Omar Barghouthi
Noura Erakat
Noura Erakat and Omar Barghouthi spoke on "legality and morality" at Israeli Apartheid Week last night at NYU.
They are an excellent one-two combination. Both are young and very well-spoken, both smiling, insistent and unflappable. Their poise alone makes you cringe--how can people this rational and composed have emerged from the horrific mess we have wrought?
Her presentation on the legal differences between Palestinian and Jewish 'citizenship' is totally devastating (she has a job at Georgetown but wants to be teaching at a law school--will any hire her?).
He's urbane and witty, with a slick, designy powerpoint--I think good for reaching young people. They really seemed effective and appealing to me, capable of changing minds. Who else young and Palestinian, or Palestinian-American, is out there doing a better job?
Sarah Schulman, at the recent PennBDS meeting, said that in order to popularize the BDS movement in the States, Omar Barghouti should be highly promoted on a nation-wide “rock star” type of tour. Looks like he should be teamed up with Noura Erakat on that tour!
i recall that breakout and erakat being referenced as a rockstar (by me!) and heading a bds office/headquarters in nyc (schulman suggested the office). she’s an extremely impressive presenter. i attended her breakout also. the first time i heard her speak i wrote about it here:
link to mondoweiss.net
I think Barghouti and Erakat are the Oliver Tambo of this movement.
“Barghouthi and Erakat can reach young Americans”
Get ‘em on YouTube, get ‘em on Facebook, get ‘em on Twitter, if you want to have a chance…
Who does Israel have to counter them?
Danny Danon.
link to aljazeera.com
He is very wooden.
What young Jew can make persecution sexy ?
maybe Natalie Portman?
agreed Joseph. She’s already worked for the Dersh.
Didn’t Portman understand what V For Vendetta was about? Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Natalie Portman
Why do young americans have to be reached? Why can’t they find?
What happens to all the kids who go to university ? Don’t they learn anything about how the world works ?
Barghouthi, the tone deaf.
Almost 48 hours after hearing Barghouthi speak at the kimmel center Monday night, the most “offensive” slide (from his slideshow for freedom) came to mind. A cartoon of the crucified Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier out of Bethlehem (?) The fact that I had blocked the image out of my mind I take as significant. When recounting the performance to a friend and to myself the most offensive slide that came to mind was of Bush Jr. and his closest advisers with a photoshop of skulls decorating the frame.
But 42 hours later at home listening to music led to dancing led to outstretched Jesus nailed hands and Barghouthi’s slide came back.
To a Jew who winces at “Christkiller” any unessential use of Jesus to comment on the I/P conflict is stepping on my toes. I realize that I sound censorious and unreasonable and I will discuss this aspect with my therapist next Monday. But leaving me aside- How tone deaf is Barghouthi? How is a Jew supposed to react to this image? Isn’t he inviting the antiZionism = antisemitism equation? He certainly is not shying away from it.
So before I compose myself and possibly compose a fuller response to the gestalt of the issue and of Barghouthi’s presentation, I’d like to send a shout-out to Mr. Barghouthi. In the shape of one raised finger. Even the deaf know sign language and certainly the tone deaf Barghouthi understands this sign as well.
WJ, the part about the crucified Jesus is definitely offensive and unessential; did the rest of the presentation make sense to you?
How does it look to Palestinian Christians who had nothing to do with European antisemitism or the pogroms or the Shoah ? 80% of them have been driven out of their own country by Zionism. Is the Jewish view the only one permitted ?
Ithink the whole thing just shows how stupid it was to build the Zionist project in Palestine. The Iraqis warned the US about this all through the 1940s.
seafoid- It is an interesting question what cognizance of the history of Christian antiSemitism should be “required/requested/expected” from non European Christians. But even if one answers that question in the negative- that nonEuropean Christians need have zero cognizance of the effects of Christian antiSemitism in Europe, you must realize that Jew hatred in Christianity did not begin in Europe. It began in the new testament and with the Church fathers.
In any case the usage of religious imagery when attempting to achieve an act of unity wherein all the religions join as one and pretend that we all get along, is antithetical to the herein stated cause. So even if one were to say that Palestinian Christians should not be cognizant of the history of their religious civilization that includes recent “problems” in Europe, the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery when other images would suffice.
The “complications” of Zionism notwithstanding, the Zionist project was necessitated by a coming storm. The location in Zion rather than elsewhere was necessitated by the nature of Jewish history, which would have made a mockery out of any other piece of land other than Zion.
As far as Iraqis and the 1940′s in one sentence. I have no reason to doubt that they warned the US about this, if you say so. But note, my first reaction to seeing the words Iraqis and 1940′s in one sentence is to recall the most notable anti Jewish riots in the Arab world prior to November 1947, the anti Jewish riots in Baghdad in 1941.
European Jew hatred wasn’t anything to do with the Arabs. The Arabs warned the state department in the 1940s that Zionism was a disaster and they were right .
link to images.library.wisc.edu
The anti Zionist riots in Iraq started when it was clear what the Zionist Jews were going to do to the Palestinians. (Baghdad’s Jews were amongst the first Jewish victims of the Zionists. They won’t be the last.)
And what they actually did was far worse that anyone ever imagined. Who could have visualised Gaza in 2009 as the fate of the fellahin of Southern Palestine ?
Even if the Jews needed a state they could have paid for it.
“the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery when other images would suffice.”
When Israeli Jewish kids no longer paint Stars of David onto missiles you might have a point.
“the Zionist project was necessitated by a coming storm”
And what do you have to say to the people of Iran? Do they deserve what Israel has planned for them ?
Zionism is a Jewish tragedy.
“So even if one were to say that Palestinian Christians should not be cognizant of the history of their religious civilization that includes recent “problems” in Europe, the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery when other images would suffice.”
I’m curious on your stance regarding the use of Jewish religious imagery. Would you call on Israel to strip Jewish symbols from its national stable of symbols? It seems to me that as a Jew, you should be opposed to that state co-opting your religious symbols.
I, for one, have little exposure to, for example, the Star of David, other than in connection with Israeli flags or their military equipment. Consequently, I see the Star of David as being little different than any other national symbol, like the hammer and sickle or the Canadian Maple Leaf. And, I confess, it strikes me as a less than benign symbol, as I contemplate the things that state has done.
I know that those for whom it is a religious symbol are not responsible or answerable for Israel, of course, but are you concerned that the image could be tarnished by Israel’s actions?
seafoid- I was referring to the Farhud- the anti Jewish riots in Baghdad at the beginning of June of 1941. If you are serious in asserting that the killing in those riots were in anticipation of Zionism, then you are clearly someone who I do not wish to communicate with in the future.
Mr. Barghouthi favors a one man one vote future in I/P, which is not going to happen soon, but if and ever it does happen will require an attitude of unity. The Israeli war machine is not an attempt to achieve unity nor does it require an attitude of unity. To compare Israeli warmaking with Mr. Barghouthi’s method of peacemaking is only appropriate if indeed Mr. Barghouthi is intent upon war making as well. He claims to be an advocate of equality and not an advocate of war. For an advocate of war the usage of offensive symbols is natural, for an advocate of peace the usage of offensive symbols is strange.
“The “complications” of Zionism notwithstanding, the Zionist project was necessitated by a coming storm.” (WJ)
How much of the coming storm was provoked by Zionism is open to discussion. The Zionist project for Palestine was on the drawing board decades before the Third Reich was even conceived. It began with Theodor Herzl in 1895 that wrote in his diary, “we shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed – the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”, followed by Nachman Syrkin in 1898 in his book. Israel Zangwill got into it in it in his 1904 but became much more open about it 25 years later. In 1910, Arthur Ruppin and Leo Motzkin campaigned actively for transfer with the American Edward Norman openly joining the collective effort to transfer the Palestinians in 1933. Rothschild had gotten on board about transfers in 1929.
In 1934, Ben-Gurion picked up the torch and began talk about transferring Bedouins of the Galilee to Syria and to Jordan. In 1937 he wrote, “Is the proposal a voluntary one or a compulsory one? It is difficult for me to believe in a compulsory transfer, and it is difficult for me to believe in a transfer by agreement.” He noted in his diary that the proposal to transfer the Arabs out of the proposed Jewish State would give a bargaining counter. “If the Arabs agree to give us the Dead Sea and the Negev – it may be worth our while to forgo their compulsory transfer from the plains, as proposed by the Commission.” In November 1937, the Jewish Agency set up a Committee for Transfer of Arabs and during the course of the following seven months this Committee regularly met, and assembled information and statistical data, in order to work out a programme for the compulsory transfer of Arabs from Palestine.
In 1938, Ben-Gurion shifted his attention to transferring Palestinians to Iraq.
By the end of 1938, Chaim Weizmann got into the act. He put forward the suggestion for the transfer of Arabs from Palestine to Iraq. In November 1938, just a few days after Kristallnacht, Weizmann believed that the Jews would be prepared to raise between twenty to thirty million pounds for such a scheme and it could be used to either enable Iraq to settle 300,000 Jews or to transfer 100,000 Arabs from Palestine “whose land would then pass to Jewish immigrants.”
By that time, the British started backing away from talk of transfer but were replaced by the Americans that promoted the planned transfers in US newspapers and even the Saudis are started wondering if this wouldn’t be a good thing to transfer out the Palestinians. The Iraqis had just finished a major irrigation project and were badly in need of people and cash and were considering the Zionist proposal and by the time the partition was announced, the Palestinians were ripe for transfer from all the talk and public advertisement about their impending transfer.
All this to say that the “coming storm” you mentioned about the complications of Zionism had nothing to do with the planned transfer of Palestinians and the Americans and Iraqis you discussed were in on those plans.
WJ
What is your take on the Farhud? Does it chime with the Zionist view that it was a watershed that fits within the framework of the Shoah ?
The British put down the Palestinian revolt 1936-39 2 years before the Farhud. Are you aware of this ?
“To compare Israeli warmaking with Mr. Barghouthi’s method of peacemaking is only appropriate if indeed Mr. Barghouthi is intent upon war making as well. He claims to be an advocate of equality and not an advocate of war.”
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill .
With what would Barghouti fight a war? Has he ever counselled war?
Walid- I have two different goals for I/P, a short range goal and a long range goal. The short range goal is to end the occupation of the west bank. The long range goal is a real peace between Arabs, Palestinians and Jews and Israeli Jews.
I do not have a strategy to accomplish the short range goal, let alone the long range goal. Since the occupation is oppressing humans on the west bank and they have expressed their strategy or tactic as the means to end their oppression and I do not possess an alternative strategy, tactic or move, I cannot argue against the gist of the statement: “We the oppressed seek to end our oppression by BDS.” My gut opposes the move against Israel and I have to say that my gut reacts when I see signs, “Boycott Israel”. It moves me to anger and opposition. But I cannot argue against the West Bank residents and their statement distilled to the above.
The presentation by Ms. Erekat was flawless. It was marred by a computer glitch and her time constraint, but she came across as attractive, reasonable and courageous.
Mister Barghouthi came across as arrogant. Uninterested in hearing other alternatives. I am right. I have won the argument. The other side is evil and stupid. I am good and smart.
Citing Walt and Mearsheimer that the Israel lobby was crucial to the effort to go to war against Iraq, the skull festooned picture of Bush and his cronies, a quote from Tutu decrying the accusation of antiSemitism with “the Palestinians are semites as well.” All this added up to a polemic, that caused me to wish to stand up and yell, “Am Yisroel Chai!”
I resisted.
I am not his target audience, although at some point if a “one man one vote” conclusion is to be achieved, people like me might have to be cajoled rather than forced to join his effort and his attitude is not attuned to “cajole”. I believe that “one man one vote” is a long way off, beyond my predictable life span and so he is probably correct that he will have no need to cajole me, because he and I will not be on the scene at that time.
“The presentation by Ms. Erekat was flawless. It was marred by a computer glitch and her time constraint, but she came across as attractive, reasonable and courageous.”
“Mister Barghouthi came across as arrogant. Uninterested in hearing other alternatives. I am right. I have won the argument. The other side is evil and stupid. I am good and smart.”
Movements need Martins and Malcolms.
sounds like netanyahu. arrogant white men are respected in some circles.
I don’t think the African National Congress was noted for its subtlety.
WJ, the farhud massacres were provoked by the British but this is never mentioned because it dilutes the Zionist persecution narrative. There are more stories on how the over 200,000 Arab Jews of Iraq were happy, safe and living in harmony with other Iraqis than the story of the few hundred Jews that were massacred as a result of a British decision that provoked it and let it take place when they could have stopped it.
Iraqi Arab-Jew Violette Shamash’s story of the farhud told by her daughter:
link to memoriesofeden.com
“… Farhud IN 1941, suddenly, the harmony that had characterised neighbourly relations between the Jews and the Muslim majority in Iraq for decades, if not generations, evaporated when Nazi sympathisers overthrew the government. The rise of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani was backed by a sinister cleric who was Britain’s Most Wanted — the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had been wreaking havoc in Palestine with a campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets. It was a significant development no one in the community could ignore.
Britain was on the back foot in World War II. It was losing to Germany in Greece and North Africa, suffering horrendous casualties in the Blitz and both men and material in U-boat attacks on shipping in the North Atlantic. Rashid Ali seized the moment to take sides with Berlin and deny the British the oil supplies that were vital to her war effort (the navy depended on them totally in the Mediterranean). He dispatched a force to threaten the RAF desert airbase at Habbaniya, west of Baghdad, and laid seige to the British Embassy in whose grounds some 300 terrified expatriates (among them the distinguished writer, Freya Stark) took shelter for a month. An air war raged, with cadet pilots bravely flying sortie after sortie in ancient biplanes against Iraqis in modern aircraft. It would later be hailed as the Second Battle of Britain, though their bravery has gone unrecognised.
Furious, Churchill ordered an immediate invasion to effect regime change, even though it probably meant having to engage Hitler’s forces in yet another theatre of war. Luckily, however, Berlin was slow to respond to Baghdad’s calls for assistance. The RAF fought and won a brilliant battle that has been virtually forgotten by military historians, and the invading troops crossed 600 miles of desert with orders to enter and recapture Baghdad. After a historic march a forward column led by Brigadier Joe Kingstone arrived at the city gates — and halted.
revealed: the truth behind the killings
It was a stunning achievement against great odds. But three miles from their objective, their orders had unexpectedly changed. Although victory was theirs, for they had created a stranglehold on the city and the tyrant had fled, the triumph was deliberately muffled. Extraordinarily, one man, British Ambassador Sir Kinahan Cornwallis, had been granted the right of final decision over military as well as diplomatic matters — and the steps that he took meant no British soldier set foot in the city while the Jews were being killed in their hundreds over the two days of mayhem.
The troops, led by the Household Cavalry, were obliged to camp on the right bank of the Tigris, well outside the city, while the left bank erupted in violence. Cornwallis — safe in his embassy on the right bank, facing the riot zone in the Old City across the river — refused pleas by his own senior staff to call them in, and they were powerless to act. Frustrated, they remained at ease in their bivouac beneath the palm trees. The senior commander, Major-General George Clark, entered the city as the ambassador’s guest only once the rioting was over — quelled by Iraqi soldiers.
The events of 1 and 2 June had apocalyptic implications for the descendants of Abraham: nothing short of the termination of 2,600 years of Jewish settlement in the land of Babylon. Yet strangely, the shameful role played by the British has never been properly investigated or explained and has forever remained an enigma, perplexing Iraqi Jews the world over.
Now, in a final section of Memories of Eden, my husband (a former London Sunday Times journalist) exposes the truth behind the fateful events of 1941, shedding new light on the British stand and the diplomatic fiasco behind it.”
WJ, I don’t believe BDS will achieve its objective but I still support it and wish it many successes because Israel deserves to be made uncomfortable. The South Africa boycott worked because the major countries supported it but these same countries are now bucking it and have enacted or are enacting laws against it. Arabs began the boycott of Jewish goods in Palestine as far back as 1920 but with little success. The only Arab country still seriously boycotting Israel is Lebanon while all the others are almost working against the boycott.
To a Jew who winces at “Christkiller” any unessential use of Jesus to comment on the I/P conflict is stepping on my toes. I realize that I sound censorious and unreasonable and I will discuss this aspect with my therapist next Monday. But leaving me aside- How tone deaf is Barghouthi? How is a Jew supposed to react to this image? Isn’t he inviting the antiZionism = antisemitism equation? He certainly is not shying away from it.
umm. bethlehem is a christian town in the present day. it’s been documented how israel treats christians vs muslims in the occupied territory as a wedge issue yet the palestinian population there is united in solidarity. what’s the difference between what you are saying now and the complaint against israel firster ‘reminding’ some people of the historical connection to charges of dual loyalty? everyone has minds that make connections. you can’t expect everyone to defer to a jewish sensibility or ptw. have you been to bethlehem? the settlements are looming down over it and the walls are enormously offensive. how is a jew supposed to react? they are supposed to leave bethlehem alone that is how for it is sacred to christianity.
So even if one were to say that Palestinian Christians should not be cognizant of the history of their religious civilization that includes recent “problems” in Europe, the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery
the star of david is on bombs and airplanes, killing palestinians, is it not? also, be aware christianity, as far as i know, doesn’t consider itself a ‘nation of people’ or a ‘people’ in the same way jews do. Palestinian Christians had nothing to do with what christians did in europe, did they? perhaps you could try diverting some of your repulsion to what israelis are doing and have done to the christians in bethlehem in the here and now present day and address the hypocrisy of using the star of david for military symbolism while objecting to others using their religious imagery to represent themselves communicating a request for liberation. what’s the difference?
i would also like to say i do not find it helpful, the use of religious symbolism. i just do not see the difference between one group using theirs and not the other.
annie- Just a quick response to part of what you wrote.
“Palestinian Christians had nothing to do with what Christians did in Europe.”
I grant that.
The question I raise is whether Christianity had anything to do with what Christians did in Europe. If you feel that it was totally foreign to the spirit of Christianity, something imposed on the pristine pure loving New Testament, I disagree. I think there are plenty great things, wise words contained in the new testament. I feel that there are sufficient wise words in the New Testament that there is a future to Christianity in its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people if loving people wish to come to the Jewish people with regret about certain verses and a commitment to emphasize the loving part of the New Testament rather than the not so loving part of the New Testament.
But if you do not regret the hateful words of parts of the New Testament, then are you any different from those who accept the Hebrew Bible as pristine or the Talmud as pristine the Quran as pristine or the Hadiths as pristine. I am quite sure that those who accept the pristine nature of any of those books are a handicap if we wish to find peace in the future.
Do you disagree?
hi wj. no, i do not disagree. i just do not think christ on a cross is limited to your or anyone’s association with what christians did in europe. how about if i tell you the star of david is associated with the nakba therefor the way palestinian associate it should be exhalted and it shouldn’t be used in a way that may offend them? why don’t we elevate their feelings towards seeing that star above your use of it?
in fact, why don’t we let palestinians decide what is and is not offensive wrt all aspects of judaism? The question I raise is whether Judaism had anything to do with what Jews do in Palestine. If you feel that it is totally foreign to the spirit of Judaism, something imposed on the pristine pure loving Old Testament, I disagree. I think there are plenty great things, wise words contained in the old testament. I feel that there are sufficient wise words in the Old Testament that there is a future to Judaism in its relationship with muslims and the christian people if loving people wish to come to the palestinian people with regret about certain verses and a commitment to emphasize the loving part of the Old Testament rather than the not so loving part of the Old Testament.
Do you disagree?
the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery. so can you please get that star off israel’s war machines. and the flag too. i think the flag offends palestinians because they associate it with the nakba. it goes against the stated goal of unity.
furthermore using the star of david on your flag, how is a palestinian supposed to react to this image? doesn’t it invite the zionism = antisemitism equation? it certainly is not shying away from it.
annie- Years ago there was a documentary about twin Israeli boys who were brought to the occupied West Bank in an attempt to “dialogue” or find humanity in the other with a young Palestinian living there. (Google informs me the name of the documentary was “promises” made by b.z. goldberg in 2001) In that documentary the Palestinian youth visited the destroyed village of his grandmother and near the ruins was a large rock with a star of David drawn upon it and the youth kicked at the star of david with his foot in anger for the destruction that those who drew the symbol had wrought upon his grandmother and upon himself.
When I saw this it was my first realization of the “validity” of anger at the star of David.
First a comment on your general tone. It is mostly: Israel is just as bad as Barghouthi, so why do you criticize Barghouthi when Israel is more culpable of the same complaints. This is from the school of “you suck worse than we do” and I realize why you react in such a fashion, but it is not really an answer to my objections to Barghouthi. You seem to say, that if I only objected to Barghouthi for his methods, then I must also equally or moreso object to Israel for the same methods and therefore since I object to Barghouthi and not Israel I am a hypocrite.
Fair enough, but besides the point. If you wish to discuss these issues without regards to Barghouthi, I am prepared to do so, although I am too tired at present. But I am not up to digging to the core of the issue and right now I am dealing with one evening and specifically one person and his presentation at NYU for Israel Apartheid week.
I went to hear Barghouthi and I was struck by his abuse of religious symbolism which will only perpetuate the hatreds that underlie the conflict. You have said nothing to deny this, only that I have not dealt with the issue in its entirety and I feel that is an unfair criticism of me. Did Barghouthi make a decent fair non hateful presentation of the cause of the Palestinians. I believe his presentation was tainted by his use of the cartoon and other aspects as well. His purpose was not to build peace but to energize those who already support him and maybe a cartoon of Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier is useful for that purpose. My purpose was to see what kind of a presentation he makes and whether he emits a peace vibe or a war vibe and his presentation was slick, glib, superficial and offensive and he gave off a war vibe and not a peace vibe.
annie-
If Barghouthi were discussing the issue in depth then many issues- the occupation of Bethlehem, the idea of the cartoon and the Israeli attempts to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims would all be appropriate, particularly if it was a discussion with give and take with people from both sides participating. But in a one man speech, which was essentially a superficial slide show (for a good purpose, freedom, but still a superficial slide show), I think the inclusion of the cartoon was/is a rather cheap decision by Barghouti, which is not meant to encourage thought but to discourage thought.
ok wj, i did not see the presentation. excuse me for my insensitivity. as you probably noticed in my last comment i used a bulking of your own text and just switched out the religions so i am sorry if you found that offensive.
i will start over. the part i copied pasted at the beginning was this To a Jew who winces at “Christkiller” any unessential use of Jesus to comment on the I/P conflict is stepping on my toes.
that bolded part as well as the part about seeing your therapist just struck me as rather odd i suppose because, well, it is a common icon. i am not sure we can be sure it was in reference to ‘christkiller’ just because that is what it reminded you of. i guess my point is, just because it felt like it was stepping on your toes as a jew, perhaps it wasn’t. perhaps the sentiment was of a christian in bethlehem stepping on a soldiers toes.
so, you told me about how it made you feel and i have heard barghouthi speak many times. he has never struck me as particularily arrogant yet he is unapologetic. perhaps it was his intention to communicate to the audience how palestinians feel. that could have been his priority. he may not have been intending to direct your attention to christian prosecution of jews in europe.
what stuck me in your response was a certain hierarchy in terms of your feelings as a jew confronting christian palestinians of bethlehem. as a non jew i am very familiar of being directed towrds past prosecution of jews in relation to how current topics are discussed and related. this reminds me a little of kevin bacon. sometimes it seems almost anything can have a thread to some persecution of jews throughout history.
but we cannot control what associations one mind will make at the moment. i definitely hear your “gut opposes the move against Israel and I have to say that my gut reacts when I see signs, “Boycott Israel”. It moves me to anger and opposition.” i get it, i really do. i am just trying to inform you in as polite as way as possible you are going to have adapt because bds is here to stay, and unless they kill him off or jail him barghouthi will be here to stay too.
now it is perfectly natural for him to give you an uncomfortable feeling. i get an uncomfortable feeling when i see the image of netanyahu. in fact , sometimes my gut reacts. frankly, i don’t think it’s helpful for peace the israelis have chosen this man to represent them. i think it would be helpful if israel chose a more gentle leader. someone more humble and gracious. (this is not meant as a ‘you suck more’ statement, it is a ‘we have a commononality’ statement)
now we know how revolting many people find hamas leaders, like meshaal (although i do not find him revolting in the least). i think it is natural for you to find barghouthi arrogant, he simply is not a very pliant kinda guy.
First a comment on your general tone. It is mostly: Israel is just as bad as Barghouthi, so why do you criticize Barghouthi when Israel is more culpable of the same complaints. This is from the school of “you suck worse than we do” and I realize why you react in such a fashion, but it is not really an answer to my objections to Barghouthi.
well, he is not really there to impress you. but here’s the thing wj, in my initial response to you at 4:25 pm i did not even mention barghouthi. i specifically addressed the use of religious icons. and i do not recall at anytime prior to this comment ever addressing so why do you criticize Barghouthi because i think i understand perfectly why he might give you the creeps. and in my 7:13 comment i didn’t even mention barghouthi. this is my way of not rubbing salt on an open wound.
so do you want to make this about the graphic, the use of the graphic or the man who showed you the graphic? i assume he didn’t draw the cartoon himself. perhaps he used it as a way of sharing the palestinian experience.
barghouti’s job is to expand the boycott movement. this is non violent resistance. resistance isn’t supposed to feel good for team israel. that’s really not the point. just because israelis keep saying they will agree to a palestinian state when they feel safe and trust palestinians doesn’t mean palestinians are touring around trying to make you like them. bds isn’t supposed to feel good, it’s supposed to sting. it’s an application of pressure. that’s the whole point. but do i think he was using the religious icon to direct you to christian persecution of jews in europe or “Christkiller”? no, not likely. that is just my hunch. and i really do not think barghouthi hates jews, at all. i don’t get the sense he is out there spreading hatred.
WJ
I think you need to take up the New Testament with Rome. I agree that certain parts of it are anti Jewish. They should really be dumped. The current Pope is not interested in ecumenism with Protestants not to mention Jews.
Jews as per anyone else should be respected based on their behaviour and not on whatever racist crap is written in some holy book from the Iron age or slightly later.
The recent price tag attacks on Christian property in Jerusalem are quite disturbing.
“any unessential use of Jesus to comment on the I/P conflict is stepping on my toes. I realize that I sound censorious and unreasonable ”
” A cartoon of the crucified Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier out of Bethlehem (?)”
Sometimes I read comment threads backwards, from the bottom up (I click on a link to the latest comment and go up from there). Sometime I even read a comment this way.
I did it to yours and initially I thought you were being a little unreasonable, but having seen the specific objection–Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier out of Bethlehem–I think you’re right. I’m a Christian and that made me wince.
It’s rather like that Jewish professor who specializes in Christian studies (or whatever) at Vanderbilt University. Her name came up a few weeks ago (I’ve forgotten it.) She gave a lecture on how liberal Christians should talk about the I/P conflict. I vehemently disagreed with part of it, because part of her talk is simply boilerplate not-terribly-liberal Zionism telling people not to criticize Israel too harshly. But when she was talking about the use of the Bible, she was dead-on. The last thing a Christian should do in speaking about current day problems is bring the crucifixion of Jesus into it. (She also pointed to other problematic uses of the Bible.) Save that sort of thing for the interfaith dialogue circuit.
Of course, that said, it’s different when a Palestinian does this as opposed to some American Christian. I think he should have avoided using it, but it’s not the ugly sort of thing it would be if I did it. At the same time, Israelis shouldn’t get to use the long history of anti-semitism to criticize Palestinians.
donald, i didn’t see the image itself but isn’t it normal for christ to be seen on the cross? isn’t that normal in christianity? it’s in all the churches. is it primarily a statement about jews, or about christ?
I’m assuming it’s what WJ said–an image of a crucified Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier out of Bethlehem. I guess I would be diffident in telling a Palestinian how to criticize the IDF which makes their lives a misery, but I can safely say it’s not an image I’d want to use or (mixing metaphors a bit) touch with a ten foot pole. There’s a long history of Christians using the “Christkiller” epithet against Jews and so showing the image of Jesus, especially a crucified Jesus, being violent towards an Israeli just has bad vibes.
Annie, Muslims don’t believe that Christ was crucified. The Quran says the Christ was taken up to heaven without having been killed or crucified. Barghoutti goofed on that one and there’s no excuse for it. We’re always complaining how Jews keep milking the holocaust and here we have a Muslim using a Christian issue he is not supposed to believe in.
BTW, I’m basing this on WJ’s statement on what shown; I didn’t see any of it either.
I would add Anna Baltzer to the list – simply an awesome presenter and public speaker on the conflict.
Witness in Palestine, Part 1 – A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories
link to youtube.com