This seems especially needed when a speaker represents a government, which always has the upper hand in parlaing its POV.
What?! Witty, you’re endorsing it when a group of pro-Israeli disrupters that cause havoc at a BDS symposium? You’re not condemning that? Didn’t you condemn it vehemently when anti-occupation activists disrupted speeches by Israeli government officials that stand suspected of war crimes? Or even protests outside of fund raisers for illegal settlements?
Somebody must have hacked Witty’s account! He would never be this blatantly hypocritical! Oh, I may just faint from the shock of it.
Pingback: Real Estate | Mortgage Basics: Understanding Foreclosure :: By … | Mortgage Finance Wisdom
Pingback: Real Estate | Mortgage Basics: Understanding Foreclosure :: By … | Real Estate Finance Wisdom
Pingback: Reminiscence – NUS/NTU/SMU Cut-off Grades for all Degree … | Biological Engineering Addict
Pingback: Followup to Qadir’s roster of speakers on Israel/Palestine
Pingback: How do we dispel the ‘vulgar propaganda that passes for history’?
Hi,
I think some of the criticisms made in this article are fair. In the 2 1/2 hours that I had to prepare (I replaced the originally speaker at the last minute) I certainly did not do so adequately. Attached is a published version of the speech I would have liked to have given: link to politicsweb.co.za
Gilad Isaacs