This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.
It’s too late to express horror or cry hypocrisy about the Kerry apartheid retraction. By now it’s just too obvious. Like the Los Angeles Clipper owner, Donald Sterling, once the racist or apartheid cat is out of the bag, there’s no way to pretend it didn’t happen.
Descriptive words about race and apartheid don’t just slip out. You don’t have to be a Freudian to realize that apartheid has been floating around Kerry’s consciousness for some time.
In the meantime, some political leaders in Israel are calling for unilateral measures against the Palestinians. This includes the possibility of annexing large parts of the West Bank.
More rhetorical gestures? Whether they implement what they say or not, you have to give credit where credit is due. For the most part, Israel’s political leaders don’t backtrack. They rarely retract even their most outrageous statements. When they do, they tact on another insult for good measure.
Rhetorically, the United States struck a rich vein with Kerry’s apartheid statement. Retracting it cancels that support. The more important issue is whether Kerry’s rhetorical stance, even with the retraction, yields political fruit.
Unilateral moves by Israel would trump this entire apartheid debate. Would anything be done if Israel annexes significant parts of the West Bank? Remember the response to the annexation of Jerusalem and the building of the Wall? If history tells us anything, the response will be – more rhetorical jousting.
So with the latest peace process in shambles what should we make of political words that break political boundaries with the attendant retractions that reinforce them?
Framed in American political space, Kerry broke a barrier.
Framed in American Jewish space, Kerry broke a barrier.
But these political spaces are too limited – even with the acknowledgement that a barrier was broken. What other political space is there? J Street?
That issue is being joined this week with a vote on whether or not to admit J Street to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Those against argue that J Street supports “Israel’s enemies.” Those for argue that J Street means including Jewish voices who “love Israel.”
Is “love Israel” the (rhetorical) response to “apartheid” Israel?
American Jews matter less and less to Israel. Israel knows American Jews aren’t going anywhere. Including J Street in the Conference of Presidents would be a bonus for Israel. It would further internalize the American Jewish debate and further isolate Jews of Conscience who want to move beyond rhetoric and confront abuses of Israeli power.
If the Conference of Presidents rejects J Street, will this mean anything beyond another round of rhetorical skirmishes? I doubt it. Progressive Jews hope to be the next Jewish establishment. Rejection means raising their “Love Israel” banners higher.
Can inclusion of J Street and Israeli annexation of significant parts of the West Bank go hand in hand?
The issue in Israel-Palestine isn’t about love, apartheid or even annexation – rhetorically. It’s about – real – justice denied.
Are our leaders dumb or blind? Every step of the way, Israel treats the world with contempt, including the US, by doing exactly what it wants regarding illegal settlements, detrimental to the peace talks. Anyone with an iota of sense can see, by Israel’s disgusting actions, it is NOT interested in peace. All it wants is to keep the brutal military occupation going, so that it can extract, and ruthlessly steal, as much as they can from the Palestinian territories. Why the heck is the congress, and even the Obama WH, pretending this is not happening? Bibi and his band of bandits, lie at every turn, while the truth is so obvious, and it seems the entire world, except those who they control in the US, know their diabolical schemes. This must be one of the top scams by a rogue nation, in our lifetime. It seems soon the Shrinking Map of Palestine, will change for the worse again, making the UN prediction that the Palestinian territories will be unlivable by 2020, come true sooner. What a sad situation for the Palestinians.
“Would anything be done if Israel annexes significant parts of the West Bank? Remember the response to the annexation of Jerusalem and the building of the Wall? If history tells us anything, the response will be – more rhetorical jousting”.
Probably worse Marc, below is part of a letter I received recently from the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs [DEFRA] about wine imported from Golan Heights Winery, Katzrin Israel.With both that address and with “Wine of Israel” on the label, in breach of both UK National and EU Regulations.
“I note your concerns centre on the fact that this wine, imported by
Hartov Ltd, is misleading to the consumer as it indicates on the label
that it is ‘produce of Israel’, yet comes from grapes grown in the
Golan Heights. In addition the wine labels show that they are produced
at the Golan Heights Winery, Katzrin, which as you say is in the Golan
Heights.
The Food Standards Agency have informed me that although they
recognise some inconsistencies in the labelling of the wine, they
consider that the numerous references to the Golan Heights on the
label would be sufficient to ensure that consumers would probably not
be misled about the wine’s provenance”.
Oh I see,the GHWinery claim that the Golan Heights is in Israel is only an inconsistency, nothing to be bothered about.
I wonder if I started selling my own wine and labelled it produced by Birkenhead Winery, France, and “Wine of France” I would no doubt be in prison.
This together with other parts of the letter are quite unbelievable this together with the fact that it is incompatible with International law for a UK government Department to recognise an unlawful situation [Namibia opinion ICJ].
In my opinion the false labelling is in breach of sections 16 and 36 the UK Trade Descriptions Act 1968 here..Section 16: Prohibition of importation of goods bearing false
indication of origin.
Where a false trade description is applied to any goods outside the
United Kingdom and the false indication, or one of the false
indications, given, or likely to be taken as given, thereby is an
indication of the place of manufacture, production, processing or
reconditioning of the goods or any part thereof the goods shall not be
imported into the United Kingdom.
Section 36: Country of origin.
[1] For the purposes of this act goods shall be deemed to have been
manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a
treatment or process resulting in a substantial change.
Ellis: “In the meantime, some political leaders in Israel are calling for unilateral measures against the Palestinians. This includes the possibility of annexing large parts of the West Bank.”
Well, duh! And wrong issue. See below.
[1] UNSC has called all the previous “annexations” null and void and of no legal effect, fattening, immoral, stupid, and EVIL. (Well, they should have.) [2] Israel’s take-over of OPTs and behavior toward Gaza are de facto (if not de jure) “annexations”. Consider just home demolitions and granting (or almost always NOT granting) building permits. These are acts of government, not acts of occupation.
Annexation (de facto) happened soon after the 1967 war.
WHAT’S THE RIGHT ISSUE? When are Israel’s (and USA’s lap-dog act) going to persuade the rest of the nations to roll up their sleeves and act?
The nations have not acted during Israel’s very clever slow-boiling-the-frog business of 1967-2014.
My guess: the nations will act, if at all, when Israel has acted (been perceived to have acted) in particularly awful form. The day seems to be coming. The apartheid (that many see as a long-since-accomplished-fact) seems almost on Kerry’s horizon. He needs new glasses, but should take care not to buy them at the AIPAC-opticians. the rest of the world, I have no doubt, sees matters more clearly.
Indeed. In the end, there is only justice. You can be interested in the I/P issue from a Jewish or a Palestinian perspective (among others), but in the end, it is only a matter of justice. Either we make justice now, or we leave it to come naturally. The latter approach tends to maximize suffering (collectively administered) both for the abuser and the victim, so naturally anyone who is interested in the well-being of either part would want a just peace now.
I watched a debate between one of our established “lovers” of Israel here and Hostage on one of the comment sections here. I am aware that your “pessimist view”*–how can it possibly change if the world accepted it silently for the most part. I have to admit that I find Hostage’s argument much more convincing, than the “lover-position” in this context. Whoever it was,–JeffB?–seemed to base his assessment mainly on established ideology without keeping change in mind.
* don’t worry, I often surrender to pessimism myself. Hostage’s tireless efforts to educate us nitwits among the comment crowd helped to make me slightly more optimist. And I am neither American nor a natural in that context. ;)