I appreciated David Samel’s thoughtful essay on the Hamas-claimed killings of the four paramilitary settlers in Hebron—paramilitary settlers, and not simply “settlers.” I appreciated it both because it was thoughtful and because it was lucid (although I appreciated more Seham’s list of unreported attacks against Palestinian lives and livelihoods in the past few months). Samel’s lucidity makes it very easy to pinpoint where he goes wrong, and it isn’t within the logic of his dissection of the morality or efficacy of the attack. The problem is larger. It’s in his defense of the binary he presents between those who “defend” the attacks using a sophistical logic much like what Israel’s hasbara-artists deploy, and those who unequivocally condemn them. The problem isn’t his logic but his binary: there is a middle ground between condemnation of attacks against hard-to-categorize armed settlers, and approbation of them, and that’s a refusal to condemn them.
Placing to the side some questions that arguably bear on this point—the strategic effectiveness of the attacks, where precisely on the spectrum-of-culpability armed settlers, who are the instruments of an occupation that Eyal Benvenisti characterizes as outright “aggression,” fall, and what counsel do the Geneva and Hague conventions and subsequent case law give us. Reserve for the moment another question: what is the point of Western condemnation? Cut instead to the core of the question. Who has standing to condemn, and why?
Samel, anticipating the general direction but not the specific vector of that criticism, writes of those who will inevitably question his decision to “‘lecture’ oppressed people on the acceptable methods they may utilize to win their freedom.” He demurs: “I’m merely expressing my opinion.” With what standing? At first, he rejects the grounds for attack: he does “not need to earn the right to” criticize. But Samel then adds, “I have taken rather strong stands against the barbarity unleashed by Israelis against Palestinians, and I’m perfectly entitled to identify which responsive measures I endorse and those that I condemn.” Presumably, you condemn one barbarity, you can condemn the rest of them—an apple’s an apple, and terror attacks against the innocent are terror attacks against the “innocent” no matter whether they occur under the imprimatur of Netanyahu in Tel-Aviv or the Hamas government in Gaza and Damascus.
Let me be as blunt and clear as possible in rejecting the right to criticize in this instance. And add that criticism is intolerable. Speaking generally, we are not entitled to condemn Palestinian violence, although they are. Samel—and I don’t mean to pick on him, I suspect his point-of-view has broad currency—is not “entitled” to lambast the Palestinian resort to force from the Olympian distance of a neutral arbiter, from the social distance given by metropolitan comfort, as if from behind a lectern on which stands a book of laws and norms and values that interpret and apply themselves. The riposte is that this criticism may simply reflect human rights law, but that’s not an excuse. First, human rights law doesn’t simply apply itself, human beings apply it and its application is an ethical issue. Second, human rights law didn’t come from nowhere. It represents a tension, between codifying “universal” human rights and criminalizing the conduct of those who violate the rights of others. To us, it may be clear who to indict first. But the problem is that it’s always others on the dock for genocide, never those most clearly culpable for it. Human rights law isn’t just an idealistic utopia. It’s also a political weapon.
Aware of that, return to the issue of the right to criticize. Before criticizing, there’s a necessary question: are we innocent, do we stand apart from the society that produced the Hamas killings? Can we stand in moral and legal judgment of them? Not a chance. Samel, and take Samel as an avatar for all of us, is not innocent. By not being innocent, through condemnation, we become hypocrites. We live in privilege and we have lived in privilege. Our lives are the product of that privilege. Their ease is the experience of privilege. That privilege came at a cost. We are the condensed, living subjects of a tremendous, bloody, messy, tragic, horrible history of violence that has constituted us as privileged Westerners and has left the Palestinian people scrabbling in the sands of Gaza and the Jordan Valley, in refugee camps scattered around the Levant.
We cannot simple excise ourselves from that history, nor can we excuse our culpability for its sorrows. That culpability inflects every moment of our lives and infects our thought and our being. Even by speaking out against the ongoing horror of Israeli violence we cannot sever ourselves from that history, as though we are isolated individuals not constituted by our relations with society and the history of that society and those relations—a bit of modernist ideology that conceals the corpses and wreckage that sit beneath the foundations of our easy lives. Our relations with Palestinian society and with the third world generally are thick with congealed blood. In the former case, for Americans, the more so for privileged Americans, the more so for privileged American Jews, the blood tally is staggering.
Speaking out and acting out are what we can do and it would be absurd to suggest that even while doing so we do not take a certain distance from that history. But only so much. Even the best of us, those who have spent the past decade or more interspersing themselves physically between the Israeli war machine and its victims don’t have that standing, and I frankly don’t see them hurtling forward with condemnations, anyway. Our freedom to be good people, to be activists, and movement journalists, and human rights lawyers, to fight for others’ freedom, is a freedom that is a product of a history of evil, and it’s a psychic convenience, a self-serving subterfuge, that we may simply step apart from it to condemn the actions of those who live in the hell we have made for them. No amount of acting substitutes for being, and we cannot be Palestinian, we cannot inhabit their history of struggle, “the fact that they have chronically been violated,” as Rita Giacaman described young Palestinian men’s life experiences. There is no substitute for social experience of the impotent infinite rage of that life. It’s beyond me, and no amount of living there or speaking to Palestinians or suffering with them or reading narratives of dispossession or Darwish or Kanafani can make us experience that history. I think about that when I think about what to say or write about Palestinian attacks against Israelis—who all of us who subscribe to BDS agree aren’t exactly innocents.
So I don’t know what to say except to turgidly moralize to the effect that having contributed to causing that rage—a contribution I think we all make—there is something pious, hypocritical, unpleasant, nearly nauseating, about wagging a finger at those who live in fear and anger at the violence we forge every day. What does that mean? Does that mean anything goes? Of course not. All it means is being honest enough and sufficiently sensitive to step back from these specific events and refuse to condemn them, refuse to join the Western hyena pack so eager to judge Palestinian violence against those who are part of the society crushing them. Sure, this will open us to attack from the right. Whatever. We have better things to do than to be worried about the attacks of apologists for murder, don’t we? I’m reminded of Ghassan Hage’s aside that apparently “it is crucial to ‘absolutely condemn’ suicide bombers if you are going to talk about them, otherwise you become a morally suspicious person.” So I think we can put the police-mentality psychological thuggery of those who celebrate murder to the side and just be quiet in this case. That doesn’t seem like too much to ask from those in solidarity.
Max,
Do you believe that the unborn fetus was also a paramilitary fetus?
The authors of this blog are really starting to show their true colors. Instead moderating the comments section maybe someone should start moderating the actual content.
Schwartzman,
Does Israel drop bombs and munitions that have been proven to avoid pregnant women?
If not, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Swatrtzman,
You’re way off topic. And you’re not making sense either.
Max,
As a witness to the long suffering Palestinian struggle, for 45 of my 50 years, I can tell you I personally have close to no patience left in me with anyone who criticizes/judges Palestinian ‘methods’ of liberation. At this stage of the game especially, this very eleventh hour of the struggle, I really feel that people should just STOP insisting that Palestinians can legitimately gain their freedom and statehood ONLY if they behave as pure Samaritans first. They’re an occupied people of 64 years, they ALREADY have a legitimate cause: they’ve already earned the ‘legitimacy’ badge a few times over I’d say. And for all we know, some of them may even be descendants of actual biblical Samaritans too!
There is a time and a place for everything, as the saying goes, and I strongly suggest that supporters of Palestinian freedom be mindful that this is the hour of push and shove, the eleventh hour – it is not the time (irretrievable precious time!) for generously doling out lashings of ‘civilized advise’. The Palestinians already know how to be civil, thank you very much. They’re trying it every day and it ain’t working, well okay it’s helping but NOT changing their situation in the least. They need to be doing everything all at once in the eleventh hour: pushing and shoving back like this AND like that according to their needs and their choosing.
The irony of this discussion is that the settlers deaths came and went like a mere blip on the horizon. Their murder didn’t effect the ‘peace talks’. It didn’t stop the land-theft. It didn’t frighten the settlers. Didn’t empower or embolden the Palestinians. Didn’t outrage or shock the globe. Nothing. Nothing, no consequences except much too much chin-wagging about it here on Mondoweiss – and how consequential is that huh?!
Orwell’s maxim about controlling the present to control the past, and controlling the future to control the present definitely applies to the Mideast, where by hook or crook settler-state Israel desperately clings to its control of the past, whereas, in regards to who controls the future, this struggle is just beginning. No problem, though, so long as we see to it that the public gets a clear sense of what sort of Mideast, once occupier Jew and occupied Palestinian sit down together and work things out based on one equals one with liberty and justice for all.
The essential question is, why should they “sit down together and work things out” when it is an occupation that must end – not a family feud.
Max’s piece, especially when taken together with the other two preceding it, serves to remind us that the situation is much too complex to merely be looked at as a simple case of murder. The machine of the occupation must be fully examined, including the labyrinthine history, that gives rise to this moment in time where four illegal squatters were gunned down. The hellish everyday life of Hebron must be looked at – it is a microcosm of the occupation itself – and from there, perhaps we can learn something.
Platitudes about “liberty and justice for all” don’t accomplish this; in fact, nothing accomplishes this without a huge effort at understanding. I greatly appreciate Max Ajl’s superb writing, not only of this article but the many others he has produced, not only for their fine reportage of facts but that he looks below the surface and provokes further examination.
I agree with everything you say. And there’s no justice for Palestine unless this is not only understood, but acted upon, which is what the proposed get together undoubtedly would take up. Otherwise why meet.
I’m with David Samel on this one. I hate what the Zionist enterprise has done and continues doing but can still clearly see through my hate that assassination of any civilian is wrong. We have been complaining the wrong of Israel’s cold-blooded murders of civilians and now that Palestinians have reportedly killed Israeli settlers, many here are going through various word acrobatics to explain away those killings. Max said that what he is condemning is the actual discussions on condemning the killings. Does he also condemn discussions on Israeli assassinations of civilians and should we see the comeback of suicide bombings as it’s being hinted, would Max be critical of those condemning them or does he feel that it’s nobody’s business what measures the Palestinians take? The killings threw cold water on the Palestinian “gains” from the brutal acts of Cast Lead and the Marmara as well as on the BDS momentum. The more I think of it, the more I sense Israel’s hand in them somehow.
This entire post really went over your head, didn’t it, Shwartzman?
Eva, you said it best. ;-)
No, said fetus was not even a chicken to clear in the line of sight. Some Israeli leaders (of a nuke power with the 4th best army in the world armed both diplomatically by Uncle Sam’s UN Security Council veto and by all US taxpayers) have publically stated Palestinian babies and children are fair game because they will grow up to be, well Palestinians, which echoes the documented statements of some Nazi leaders back in the day–about Jewish fetuses, babies, and children.
“Do you believe that the unborn fetus was also a paramilitary fetus?”
Just remind us SM, which side prints t shirts with the logo “One shot, two kills” and a bullsye over the stomach of a pregnant Palestinian woman?
While I understand the point you are making, Max Ajl, I am having a hard time writing a comment to this article.
As I started to compose my post, I tried substituting “Israel” for “Hamas”. Being honest with myself, I couldn’t help but see the irony given Israel’s own PR, hasbara in which leaders repeatedly claim that Israel’s situation is unique and therefore outsiders should not judge it.
But, then it occurred to me that this entire conflict is skewed, in a way. That is to say, the two parties are not on equal footing, nor are they equal in their transgressions.
For example, there is no equivalent on the Palestinian side to the colonists who are on the Israeli side.
Palestinians are not occupying Israel. They are not sending in settlers to take land from Jews in Tel-Aviv, or to persecute them and destroy their villages.
Israel, however, has these settlers deep inside Palestinian territory.
So, the two parties, Israel and the Palestinians, are not comparable.
In that regard, the attacks on colonists may or may not be justified, depending on one’s opinion. It’s a gray moral area, so to speak.
Furthermore, the colonists help Israel perpetuate the occupation. They make it possible. They facilitate it. It’s akin to aiding and abetting a war criminal. And the colonists do so by willfully and voluntarily helping the Israeli government achieve it’s goals.
Now, David Samel has made a well-reasoned argument, an airtight argument. So, my comments may not satisfy or meet his logical/legal standards.
Nonetheless, I personally do not believe the attack was justified, however. As I’ve said before, I do not feel sympathy for the colonists. Their presence facilitates and enables the brutal occupation and so I cannot lecture the Palestinians on that matter.
Similarly, had I live in the old south and happened to come across a dead KKK member with his hood still lying next to him, would I feel sympathy for him? No. Does that mean that I condone killing that clan man? Of course not. In a functioning democracy, he would have to be tried by a court of law. But, will I go around condemning n***** for their murdering him — whether he had lynched African-Americans in the past or not? No.
Max’s assertion that no one except Palestinians is allowed to comment about the issue of killing settlers is obviously a nonstarter. The essence of this blog is that everyone has a right to comment. Max also has a right to assert that there is hypocrisy involved in the comments of all nonPalestinians. But to say that silence should replace comments is an assertion that the only comments that are allowed are those that express 100% support for the most extreme positions of the Palestinians. There is room for such an assertion, but in the context of this blog it is ridiculous.
Max, thanks for writing another wonderful piece. You remind me a lot of Tim Wise, you both do a great job of putting yourselves in the “other’s” shoes and that gives me a lot of hope in the future.
Samel, if you are here, I intended to respond to your post but felt very deflated after getting through the first few sentences, where you say that I understand and perhaps sympathize with the killers. Well that’s the thing, I do understand them. I find the conditions of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza are degrading, humiliating, inhumane and barbaric and under those conditions, when the occupied, colonized and oppressed strike back at their aggressors or symbols of their aggressors–I can understand that. But there is a difference between understanding and explaining and in condoning. I know that things like these are very black and white for you, and really Samel, your politics don’t offend me so much as my perception that you would like for me to express remorse for the killing of those settlers.
Remember Steven Green? He was that soldier that participated in the gang rape of 14 year old Abeer Hamza in Mahmoudiyya, Iraq. He and his friends killed her whole family, including her 2 year old sister, then they all took turns gang raping her, before killing her and burning all their corpses. I remember at the time, being livid and telling all that would listen that they should turn him over to the Iraqis and let them deal with him. I remember how uncomfortable my non-Arab friends were, how they all went to such great pains to tell me that he and other soldiers like him were the real victims because they were sent to fight this illegal war in Iraq and it was really Bush that was to blame. Even people who I thought had fantastic politics, all of a sudden, they had nothing but sympathy for the conditions that drove Green to do what he did. Would you challenge anyone in the MSM that would take a similar approach to explain atrocities or crimes by American soldiers? –Not that I think there is any parity between the gang rape of Abeer, killing of her entire family and burning of their corpses to the killing of those settlers. I don’t think you would.
Seham,
Are there even many people who remember Abeer? I sobbed when I read it. I felt personally assaulted–and as an Arab woman, a Muslim, I’m sure you can understand what I mean when I say that.
Saleema (& Seham), there are lots of people who remember Abeer Hamza. Strangely, I came to know about her and her family via Brian De Palma’s fictionalised 2006 film of her killing “Redacted”. I’m outside the US so can’t say how much airplay it received in North America.
The film:
link to en.wikipedia.org
The event:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Seham, with due respect, I must defend myself from your criticism. You complain first that I say you understand and perhaps sympathize with the killers. I did say that, merely to recount your position, which I did accurately, as you even add: “Well that’s the thing, I do understand them.” What I said was in the same spirit as Phil’s introduction to your post, where he wrote: “David Samel, who has taken a strong stance against violent resistance” to give background information to the debate. In fact, Phil was not quite as accurate, as my strong stand was against this particular killing. In fact, my position is not absolute, as I previously criticized Matthew Taylor’s position that the passengers on the Mavi Marmara were deficient in non-violent training.
Clearly, you took what I said as an accusation. You even add later: “your politics don’t offend me so much as my perception that you would like for me to express remorse for the killing of those settlers.” That was a misperception. In fact, in my essay, I wrote to you: “I don’t deny your right to anger, nor do I resent your refusal to join me in condemning the gunmen in this case.” Perhaps you missed this sentence – after all, my post was pretty long – but I really did mean what I said. It certainly is true that my overall tone was harshly critical of Hamas, and that I was answering your post that was more favorably disposed to them. But I did not intend to take you to task for your position, and did not do so; I merely expressed my own opinion to the contrary.
I do remember well the rape/murder incident in Iraq, but I didn’t absolve the soldiers of responsibility for this atrocity, though I indeed blame Bush as well for everything that has happened in that country. I thought the soldiers themselves surely deserved life imprisonment (I’m opposed to the death penalty). You seem to analogize my position with your non-Arab friends who were more understanding of Green. I don’t understand your point at all.
David, I didn’t actually criticize you, I just said that I felt “deflated” after reading the first part of your post because I felt like we could start going in circles about what “sympathize and understand” mean, which is always a difficult conversation to have with non-Arabs. And I did also say later, that your politics didn’t offend me but that I perceived that you would like me to express remorse but if my perception was incorrect, which it appears that it was, then I do apologize. About Hamas though and whether what I wrote was “favorable” to them or not, it’s my intention to be “favorable” to them, it’s just my intention to explain why some things happen and it just so happens that things tend to come out seemingly favorable towards Hamas when one sets out to debunk all the propaganda and lies that the Israelis and Americans put out against them. Not that they are not without fault, but, the things that I fault them for are not the same things that the West faults them for.
The connection to Steven Green… I was tired, it made sense in my head at to point out how Americans make excuses and put into “context” the criminal behavior of American soldiers as well. Well meaning, left leaning, progressive Americans do it, conservative Americans do it, it’s human nature. So why is anyone surprised that I want to put things, as they relate to Hamas into context as well.
Seham, of course there is no need to apologize to me. Your perception of what I meant was incorrect, but I could have made that point more prominently than a single sentence in a very long essay.
I am sympathetic with your disappointment in your friends’ reaction to the Green episode, because such criminal behavior is so egregious. However, it does remind me of liberal friends and relatives who assume that I share their PEP position, and are “disappointed” upon learning that I am PIP (Progressive Including Palestine). Political viewpoints are very personal, and while I, like you, cannot fathom what your friends are thinking, we all have to be prepared for such disappointments now and then.
The point, David Samel, is that your comment about Seham was horrible and unfair.
Just take responsibility and apologize because your comment did come across harsh and folded in a passive-aggressive language. We all know you’re a principled person and you didn’t mean it the way it came out – also, apologizing doesn’t weaken your argument in the slightest.
Which of my comments, Taxi, was horrible and unfair? I have no trouble apologizing, but I don’t even know what I am accused of. I certainly had no intention of belittling or chastising Seham, and tried to show her what I meant. Seham seems perfectly capable of speaking for herself, and seems satisfied without demanding an apology. You have taken an entirely different position from me on this question, as is your right, but I have no idea why you thought it necessary to interfere in my conversation with Seham.
Your comments that “deflated” Seham, is what I’m referring to. Obviously you hurt her feelings, unwittingly.
I have no doubt that Seham is more than capable of speaking for herself. I personally felt for her when you addressed your comments to her in your essay a few days ago. I should like to remind you here that you are blogging in public therefore the public has every right to comment on your comments – I wouldn’t call that “interfering” so why would you? I guess because you feel a clear degree of disdain towards me, David Samel.
Oh well, you’ll get over it soon, I hope.
Ya Allah,
Taxi, I don’t him or anyone to apologize to me. He didn’t hurt my feelings, I felt deflated because I hate being put into the position where I have to explain how I feel about things like the attack on the those settlers. I don’t condone but I refuse to condemn. Most Arabs can understand that, when I say this to non-Arabs they look at me like I am a terrorist. That’s why I felt deflated, because, I realized that if I wanted to convey how I felt to David, I had to start from scratch. I just don’t have the energy to do that anymore.
But thanks for having my cyber back ;)
Yes, well said Max, but apparently when this post was made (I am referring to “The settler killings– morality and effectiveness”) rising to the point of calling this a post “holy” criticism (with admitted sarcasm) is enough to get you censored – because they cannot take this sort of criticism. You might not even see this post appear.
Perhaps some are not aware of our sordid history in the US, I have tried to come to this conclusion, out of kindness to call this ignorance. Perhaps it is akin to the fish that is not aware that it exists in water. Perhaps we can call it the pontifications of privilege, all snow white and squeaky clean – quite antiseptic.
However we are not the arbiters of objectivity when we claim these rights of criticism, not by a long shot. It is not like we are standing between two equally justifiable activities – or has been said “between two national movements of equal legitimacy,” as if Zionism can claim the same moral ground as the Palestinians.
Until the words of Sartre’s words in the introduction of the Wretched Of The Earth are recognized and embraced –
“First, we must face that unexpected revelation, the strip-tease of our humanism. There you can see it, quite naked, and it’s not a pretty sight. It was nothing but an ideology of lies, a perfect justification for pillage; its honeyed words, its affectation of sensibility were only alibis for our aggressions. A fine sight they are too, the believers in non-violence, saying that they are neither executioners nor victims. Very well then; if you’re not victims when the government which you’ve voted for, when the army in which your younger brothers are serving without hesitation or remorse have undertaken race murder, you are, without a shadow of doubt, executioners. And if you chose to be victims and to risk being put in prison for a day or two, you are simply choosing to pull your irons out of the fire. But you will not be able to pull them out; they’ll have to stay there till the end. Try to understand this at any rate: if violence began this very evening and if exploitation and oppression had never existed on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non-violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of the oppressors.”
WHAT IS YOUR GOAL?
Schwartzman, I missed your post lamenting this:
“1 Shot, 2 Kills” IDF T-Shirt
“The problem isn’t his logic but his binary: there is a middle ground between condemnation of attacks against hard-to-categorize armed settlers, and approbation of them, and that’s a refusal to condemn them. ”
Again, that exactly is the logic of those of us liberal Zionists that are accused of not condemning Israeli acts that we honestly do not know the facts sufficiently to judge, and do not get the facts sufficiently to judge from partisan propagandizing solidarity.
“Human rights law isn’t just an idealistic utopia. It’s also a political weapon. ”
This is the most telling to those that enter and remain politically active from a moralist or compassion origination.
“Cut instead to the core of the question. Who has standing to condemn, and why? ”
This is what is said of all radical condemnation. “Who are you to judge? Do you know facts, possibilities, larger historical changes sufficiently to judge another? Isn’t humility and self-skepticism anywhere in your pallette of inquiry?
In summary, Ajl is a political man, moreso than a moral man. He willingly surrenders his morality and moral sensibility at the door in his commitment to the political struggle. The dilemma is that, how and who is paying attention to when the political struggle itself becomes beastly. By his definition, refusal to engage in criticism of means on moral grounds is compulsory for an activist.
But, that sensitivity is NECESSARY to avoid becoming what one criticizes, a willing military tool.
The political process of the vanguard is not trustable. The moral judgement of the vanguard is not trustable. The willing soldier, the enthusiastic officer.
It takes skepticism of the powers that be in every scale, so that reasonable and moral choices are made that leave humans standing at the end of struggle, especially if they ultimately have to live together after.
And, relative to the assertion of conformity to international law, killing civilians is a violation.
To not expose one’s own actions to the scrutiny of international law is to literally s*** on international law.
You want to eliminate the possibility of ANY reference to international law by your own actions and propaganda, go ahead. You will only serve the efforts of the right and the immoral.
In this way, the Palestinian cadre, pretending to represent or even advocate for the human rights of the Palestinian people, permanently isolate them, cast them in the role of murderous thugs.
Especially when in the light of partisan squabbles over who is the “true Palestinian leadership”, Hamas looks like a whining petulant wannabe, because they weren’t invited to the adult table, and threaten to prohibit the Palestinian people from even voting on a proposal.
>> To not expose one’s own actions to the scrutiny of international law is to literally s*** on international law.
Thus spake the Hypocrite! Damn, you are some kind of messed-up joke(r)!
International law only applies to Israel, but doesn’t apply to “resistance”?
Did I say that? If so, please show me where I did.
Its a question.
>> Its a question.
Then my answer is: International law applies to all parties, and each party must be judged and penalized in accordance with the law(s) he has broken and the severity of his crime.
If valid resistance against occupation is a crime, then resisters must be punished. If valid resistance against occupation is not a crime, then the resisters do not merit punishment.
If occupation, land theft, ethnic cleansing, discrimination and collective punishment (among other things) are a crime, then the party committing those crimes must be punished.
“Resistance” isn’t dropping a bomb from an airplane on a hospital, Witty. “Resistance” isn’t going to someone’s home and flattening it with a bulldozer, rendering an entire family homeless.
Where was your humanitarian concern during Operation Cast Lead, when you were insisting that Israel had every right to blow up hospitals, schools, apartment buildings and police stations?
International law does apply to all.
And, in almost all cases insists on remediation, not punishment. Only in specific non-ambigous aggregious cases is punishment meted, and that after a court process.
My humanitarian concern was with the Palestinian Gazan civilians, and the on-the-ground Israeli soldiers, and the civilian residents of Sderot, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beersheba.
Not with the rocket-shooters that put those civilians at grave risk, for the rush of “resistance”.
“My humanitarian concern was with the Palestinian Gazan civilians, and the on-the-ground Israeli soldiers, and the civilian residents of Sderot, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beersheba.
Not with the rocket-shooters that put those civilians at grave risk, for the rush of “resistance”.
Typical Richard hypocrisy. The soldiers on the ground are victims along with the people they shoot. At But the only bad guys in his mind are the Palestinian rocket shooters–he can’t bring himself to condemn any Israeli.
The facts and evidence are sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to judge that Zionism is a racist movement, that Israel was founded by premeditated ethnic cleansing and has been committing war crimes ever since, mass murders. It comes from a myriad of sources, both pro-Israel, anti-Israel, and relatively neutral, e.g., human rights organizations. If you don’t get the facts, it’s because you have blinders on.
Thank you Max for some directions out of the maze of my own reflection on these events.
Schwartzman. Perhaps your question would be better directed at Rabbis Yosef and Shapira.
Max,
I disagree with you on two levels.
First, I disagree with your contention that the “right” to condemn an action as immoral requires either complete moral consistency or personal experience similar to that of the perpetrator/s of the action. A certain degree of consistency certainly lends greater credence to one’s assertions, but hypocrisy is part of the human condition and were it to preclude criticism and condemnation of the actions of others, there would be no morality – or law, for that matter. If it is a matter of understanding the circumstances that have led one to take a particular course of action, human beings also have a significant capacity for empathy. One may condemn an action but express understanding for its perpetrator – understanding that does not necessarily entail justification (the film Paradise Now offers a wonderful example).
On another level, political engagement (necessarily with those who disagree to some extent or other) is only possible through the adoption of universal principles and language. You dismiss “attacks from the right”, but there are many other interlocutors, supporters and potential supporters of the Palestinian cause, who will reject the kind of moral immunity of the oppressed that you seem to be proposing. You will lose them, and render all of your arguments irrelevant. If you feel that someone is overly hypocritical, by all means call them out on their hypocrisy. Denying their “right” to condemn others is, in the end, self-defeating. Please excuse the comparison (not intended to convey equivalence), but one of the most odious and fallacious Zionist arguments is that no one has the right to criticise Jews after the Holocaust (or without living in Israel, or serving in the Israeli army, or being completely morally consistent, etc.). You will convince no one worth convincing with such arguments – even if you think that you are right.
Max,
“Smael… is not “entitled” to lambast the Palestinian resort to force from the Olympian distance of a neutral arbiter, from the social distance given by metropolitan comfort, as if from behind a lectern on which stands a book of laws and norms and values that interpret and apply themselves.”
To say Smael, or anyone else, has no right to criticism is not useful. Isn’t criticism usually an important component in the process of change? Criticism is often constructive….causing people to think, re-evaluate…
To limit criticism to a specific group, in this case Palestinians, also limits communication that can be beneficial. We learn from Smael, event though we may not agree with him and we have no right to silence his words.
You yourself are speaking “as it from behind a lectern” ? And…”Even the best of us” ?? Your lecture is a bit lofty; removed from the ground…where your feet need to be to effect change.
It sound as though you believe Palestinians are the only ones with valid opinions, criticism, etc about the shooting/death/murder of the settlers.
And that the Palestinian opinion stands behind those actions. There are Palestinians who condemn the shooting/death/murder of the settlers. Do you hear their voices of criticism? And when those voices are silent; do you understand that too often there is fear in that silence?
Because actions are taken under extreme conditions of injustice, abuse, continued danger, etc. does not make any action an acceptable one to take. As someone who opposes the death penalty; believes it is morally wrong regardless of the circumstances…I oppose the death sentence given the four Israeli settlers. I criticize! I believe it was wrong.
Intellectual discourse is fine and necessary; as are visions of a world that is moral and just. But like it or not it is important and necessary to function in the real world. Too often activists, activists journalists and human rights lawyers. etc. surround themselves with like minds and in their own little world. Unfortunately, what ever their cause, this weakens their effectiveness and slows down the progress of having their message heard, listened to and acted upon.
So Max ….you sound intelligent, moral, caring, committed …you have the gift of writing and writing well….use your talents wisely…. explore how you might be most effective…broaden your views of how to bring about the change… freedom, justice and peace.. in Palestine.
Max, standing applicable here is in the court of world opinion where everyone is both judge and jury, their individual credibility to be assessed by
their mastery of language, logic, and all applicable facts, including how remote the subject injury/harm is to each speaker/advocate, and whether or not they are paid, and how, for their voice, etc. As in any court, eye-witnesses and actual participants in the subject event carry substantial weight, at least initially. Both ignorant and specious speech and ignorant or aware silence contribute to the trajectory of world opinion. Disputes arise even as between those who were there, as to what happened, and no event simply stands by itself as a fact, divorced from ideas. Otherwise, reality would be as dramatized in a Robbe-Grillet novel.
I find it interesting the amount of self-examination and debate around this, whilst Israeli firsters never think twice about the motives, the justification or the repercussions of the near daily indiscriminate killing and abuse of Palestinians, and certainly never feel the need to question themselves over their blind support for IDF and settler terrorism.
justiceweillprevail,
Very well said!
I find it interesting the amount of self-examination and debate around this, whilst Israeli firsters never think twice …
Why make comparisons to the morally bankrupt?
Because they’re the ones who are the movers and shakers in American politics where they intersect with the Middle East, Shmuel.
Seriously: Rahm Emmanuel.
Chaos,
I didn’t ask why make comparisons to the powerful. By definition, the morally bankrupt do not engage in meaningful self-examination – it’s just not what they do. You and I support the Palestinians because we believe in justice, which makes us subject to bouts of introspection and even the occasional shift of position. Some consider it a weakness. I consider it a strength.
As Ahmed Moor put it (more or less), if the Palestinians don’t have the moral high ground, they have nothing.
Palestinians ALREADY have the ‘moral high ground’. They’re occupied! What the heck do the Palestinians have to do? Be simultaneously like jesus-budhha AND be suffering under occupation for them to earn the title?
Come on people of the blogsphere – give the poor chums a break!
Their behavior determines whether they have the moral ground or not, NOT their condition.
“Their behavior determines whether they have the moral ground or not, NOT their condition”.
Hence when the IDF uses White Phosphorous on Gaza children, right witty?
Speaking of which, Scooter Libby has just popped up on Fox News as a consultant speaking on peace in the Middle East and Iran. The interviewer treated him as a precious wise sage.
Is America stupid or what?!
>> MA: All it means is being honest enough and sufficiently sensitive to step back from these specific events and refuse to condemn them, refuse to join the Western hyena pack so eager to judge Palestinian violence against those who are part of the society crushing them.
Had a Palestinian farmer shot and killed four settlers who were attacking his family or destroying his property, I would have no qualms about supporting his actions. They would have been justifiably defensive.
The drive-by shooting – or, as Al-Qassam termed it, the “heroic operation” against “Zionist rapists” – was nothing more than a cowardly assassination. The Briagdiers were not “resisting” anyone at that time. Failure to condemn their actions dilutes the value of speaking out in support of any killings by Palestinians that are of a justifiable resistance / self-defensive nature. Good people sometimes do bad things and, when they do, they must be called out on it.
(Similarly with Israel: Failure to condemn Israel’s *ahem* “excessive” actions dilutes the value of speaking out in support of any “excessive” actions by Israel that are justifiable.)
—————————————————
>> link to maannews.net
Al-Qassam Brigades claimed responsibility for killing four settlers in a drive-by shooting near Hebron on Tuesday evening, and for injuring two Israelis in a similar attack by Romodin Junction near Ramallah a day later.
>> link to maannews.net
In a statement, the Al-Qassam Brigades claims “full responsibility for the heroic operation carried out Tuesday evening (31/8) near the town of Bani Naim east of the occupied city of Hebron. Four Zionist rapists were killed.”
You write, “Had a Palestinian farmer shot and killed four settlers who were attacking his family or destroying his property, I would have no qualms about supporting his actions. They would have been justifiably defensive.”
Please. They were resisting an aspect of the political process imposed by occupation. I’m not morally approving the action. I’m saying, don’t condemn them. They’re different things. You use the word “supporting,” but that’s not what I’m talking about.
You write, “Failure to condemn their actions dilutes the value of speaking out in support of any killings by Palestinians that are of a justifiable resistance / self-defensive nature.”
See above on police mentality. We already are hypocrites. We already are the guilty. We have a lot of our own mess to clean up before even thinking about the crimes of others.
>> Please. They were resisting an aspect of the political process imposed by occupation. I’m not morally approving the action. I’m saying, don’t condemn them.
In my mind, in my opinion, not condemning the action amounts to supporting it, and I can’t support a drive-by assassination, not even if it’s done in the name of “resisting an aspect of the political process imposed by occupation”.
>> We already are hypocrites. We already are the guilty. We have a lot of our own mess to clean up before even thinking about the crimes of others.
I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to be guilty of, but I condemn Israel’s criminality and America’s complicity. I support the Palestinians’ right to freedom from oppression and a fair/equitable/just settlement with Israel. But I do not support drive-by assassinations and other non-defensive violence.
“not condemning the action amounts to supporting it.” I suspect that’s what a lot of the people disagreeing with me here would like to say. Thanks for your honesty.
Max,
I know from your writings that you’ve done amazing work in Gaza, and seen firsthand the terrible violence against Gazan innocents by Israeli soldiers. (I’ve also seen viscerally some of the suffering that happens here – I’ve been to many demonstrations in Niilin and Bilin, and interviewed a fine Palestinian man in Niilin who was killed by a rubber bullet a week after our interview.)
But your post shows your bias right from the first sentence: you immediately put the settlers in a demonizing box, as ‘four paramilitary settlers in Hebron—paramilitary settlers, and not simply “settlers.” ‘
How do you know they were armed?
Yes, criticism of any action, especially action by members of an oppressed group, is maybe more trenchant coming from members of that group. But why do others have to sit on the sidelines? Especially when violence is clearly not construable in any way as self-defense, but as a political act (by Hamas) designed only to say to the world, “We are here, listen to us, we – like you – have the power to kill.”
Khaled Meshal does not “live in the hell we made for him.” He is a political animal, like Netanyahu, like Obama. Like the latter two, we should ask, does Meshal really speak/act from the needs of his “constituents”, or does he rather try to manipulate their fears and consolidate his power?
While “we” (Westerners) certainly bear 90% of the responsibility for Middle East violence, it’s a CYCLE of violence. To take sides as you seem to so easily do, may on some deep level create as much backlash as any help you may provide.
So when it was Operation Cast Lead, we were supposed to assume that grandmas and children were legitimate military targets of the “most moral army on Earth.”
But when it’s international criminals who are committing a crime by taking land from other people by military force, then they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Because, why? Because they’re white? Because they’re Jewish?
Where were you during Operation Cast Lead?
Well, I would have thought that your status as a human being, as well as a self-interest in not seeing the tactic of killing children at point-blank range become justifiable under any circumstances would be enough for anyone to issue a condemnation, but that truth is that condemning the Palestinians in the context of talking about how horrible the Israelis are is not really a condemnation either. When we try a murderer, we don’t take into account how bad his childhood was in determining his guilt.
Mostly, Max, your explanation is patronizing, condescension of the worse Western liberal sort. The Palestinians are human beings. They should be held to same standard as other human beings – a standard that recognizes that drive-by shootings are deeply wrong, not to mention deeply counterproductive to their cause.
You also might take the time to realize that your self-conscious, self-indulgent agonizing is also a product of your privilege, and ponder the irony of that truth.
You’re talking about Operation Cast Lead, right? I mean, that’s where this happened first, just a couple years ago, by the dozens. So you must be meaning to criticize that, right?
Right, this is apologia for murder, hence, not worth taking seriously. When you’re done condemning Israel and Western criminality, and actually stopping it, with all of its costs, let’s talk.
“When you’re done condemning Israel and Western criminality”
Hophmi never got started–I think you’ve got him confused with those who really do condemn Israeli and Western criminality but disagree with your post. You can see where hophmi’s mind is at with this quote–
“condemning the Palestinians in the context of talking about how horrible the Israelis are is not really a condemnation either. ”
He wants pure condemnation untainted by any reference to Israeli crimes, something he trivializes as “talking about how horrible the Israelis are”.
As for your point, these kinds of shootings provide excuses for more Israeli and Western criminality.
“condemning the Palestinians in the context of talking about how horrible the Israelis are is not really a condemnation either. ”
In that case, there is no such thing as self defense. Killing people is killing people even when they are trying to kill you.
Max’s statement fills me with alarm, despite the fact that I sympathize strongly with his position. Because sympathy is feeling. We feel, if our values are human, with the oppressed, with the victims.
But feeling can not be enough. If it were, we would have to give equal standing to the Zionists, who feel very strongly in their right expropriate the land.
Our feelings must be subordinate to moral principles, principles which justify, not our feelings but our actions that come out of them. And moral principles do not, can not, have “standing.” Moral principles must be universal. They can not be relative to the standing of individuals or groups.
The notion of standing is a total contradiction of moral universality. It is in fact another way of claiming interest. And interested parties are the last ones on whom to rely in moral judgments. Moral principles must be applied disinterestedly. We do not look to the judge who is interested but who stands aside from the interested parties to a dispute and applies the law impartially.
The implication of what Max is saying would make morality, would make impartial judgment impossible.
While I disagree with David Samel’s condemnation of the settler shootings, it is not because he lacks some “standing” to make it, because I undoubtedly have less. I may disagree with his conclusion, but I absolutely defend his right to make it.
Moral principles are universal, and the first rule is, apply them to yourself.
As moral agents, there is no doubt that we must first apply principles to ourselves.
But that is not the issue under discussion. We are considering the field of judgment, not action. Now there is no doubt, as the techniques of deconstruction have shown, that examination may expose conscious and unconscious assumptions of privilege. But your claim seems to go further, it seems to invalidate the right to judgment of anyone not in the class you privilege.
I have not thought the issue through to the extent that I would make that claim. What I am quite sure of is that the “right to judgment” doesn’t reside in those who fund the tormentors of the oppressed. That seems very clear. People have made claims to the effect that condemning Israel gives you standing to condemn Palestinian violence. But I don’t think that’s the case, as I said initially. That said, people are accepting the principle that standing is earned. They just think it’s earned cheaply: with talk, with criticism. I don’t think talk or criticism makes it OK. Nor the fact of solidarity. I am baffled frankly at the insistence on the “right” to criticize, to condemn with the full force of moral judgment. That’s what people are very oddly insisting on here. What Abunimah said he had to say and said well; Chomsky does similarly in similar circumstances.
The use of the word “Standing” (among other things) may be alienating people. Here’s Gabriel Ash again, who has put this very well: “But I will as always avoid passing judgment on what people ought to morally do in extreme situations such as those faced by the people of Gaza, especially since this situation is the result of deliberate common policy of Israel, Western governments, and Arab autocracies. Accountability should be demanded first from those who create hell before it is demanded from those who are forced to live in it…Ethics have a situational component that in this case makes it unethical for me to pass judgment.” What’s to argue with?
If moral principles are universal, then the right to make moral judgments must be universal. Even Hitler must be granted this right. Even a moral judgment made by Hitler might be sound.
This is the entire reason that the ad hominen argument is a fallacy. Judgments should stand or fall on their own virtues, not the virtues of those who make them.
The answer has to be not to deny the right to judgment to those who lack “standing” but to expose how such judgments may rest on flawed foundations.
Accountability should be demanded first from those who create hell before it is demanded from those who are forced to live in it…Ethics have a situational component that in this case makes it unethical for me to pass judgment.” What’s to argue with?
With the first part – nothing. It is perfectly sound. It’s the second part that’s problematic. There is a difference between priority (and I disagree with the idea that one may be eternally “busy” condemning the greater evil, leaving no time to condemn the lesser) and immunity from external, “culpable” criticism. The situational component is certainly relevant to the type of judgement, but not to the ability to pass judgement altogether. I see your point (through Ash), but it is far from indisputable.
The question is not the soundness of the moral judgment but the ethics of passing judgment. And when I say, “passing judgment” I mean voicing that judgment, articulating it publicly, disseminating it. This is entirely consistent with your first two paragraphs.
If moral principles are universal, then the right to make moral judgments must be universal
I don’t totally agree with this ; are moral principles indeed “universal”? If you get into more complicated cases like euthanasia (is it murder if the person is unconscious, or not?), or abortion (at what point does a human become conscious of its own suffering, is the potential for life the same thing as life, etc?), you’ll find that it’s not black and white, and the morality does in fact partly depend on the situation, or the context. What we define as moral as a species may have many origins, and there are different taboos according to different cultures. Murder seems to be a near universal one, but some have made the argument that war is just state-sanctioned, high-tech mass murder – now, if there can be a disagreement on these issues, there are grounds to doubt the bedrock, infallible nature of our judgment of what is moral and immoral.
Another distinction : that between action and non-action. We tend to stigmatize action more than non-action, giving it more importance – for example, is it moral to stand by and watch someone be destroyed, or a culture (or a society, ahem……) be destroyed? The argument can be made that, since there is no action involved on the part of the observer, that there is no immorality, but some would say it is in fact immoral.
Killing animals as opposed to killing humans…. etc. etc. This is a big can of worms.
Max, what you’re talking about is a moral gag order.
And who has the standing to decide who has the standing to speak? According to your own comments, only the individual can do this, only the persons making the judgment can judge whether they have the … right? to speak out.
No, I don’t accept this. It is too close to the concept of the truth that can not be spoken, too close to letting the emperor parade around in the buff because the truth of his nakedness is too horrifying to contemplate.
This is precisely the Zionist argument we are so familiar with, that certain truths can not be spoken aloud because it would be “bad for the Jews.”
Max,
A social tradition in the middle east states that it is most certainly rude and impolite for a guest to judge the host and voice a judgment while visiting them in their own house. It isn’t that the host wants to ‘silence’ the guest, it’s just that the criticism is inappropriate location wise. And if this guest is a dear friend that felt compelled to give their views regardless, then it is incumbent on them to first ask for the host’s permission to speak of said sensitive topic – otherwise the host will feel forced upon and offended in his/her own home.
I mention the above in the hope of drawing a distinction here between suppression of ideas and appropriate social boundaries practiced by and pertaining to other cultures.
I’m also, just like you, Max, in total agreement when Gabriel Ash states: “But I will as always avoid passing judgment on what people ought to morally do in extreme situations”. In ANY extreme situation, I would even add.
I’m talking about a moral gag order enforced by no one except the social conscience. I’m saying that imperial citizens living in an intellectual culture with any grace wouldn’t feel the absurd need to judge this incident of Palestinian violence, and the need to justify that judgment, the need to insist that condemnation isn’t filthy at all, doesn’t feel questionable, or dirty, isn’t bothersome. A few here don’t seem to understand that complicity never ends, even when you speak out. That B’Tselem issued a condemnation matters not a whit to me, and adds to my impression that it’s an organization with minimal integrity.
Also, a crucial correction, given my comment on the social conscience. The rhetoric of “rights” is misleading. The criticism from Samel in this context was intolerable, but he has the “right” to do whatever he wants. But he shouldn’t. He should know better, for reasons that I extensively laid out and absolutely will not repeat. Samel insists that “I don’t feel compelled to examine my guilt for the crimes of others,” doubtless what the governments who consorted with Hitler in the 30s said when the Nuremberg laws were passed.
As many have said time and again, comment is free here: anyone can say anything. That’s clear enough. No one is after you or Samel with a gun. I’m a writer and not a state. I made an argument. Some people here liked it. Others didn’t. For some hopefully it clarified or articulated their feelings. Others, it revolted. So it goes. One Richard Witty is so nauseated by the notion that he shouldn’t judge Palestinian violence that he trekked over to my blog to make sure I wouldn’t miss his latest rambling blur of non-sense–this I take as high praise.
I didn’t write what I wrote thinking it would provoke disagreement here, actually. Looks like I was wrong.
Only one commenter here has raised the point that one must sometimes edge close to condemnation in order to be heard. That’s true, lines must sometimes be crossed, and I said that I thought Ali did so with grace. No one chooses for us when we must cross political and ethical lines. We do that ourselves. What’s striking to me is the real revulsion that I would draw them at all. That revulsion underscores the necessity of doing so.
Max, Habibi, one of the ways people shoot themselves in their feet is to reject criticisms from their friends. The article you wrote could have been written almost word for word by a Zionist responding to criticisms of Israeli violence. Let’s get clear: telling friends they are doing something immoral or unwise is a friendly act.
Telling my Jewish friends that Zionism is a bad idea and that Israel is the biggest fraud on the planet is an act of friendship to these friends. (I might put it more tactfully though). When Palestinians do something foolish my solidarity with them compels me to point it out.
Many years ago after resigning my officer commission in the US military, in large part out of solidarity with Palestine, upon attending my first activist meeting I was told by a professional Palestinian activist pontificator that I could not participate because I had declared myself a conscientious objector to the US military and the PLO had armed struggle as part of their platform.
Given that the Palestinian practitioners of violence have led their people from one disaster to the next, not least of which are three intra-Palestinian civil wars, with the last of which resulting in two Palestinian governments, a friend of the Palestinians can be forgiven for suggesting that maybe violence is not the right path.
It’s high time that those with visions of justice in Palestine stop enabling Israelis or Palestinians doing immoral, unwise, or foolish things by capitulating to the whine that we “are not suffering” like they are.
I salute your integretous decision Sir.
Whatever. When your ultra-orthodox son ends up on the West Bank with an uzi, or at the wheel of an armored bulldozer, don’t come crying to us about how your “precious jewel” transformed your progeny into a Jewish supremacist monster.
None of us are trying to build a nice summer home on a gated community built on the (sometimes literal) corpses of Arabs who’ve been run out of their homes by violent Zionist militias. Who now have nukes.
talk about comments slipping by, these attacks against Witty’s family are unjust and un called for.
The shoe fits, apparently, considering you knew who I was talking about in spite of the fact that the original name-calling comment was wiped.
I make no apologies. Witty actively and openly endorses the murder of Muslims.
I reported this post twice.
Apparently comments attacking my son who has never posted here, and lying about my son repeatedly maliciously and repeatedly, are acceptable to our moderators.
I sent Phil an e-mail of a comment that Chaos attempted to post on my blog. It was similar in basic content, but much more threatening and abusive in tone and language.
The change in the range of comments accepted and requested is itself an editorial statement.
And, lying about my views maliciously and threateningly is also accepted, of course stated in the context of opposing AIPAC or ADL methods.
You’re such a drama queen. Seriously.
“There are no civilians in War Zones” Please remember as you read this that Rachel was not killed in the Oslo ordained Military Zone. She was not killed on the Philadelphi Route. She was killed in the area that Oslo ordained that it was alright for Palestinians to build in and she was along a Palestinian street, in front of a Palestinian Home.
When a state acts upon statements like that which follows (and this includes the U.S. in my book) then citizens have to do everything in their power to defeat those type of policies. Nonviolently. From the Rachel Corrie Foundation website as of yesterday:
East Fourth Ave., Suite 307
Olympia, WA 98501
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 6, 2010
Israeli military Colonel states,
“There are no civilians in war zones.”
Haifa, Israel – Several State witnesses testified in Haifa District Court on Monday, September
6, 2010, in the civil law suit filed by Rachel Corrie’s family against the State of Israel for her
unlawful killing in Rafah, Gaza.
Rachel Corrie, an American human rights defender from Olympia, WA, was crushed to death
on March 16, 2003, by a Caterpillar D9R military bulldozer. She had been nonviolently
demonstrating against the demolitions of Palestinian homes.
One of the witnesses, known to the court as Yossi, was a Colonel in the Engineering Corps.
He was responsible for writing operating manuals for military bulldozers and other
equipment. He also conducted a simulation of what the bulldozer driver would have been
able to see. In his testimony:
He repeatedly insisted that there are no civilians in a war zone. His assertion
disregards the reality in the Palestinian Occupied Territories as well as international
humanitarian law, which was created to protect civilians in armed conflict situations.
Yossi contradicted his own March 2003 testimony, given to military investigators, that
the armored personnel carrier (APC) at the incident was intended to protect both
soldiers and civilians. Today, he said the APC was there only for the safety of the
drivers.
In his affidavit, Yossi wrote that he conducted a reenactment of the incident.
However, he testified today that he did not reenact the scene, but rather filmed a
bulldozer of the same model with a bulldozer operator, and another soldier, to get a
sense of what the operator at the incident might have seen. He also said he did not
view the military’s surveillance video of the incident in creating his simulation.
Yossi claimed that the manual on operating instructions for mechanical engineering
equipment in low intensity conflict did not apply to real conflict situations, but rather
only in training and administrative activities.
Yossi stated that the bulldozer driver and commander have the exact same field of
vision and that the commander sat at the same level as the driver, contradicting the
government’s expert witness, who stated that the commander had a better field of
vision because he sat higher.
Another witness for the state, Major Yoram Manchori, testified as an expert witness on the
bulldozer’s field of vision. He was responsible for purchasing heavy engineering equipment
and readying it for military use. In May 2010, he created an animated simulation of what the
bulldozer driver and commander’s vision might have been.
Manchori insisted he used in the simulation a bulldozer identical to the one that killed
Rachel. However, the bulldozer he used had multiple bars on its windows, whereas
the bulldozer that struck Rachel had no bars. Upon being informed of this
discrepancy, he claimed that the bars did not impact visibility.
He conducted his simulation on terrain that was very different than the terrain at the
scene.
Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice info@rachelcorriefoundation.org
203 East Fourth Ave., Suite 307 rachelcorriefoundation.org
Olympia, WA 98501 twitter.com/rcfoundation
He determined the simulated location of the bulldozers based on eyewitness
recollections given over 7 years after the incident. He did not cross-check them with
eyewitness accounts from the time of the killing, nor did he view the military
surveillance video of the incident.
Manchori testified that the price of a Caterpillar D9R bulldozer is currently $700,000
and the cost of arming it is an additional $200,000 – $250,000, figures not previously
disclosed. In light of this, it is now known that the cost of mounting a camera, which
is often cited as being prohibitively expensive, would be less than 10% of the price of
the bulldozer itself.
Manchori testified that after Rachel’s death the Israeli military installed cameras on
one bulldozer but due to the high cost, limited increase in field vision and other
problems, the installation was discontinued.
Manchori testified that prior to Corrie’s killing, the Israeli military tested the D9R
bulldozer field of vision and that he personally had sent three charts of the results to
the military investigators in March 2003. In court today, the Corries’ lawyer
requested to obtain a copy of this report, stating that he needed it in order to analyze
the bulldozer visibility claims made in the military police investigation of Rachel’s
killing. The State argued that the report was classified and should not be allowed into
evidence, although the Israeli Supreme Court previously ruled that this report was
relevant to the case. Judge Gershon upheld the State’s argument.
Regarding the multiple references that there are no civilians in war zones, Cindy Corrie,
Rachel’s mother said, “This was startling to our family, and to others in the courtroom. Rafah
is a densely populated town. In fact, Rachel was killed defending the home of two
Palestinian families-a pharmacist, an accountant, their wives and small children. It was
extremely troubling for their existence to be categorically denied.”
Court today was attended by representatives from the US Embassy, Human Rights Watch and
Adalah, a legal and human rights organization.
The trial is slated to resume in October, when the bulldozer driver, the bulldozer
commander, and the head of the military police team that investigated Rachel’s killing
are expected to testify.
For press related inquiries and further information please contact:
stacy@rachelcorriefoundation.org
Phone: +972-52-952-2143
Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice info@rachelcorriefoundation.org
203 East Fourth Ave., Suite 307 rachelcorriefoundation.org
Olympia, WA 98501 twitter.com/rcfoundation
I have two principal disagreements with Max. One, articulated by some commenters already, is that the notion that I should not criticize Palestinians appears uncomfortably close to the argument Israel likes to make: don’t judge us because you haven’t experienced our traumas.
In my initial draft of this essay, I included the following paragraph but then substituted the one Max complains about:
“There is a letter published by the NY Times today from a settler who knew one of the victims, and she praises her friend’s wonderful qualities. There are many things about this letter that make me angry, but her anguish at suddenly losing a friend to violence is surely genuine. If I were communicate to this letter-writer, and criticize the choices she has made, she might well respond that it’s easy for me to say that, but I should try living in her shoes, with the constant threat of terrorism, the loss of dear friends, etc. I would absolutely reject that line of argument there, and feel free to express my opinion on violent resistance here as well.”
There is of course the distinction between violence of the oppressor and that of the oppressed that a number of commenters have focused on. I consider this to be a very significant difference and have discussed it elsewhere, but it is minimal in this context. The “don’t criticize” argument, whether used by Israel or Max Ajl, is similarly designed to immunize the actor from criticism. Particularly when the actor has conferred upon himself the right to take human life, he should be prepared to defend that decision, and not try to short-circuit any reasonable discussion about the wisdom and morality of such deeds. This most certainly is not to compare this killing of four settlers with Israel’s much larger-scale slaughters; it is only the immunity-from-criticsim posture I find quite similar.
To digress a bit, it reminds me of the question of Holocaust denial v. Nakba denial. Some are offended at comparing the wholesale slaughter of millions with the killing of perhaps thousands and the displacement of less than a million. My view is that while the Holocaust was a more destructive event in human history (what a ghastly comparison to make), Nakba denial today is actually worse than Holocaust denial for a variety of reasons that I won’t go into here. Similarly, Israel’s violence has been much worse than violence against Israel, both in scale and motivation, but the “don’t criticize” argument is roughly equivalent and in my view, dismissible.
My second problem with Max is that his “don’t criticize” policy appears to be absolute. I think he could have authored the same essay if the occupants of the car had been one driver and four little children, or even worse, if Hamas had successfully firebombed a pre-school, incinerating dozens of kids. I don’t know exactly what he means by saying: “Does that mean anything goes? Of course not.” If he means that some Palestinian actions could be so egregious, like the school firebombing hypothetical, that he would join me in condemnation, then the question is merely where one draws the line. To him, it is not legitimate for non-Palestinians to condemn execution of the occupants of a settler car. For me, the line is somewhere else.
Finally, I would like to quickly address Max’s statement: “I appreciated more Seham’s list of unreported attacks against Palestinian lives and livelihoods in the past few months.” On this we can agree. I do think the debate about violence in the Palestinian resistance is an extremely important one, and obviously has attracted a great deal of interest from mondoweiss readers. But in the larger scheme of things, the killing of four human beings, as awful as it is, pales in comparison to the conditions imposed upon Palestinians by Israel, yet gets about one-thousandth of the media attention in this country (not including unusual events like Lebanon, Gaza and Mavi Marmara).
I also submitted another post that Phil will put up today, further answering the comments I received earlier, mostly on the question of whether “settlers” should be viewed as civilians or somewhere on the spectrum closer to legitimate military targets.
I wish that you would leave out the “pale by comparison” statement, as that logic leads by extension to ends justifying means.
I appreciate that you did establish your sympathy, I assume sincerely, and your moral feeling of upset relative to the murder itself and to the rationalization for the murder.
The most humane is the one that is genuinely touched by the suffering of all, color-blind in sentiment, if not always in advocacy, but NEVER utterly insensitive even in advocacy.
The failure to retain sensitivity is to make oneself into a killing machine, or in the war of words, a propaganda machine.
I cannot see that that is progressive. If you are a professional soldier, your role is to obey orders. If you are a political commentator, your role is different.
To my mind, the primary role is through the window of morality, not through the window of functional partisan politics.
Is it wrong to blame the anger, NO.
Violence is committed in only two complementary states of mind:
1. Anger
2. Duty
Most often combined as rationalization, and to guarantee that violent orders are actually done. Officers and field leaders very often fire up their cadre before conducting something otherwise gruesome to numb and justify their cruelty.
But, likely only a few of us here are soldiers. It seems that a few think of themselves in that light.
Most are human beings, motivated by compassion for those that are suffering and could be suffering in a rationally imagined future.
And, that is the most important. That is the inner war that we must fight. “I care more than I am angry” if we are to remain progressive.
All the time. Not rationalizing.
RW
“If you are a professional soldier, your role is to obey orders.”
But not illegal or immoral orders.
“I was only following orders.”
The point was on your role to retain your moral skepticism.
Otherwise this space is “the war of ideas” rather than “the creative discussion for mutual well-being”.
Actually, that is the title of the blog. Does Phil and Adam know what that implies? Do they really mean to sanction “the ends justify the means” here (in whatever rationalizing language).
>> Violence is committed in only two complementary states of mind:
>> 1. Anger
>> 2. Duty
Violence can also be committed in a cold, clear and calculating state of mind, or even with sadistic pleasure. Anger and duty are not required.
And although it may shock your biased mind to know this, Jews are just as prone to cold-hearted and sadistic violence as any other human being. Especially when gawd and government support / promote their twisted sense of entitlement to a “Promised Land” and their battles against “dirty Arabs”.
I am very skeptical of your supposedly “liberal zionist” claims to morality. I’ve seen little more than pompous piety and pathetic argumentation.
I describe my criteria for justice, and my support for the self-determination of the Jewish people.
I reject summary judgement. I distinguish between suspicion and fact. I distinguish between accusation and law.
Thats true, there are sadistic killers. What percentage of Israelis do you think fall into that category?
What percentage of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others?
You are projecting what Israeli soldiers “thought”. You don’t have a clue, haven’t inquired from the soldiers’ themselves, and likely dismiss their concerns, even their pangs of conscience.
>> Thats true, there are sadistic killers. What percentage of Israelis do you think fall into that category?
>> What percentage of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others?
I don’t know, and neither do you.
>> You are projecting what Israeli soldiers “thought”. You don’t have a clue, haven’t inquired from the soldiers’ themselves, and likely dismiss their concerns, even their pangs of conscience.
Assuming this is directed at me (I can’t be sure, since you haven’t yet learned to identify the person(s) to whom you are addressing your questions), I haven’t projected anything. You don’t have a clue, either, so stop preaching as though you do.
Thats actually my point, that we don’t have a clue.
From that place, I am reluctant to condemn. I am very willing to sympathize, but that is habitually and frankly meanly regarded as crocodile tears here, which is false.
On those that facilitate blowing up school buses, I’d say a high percentage are sadistic, more than banality of evil, enthusiasm.
The reason for the ambiguity of who I am responding to is due to the limits of nesting of posts. I hit reply, and the post goes to the bottom, not indented to whom I’m replying to.
RW
Where “fact” comes from Israeli mouthpieces and “suspicion” from everything else. including hard evidence/
>> Thats actually my point, that we don’t have a clue. From that place, I am reluctant to condemn. I am very willing to sympathize, but that is habitually and frankly meanly regarded as crocodile tears here, which is false.
That’s because your sympathy, like your condemnation, is not impartial – it is clearly biased in favour of Israel.
>> On those that facilitate blowing up school buses, I’d say a high percentage are sadistic, more than banality of evil, enthusiasm.
See, now, here’s a perfect example of what makes you so hard to take seriously. You started off your previous post by stating that we (in general) have no clue about the mindset of any of the actors in this conflict, and then suddenly you have no problem discussing percentages of sadism in Palestinian “terrorists”. If you’re going to start guessing percentages, where is the counter-balancing estimate of the percentage of sadistic IDF soldiers who shoot peaceful protesters in the head? Your bias creeps through every time.
>> The reason for the ambiguity of who I am responding to is due to the limits of nesting of posts. I hit reply, and the post goes to the bottom, not indented to whom I’m replying to.
I – and, I’m sure, others – would appreciate it if, in your reply, you could at least name the person to whom you are replying. Even better would be to copy and paste a snippet of the comment to which you are replying.
Further to my post of September 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm:
I also want to apologize to you, Richard, for ridiculing you in my replies to your comments. It’s not that you don’t occasionally – or frequently ;-) – deserve it, but it is neither polite nor productive, so I will do my best to avoid it in the future.
” it is neither polite nor productive, so I will do my best to avoid it in the future.”
Anyone who tries to engage Richard on a serious level is doomed to disappointment, followed by disgust, then anger and frankly, ridicule is as productive a way to approach him as anything else you could try. You’ve seen him at work, you started out thinking that others were being too mean to him and then you found out why. You’re not the first. He is someone who mixes 60′s style peace and love rhetoric with a grotesque level of tribal morality and he’s completely and totally determined to avoid seeing this about himself. If you feel the need to apologize to him, I’d advise you to ignore him entirely, because if you think you can start fresh and make progress with him you are making a mistake.
Donald,
Your last response was a load of xxxx.
If you engage my questions, my concerns, I will speak candidly and frankly.
If we disagree on primary references, that can be candidly described.
The room here is primarily radical dissenters. All liberals and particularly all liberal Zionists, have been chased away, or the room has agitated for them ALL to be silenced, and on the basis of their views ultimately.
I know Phil personally, though not closely now, except through here and minor correspondence about logistics and tone here. I knew him in our formative years. I know his family, and he knows mine. They are liberal, courageous, oriented through morality, NOT through politics.
To the extent that Phil orients through politics (solidarity in which his own impressions are subdued in deference to the vanguard), it must be an internal conflict. I expect that he gets around that conflict by shifting to his role as witness or journalist.
In responding to posts here, I am more speaking to my old friend Phil (as I remember him, not necessarily as he is now), than to the self-appointed vanguard here.
I am a Zionist, meaning that I fully support the self-determination of the Jewish people, and that Israel is currently that place. I am a liberal Zionist, meaning that I agree that occupation is suppressive, counter to Jewish and my values, impossible to sustain in the long run, and results in cruelty in action and devolution of Jewish collective consciousness.
I will NEVER adopt the slogan “Zionism is racism” as I know it is self-determination.
If you can’t live with that, and speak to me candidly and respectfully, then it is your crap that you are wearing on your sleeve.
My view and sensitivity is the typical of the historical vast majority of Jewish opinion, probably considerably to the left of the convention as I do assertively regard a healthy Palestine as desirable, in contrast to the right which regards a subordinated Palestine as desirable.
If you can’t address my sensitivities and perspectives, you will NEVER do anything politically but war and attempt to suppress, rather than attempt to persuade and co-exist.
Your fantasies of a single state will remain impossible and frankly ludicrous if you cultivate hatred for 50+% of the population that you seek to consent.
Zionism is a national jewish political movement founded mostly by secular jews. Hence Witty’s orientation is political by definition at least as much as Phil’s is political. Absent figurative speech, only individual humans are self-governing. Witty governs himself differently than his childhood pal who shares the same upbringing according to Witty. Witty’s PEP. Phil’s PIP. Gee, how could this be?
Violence can be committed:
out of habit,
just for the hell of it….
self defense
there are many reasons…not just anger and duty
re-reading all this Witty, I’m not sure what you were saying by your comment…which isn’t unusual… sorry it’s true!
David,
You write, “I consider this to be a very significant difference and have discussed it elsewhere, but it is minimal in this context. The “don’t criticize” argument, whether used by Israel or Max Ajl, is similarly designed to immunize the actor from criticism.”
No. It is to rule out your privileged criticism, which was crystal-clear. When one is immunized from the general virus “criticism,” that means all of its variants. Including from the community that those who committed the violence inhabit. When you are done criticizing all the acts you are guilty of that have led to bloodshed, start criticizing Hamas. You won’t have the time: you’ll find that you’ll spend your whole life doing so. You demand accountability, in the words of Gabriel Ash, from those who create hell before the demand accountability from those who inhabit it. This is how you apply universal moral codes. You hold yourself to the standard first, then others. Holding yourself to that standard doesn’t mean just talking. It means doing. What is the moral value of condemning Hamas killings? Zero. Hence, quiet.
As life is a spectrum and not a binary, one can imagine a hypothetical act of Hamas violence that would draw a somewhat different reaction from me, although probably not qualitatively different. i’m not playing your game, though. It’s the same police mentality I decried when it comes from the right and it’s the same one I’ll decry when it comes from my right.
As always, the criticism of that has moral value, is a criticism that can affect our community, the one we’re accountable for, the one whose actions we’re responsible for. That was what Ali suggested, if you missed it. But people within a community will decide when its actions violate their moral norms, as the Palestinian cultural leadership clearly did in 2002. The political leadership will listen–sometimes–to the cultural elite. Different communities, different responsibilities.
Finally. Do the families of those settlers mourn their deaths? Of course they do. Where should the finger of blame be pointed? Simple. The pathetic architects of those policies that lead inexorably to reprisal. Where can we find them? Simple. In Tel-Aviv, Washington DC, and New York.
You are scary Max.
Is that your intent?
I am really confounded by the comments policy and what is being moderated, because, for the life of me I can’t understand why Witty calling Max “scary” adds anything to the discussion at hand.
Have you noticed how Witty can do all the name calling he wants? If you email Mr. Weiss or Mr. Horowitz, sometimes they take it down. But for the most part, there’s no ad hominem Witty can’t fling that won’t get prompt viewing.
Meanwhile, I’m still under quarantine and somewhere in the realm of 20% of my posts on a given day might not see the light of day at all.
I agree, Seham. I’ve been helping Phil and Adam in reviewing all the comments, and something slips through from time to time. We should probably remove Richard’s comment, but the responses by you and others would then make no sense. The truth is that nearly all commenters are respectful nearly all the time, even though these are searing topics.
I agree anyone who calls a pregnant woman and her unborn child paramilitary scares the [] out of me.
The authors need to be censored, not the commenters.
I think Witty is scary.
Oh really?
“I agree anyone who calls a pregnant woman and her unborn child paramilitary scares the [] out of me.”
Does that apply to Israelis too Schwartzman?
It is scary because the statement that terror on civilians should not be questioned or criticized (on “moral” grounds) is advocacy for permitting murder as murder.
“See what we experience” as Chaos invokes (though not speaking about himself) does not cover it.
There is a qualitative difference in behavior from
1. indifference changing to dissent (something is wrong, I’ll do what is within my personal moral range to correct it, and I’ll name and criticize what is outside my moral boundaries)
2. dissent to solidarity (something is wrong, I am so committed that I will work WITH the parties that are wronged to right the wrong, again only in a form that is morally palatable to me, others make their choices and bear responsibility for those choices. I’ll participate in the process by which “our” behavior is defined)
3. solidarity to resistance (I’m a partisan, whatever my role is, I will do. If it is to publish propaganda, wonderful. If its to undertake direct action, wonderful. If its to defend from assault on a boat, wonderful. If its to pick up a gun, wonderful. I will do it. I measure success not by the extent that I help my people, but to the extent that I defend my people and if I harm others, they are insignificant.)
4. resistance to criminality/terrorism (“I am willing to do anything, and measure my success BY my ability to do harm, NOT by my ability to advocate for my community, to improve their lives.)
Where on this list is your morality? Where on this list do you want to be? Where on this list is the insistence that criticism of terror is disloyal, or even none of you business?
I don’t know Max. I am personally scared of him. He rationalizes that anything goes in the service of the resistance, and institutionally disqualifies himself or any other as disqualified to criticize. (We’ve heard that before.)
For helping Palestinians, for creating a mass movement to actually change their lives, the tenor of the politics HAS to stay within the palatable range of vast majority in the dissent range, and a few in the solidarity range.
And, those that reach to the resistance range, have to leave themselves a path out, a path to drop their rage at some point, otherwise the only path is to the criminality out.
As cool as it is to think of yourself in that role, it is the oppossite of what constructs a mass movement.
But there are no civilians in a war zone, Schwartz.
Duh! He’s got an Arabic name. Of course you have an instinctual fear of him. It’s not like it’s based on anything rational, Witty, since you’ve made far, far more spirited defense of the slaughter of thousands by the IDF than he has the reverse. So obviously, this isn’t really about attacks on civilians, is it?
Max, sorry to misinterpret you. When you told me I had no right to criticize the Palestinian gunmen, and I described that as a “‘don’’t criticize’ argument,” I should have realized that your intent was to rule out my “privileged criticism, which was crystal-clear.” I don’t know what I could have been thinking.
You insist that I first must criticize all of my own acts that have led to bloodshed before I dare condemn Palestinian murder. That takes the concept of self-flagellation a little far, I think. Maybe your conscience is better developed than mine, but even as the Jewish holidays approach, I don’t feel compelled to examine my guilt for the crimes of others. Sure, I could devote more time and energy to causes I hold dear, including combating those crimes, but exactly what kind of herculean effort do you demand from people before they can speak freely? And would this self-restraint apply in my school firebombing hypothetical as well, or just the murder of a car full of people who fortunately turned out to be all adults (with the unfortunate half-exception of the pregnant woman).
Frankly, Max, very little of what you say is “crystal-clear.” I don’t know if you deliberately try to obscure your meaning to make it seem more highbrow/philosophical and therefore persuasive, but your academic writing style does require me to decipher your meaning first. It ain’t always easy.
David,
You can continue to be dishonest and blame it on my writing style. That seems convenient. I think the problem is elsewhere, though.
You write, “I consider this to be a very significant difference and have discussed it elsewhere, but it is minimal in this context. The “don’t criticize” argument, whether used by Israel or Max Ajl, is similarly designed to immunize the actor from criticism.”
An argument designed to immunize the actor from criticism is one that is meant to immunize the actor from criticism. Criticism means all criticism. But I specifically note that I am not at all uncomfortable with criticism from within the political community. That was crystal-clear–so clear, in fact, that you understood it. So when I say that I find some criticism fine, and you say my argument is intended to “immunize the actor from criticism,” you are misrepresenting my argument. But please by all means mis-understand that, too, I can see what fun this is for you.
Oh, please, Max. I didn’t say “all criticism” and I didn’t mean “all criticism.” Your argument was designed to insulate the gunmen from criticism – from non-Palestinians like me. I never said you were trying to prevent criticism by Palestinians; in fact, you clearly made the opposite point. When Israelis make the argument, it is to immunize Israel from outside criticism; it doesn’t make sense to interpret it as all criticism, even inside Israel. To the extent you find fault with my “failure” to modify the noun “criticism” by saying “some criticism” or “criticism by non-Palestinians,” that does not support an accusation of dishonesty, which you have been spraying about a bit too freely. This is getting silly.
If “getting silly” is what it takes to force you to specify what you mean when you are being systematically and quite cleverly mendacious (a synonym for dishonest, as you tell me I’m over-quota), then let’s be “silly” all day. I’d rather be “silly” than have to pontificate to you how blood-soaked your hands are while you glibly insist on judging your victims. Trust me, I don’t really enjoy it either.
Max, what else is your argument but privileging the Palestinians?
Are you opposed to privileging in general, or merely dictating the hierarchy of privilege?
You’re only privileged if you’re top dog, never if you’re the underdog.
Not so, Taxi. Reverse privilege is all the rage.
You certainly can’t call the present Palestinian experience as ‘reverse privilege’.
Regrettably, clearly they remain the underdog in their own land.
taxi, “privilege” isn’t an existential condition, it’s an ad hominem factor in an argument, a purely intellectual thing.
In this sense, the one who suffers most is the most privileged.
I wonder, Max, whether you consider B’Tselem to have standing. This organization acts. It does. Today I got an email from them in which the shootings are condemned. Do they get to say this? Are they sufficiently privileged?
I don’t really get your point – I take it you call all this solidarity with the Palestinians. How is this solidarity different from what hardcore-right-or-wrong-my-Israel Likudniks practice, i.e. trying to silence critics of what they call the right cause?
They are similar, more than similar is my point.
We must be different than loyal soldiers (especially as we are in fact civilians), loyal to whatever cause, ignoring morality, conscience, the humanity of the other.
Says the man who exonerated the Israeli military for the deaths of thousands.
You are a loyal soldier, loyal to Zionism. Your beef with Phil is that he is not.
Words like “freedom”, “moral”, “justice”, “evil” are unhelpful. They just come down to one person’s opinion. The imperialists are not evil because they loot and pillage. They don’t have much choice: Imperialism(I/P’s true context) only works that way.
Two important points that I previously neglected to include. First, the Palestinians need the support of the rest of the world and have quite rightfully asked for it. But those who give that support are not duty-bound to support any and every action that Palestinians take on their own. They cannot say “Support BDS, and support us, or at least shut up, when we kill people.” So it would be hypocritical for Palestinians to demand that they not be criticized by those who generally support their struggle for liberation. And in fact, they’re not guilty of that hypocrisy. No Palestinian to my knowledge has objected to my voicing my opinion. It’s Max Ajl, an American Jew like myself, who is asking me to be quiet in solidarity with the Palestinians. Even Seham, who obviously differs from me on this issue, doesn’t ask me to shut up, but merely proclaims that she has a very different opinion than I do.
Which brings me to the other important point. Max concedes that Palestinians have the right to condemn this killing. Well, what about Ahmed Moor and Ali Abunimah? Ironically, I only got involved with this issue due to an accident of timing. I wrote and submitted an original post criticizing the killings, then saw Moor’s and Abunimah’s statements already posted. Our ideas may not be identical, but if I had seen theirs first, I would not have bothered with mine. Then Seham voiced a different opinion, I published a comment to her post, and her comment reply to me was deemed important enough by Phil to transform into a post of its own, to which I responded with another post. The point of this complicated mess is twofold: (1) why should I refrain from voicing my opinion because of some deficiency in ancestry; and (2) what would Max have to say to the comments of Ahmed and Ali, who are more genetically qualified to speak? Or would Max, the Jewish American, ask Ahmed and Ali to hold their tongue as well because they live here and not there?
David,
You would do well to quote what Abunimah actually said. This is not the first time you’ve dishonestly characterized what people have said to disingenuously privilege your standpoint. Ali’s response was somewhat more carefully modulated than you suggest:
As for Ahmed, the case is more complicated. You think in these neat binaries. Condemn/not condemn. Hold tongue/don’t. Permitted to speak/not permitted. Enjoined to silence/not so enjoined. Life is a spectrum, David.
You write, “But those who give that support are not duty-bound to support any and every action that Palestinians take on their own. They cannot say “Support BDS, and support us, or at least shut up, when we kill people.”
But I explicitly wrote that the issue is not supporting the Hamas violence. It’s withholding the voicing of judgment, an altogether different thing. So why would you say “support”? Simple. To poison the debate.
Do you feel that to restrain from condemning the Israeli assault on Gaza is similar or different?
I know you feel it is different because of the disproportionate relationship.
The dilemma though is stated by David as the question “where do you reach your point of “I’ve got to comment, I cannot sanction this”" even by deference.
If Palestinian solidarity demands mass support, and not just vanguard revolutionary support, it is our business to ask, even me, even hated liberal Zionist.
…but only Palestinians deserve to be put under that microscope. Boycotting business that help build the illegal colonies and aid and abet the poverty and in many cases, forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland? That’s supposedly “fascism.”
“But I explicitly wrote that the issue is not supporting the Hamas violence. It’s withholding the voicing of judgment, an altogether different thing. So why would you say “support”?”
What David said and you quoted was this–
“Support BDS, and support us, or at least shut up, when we kill people.” So it would be hypocritical for Palestinians to demand that they not be criticized by those who generally support their struggle for liberation. And in fact, they’re not guilty of that hypocrisy. No Palestinian to my knowledge has objected to my voicing my opinion. It’s Max Ajl, an American Jew like myself, who is asking me to be quiet in solidarity with the Palestinians.”
So he said “support or at least shut up and later he said he was being asked to “be quiet in solidarity with the Palestinians”. No well poisoning.
For myself, I agree with David and Shmuel and Walid and others. They’ve said what I was mulling over more clearly than I could have managed. Like Shmuel, I reject the notion that one has to be morally pure before condemning an act of murder. I think it’s better to say that I’m guilty of complicity in Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, while still condemning the shooting of presumably unarmed people, especially pregnant women, rather than try to parse when it is or is not appropriate to criticize a vicious act. Like Walid (or maybe it was someone else) I think the Palestinians and their supporters have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being morally consistent and critical of murder no matter who commits it. All the rational people here know which side is by far the worst when it comes to violence and oppression and telling the full truth can only persuade fairminded people that the Palestinians are the ones with the just cause here. If we start second guessing when to condemn assassinations, it detracts from the message.
One can perfectly well say that the shooting was wrong, and also condemn all of us comfortable Americans who don’t do enough about the situation (let alone those comfortable Americans who rationalize Israeli brutality on a far greater scale).
Max, your accusation of dishonesty is absurd. Abunimah condemned the killing. Sure, he put it into context, but he condemned it. I don’t have the slightest difference with anything he did say. In fact, I explicitly stated, in one of my posts, that “I do have much less tolerance for those who would agree with me in this instance of Palestinians killing Israelis, but ignore, excuse or even praise Israel’s violence which has been so much more costly and destructive.” Moor was quite explicit, in two different posts, in his condemnation, a position you breezily dismiss as “more complicated.” So you’re perversely correct when you say “This is not the first time you’ve dishonestly characterized what people have said.” It’s not the first time, the second time, or any time. There was no dishonesty involved. As for those previous times????
You seem to be avoiding the critical questions of why I should not be permitted to voice the same sentiments as Abunimah and Moor; what you have to respond to the substantive arguments they made, assuming you want to ignore mine; and why you have standing to tell me to be quiet on behalf of Palestinians.
As for poisoning the debate, I said, “support us, or at least shut up.” I included the keep quiet argument you made, and I was referring to hypothetical statements by Palestinians, not confining myself to yours.
Please David. What Ali said is very different from the sort of condemnation you think is necessary. If you can’t see the difference, I can’t help you. If you can’t see your hypocrisy and the moral emptiness of your criticism, I can’t help you with that, either. That’s a door you have to walk through, and I suspect you won’t and don’t expect you to. That you don’t understand that you are a privileged white Jewish American is also something I can’t help you to understand. You have to understand that all by yourself, although Fanon and Chomsky might help.
As for previous mis-characterizations, you entered the gutter on one of the Taylor threads. (Will you need a grammar for “entered the gutter,” or will dictionary.com suffice?).
As for poisoning the debate–now you tell us that you were referring to “hypothetical statements by Palestinians.” Thank you for that clarification.
And as for asking me to repeat what I explained in my initial posting, no thanks, no time. It seemed to come through loud and clear to others commenting here.
David,
Don’t you think a lot of Palestinians are forced to condemn these actions, even if they don’t necessarily want to? I shouldn’t speak for Abunimeh, but I can’t help but wonder how many people that condemned the attacks on the settlers just condemned it because they felt they had to. I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not sitting around lamenting the killing of settlers. And let’s face it, they aren’t innocent civilians, at least not the ones in Hebron. Let’s not forget that in Hebron 400 armed settlers completely control the movement of over 150K Palestinians, they don’t do that with daisy chains, they do it with machine guns and with the assistance of the Israeli military.
Seham, it is difficult to speculate on whether Palestinian condemnation of the killings is genuine or forced. With respect to Ali A and Ahmed M, I’m quite sure their sentiments are genuine, based on their prior history.
One of the few things Max said that I agree with is that we are talking about a broad spectrum of reaction to these killings, ranging from full support to unequivocal condemnation. I have no doubt that many and probably most Palestinians aren’t mourning the loss of these four individuals. Yet some of them may still feel it was a very unwise thing to do. I am aware of the hostility most people have for the Hebron settlers. In fact, I have heard from ex-IDF soldiers (and not Breaking the Silence either) that these people are the worst of the worst. I don’t know if the victims were from Hebron itself or the surrounding community, and whether they were the type of people whom I would find repulsive.
My guess is that with all the mourning Palestinians have done in their own community, and with all the unlivable conditions forced upon them by Israelis, it is only an extraordinarily charitable Palestinian heart that can muster sympathy for the victims. That doesn’t bother me at all. I condemn the act of murder as both unwise and immoral, regardless of the character of the victims.
“It is difficult to speculate on whether Palestinian condemnation of the killings is genuine or forced”.
David,
The lady Seham who’s right there under occupation, just told you this: “I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not sitting around lamenting the killing of settlers”.
There’s no need to “speculate”. It’s clear: the majority of Palestinians aren’t sorry about it. And some of the ones that are saying they’re sorry don’t really mean it.
Do the maths.
Of course, it’s a ritual condemnation, a public performance for the cameras. Although I notice Israelis and their supporters don’t seem under the same obligation to apologize or condemn atrocities committed by Israel. More exceptionalism.
Taxi, dear, I live in the U.S.
Taxi, there isn’t any contradiction between what I wrote and what Seham did. I said it’s hard to know whether Palestinian condemnation of the murders was genuine or forced, but I’m sure neither Abunimah or Moor were epressing their true feelings – they always have in the past.
Seham said there is very little sympathy for the victims in Palestine. There is a difference between condemning the murders as indefensible actions, and having sympathy for civilians. Sure, some may have felt compelled to condemn, some not. Was the ratio 10-90, 50-50, 90-10? I don’t know, do you? That’s all I said. It’s difficult to speculate. And whom are we talking about, in addition to Abunimah and Moor? Can you identify anyone who many have felt compelled to condemn against his/her better judgment? I’m not saying I’m beyond criticism, but what exactly are you criticizing in what I said?
On the one hand, since the settlers are home invaders, don’t the indigenous have a right to defend their home(land)? On the other hand, isn’t the moral power of nonviolence, such that, violence invariably will be counterproductive when it comes to public opinion, something that a Hamas leader acknowledged with his statement to the effect that the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara had accomplished more for the Palestinian cause than armed struggle? If indeed that’s so, with the entire world paying attention, why would a Palestinian leader choose violence over nonviolence? Especially at this moment, when a mass nonviolent uprising could bring about a Palestinian rendition of what was depicted in the “The Battle of Algiers”, where a seemingly defeated people rose up and retook their land.
Interesting discussion, I don’t have much to add except for :
1 . There seems to be some confusion between the question of whether one has the right to condemn the murders of the settlers – seeing as how we are partly responsible for the situation that englobes the Israelis and the Palestinians, it would entail some sort of hypocrisy -, and the utility of doing so. I personally don’t see the utility in doing so, since it was obviously a murder – either calculated, or carried out in despair and rage – , and what could be less controversial than denouncing a murder, especially that of a pregnant woman? It seems pointless to me, since denouncing it does not really get us anywhere, and doesn’t help analyze the situation in order to understand the context that could push people to do this kind of thing.
2 . I seems to me (maybe I’m simplifying) that when a population is subjected to constant humiliation, aggression and violence, it has two solutions – Either use its resources and power and influence to bring about a change in the situation, or “grin and bear it”. Now, if it has really no power, or influence, or means at its disposal to bring about this change, the pressure will gradually build up and will come out occasionally in the form of violence. The fact that it is tragic and morally wrong has no bearing on the fact that it will happen, and does not explain WHY it happens, these are two entirely separate issues. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
Meanwhile, 2 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza tunnels from air strikes, surely there will be no uproar about that – Palestinians are all “combattants” in the “war on terror”, no?
Which brings me to my third point :
3 . I’d love to see a discussion by David or someone else on the different definitions of “combatant”, “civilian”, “soldier”, etc., and what constitutes a legitimate target – and how different states and armies use these definitions (or misuse them) to their advantage.
From Cheryl above :
Bottom line, what do we gain morally, or otherwise, by condemning these murders? Nothing, I think.
I wonder what Palestinians in the territories who are actively involved in resistance would say about this (we should ask them), but I don’t buy into Ajl’s argument that Samel automatically has no right to express an opinion about this topic based solely on who he is. That is the precise definition of an ad hominem argument, and it’s a logical fallacy.
Now I do think there’s an important point to be made about those in the West having rights and responsibilities regarding the Palestinian freedom movement, related to their positions of power. Example: the foremost responsibility of Nicholas Kristof, as a U.S. journalist, is to report on the systemic oppression of the Palestinian people. He’s not doing that (in anywhere near the depth he should be) and this elision makes his criticism of the Palestinian struggle for its lack of consistent commitment to nonviolence part of the overall U.S. media propaganda problem.
But offering specific criticism of an actor’s commissions and omissions is quite different from the blanket approach Ajl seems to take, which is to say that no one (other than Palestinians) ever has the right to say one potentially critical word about Palestinian violent resistance.
Mondoweiss claims to be a “war of ideas.” The blog is doing (what I see) as its primary job, to expose the suffering of the Palestinian people, and U.S. complicity in that suffering. A little back and forth on this topic isn’t going to harm anyone, and perhaps it will help. We on Mondoweiss are part of a conversation about how to achieve Palestinian freedom. Samel’s caveat about his critique was fair and appropriate.
I find it interesting that Ajl’s approach here shares in common the pro-Israel lobby’s ad hominem hyperventilation. The Israel lobby says, “If you criticize Israel, automatically you are a self-hating Jew or an anti-Semite.” Ajl say, basically, “If you criticize Palestinian violence (and you’re not a Palestinian), automatically you are a privileged overstepping Western elite jerk.”
Aj’s right in that we who are not Palestinians can never truly appreciate the depths of the suffering of the people of Palestine, inflicted by an empire we are in some way part of and from which we benefit. But that doesn’t automatically mean (there’s the ad hominem) our ideas/analysis about various forms of resistance are wrong or unhelpful.
P.S. – As I’ve suggested before, if we’re going to get into debate about various forms of Palestinian resistance – and who has the “right” or “standing” to discuss/opine about them – perhaps we should invite more Palestinians into the conversation, including those who are actively organizing resistance in Palestine? Last I checked, Ajl’s not a Palestinian (and neither is Samel, and neither am I, etc.).
P.P.S. – Sorry if this comment is redundant, I agree with wonderingjew’s comment #12.
What the supporters of these “non-violent” variations want seems to be what they see as the perfect resistance (in their own private world) – patently, it does not exist. There has NEVER been a non-violent liberation, ever, in the history of the world – you would have to vacate the planet. What is worse, it reflects no reality at all, in fact, it is rather bizarre. You pontificate about morality in a vacuum.
One might argue – “but what about condemning this violence?” But you cannot remove the condemnation from the faulty foundation, it just keeps routing back to the same hypothetical world. It is mind-boggling, not because it is so complicated, but because it is so spurious. What it reflects is a person (or people) who have lived in fantasy all of their life, and others agree with them, because they live in the same unreal world.
Here, read something that makes sense, it may help –
“Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.”
GAZA: THE LOGIC OF COLONIAL POWER
That (above quote) is the cage you’re mind subsists in, set yourself free.
What I mean by the “cage,” is your prefabricated ideas of justice and morality (created for you), as served to you in the belly of the beast.