-
-
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 0
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 9
- And we live on… 1
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 130
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 113
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Slater on Beinart (9)
- radii: the train has left the station and a few like Beinart have noticed but think they can still run and catch it...
- Citizen: This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because Congress just gave Israel $4 Billion dollars for...
- Krauss: Have you all noticed how the real liberal Zionists, even with warts and all, keep getting more and more...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- And we live on… (1)
- Talkback: They should make Gaza the most beautiful place just to p*** compulsory expellers off. Enviromental...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Slater on Beinart (9)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
A couple of months after Mubarak goes and they manage to agree to a peace deal. Makes you wonder how much the Mubarak's government (and by extension...) wanted an agreement between the two parties.
True 1984 style.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected.
That's exactly what it sounds like
I generally agree (with you, not max) but at times, I feel it's necessary to make such comparisons (when they're blatant). This particular law, in my opinion, resembles more Jim Crow laws
As a Muslim/Brit, I can't buy land in most of the states you mentioned. I'm sure you know the difference between not being able to buy a land in another country and not being able to buy land in your own country?
Having said that, I am a believer in free trade, which includes being able to buy land wherever you want no matter what nationality you are.
Well, passing a law that allows Jewish communities to prevent Arabs from being in their midst does have a Nazi-esque feel about it.
Seeing as two of the miners' names are Omar and Osman, I wouldn't be surprised if they were of Palestinian descent.
No they're not related - not biologically, nor politically, nor ideologically. The current Gandhi family is actually the Nehru family with Nehru's daughter seeing the political benefits of marrying someone with the Gandhi surname - related or not.
Congress is a broad party that encompassed a broad range of views in 1947 - it can not be claimed that the party today is the same one Gandhi was part of.
As I've said before, the Muslims in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, were never a majority. Any claim to the entire land would be ridiculous based on the concept of democracy. The claim that Muslims should have their own country was equally ridiculous when the alternative was an albeit imperfect secular state inclusive of all religions.
NB. Mohandas Ghandi is not related to the current Congress-affiliated Ghandi dynasty.
Although this article does gloss over many of the faults of modern India, the premise of it remains true - It's much easier being a Muslim in India than it is being one in Israel/Palestine. And a lot of that is due to the tolerance of the Hindu majority.
There are lots of details that are different though. Muslims never made up a majority in India (they did in Palestine). A simple one man one vote concept would have turned a Hindu majority even in pre-partition days. The commonality though is that the partition of 1947 was wrong then and that a two-state solution would be morally wrong today. Dividing territory based on religion or race in the 20th and 21st centuries is mind-numbingly stupid. More so as we know both are to a large extent artificial concepts.
One of the Economist's blogs tackled the issue full on today and mentioned how acceptable anti-Arab / anti-Muslim bigotry had become in mainstream western society. He also mentioned how Peretz' diatribes against Arabs became diatribes against Muslims after 9/11
link to economist.com
This is almost as amusing as the WSJ article about the Arab world hating the US not because of Israel, but because of Lady Gaga. Yes! It's all Lady Gaga's fault.
But on the interest issue, my savings account gives me a tiny amount in interest, which I give to charity. How that is destroying English culture, I'm not sure.
I think one doth protest too much. The Palestinians have had to deal with this crap for 10 years without you as much as batting an eyelid - in pretty much every mainstream media outlet in the US.
To be honest I don't see the difference between 'normal' Zionism and right-wing Zionism. Israel was founded on the fundamental belief that Jews have a right to live there because they lived there a couple of thousand years ago. That's what the Law of Return is based on.
You call it fascist when the Palestinians demand their rights but not when Jews do. Hmm!
Richard,
I second Pamela Olson's question.
Also, you seem to fail to understand that Fatah and the PA are not the same thing. The PA Presidency is Fatah controlled (though Abbas' term has expired) and the legislature is Hamas controlled (though the terms of the Parliamentarians has also expired). The cabinet, which is the executive body is controlled by the party with the majority of seats in parliament, which was Hamas up until this year, and it is responsible for negotiations. This cabinet though, hasn't existed since 2007, which means there is no PA in existence to negotiate on the Palestinians behalf. Negotiations solely with Fatah is partisan and thus doomed to failure, especially when Hamas retains popular support.
IF, Fatah wins a future legislative election and forms a cabinet, THEN it has the authority to negotiate solely on behalf of the Palestinians, as their elected representatives, but even then, it would make sense to include all parties in such important negotiations.
Well, it's not that surprising. Shariah Law comes from Halacha Law - both are archaic
Paul is probably the most principled politician I've ever come across. I don't agree with some of his views, but can't help respect him immensely (the only bit I strongly disagree with is his flip-flapping on civil liberties - especially of homosexuals).
His supporters founded the tea-party movement, back when it was a sane, respectable movement.
I second Avi's suggestion - this is an excellent essay - the last few paragraphs especially.
The confrontational attitude of the west towards the Middle East has unsurprisingly led to reactionary movements. And what better way to oppose the 'godless, materialistic' West than to adopt a more conservative form of Islam?
Regarding the article, I think Saddam would have lasted much longer than what's stated. It requires a lot of effort to bring down an autocrat and the level of opposition was not yet overwhelming.
A civil war of some sort would have probably been inevitable after the toppling of Saddam but it's unrealistic to make a definitive statement as to what would have happened after that. It's as uncertain as Iraq's future once the US pulls out (properly, not the pull-out that's not really a pull-out) .
Richard,
I don't see why a rise in oil prices necessitates an invasion. China doesn't do military intervention (at least not yet), neither does Europe (unless done with US leadership) and I doubt the US would have wanted to intervene in the midst of such a bloody civil war. Would you have supported intervention in 2006, during the worst of the violence?
And the huge bill that follows. I don't understand why empires insist on making the same mistakes as their predecessors.
Taxi, Saleema's Pakistani - I don't think the attempted kidnapping was done by a soldier, it was probably just a ?normal? kidnapping.
---
When I hear stories like the one's in Seham's post and the worries of Saleema, I always feel grateful for living in a country that is pretty tolerant. I live in an area where the far right BNP has lots of electoral support, but never do I feel unsafe. Most Muslims here are pretty visible - long beards, hijaabs and even niqaabs are very common, yet incidents of people being attacked for wearing a Hijaab or Niqaab are almost unheard of. Native Arabic speakers can speak the language without even having to give a second thought as to what other people will think.
Obviously, it's not guaranteed to be like this forever and not all places in the UK are like this, but I've put off making a back up plan. I'm British first and foremost, simply thinking about moving to another country is a big step and secondly, as my country of origin isn't a Muslim state, I would face exactly the same difficulties there as I would here should I decide to move.
In the UK, it's not always easy to discern between Islamophobic protests and legitimate worries about the scale of Mosque projects.
I do remember a story recently about large protests against a Mosque in the Midlands. The developers decided to change the plans so that the proposed building was 'more in line with nearby buildings'. The project is now going ahead and everyone seems happy.
Then there's the East London 'supermosque', which was intended to be a replacement to the current Tablighi Jamaat headquarters in Dewsbury. The opposition there were better organised and it was clear they didn't want the Mosque full stop. In the end, the council decided to use the powers it had, to prevent it from being built.
With the ISB, it's been four years now and the opposition to it seems to have died down.
Richard, more disingenuous arguments.
Britain doesn't have a constitution, but the freedoms of its citizens are well defined in the form of landmark acts such as the Bill of Rights. More importantly, such acts have not been tampered with nor the freedoms they enshrine. If this second condition wasn't the case, we as Britons would have pushed for a constitution a long time ago. It's not necessary for us to have a constitution at this moment in time, because our freedoms and rights are well established. Can you say the same for Israel?
The Arabs knew they were getting a raw deal from the partition plan, and vowed to fight it. The early Zionists knew they were getting an excellent deal with the partition plan and accepted it. The Palestinians fled the land for fear for their lives - and you bash them for doing so?
Your next paragraph just highlights your bigotry - the Palestinians should have just accepted living in a state as a minority, governed by people who moved there a couple of decades. They should have counted themselves lucky for having a right to live there at all.
The current problems are also dealt with in the letter extensively - they all stem from the settlement, the continued occupation and the continued refusal by the Israelis to grant the Palestinians the state they have a right to form.
====
The letter is excellent, articulating all the points with eloquence I could only ever hope for.
I read the headline of Hirsi-Ali's article on WSJ and knew that going onto read it would made me feel really depressed, so I didn't bother.
I remember when I first came across Huntington's thesis, whilst doing an essay on whether the War on Terror was a manifestation of such a clash - December 08 just before the Gaza war. I was horrified by what I was reading and could see how easily it would be for people to come to the conclusion Hirsi-Ali was pushing for. For me, it was a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe I misunderstood what he was trying to say (which is likely since I was a first year undergrad at the time), but I did come into the following problems:
- Where would I fit in? Am I part of the Islamic civilisation, the Western civilisation, or both?
- What explains the intra-civilisation conflicts that are as bloody as inter-civilisation conflicts?
I have to admit though, the thesis does sound very convincing, especially seeing as it seems to explain current events very well, though you do find problems when you dig deeper.
Oil is a curse if you don't have a stable economy at the time it's first discovered. I'd add Norway to the list above (probably the country that has reaped the most benefits from oil production).
Natural resources (not just oil) allow governments to spend a whole load of money without having put any effort into raising it (which would otherwise be done in the form of taxes) - no taxes means the link between government and the people is broken (i.e. no accountability). This leads to spending with impunity (if its not the people paying taxes, why should they worry as to how it's being spent?). The ability to have all this money at your disposal to spend with impunity leads to furious clashes for power. Examples? Pretty much every African country with a valuable natural resource.
Without a tax base, stable government is virtually impossible and without stable government, stable economies are virtually impossible and without stable economies taxes are hard to raise. It's a vicious circle.
It's also one of the reasons why a growing number of people are against development aid in the form of direct cash to governments. It creates exactly the same problems.
I read that comment in the Economist and it literally made me feel sick, especially when you see what happened in Iraq. Moral of the story: it doesn't matter whether you're democratic or not, we [the West] will get rid of you if you don't agree with us.
The question that needs to be asked is, how are we going to ensure a one state solution actually does ensure equal rights for all?
Richard, I don't think you get the flaws in your analogies with France - Israeli nationalism should be exactly that -Israeli, not Jewish. When a person migrates to France, he/she is considered French. Israeli-Arabs can never be considered Jewish.
Having a Law of Return allowing Jews to migrate to the country, but simultaneously denying Palestinians the right of return, is NOT democratic. Nor does any country in the world have such a blatantly racist immigration policy.
The 90% democratic and 10% Jewish is just superfluous nonsense. If you had said 90% democratic, 10% Israeli, it may have made more sense.
Simply put, no there haven't. ALL the attacks on holy sites in Iraq have been of one faction attacking a site holy only to the other. During the one violent event that happened in Mecca, extreme care was taken by all sides to make sure there wasn't any damage to the holy sites and that ordinary pilgrims weren't affected.
That Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel goes against all logical thinking - it would be a suicide mission for Iran
My family has not had this conversation yet, but it's something I've been thinking about over the past couple of months - what should I do if things take a turn for the worse?
Just a year ago, I would have laughed at analogies between Muslims in Europe/the United States and Jews in 1930s Germany. I still think there are great differences between the two situations and there are enough decent people to make sure something like the Holocaust doesn't happen, though such analogies are no longer laughable.
I still feel safe, though the next couple of years will be pretty unpredictable and it makes sense to have a back-up plan. Migrating to India sounds unappealing to me, not least because Gujarat (the state where my family comes from) has a habit of descending into orgies of violence that are mainly directed at Muslims. Zambia and Zimbabwe (the birth countries of my parents) are two other options, though each has its own issues.
For now at least and if things stay like they are, staying put is the best option
(Saleema, Thanks for the post. It's great to see you contributing towards Mondoweiss)
I'm just so glad that in Britain it's either on the 9th or 10th. I remember reading a story about a Shiite store owner in Houston who continues to be harassed today because he closed his store last year on 9/11 to celebrate Imam Ali's birthday.
I really do feel for American Muslims - they're better integrated into American society than we European Muslims, better educated, richer and contribute a lot more to the economy - they overwhelmingly voted Republican up until 2008. For the part of the past 9 years, they've kept their heads down hoping the storm would pass, but it just seems to be getting worse.
There have been several different IRAs over the years, the Provisional IRA (the main one, responsible for most of the attacks) disbanded recently as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. The continuity IRA (along with other groups) are Republicans who want little to do with the peace process.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but despite all the hate-filled rants I also see people furiously defending the right of Muslim-Americans to build the cultural centre in the area (obviously Mr. Pres isn't one of them).
There are two possible outcomes to this - either the organisers back away from the project and the US will have taken her first steps towards self-destruction.
Or the project will go ahead and the US will have passed probably its toughest test in a century.
--
Regarding the HAMAS terrorist question, I think it's highly hypocritical of the US when the state department never listed the IRA as a terror organisation. Both Hamas and the IRA formed under similar circumstances and have(had) similar goals (minus the religious baggage). To describe one as a terror organisation and not the other, says it all.
The parallels between India/Kashmir and Israel/Palestine are undeniable. It's funny how you get the same crap from Indian nationalists about 'Kashmir [Jerusalem/Judea & Samaria] being an integral part of India [Israel]', the stone throwers being 'terrorists' and the unrest being caused by 'outside forces such as Pakistan [Iran]'.
I love what India (is meant to) stand for - a secular country that brings together people of different religions, cultures, traditions and languages. I also think the partition was the biggest mistake in the recent history of South Asia.
BUT, it's clear and it's been clear since 1947, that Kashmiris do not want to be part of India. It's time for them to be given the right to decide upon their future instead of having it dictated to them from Delhi.
The irony of all of this is that allowing the Mosque to be built would be the biggest F-you to Al-Qaeda imaginable - it would give a message more powerful than any war.
This is being used increasingly by (self-proclaimed) left-wing British Zionists. Any Muslim who opposes Israeli actions is 'an anti-Semitic Islamist'
For those who struggle with the idea of BDS - they could at the least support BDS-lite, which would boycott and divest from, any company involved with the occupation and the illegal settlements.
Qutb was the ideological forefather to Al-Qaeda. To present his views as a representation of the views of the Arab world is disingenuous at best.
'The Power of Nightmares' by the BBC is a documentary I'd definitely recommend. It has a lot about Qutb/Jihadiism and the parallel neo-con movement that developed in the US.
Isn't this just 2) They Suck and 4) Everything sucks
The 2ss lefties are taking part in a protest along with some people (Palestinians) who they think will run amok and kill them if they were made to live together.
I do agree in principle that the Sheikh Jarrah protests would be a good place for showing the merits of a 1ss, though I would have hoped that the simply coming into contact with the 'other' and taking part in joint action with them (even if solely in the protests rather than the organising), would have done that.
PressTV has gone downhill ever since the elections of last year - it long abandoned the pretence of balance and is now no different to mainstream US media organisations. Al-Jazeera English is by far the best news station around.
Oh please Richard. If the same was said about Israeli parents, you would be the first to scream blood libel - that's exactly what it is
Not the Arab world, Richard - Arab governments. There is an important distinction
Many Israelis are like that - it's pretty odd.
If British Muslims were focused on the sole issue of Palestine, they would have voted overwhelmingly for the Lib Dems (they didn't). Not only that, there are at most 2 million Muslims in the UK, not several million as alleged.
Erm...since all Zionist claims to the Mandate originate from the Balfour declaration, I think the UK has more legitimacy in deciding its interpretation than Israel. And I know people in the Middle East seem to have long memories but jeez, the UK has been parroting the US line on Israel since at least 1967!
Which equates to saying the time for a one-state solution has passed, how exactly?
You thought wrong. He didn't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5721253/Amnesty-accuses-Israeli-forces-of-war-crimes.html
There was also no evidence given for the hospital and ambulance claims and the hospital itself denied the accusations.
The very fact that you feel the Palestinians do not have a right to live in the homeland they were expelled from, shows that you harbour at least some prejudice towards them.
The 'they love death' and 'they hide behind civilians' canards make it blindingly obvious.
TGIA,
The point you make is a legitimate one, but the rest of the post is pretty well thought-out and worth reading. You may not agree with all of it (or even most of it).
I think the specific sentence comparing American Jews and Lebanese Palestinians was more of a slip of the wrist rather than an attempt at making symmetry between the two situations.
There are a couple of areas where I disagree with Mr. Zakkai - his pre-1948 history of the area has a distinct Israeli-tint to it. It's clear the Palestinian resentment against the newcomers had a lot to do with their ambitions for creating their own state. Also, I think the Palestinian RoR is more important and more urgent than the Jewish RoR and thus should be favoured.
What a thoroughly bigoted two paragraphs - devoid of any knowledge of history. Populations all over the world have escaped violence but have been able to return (and have returned) once violence has ended. There are a couple of exceptions to this: the Palestinians being one, people from the Indian sub-continent as a result of partition being the second example, and ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe being the third. Whereas the latter two have had countries they could call home to move to, the Palestinians haven't.
xcept the Arabs from Palestine. They have nurtured and expanded their pain until the moaning drowns out the hum of global progress.
The same could be said for Jews. But whereas the Jewry has had 3000 years to get over being stateless, the Palestinians have had 60.
Arab leaders gleefully imprison these Arabs in poverty and war so their magnified suffering will annoy the entire planet. Worse, these leaders throw these fools as cannon fodder onto the guns of the Israelis, so that their bleeding and crying will arouse sympathy. The more blood — the more sympathy.
The irony of the above paragraph is that you could replace the first Arab with Israel, the second with Jews and the Israelis with Arabs and it would make a lot more sense.
Currently, the criminals running Hamas and Hezbollah are carefully arranging their weapons and headquarters so that the maximum number of Arab families will be hit by the next Israeli counter-attack. When the Arabs say they love death, they include yours and mine. And especially the children, who make great video when they die.
You'd think that after being refuted a couple of hundred times, people would understand that there is no factual basis for the accusation that Hamas hides amongst civilians and hides weapons in buildings such as hospitals.
An extremely well thought out and comprehensive post.
I find myself agreeing with a lot that you have to say, despite not liking what's being said. I do think that many refugees would be happy with just precondition one - sixty years without so much as an apology is bound to hurt.
Your post has a lot on Palestinian viewpoints, but I wonder how feasible it would be to get mainstream Israel on board? Recognising the Nakba itself would be a big step.
Spain in general isn't very multicultural. Up until a couple of years ago, immigration (other than from British ex-pats) was non-existent. Take a look at the German, French, or English teams though (and to an extent the US team too) and you'll see a very different picture.
The all born and raised in Spain, all male bit is kind of the whole point with international matches - you play for your home country and there are separate women's teams. The women's World Cup has been won by the US twice.
I was one of the few in my family supporting Holland. Members of my family took the complete opposite view claiming Spain one despite the Holland team's best attempts at fouling their way to victory.
Maybe in countries such as France, but in Britain most people usually take a week or two off, during summer. Legally, full-time workers are allowed 28 days paid leave a year.
The Ofer Neiman post.
Neiman's post was about how Kristof disregarded (maybe non-intentionally) non-violent actions by Palestinians prior to the involvement of Israeli civil society and gave examples of such actions. You misrepresented the post as an attack on Israeli civil society (which it wasn't) and then attacked Neiman for his post.
Schwartzman,
I read your comment and found all your points extremely sensible. I hear similar things from many Israelis. Then why was there such an angry reaction when Obama asked (very politely) for a settlement freeze?
The reaction to Witty was on a certain thread, where he deliberately misrepresented the post (that he hadn't read) and launched into an attack on the author. There is some level of tolerance for Witty's attacks on Phil and the other authors, but this was too far.
Actually I was wrong - you took the first four words of the first line (from a post that was 485 words long). Then you wonder why people get annoyed at you.
Witty,
You took the first paragraph of my post, disregarded the rest of it and then posted a reply telling me to do exactly what I said you weren't doing.
There is still fundamental differences within the dissenting community, ranging from scary hateful propagation, to dismissive single-state advocacy, to naively hopeful single-state advocacy, to genuine support of Palestinians’ civil rights, and hastening facilitation of Palestinian statehood.
What do you mean by 'dissenting community'. Is calling a spade a spade, hateful propagation? Am I being hateful if I say that much of the Muslim world's treatment of homosexuals disgusts me?
Those who advocate a one-state solution (most of whom are either Palestinians or Israelis) have considered a two-state solution and deemed it infeasible. They have explained their reasoning many times on this blog, yet all you can do is call it 'naive' or 'dismissive' instead of challenging the premises of their arguments. Instead, those arguments are challenged by other members of the 'dissenting community' who believe a two-state solution is more feasible.
When a demonstration includes the slogan “Zionism is racism”, I know that democracy is not part of the proposal.
You know full well why many consider Zionism to be a form of racism. A Jewish state in 1948 (not racist) could not have existed without large-scale expulsions of the Arab populace (racist). This is exactly what happened.
I don't really see how calling Zionism racism is an attack on democracy.
They DO need to learn how to communicate.
Communication is a two-way process - it's really not the Palestinians' fault if the world (including you) refuses to acknowledge the existence of non-violent resistance in Palestinian civil society. Claiming the Palestinians aren't doing their bit is disingenuous - the number of non-violent actions have vastly outweighed violent ones ever since 1967. How many times have we heard the petty sloganeering, 'Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?' Forgive me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure you've come out with that line on more than one occasion.
there is also too damn much rationalization (deception) for low level violence like the rock-throwing during the 1st intifada.
The first intifada started off as a tax-revolt. The Israelis turned nasty and the Palestinians defended themselves. This is rationalisation, but it's dishonest for you to claim it's deception. The Revolutionaries did exactly the same thing in the 1790s and have been almost deified for it. How many times have you attempted to rationalise Israeli violence against the Palestinians (violence that is much worse than rock throwing)?
It, and the habitual condemnation (rather than reasoned criticism), causes a great deal of distrust and dismissal of even important valid contentions.
Condemnation doesn't occur willy nilly. Condemnation happens when a party is in the wrong and commits acts worthy of condemnation.
We, liberals, feel lied to by both the right and the left. As I spend much more of my time with the left than the right, I personally feel lied to more by the left.
And what do you mean by 'liberal' here? I haven't come across much liberalism in your comments here
It seems Mr Witty is more honest on his own blog than he is here (well sort of). In his response to the flotilla attack:
But in the paragraphs prior to that, he laments at there not being a decent alternative to the blockade (contradict yourself much?)
But then he also sometimes reverts to being the Witty we all know and love:
It is patronising to assume the Palestinians don't know how to protest non-violently and they need to be taught it. Ofer pointed this out and gave many examples of non-violent resistance that preceded the involvement of Israeli Civil Society
Isn't it Fatah who are meant to reconcile with Hamas seeing as it was them who first attempted to launch a coup?
I was wondering whether anyone would cover the sacking of Nasr. It seems even more disgraceful in the light of this article by Robert Baer
Obama got the Cairo speech and the small statements against the settlements out of the way quickly, so he could spend the rest of the time using his charm offensive to win back those amongst the American Jewish community who are pissed off. Either it's genius or plain dumb.
I had a look at the ADL website. I could only find two statements condemning two separate arson attacks against Mosques - no statement on either this protest, nor the Staten Island protest, nor on the soaring Arab hatred.
The West Bank and Gaza are part of one state. Although I'm pretty sure Hamas won a majority in the West Bank too (seeing as the West Bank is more populous, how else would they have won a majority), it doesn't matter. They won the election outright in Palestine.
Local Anglican churches regularly send out delegations to the West Bank and Israel. Unlike US Christians, a significant number in the UK have seen what happens on the ground and have reported back.
No amount of hasbara can fool you once you've seen what the Palestinians go through.
I've never been to the US, but in every other country I've visited, a child learns how to kick a ball at around the age of 4. From then on, it's played everywhere, all the time - in homes using mini footballs, on weekends at the local playing field, on an evening in the street, during lunch break, during Physical Education lessons at school, on the beach when on holiday, inside a Gym (for five-a-side matches) etc.
Playing for a team is only part of the story and it seems that's the only bit Americans do. The obsession is not there and neither is the culture.
Yup, that's true.
In Britain, we have a Parliamentary Task-force against Anti-Semitism, the same with Canada (not Europe, but same idea) and the EU has come up with a definition of anti-Semitism, which is pretty reasonable apart from the bit, which labels calling Israel a 'racist endeavour' anti-Semitic.
That may not necessarily be the case. It could just be that the Hebrew school is a very good public school. I went to an Anglican primary school and my parents' reserve choice for high school was a Catholic one.
The irony of this all is that, knowing Arabic will give your career prospects a massive boost, whereas with Hebrew...
Urghh!
Football is much more sophisticated than goals being scored at each end - the inspired footwork, the skill in handling the ball and the fast-paced nature, is what makes it the most popular sport in the world.
This is the thing about American sports - it's more about entertainment and less about passion. Football is the other way round - something that I don't think Americans will ever understand, even if the USA does well in the tournament.
Having said that, this World Cup has been off to a slow start. Hopefully, things get better. As droog said, World Cup matches are not as interesting because of what's at stake, but if you want to take a look at what football is about:
link to youtube.com
Mustafa Barghouti on the same programme:
'The non-violence movement is gaining traction, not just in Palestine but also internationally. Israel fears this movement and have desperately been trying to suppress it'
Mearsheimer on Al-Jazeera:
'People have been trying to make out the West Bank to be a paradise but many South Africans have said that it's worse than Apartheid'
'The Americans have admitted and so have Israelis, that Israel's policies are disastrous for the US but the US is powerless to do anything because of the Israel lobby'
Are some peoples' moral compasses so warped that they actually take his words seriously?
'pain on behalf of the injured soldiers' - what about the dead peace activists?
The opposition supported the flotilla even more vigorously than Erdogan and the AKP - fool.
Erdogan in his time as PM has repealed some of the worst abuses against the Kurds (though he still has a long way to go), has attempted to reconcile with the Armenians and supported re-unification between the Cypriots.
Really? I've heard nothing about that.
I have heard about Israel confiscating all video evidence not taken by them - anything to hide?
And yes, you have a democracy in the form of Turkey lecturing an ethnocracy on how to behave responsibly on the international stage. There's really no need to spew your crap all over the post, one thread of ad hominem attacks against the Turkish is more than enough.
Turkey will remain in NATO, and it will eventually get it's EU membership seeing as most sane people in the EU support its ascension.
Yes, the Turks committed genocide 90 years ago, which obviously means that they can no longer talk about murder......ever.
Unsurprisingly, the videos taken by the activists have been confiscated
The BBC seems to have interpreted it differently. It said the use of the word 'act' is to leave it open as to who to blame - the Israelis, or the humanitarians. It also said that the final statement had been watered down significantly at US requests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10201165.stm
There was a pro-IDF rally in Ashdod yesterday and there were a couple of young Arab women caught up in it. You should have seen the vitriol directed at them with many shouting 'Death to Arabs' in Hebrew at them.
Surprisingly, this was all shown on Murdoch's Sky News
JPost like Israel has gone nuts - A country full of right-wing loons who hate everyone that doesn't totally subscribe to their lies.
I'm sorry but that just makes us as bad as them. There's always a time when you think a battle against oppression is unwinnable without violence because the opposition is too strong, but every time the right side prevails without the need for violence.
We do need to confront the people who preach Israeli supremacy, but this can be done non-violently.We do need to take action, but not with violence. If the Israelis are indeed great strategists, then you know how violence will be portrayed (and in my opinion, rightly so).
Craig Murray, a former British diplomat, sums up in a blog post the (il)legality of the whole operation. His blog is pretty awesome in general
Every time I try and understand Israel and Israelis, it goes and does something like this. The disgust and horror I felt today is something I've rarely felt before. It just reinforces the perception that Israel is bat-shit crazy on par with North Korea and needs restraining.
I think this quote I found on Twitter sums it up perfectly
I don't think Israel and its supporters realise the seriousness of what it did today. Attacking an aid ship resulting in the deaths of over a dozen people goes much further than I ever expected Israel to go.
What I find telling is that the Miliband brothers have been especially vocal after this tragedy, but were mute when in government and the Gaza massacre happened (David in particular, seeing as he was FM).
3. What do you expect when you have armed-Israeli commandos abseiling onto the deck of a ship? That they just wait to be fired upon.
The ship had already re-routed once to avoid confrontation.
but this time we have the existence of social media, the international press, and also dozens of parliamentarians on board.
Sorry, it should say 'the actions of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe'
The same reason why the US has no qualms recognising Sinn Fein. Its double standards when it came to Irish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism, is outrageous.
I have little respect for Mbeki after his refusal to condemn the actions of Zimbabwe. His credentials for knowing between right and wrong were severely dented by this, in my view. That, and the fact that he thought AIDs didn't exist.
You have continuously asked there to be a clear inspection mechanism to make sure construction materials can not be used to build weapons. Meshaal is offering this yet you're still unhappy.
Everyone knows what the right of return means. I even explained it to you explicitly (there's only one logical meaning). It's not possible to clarify it any further.
Meshaal can not offer any change in the relationship between Hamas and Israel seeing as it is Israel that refuses to negotiate with it. You know that, I know that and he knows it. Hamas has offered to stop rocket fire and prevent others from doing so (but only in return for an end to the siege), and has pledged to abide by any peace resolution the Palestinian people agree to. There is nothing more you can ask from Hamas.
Are the customs checks not enough?
I'm sorry but checks by Israel are never going to happen. Why? Because the aid will never get to Gaza then
Zamaaz,
The flotilla has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with Gaza. Intercepting the flotilla would be an act of piracy seeing as it has nothing to do with Israeli sovereignty.
The assertion that the flotilla is violent is a guess on their part. It certainly is forceful, but violent is a different word.
Not forceful, it's determined.
How are you confident that the flotilla does not carry arms and/or fugitives, short of third party verification?
I'm certain. There's been no evidence to suggest that the flotilla carries either and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have European Parliamentarians and Nobel Prize winners if it carried either.
I question the Israeli assertion that the flotilla is violent.
None of the activists are armed and none want any confrontation with the Israeli authorities. This is clear and has been made clear from the beginning - If you truly support non-violent actions, here's your chance to prove it. Either that, or prove that you're a hypocrite whose words are of no value and whose love for Israel has blinded you to your blatant racism against Palestinians.
The exact same could be said with the US - failing to enforce resolution after resolution against Israel - It's hypocritical for you to bang on about Lebanon but not once mention the more numerous violations by Israel. The US' failure to go through the relevant institutions when deciding to go to war against Iraq, also doesn't bode well for its objectivity.
The US would be no different to Israel. I for one trust the EU and the UN much more than the US to enforce any agreement objectively, but you know that too - you don't want an end to the siege, you want to see its continuation and you know that this would happen under US' control of ports.
The point is, if Israel lifted the siege, Hamas would have no legitimate excuse for attacking Israel and at least Israelis in Sderot on Beersheba AND the Palestinians in Gaza can go about their lives with normalcy (if that is desired).
I would support an EU/UN port, the US is by no means an objective player (neither is the EU, but it's a good enough compromise)
Please outline your reasons for not accepting a UN operated port? Other than having little respect for international institutions
Richard,
Just so you stop rabbiting on about the three questions, here are the answers:
1) the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, recognised in Article 1. Paragraph 4 "... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes..."
Resistance against occupations came to a head during WWII. That you'd condemn these resistance movements to defend Israel just shows how low you're willing to go.
2) Logic. If that wasn't the case, then every country would just deny the right of return until the original refugees died out. Seeing as Palestinian refugees are still classed refugees, the right of return applies.
3) It's not up to us to prove it's legal to have a seaport, it's up to you to prove it's unlawful.
Come on people, don't you know? Only Richard Witty knows what non-violent resistance is. He is the real heir to Ghandi, whereas the rest of us are just phonies.
Please don’t put words into my mouth. You are often confused about what I say and mean.
I think you should make yourself clearer then.
I'm sure you said that in the 1950s, Israel was right not to allow Palestinians to return because it was too weak and in 2010, the original refugees should be allowed to return (even though many of them are already dead) but not their families (who are also refugees)
I'm pretty sure Ghandi and his followers were angry at colonial rule. I'm pretty sure the Sufragettes were angry when the police played cat and mouse with them. The bus boycott was dominated by anger. The point is, they weren't dominated by violence - learn to tell the difference.
No need to get so angry.
Though in all seriousness, I don't know how you can claim that you've seen Israel from the side.
How can you say with a straight face, that the aid in the flotilla will get to the Gazans if it goes via Israel or Egypt?
It's been tried with Israel (via humanitarian agencies) and has failed and has been tried with Egypt (via the first Viva Palestina convoy) and has failed (the aid was dropped of in a stadium where the authorities nicked the most valuable stuff).
I regarded an interesting man as my guru once. I was conforming to peer pressure in thinking that way. It was foreign to me, and I thought foreign to his teaching. I heard a friend say, attempting to convince me that this guy was something beyond natural, “To tell a true guru from a fraud, you have to poke from more than one perspective”.
From the front, this guy looked like a guru. From the side, he looked like a dynamic man.
The crowd insisted that I only look from the front. I looked from the side.
He was in fact a dynamic man, not someone who knew every thought that I had, not someone that could predict the future, not someone that could make spoons rise.
Now do the same to Israel. Look at it from the side.
I don't know much about the Lebanon conflict so I won't discuss that any further. We were talking about the offensive in Gaza. Can you find any examples of grossly different conclusions on what happened during this offensive?
The UN General Assembly has also passed hundreds of resolutions against Israel, not one that it has complied with - yet when it suits you, you bring them up?
If they investigate independently and reach the same conclusion, that is overwhelming evidence. All three have investigations have been tested sceptically with only the Israeli government fighting the conclusions (but always failing to provide any evidence for their counter-claims and their defences)
Publicly speaking in my locale on the condition of Palestinians, and the history of their forced removal (more importantly, the 1950-51 laws permanently prohibiting their return)
Yet you insist they still not be allowed to return?
How is that any different from Benny Morris' 'it was ethnic cleansing but it was justified ethnic cleansing'
---
On the Gaza Flotilla, the anger emerged once it was made clear that Israel was employing its PR machine to portray the flotilla as 'violent' and 'dangerous' - it is neither. Some anger has also been directed at you for your undue criticisms of the flotilla. You mention that it may not be legal for the flotilla to dock (but never mention under what law) and you use that to draw to the conclusion that Israel would be justified in blocking the flotilla (how exactly?). Not once do you mention to humanitarian aspect - imagine the rage if the US decided not to attempt to break the Berlin blockade for fear of breaking the law (by entering Soviet airspace). How is this any different to the attempts at breaking the Berlin blockade?
Richard,
The Goldstone Report, the Amnesty International and HRW investigations etc. on their own, may not be authoritative. Together though, they provide overwhelming evidence of Israeli foul-play. The only reports that contradict the findings of the others, are the ones that come out from the IDF. Who should I believe?
To be honest Richard, what's the point? The relevant law will be quoted and you'll decide that the law is ambiguous and doesn't 'prove' anything.
The US blockade of Japan, if repeated today, would be a war-crime. The particular event isn't considered one, because the Geneva Conventions had not been passed at the time.
I see you ignored my other post on this page. Here's a link to it.
With the absence of a sovereign entity, a de facto port is perfectly legitimate.
The PA hasn't really been in existence since 2007 and seeing as the terms of Mahmoud Abbas and all the parliamentarians has ended, it has even less legitimacy.
I'm sure that all of the people on the flotilla are praying for Israel to let them pass and effectively end the siege. At least then, the Palestinians in Gaza can live in some semblance of normalcy.
The Palestinians did declare independence, only for Congress to pass a law never to recognise such a declaration. They also had elections (remember those) only for the US, Israel and the EU to decide they weren't going to recognise the result (something about voting the wrong way).
The absence of a sovereign nation does not render making an international port illegal. The decision about whether to allow the ships to dock, rests with the Palestinians in Gaza. I've got a feeling they have little issue with the flotilla.
When two of Israel's allies take the step of expelling Israeli diplomats because of the affair, you can be rest assured that it isn't a conspiracy, but a reality.
What part of international waters don't you understand? These people aren't offending anything. What's your insistence on taking aid from hungry Gazans and giving it to hungry Sudanese. Israel has no jurisdiction over Gaza and thus any attempt at influencing the direction of the aid, would be an act of piracy.
It's a disgrace how Israeli spokespeople can get away with saying 'they have everything they need'
But when you declare yourself an apostate, logically you stop being Muslim. They can't be classed 'good Muslims' and the rest of us 'bad Muslims' if they aren't Muslim in the first place.
It seems logic isn't a strong point for these people.
The right to resist occupation is I'm pretty sure, a legal one. Never did I mention mass murder and assuming I meant that says more about you than it does me.
I clarified what I meant by RoR in the other thread - you chose to ignore it so Ill repeat it here. Those Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel in 1948 must be allowed to return to Israel. Those Palestinians who lived in the occupied territories, must be allowed to return there.
The right not to live under collective punishment, (i.e. the illegality of collective punishment) is again a legal right under international law. With regards to the siege, denying full and proper access to food (human right), denying building materials needed to build shelter (human right), denying access to education (human right)....etc. etc. And with regards to the West Bank - one word - Checkpoints (No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)
And my favourites - Article 9 of the Universal Declaration - "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Article 13.2 - "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Never have I asserted that Jews don't have the right to self-govern. What I have asserted is that Jews don't have the right to self-govern AND disenfranchise non-Jews, which is exactly what modern-day Zionism (in the form of Israel) is.
The number of human rights Israel has abused are too numerous to mention. All while you have attempted to justify these abuses. Yet you acknowledge Palestinian Human Rights?
You say you acknowledge Palestinian human rights, but when we actually come to applying it, it seems your concern for Palestinian human rights disappear - for example, with regards to the RoR, the right not to be under collective punishment, the right to resist occupation etc.
By attempting to co-opt Shmuel, with flattery and sweet talk, coupled with her post above, she is essentially trying to regain her credibility so that she can use the old divide-and-conquer routine and turn this website into a pigsty with her propaganda.
I have to admit, I fell for it - up until I read your post.
I really do wonder whether Bernie Thau does change his views of the conflict. If he does, it means no-one truly makes an irreversible journey to the dark side.
lol....That is very true
Is this the same siege where Gazan farmers had to burn all their roses, because Israel refused to let them be exported to Europe (where they were badly needed during the Valentine's Day period)?
As Sumud pointed out, 80% of Gazans don't have a job and very soon, they won't have money to pay the snake oil salesman who run the tunnels. Then we'll witness an even greater humanitarian crisis.
You got the we rock and they suck but have you got the you suck and everything sucks.