News

Ali Abunimah KO’s Jonathan Tobin in ‘Democracy Now’ debate

This morning, there was a segment on Democracy Now about the recent recommendation of an Israeli government commission that Israel’s West Bank settlements be deemed legal, deemed an “authoritative document” by Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau. DN hosted a debate between Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine and Ali Abunimah. The flaws in the report have been fully discussed on Mondoweiss: It flies in the face of the virtually unanimous consensus on international law; it rewards Israel for continuing the Occupation for so long that it no longer is deemed an “occupation”; and it so obviously leads to the conclusion that Israel is one apartheid state that it has drawn the condemnation of dedicated Zionists like Shimon Peres and Jeffrey Goldberg. While the DN hosts asked pointed questions about the committee’s recommendation, the most interesting aspects of the debate arose when Tobin preferred to talk about broader issues and Ali met him head on.

Essentially, Tobin agreed with the report, but said it was immaterial, because the real issue was Palestinian intransigence. Tobin resorted to the well-worn distortions of hasbara, such as Palestinians wish to focus on the illegality of settlements so that “Jews can be thrown out willy-nilly”; “Palestinians have to start dealing with the reality that Jews aren’t going away”; “Palestinians don’t wish to share”; peace is not possible “if [Palestinians] focus on fantasies about throwing the Jews out.” He repeatedly tried to conflate “Jewish life” with the “Jewish State,” using the terms as synonyms, insisting that one cannot have one without the other: “Palesitnians won’t recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish State, the legitimacy of Jewish life, anywhere in that country.”

Ali would have none of it. He answered that “this isn’t a question of Jews.” It is about the “assertion that Jews have the right to superior rights than the indigenous Palestinian people.” The debate became most heated when Tobin falsely claimed: “what we heard from [Ali] is the Palestinian fantasy that some day Israel is going to be destroyed. . . they are talking about the destruction of Israel.” Again, Ali pointed out the deception, arguing that advocating for “equality” is not equivalent to urging “destruction.” This being DN, Amy Goodman pressed Tobin to identify where Abunimah had talked about destruction, and Tobin of course had no coherent answer. At one point, he even said to Ali: “don’t try to lie your way out of it.” One more highlight of the debate was when a question was posed about Shimon Peres’s criticism of the commission recommendation on the ground that it would lead to an untenable demographic situation. This is the classic “liberal Zionist” response. Let’s not appear to be too greedy because it could come back to haunt us. Again, Ali would have none of it, refusing to see any reasonable conciliatory position in Peres’s statement. Instead, he asked how Palestinians could ever recognize an entity that views their “mere reproduction” as a “mortal threat.” Ali’s intense focus on the call for equal rights regardless of ethno-religious-national status, and his confrontational challenge to Tobin’s dishonest mischaracterizations of “equal rights” as advocacy for destruction easily carried the day. Well worth watching.

41 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Disgusting level of deception and dissimulation by Tobin. He knows what he says is mostly false and outright lies but is simply hoping to appeal to the largely ignorant masses (ie U.S. public) who would not know better. The nerve to refer to the defunct League of Nations, which certainly did not allocate the entirety of Palestine to the Jews to build settlements anywhere they pleased. The United Nations which is the current authoritative body had passed many resolutions re-affirming the illegality of the settlements in line with international law. A couple ones here where even the U.S. is signatory:

UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted unanimously at 2203rd meeting]

Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 [Adopted unanimously at 1485th meeting]

Reaffirming the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council; censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem; and urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect. Determines that in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council shall reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken in this matter.

It’s pretty clear, isn’t it! Whether it’s a one-state or two-state solution, we can’t leave it to the Israelis to administer. What will it take? The UN? NATO? The US? Private NGOs? The US Army of Liberation?
No matter what the solution is, who is going to see it doesn’t become “final” in some way?
Who has the resources and the will to do it? (Oh, administering agencies personnel, you might be there for a while, so your best bet is to install your family at some kind of hotel…)

Those in power, who daily oppress and try to expel as many Palestinians as they can, appeal to the world’s sympathy by claiming that those who who have no power want to throw them out. It confirms that Israel doesn’t exist in the real world.

The flag of Israel and the uniforms worn by the IDF should all have a flame icon to stand for the holocaust, because a major idea in the state and its supporters since WWII has been that it is impossible for Jews to be oppressors by virtue of the fact that they were so terribly oppressed. No other oppression can compare, no other oppression deserves the name. Jews have a unique right conferred by way of a colossal wrong.

But it’s pure delusion, as is all nationalism. When those who hold the delusion voice appeals based on it, the absurdity comes through loud and clear. Why did so many Slavs have to die a few decades ago? Because Germany needed living room, wasn’t it obvious? To the Germans it was.

“Palestinians don’t wish to share”

I’ve always found that position singularly infuriating. How can a group that refuses to content itself with 78% of the land seriously talk about how others are unwilling to ‘share’?

Dude needs to give me his bank account info. I’ll drain four-fifths of it — and when he squeaks about me taking the last fifth, accuse him of not being willing to ‘share.’

Abunimah calls for equality for all, and Tobin insists that means destruction of the Jewish State.
Equality = Destruction. Where else (or when else) in the world might that apply?