Total number of comments: 182 (since 2011-07-28 12:18:16)
Showing comments 182 - 101Page: 2 1
sjarjour - It's exactly as viable or non-viable as telling the Israelis to retreat back to the UN borders, and allow a Palestinian state deserving of its name to flourish, as opposed to what seems viable now, given Israel's aggressive land grabs: permitting Palestinians to live huddled in separate enclaves, hence stunting whatever economical or social viability a Palestinian state might otherwise have. Also these enclaves would also only represent something like 10-20% of the land they were initially granted by the international community. Israel itself is doing its best to ensure the 2SS never, ever becomes a truly viable option, hoping that in 20 years, we'll all take those Eretz-Israel "borders" forgranted, and alltogether abandon the hope for a 2SS.
I'd sooner think it's viable that an increasing amount of people bring about social change in Israel, and that a younger generation of both Israelis and Palestinians will tire of conflict and resign themselves to the fact that it is indeed in everyone's best interest to live together. There will always be the radicals and the nutjobs, but I do believe it's viable they become a minority that both sides crack down on in order to commence living in peace.
As for my personal preference, I'd go with option B. I don't believe removing people from territories they were born on and now consider their home is ethical, regardless of how unethically said land may initially have been obtained. Removing Jewish children who got born on and grew up regarding stolen land as their own isn't a "solution" that goes down well with me.
I remember things people said to me as early as age 5, I'm 20 years older than that now. And those conversations I recall aren't even emotionally scarring.
Regardless of if it's Jewish, Palestinian or Ugandan life, this kind of smug sarcasm in response to someone's account of a traumatizing memory would always be equally tasteless.
"Between you and Mandela, I’ll take Mandela."
I sincerely hope you would.
The American right-wing are once again firmly caught up in the ultimate race to the rhetorical bottom. People love hearing someone else fume, spew and hate, especially if they're being flattered by the side. It's become an industry, and there's too much money to be made with it and attention to be had for it to stop anytime soon. It's also a copy/paste of the American-brand of anti-Jewish demagogy of the earlier 20th century.
I don't so much believe demagogues like Weiner are pro-Zionist per-se as much as they are the kind of people who are, in every era, to be found among the ranks of overt racists and mind polluting demagogues, rallying against whatever scapegoat du-jour happens to be lying around, and mixing half (or quarter)-truths with blatant lies and heating the stew up to boiling temperature to achieve a strong emotional effect in their target audience, which is what I believe they actually get off on. Sort of like a television salesperson who isn't hyped about the product he's screaming at you about, but about the fact thousands are seeing his face and hearing his voice.
Exactly. Further, it bothers me that Mandela speaks so highly of Rabin, too. Outtake from Mandela's 1997 address at the international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people:
"I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these Palestinian and Israeli leaders. In particular, we pay homage to the memory of Yitshak Rabin who paid the supreme sacrifice in pursuit of peace."
One needn't look further than Wikipedia to gain some insights into Rabin's revolting antics.
It can still be brought up, though, and easily verified. As can the stories of Israeli journalists who have been fired or even banned from Israel for their critical tone, and that of Jewish authors who were banned from speaking there. (I'm only mentioning the fairly petty reverse end of the "regime" here, as it affects Jews, because some people's brains shut off immediately unless you start with the plight of the ethnicity 'they actually care about'.)
Also, why leave it to Moore? Mondoweiss('ers) should crowdfund a movie, or something. Enough places to start gathering donations for that, and even though I'm typically either broke or buying non-shit food on the occasion that I'm not, I'll tip something towards it. Once something's rolling, one could always try contacting celebs, such as Moore to contribute, at least as a talking head.
One which immediately comes to mind is, as it almost always is, that of spin. Given America's tight involvement with Israel, and the fact a Christian country is funding it with 3bn a year and a heap of weapons, the story that this country, which is of such close interest to an overwhelmingly Christian America, is in fact, too, waging a war against Christmas is - and you can trust me on this - a whopper of a news story. It's guaranteed to create emotional heat. Anyone looking for a large readership would put this on page 1 with a dramatic headline (you know, the same dramatic headlines they give Arabs / Arab countries. "Religious leaders all over Israel wage a war against Christmas!" Put that on Fox news.) And that's exactly why you don't see it published in any mainstream news outlet. People might *gasp* re-examine Israel! The Zio lobby can't let that happen now, can it. The fact that whatever story they may be running doesn't exactly flatter Muslims / Arabs however, is a factor that is seldom to never considered. Hence, the "war on Christmas" crowd in America (composed almost exclusively of Christian Republicans) will highly likely not add the Israeli Christmas affair to their doubtless extensive list of the "many occasions of war against Christmas", while they should in reality do just that, being the 'unfatiguable' trackers of opposition against Christmas that they are.
It's really just the spin I have a problem with, as I always do. Judging by the sheer amount of negative press Arabs have been getting, you'd think that every single piece of dirt on offer has not only been back swept out from whatever carpet it may or may not have been lurking beneath, but that every last bit of it meticulously collected from the floor, and presented in a lime light with dramatic headlines, over a stretch of years and years, in every mainstream publication imaginable. Not so with the misdoings of Jews.
I have no problems whatsoever with that crackpot of an Imam receiving flak for his stupid fatwa, I have a problem with the 'two measures' system, and don't see why the general public, obviously in possession of such impeccably high morality, should not also be served the sober truth in all its rancid glory what concerns Israel. The simple fact that people still believe it to be a democracy, despite the fact that its laws and actions clearly violate this definition shows the amount of catch-up which still needs to be done. The fact that the vast majority of Americans aren't aware of Israel's recent history enough to know just what the hell the Nakba is, but know the names of the topAfghani muhajjedin by heart shows this, too. I mean, sure, many Arab countries aren't democracies either, but last I checked, the west wasn't pretending that they are. In fact, they themselves don't even pretend that they are. And I like to think we are now sufficiently informed of the sins of the middle-east. Minus those of that small country in the Levant, of course.
Spin, boy. That's the difference.
“I want to take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that I have no doubt whatsoever about the depth of your commitment to Israel’s security and to the well-being of the Jewish state.”
I love the underhanded commanding tone apparent in his declaration of love, Bibi should consider having that patented. If he expands on that, it could become something akin to the Edgar Wallace' Plot Wheel, Bibi potboiler edition.
At any rate, he has little to fear from Merkel.
Citizen, thanks a lot for all those recs. Living in a small country in Europe, I don't have access to any of the channels those play on I don't think, and a quick look through the local TV program doesn't yield any results, but I'll find a way to procure some of them, anyhow.
I'm not familiar with Russian Dolls, so I'm not sure which I favor, but I'll give Shahs of Sunset a rip, and work my way through the list when time permits. Thanks again.
Unfortunately, I can't return the favor with any recommendations, all the 'homebrew' shows over here are forgettable, and we only get the major imports e.g. House.
If she was really ignorant of the situation and didn't actually chose to omit it purposefully in favor of conveying her own bias, then I have trouble believing that she's curious, like she says she is. I suppose she's 'curious' in the same way a hipster may say they're into Jazz, a.k.a. hoping nobody will ever put their false claim to the test, and subsequently point to the fact that for someone who makes a claim such as that, their research into even something so immediate as a field of relevant interest is somewhere between non-existent and abysmal.
And like some others have said, I had no idea who she is, or indeed what that show is all about. I don't watch TV, and this article has all but encouraged me in my continuous endeavor to avoid it.
Damn, you're right of course, totally forgot that, sorry. However,
"Throughout his presidential campaign, Hollande never criticized Israel and overall presented a balanced stance, while his goal was to avoid upsetting anyone. (...) I intend on visiting Israel soon after I win the elections," said Hollande in an interview with a French Jewish news website about a week ago. He promised to fight an all out war against anti-Semitism in France, made it clear that he opposed any form of boycotting Israel, avoided repetitive remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and focused on the Iranian issue instead. "We must be intransigent when it comes to Iran, whose nuclear program is a danger to Israel..."
link to haaretz.com
No... To go back to seanmcbride's statement, I don't see how the EU is in any way, shape or form moving away from the US line. That would essentially involve Sarkozy and Merkel, and that's not happening. (As mentioned earlier, Merkel is Europe's Clinton and Sarko's a right-wing nut)
As for Scandinavia, they don't influence EU policy enough to have much if any effect, and as progressive as a lot of their citizens may be, they're certainly not politically outspoken to any relevant degree. The third dominant force is the UK, and we all know their official stance on the matter (definitely Zionist).
Ergo, no European force that actually matters are considering either a move away from the States (in fact, the UK is likely moving closer to the States, due to recent contemplation concerning the exit out of the EU, which signalizes further distancing from EU policy.) Most of those who don't matter aren't either, btw.
Some pictures of the aforementioned "game", it's quite revolting.
link to cdn2.austria.com
Translation: "bye-bye mosque"
link to bilder.t-online.de
There was some kind of introductory text to it I no longer find, perhaps it's for the best. I've just eaten.
"But my impression is that the European natives are growing restless and may start pushing back hard. ... And they don’t as a rule display sustained passivity in world affairs — particularly when they are being verbally abused on a regular basis by people who presume that they are their masters."
Maybe I don't understand just what in particular you're referring to, but I'm not seeing it at all. I'm seeing the european right-wing (From Belgium over Germany to Poland and beyond) resembling the tea party more by the year, and gaining popularity. America has been more than successful at exporting Islamophobia, and Europeans are continuously ignoring any real discussion on Israel. Far right demagogues such as Thilo Sarrazin, Geert Wilders and consorts are not only gaining popularity, but indeed every European government I know of are - far as I can see it - under the thumb of various Zionist lobbies. Politically, the EU is a joke, a union of banks which naturally, are all looking over to America to tell them which step to take next. I haven't seen any meaningful discussion on independence from America, in fact, I've seen no such discussion at all taking place on a meaningful level. Every single european left-wing newspaper that I've read thusfar will censor you for so much as using the word "Jew" in your comment, if your comment is even only vaguely critical, it's a complete joke. Local newspapers titled the recent event of a Palestinian being shot by Israelis as "Arab attacker killed", and blatant Zionists like Paul Lendvai are given regular columns in popular left-wing papers. Merkel takes a pro-Israel stance in her speeches which rivals Mrs. Clintons, and I don't think I have to say much about France. (Only reason they're quieter than other countries is because they have a considerable Arab population).
There was recent outrage over an allegedly anti-semitic cartoon published by our right-wing party, which promptly blew up to epic proportions and involved heavy protests by our local Zio lobby, while the same party has previously, and for years, published far more offensive stuff targeting Muslims (one such incident was a game they coded, your task was to shoot Muezzins from their mosques - though in all fairness, this was a scandal too) in their 'comics' with far less outcry.
Even our prominent feminists seem to have turned solely to examining the 'many ways in which Arabs abuse their wives'.
Politically, from what I know the EU is certainly moving closer to America, and there's a lot of "in it together" stuff going on.
No, I'm just not seeing it.
"From which one must conclude that Jewish religious Zionists are substantially dominating and running the settlements movement, the Israeli government and the American government."
You forgot step 6.) The American political system has a large impact on European decision making, too. Bizarre how in a way, someone who immigrated to Israel from some Eastern European ghetto may well have a larger impact on European politics through their Israeli vote than they ever had back home in Europe.
Ever noticed how Jews theoretically get more voting power over gentiles? Technically, I could vote in my home country, then immigrate to Israel, getting automatic citizenship, vote there, thereafter apply for and be automatically granted citizenship in the U.S. (wielding a dual citizenship Israel & U.S., though I'd have to drop my first one) on counts of being a Jewish Israeli citizen, and vote in the States too. Watch out world, here I come... Green parties all over are surely tingling in anticipation, now.
I'm starting to like Bibi and the settler crowd, mostly for setting the 'Jewish State' on a destruction course that 20 moderate / left-wing governments couldn't have achieved in ten times the time. I truly believe he - and any subsequent right-wing crackpot - accelerates the inevitable - the deconstruction of whatever moderate facade Israel has paid billions to uphold, and eventually, the deconstruction of its viability as a Jewish state. Thank G-d. And now that the 2SS is all but dead, the only viable option for peace is also the most just one - a bi-national state with equal rights for all, something I hope the west is going to start seriously pushing in the medium-term. It's also the most natural outcome considering Palestinian vs. Jewish population growth.
I don't dare to think what a further shift to the right would mean for the Palestinians and any grassroots peace efforts over the short term (I really didn't think that this was still possible, thought the fascism express was already chugging along at full-steam...), but however painful it is, I hope the wheels that Bibi and the increasing political power of the settlers have set in motion will eventually block their own machine, to the extent of blowing up and showing the world their true foul substance once and for all. I believe that the West is going to start seriously considering a bi-national solution, and I believe that Israel will be put under increasing pressure the longer it refuses to consider this - pressing - subject. Why is it becoming pressing? We have nobody but Bibi to thank for that. Without him, people would still be flirting with the 2SS, and expecting the Palestinians to settle for a fraction of the land they once called their own, as well as forcing many of them to live displaced from their initial region of origin. Also, I have a feeling Israel would have gotten away turning the 2SS Palestinian enclaves into little Gaza 2.0's, anyway.
I see, thanks, goes to show you learn something new every day. I'm familiar with the term pilpul only through my religious studies, the PEP threw me off, though now I vaguely understand what's implied. Not sure if you're old enough to answer that question, but could you spare a moment to tell someone born in the late 80's around what time amphetamine was called PEP? Sounds 70's to me, along with rad and groovy. :,)
Mooser, what are PEP pilpuls, and why so complicated? A severe blow to the head probably has that effect, too.
Of course there is no such thing as liberal Zionism (if there is, I have yet to see it in action). It's a 'entry drug', a rhetorical department of Zionism, similarly to the way 'male right activists' use the few examples they are of male discrimination in the Western world to wean you into their cesspit of misogyny.
"have had my basic assumptions regularly challenged and also re-confirmed."
Care to outline what these basic assumptions are, and how they were re-confirmed?
It's already disgraced, at the latest since the EU was awarded one.
"I didn’t know Muslims smoked pot"
According to a recent article in a local newspaper, Afghan forces estimate that around 1 in 10 Afghans are addicted to heroin. So apparently, they do harder stuff, too.
I don't know if you've ever been to a Muslim country, but I can assure you that they drink quite a bit of alcohol, too. Never visited a house without a minibar, though I'll admit, I haven't popped my head into *every* household. ;)
seafoid -- You were probably talking to Keith, but may I ask you to write a review on amazon once you're finished with it? Looks like an interesting book, I'm trying to find out if it's worth adding to my studies reading list (I'm studying sociology).
"When one has been conditioned to see oneself as a victim of the ‘other,’ any sort of critical analysis by the ‘other’ is easily seen as a justification for perceived past abuse, and perhaps as a prelude to future abuse."
That's spot-on, and describes very well my own emotional experiences and what I had to overcome when I started moving away from Zionism, though I did eventually learn to hate it with quite a passion, mostly for the fear the ideology is continuing to instill in people it pretends to want to protect. I don't remember a time in which my parents have not been nervous people, and it wasn't until I was much older that I started to understand why they were constantly looking for signs of their downfall, it hurts me that the irrational fears they have are preventing them from living the life they should be living - a life as happy people in a safe and peaceful country. I think the only reason why I managed the emotional move away from the ideology so well is because I never understood the base of their fear, I just simply never saw it around me like they seemed to, I doubt any amount of logic would have done the trick if I actually had, hence my skepticism concerning the persuasive effect of logic.
I'm past believing that this kind of conditioning ever really leaves, it's like it leaves a scar which never heals, something so impossible to overcome, the logic necessary to fight it stands no chance against the behemoth of innate emotional responses, which instantly flatten it. I'm not far away from saying that fear of the Other is the only self-definition some Jews have left. Fearing the potential damage done to oneself by 'the Other' whilst simultaneously being consumed by ones own fear is not unlike fearing the splinter in the eye for the stake through the heart.
"Different dress, different customs, ghettoized housing and mentality"
Your run-down reminded me a lot of Batnitzky's book "How Judaism Became a Religion". On a similar note, have you ever read Meyrink's "The Golem"?
Very well said, you write very well, I always enjoy reading your posts.
This kind of behavior breeds anti-semitism at rates which would shame neo-nazis, and one would have to be deliberately obtuse not to see it, especially in the face of such intense persecution paranoia. (And honestly, repeating the "we were all persecuted since our inception" mantra doesn't make it any truer, and goes to show how easy it is for some to forget generations of peace, if there's a juicy opportunity to capitalize off those generations of persecution..) And why do they believe that they have any form of right over others because of it, especially in the face of the fact that many others have also suffered through thousands of years of subordination and persecution?
Many groups haven't been treated well throughout history, some groups have been, and are continually being treated far worse - Women, the disabled, political dissidents... none of these groups have made their former plight a billion-dollar industry, and keep repeating tales of their persecution ad-nauseum to anyone who would so much think a negative thought their way, let alone expect politicians around the world to shower them in reparations and support rogue states. There was a point in time (not sure if this idea is still around) among radical feminists, in which they called for some fashion of 'country for women', deeply entrenched in the belief that only segregation could truly end exploitation and persecution by males. Something similar may even still be held by some fringe Deaf activists. Only difference between them and the Zios is that they didn't get their fantasy pandered to and supported with billions a year in arms and money, and they don't have all governments in the western world backpedalling the moment they burp a out a criticism of something that has turned into a colonial and racist freakfest.
It's hilarious how the guy backpedals a whole decade later.
"Truth is, I do not support divestment as a strategy for the university."
Does this mean that he also does not support divestment where this concerns art and assets robbed from the Jews during WW2? Answer directly to your local Jewish lobby please, chancellor.
I think I know now why Roland fights in Berkeley ;)
link to youtube.com
"Now it's ten years later but he still keeps up the fight
In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley..."
"latest Israeli settlements are just apartments, which will be given to the natives"
Ah, I get it. So basically, there was a common consensus among all the affected Palestinians on this land to all have their homes razed and re-built by the Israelis because, you know, they were all starting to need a makeover, and Israel was kind enough to oblige and build them all brand spanking new apartments.
And what Bibi really meant was that he's building these newest settlements *cough* "apartments"... because Obama didn't negotiate with Europe enough against the upgrade in P status at the U.N., so in other words, he's decided to build all the wonderful Palestinians new homes, because he's so frustrated with the fact that things went so well for them at the U.N.
Yup, all of this checks out, no problem there whatsoever. Move on, nothing to see here...
Wonderful article, thanks for that.
In addition to the factors mentioned in the article, there's several more which point to an increasing decline in Israel's importance and support. They've been trying and largely failing to garner support for their cause in Asia, probably because the Asians aren't wracked with collective guilt over the Shoah like the west is, then there's the cultural / ethnic divide too, their lore doesn't attribute any importance to the holy land.
The economy is another factor. I believe Israel has been able to feed off the tolerance and money of the west mostly because the latter part of the 20th century has been fairly golden in comparison with what came before, and the situation we are faced with presently. The persistent economical crisis forces many to look inward, and I doubt it's as easy today as it was twenty years ago to persuade even the average american that feeding a foreign country billions of dollars a year instead of, you know, making sure the infrastructure doesn't degrade into something you'd expect to find in the heart of Africa, is a spanking idea. That and more people in the West take a critical stance on Israel and are starting to debate things they weren't before. (Hell, wasn't it this rad thing to do in the 60's and 70's to fly over to Israel and try to outdo one another at Kibbutz-building?) Nowadays, sticking "boycott Israel" stickers all over town seems to be the favored activity among left-wing activists, at least where I'm from. (I'm aware of the fact that this is not so in the U.S., then again, the American conception of "left wing" has always startled me, over here the American democrats would be labelled centrists at best.)
America too isn't the 'superpower' it once was, and will almost certainly further decline in importance as time goes by. I'm pretty sure they'll heavily cut their Israel-funding, too, at some stage. They simply can't afford to go on like this forever. Taking all that into consideration, and the exponential growth of the Palestinian population, the fact that, as the article points out, Asia is shifting into view and the middle-east is increasingly taking up a position by the wayside, I'd say Israel cannot afford to continue this way for much longer. I'm skeptical of the fact that they'll decide to communicate vulnerability, the way I know them they're more likely to pull a Moshe Dayan and "go down with a bang™".
Here's another consideration: The west will and cannot (oil reserves are definite) continue buying oil off middle-eastern countries. The oil-rich countries have a hold over the U.S. All they need to do is refuse to be paid in U.S. dollars and be too big to rape, or decide that selling the reserves they do have exclusively to e.g.China suits them better, and their reason for playing nice are all but eradicated. What will happen once the reserves run dry completely, or some awesome new fuel finally manages to take the upper hand, for purely economical reasons (e.g. much cheaper). The oil lobby won't be able to resist this change forever. Then there's common consensus that America can't afford another war. Which ever way you look at it, independence will hurt the ME far less than it will the U.S.
The oil will run out someday, every empire collapses sometime, and somewhere in the middle of all of that, there'll be a big bang in the Levant, and when that day comes, I hope we'll all be too busy doing something else to care.
There's an impressive amount of anti-Americanism among the settler crowd, clear for all to see on the various settler-news outlets, some seem to believe that American involvement with Israel has a lot to do with Christian lore and some desire to lay claims of their own to the region for religious reasons. I'm not surprised why this facet isn't illuminated in the American media. There's this "good, help us sweep the Palestinians out the way, then eff off" thing going on.
Roi sounds like your standard, run of the mill IDF Zio, what were you expecting? Also pretty reflective of the general arrogance around. After all, they didn't need the U.N. either, after they got 'their' land, if they can abandon mommy, what would make them think that they need daddy? It's hardly a revelation.
"50 years from now, it will be a meaningless term."
I sincerely hope so, though made up things do have a disturbingly extensive history of overstaying their welcome...
"“Race” is not biological."
"racism includes discrimination against ethnicities too."
I disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, some people may use the term to denote ethnic differences too, officially though, the term is disputed and most often used to mean just what it says on the box.
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:"
There's the wikipedia article too with some decent references.
It is indisputable that a significant amount of people are gonna pick up "racism" as meaning "racial characteristics / genetic differences" and using a controversial term when one could be using the term "ethnically" and getting it over with is in my view, still a weak choice.
Also, since when are either the Palestinians or the Israeli Jews a race? Wouldn't "ethnically segregated" have been the better choice of vocabulary?
Times like these I wish Rosa Parks was still around to weigh in on the matter...
Mainstream phenomena have gone the way of the fringe within a remarkably short period of time before (racism, overt misogyny), provided enough intent is there. I hope that Israel will eventually find itself in a position that necessitates adopting such intent. History shows us that populations are fairly easily turned once circumstances change, so I, at least am optimistic that once Israel's current state permutes and favors a bi-national state approach, its population will change to adapt. Once there is a consensus (and there has to be for a bi-national state to even be considered) that Zionism is unhealthy for the continued existence of this new idea, Zionism too will go the way of all ideas before it, which were deemed counter-productive to a prosperous society somewhere along their timeline. Low down: Once Israel finds itself faced with no other viable alternatives but a bi-national state and finally lets go of the Jewish nation idea, it will (have to) fight against Zionism as ferociously as it's been breeding it these past decades.
I'm more worried if such a circumstance will ever befall Israel, though hey, it might, if the Palestinians don't fall too heavily in love with the two-state solution, thereby paving the way for negotiations (I mean once Israel is in a position in which it seriously has to negotiate, it obviously isn't presently...) towards a 2SS, something Israel would obviously favor over letting go of their almighty Jewish state. I'm worried that once Israel starts flailing (and it will at some point), the Palestinians will jump at the opportunity to settle for less than they deserve, and somehow end up shooting themselves in the knee. (And yes, I consider the 2SS a first-class knee-shot.)
"‘natural increase’ of Arabs threatening Jewish majority"
Never mind Israel, just hold your hand out and go beg the U.S. for the money to fund a ginormous artificial island, to be built right out into the ocean. (I know you have plans for that lying around) don't let the fact that you'd be building your Israel-extension into international waters bother you, that just means waters that don't belong to you yet, easily changed, run a campaign titled "the Island G-d promised us", or something along those lines, I'm sure red-faced republican racists are glad to open their diminishing wallets and fork over whatever they can afford to give, after all, you're G-d's chosen, and enough of them are already volunteering for your military service. Maybe they'll even help build it?
If it gets really bad, there's always the Nakba 2.0 option, worked the first time, right?
I find it telling that Avnery would warn of this in the first place, if he was half as pro-Palestinian as he likes to pretend he is, he'd be breaking out into jubilation at this realization. In fact, I'd expect to find a similar statement printed on a leaflet placed inside the home of a newly arrived settler family. "Remember to be fruitful and multiply, lest those stinkin' Arabs outdo us. Have a nice day. p.s. You'll find your Kalashnikov under the right side of the mattress and bullets under the pillows."
Oh brother. That depresses me too, actually. I was never much for Stevie Wonder, but Leonard Cohen was definitely part of my repertoire. Stopped listening to him a few years ago when I grew out of my teens, but I still remember his tracks being regulars to my stereo back when I first became politically interested.
And hey, if Don Van Vliet happens to have supported Israel, I'd kindly appreciate if you didn't mention it, it would almost certainly unmake my day.
That's OK, she highly likely doesn't know who the Palestinians are, either.
I doubt it's a tattoo because it looks fresh / wet, and there's no reddening around the sides. Though, if it was a tattoo that would be hilarious. Just imagine how shriveled and prune-ish it will look once the lady gives birth... also if you squint and fuzz out the text, you can easily pretend that it's baby Shepard wrapped in a blanket adorned with an U.F.O., dreaming of his future among the stars. The only part I don't get is why he's sleeping in a large puddle of diarrhea.
"Even when gentile critics are not explicitly attacked, audiences are prone to question their motives. Not so with Jewish critics. a sad but true situation."
Oh definitely, on the other hand at least what concerns I / P, the right-wing have been considering this for ages. The louder you scream, the louder they scream "self-hater! betrayer of your own peoples!" right back at you. It's been going on forever, both from Jewish and gentiles alike. For many of them, Zionism quite literally *is* Judaism, and there's little room to maneuver outside of it without being pushed off the edge of the boat altogether. Not only does that put immense personal pressure on those willing to publicly speak out, but they also risk their initial rhetorical advantage being shot down and nullified in an instant by the hyper-efficient zio sentry guards which are no more forgiving towards a wayward Jew than they are towards a non-Zio gentile.
In order to get a majority of Jewish Israel critics to speak out, one would probably need to dismantle the repercussions for doing so in the first place, starting with wide-spread dialogue on Zionism and Judaism as separate, or at least separable entities, and even that is a flaming-hot taboo as of yet. We're up against the history re-written by a billion-dollar industry, and the task seems daunting.
I'd go so far as to say we rely on gentiles to make this happen for us, force us into a dialogue on Judaism and Zionism, make it acceptable for us to consider the possibility of the two being separable out-loud, so we have an excuse to open our mouths on the subject without risking being alienated or all but banished from our own communities. Sounds ridiculous, but it really isn't, at least not in my community, where the pecking order most definitely is hyper-zio (gets to talk all the time and reap in the rep) > zio (gets to agree and throw in his or her own points every now and again) > zio but critical (gets to talk sometimes) > non-zio (gets to roll their eyes at you to signify intent, mouth always zipped, and where talk does take place, the punishment for the dissent is something like eternal virginity). I'm beginning to see us as victims of our own construct, if we dwell beneath its mighty weight in silence, we get to live on, if we move, it crushes us immediately. Maybe we need others to free ourselves from our own entrapment, clear the heavy stuff out the way so we can work out the nitty-gritty while being able to breathe.
On the other hand, lying beneath that construct does have its enlightening sides, you learn a thing or two about the much touted 'Jewish solidarity'. (Huge reward issued to whomever finds it and retrieves it!)
I've met quite a few Israelis who actually speak of Israel being in the "Mediterranean", refusing stoutly to use the term 'middle-east'. And of course, it's in Europe too, apparently (as evidenced by the fact that the Israelis play in the European leagues for some bizarre reason).
Just please Brussels, don't admit them into the EU formally, or we're gonna have to pay for them next. (Thankfully that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon, since Israel are too busy being posing as the 51st U.S. state...)
"Why would Palestinians try to cross into Israeli territory when they know they will be killed?"
Because the department of hasbara says so, now stop asking questions and believe it.
"he’s decided to blame Iran!"
Wait, that's even funnier.
"is there anything Iran cannot be blamed for?"
I'm pretty sure the measles are Saudi Arabia's fault...
" But if you favor some compromise between the Zionist Jewish Israelis and the Palestinians living in Gaza, then Hamas is definitely part of the issue."
Aside from the obvious question why anyone within a 100-mile radius of moral justice would even step forward to bargain with Zionist Jewish Israelis in the first place, let me tell you that it is decidedly *not* about Hamas. The Hamas are but one name given to the menacing shadow on the wall that the Israeli, eternally shackled to the walls of a murky cave in his own mind, fear.
If you don't see how the eternal idea of the "hostile other" is a convenient means with which to achieve an end that has already been planned and written (the fact that it was never in Israel's intentions to stick to any of the borders imposed on it by the international community in the first place, for example, and the fact that Israel would always have been indifferent to what amount of suffering the Palestinians go through as a result of Israel's actions), then I think you're missing something here, and if you think that compromise is something that Israel was ever seriously considering, with or without Hamas, you're absolutely deluded. As long as Israel doesn't have to compromise to get rewarded with money, weapons and support from the West, it won't compromise. Indeed a continued 'war' with Hamas has been running in Israel's favor. Look at that juicy nuclear arsenal it's managed to build up by convincing the world that homemade rockets are a viable threat. The Mouse won't stop pressing that lever either, as long as goodies tumble down at every press. Or do you seriously believe that those couple of hundred dead Israelis in all these years are enough to finesse Israel away from its expansionist fantasies? Do you honestly believe that your own leaders (I'm assuming you're Israeli, if you're not, I apologize) care a dime for your life, or see you as any more than collateral damage waiting to happen, in the process of the fulfillment of something that has become a pathological fantasy, and has broken down into naught other but a power game?
Are you seriously blaming Hamas for the fact that Palestinians don't have the justice they deserve yet? How about the fact that Israel has committed overwhelming atrocities that predate Hamas, which lead to its formation in the first place? Hamas is a 'monster' Israel has created as a result of its own actions. Hamas are neither a side-effect, nor a cause, or an end. Of course, I don't expect people to work the chicken-egg equation with any clarity, not after generations of brainwash and hysteria.
Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Not too thrilled with it, but her geometric-ish art makes for a pleasing viewing experience. :,)
I'm loving this one, though:
link to blog.ninapaley.com
"the Israeli’s and the Americans know if they can turn Palestinians back into just Arabs"
Hmm.. so do most Mondoweiss posters... to my knowledge almost everyone I've seen post here uses the terms "Palestinian" and "Arab" interchangeably (I'm guilty of this once or twice myself, to my shame), nevermind if a significant number of them (I remember reading it being close to 50% of the Palestinians) don't even self-identify as "Arab", nevermind if their backgrounds are interesting and diverse, nevermind that Palestine has been a melting-pot throughout much of history, nevermind that a substantial amount of Palestinians have hundreds or even thousands of years of Christian and Jewish ancestry, (of those I'm in contact with one mentioned a personal interest in Greek culture because of his extensive Greek ancestry, another one got brought up with 2 religions, one for the public, and one for their home) and an unknown amount of them (but it's not uncommon) can still remember having Jewish great-grandparents. I'm not seeing anyone appreciate these (and more) facets when talking about the Palestinians, and that alone also plays into the hands of the Zio freaks who would love nothing more but to paint them all as "Arabs who moved in to occupy Jewish land, and are now squatting there and pretending it was theirs all along" (a surprisingly wide-spread notion among conservative Zio-sympathizers, at least on some message boards I've had the misfortune of gracing)
I strongly suspect that most discussing this conflict are overwhelmingly (perhaps even solely) interested in the blemish Judaism is taking as a result of Zionist thought in action, or on the negative effect that the U.S. - Israel bond is having on U.S. spending and foreign policy. That and the third group I've identified here are activists who happen to care because they see people are being wronged here. Have yet to see anyone actually give an active damn about what their history is and how it is attempted to be re-written or eradicated by either Israel or Arabs themselves. (I recall a funny book by written by some Wahabi crackpot about the "History of the Palestinian People", most all of what's written in there is ludicrous and so esoteric, it's not even funny. I don't recall the guy being Palestinian, either, though I still smile recalling the friend who lent me the book with a wink. Wish I could find it again, so I could share some quotes.)
How is this important? I feel that it is, seeing as how Palestinian history has become a matter of political opinion and / or agenda, rather than focusing on historical accuracy. (And if we can all get upset about Zionists re-writing Jewish history in favor of making believe it's been about Zionism all along, and distorting the reasons many Jews had for leaving Eretz-Israel back in the day... we can also discuss in which ways Palestinian history is being re-written.)
By keeping their history and diversity in mind, we're fighting against the spread of misinformation around, and we're fighting against the "they're one monolithic mass" notion, this is, in my opinion, especially important where the subject of debate is shifting from "what's being done to them" to "who they are and why they're evil". To understand anything, you need to know and consider its history any any resulting diversity, and the same applies here.
And while we're talking about personal motivations, yes, the "damage to Judaism" aspect disturbs me most personally, too. As time went by however I learnt to care about the negative effect it's having on the U.S. (I'm not a U.S. citizen) and the damage it's doing to Palestinians (both the physical aspects of the injustice - Nakba, apartheid, terrorism etc., as also the damage Israel AND other parties, well-meaning or not, are doing to Palestinians in different ways, and yes, also the damage some Palestinians may be inflicting upon each other) enough to deem it important that none of these aspects and facets become neglected in I / P discourse.
You know, even IF all those wild claims of immorality, moral corruption and religious zealotry on the part of the Palestinians were true (here's a hint, they largely aren't), WHY the hell are people discussing this at all in the face of everything that's happened in the past 80 years?? Just the fact that this is up for discussion at all to the extent of blotting out everythign else shows the full extent of the zionist domination of I/P discourse.
People should be discussing
1.) The events that lead up to the promising of land to the Jews by people who had no right to give it away.
2.) The eviction of hundreds of thousands from their home
3.) To what extent Israel qualifies as a democracy with its current laws / "moral police" system
4.) How these injustices can be corrected (protip: quickest way to stop Palestinian terror on civilians)
5.) Discussions taking into consideration that maybe, just maybe the above has more to do with what Palestinian terror there is than:
What people are discussing:
1.) If or not Mr. and Mrs. Palestinian mommy and daddy lubb their child enough
2.) Who provoked whom into the latest bombing spree
4.) The latest home-brew rocket to be intercepted on Israeli soil
5.) Lots and lots of discussion over Islam as a religion and how much it influences Hamas-terror (you know, because Christians and Jews would never, ever fight back if what happened to the Palestinians had happened to them, oh no. Ten to one they'd actually be ENCOURAGED to fight back and be fed weapons by the west faster than a junkie pops pills)
THAT is what's bothering me most. Myopic BS and peripheral fluff as well as one sidetrack after another melds together into one large smokescreen to keep people talking about everything but what's actually relevant, anything to keep people from stepping back and seeing the large picture, anything to keep people from coming up with the ludicrous notion that just maybe, giving the Palestinians actual justice may help alleviate the terror, anything to keep on blaming religion on terror thus creating the implication that peace and justice "wouldn't solve anything anyway".
And hordes of people are buying into this BS, both liberal and conservative, progressive or otherwise. It's maddening. Isn't anyone partial to actually LEARNING HISTORY anymore, and putting injustice into fair context??
"And what is really frightening is that neither she nor her defenders nor employer — the paper of record — recognize it."
It's not about what's happening, it's who it's happening to. If the zios can convince us that the Palestinians are indeed religious fanatics who care nothing about their own dead, and have the emotional depth and the moral polarity of a piece of toast, then they no longer need to find a way to conceal or defend what they're doing to them. ("If they don't care about their dead, why should we"?) It's only one step short of likening them to vermin, something the Israeli's have already done.
Unfortunately, judging by the amount of idiots who post nonsense like "they staple their wives to fences to protect themselves, that's all I need to know" in various message boards around the internet, they're succeeding. After all, if you can manage to evoke negative emotional responses, who needs facts, proof or anything else.
It's the kind of wash I'd expect a settler rag like Arutz Sheva to put up online in the "impartial observations by totally impartial people" section, it lacks the intelligence, analytic qualities and pretty much everything else to make it into the NYT. This isn't journalism, it's something Goebbels would have been proud of.
"you don’t think she would be able to downplay these things"
Of course she'd downplay these things, (as she *has* been by blatantly ignoring them). I'm not saying she'd engage in fair reporting at all, I was attempting to mock her fake impartiality.
Ten to one she'd recount how many IDF soldiers had pictures of their family taped to their locker, then get sidetracked and give us an anecdote over how an Israeli Jewish kid was late for school because he lost his homework the other day.
Put her in an Arab locker room and she'd be counting the Korans and keeping a tally of Allah Hu Akbars. :,)
I love how she almost seems proud of her ignorance, the way she hints at it all the time. While she's in her "everywoman" role, why doesn't she sit by the discussion had in the IDF quarters after the news has spread that tens, if not hundreds of Palestinians have died due to Israeli forces, I'm sure she'll find the "gut-wrenching terror over the news of death" and a 'full appreciation of human tragedy' there... not. Maybe someone ought to tell her of Israeli reactions to the 9/11 bombings? And maybe she'd like to visit the settlers, or talk to a family who are standing by the curb of their new home with their luggage, while its Palestinian owners are barely done being manhandled out the back door? Tons of victim mourning going on there...
The fact she leaves any attempt of analysis completely by the wayside in an increadibly painful faux-attempt to seem less biased actually makes her seem all the more biased. (Mostly because every form of analysis would go more towards painting a nasty picture of Israel than it would of Palestinians...)Everyone, everywoman or everyman, would set out to find answers to these, I would imagine quite immediate questions pertaining to customs and the wider picture, and counter-balance that with some sober observations about Israeli behaviour. This is the kind of "impartial reporting" the zios are more than happy to re-print. That fact alone tells us all we need to know about it.
In general though, the strategy of it all doesn't surprise me in the least bit. If you can no longer hide the fact that innocent civilians are dying, you might as well paint them as brutes with a death wish, so foreign and alienating their death cannot be seen as a tragedy to anyone with "heart in the right spot". It's the same old victim-blaming routine that's been going on for ages now, each permutation as bad as the previous.
That aside, I suppose the countless pictures / videos / accounts of Palestinians mourning their losses in tears and through pained howls have passed her by completely. Or if they haven't, she's obviously "too impartial" to mention those in her superficial analysis. Durr.
"Save Israel. Save the Middle East. Save America."
Call Captain Planet!
But really. It's not just the right-wing that's the problem here. Obama's only marginally better, and even then, mostly only outwardly. Just who are you doting on to bring about the necessary changes FOR PALESTINIANS? And by that, I mean who is VIABLY an option here? What US Jew-or-otherhow could force Israel to open up Gaza, enforce the right to return, and put an end to all this segregation going on as well as change the laws in Israel to be fair to people of all religions equally? Peter Parker or Clark Kent?
"How about if US Judaism moves decisively away from Likud-Beiteinu?"
Or how about if they move away from supporting Israel all-together, like many liberals who have more than just superficial knowledge of the I/P conflict have already done? Any liberal zio is more damaging than a crazy US Likudnik mouthpiece. (Or do you seriously believe that if you move away from the Likud line in the US, you'll magically get Finkelstein-clones in charge of US-Israel affairs?) Why? The liberal zionists can tune their hasbara down to the extent of finessing dems and armchair activists to join their ranks, and once they do, can be made to passively consent the IDF terror and Israel's land grab and apartheid, etc., while the crazies are just alienating. And that's what America and the world needs to see to wake up to the truth.
And even if all the people using these bumper stickers really did only have a beef with Hamas, the sticker implies (let's just pretend it does for a moment here...) that they are concerned about the loss of innocent life, and despise brutish practices (real or imagined). They are so enraged by terror that they go so far as to decorate their car with this sticker. Since they're obviously so concerned for the suffering of others, and choose to make the I / P conflict the focus of their interest, I'd like them to stick 10 anti-IDF stickers on their car for every 1 Hamas sticker. Though that still doesn't come close to representing the scale of damage, terror and moral nastiness the IDF have been doing over Hamas since its inception. I wonder if those morally impeccable folks are willing to do that,being oh so concerned about the lives of innocent civilians after all..
I'm not defending terror on civilians, and I never will, but opposing Hamas so outwardly and not the IDF is a bit akin to placing a bumper sticker on your car that says "these windmills may provide energy, but they eff up our landscape, destroy them!" in the face of nuclear fallout from the 10 nuclear plants you're surrounded with.
You don't cage a dog and mistreat it for years, then stick your hand in the cage and when it bites you, print off a sticker saying "this dog is morally corrupted, it bites people! Beware!" and parade that around on your car, do you. I hope you don't, and if you do, I hope you're not morally twisted enough to think that you're a gutmensch for it.
"Some forms of violent tribalisms and ethnic-nationalisms are tolerated and others are not."
Of course that's true. If your kid pisses on your lawn, you'll give them a smack on the fingers, if a stranger pisses on your lawn, you'll go fetch your shotgun. Same principle here. The West's most privileged minority are definitely an in-group, and Arabs / Muslims definitely an out-group. It should also be obvious that it's not what you do that gets you punished, it's who you are that determines the severity of the punishment. Israel's been getting a hesitant glance at its fingers for driving over 500 thousand people from their homes and creating an apartheid state, while Arab countries get the whole embargo /drone terror thing for so much as farting. Can you tell who the kid and who the stranger is in this one?
You can call out society's hypocritical and often split-personality-disordered way of viewing things all day (and there's many things to list in that department). I've always been more a fan of pinning the blame on those responsible for creating this kind of impaired society in the first place.
But don't worry, we get to make up for our lack of a clue by defending our ill-informed standpoints with all the more vigor! And if our startup fails, never mind, we're still gonna defend our deficient media outlets and ruthless corporations, because we're feeling the phantom pain of our yet-to-be-earned millions.
Interesting read, thanks for the link.
I agree. I've seldom witnessed such myopic media coverage as on the I / P issue, and pretty much every outlet I know of is guilty of this. Many reputable newspapers often provide fairly well-researched background information on conflicts abroad, and are usually fairly unbiased, I'm finding this completely lacking what concerns I / P commentary. The media are happy to lose themselves in endless deliberations over who "threw the first stone" (oftentimes, quite literally) in the latest escalation, and totally neglect to inform their readership of the background and origins of the conflict, obviously, this tendency runs entirely in Israel's favor.
Imagine a little "background info box" by the side of such articles that starts with "The conflict started when a significant stretch of land was given to the Jews by the west, which closed its eyes to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their homes...". Yeah, that's happening.
No, just plain no, for many reasons, including those which Mooser has already mentioned.
I once corresponded with a guy who was very pro-Palestinian, the sole reason he cited for that is when his mother was pregnant with him and about to give birth, a Palestinian man rushed his mother to the hospital in his car, and comforted her while she was waiting to give birth. I also know a girl who feels the same way about Israel no matter what, because she dug up Jewish great-great grandparents.
As much as I hate to admit it, but humans are far less rational than we like to think we are, and facts / reason are far from being the ultimate weapons, seeing as they are oftentimes used as mere tools, as a means to an end which has already been reached.
At least concerning I / P, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's more a case of "We may know, but don't care".
Do you guys think that the majority of stout Israel defenders /hasbarites and islamophobes honestly do not believe in the existence of injustice towards Palestinians? I'm becoming increasingly convinced that their so-called denial is a shaky construct, comprised of strawman arguments and deliberate obtuseness, built up to cloak their conditioned negative emotional response towards Palestinians / Muslims as "our enemies" or just "people who are not like us ". I think that if you strip a lot of the BS logic away from them, it really comes down to "I hate muslims / Islam / Palestinians and I honestly don't care if they're being wronged because I dislike them so much / sympathise with the "wrongdoer" so much more".
Calling attention to the plight of a peoples only works on those who are already predisposed to favoring / seeking justice, but fails on those for whom "justice" is not as important as religious or cultural affiliations.
This may be obvious, but I just recently had an epiphany when I talked to someone whose short reply to my lengthy warble on I / P was "I know. I'm still pro-Israel though, and nothing will change that." I've been thinking long and hard about how to find access to these people, and have been failing miserably. I'm also less enthused now than I was before to argue with apologists, because I'm convinced that at some level, it all breaks down to the above-mentioned. I'm even close to saying that I don't believe that the emotional responses we were conditioned to heed whilst growing up will ever really leave, or at least that many people don't seem to have the strength and / or the will to overcome them in favor of promoting justice.
Thanks for elaborating. I wouldn't say nailed, I thought I'd comment on the part of it that disturbed me, that be all. I think focusing on gender is completely irrelevant, IMO, because it begs a debate on feminism and the social construction of the female role in society, something that would likely hijack this thread. Even within feminism, there's sufficiently radical groups that call for segregation from men, even male castration or some form of male ethnic cleansing.
"And lurking in the background of all my remarks on this subject is the fact that Pamela Geller’s writings drive me absolutely nuts. I feel permanently violated by having read even a few of her shrill paragraphs."
It's another reason I can only stomach reading so-much of what Zionists say, it makes me angry beyond comprehension. I'm shocked at the gravity Zionism has developed, shocked by its unparalleled influence on American culture, shocked by the extremism of many of its ardent supporters. It seems to bring out the worst in almost everyone. I've met preciously few Zionists who don't end up resorting to apologists, pre-conceptions revisionism and lies when backed into a corner.
"Ok, here’s the thing: the picture of women, whom we often like to associate with conscience, caring, compassion and kindness, inciting genocidal violence of behalf of Israeli extremism is unbelievably disturbing and creepy."
While we're talking stereotypical associations, let's add 'female proneness to hysterical and illogical behaviour' to the list, and spice our dish of misogyny du jour with some decreased capacities over men in the logic department and bang smack, a nice explanation for this radical behaviour to those so inclined.
"(I find myself wondering: who were their equivalents in extreme right-wing politics in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? No names come quickly to mind in terms of engaged relentless savage aggression.)"
This springs up conveniently on google, I'm sure many more lurk beyond the first 5 results on page 1.
link to investigation.discovery.com
Among the selection:
"[She] was reputed to be smart as a whip and mean as a snake. She had an affinity for classical music and listened to it when selecting women and children for the gas chambers — a deed she particularly enjoyed."
I stand corrected.
"But I have to wonder whether he did not also share the conventional social prejudice against Arab-Americans"
Jobs "not liking" what he found out about his father was likely pre-9/11. The stigma on people of Arab origin was nowhere near as great in the 80's and 90's, would whatever stigma was abound back then have been enough to warrant a prejudice against Arabs strong enough to completely override his admitted curiosity? IMO I doubt it, but there's no use in speculating, what he said could reference an infinite amount of things, none of which are our business.
The spin on some articles change daily, some get continually worse and some get slightly better. Double-check the source material, especially on controversial topics. I'd also recommend bookmarking any worthwhile source material you find, some of it's been known to disappear in later revisions.
Some interesting articles on the issue.
link to guardian.co.uk
link to haaretz.com
"The PLO formally recognized Israel and accepted the withdrawal clause in resolution 242 as the basis of a final settlement in 1988, long before Fayyad arrived on the political scene. "
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for filling me in.
"Leaders all over the world support Fayyad because he is willing to pursue non-violent forms of resistance to end the occupation that began in 1967. "
I think the only reason he's appreciated in the West is because he's in Israel's good book currently. He's a full-on PLO party-line puppet. If anything, the current PLO party line shows Israel that they can and should build as many settlements and engage in as many more land grabs as possible, as soon as possible, to make even less Palestinian territory viable in the long run, knowing full well even Fayyad will get scratched out of the West's good books when he demands those 22% when they're no longer viable for Israel because a bunch of new settlments 'just cannot be removed' from land that was the home to Palestinian communities just a year or two prior.
I also doubt a two-state solution is even on Israel's radar, despite its transparent claims. I think they just happened to decide that the Abbas / Fayyad approach is the safest and easiest way to continue doing just what they've always planned to, and will support them until they start opposing them in a meaningful way, at which point they'll be made out to be Hamas in disguise, and discredited internationally.
Fayyad, like Abbas wasn't voted for by the people he claims to speak for. Leaders all over the world liking him won't change the fact the Palestinians didn't vote for him, and quite obviously wanted a different approach, with less diluting of their demands going on. He's comfortable for the West, I believe that's why they like him. They can be 'for' Fayyad, and 'for' a vast majority of Israel's demands at the same time.
The development I'm putting the most hope in is the growing Israel-criticism in the West, which might eventually make leaders in the West more comfortable with considering less diluted Palestinian demands that actually correspond to the wishes of the majority of the Palestinian population, without feeling obligated to double-check if these newest developments offend Israel's sensibilities or not.
"All we Palestinians are looking for is viable sovereign state on 22% of the land"
22% of the land is "viable"? Better hurry up, because at the rate Israel is building settlements and stamping out local Palestinian communities, in another year, only 18% will be "viable", and only 15% the year after that. All in all Israel only need to stall discussions for about a decade, before next to no Palestinian state is "viable" in the first place. Perfectly played into Israel's hands. I've always wondered why Fayyad was being talked of so favourably in the west, it seems I'm now starting to understand why.
On a positive note, she may have titled her blog in the only lucid moment she has ever had.
I'm with you on this one seafoid. I find it a pity equally to see more covered women nowadays. I have no problem whatsoever with women making use of their right as autonomous people to chose whether or whether not to wear the hijab, burka or whatever else they wish, and live whatever way they wish, as long as their freedoms don't breach those of other people.
Forgive me for doubting however that the Saudi-funded Islamic resurgence and the resulting impression of Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islam and cultural ideologies throughout the ME doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a lot more women all over the ME are covered, and are being pressured to cover up and live more traditional lives, when compared to the way it was prior to the late 1970's, to the extent of risking rejection from their community if they don't comply. Rejecting the fact that this is a reality and hiding behind the rose-tinted western view that more women are simply "chosing" to cover up nowadays and live more traditionally, and that chosing a completely different dress and lifestyle would be equally encouraged if the woman wanted it is plain out naive, though may certainly apply in some cases. They are under far more pressure to live a certain kind of life nowadays. Ask any ME progressive who's been around long enough to observe the trend of an increasingly traditional / conservative cultural conditioning. It's not a good thing for all involved, including men. As one notable European Muslim feminist (whose name I have since tragically forgotten) once noted You can't oppress women without oppressing yourselves though it.
I have discussions with people on occasion who believe that what is happening is down to the fact that Islam needs a reform, and people in the ME have always been too pious to modernise it. While really, prior to the 1970's, there was no urgent need for a reform in the first place. It's not Islam, It's the Saudi brand of Islamic ideology, and their success in pushing it out into almost every crevice of the ME.
Tangentially, I also criticise this when it happens in traditional Jewish families and communities, where covering up a women's hair and most of her skin trespasses being encouraged and results in harassment and stigmatisation when the woman refuses to adhere to this.
Makes me wish I was there, too. The atmosphere must be monumental, I wish them all the best. Whatever government they eventually end up getting, I hope it's one they actually voted for, and that it works hard at fulfilling some of their key demands. They deserve no less.
"Well ya know, a certain Mr. So and So in America (love how he even included the farmers name...LMAO) isn't a horrible, horrible anti-semite, *he* doesn't mind snagging a few extra dollars selling Israel his fronds instead..! Tsk tsk you childish hateful primitive people, don't you know you're putting yourself out of business? (No you don't, because you're idiots, hence I'm going through great lengths to tell you in this article of mine!) Your plan to ruin Sukkot has failed miserably! The Righteous win again! Muahaha!"
By the time the article spiralled down into a Seussian nightmare my eyes were already cowering miserably in their sockets begging for the release of death. Dear me.
I'll spare myself any further commentary (because let's face it, if I spent more than 10 minutes typing, the response to the article would have taken me longer than writing that horrible article likely did the author) and give the entire article this picture, instead.
link to rlv.zcache.com
Both the USA and Israel are rapidly bringing problems upon themselves that not even those who wish for their downfall could have engineered more perfectly, that in essence is what's going to cause the real power shift, and an eventual shift in perspective. Though journalists devoting a lot of their time and effort (often at considerable risk) in order to bring what's really happening closer to us is important, too. Making people re-consider is one aspect of their work that might not be as important in the long run as the hard evidence they collect in the process may eventually be for future generations who wish to adequately reconstruct what really happened.
Israel-apologists don't have much convincing evidence, they have rhetoric that rests on false equivalences and emotional blackmail. Propaganda goes, facts remain, regardless of how cleverly obscured by ideology they may be at the time. Thing about Zionism in its current, horrid form is that it's an overly negative response to a historical event that is rooted in exceptionalism and as such also has an expiry date, and will eventually overstay its welcome (if it isn't already starting to, in a big way). Zionism isn't profiting a majority of people, and as such will be overridden with the demands and whims of the majority before long, and will be discarded by most once they stop being forced to hold its hand, or once they forget or stop caring why they ever took its hand, in the first place.
"Erdoğan would be beyond silly if he stood on the side of that crockplot to cook up war in his neighborhood."
Exactly. Forgive me if this is so obvious that mentioning it annoyed you to the extent of motivating you to point it out to me, or if my wording came off as smug, it wasn't intended to provoke. I'm sorry if it upset you, which it obviously did for you to react so harshly.
I agree with what you wrote.
" Before any Syrian refugees started streaming across the border into Turkey, Erdogan had erected a tent city for 5000 to house them, which is somewhat fishy. "
Consider also that Turkish police prevents non profits and journalists from seeing the refugees, only select visits are permitted. They don't have refugee status, either. In an interesting interview Turkish political scientist Şenay Özden suspects it might be Turkey's way to keep itself from being crossed out from the Syrian regime's good book quite yet.
Turkey did turn around on Al-Assad, I call it a pulling a USA, I'm no longer surprised that governments tolerate dictatorships until they come crashing down, at which point they pretend to always have been "for the people". It's a political particularity that seems to repeat itself ad infinitum, no longer catches my interest much.
"Erdoğan denied Obama's claims, [FM Ahmet] Davutoğlu said, and responded, "I do not protect Iran, but you [the United States] act as Israel's lawyer."
True words. Turkey protecting Iran? Don't think they'd have much of a reason to, especially after Khamenei gave the Turkish government a pasting. The two countries generally fit the description of rivals in the region more than that of friends who share common interests and would protect each other. Far as I recall Iran has recently criticised Turkey's opposition to the crackdown on Syrian protesters, criticised Turkey for working with the NATO, and criticised them for progressing with secularisation. Erdoğan'd be more than just a bit silly to stand on Iran's side now of all times, or even so much as settle for arbitration. That would be a 180 degree turn from pandering to Europe's desires and working out the Kurdish problem to Europe's satisfaction.
In hindsight, what I said about law assumes it's free from bias in the States (something the article you linked to quite clearly refutes), and international law is actually enforced in places such as Israel, which is relatively utopian.
"so how can that kind of exceptionalism be dealt with in law?"
I'm a European in his early twenties, I don't have much knowledge to fall back on and I don't know much about the American law system, so a lot of this is new to me. I can't give you much more than my uneducated opinion. I don't have the insider knowledge of the workings of America as a society or any of its institutions to give an adequate answer.
"how is legislation going to get all those holocaust movies to stop being produced by hollywood? how can we get hollywood to quit shoveling out bad persians and arabs thru legislation?"
I can give you some thoughts, if you care for them.
We get every single Holocaust movie Hollywood churns out, we're made to watch at least two documentaries on WWII in school, forced to read anecdotes by Zionists such as Wiesel, we have field trips to Holocaust memorials, and were made to visit a concentration camp.
How then can Jewish exceptionalism be next to a complete non-issue on a local level over here, while gaining enough momentum to take over jurisdiction, politics and popular culture in America? Some questions I've been asking myself are- is it the lobby in America that creates that kind of culture, or the culture in America that tolerates powerful lobbies to spread that kind of message as powerfully as it does? How much of it is down to the wealth these lobbies command, and how powerful would they be without calling on some fundamental elements already present in American culture, and which should be changed first?
The overwhelming majority of post-WW2 literature published by Jews that influenced popular culture over here were very much appeals to stop exceptionalism, recognise and reject mind-pollution and agitation and stop hatespeech, and fascism in all its forms. A lot of them were philosophical in nature, and drew heavily on socialist ideals. Among the many notable works by Jews who had a large influence on post- WW2 discourse over here are Adorno's The Authoritarian Character, Lukács' The Theory of the Novel, Löwenthal's False Prophets and Hessel's very recent bestseller Time for Outrage, calling for collective grassroots action against the growing gap between the rich and the poor (it's a good enough essay, though like quite a few European left-wing political pieces, it's sufficiently utopian, too).
Completely different picture in America, where the message seems to be except where Zionism and Jews are concerned!. This additional message was never subject to any kind of larger debate over here, rather it seems to be seen for what it is - a completely contrary notion to the ones being advocated by the aforementioned intellectuals, and many more non-Jewish intellectuals like them. Accepting both these works and Zionism's messages would be seen for the hypocrisy that it is and the message of exceptionalism rejected, it simply makes no sense. It pretty much starts and ends at this realisation over here.
Attempting to stop Hollywood from making Holocaust flicks, or discouraging certain religious interpretations isn't at the heart of the issue at all, IMO. I believe a lot of the problem is already contained in the culture, othering and fear mongering is something we've generally been afraid to engage in as a population after WW2, while the same things have been actively encouraged in America throughout the 20th century, the face of evil changing with every war or conflict America has been involved in. It's a culture that seems to have continually been motivated to hate / other / put down -something-. I see it as an unholy alliance of a culture that has a richer history of this type of behaviour (and hence a higher tolerance for it), paired with a wealthy and expansive Zionist lobby who promote othering for their own means.
What can be done about it that would have a meaningful impact? I can't think of anything that isn't already being attempted in some way, shape or form, and is continually being over-powered or discredited by the dominant mindset most of the time. Only thing I can come up with is mass outrage, Hessel style. (On a negative note, one thing he has in common with some other like-minded intellectuals is the utter cluelessness about how this could viably be engineered on a meaningful scale). I'm hopeful that the WS protests that have taken America by storm result in a longer-term change in perspective.
Apologies for the ramble, it's the best I can do.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.. I've been following that blog for some months now, and I remember that entry, I enjoyed it, too. I remember that MW article & your contributions to the discussion, too.
"[calling people self-haters is] a cultural phenomena that has not permeated cross culturally imho."
Absolutely, I agree- it's a cultural thing, the concept isn't confined to Jews at all in common discourse. That said, I've heard 'self-hating' used to describe gentiles too, but as you mentioned, it gains potency when used against a Jewish person (by whom is irrelevant), because in contemporary culture, it alludes to something beyond the mere statement of a fact or suspicion on a personal basis, rather it suggests the problem is down to a general flaw in the greater Jewish population, that is exhibited in the weak-willed, a meaning that is, of course, not contained within the word itself, but is an additional meaning given to the term through culture.
"it’s also a really dicey topic to discuss. i remember at dkos it was one of the very hot button issues surrounding the ‘chosen people’ issue. what seems clear to me is depending on the the way people interpret or practice their judaism, ‘chosen’ can mean different things to different people.. as it pertains to equal rights."
I remember commenting on this issue somewhere before, personally I don't see any controversy in it whatsoever on a societal level. I think how people interpret "chosen people" is relatively irrelevant, as long as their interpretation doesn't result in actions that endanger democracy, and they adhere to the principles set down by a secular democratic state, in which citizens of all religions, cultural and demographic backgrounds are to be treated as equal on all grounds, and no religion is favoured over the other. As long as they stick to it, fine. If they don't and break the law in the process, they should be punished accordingly.
I feel that any problematic situations that arise out of controversial interpretations need to be solved through law, and citing rules of the respective countries these individuals agree to by residing in (or international law and human rights conventions that all countries are bound to), rather than ending up in a discussion around whether or whether not to deny people the right to interpret the word of G-d the way they wish / were taught to, or what is or isn't the truth, that won't work without creating more problems than it solves IMO, it's the type of approach to the discussion that creates the trigger, it can be easily avoided by a different, more neutral approach.
"i know lots of jewish peace activists who participate in religious activities but it’s nobodies business and they shouldn’t have to advertise it."
I agree. I've always assumed the issue was confined to the online world, and a bit of a non-issue offline. Me personally nobody's ever questioned my religious alignment off the internet (then again I wear a kippah so I'm assuming they'd figure.) I've also never heard anyone accuse anyone else of this off the net, or report having been accused of it. Then again culture and mindset over here is generally very different to the way things work in the US, so I couldn't say to what extent this is / isn't an issue off the internet, or how international this is. Feel free to clue me in / elaborate, though, I'd be interested.
I'm continually amazed at some of the discourse happening in the USA / Israel, seems so little of it makes its way over here, things are discussed in completely different ways over here, for the most part, through a completely different cultural lense. People we'd consider extremists over here might pass as moderates over in the US, the general sentiment over here is that Americans are prone to extremism and sensationalism, both in their ideology and in their rhetoric (irregardless of political alignment). For what it's worth.
Thank you Annie for taking time out of the day to censor the hot-headed bits rather than preventing the entire post from being published, it seems I still lack the calm it takes to prevent my stronger emotions from getting the better of me, at times. I appreciate the way you handled it. I'll try my best to practice some restraint, if something that isn't acceptable does slip through despite my efforts, please feel very free to cut those parts out of it, I'd rather parts went missing than the entire post, mostly because it usually takes me quite a while to write them.
Thank you equally for your support, not only to me, but to most posters here and to the creators of this blog, I respect and look up to your important and time-consuming efforts, you have a strength in you I don't presently have, and can only hope to obtain one day.
"not sure our opinions totally segue in your post (re ‘no right to meaningful compensation’)"
I don't mind disagreeing with anyone, in this case though I don't think we do. I meant the above outlined is society's way of dealing with some other groups who have witnessed / witness discrimination whereas the idea of compensation never seems to get old for the West where Jews are concerned. I believe due compensation is important, regardless of the potential difficulties in defining the fine line marking where compensation ends and where exceptionalism starts (and the obvious problem of defining what "due" compensation is, and what forms it may or may not take, in the first place, a problem Zionists have been profiting from by playing on society's will to compensate them for the Shoah).
Despite obvious problems, due compensation is important, it's part of acknowledging that something went wrong somewhere down the line, and marks society's readiness to engage in a symbolic (or material, or both) gesture of apology and respect.
"y’know it just may have to come to this kind of confrontation to flush out the implication of these accusations."
I believe so. It's against my nature to play hardball, but how far can you go seems to be the question many are asking by their provocative behaviour, my challenge to them is to be consequent about the game they're playing without turning most people's stomachs (or even their own).
"it seems obvious to me how some people prioritize anti semitism over other forms of racism and bigotry and assume the rest of us do too."
It's quite clear, as evidenced by the drastic difference in narrative when something bad happens to Jews (or something bad might, possibly, around two corners, happen to Jews) and the narrative on display when bigotry hits a gentile. In the latter case, it's an unfortunate exception that doesn't warrant any form of larger-scale action or exceptionalism, in the former, it certainly does.
Well, what about those other groups?
"A 2005 study estimated that over 90 million females were "missing" from the expected population in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan alone, and suggested that sex-selective abortion plays a role in this deficit. [...] India's 2011 census shows a serious decline in the number of girls under the age of seven - activists fear eight million female fetuses may have been aborted between 2001 and 2011"
For all those people who know that around 6 million Jews died in the Shoah, how many know the above figures off by heart? And what does the fact that most don't know these figures tell us about our society? After all, it affects us too. Women were considered inferior in the West up until very recently, historically. Many lives have been lost or ruined by the idea of male superiority in the West, too. This should affect us too.
The moment something bad that's happened to a group of people is in the past, and a society has largely overcome it, that's that. Tabula rasa, start again, once it's over, you have no right to make yourself the victim, or to claim any meaningful compensation. It may be crudely remembered, but next to nothing is truly owed over a significant stretch of time. When it happens to Jews? Tabula rasa my ass. Nothing owed my ass. Dealt with in the same way other groups misfortune is dealt with my ass. You'd have to be blind to miss the exceptionalism going on here.
People need to wake up to this and acknowledge that anything more or less than equal treatment and dealing with problems each group faces in an equal way is crucial. We've all seen what exceptionalism can do, it brings out the worst in people, regardless of if it swings into a "positive" or negative realm. It's poisonous, dangerous and anti-democratic. I'm not a self-hater for refusing to make use of my right to whine, or for refusing to make demands that others cannot afford to make, or for refusing to claim resources that others cannot afford to claim. I want one thing, that is equal rights. Equal rights.
'positive' exceptionalism creates hate in those who are not included, and by the ludicrous rhetoric that needs to be resorted to in order to keep something so obviously unjust upright. It creates danger. It creates spite. It creates jealousy and resentment. It makes those who are included feel like they deserve more than others, just for being born into the 'right circle'. It creates a caste system. It's an active danger that has a looming backlash so obviously built into its very foundation, that it's a ticking time bomb. I believe it is currently the biggest threat to both the safety and the sanity of Jews everywhere.
I say this as a person who loves and practices my religion, as someone who is proud of it and proud of (most of) our contribution to society. If anyone wants to tell me I'm a bitter self-hater, or not a Jew because I don't endorse the exercise in fascistoid exceptionalism and ethnic cleansing that is Israel, I welcome them to tell me into my face and look me in the eyes while addressing me by my real name (my name's Avichai Saltzman and you can get my adress per e-mail if you wish), because quite frankly, it doesn't mean shit to me over the interwebs and I have no reason to believe these people even stick up for their filthy words offline, or would dare to say these things without sinking in shame anywhere else but on the internet.
You'd think if they were so behind what they say, they'd actually come out and tell their fellow non-Zionist Jews at gatherings, you know. GTFO our community you non-Jew! You do not support Israel! You are quite obviously a bitter, paranoid self-hater and you don't deserve Judaism if you don't equate it with Zionism! If that's what you think, come out and say it IRL to people in your community, that you celebrate and pray with...
"I don’t envision a 1SS in terms of land ownership based upon “identity,” but rather an inclusive, singular entity with equality of rights, freedom of movement and political representation for all of the people living in historic Palestine, including all of Israel’s 5 million Jewish citizens."
That's assuming that Israel has a will to live beyond its existence as a Jewish state. I think they're far more likely to go out with a bang, and then use Israel's destruction as a political tool similarly to the way they still milk the Shoah in order to flea-bargain for more political power and exceptionalism and upkeep the idea of Israel as an exalted ideal, than abandon what needs to be abandoned in order to create a country of equal rights and admit that their little experiment has failed dismally, and mend their ways. That would essentially be like giving up Israel anyway, with the exception of having to admit failure on top of that.
Politically, the former option would make a lot more sense. It wouldn't even need to be attached to millions of casualties, as the majority of Israelis would likely flee in time before the shit hits the fan completely. Of course, they could then proceed to continue playing the role of the banished victim on the political stage, and keep the anti-semite accusation dangerously potent.
Turning into a one-state compromise somewhere in the Levant would bring no profits besides peace and the hope of a good life in harmony with all the peoples of the land. I mean, you think they'd want that, but they haven't shown us one single time that that's what they value over endangering their stability, reputation and the safety of their population by making enemies in favour of continuing to ride the Zionist horse, so I'm not going to assume that that's something they'd ever break with, for whatever reason.
Call me a pessimist, but I believe Israel is on a self-made road of no return with not the slightest scrap of honest will to deviate from the purpose of its inception, even at the cost of the safety and lives of its population. In general though, of course I'd be overjoyed if I was proven wrong when things eventually play out. In my perfect world, nobody would be made to leave (not the Palestinians, and not the Jews that now call it their home, even though most came illegitimately), there would be no antagonism and no hate.
You forgot my favourite, "it's not pretty, but it's necessary in the greater scheme of things", it's such beautifully vague derailment, and comes so close to suggesting omniscience on the part of the claimer, that it just takes the cake.
"Now both sides are behaving as rational and responsible agents. Go Figure. [...] Yes, this is evidence that Hamas and a right-wing Israeli government can negotiate and reach an agreement."
I don't see it as evidence of anything, tbh. I honestly don't doubt they can agree as long as the topic is the exchange of prisoners and not say, GTFO'ing to UN resolution borders, or stopping to build settlements, or granting the Palestinians full and equal rights all the time and sticking to it, or anything that may actually be meaningful on a larger scale and over a longer period of time.
As for the US, what could the US do? Let's pretend for a minute that they were actually impartial (I know, it's a stretch), what could they possibly do if Israel just won't budge in all the important points? (Don't give me 'implementing sanctions' ..we all know that's about as likely to happen as Forrest Gump writing a book about experimental physics and outselling Hawking with it) And what will the US do? The same thing they always do - softly whispering something about sanctions before going beet-red, smacking themselves on the fingers for even having thought it, and hastily booting the nasty word under the rug before proceeding to stamp on it with an apologetic grin on their face.
By the side, creative framework sounds like a term Bibi would use. "U know gaiz, we really r pretty dam diplomatik, if u agree with wut we wont lul i mean az long as ur demands fit our kreatif fraemwork I mean if itz placed in a kreative framewurk lol durrrr !!!!111oneoneeleventy"
" i don’t think most people are stupid enough to link ‘the jews’ to WS."
Your optimism should be framed. :)
So, if a man in Yemen is declared a threat to the USA (by the USA), that justifies a US drone attack on Yemeni soil, but Iran - let's assume for a second that this story isn't pulled out of the US of A's ass entirely - doesn't have the right to do something similar on US soil to someone they'd like to see dead for their own self-declared reasons without Teh Righteous Sanctionhammer getting ready to be put to use in defence of themselves and the Saudi Arabians?
That's one way of teaching Arab countries the way the game's played. Do as the US do on the Palestine issue and you're in their good books as a country, regardless of how revolting your leadership may be (Saudi Arabia), but dare you have a revolting leadership and be pro-Palestinian, now that's just the icing on the cake, isn't it. That will make you our most hated enemy within mere years!
They've been pushing for an Iran war for ages now, and the European press has - to my knowledge - been publishing cynical commentary asking when they'll 'start on Iran' way back when they were barely in Iraq. If I'm surprised it's because it took them this long to start orchestrating a thin justification for it. (Too busy in other parts of the Muslim world, I take it) I'll admit the mafia part is a bit of a weak point in the plot, though. No special forces trained for such things available at the time? That's too bad. But never mind, the most important thing is that Haleburton, Lockheed-Martin and Carlyle are currently jizzing themselves in glee at these developments. only evil Muslim-loving communists would be indecent enough to ask for solid proof at a time like this.
ps. May the proof be delivered in form of a powerpoint presentation?
"Witness eee on other threads recently going on about 10 jews being killed in Cairo being a pogrom, but unable or to apply the same rationale to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF since 1948."
If I believed that my people were the only ones worth mourning over, and nobody else but them were close to my heart, wasn't raised with the idea that equality is desirable, and on top of that was raised to believe that Palestinians and / or Muslims in general disliked Jews for religious reasons, I'd likely not be too sad to see them die, either, regardless of the ratio.
I hesitate to wager that most people like that can ever truly be swayed, I think if they ever are, it would be by an elder in their lives whom they personally respect a lot, and who approaches them with tolerance and understanding before proceeding to challenge them, someone who manages to change their immediate emotional response to these issues through something familiar, someone who has their trust- something a hostile stranger throwing facts at them will never manage to do. Once someone has developed a strong emotional response to something, they'll construct their own facts to justify it and will tend to ignore or argue away all contrary facts.
Comments are closed.