Omar Barghouti appeared on CNN to discuss the shortcomings of the peace process:
An article in today's Haaretz would seem to indicate that Israelis are taking notice of the growing BDS movement. After describing the recent announcement of Israeli artists and academics to boycott settlement institutions, Nehemia Shtrasler writes, "There's another boycott, an international one, that's gaining momentum - an economic boycott. . . The sums involved are not large, but their international significance is huge." He continues:
The anti-Israel tide rose right after Operation Cast Lead, as the world watched Israel pound Gaza with bombs on live television. No public-relations machine in the world could explain the deaths of hundreds of children, the destruction of neighborhoods and the grinding poverty afflicting a people under curfew for years. They weren't even allowed to bring in screws to build school desks. Then came the flotilla, complete with prominent peace activists, which ended in nine deaths, adding fuel to the fire.
But underlying the anger against Israel lies disappointment. Since the establishment of the state, and before, we demanded special terms of the world. We played on their feelings of guilt, for standing idle while six million Jews were murdered. . .
But then came the occupation, which turned us into the evil Goliath, the cruel oppressor, a darkness on the nations. And now we are paying the price of presenting ourselves as righteous and causing disappointment: boycott.
How can anyone make the claim that the world was “standing idle while six million Jews were murdered…”?
Cambodians and Rwandans could make that claim, but certainly not Israel or Jews. In place of “don’t forget the Holocaust” we need “don’t forget the War”.
There were two great (literally enormous) appeasements to Hitler “standing idle”.
They were Chamberlain’s acknowledgement of Germany’s “right” to the Sudetanland in Czeckoslavakia. Significant in itself, but mostly symbolic and indicative of Western Europe’s willingness to turn their gaze, to accept the persecutions and militarization.
The second, devastating, was the non-aggression pact signed by the Soviet Union, and in effect from 39-41. The idealistic “vanguard” of workers’ rights, of progressive society, signed and honored an agreement with fascism, permitting, facilitating the mass murder of millions.
That is “turning one’s back”, no?
Let us play a game! I’m going to make a few substitutions in Witty’s analysis. See if you can spot the differences!
>> Let us play a game! I’m going to make a few substitutions in Witty’s analysis. See if you can spot the differences!
It’s truly mind-boggling how blind he is to the hypocrisy of his position.
The two “appeasements” that you refer to took place at a time when the persecution of the Jews had not become attempted annihilation. While bad, their circumstances in Nazi controlled Germany had arguably not yet become as bad as life is now becoming for Palestinians. The rest of the “civilized” world had no idea of what was to come. That is not “standing by idle”. It is the Palestinians now who are living with an existential threat, who are undergoing ethnic cleansing daily.
It wasn’t “turning one’s back” either, as no-one in their worst nightmares could have imagined the horror to come.
“The two “appeasements” that you refer to took place at a time when the persecution of the Jews had not become attempted annihilation.”
Thats EXACTLY the point. If anyone had read Hitler’s essays and book, they would have known. Thats why appeasement is the accurate word.
The politicians were too defensive about “causing” the stresses on Germany, to pay close attention to his threats and plans.
Palestinians are also living with a sincere peace effort, mediated/goaded by the US and quartet.
The militancy is the exception and contributing cause to Palestinians’ suppression. To further it is to destroy their hope, not make it.
RW
Drivel.
We’re far too used to politicians, whether dictators or democratically elected, failing to fulfil their manifestos or keep any promises.
I’m sure many had read Hitler, but made the assumption that those around him would contain his wildest excesses, it being unimaginable that others would share his madness.
Politicians would have been wary of causing stress to Germany, given their comparatively recent financial implosion.
What “sincerity” do the Palestinians see from Israel when their occupying forces are daily beating them, impeding daily life, supporting settlers stealing their land, destroying their crops, encouraging their brutality while the politicians bleat & waffle in Washington & elsewhere?
Brutal oppression is the cause of Palestinian militancy you dope.
Richard, over 400,000 of the 600,000 German Jews were able to escape Germany prior to WWII, because they found refuge elsewhere, mainly in Europe and the Americas. ONLY 40,000, or LESS THAN 10 PERCENT found refuge in Palestine. Zionist officials complained about some of the German refugees being a burden on the nascent State and urged more stringent entry requirements for them. When the American Joint Distribution Committee asked the Jewish Agency, which controlled the issuance of emigration permits to Palestine, to allow the passengers aboard the St Louis to go to Palestine, the Agency refused. The passengers eventually were taken in by 4 European states; Great Britain, the Netherlands , Belgium and France.
Please stop with the false statements that the world turned its back on Germany’s Jews. Its not true. Could the world have done more? Yes. But frankly the “Jewish State” did no better by the Jews than anyone else. If it suited the Zionist purposes to help European Jews, then they did. When it didn’t suit their purposes they didn’t. Read Segev’s The Seventh Million, and 1949. And read Grodzinky’s In the Shadow of the Holocaust (titled “Good Human Material” in Hebrew, after the Zionist term for the type of Jews they were looking for. Being a Jew was not enough. )
The reason that only 40,000 found refuge in Palestine was because immigration was prohibited. The British had a quota of 0 to be allowed to enter.
The great migration of Jews to Israel occurred from 46 – early 50′s, when the refugees that remained in Europe had someplace they could go to escape their original “homeland” (in which the returning refugees faced near holocaust scale common persecution).
“the world turned their back on Jews” wasn’t my quote. I use different language and point to different key events. I contested the dismissal of the quote as having no merit.
It has merit. It was true, some literally, some figuratively.
Among those that experienced the delay in freeing the concentration camps, the anger was palpable. Hundreds of thousands would have been saved by the hastening of addressing the concentration camps just a few weeks, just a tactical or logistical decision differently.
The feeling is of overwhelming thanks, and also of bitterness at the secondary priority.
“The reason that only 40,000 found refuge in Palestine was because immigration was prohibited. The British had a quota of 0 to be allowed to enter.”
Most didn’t want to go to Palestine, and only opted for Palestine when the option to go to otehr countries was limited. Most wanted to escape to the US and the West.
“The feeling is of overwhelming thanks, and also of bitterness at the secondary priority.”
When will you stop making up this garbage and pretending to be some spokesman for the Jews in the world. There has been no sign of gratitude. Flouting over 100 UN Resolutions, sinkign the USS Liberty, running false flag error attacks and starting a half a dozen wars strikes me as an odd way to express overwhelming thanks.
“Most didn’t want to go to Palestine, and only opted for Palestine when the option to go to otehr countries was limited. Most wanted to escape to the US and the West.”
Without question.
“There has been no sign of gratitude.” What a load of crap. Ask some Jews whether they are thankful that the US and the Russians liberated them, and whether they are bitter that it took so long.
“over 400,000 of the 600,000 German Jews were able to escape Germany prior to WWII, because they found refuge elsewhere, mainly in Europe and the Americas”
But we were told that every country closed its doors to them, and would not let them in!
“Among those that experienced the delay in freeing the concentration camps…”
The Soviet and British armies had been a bit busy. They had been fighting since 1939, (though not always against the Germans, in the Soviet case) their countries had been ruined, they had sustained massive casualties, and they were pretty fed up with the whole thing. But I suppose you will blame them for not sharing your priorities.
Right of return is not a question of yes/no. Its a question of what is meant by right of return.
This is the only situation that I know of in which right of return is asked 63 years after the precipitating event, three generations hence.
It is utterly unclear if this is what was anticipated when the law (Geneva conventions) was drafted, or if there is even a legal process by which the law itself can be reviewed in a color-blind fashion.
In that regard, to apply the right of return as the vague national maximalist demand, is to invent the law, rather than to apply it.
Previously, Barghouti referred to the two-state solution as desirable, ending the occupation, return to the 67 borders.
Agitating for a single state is a return to 1947, but with the objective conditions on the ground more definitively separated than even then. Again, there are large portions of both the Palestinian and Israeli population that will not accept rule by majority parties (especially if there are only nationalist parties achieving credibility).
A state can only function with an incidental minority that opposes its basis of existence. Perhaps that is really the question, that Palestinians fear that a too large minority would not accept the validity of a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state. That only all or nothing is feasible.
The Zionist overwhelming majority in Israel will unlikely accept a single democratic state, especially if Palestinian nationalists have any chance of comprising the majority, or even a parliamentary or civil resistance minority.
And, that leaves war as the consequence of attempting to unnaturally marry two communities that just don’t want to be more intimate than they already are.
This is the only situation that I know of in which right of return is asked 63 years after the precipitating event, three generations hence.
Richard, you yourself have mentioned that your wife has been given the right to reclaim Hungarian citizenship, even though she herself has never been in Hungary. It is based on the fact that her parents were citizens and were forced to flee during WWII. So, please, spare us the “This is the only situation I know of….”. We know that’s not true. You are only furthering your disrepute on this site by repeating such falsities.
This is common among European nations, inviting the descendants of Jews who left their countries during or prior to the War to “return”, and granting them immediate citizenship if they want it. What is the rare phenomenon is not the right of return, but the outright refusal, for over 62 years, to allow refugees to return to their home country if they so desire. No other people but the Palestinians have been made to wait so long, and now that they have waited so long you think that because Israel has tried to run out the clock that Israel should be rewarded for its intransigence by
limiting it to only those who are over 60, even though the descendants of those refugees have been just as wronged as those who fled.
The right of return that Hungary offers, was not offered until the Iron Curtain fell. Its relatively recent.
And, one motivation is to attract Jewish immigration, and particularly for investment and skills. It was initiated by the Hungarian state, NOT a response to agitation or motivated by a desire to “conform to international law”.
Its an irony, not a parallel to maximalist interpretations of Palestinian right of return to a land that most’ve never lived in or seen.
There is some statute of limitations on “international law”. This maybe would provide a legal test of the law itself, rather than the summary judgement of declaration “Israel is in violation of international law”.
Maybe, maybe not.
“The right of return that Hungary offers, was not offered until the Iron Curtain fell. Its relatively recent.”
So what? The fact that it did happen demonstrates it’s legitmacy does it not?
“It was initiated by the Hungarian state, NOT a response to agitation or motivated by a desire to “conform to international law”.”
How do you know and what does it matter? Do you ask men to sop beating their wives or do we demand it Witty?
Yes or no?
“There is some statute of limitations on “international law”. ”
Please stop making this stuff up Witty. That you woudl like there to be a statute of limitations on international law (yes we noticed the quotations) does not mean it’s a fact. And we know uou have o clue about this so stop pretending to have one.
Hardly after 63 years. The Palestinians have been demanding their internationally recognized right to return to their homes since they were first driven from them in 1948.
And if you have a problem with right of return going back 63 years, how about Jewish people claiming they are all returning home after an absence of three thousand years, notwithstanding the fact that the majority have no roots in the middle east at all?
Chutzpah or hypocrisy? Or both?
The right of return was an offer by the Israeli state and the authority for it is solely in the knesset, as the right of return could be an offer by the Palestinian state.
By international law, there is no authorized right of return to Jews, it was created by the Israeli state, as there is no international law right of return of grandchildren of holocaust refugees to Hungary.
The statute of limitations had withered.
Palestine is the only state that I know of in which Palestinian refugees were functionally imprisoned by their “allies” for 63 years. Lebanon, no civil rights. Syria, limited civil rights. Gaza, when under Egyptian law, limited civil rights. Jordan, limited civil rights but most liberal of any.
That is why they remain refugees, because they are fodder for politics, not accepted, not assimilated, not invited
Israeli Palestinians have more civil rights than any of the refugees. Thats why the Israeli Palestinians are not refugees of any state. Prejudices, institutionalized prejudices yes, but not slaves, not citizens of no state.
Zionists started driving Palestinians from their homes before 1948, and have not stopped since.
The Nakba is not an event in history. It is a continuous process.
>> And now we are paying the price of presenting ourselves as righteous and causing disappointment …
Constantly crowing about moral superiority (“Remember the Holocaust!”) while behaving as immorally as everyone else is not “disappointing”, it’s hypocritical and disgusting.
Every humanist in the world would agree. Well, almost every humanist…
Here’s Uri Avnery on how the Israeli national myth might derail the intentions of the BDS movement:
“As the jolly song of the ’70s goes: “The whole world is against us / That’s not so terrible, we shall overcome. / For we, too, don’t give a damn / For them. // … We have learned this song / From our forefathers / And we shall also sing it / To our sons. / And the grandchildren of our grandchildren will sing it / Here, in the Land of Israel, / And everybody who is against us / Can go to hell.”
The writer of this song, Yoram Taharlev (“pure of heart”) has succeeded in expressing a basic Jewish belief, crystallized during the centuries of persecution in Christian Europe, which reached its climax in the Holocaust. Every Jewish child learns in school that when 6 million Jews were murdered, the entire world looked on and didn’t lift a finger to save them.
This is not quite true. Many tens of thousands of non-Jews risked their lives and the lives of their families in order to save Jews – in Poland, Denmark, France, Holland, and other countries, even in Germany itself. We all know about people who were saved this way – like former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who as a child was smuggled out of the ghetto by a Polish farmer, and Minister Yossi Peled, who was hidden for years by a Catholic Belgian family. Only a few of these largely unsung heroes were cited as “Righteous among the Nations” by Yad Vashem. (Between us, how many Israelis in a similar situation would risk their lives and the lives of their children in order to save a foreigner?)
But the belief that “the whole world is against us” is rooted deep in our national psyche. It enables us to ignore the world reaction to our behavior. It is very convenient. If the entire world hates us anyhow, the nature of our deeds, good or bad, doesn’t really matter. They would hate Israel even if we were angels. The goyim are just anti-Semitic.
It is easy to show that this is also untrue. The world loved us when we founded the state of Israel and defended it with our blood. A day after the Six-Day War, the whole world applauded us. They loved us when we were David, they hate us when we are Goliath.
This does not convince the world-against-us people. Why is there no worldwide movement against the atrocities of the Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in Tibet? Why only against us? Why do the Palestinians deserve more sympathy than the Kurds in Turkey?
One could answer that since Israel demands special treatment in all other matters, we are measured by special standards when it comes to the occupation and the settlements. But logic doesn’t matter. It’s the national myths that count.
Yesterday, Israel’s third largest newspaper, Ma’ariv, published a story about our ambassador to the United Nations under the revealing headline: “Behind enemy lines.”
I remember one of the clashes I had with Golda Meir in the Knesset, after the beginning of the settlement enterprise and the angry reactions throughout the world. As now, people put all the blame on our faulty “explaining.” The Knesset held a general debate.
Speaker after speaker declaimed the usual clichés: the Arab propaganda is brilliant, our “explaining” is beneath contempt. When my turn came, I said: It’s not the fault of the “explaining.” The best “explaining” in the world cannot “explain” the occupation and the settlements. If we want to gain the sympathy of the world, it’s not our words that must change, but our actions.
Throughout the debate, Golda Meir – as was her wont – stood at the door of the plenum hall, chain-smoking. Summing up, she answered every speaker in turn, ignoring my speech. I thought that she had decided to boycott me, when – after a dramatic pause – she turned in my direction. “Deputy Avnery thinks that they hate us because of what we do. He does not know the goyim. The goyim love the Jews when they are beaten and miserable. They hate the Jews when they are victorious and successful.” If clapping were allowed in the Knesset, the whole house would have burst into thunderous applause.
There is a danger that the current worldwide protest will meet the same reaction: that the Israeli public will unite against the evil goyim, instead of uniting against the settlers.
Some of the protest groups could not care less. Their actions are not addressed to the Israeli public, but to international opinion.
I don’t mean the anti-Semites, who are trying to hitch a ride on this movement. They are a negligible force. Neither do I mean those who believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a historical mistake to start with, and that it should be dismantled.
I mean all the idealists who wish to put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people and the stealing of their land by the settlers, and to help them to found the free state of Palestine.
These aims can be achieved only through peace between Palestine and Israel. And such a peace can come about only if the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Israelis support it. Outside pressure will not suffice.
Anyone who understands this must be interested in a worldwide protest that does not push the Israeli population into the arms of the settlers, but, on the contrary, isolates the settlers and turns the general public against them.
How can this be achieved?”
more:
link to original.antiwar.com
Hmmmm… Antidote, what is Shtrasler’s attitude?
1. The BDS is damaging Israel severely! End apartheid ! End the occupation!!
or
2. The whole world is Antisemitic! Nothing we can do! Not our fault!
Uri is a good guy, but I know what I’m seeing here.
Yes Ofer, this is exactly what can be gleaned from it, as it is the same with certain other Leftist critics of Israel. I needn’t mention names I think you will know to whom I refer.
Uri Avnery has no problem with boycotts per se; he even initiated one, years ago, against settlement products. Furthermore, he has always been a big fan of international censure and action against Israel. He argues that BDS precludes garnering the support of a majority of Israelis and Palestinians for a negotiated solution, yet there is no reason to believe that BDS would have such an effect, any more than any of the other international initiatives sharply critical of Israel, in which he has taken part.
So why is BDS different? Because Avnery still believes in the existence of a Jewish ethnocracy within pre-’67 borders, and is an ardent supporter of the 2ss that would perpetuate such a state. It is thus the goals of BDS, supported by all of Palestinian civil society, rather than its tactics and the effect thy might have on Israelis that give him the willies.
BDS is not aimed exclusively at Israelis. It is also aimed at internationals (as Avnery himself concedes) and at Palestinians (to show them that they are not alone in their struggle). As for Israelis, engaging them has simply not worked – witness Avnery’s own extreme unpopularity in Israel.
What’s Blowin’ In The Wind? Why it’s Dylan’s upside-down sequel leitmotif, Neighborhood Bully! Interesting how he croons to American taxpayers how nobody helps the Bully who has to fight just to survive with old rusty guns–and no Palestinians exist in his lyrics:
link to songmeanings.net
I think I’ll pass on that ringtone offer.
Well he went through a Kahane “phase” and he has some connection to Chabad, so. That and he’s always been slightly insane.
PS. What do you think his idol Woodie Guthrie would have thought about that considering his guitar killed fascists.
Avnery is spot on.
“These aims can be achieved only through peace between Palestine and Israel. And such a peace can come about only if the majority of Palestinians and the majority of Israelis support it. Outside pressure will not suffice.”
And this is where the small tent advocates of Israel’s defeat part ways with the larger and more significant forces of Israeli-Palestinian liberation from each other.
The BDS/One staters think that international pressure will get them what they want no matter what Israeil majorities think.
Nations tend not to submit to plans that take away their identity. This makes endless occupation untenable, and it makes the elimination of Israel a rallying cry that serves to strengthen the Israeli right wing.
BDS is not equivalent to one state. Let’s discuss the issue in a more mature manner.
Thanks
a 2-stater
Yalla, let’s discuss it.
Just FYI, I have to leave soon, so if this discussion drags on for too long, we’ll have to continue some other time.
Perhaps you could start. Why are you for the 2-state solution and against the bi-national solution?
My followup question will probably be along the lines of, “Is the two -state solution viable at this juncture and how do you propose to go about implementing it?”
Actually, I’m not opposed to some forms of BDS. I follow Gush Shalom’s effort to boycott products from the settlements, a campaign that preceded the Palestinian Authority by only 15 years. (yay!)
This is the problem. The BDS call was initiated within the context of some Palestinian NGO’s that are also where the Palestinian left escaped to after the demise of their political vehicles, the PFLP and the DFLP. They ‘represent’ a vibrant and important sector calling for BDS, and also ‘represent’ a small but growing political voice demanding that Palestinians reject the Fatah supported two state solution.
So when are these folks (say, Omar B) representing only BDS but not one state, and one are they representing one state but not BDS? Hard to say. By design.
clenchner,
BDS is rights-based, not solution-based, which is why it enjoys such widespread support among Palestinians with many different ideas regarding an eventual political settlement. Barghouti does not hide the fact that he is in favour of a single, secular, democratic state, but is always careful to note, when talking about BDS, that it is the only Palestinian initiative that enjoys across the board support – even among Palestinian 2-staters.
Conceivably, the goals of BDS (1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.) can be accomplished within the framework of 1, 2 or more states, but not within any of the 2-state proposals put on the table thus far by Israel or the US.
What kind of 2ss do you favour, and is it compatible with the declared goals of the BDS movement?
BDS as a movement claims to be rights based, part of a strategy of using a human rights framework to advance political and national goals. So when we look behind the strategy at the political and national goals of the strategies main proponents, what do we find? A solid core of one state supporters along with long time political rivals to the Palestinian Authority as a project.
And that’s fine, really. We can argue politics within the community of occupation opponents. But let’s not have one side whip out the ‘rights based strategy’ card to deflect attention from the politics of it all.
For my part, I’m sympathetic to the two-staters mostly because I hope that the one staters don’t increase in political power. Not sure I actually care how many states we end up with in the end, but along the way leaders who show respect to the national aspirations of both sides are the one I choose to support.
As evidenced on this very site, the community of one staters generally have no problem with defining Jewish and Israeli identity for those folks, as opposed to recognizing that, at minimum, Jewish Israelis constitute a polity that seeks existence over non-existence, and that this polity deserves internationally recognized rights of self determination. Alongside the Palestinians of course.
The background to the rise of the BDS movement lies in the migration of hard left Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to nonprofits that survive on foreign funding. Which is fine, the PA and the Israeli human rights movement survives that way as well. The difference, is that these NGO’s have banded together, declared themselves to be the same thing as civil society, and presented a political strategy (sorry, a rights based agenda) that never has to win a single Palestinian vote in an election. When elections do occur, folks seem to vote either for Fatah (two state solution) or Hamas (Hudna or Islamic State.)
BDS is fine as a set of tactics IF they can be divorced from the ‘rights based agenda’ political strategem. Can they? I’m not sure. Meanwhile, I’ll selectively support limited use of BDS campaigns while debating whatever is calling itself the BDS ‘movement.’ Because BDS shouldn’t be a movement – it should only be a tactic.
clenchner,
BDS itself is indeed merely a tactic, but its goals really are about Palestinian rights. Personally, I don’t believe any kind of solution will ever be achieved, but significant advances in terms of human and civil rights are a worthy and realistic goal. BDS thus has a significant advantage over the approach (solution-based) that human rights violations will be resolved subsequent to and by means of a political solution (one that, in all likelihood, will never come to fruition).
National aspirations are fine and dandy, as long as they do not violate the basic rights of those who do not belong to the dominant ethno-religious group. I believe that Jewish-Israeli aspirations can be recognised, respected and achieved within the framework of a truly democratic state (1,2,3, whatever). See, for example, the ideas of Jerry Haber (The Magnes Zionist – link in the Mondo blogroll) on the subject.
Partial BDS is certainly better than none, but as Omar Barghouti has pointed out, settlement and occupation policies are not determined by the settlers themselves, but by Israeli governments and institutions. If you have participated in other human rights-related boycotts, they are generally aimed at governments, institutions and private companies that make policy and contribute to the violation of human rights, and not merely at the immediate fruits of those violations.
Is it me or is the CNN anchor rather rude and condescending? He keeps addressing Omar Barghouthi as “Omar, Omar, Omar”, instead of “Mr. Barghouthi”.
Why can’t Palestinians receive the same respect their Israeli and Jewish counterparts receive in the media, especially the US media?
Coincidentally, CSPAN-3 is currently broadcasting some forum discussion on race relations in the US. The problem is, most of the speakers are Jewish, and there’s not an African-American in sight. I didn’t see one in the few minutes I watched it, anyway. And more ironically, the speakers are discussing race relations involving African-Americans on **behalf** of African-Americans. Blacks make up about 14% of the US population, while Jews make up less than 3%. Does anyone see the problem here?
Yup.
What’s the solution?!
Or rather, how do we get to the solution?
The interviewer was condescending. “Mr Barghouti” is a more respectful term to use of an invited guest.
Maybe that is how he conducts interviews with everybody. I don’t know the man.
If you don’t know, why are you injecting doubt? Keep your ignorance to yourself — no one else wants it, really.
Personally, I find it much more disturbing that the anchor is trying to get Barghouti to talk about Palestinians as a demographic threat, or a rioting mob.