Two weeks back, my correspondent AC sent me the following note about nonviolent protest of the Gaza war in the West Bank.
FYI, although Israel is the chief culprit in quashing non-violent
protest, it has, with the assistance of Gen. Dayton and U.S. taxpayers
(see
here &
here), a willing abettor, the PA. Here's but one instance of the
PA suppressing non-violent protest of the Gaza war:
The point isn't that their suppressing protest — everyone does that
–, it's that their doing in in collusion. Vichy regime comes to mind.
I was uncomfortable with the Vichy word and challenged AC. Yes, I mean Vichy, he said. I asked Adam Horowitz and he said, AC's view is widely shared among Palestinians. I never got around to running his statement. My bad. Today this Times of London several times quotes Palestinian speakers comparing the Fatah leadership to a Vichy government supporting the occupation.
Note that the Times piece does front-and-center what the New York Times has not been able to do: report that the 2-state solution is all but dead, on both sides.
AC writes:
Take a look at this critique of Waltz with Bashir by Gideon Levy in Haaretz. Look at his diction — bloodthirsty soldiers, shelling women and children, propaganda, fraud and deceit, the lines about the Holocaust
and victims — and unrelentingly scolding tone.
Now tell me: if such a
piece a were written and seen by someone in the U.S., or anywhere
outside of Israel
in the "west", for that matter, and even if it was seen by a critic of
Israel, or even an anti-Zionist, would they not be taken aback by it in
the slightest way, and be ever so hesitant about endorsing or
publishing it for its "harsh" or "carping" or "obsessive" or "bitter"
or "acrid", and therefore possibly antisemitic, nature? Would they not
contemplate editing it for a gentler choice of words, especially
regarding the Holocaust and victims? It's not inconceivable that this
would be the case, is it? But not in Israel, and not for Gideon Levy.
As for the movie itself, the piece says it all.