It’s all over, folks.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead. For there to be peace among the Israelis and the Palestinians the occupation must end, but the occupation will not end and nothing Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or George Mitchell can do will change that. The reason for this is because there are two possible ways for Israel to end the occupation, but both have already been tried and both have already failed. The first possible way is through a negotiated settlement. The second possible way is through a unilateral withdrawal. History has shown that neither will work and, furthermore, Barack’s counterproductive call for a total settlement freeze has killed any likely chances for meaningful negotiations in the future.
Negotiated Settlement:
The idea behind a negotiated settlement, of course, is that Israeli officials would sit down with Palestinian officials, presumably Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and hammer out the details of a workable two-state solution. Unfortunately, if we have learned anything, it is that Palestinian leadership has never shown the slightest inclination toward accepting a two-state solution.
For example, in 1937, the British Peel Commission, formed to find a possible solution to the Arab Uprising of 1936 to 1939, originally recommended two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish leadership accepted the offer, while the Arab leadership refused.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations passed resolution 181, also calling for a two-state solution and again the Jewish leadership accepted and the Arab leadership refused. The Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate (they were not yet called “Palestinians”) then launched a civil war against the Jews prior to the British withdrawal in May of 1948 and were defeated.
Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip. At no time during this period did any Arab leadership call for a “Palestinian” state on this land and neither did the Palestinians, themselves. It was only after Israel acquired both territories during the 6 Day War, a defensive war on the part of the Jewish state, did Palestinian nationalism gain ground and we began to hear Palestinian calls for a Palestinian state.
Since then, however, the Palestinian leadership still consistently refused to accept a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered Yassir Arafat 100 percent of the Gaza, over 90 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, as a capital. Arafat refused the offer and refused, even, to make a counter offer.
Just recently, in 2007, PM Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas a similar offer that also included land-swaps to bring the Palestinian holdings of the West Bank to something close to 100 percent, but he, too, was turned down flat.
What can this possibly mean other than that the Palestinian leadership is still not ready to accept the two-state solution?
What more can they possibly want beyond 100 percent of the Gaza, something close to 100 percent of the West Bank, and the Arab parts of the East Jerusalem as a capital?
The right of return?
The right of return, of course, is entirely a non-starter for Israel because it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. It would mean that, yet again, Jews would have to live as a minority among a hostile population that has consistently sought the destruction of the Jewish community in its traditional home. The Knesset could never accept any such condition, nor should they.
Unilateral Withdrawal:
While the Palestinian leadership has never accepted a negotiated settlement, nor have they accepted Israeli unilateral withdrawal from occupied territory. In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the entirety of the Gaza strip. In a move that traumatized Israeli society, the IDF turned Jewish rifles on Jewish settlers in the Gaza and forced about 10,000 of them to leave their homes in order to clear the way for Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza.
At the time, the Gazans had an opportunity. Israel did precisely what virtually everyone throughout the world had been calling on it to do, end the occupation. And they did so, but, yet again, the Palestinian leadership showed itself unwilling to allow the end of that occupation.
At the time, the Palestinian people could very well have raised up a political party calling for peace, future prosperity, and normalization, but they refused. They could have raised a political party that might have said something along these lines. “Since what we desire above all else is peace, the potential for prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for sovereignty over our own land, we call upon our neighbor to the East to join us in creating an atmosphere that might encourage those goals. Because Israel has ended the occupation of Gaza, we declare an end of the war against Israel and for full economic cooperation between our two peoples.”
Instead, they increased rocket fire by a magnitude of 10-fold against southern Israel and elected Hamas, an organization that calls quite specifically for the genocide of the Jews, which is precisely why both Israel and Egypt blockaded the Gaza shortly thereafter. It is for this reason that Israelis now find themselves less inclined to withdraw from the West Bank, because they do not want to see such a withdrawal result in thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rockets potentially falling on Tel Aviv.
Operation Cast Lead, tragic as it was, and however unfashionable it might be to say so within western left-liberal circles, was a direct result of that decision by the Palestinian leadership and its people.
The Obama Administration:
As I have written before, Obama’s big mistake, if he was hoping to actually bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, was calling for a total settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The demand for total settlement freeze, even within blocs that would likely end up as part of Israel, has resulted in a number of negative consequences that undermine even the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement.
The first negative consequence is that by calling for a total settlement freeze, Obama placed a precondition on negotiations at a time when he should have avoided any move that might decrease the likelihood of the two sides sitting down at the negotiating table. When Obama called for total freeze, Abbas took it as an opportunity to avoid negotiations and insisted that the Palestinians would never sit down with the Israelis until Israel met that demand.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, could not meet that demand even if he wanted to because it would have meant tearing apart his governing coalition. The demand for total settlement freeze was really nothing less than a demand that Netanyahu step aside and allow his government to fall. Naturally, this he refused to do and while Obama has back-pedaled on this requirement, the damage has already been done. Abbas refuses to negotiate and Netanyahu knows that he has no friend in the White House.
Furthermore, if the United States is to broker a two-state settlement, it is imperative that the Israeli public have at least a little faith in the good will of the American president. They do not. Recent polls have shown that a grand total of 4 percent of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is a friend to the Jewish state. In Israel, Obama is about as popular as Swine Flu because he made serious demands upon Israel and virtually no demands upon the Palestinian leadership.
This means that the Israeli people do not trust Obama to broker a negotiated settlement and no Israeli PM can make peace without at least some level of trust by the Jewish Israeli citizenry toward the American broker.
Conclusion:
A confluence of factors has now led to the end of the peace process and to a no-win situation for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel cannot negotiate an end to the occupation, nor can it act unilaterally to do so without serious risk to its people, as the Gaza withdrawal proved in 2005.
Israel should, despite all, take that risk.
Negotiations have proven, time and again, to be absolutely pointless. The status-quo is simply intolerable because Israel cannot indefinitely maintain the occupation. Thus, the only thing for Israel to do is declare its final borders, remove the IDF behind those borders, and be the first country to welcome the state of Palestine among the brotherhood of nations.
And when the rockets start raining into Israel, again?
Well?
As always, Israel will defend itself… as well it should.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Maps, Maps, and More Maps
If there is one area of agreement within Daily Kos I-P, it is that the occupation of Palestinian lands must end. Everyone agrees. The pro-Palestinian advocates want the occupation to end, as do the pro-Israel advocates. The difference is that the pro-Palestinian advocates always, and forever, blame the occupation on Israel. While it is obviously true that Israel does hold responsibility for the occupation, it does not hold sole responsibility for it.
The Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, also hold responsibility for the occupation. The reason for this is because they have never accepted any of the offers for statehood and were it not for that intransigence there would be no occupation today.
For example, in 1937 the British Peel Commission suggested partitioning Palestine, sans Trans-Jordan, into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations enacted Resolution 181; another partition plan, accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Palestinians. It was 181, needless to say, that resulted in recognition of the state of Israel by the world body.
In 2000, during the Camp David Accords between Israeli PM, Ehud Barack, PLO President, Yasser Arafat, and US President, Bill Clinton, the Palestinian leadership was again offered a state and, yet again, they refused. Apologists for Palestinian intransigence on Daily Kos often claim that Barak's offer was not good enough. That it divided the WB into "cantons" that would have represented nothing so much as a "rump state."
This is false.
Dennis Ross was the chief US negotiator during the negotiation process and in his 2004 book, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, he includes the maps shown below.
The text next to the map on the left reads as follows:
This map reflects a map proposed by the Israelis early at Camp David, but it inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones carving the West Bank into three cantons, and includes Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian state. Official Palestinians now cite this map as the final offer they turned down at Camp David. (The initial Israeli proposal called for a Palestinian state in 87% of the West Bank. This map shows that state comprising only 83% of that territory.
The map on the right shows the actual offer. The text reads:
While no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David, this map illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected: Palestinian control over 91% of the West Bank in contiguous territory and an Israeli security presence along 15% of the border with Jordan. The map actually understates the final Camp David proposal because it does not depict the additional territorial swap of 1% that was offered from Israeli territory.
The map, of course, also does not show that along with 100% of Gaza, over 90% of the West Bank in contiguous territory, the Palestinians were also offered the Arab sections of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.
This is what Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000.
This next map shows the UN partition plan, under Resolution 181, in November of 1947:
The area in blue represents the proposed Jewish state, which the Jews of the Yishuv accepted. Notice anything unusual?
It is 3 clearly distinct and separate cantons! There is a small region in the north-east, a strip along the Mediterranean Sea between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and the Negev desert in the south.
The offer did not include Jerusalem.
Yet this is what the Jews accepted. This offer was, in fact, far worse than what the Palestinian leadership rejected in 2000. But the Jews accepted because they were determined to gain their independence, their autonomy, and to build a state for their nation. And they did so.
Yet here we are, lo these many decades later, and the Palestinian leadership, under Mahmoud Abbas, cannot even bring itself to negotiate the possibility of statehood, allegedly because of settlement construction within blocs that will end up part of Israel in any likely negotiated settlement, anyway.
Netanyahu has called for negotations and Abbas has rejected that call.
The Palestinian leadership continues to reject any possibility of a Palestinian state next to Israel. This is what they rejected in 1937, when offered by the British. It is what they rejected in 1947, when offered by the United Nations. It is what they rejected in 2000, when offered by the Israelis. And it is what they continue to reject.
If the Palestinian people want their freedom, they can have it. All that is required is that their leadership finally accept an offer of statehood. I very much hope that they will some day.
I am not optimistic, however.
The Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, also hold responsibility for the occupation. The reason for this is because they have never accepted any of the offers for statehood and were it not for that intransigence there would be no occupation today.
For example, in 1937 the British Peel Commission suggested partitioning Palestine, sans Trans-Jordan, into a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal.
In 1947, of course, the United Nations enacted Resolution 181; another partition plan, accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Palestinians. It was 181, needless to say, that resulted in recognition of the state of Israel by the world body.
In 2000, during the Camp David Accords between Israeli PM, Ehud Barack, PLO President, Yasser Arafat, and US President, Bill Clinton, the Palestinian leadership was again offered a state and, yet again, they refused. Apologists for Palestinian intransigence on Daily Kos often claim that Barak's offer was not good enough. That it divided the WB into "cantons" that would have represented nothing so much as a "rump state."
This is false.
Dennis Ross was the chief US negotiator during the negotiation process and in his 2004 book, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, he includes the maps shown below.
The text next to the map on the left reads as follows:
This map reflects a map proposed by the Israelis early at Camp David, but it inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones carving the West Bank into three cantons, and includes Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian state. Official Palestinians now cite this map as the final offer they turned down at Camp David. (The initial Israeli proposal called for a Palestinian state in 87% of the West Bank. This map shows that state comprising only 83% of that territory.
The map on the right shows the actual offer. The text reads:
While no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David, this map illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected: Palestinian control over 91% of the West Bank in contiguous territory and an Israeli security presence along 15% of the border with Jordan. The map actually understates the final Camp David proposal because it does not depict the additional territorial swap of 1% that was offered from Israeli territory.
The map, of course, also does not show that along with 100% of Gaza, over 90% of the West Bank in contiguous territory, the Palestinians were also offered the Arab sections of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.
This is what Yasser Arafat rejected in 2000.
This next map shows the UN partition plan, under Resolution 181, in November of 1947:
The area in blue represents the proposed Jewish state, which the Jews of the Yishuv accepted. Notice anything unusual?
It is 3 clearly distinct and separate cantons! There is a small region in the north-east, a strip along the Mediterranean Sea between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and the Negev desert in the south.
The offer did not include Jerusalem.
Yet this is what the Jews accepted. This offer was, in fact, far worse than what the Palestinian leadership rejected in 2000. But the Jews accepted because they were determined to gain their independence, their autonomy, and to build a state for their nation. And they did so.
Yet here we are, lo these many decades later, and the Palestinian leadership, under Mahmoud Abbas, cannot even bring itself to negotiate the possibility of statehood, allegedly because of settlement construction within blocs that will end up part of Israel in any likely negotiated settlement, anyway.
Netanyahu has called for negotations and Abbas has rejected that call.
The Palestinian leadership continues to reject any possibility of a Palestinian state next to Israel. This is what they rejected in 1937, when offered by the British. It is what they rejected in 1947, when offered by the United Nations. It is what they rejected in 2000, when offered by the Israelis. And it is what they continue to reject.
If the Palestinian people want their freedom, they can have it. All that is required is that their leadership finally accept an offer of statehood. I very much hope that they will some day.
I am not optimistic, however.
Israel's Response to UN Human Rights Counsel
I received this email from the brilliant Neal Lazarus. I thought it would be useful in our debates over a Daily Kos.
Statement by H.E. Aharon Leshno Yaar
Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN in Geneva
12th Regular Session
United Nations Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 7
29 September 2009
Transcript:
Mr. President,
Yesterday, on Yom Kippur, Jews all over the world - in Jerusalem, Sderot, here in Geneva - commemorated Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. It is the day when, according to Jewish tradition, our fate is determined for the coming year: "Who will live and who will die, who will be raised up and who brought low". Not only for individuals but also for States, this is a decisive time. In the words of our prayers: "Which for war and which for peace, which for famine and which for plenty".
For the States in this Council this is indeed a fateful time. Today's debate is a real test of the integrity and purpose of this body. But more than that, the response to the challenge presented today will have a clear effect on our ability - collectively and individually - to face some of the greatest challenges in the year ahead.
Five years ago, in a remarkable gesture reaching out for peace, Israel removed every one of its soldiers and over 8000 civilians from the Gaza Strip. We withdrew hospitals and kindergartens, synagogues and cemeteries, leaving only the greenhouses we had struggled to build in the hope that these would be the start of a productive Palestinian society. And you, the States of this Council, applauded this unprecedented measure. You told us in no uncertain terms that in the nightmare scenario that terror would take root, you would back us in our inherent right to self-defense.
Five years later, the greenhouses had been ransacked by Hamas thugs, over 8000 rockets and mortars had been fired on schools and kindergartens in Sderot and other Israeli towns, and an unceasing supply of weaponry was being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from terror-sponsoring states like Iran. Israel's urgent appeals to the international community were to no avail, and our attempts to extend a fragile cease-fire were met with new, increased barrages of missiles from Hamas. And all the while the range of the attacks was increasing. Now Ashkelon and Beer Sheva were within reach. One million Israeli children, women and men had to live every moment of their lives within seconds of a bomb shelter.
The decision to launch a military operation is never an easy one. It is even more challenging when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. These are new and horrendous challenges, and we sought to deal with them responsibly and with humanity. Yet when we dropped millions of leaflets and made tens of thousands of phone calls to warn civilians in advance of operations, we were witness to the callous and deliberate Hamas tactic of sending women and children onto the roofs of terrorist headquarters and weapons factories. In such cases, again and again missions were aborted, letting the Hamas terrorists escape, Israel protected Palestinian civilians that Hamas had put at risk.
In grappling with these dilemmas we seek the guidance of other states. We may not have all the right answers but we struggle to ask the right questions. And in discussions between officials charged with securing the lives of their civilians we hear genuine admiration for our restraint. For example, when Colonel Richard Kemp, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan was asked about Israel's conduct in Gaza, he replied: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF in Gaza."
In complex urban warfare, though, civilian casualties are tragically inevitable. There also may have been incidents in which soldiers did not always maintain the standards that we expected of them. The true test of a genuine democracy is how it deals with such cases, and how it examines its own failings. Following the Gaza Operation, Israel has opened over 100 separate investigations into fundamental operational questions, like damage to UN centers and medical facilities, as well as specific allegations of misconduct. Of these investigations 23 have already resulted in criminal proceedings. And this process continues. Any decision regarding whether to open criminal proceedings can be appealed by any Israeli or Palestinian to Israel's Supreme Court - a court which has been cited with respect and admiration throughout the democratic world.
Israel struggles to deal with these tough questions, raised by terrorists acting within civilian centers. Sadly, these are questions which also occupy many other democratic countries and which they and we will have to continue to grapple with.
But these questions, apparently, do not occupy the authors of the shameful Report which has been presented to this Council.
Like many of the States in this Council, we could not support a resolution which only addressed one side of the conflict, and which established four separate mechanisms to condemn Israel and not even one to examine Hamas.
Like many of the distinguished individuals who rejected invitations to head the fact finding mission with its one-sided mandate, we objected to a mission which, in the words of Mary Robinson, was "guided by politics not human rights". While Israel has cooperated with dozens of inquiries and investigations from international organizations and NGO's into the events in Gaza it refused to cooperate with this Mission. And the Report presented today fully justifies that decision.
Even prior to the start of any investigation one member of the Mission went on public record stating that Israel's defense of its civilians against Hamas' attacks was "aggression not self-defense". The document submitted today simply reiterates that prejudice.
Mr. President
This is a report - 575 pages - in which the right of self defense is not mentioned, in which the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through hundreds of tunnels deserves not a word.
A report based on pre-screened Palestinian witnesses, not one of whom was asked about Hamas terrorist activity or the abuse of civilians, hospitals and mosques for terrorist attacks.
A report which is based on carefully selected incidents, cherry picked for political effect. As Justice Goldstone revealed in an open correspondence: "We did not deal with the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas. We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate."
A report which gives credibility to every allegation or hearsay against Israel, and none to even direct admissions of guilt by Hamas leaders. Indeed which sometimes accepts the same source as authoritative as against Israel, but somehow unreliable vis-à-vis Hamas.
Mr. President
The authors of this "Fact-finding Report" had little concern with finding facts. The Report was instigated as part of a political campaign, and it represents a political assault directed against Israel and against every state forced to confront terrorist threats. Its recommendations are fully in line with its one-sided agenda and seek to harness the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in its political campaign. In so doing it seeks to inject these bodies with the same political poison that has so undermined the integrity of this Council.
M. President,
Unlike the Hamas terrorists who rejoice with every civilian death, Israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy, Israel is committed to fully examining every allegation of wrongdoing. Not because of this Report but despite it.
For let there be no doubt. This Report will do nothing to ease the lives of those in Sderot and Gaza City, Kiryat Shemona and Jenin. In providing support and vindication for terrorist tactics, it is a betrayal of Israelis and moderate Paelstinians alike.
In the final analysis, the true test of such a Report can only be whether in future armed conflicts it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing respect for the rule of law by the parties. Regrettably this one-sided report, claiming to represent international law but in fact perverting it to serve a political agenda, can only weaken the standing of international law in future conflicts. This report broadcasts a troubling - and legally unfounded - message to States everywhere confronting terrorist threats, that international law has no effective response to offer them, and so serves to undermine willingness to comply with its provisions. At the same time, it signals an even more troubling message to terrorist groups, wherever they are, that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we want to find a way to live in peace with our neighbors. This is the ultimate question that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the General Assembly in New York last week
:
"The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us ... of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense? [...] Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
"
Thank you very much.
Regards,
DKW
Statement by H.E. Aharon Leshno Yaar
Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN in Geneva
12th Regular Session
United Nations Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 7
29 September 2009
Transcript:
Mr. President,
Yesterday, on Yom Kippur, Jews all over the world - in Jerusalem, Sderot, here in Geneva - commemorated Yom Kippur, the most holy day of the Jewish calendar. It is the day when, according to Jewish tradition, our fate is determined for the coming year: "Who will live and who will die, who will be raised up and who brought low". Not only for individuals but also for States, this is a decisive time. In the words of our prayers: "Which for war and which for peace, which for famine and which for plenty".
For the States in this Council this is indeed a fateful time. Today's debate is a real test of the integrity and purpose of this body. But more than that, the response to the challenge presented today will have a clear effect on our ability - collectively and individually - to face some of the greatest challenges in the year ahead.
Five years ago, in a remarkable gesture reaching out for peace, Israel removed every one of its soldiers and over 8000 civilians from the Gaza Strip. We withdrew hospitals and kindergartens, synagogues and cemeteries, leaving only the greenhouses we had struggled to build in the hope that these would be the start of a productive Palestinian society. And you, the States of this Council, applauded this unprecedented measure. You told us in no uncertain terms that in the nightmare scenario that terror would take root, you would back us in our inherent right to self-defense.
Five years later, the greenhouses had been ransacked by Hamas thugs, over 8000 rockets and mortars had been fired on schools and kindergartens in Sderot and other Israeli towns, and an unceasing supply of weaponry was being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from terror-sponsoring states like Iran. Israel's urgent appeals to the international community were to no avail, and our attempts to extend a fragile cease-fire were met with new, increased barrages of missiles from Hamas. And all the while the range of the attacks was increasing. Now Ashkelon and Beer Sheva were within reach. One million Israeli children, women and men had to live every moment of their lives within seconds of a bomb shelter.
The decision to launch a military operation is never an easy one. It is even more challenging when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. These are new and horrendous challenges, and we sought to deal with them responsibly and with humanity. Yet when we dropped millions of leaflets and made tens of thousands of phone calls to warn civilians in advance of operations, we were witness to the callous and deliberate Hamas tactic of sending women and children onto the roofs of terrorist headquarters and weapons factories. In such cases, again and again missions were aborted, letting the Hamas terrorists escape, Israel protected Palestinian civilians that Hamas had put at risk.
In grappling with these dilemmas we seek the guidance of other states. We may not have all the right answers but we struggle to ask the right questions. And in discussions between officials charged with securing the lives of their civilians we hear genuine admiration for our restraint. For example, when Colonel Richard Kemp, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan was asked about Israel's conduct in Gaza, he replied: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF in Gaza."
In complex urban warfare, though, civilian casualties are tragically inevitable. There also may have been incidents in which soldiers did not always maintain the standards that we expected of them. The true test of a genuine democracy is how it deals with such cases, and how it examines its own failings. Following the Gaza Operation, Israel has opened over 100 separate investigations into fundamental operational questions, like damage to UN centers and medical facilities, as well as specific allegations of misconduct. Of these investigations 23 have already resulted in criminal proceedings. And this process continues. Any decision regarding whether to open criminal proceedings can be appealed by any Israeli or Palestinian to Israel's Supreme Court - a court which has been cited with respect and admiration throughout the democratic world.
Israel struggles to deal with these tough questions, raised by terrorists acting within civilian centers. Sadly, these are questions which also occupy many other democratic countries and which they and we will have to continue to grapple with.
But these questions, apparently, do not occupy the authors of the shameful Report which has been presented to this Council.
Like many of the States in this Council, we could not support a resolution which only addressed one side of the conflict, and which established four separate mechanisms to condemn Israel and not even one to examine Hamas.
Like many of the distinguished individuals who rejected invitations to head the fact finding mission with its one-sided mandate, we objected to a mission which, in the words of Mary Robinson, was "guided by politics not human rights". While Israel has cooperated with dozens of inquiries and investigations from international organizations and NGO's into the events in Gaza it refused to cooperate with this Mission. And the Report presented today fully justifies that decision.
Even prior to the start of any investigation one member of the Mission went on public record stating that Israel's defense of its civilians against Hamas' attacks was "aggression not self-defense". The document submitted today simply reiterates that prejudice.
Mr. President
This is a report - 575 pages - in which the right of self defense is not mentioned, in which the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through hundreds of tunnels deserves not a word.
A report based on pre-screened Palestinian witnesses, not one of whom was asked about Hamas terrorist activity or the abuse of civilians, hospitals and mosques for terrorist attacks.
A report which is based on carefully selected incidents, cherry picked for political effect. As Justice Goldstone revealed in an open correspondence: "We did not deal with the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas. We avoided having to do so in the incidents we decided to investigate."
A report which gives credibility to every allegation or hearsay against Israel, and none to even direct admissions of guilt by Hamas leaders. Indeed which sometimes accepts the same source as authoritative as against Israel, but somehow unreliable vis-à-vis Hamas.
Mr. President
The authors of this "Fact-finding Report" had little concern with finding facts. The Report was instigated as part of a political campaign, and it represents a political assault directed against Israel and against every state forced to confront terrorist threats. Its recommendations are fully in line with its one-sided agenda and seek to harness the Security Council, the General Assembly the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Council, and the entire international community in its political campaign. In so doing it seeks to inject these bodies with the same political poison that has so undermined the integrity of this Council.
M. President,
Unlike the Hamas terrorists who rejoice with every civilian death, Israel regards every civilian casualty as a tragedy, Israel is committed to fully examining every allegation of wrongdoing. Not because of this Report but despite it.
For let there be no doubt. This Report will do nothing to ease the lives of those in Sderot and Gaza City, Kiryat Shemona and Jenin. In providing support and vindication for terrorist tactics, it is a betrayal of Israelis and moderate Paelstinians alike.
In the final analysis, the true test of such a Report can only be whether in future armed conflicts it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing respect for the rule of law by the parties. Regrettably this one-sided report, claiming to represent international law but in fact perverting it to serve a political agenda, can only weaken the standing of international law in future conflicts. This report broadcasts a troubling - and legally unfounded - message to States everywhere confronting terrorist threats, that international law has no effective response to offer them, and so serves to undermine willingness to comply with its provisions. At the same time, it signals an even more troubling message to terrorist groups, wherever they are, that the cynical tactics of seeking to exploit civilian suffering for political ends actually pays dividends.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we want to find a way to live in peace with our neighbors. This is the ultimate question that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the General Assembly in New York last week
:
"The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us ... of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense? [...] Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.
"
Thank you very much.
Regards,
DKW
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Contempt
The predominant stance of the Daily Kos I-P community regarding Israel can be summed up in that single word. Contempt. There is not a day that goes by without numerous people within Daily Kos spreading hatred toward the Jewish state.
For example, Assaf, an Israeli citizen, has a diary, published yesterday, Friday, September 25, calling for sanctions against his own country.
Mainstream Israeli Analyst: Only Sanctions will Make Israelis Care
The general idea behind this diary is that the Israeli people, 80 percent of whom are Jewish, are so vapid, are such moral pygmies, are such worthless human beings, that the only thing that motivates them is their own personal convenience and paltry desires.
As Assaf writes:
personal convenience is really all Israelis care about nowadays.
In his call for sanctions and boycotts of Israeli goods and cultural products, Assaf then goes forward to reduce terror attacks, suicide bombings, Qassams and Katyushas aimed at S'derot and Ashkelon, to examples of the kind of inconvenience that motivates Israelis.
He writes:
If what disrupts this convenience are terror attacks, then the public pressures the military to "do something about it" (e.g., crackdowns, Barrier, etc.) - as indeed has happened repeatedly during this decade. But if the convenience is disrupted by an international economic boycott - then what? Call an air force strike on Madrid?
In Assaf's mind, apparently, the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, including children, is merely an inconvenience to the callous Israelis who care for nothing whatsoever beyond satisfying their own petty personal desires. This is how morally bankrupt he would have us believe that Israelis truly are.
Given the fact that Daily Kos is a website devoted to getting Democrats elected throughout the United States, and given the fact that a strong majority of registered Jews are Democrats, one would think that the comments would reflect revulsion at the idea that Israelis are such vile and disgusting creatures. Needless to say, this is not the case.
Most of the comments, in fact, are supportive of Assaf in his quest to punish Israel and dehumanize its citizenry.
It should also be noted that after calling for such punishment, and after making such horrendous claims about the character of Israeli citizenry, he then feebly explains that the true truth is that he is doing no such thing:
This is not about punishing or branding an entire nation. This is about making the Occupation stop being so damned convenient.
The general idea seems to be that the loathsome Israelis like the occupation and wish it to continue. Never mind that Israel, not to mention Britain and the United Nations, has on numerous occasions offered the Palestinian leadership statehood, offers which are always, and forever, apparently, never good enough to accept. Never mind that Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005 only to be rewarded with thousands of rocket attacks into the southern portion of that country. Never mind that the children of southern Israel often suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, due to what those rockets have done to their lives. Never mind that Israel, more than any other country on the planet, must expend a disproportionate amount of its financial capital and human resources to keep its citizenry safe.
Forget all that. The occupation is "convenient," according to Assaf.
I think that it's fair to say that it was because of the preponderance of attitudes such as this toward the Jewish state by so many people within Daily Kos I-P that this site was created to begin with.
Sometimes it's important to be blunt.
And the blunt truth is that Daily Kos I-P tends to view the country of Israel, as well as its perpetually harassed people, with poisonous contempt.
For example, Assaf, an Israeli citizen, has a diary, published yesterday, Friday, September 25, calling for sanctions against his own country.
Mainstream Israeli Analyst: Only Sanctions will Make Israelis Care
The general idea behind this diary is that the Israeli people, 80 percent of whom are Jewish, are so vapid, are such moral pygmies, are such worthless human beings, that the only thing that motivates them is their own personal convenience and paltry desires.
As Assaf writes:
personal convenience is really all Israelis care about nowadays.
In his call for sanctions and boycotts of Israeli goods and cultural products, Assaf then goes forward to reduce terror attacks, suicide bombings, Qassams and Katyushas aimed at S'derot and Ashkelon, to examples of the kind of inconvenience that motivates Israelis.
He writes:
If what disrupts this convenience are terror attacks, then the public pressures the military to "do something about it" (e.g., crackdowns, Barrier, etc.) - as indeed has happened repeatedly during this decade. But if the convenience is disrupted by an international economic boycott - then what? Call an air force strike on Madrid?
In Assaf's mind, apparently, the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, including children, is merely an inconvenience to the callous Israelis who care for nothing whatsoever beyond satisfying their own petty personal desires. This is how morally bankrupt he would have us believe that Israelis truly are.
Given the fact that Daily Kos is a website devoted to getting Democrats elected throughout the United States, and given the fact that a strong majority of registered Jews are Democrats, one would think that the comments would reflect revulsion at the idea that Israelis are such vile and disgusting creatures. Needless to say, this is not the case.
Most of the comments, in fact, are supportive of Assaf in his quest to punish Israel and dehumanize its citizenry.
It should also be noted that after calling for such punishment, and after making such horrendous claims about the character of Israeli citizenry, he then feebly explains that the true truth is that he is doing no such thing:
This is not about punishing or branding an entire nation. This is about making the Occupation stop being so damned convenient.
The general idea seems to be that the loathsome Israelis like the occupation and wish it to continue. Never mind that Israel, not to mention Britain and the United Nations, has on numerous occasions offered the Palestinian leadership statehood, offers which are always, and forever, apparently, never good enough to accept. Never mind that Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005 only to be rewarded with thousands of rocket attacks into the southern portion of that country. Never mind that the children of southern Israel often suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, due to what those rockets have done to their lives. Never mind that Israel, more than any other country on the planet, must expend a disproportionate amount of its financial capital and human resources to keep its citizenry safe.
Forget all that. The occupation is "convenient," according to Assaf.
I think that it's fair to say that it was because of the preponderance of attitudes such as this toward the Jewish state by so many people within Daily Kos I-P that this site was created to begin with.
Sometimes it's important to be blunt.
And the blunt truth is that Daily Kos I-P tends to view the country of Israel, as well as its perpetually harassed people, with poisonous contempt.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A Note to the Movement for Palestinian Justice
{This is a lengthy comment that I left at Daily Kos to a Palestinian professor who hopes to bring on American Jewish support for his movement.}
Jews represent the single most liberal and progressive demographic in the United States.
And, I have to say, on a personal level, it is hard for me to describe the sadness that I felt when I realized the nature of the movement for Palestinian justice, within the progressive movement.
If you want the help of American Jews there are few things that your movement must overcome before most of us would be willing to throw you our support... but I've told you this before.
I keep hoping that you might start listening, but your failure to do so probably has as much to do with me than it has to do with you.
Here's the thing. Most American Jews would love to see the Palestinian people thriving and free within their own state and at peace amongst themselves and with Israel. Who wouldn't want that?
Well?
Anti-Zionists don't. That's a huge problem if you want to bring liberal American Jews into your movement. We can quibble about what, exactly, "anti-Zionism" means, but virtually all Jews understand that the movement for a single state solution, if successful, would mean the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state.
We absolutely oppose that. We may be liberal, but we're neither crazy, nor stupid. Given the history of the Jewish people there is no way that you will bring large numbers of American Jews into a movement that houses, so to speak, a significant number of anti-Zionists. You'll get some fringe ideologues, such as Jon, but you'll never get significant numbers of Jews to join such a movement.
And then you've got the problem of large numbers of people within your movement who always and forever lay the blame for everything I-P at the feet of Israel. This is alienating for most American Jews, not to mention historically inaccurate.
So, while it's true that we do tend to favor liberalism and humanism, we are also generally pragmatists and care about the future well-being of our children. We will never trust the future well-being of Jews to anyone but Jews, because history has shown us on countless brutal occasions that we cannot. Thus anti-Zionism is anathema.
And while we usually recognize that Israel has most certainly done some rotten things in the past, even in the very recent past, we refuse to wear the hair shirt, if you get me. We expect our allies, if they really are our allies, to be critical of Israel, without demonizing it.
If the movement for Palestinian justice would like more help from the American Jewish community then it needs to dump the anti-Zionists and the haters. Until then, most of us will either stay out of, or actively oppose, your movement.
Posted by Karmafish
Monday, September 21, 2009
Goldstone Speaking Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth
Goldstone in the New York Times last week:
Goldstone on Israeli TV yesterday:
Regards,
DKW
"Unfortunately both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces… While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective."
Goldstone on Israeli TV yesterday:
Speaking on Channel 2, the South African judge who headed a UN commission that recently published a harsh report on alleged war crimes Israel committed during the Gaza operation reiterated his outrage over Israeli claims that the report would encourage terror, and insisted that an internal Israeli probe would have sufficed as far as the world's demand to investigate its actions during warfare.
"Israel can [investigate itself], it's done it before," he told the television network.
Regards,
DKW
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Daily Kos Ridicules Son of Herman Wouk
Joseph Wouk, the son of writer Herman Wouk, lives in Tel Aviv. As an American, an Israeli, and a resident of Tel Aviv, he is deeply concerned about the possibility of Iranian nuclear weaponry pointed at his town.
Wouk, however, made the mistake of letting his concerns be known on Daily Kos.
The Kossacks were having none of it.
Although Wouk's diary was not very well fleshed out, it certainly did not deserve the ridicule that it received.
Zannie, not surprisingly, was particularly blunt in the insensitivity of her response:
take a chill pill.
That comment nicely sums up the feelings of the Daily Kos I-P community, as a whole. Because Mr. Wouk is concerned that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually means what he says when he threatens Israel with annihilation, he was ridiculed, demeaned, and generally spat upon.
Another commenter put it this way:
Oh ahmadenijad is denying the holocaust again? yawn.
Because denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel with destruction is such a "yawn," apparently. Rather boring, in fact. Who cares, really?
Even Volleyboy1, a strong supporter of Israel, got into the act.
This diary and this comment are both ridiculous.
Right. Because what could be more ridiculous than a person who lives in Tel Aviv being concerned about the possibility of Iranian aggression? Joseph Wouk was not calling for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He was expressing his heart-felt fear that Iran might do precisely what Iran has threatened to do. The very notion of it, tho, is apparently "ridiculous."
Furthermore, anyone who expresses that fear must be a hard-line, right-wing conservative.
Which party are with? Are you Likud? Are you Yisrael Beitanu? Are you a hold over from Kach.... Which is it?
Given that Joseph Wouk was a chairman of SDS at Columbia University in the early 1970s, such a charge is absurd on its face and demonstrates the ideological rigidity of many within dKos I-P. Anyone who dares to venture off the ideological beaten path just must be a member of the screaming far right. There is no other possible explanation. Disagree with the general mood of Daily Kos I-P and you must, therefore, be some sort of combination of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.
In any case, the reception of Mr. Wouk's diary on Daily Kos is fairly indicative of how they feel about Israeli concerns over potentially being nuked.
Take a chill pill, stupid Israelis.
Wouk, however, made the mistake of letting his concerns be known on Daily Kos.
The Kossacks were having none of it.
Although Wouk's diary was not very well fleshed out, it certainly did not deserve the ridicule that it received.
Zannie, not surprisingly, was particularly blunt in the insensitivity of her response:
take a chill pill.
That comment nicely sums up the feelings of the Daily Kos I-P community, as a whole. Because Mr. Wouk is concerned that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually means what he says when he threatens Israel with annihilation, he was ridiculed, demeaned, and generally spat upon.
Another commenter put it this way:
Oh ahmadenijad is denying the holocaust again? yawn.
Because denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel with destruction is such a "yawn," apparently. Rather boring, in fact. Who cares, really?
Even Volleyboy1, a strong supporter of Israel, got into the act.
This diary and this comment are both ridiculous.
Right. Because what could be more ridiculous than a person who lives in Tel Aviv being concerned about the possibility of Iranian aggression? Joseph Wouk was not calling for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. He was expressing his heart-felt fear that Iran might do precisely what Iran has threatened to do. The very notion of it, tho, is apparently "ridiculous."
Furthermore, anyone who expresses that fear must be a hard-line, right-wing conservative.
Which party are with? Are you Likud? Are you Yisrael Beitanu? Are you a hold over from Kach.... Which is it?
Given that Joseph Wouk was a chairman of SDS at Columbia University in the early 1970s, such a charge is absurd on its face and demonstrates the ideological rigidity of many within dKos I-P. Anyone who dares to venture off the ideological beaten path just must be a member of the screaming far right. There is no other possible explanation. Disagree with the general mood of Daily Kos I-P and you must, therefore, be some sort of combination of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.
In any case, the reception of Mr. Wouk's diary on Daily Kos is fairly indicative of how they feel about Israeli concerns over potentially being nuked.
Take a chill pill, stupid Israelis.
Former Haaretz Editor Condemns Goldstone Report
The report stunned even seasoned Israeli diplomats who expected no quarter from an inquiry set up by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which they believe to be deeply biased against Israel. They expected the military operation to be condemned as grossly disproportionate. They expected Israel to be lambasted for not taking sufficient care to avoid civilian casualties. But they never imagined that the report would accuse the Jewish state of intentionally aiming at civilians.
Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen.
When does negligence become recklessness, and when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness, and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life?
But that is the point — and it should have been the focus of the investigation. Judge Goldstone’s real mandate was, or should have been, to bring Israel to confront this fundamental question, a question inherent in the waging of war by all civilized societies against irregular armed groups. Are widespread civilian casualties inevitable when a modern army pounds terrorist targets in a heavily populated area with purportedly smart ordnance? Are they acceptable? Does the enemy’s deployment in the heart of the civilian area shift the line between right and wrong, in morality and in law?
And this is also where the failure to distinguish between Hamas and the IDF is best seen. Hamas did, does and always targets civilians. Israel has a history of attempting to avoid civilian casualties, even if it can be accused of sometimes disregarding that concern. And so the conclusion vis a vis Hamas is no surprise, they are, after all, a recognized terrorist group. But the conclusion vis a vis Israel is a major political tool for the enemies of Israel, the hardliners who like to call Israel a genocidal, killer state. Whenever they come up with their next conspiracy theory, they will back it up with the claim, now kosherized by this UN kangaroo court, that Israel targets Palestinian civilians.
Regards,
DKW
Friday, September 18, 2009
Happy New Year
To All Our Jewish Readers (all 6 of them):
A happy, healthy and sweet new year. I wanted to share with you two letters to the editor from today's NYT.
Regards,
DKW
A happy, healthy and sweet new year. I wanted to share with you two letters to the editor from today's NYT.
Re “Justice in Gaza” (Op-Ed, Sept. 17):
Richard Goldstone displays the same disregard for Israel and naïveté regarding Hamas that permeates the report he wrote for the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Since its inception in 2006, the council has consistently demonized Israel while giving a free pass to some of the world’s worst tyrants, from Sudan to Iran. Mr. Goldstone largely neglects what prompted Israel to act militarily against Hamas.
Let’s be clear for historical accuracy. Israel’s military operation came after eight years of relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli towns and villages. Indeed, thousands of rockets were launched after Israel transferred the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians four years ago.
While the United Nations made no effort to stop the Palestinian rockets, Israel showed remarkable restraint over the years until it could not hold back anymore.
More disturbing, the Goldstone report has set a new standard for equating the behavior of democratic nations and terrorists.
He makes no moral distinction between Israel, a United Nations member state, and Hamas, a terrorist organization that violently seized control of Gaza two years ago from the Palestinian Authority.
The implications of this moral equivalency go beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, they undermine the United States and other democracies facing asymmetrical warfare from adversaries who care little for international norms of war and international humanitarian law.
In sum, Mr. Goldstone’s conclusions are a disservice to the credibility of the United Nations itself.
Richard Sideman
President
American Jewish Committee
New York, Sept. 17, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Richard Goldstone expresses deep concern regarding the “corrosive effect on international justice” and the “unacceptable hypocrisy” of not holding Israel accountable for what he has determined are possible war crimes in Gaza.
He is absolutely right that such corrosion and hypocrisy exist — but through the select application of international law against one democratic nation, Israel. According to the standards of Mr. Goldstone, United States troops would similarly be unable to defend themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan without being smeared as war criminals.
Recognizing this absurdity, Americans should stand with Israel against the discriminatory whims of the larger international community.
Matan Shamir
New York, Sept. 17, 2009
The writer is a Legacy Heritage Fellow. The program cultivates young leaders in North America, Europe and Israel committed to public service and peace in the Middle East.
Regards,
DKW
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Great Sin Of The Cast Lead Report
I am not going to bother posting this on Daily Kos as it will go nowhere. Indeed, Daily Kos posters often follow the same playbook as Ken Roth as explained in the article I am about to reference.
Take a look at what Irwin Cotler has to say about the Cast Lead Investigation:
And this is really it in a nutshell. The Cast Lead Report is not a legal document. It is a propoganda document that was headed by a an extremelly noble human rights lawyer specifically to give it the imprimatuer of impartiality because the architects knew that the mission was fundamentally flawed and biased.
The there is the participation of Professor Christine Chinkin who long before the investigation was announced had already publicly stated that Israel had committed war crimes. Kinda like the judge saying publicly, I know the defendant is guilty but I will look at all the evidence anyway.
But this is what really gets to me, and this is the Daily Kos playbook. Ken Roth of HRW attacks Cotler as being a pawn of the State of Israel. This is the most common play in their playbook. If you criticize bias against Israel, it is because you are a pawn of the Israelis. It is because you can't allow criticism of Israel. Never mind that Irwin Cotler is one of the greatest civil rights lawyers alive today. Nelson Mandella's lawyer, a lawyer who has represented Palestinians in front of Israeli courts, and who, until he became Justice Minister of Canada was counsel to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group.
For this is the "Human Rights" playbook. You cannot be a human rights lawyer or advocate if you ever fail to accuse Israel. And so Roth, and mis supporters, miss the key point. By engaging in such a ridiculously biased report, the report loses credibility among actual human rights lawyers. But human rights lawyers aren't the target because this is not a legal document. This is a political propoganda document inteded to continue the public relations war against Israel.
Cotler's words:
I encourage you all to use this article if you are brave enough to tread in the waters at Daily Kos.
Regards,
DKW
Take a look at what Irwin Cotler has to say about the Cast Lead Investigation:
In a word, Roth writes not like a lawyer - let alone a human rights lawyer - but as a propagandist.
And this is really it in a nutshell. The Cast Lead Report is not a legal document. It is a propoganda document that was headed by a an extremelly noble human rights lawyer specifically to give it the imprimatuer of impartiality because the architects knew that the mission was fundamentally flawed and biased.
The there is the participation of Professor Christine Chinkin who long before the investigation was announced had already publicly stated that Israel had committed war crimes. Kinda like the judge saying publicly, I know the defendant is guilty but I will look at all the evidence anyway.
19 British lawyers and academics have penned an open letter calling upon Chinkin to disqualify herself as her expression "on the merits of the issue... prior to seeing any of the evidence... give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias..."; and saying that her continued participation necessarily compromises the independence of the inquiry and its report.
But this is what really gets to me, and this is the Daily Kos playbook. Ken Roth of HRW attacks Cotler as being a pawn of the State of Israel. This is the most common play in their playbook. If you criticize bias against Israel, it is because you are a pawn of the Israelis. It is because you can't allow criticism of Israel. Never mind that Irwin Cotler is one of the greatest civil rights lawyers alive today. Nelson Mandella's lawyer, a lawyer who has represented Palestinians in front of Israeli courts, and who, until he became Justice Minister of Canada was counsel to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group.
For this is the "Human Rights" playbook. You cannot be a human rights lawyer or advocate if you ever fail to accuse Israel. And so Roth, and mis supporters, miss the key point. By engaging in such a ridiculously biased report, the report loses credibility among actual human rights lawyers. But human rights lawyers aren't the target because this is not a legal document. This is a political propoganda document inteded to continue the public relations war against Israel.
Cotler's words:
ROTH SEEKS to justify his defense of Goldstone - who deserves a better defense than this - by yet another false accusation, namely that I am "part of an intense campaign by the Israeli government and some of its uncritical supporters to smear the messenger and change the subject." Never mind that I have appeared in Israeli courts and made representations to the Israeli government on subjects ranging from the protection of Palestinian refugees to the status of Ethiopian Jews; never mind that I served as international legal counsel to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group - until I became minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada - on issues regarding human rights violations in the occupied territories and in Israel; or that I have visited Israel and Gaza more than Ken Roth has, including meeting with Palestinian government leaders and leaders of Palestinian civil society in Ramallah this past August. These are simply "inconvenient truths" that might undermine Roth's false ad hominem diatribe, which permeates his piece.
But even if his smear were true - that I am an uncritical supporter of Israel - it is beside the point. My critique of the Goldstone mission was based on the fact that it was established under the enabling authority of the UN Human Rights Council, which has systematically singled-out one member state in the international community (call it X, since for Roth accusations of war crimes against Israel seem to be a right of passage necessary to engage in international human rights discourse) while the major human rights violators have enjoyed exculpatory immunity. And it was advanced as a critique of the denial of international due process to a member state, and as an expression of concern with the work of the UN Human Rights Council and the integrity of UN missions under its authority.
I encourage you all to use this article if you are brave enough to tread in the waters at Daily Kos.
Regards,
DKW
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Keith Strikes Again!
Keith Moon, the enfant terrible of the pro-Israel dKos crowd has, yet again, stirred the hornet's nest with his diary titled HRW Military Analyst Collects Nazi Gear.
His diary points to a Jerusalem Post article about Human Rights Watch analyst, Marc Garlasco, who happens to be enamored of Nazi memorabilia.
The article notes:
None of this proves anything concerning Garlasco, but I have to say that it gives me irrational glee to watch the dKos I-P regulars scrambling to justify it.
Good for Keith Moon.
Oh, and here, btw, is a photo of Garlasco in one of his Nazi sweatshirts:
I'm sure it's all perfectly innocent.
What human rights monitor doesn't love Nazi stuff?
UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me that the Iron Cross is not exclusive to Nazi Germany, but has a long history in German military tradition. While that may be true, it's also entirely irrelevant. Here we have a guy who spends his days excoriating Israel and who, coincidentally, loves to collect Nazi memorabilia and wears the Iron Cross in public. And people on dKos are seeking to justify it? This would be like if someone investigating the Nation of Islam just happened to be a fan of Confederacy, or KKK, memorabilia.
Give me a small break.
His diary points to a Jerusalem Post article about Human Rights Watch analyst, Marc Garlasco, who happens to be enamored of Nazi memorabilia.
The article notes:
A human rights group's senior military analyst has been suspended after a pro-Israel blog reported that he collects Nazi memorabilia, an official said Tuesday.
Marc Garlasco is being suspended by Human Rights Watch "pending an investigation," said Carroll Bogert, associate director of the New York-based organization. The suspension was first reported Monday by The New York Times.
None of this proves anything concerning Garlasco, but I have to say that it gives me irrational glee to watch the dKos I-P regulars scrambling to justify it.
Good for Keith Moon.
Oh, and here, btw, is a photo of Garlasco in one of his Nazi sweatshirts:
I'm sure it's all perfectly innocent.
What human rights monitor doesn't love Nazi stuff?
UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me that the Iron Cross is not exclusive to Nazi Germany, but has a long history in German military tradition. While that may be true, it's also entirely irrelevant. Here we have a guy who spends his days excoriating Israel and who, coincidentally, loves to collect Nazi memorabilia and wears the Iron Cross in public. And people on dKos are seeking to justify it? This would be like if someone investigating the Nation of Islam just happened to be a fan of Confederacy, or KKK, memorabilia.
Give me a small break.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Racism Exists, Anti-Semitism, Not So Much
Interesting phenominom that I need to point out. The reaction of the Dialy Kos community to the Joe Wilson "you lie" incident is that it was racially motivated. They make this conclusion not because any conduct is overtly racist, but because of history and context.
I honeslty don't know if the Wilson incident is racist, but I am certainly not willing to rule it out. The Daily Kos reaction though, underscores a point that I have made before. The Daily Kos community is all too willing to see racism even where they have to read it into a situation. However, the same community is incredibly obtuse when it comes to recognizes the same type of hidden bigotry against Jews.
Regards,
DKW
I honeslty don't know if the Wilson incident is racist, but I am certainly not willing to rule it out. The Daily Kos reaction though, underscores a point that I have made before. The Daily Kos community is all too willing to see racism even where they have to read it into a situation. However, the same community is incredibly obtuse when it comes to recognizes the same type of hidden bigotry against Jews.
Regards,
DKW
Another Call to End Israel
Jeez, what a shock!
On Daily Kos yet another writer is suggesting that the only way toward peace is for Israel to incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper and dissolve itself as a Jewish state.
In A Modest Proposal for the Settlements on the Israeli West Bank the diarist writes:
I've long thought a two-state solution - with "Palestine" bifurcated down the middle by their hated Israel, was a geopolitical impossibility. By forcing these two people's to live together, at least those who are realistic, with a common interest in their mutual housing and environs, both people would be moving toward the inevitable co-mingling of their populations.
Forcing?
Forcing people to live together?
Wha?
This diarist is honestly suggesting that the only way to achieve peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is for some outside power to force Israel to dissolve itself as a Jewish state. Just which outside power(s), however, he does not specify. Should the UN attack Israel in order to force compliance? Should some combination of the Arab states yet again attack Israel or should the US and the EU do the deed?
He doesn't say.
He does however have an interesting suggestion regarding the WB settlements:
I propose the following: Keep the settlements, but - after thorough screening and background checks - allow one third of the new apartments to go to Palestinian families (the apartments must be of equal quality). If the Palestinian families don't have the money, I think the U.S. or international community could be persuaded to cough it up in the interest of peace and interdependency. We've certainly subsidized lesser causes.
In other words, after some outside force has compelled Israel to dissolve itself, the US or the international community should fork over money to Palestinians so that they can move into (for some arbitrary reason) one third of the new housing units. Why, I wonder, one third? Why not half? Why not three quarters?
Of course, after the horrific war, resulting in the slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, which this diarist is unwittingly suggesting, there should be an overabundance of available housing, thus causing real estate prices to crash. This will be helpful to any one looking for new digs, eh?
In any case, this Daily Kos diary represents yet another example of the sheer stupidity that has taken hold among some on the liberal left viz-a-viz Israel. While it must be noted that this diary did not get a whole lot of play on dKos, because most of its members are not nearly so stupid as to agree with this diarist (or so one hopes), it nonetheless sits there as a tribute to the absolute blindness and arrogance of well-meaning people who have not the slightest clue what they are talking about.
He goes on to write:
It is time for new solutions. The road map was a dead-end. The Two-State solution is a geopolitical impossibility. The annihilation of Israel is in no one's interest, not even the Arabs...
The annihilation of Israel is in no one's interest. I couldn't agree more. However, if that is the case, then what can "forcing" Israel into the single-state solution possibly mean?
As Schiller long ago wrote, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Indeed.
On Daily Kos yet another writer is suggesting that the only way toward peace is for Israel to incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper and dissolve itself as a Jewish state.
In A Modest Proposal for the Settlements on the Israeli West Bank the diarist writes:
I've long thought a two-state solution - with "Palestine" bifurcated down the middle by their hated Israel, was a geopolitical impossibility. By forcing these two people's to live together, at least those who are realistic, with a common interest in their mutual housing and environs, both people would be moving toward the inevitable co-mingling of their populations.
Forcing?
Forcing people to live together?
Wha?
This diarist is honestly suggesting that the only way to achieve peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is for some outside power to force Israel to dissolve itself as a Jewish state. Just which outside power(s), however, he does not specify. Should the UN attack Israel in order to force compliance? Should some combination of the Arab states yet again attack Israel or should the US and the EU do the deed?
He doesn't say.
He does however have an interesting suggestion regarding the WB settlements:
I propose the following: Keep the settlements, but - after thorough screening and background checks - allow one third of the new apartments to go to Palestinian families (the apartments must be of equal quality). If the Palestinian families don't have the money, I think the U.S. or international community could be persuaded to cough it up in the interest of peace and interdependency. We've certainly subsidized lesser causes.
In other words, after some outside force has compelled Israel to dissolve itself, the US or the international community should fork over money to Palestinians so that they can move into (for some arbitrary reason) one third of the new housing units. Why, I wonder, one third? Why not half? Why not three quarters?
Of course, after the horrific war, resulting in the slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, which this diarist is unwittingly suggesting, there should be an overabundance of available housing, thus causing real estate prices to crash. This will be helpful to any one looking for new digs, eh?
In any case, this Daily Kos diary represents yet another example of the sheer stupidity that has taken hold among some on the liberal left viz-a-viz Israel. While it must be noted that this diary did not get a whole lot of play on dKos, because most of its members are not nearly so stupid as to agree with this diarist (or so one hopes), it nonetheless sits there as a tribute to the absolute blindness and arrogance of well-meaning people who have not the slightest clue what they are talking about.
He goes on to write:
It is time for new solutions. The road map was a dead-end. The Two-State solution is a geopolitical impossibility. The annihilation of Israel is in no one's interest, not even the Arabs...
The annihilation of Israel is in no one's interest. I couldn't agree more. However, if that is the case, then what can "forcing" Israel into the single-state solution possibly mean?
As Schiller long ago wrote, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Indeed.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Israel Hatred
In one of Volleyboy's recent diaries on Daily Kos there was some discussion of the concept of Israel Hatred, which some people over there reject. We are told time and again that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism; that criticism of Israel does not represent hatred either toward the Jewish state, nor toward Jews.
The problem, of course, is that no one is claiming otherwise. Of course, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, nor does it represent hatred toward Israel. What we are talking about, however, is not criticism.
Borat Sagdiyev put it nicely:
Of course no one is going to come out and declare that [s]he hates Israel. The proof is therefore by preponderance of evidence.
Posted by Karmafish
The problem, of course, is that no one is claiming otherwise. Of course, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, nor does it represent hatred toward Israel. What we are talking about, however, is not criticism.
Borat Sagdiyev put it nicely:
Of course no one is going to come out and declare that [s]he hates Israel. The proof is therefore by preponderance of evidence.
People who bash, demonize and vilify Israel only, people who never have a good word to say about Israel and who never have a bad word to say about Israel's many enemies, people who nitpick on Israel's every minor fault or violation while ignoring/justifying/excusing every atrocious and reprehensible action committed by Israel's enemies, people who blame every problem in the middle east (if not the world) on Israel, people who write diaries about "Israeli atrocities" but are completely silent about real genocides elsewhere in the world, people who write diaries about the suffering of the Palestinian people in the west bank and are completely silent on suffering of the palestinian people in Lebanon or Kuwait....Well you got the idea.
There is a very significant number of posters who truly passionately hate Israel, I know who they are and you know who they are. Your defense that we can't read their minds and therefore they are innocent is simply too childish to be taken seriously.
Precisely.Posted by Karmafish
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Forms of Anti-Arab Racism
While there is unquestionably some concern on Daily Kos about the degree, and extent, of possible anti-Semitism there, there is also concern, and rightly so, about anti-Arab and / or anti-Muslim racism. This has led me to wonder about the forms that anti-Arab racism tends to take. What are the common themes of anti-Arab racism?
Here we have some of it laid out:
Some common themes in Anti-Arabism are:
* Arabs are primitive dirty
* Arabs are sub-humansnon-humans
* Arabs are murderers and terrorists
* Arabs are brutal
* Arabs are untrustworthy and treacherous
* Arabs are fanatics uncompromising
* Arabs support terrorism
Unless we are to be hypocrites, it is imperative that we avoid anti-Arab racism. For us to do so, however, we must understand the typical forms that anti-Arab racism takes. AmbroseBurnside wrote a diary on Daily Kos (which I believe has since been deleted) in which he accused Hamas of holding a mass wedding with child brides; a diary that looks to have been shown to be false and one in which he was accused of anti-Arab racism.
In a comment elsewhere the Palestinian Professor said the following:
There is an old idea in anti-Arab racism and it has to do with the way Arabs treat their children. They are rapists, they love their children less than the normal human, they abuse their children, they hide behind their children...
While I do not necessarily doubt this, I have never heard of this before and there is nothing in the above list of "common themes" to confirm it. I have, therefore, asked unspeakable, a well-respected Palestinian Daily Kos member, whether he agrees with this idea and whether he can confirm it by pointing to source material?
It often happens that people will unwittingly repeat anti-Semitic themes because they do not realize that they are anti-Semitic themes. For example, we often see people making claims such as that AIPAC controls the US government. This idea is an updated version of the classic anti-Semitic trope that the Jews control foreign governments. It is an idea straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it is one that can easily be sourced as an anti-Semitic theme in any number of places.
For example, in the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism (pdf) we read the following:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
I honestly want to know if the charge of abusing children is, in fact, a common anti-Arab racist theme. I very much hope that unspeakable, if he agrees with the idea that it is, will point us to confirming source material.
UPDATE: unspeakable was kind enough to respond and has pointed to a Boston Globe article as evidence. I will look it over to see if it does, in fact, represent evidence suggesting the truthfulness of the professor's claim.
UPDATED AGAIN: After looking over the Boston Globe article, I think that we can conclude that unspeakable has presented a bit evidence suggesting the truthfulness of the professor's claim. The evidence is far from conclusive, but it does point to a book published in 1973 by Raphael Patai called The Arab Mind. According to the article, this book, which has been strongly criticized for painting the Arab world with far too broad a brush and in a highly negative fashion, "provided the intellectual backdrop for the torture and sexual abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib."
The article further notes, "In his book, Patai paints a lurid portrait of Arab family life and child-rearing practices..."
This is one of those instances in which I am at a loss to know what to conclude. Nowhere does the article suggest that child abuse is a common theme of anti-Arab racism, but it does give us one example of anti-Arab racism taking that form.
Without any further evidence, the case has not been demonstrated. This, however, does not mean that it is not demonstrable, nor without merit. At the very least we can certainly conclude that it is something that should be kept in mind as we continue to have these conversations. Whether or not the professor's claim is true, it is enough that a number of Arab Daily Kos members believe it to be true and they are in a far better position than am I to make that judgement.
Many thanks to unspeakable.
Posted by Karmafish
Here we have some of it laid out:
Some common themes in Anti-Arabism are:
* Arabs are primitive dirty
* Arabs are sub-humansnon-humans
* Arabs are murderers and terrorists
* Arabs are brutal
* Arabs are untrustworthy and treacherous
* Arabs are fanatics uncompromising
* Arabs support terrorism
Unless we are to be hypocrites, it is imperative that we avoid anti-Arab racism. For us to do so, however, we must understand the typical forms that anti-Arab racism takes. AmbroseBurnside wrote a diary on Daily Kos (which I believe has since been deleted) in which he accused Hamas of holding a mass wedding with child brides; a diary that looks to have been shown to be false and one in which he was accused of anti-Arab racism.
In a comment elsewhere the Palestinian Professor said the following:
There is an old idea in anti-Arab racism and it has to do with the way Arabs treat their children. They are rapists, they love their children less than the normal human, they abuse their children, they hide behind their children...
While I do not necessarily doubt this, I have never heard of this before and there is nothing in the above list of "common themes" to confirm it. I have, therefore, asked unspeakable, a well-respected Palestinian Daily Kos member, whether he agrees with this idea and whether he can confirm it by pointing to source material?
It often happens that people will unwittingly repeat anti-Semitic themes because they do not realize that they are anti-Semitic themes. For example, we often see people making claims such as that AIPAC controls the US government. This idea is an updated version of the classic anti-Semitic trope that the Jews control foreign governments. It is an idea straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it is one that can easily be sourced as an anti-Semitic theme in any number of places.
For example, in the European Union's working definition of anti-Semitism (pdf) we read the following:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
I honestly want to know if the charge of abusing children is, in fact, a common anti-Arab racist theme. I very much hope that unspeakable, if he agrees with the idea that it is, will point us to confirming source material.
UPDATE: unspeakable was kind enough to respond and has pointed to a Boston Globe article as evidence. I will look it over to see if it does, in fact, represent evidence suggesting the truthfulness of the professor's claim.
UPDATED AGAIN: After looking over the Boston Globe article, I think that we can conclude that unspeakable has presented a bit evidence suggesting the truthfulness of the professor's claim. The evidence is far from conclusive, but it does point to a book published in 1973 by Raphael Patai called The Arab Mind. According to the article, this book, which has been strongly criticized for painting the Arab world with far too broad a brush and in a highly negative fashion, "provided the intellectual backdrop for the torture and sexual abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib."
The article further notes, "In his book, Patai paints a lurid portrait of Arab family life and child-rearing practices..."
This is one of those instances in which I am at a loss to know what to conclude. Nowhere does the article suggest that child abuse is a common theme of anti-Arab racism, but it does give us one example of anti-Arab racism taking that form.
Without any further evidence, the case has not been demonstrated. This, however, does not mean that it is not demonstrable, nor without merit. At the very least we can certainly conclude that it is something that should be kept in mind as we continue to have these conversations. Whether or not the professor's claim is true, it is enough that a number of Arab Daily Kos members believe it to be true and they are in a far better position than am I to make that judgement.
Many thanks to unspeakable.
Posted by Karmafish
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Infantilizing the Palestinians
Doodad recently made a comment in a Daily Kos I-P diary to the effect of, "There are quite a few who advocate the Palestinians as infants meme; unable to act as adults, look after themselves; make cogent decisions."
Needless to say, he took something of a beating for this comment for a number of reasons that I do not wish to go into at this moment. However, one of the responses was as follows:
really? who? name one. besides yourself. i have never heard this meme. are you a meme maker? i even googled this and w/the exception of the neocon propaganda creep clifford may i couldn't find it.
When I saw that response, I arched an eye-brow. The person who made it is a regular in dKos I-P and I would surely have thought that the idea of "infantilizing the Palestinians" would be a notion not unfamiliar to anyone who regularly participates. The truth of the matter, of course, is that Doodad was pointing to something that is often done within dKos I-P, if not within left-liberal I-P discussions, more generally.
Anytime we discuss the Palestinian people, or their leadership, in such a manner that we excuse any and all behavior as not their responsibility, we infantilize them... we treat them as children who cannot really be thought responsible for their own actions. For example, if we blame the rise of Hamas entirely on Israel, we infantilize the Palestinians. If we explain away things like suicide bombings as the responsibility of Israel because of the occupation, we infantilize the Palestinians. If we suggest that the civil conflict between Fatah and Hamas is really Israel's fault, we infantilize the Palestinians.
We rob them of agency.
It also, of course, has the effect of laying all blame for everything I-P at the feet of the Israelis. When we infantilize the Palestinian people by explaining away all behavior as ultimately Israel's fault it, obviously, also has the effect of unjustly laying all blame for everything I-P at the feet of the Jews of Israel.
That the reponder could find virtually no evidence of this "meme" in the intertubes only means that she could not have tried very hard to do so. Googling "infantilizing Palestinians" brings up 3,900 results. Just glancing at the results of the first page we see:
The infantilization of the Palestinians (as well as the rest of the Muslim world) can no longer be allowed to continue.
And:
After all, what's more progressive than infantilizing Palestinians?
And:
Carter's portrait demonizes Israelis and, not coincidentally, it infantilizes Palestinians...
And:
Instead of infantilizing Palestinians by reinforcing their unrealizable fantasies and their hope that Israel will somehow vanish in a puff of smoke, ...
And on and on and on... 3,900 results.
The point is, of course, that explaining away Palestinian behavior, while lambasting Israel for that very behavior does no one any favors, nor does it ever help us get toward anything resembling truth in I-P relations and history. The Palestinian people are not merely passive victims buffeted about by history, but actors within history along with everyone else. Their leadership are not children, but adults and as adults they are responsible for their decisions.
And that is what Doodad was talking about.
Posted by Karmafish
Needless to say, he took something of a beating for this comment for a number of reasons that I do not wish to go into at this moment. However, one of the responses was as follows:
really? who? name one. besides yourself. i have never heard this meme. are you a meme maker? i even googled this and w/the exception of the neocon propaganda creep clifford may i couldn't find it.
When I saw that response, I arched an eye-brow. The person who made it is a regular in dKos I-P and I would surely have thought that the idea of "infantilizing the Palestinians" would be a notion not unfamiliar to anyone who regularly participates. The truth of the matter, of course, is that Doodad was pointing to something that is often done within dKos I-P, if not within left-liberal I-P discussions, more generally.
Anytime we discuss the Palestinian people, or their leadership, in such a manner that we excuse any and all behavior as not their responsibility, we infantilize them... we treat them as children who cannot really be thought responsible for their own actions. For example, if we blame the rise of Hamas entirely on Israel, we infantilize the Palestinians. If we explain away things like suicide bombings as the responsibility of Israel because of the occupation, we infantilize the Palestinians. If we suggest that the civil conflict between Fatah and Hamas is really Israel's fault, we infantilize the Palestinians.
We rob them of agency.
It also, of course, has the effect of laying all blame for everything I-P at the feet of the Israelis. When we infantilize the Palestinian people by explaining away all behavior as ultimately Israel's fault it, obviously, also has the effect of unjustly laying all blame for everything I-P at the feet of the Jews of Israel.
That the reponder could find virtually no evidence of this "meme" in the intertubes only means that she could not have tried very hard to do so. Googling "infantilizing Palestinians" brings up 3,900 results. Just glancing at the results of the first page we see:
The infantilization of the Palestinians (as well as the rest of the Muslim world) can no longer be allowed to continue.
And:
After all, what's more progressive than infantilizing Palestinians?
And:
Carter's portrait demonizes Israelis and, not coincidentally, it infantilizes Palestinians...
And:
Instead of infantilizing Palestinians by reinforcing their unrealizable fantasies and their hope that Israel will somehow vanish in a puff of smoke, ...
And on and on and on... 3,900 results.
The point is, of course, that explaining away Palestinian behavior, while lambasting Israel for that very behavior does no one any favors, nor does it ever help us get toward anything resembling truth in I-P relations and history. The Palestinian people are not merely passive victims buffeted about by history, but actors within history along with everyone else. Their leadership are not children, but adults and as adults they are responsible for their decisions.
And that is what Doodad was talking about.
Posted by Karmafish
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Daily Kos, the Left, and Israel
Does Daily Kos hate Israel? Does the American left-wing despise the Jewish state? I don't really know. This is, in part, because we constantly receive mixed signals. This diary, the same one that DKW referenced in his recent post, represents an excellent example of this.
It is titled The Rise and Irony of the Zionist Reich.
Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is just about the most offensive thing anyone can do viz-a-viz the Jewish people. Aside from being patently, and obviously, false, it is a way of using the most horrific experience of the Jews as a weapon against them. And, yet, there it sits on the largest liberal political blog in the United States, if not the world.
At first glance, it is easy to conclude that American liberals despise Israel and it is unquestionably the case that some do so. How much evidence needs to pile up before we can draw this conclusion? And it's not about criticism. It's about hatred. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany does not constitute "criticism." It constitutes hate. But, again, how much evidence do we need? As we've previously noted, AmbroseBurnside wrote a Daily Kos diary containing a poll asking, "Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?"
The final tally shows that 53 percent of Daily Kos members who responded do, in fact, agree with that assessment. Now, Ambrose is someone who has stirred the wrath of many within the Daily Kos I-P community and therefore many of us wondered if the polling results were as much to do with him as with the true sentiment of the poll responders. It was for this reason that Volleyboy wrote a diary asking the same question. Volleyboy is a well-liked and well-respected supporter of Israel on Daily Kos and, indeed, his poll received a different result, with only 34 percent of the respondents agreeing that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state."
Only 34 percent.
Merely a third.
How are we to assess this? The great majority of "Kossacks" do not participate in I-P diaries for a variety of reasons. Some, perhaps the majority, are simply not that interested in the topic... and why should they be? Others are turned off by the vitriol that is so often on display in those diaries. Yet it is obvious that among those who do care, that Israel hatred is prominent.
The Rise and Irony of the Zionist Reich also contained a poll asking "Do you see the parallels between The Israeli Government and Nazi Germany?" 46 percent responded in the affirmative. Almost half of Daily Kos respondents believe that the Jewish state is something akin to Nazi Germany. At the same time, it must be noted, the majority of commenters in that diary lambasted the diarist as an anti-Semite and the Daily Kos administration banned the diarist.
So, why the mixed message? How is it that so many of the commenters disagreed with the assessment of the diarist and, yet, almost half claim that they think what he said is true? What conclusions can we draw from this developing picture? It seems clear to me that, as the liberal-left thinks of itself as anti-racist, obvious expressions of anti-Semitism, such as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, are not tolerated. Daily Kos, in fact, has a policy banning such expressions of hatred. At the same time, quite clearly, many Kossacks privately agree that the Jews of Israel have evolved into Nazis. They may not be willing to say so in the comments, but they obviously do not mind expressing that opinion in an anonymous poll.
We all understand, of course, that these are not scientific polls. They cannot be taken as definitive. Nonetheless, three polls over the course of a week have given results in which from one-third to one-half of the respondents expressed extremist loathing toward Israel. The next question to ask is, does this hatred toward Israel represent a hatred for Jews? Israel is, after all, the Jewish state. About 40 percent of the world's Jewish population lives there and about eighty percent of that country is Jewish. So, if one hates Israel is not one hating Jews? Many would say "no." They do not hate Jews, but hate Israel's policies toward the Palestinian people. The problem is, claiming that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state" or that it is something akin to Nazi Germany, does not represent criticism of Israeli state policy. Criticism of Israeli state policy, like criticism of any countries' policies, is welcome and needed.
But this is something else.
In a recent sociological study conducted by Yale’s Institute for Social and Policy Studies (pdf), professors Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small concluded that degrees of hatred toward Israel closely coincide with degrees of anti-Semitism. Published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, in August 2006, the article is titled, Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe.
So? Is Daily Kos I-P crawling with anti-Jewish racists?
I do not know the answer. But as my dear 'ol ma used to say, "Something stinks to high heaven."
Posted by Karmafish
It is titled The Rise and Irony of the Zionist Reich.
Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is just about the most offensive thing anyone can do viz-a-viz the Jewish people. Aside from being patently, and obviously, false, it is a way of using the most horrific experience of the Jews as a weapon against them. And, yet, there it sits on the largest liberal political blog in the United States, if not the world.
At first glance, it is easy to conclude that American liberals despise Israel and it is unquestionably the case that some do so. How much evidence needs to pile up before we can draw this conclusion? And it's not about criticism. It's about hatred. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany does not constitute "criticism." It constitutes hate. But, again, how much evidence do we need? As we've previously noted, AmbroseBurnside wrote a Daily Kos diary containing a poll asking, "Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?"
The final tally shows that 53 percent of Daily Kos members who responded do, in fact, agree with that assessment. Now, Ambrose is someone who has stirred the wrath of many within the Daily Kos I-P community and therefore many of us wondered if the polling results were as much to do with him as with the true sentiment of the poll responders. It was for this reason that Volleyboy wrote a diary asking the same question. Volleyboy is a well-liked and well-respected supporter of Israel on Daily Kos and, indeed, his poll received a different result, with only 34 percent of the respondents agreeing that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state."
Only 34 percent.
Merely a third.
How are we to assess this? The great majority of "Kossacks" do not participate in I-P diaries for a variety of reasons. Some, perhaps the majority, are simply not that interested in the topic... and why should they be? Others are turned off by the vitriol that is so often on display in those diaries. Yet it is obvious that among those who do care, that Israel hatred is prominent.
The Rise and Irony of the Zionist Reich also contained a poll asking "Do you see the parallels between The Israeli Government and Nazi Germany?" 46 percent responded in the affirmative. Almost half of Daily Kos respondents believe that the Jewish state is something akin to Nazi Germany. At the same time, it must be noted, the majority of commenters in that diary lambasted the diarist as an anti-Semite and the Daily Kos administration banned the diarist.
So, why the mixed message? How is it that so many of the commenters disagreed with the assessment of the diarist and, yet, almost half claim that they think what he said is true? What conclusions can we draw from this developing picture? It seems clear to me that, as the liberal-left thinks of itself as anti-racist, obvious expressions of anti-Semitism, such as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, are not tolerated. Daily Kos, in fact, has a policy banning such expressions of hatred. At the same time, quite clearly, many Kossacks privately agree that the Jews of Israel have evolved into Nazis. They may not be willing to say so in the comments, but they obviously do not mind expressing that opinion in an anonymous poll.
We all understand, of course, that these are not scientific polls. They cannot be taken as definitive. Nonetheless, three polls over the course of a week have given results in which from one-third to one-half of the respondents expressed extremist loathing toward Israel. The next question to ask is, does this hatred toward Israel represent a hatred for Jews? Israel is, after all, the Jewish state. About 40 percent of the world's Jewish population lives there and about eighty percent of that country is Jewish. So, if one hates Israel is not one hating Jews? Many would say "no." They do not hate Jews, but hate Israel's policies toward the Palestinian people. The problem is, claiming that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state" or that it is something akin to Nazi Germany, does not represent criticism of Israeli state policy. Criticism of Israeli state policy, like criticism of any countries' policies, is welcome and needed.
But this is something else.
In a recent sociological study conducted by Yale’s Institute for Social and Policy Studies (pdf), professors Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small concluded that degrees of hatred toward Israel closely coincide with degrees of anti-Semitism. Published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, in August 2006, the article is titled, Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe.
So? Is Daily Kos I-P crawling with anti-Jewish racists?
I do not know the answer. But as my dear 'ol ma used to say, "Something stinks to high heaven."
Posted by Karmafish
Monday, September 7, 2009
Strange Diary At Daily Kos
So a new poster has a diary comparing the government of Israel to Nazi Germany. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/7/778204/-The-Rise-and-Irony-of-the-Zionist-Reich. As is often the case, the Daily Kos community roundly condemned the diarist and hid his tip jar (with 2 uprates). They reacted similarly when another new user posted his support for the comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel.
However, the diary also has a poll attached to it.
So the diary receives 36 hide rates and 2 uprates, yet is dead even on whether the comparison is fair. How many people hid the tip jar for appearances and then voted "Yes" in the poll?
UPDATE: The Final(?) Results
Do you see the parallels between The Israeli Government and Nazi Germany?
Yes
46% 58 votes
No
53% 66 votes
| 124 votes | Vote
However, the diary also has a poll attached to it.
Do you see the parallels between The Israeli Government and Nazi Germany?
Yes
49% 53 votes
No
50% 55 votes
| 108 votes | Vote
So the diary receives 36 hide rates and 2 uprates, yet is dead even on whether the comparison is fair. How many people hid the tip jar for appearances and then voted "Yes" in the poll?
UPDATE: The Final(?) Results
Do you see the parallels between The Israeli Government and Nazi Germany?
Yes
46% 58 votes
No
53% 66 votes
| 124 votes | Vote
Saturday, September 5, 2009
An Echo Chamber
TomJ's latest diary has me thinking. Sure, it is filled with his usual slant. In reality, his insistence on calling the Israeli Defense Forced "Occupation Forces" underscores his denial of the right of Israel to exist. The commenters are the usual. Litho, Heathlander, Christopher Day, Aunt Martha, Eiron, Lefty Coaster and Unspeakable.
One thing is missing though, any comment by someone supporting Israel. Lefty Coaster points it out as if the lack of traffic on the diary is evidence of something.
I think it is a wild leap to interpret a lack of response to a diary as anyone being silent. Could be that the diary was posted on the Friday of Labor Day Weekend. Could also be that we have just grown tired of TomJ's diaries. It is the 2nd idea that got me thinking. Without our participation do the anti-Israel diaries just become an echo chamber? With nothing on the hidden list do we deny an avenue of publicity for diaries we disagree with?
Maybe we are going about it all wrong. Maybe it really is that we should not respond to these guys. Maybe we make small diaries big diaries by responding?
I propose that we do a little experiment. Let's not respond to any of TomJ's diaries. Let's see how comments from the larger community it gets and how many people outside the anti-Israel family mentioned above actually stop by to visit, read, and recommend. If my suspicions are correct, we can extend it to another diarist and see if it has a positive effect.
Regards,
DKW
One thing is missing though, any comment by someone supporting Israel. Lefty Coaster points it out as if the lack of traffic on the diary is evidence of something.
Interesting how the Pro-I side is silent on this (0+ / 0-)
Absent is their usual knee jerk defense of IDF all uses of IDF violence. More telling is how none of them can bring themselves to condemn attacks on Palestinian protesters either.
I think it is a wild leap to interpret a lack of response to a diary as anyone being silent. Could be that the diary was posted on the Friday of Labor Day Weekend. Could also be that we have just grown tired of TomJ's diaries. It is the 2nd idea that got me thinking. Without our participation do the anti-Israel diaries just become an echo chamber? With nothing on the hidden list do we deny an avenue of publicity for diaries we disagree with?
Maybe we are going about it all wrong. Maybe it really is that we should not respond to these guys. Maybe we make small diaries big diaries by responding?
I propose that we do a little experiment. Let's not respond to any of TomJ's diaries. Let's see how comments from the larger community it gets and how many people outside the anti-Israel family mentioned above actually stop by to visit, read, and recommend. If my suspicions are correct, we can extend it to another diarist and see if it has a positive effect.
Regards,
DKW
Friday, September 4, 2009
Israel: A Genocidal, Killer State
In AmbroseBurnside's recent diary he quotes Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as calling Israel a "genocidal" and "killer" state. In his poll, he asks Kossacks if they agree. As of this morning the majority, in fact, do agree.
The exact question was this:
Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?
51 percent voted "yes."
77 people.
The comments, not surprisingly, were particularly vitriolic, including a few of my own, but a number of people suggested that the vote was probably skewed due to animus toward Ambrose. While that may, or may not, be true, what would it say about a person that they are willing to demonize Israel merely out of dislike of a single Jew?
In any case, this is what we are up against.
Pure hatred.
UPDATE:
Volleyboy has a diary, with a similar poll, in which he is hoping to demonstrate the poll results from Abrose's diary were primarily due to Ambrose himself, rather than to ideological Israel hatred.
Here's hoping that Volleyboy is correct... even while suspecting that... well?... we shall see.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Now that some hours have passed, Volley's numbers are as follows:
Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?
Yes, Chavez is right
38% 46 votes
No, Chavez is high
51% 62 votes
No, but I voted "Yes" last night because I dislike AB
10% 12 votes
So, even here, with people responding to someone as well-liked and well-respected as Volleyboy we still see nearly 40% of respondents believe that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state."
I don't know about you, but I find this absolutely revolting.
Posted by Karmafish
The exact question was this:
Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?
51 percent voted "yes."
77 people.
The comments, not surprisingly, were particularly vitriolic, including a few of my own, but a number of people suggested that the vote was probably skewed due to animus toward Ambrose. While that may, or may not, be true, what would it say about a person that they are willing to demonize Israel merely out of dislike of a single Jew?
In any case, this is what we are up against.
Pure hatred.
UPDATE:
Volleyboy has a diary, with a similar poll, in which he is hoping to demonstrate the poll results from Abrose's diary were primarily due to Ambrose himself, rather than to ideological Israel hatred.
Here's hoping that Volleyboy is correct... even while suspecting that... well?... we shall see.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Now that some hours have passed, Volley's numbers are as follows:
Do you agree with Hugo Chavez that Israel is a genocidal, killer state?
Yes, Chavez is right
38% 46 votes
No, Chavez is high
51% 62 votes
No, but I voted "Yes" last night because I dislike AB
10% 12 votes
So, even here, with people responding to someone as well-liked and well-respected as Volleyboy we still see nearly 40% of respondents believe that Israel is a "genocidal, killer state."
I don't know about you, but I find this absolutely revolting.
Posted by Karmafish
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Who Are "They"?
In a recent Tom J diary, doodad made a comment about "them," those on the other side of the gaping I-P divide. In response, unspeakable, a pro-Palestinian advocate, asked doodad who "they" are. I've broken "them" down into 5 categories. These are human rights advocates, pro-Palestinian advocates, ideological Israel haters, anti-Zionists, and anti-Semites. Needless to say these groupings are not absolute and there is much cross-over between them. Furthermore, it should hardly need to be said, there is absolutely nothing in this world wrong with human rights advocates or pro-Palestinian advocates. Most of us here are liberals, which is why we came to Daily Kos to begin with. We need human rights advocates and we need pro-Palestinian advocates in order to bring justice to a cruddy world.
The problem, however, is that the movement for pro-Palestinian justice contains any number of people who are also anti-Zionists, ideological Israel Haters, and anti-Semites. That's why DKW created this site to begin with. How in the world can those who care about justice for the Palestinian people ever expect majorities of Jewish people, or those who support Israel, to join a movement that contains those types? It makes no sense to me.
I live in San Francisco and during Operation Cast Lead there was a protest march to Civic Center. Now, I've participated in any number of anti-war rallies, maybe 10, or so, throughout the Bush years. However, when I attended the protest rally against Cast Lead I was met with a number of people holding up signs that blended the Nazi swastika with the Star of David.
At the time I felt as if they might as well be holding up signs saying, "Jews go home" because that is precisely what I did and that is the dilemma that we face. How can those of us who are liberal Jews, or liberal supporters of Israel, who oppose the occupation, join our voices with people who consistently express outright hatred toward the Jewish state or who think that it should be dissolved?
How can we join our voices with those who spit the word "Zionist" as if it is an epithet?
How can we participate in the progressive movement when it also contains any number of anti-Zionists, ideological Israel haters, and anti-Semites? Jews have been at the forefront of the broad movement for social justice for over a century and something like 80 percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. We are, for the most part, proud liberals. We supported FDR during the New Deal, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. We were over-represented in the New Left and organizations like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), not to mention the Women's Movement and the movement for Gay Rights. Yet now we find ourselves in the position of facing a movement, the current progressive movement, that is home to an element that we simply cannot tolerate.
And this, my friends, is a big problem.
So long as the progressive movement, and more specifically, the movement for Palestinian justice, represents a home for those who hate Israel, or who think that Israel should be dissolved as a Jewish state via the single-state solution, it will leave most Jews cold.
And I, for one, am freezing my ass off.
So it goes.
Posted by Karmafish
The problem, however, is that the movement for pro-Palestinian justice contains any number of people who are also anti-Zionists, ideological Israel Haters, and anti-Semites. That's why DKW created this site to begin with. How in the world can those who care about justice for the Palestinian people ever expect majorities of Jewish people, or those who support Israel, to join a movement that contains those types? It makes no sense to me.
I live in San Francisco and during Operation Cast Lead there was a protest march to Civic Center. Now, I've participated in any number of anti-war rallies, maybe 10, or so, throughout the Bush years. However, when I attended the protest rally against Cast Lead I was met with a number of people holding up signs that blended the Nazi swastika with the Star of David.
At the time I felt as if they might as well be holding up signs saying, "Jews go home" because that is precisely what I did and that is the dilemma that we face. How can those of us who are liberal Jews, or liberal supporters of Israel, who oppose the occupation, join our voices with people who consistently express outright hatred toward the Jewish state or who think that it should be dissolved?
How can we join our voices with those who spit the word "Zionist" as if it is an epithet?
How can we participate in the progressive movement when it also contains any number of anti-Zionists, ideological Israel haters, and anti-Semites? Jews have been at the forefront of the broad movement for social justice for over a century and something like 80 percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. We are, for the most part, proud liberals. We supported FDR during the New Deal, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. We were over-represented in the New Left and organizations like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), not to mention the Women's Movement and the movement for Gay Rights. Yet now we find ourselves in the position of facing a movement, the current progressive movement, that is home to an element that we simply cannot tolerate.
And this, my friends, is a big problem.
So long as the progressive movement, and more specifically, the movement for Palestinian justice, represents a home for those who hate Israel, or who think that Israel should be dissolved as a Jewish state via the single-state solution, it will leave most Jews cold.
And I, for one, am freezing my ass off.
So it goes.
Posted by Karmafish
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Our First Open Thread!
Oh, joy.
I have a question, tho:
How does one have a civil discussion with people who believe that Israel should be dissolved as a Jewish state or who habitually, and in the most acidic terms possible, blame everything I-P on Israel?
I honestly do not know what to do with that.
I have a question, tho:
How does one have a civil discussion with people who believe that Israel should be dissolved as a Jewish state or who habitually, and in the most acidic terms possible, blame everything I-P on Israel?
I honestly do not know what to do with that.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Disecting A Daily Kos I/P Article
Today a diarist I must admit I am unfamiliar with, Oblomov, posts an article about the right of return that I can only assume is somewhat a response to Karma's diary from yesterday. I wanted to disect it a little bit to make a few points.
Interesting paragraph. On the one hand, it recognizes the key problem from the Israeli perspective with the right of return, that being the loss of Israel as a Jewish state. On the other hand, the description of the right of return, which I italisized, is certainly weighted. It refers to Palestinians evicted in 1948. Now I am not sure if this is intentional or not. Is the diarist suggesting that the right of return only applies to Palestinians who can prove they were evicted, as opposed to left either voluntarily or on demand of Arab leadership? Any decent historian will recognize that all 3 happened. Some Palestinians were forced out of land by Israeli forces, some left voluntarily to avoid the conflict, and others were forced to leave by the Arab leadership. I suspect though, that the diarist intends to whitewash history and make it so that every Palestinian who left a home during the War for Independence did it because they were evicted by Israeli forces.
As a lawyer, I know this trick well. Any offer that isn't liked is offered in "bad faith." Key words to look out for here. "bad-faith," "Israeli sympathizers," "isn't even worth spitting on." This person is not a fan of the suggestion.
Another mixed message paragraph. I think most honest people recognize that a withdrawl to 1967 borders with some rational adjustments is going to be the very framework of a deal. But then the diarist goes on the attack against Israel alleging that "some Israelis" don't want to give back land or water. While I am sure that is true, some Israelis don't support that view, the Israeli government has previously accepted a peace deal that entailed this very suggestion. It was rejected by Yassir Arafat. I find it interesting that the diarist talks about "some Israelis" but ignores the Palestinian leadership who have never accepted the framework that he puts forward.
Another paragraph with an alert going off when you get through 5 words. Calls the suggestion "propaganda." Then goes off again by talking about "stolen West Bank land" I cute out the part where he tries to justify his attacks by demonstrating it is supported by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
More attacks on settlers with a conclusion that really misses the point. The "right to remain" as he puts it will likely not be very meaningful because, as Karma indicated yesterday, most Israelis in that situation will go back to Israel rather than stay in Palestine and many Palestinians in Israel will likely go to Palestine. Interesting that he concludes that this is "just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism." Again, a singular focus on Israel without any mention of the Palestinians, and ascribing the worst possible motive for a suggestion at how to end a decades long impasse.
And finally we have the talk of the Palestinians. Unlike the Jews who remain in Palestine (who apparently will be treated like royalty because the Palestinians are better than the Israelis), the Palestinians who remain in Israel will stay in refugee camps, and be "second class citizens," "serfs," "oppressed and humiliated daily."
And then to make sure that he is clear, his final paragraph accusing Israel of just about every crime imaginable.
And this is what makes it a facscinating piece. Somewhere past the hatred and hyperbole is an actual plan for peace. But the diarist is so worried about making sure that he fully demonizes Israel that he misses the opportunity to actually express the message.
Take a look at this piece and Karma's piece side by side and you see the same basic approach written by two different people. One committed to coming up with constructive ideas for peace, and the other to dismiss them out of pure unbridled hatred for Israel.
Regards,
DKW
The "right of return" sought by the Palestinians to the lands from which they were evicted during the war for Israel's independence is not part of a practical solution to the I/P problem, any more than giving the American West back to the Indians was realistic in 1920. Actually, it's even less practical, because in 1920 there weren't enough American Indians left to alter the balance of population power in the US, while if large numbers of stateless Palestinians refugees and their descendants were allowed to return to Israel the essential Jewish character of the State of Israel would be threatened, if not undermined completely.
Interesting paragraph. On the one hand, it recognizes the key problem from the Israeli perspective with the right of return, that being the loss of Israel as a Jewish state. On the other hand, the description of the right of return, which I italisized, is certainly weighted. It refers to Palestinians evicted in 1948. Now I am not sure if this is intentional or not. Is the diarist suggesting that the right of return only applies to Palestinians who can prove they were evicted, as opposed to left either voluntarily or on demand of Arab leadership? Any decent historian will recognize that all 3 happened. Some Palestinians were forced out of land by Israeli forces, some left voluntarily to avoid the conflict, and others were forced to leave by the Arab leadership. I suspect though, that the diarist intends to whitewash history and make it so that every Palestinian who left a home during the War for Independence did it because they were evicted by Israeli forces.
The bad-faith substitute offered by some Israeli sympathizers, allowing to "return" only persons who were themselves evicted in 1948, isn't even worth spitting on.
As a lawyer, I know this trick well. Any offer that isn't liked is offered in "bad faith." Key words to look out for here. "bad-faith," "Israeli sympathizers," "isn't even worth spitting on." This person is not a fan of the suggestion.
Only a withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries (with rational adjustments) will move the problem toward a solution. Everyone knows this, but a some Israelis, and others, just don't want to give all that good land and copious water resources back to the rightful owners.
Another mixed message paragraph. I think most honest people recognize that a withdrawl to 1967 borders with some rational adjustments is going to be the very framework of a deal. But then the diarist goes on the attack against Israel alleging that "some Israelis" don't want to give back land or water. While I am sure that is true, some Israelis don't support that view, the Israeli government has previously accepted a peace deal that entailed this very suggestion. It was rejected by Yassir Arafat. I find it interesting that the diarist talks about "some Israelis" but ignores the Palestinian leadership who have never accepted the framework that he puts forward.
So, what's the newest propaganda wrinkle on the subject? The Right To Remain. In the past year or two, Israeli sympathizers who feel that the so-called "settlers" (an Orwellian word if ever one existed) should be allowed to remain in their condos on stolen West Bank land (and what better place for these pesky misfits, geographically as well as ideologically out of the mainstream of Israeli society?) have been floating this idea as a trial balloon.
Another paragraph with an alert going off when you get through 5 words. Calls the suggestion "propaganda." Then goes off again by talking about "stolen West Bank land" I cute out the part where he tries to justify his attacks by demonstrating it is supported by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
Now in theory I'll bet that the Palestinians would not mind having Jews living in their midst-- Jews, that is, who properly bought the land they are living on from a rightful owner, who agree to live as law-abiding Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state, without all the benefits the so-called "settlers" enjoy today, such as special-access roads, water-supply preference, the right to roam heavily armed across Palestinian land, and a host of other privileges, petty and gross.
But what kind of idiot would believe that any of the current "settlers," who view themselves as redeeming the Land of Israel, would agree to live in the West Bank like this, and all the less so under explicit Palestinian rule? Maybe a few left-wing Jewish peaceniks would try this, but most of the settlers would flee immediately.
So, without a real prospect that Jews in any number would choose to live as Jewish Palestinians in a Palestinian state on the West Bank, what is all this talk about the settlers' Right to Remain? Just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism.
More attacks on settlers with a conclusion that really misses the point. The "right to remain" as he puts it will likely not be very meaningful because, as Karma indicated yesterday, most Israelis in that situation will go back to Israel rather than stay in Palestine and many Palestinians in Israel will likely go to Palestine. Interesting that he concludes that this is "just the latest iteration of Israeli expansionism." Again, a singular focus on Israel without any mention of the Palestinians, and ascribing the worst possible motive for a suggestion at how to end a decades long impasse.
Most of this diary has been about the "Right To Remain" as applied to Israelis living in the West Bank. But don't assume that the proponents of this doctrine are being one-sided. They are not ignoring the plight of the Palestinians for one second, they have the same rights as the West Bank Jews-- identical rights, in fact.
The Palestinians also have the Right To Remain in place in their refugee camps or as second-class citizens, serfs really, oppressed and humiliated daily, and finally tossed off the good land, in their own country.
This is one face of Israel today-- a decades-long campaign of harassment, humiliation, intimidation, vandalism, environmental crimes, theft of water, murders, and attempted school bombings by the settlers and their partisans, conducted under the banner of expansionism and with the tacit support of the State of Israel.
And finally we have the talk of the Palestinians. Unlike the Jews who remain in Palestine (who apparently will be treated like royalty because the Palestinians are better than the Israelis), the Palestinians who remain in Israel will stay in refugee camps, and be "second class citizens," "serfs," "oppressed and humiliated daily."
And then to make sure that he is clear, his final paragraph accusing Israel of just about every crime imaginable.
And this is what makes it a facscinating piece. Somewhere past the hatred and hyperbole is an actual plan for peace. But the diarist is so worried about making sure that he fully demonizes Israel that he misses the opportunity to actually express the message.
Take a look at this piece and Karma's piece side by side and you see the same basic approach written by two different people. One committed to coming up with constructive ideas for peace, and the other to dismiss them out of pure unbridled hatred for Israel.
Regards,
DKW
Making Nice Nice
The current trend in Daily Kos I-P seems to be a positive one. Meteor Blades, the dKos administrator who moderates dKos I-P is trying very hard to promote an atmosphere in which the pro-Israel people and the pro-Palestinian people might be able to speak with one another without the chronic vitriol and anger that has characterized so much of the conversation in the past. As anyone who follows this kind of thing knows, dKos I-P has been a toxic dump typified by accusations of anti-Semitism, accusations of racism, and a tendency to claim moral superiority over those who may disagree with one's position. Given the hard feelings that are so often involved it is likely that the two sides have tended to harden their positions, rather than moderate them. People who were pro-Palestinian to begin with have likely become more so over time and for many their feelings have seemingly morphed from pro-Palestinian to anti-Israel. People who were pro-Israel to begin with, or so I suspect, have probably likewise become more pro-Israel over time and for many their feelings have probably morphed from pro-Israel to a loathing for the pro-Palestinian movement, although, one hopes this loathing does not extend to the Palestinians, themselves.
Such is my impression, anyway.
If this impression is correct, Meteor Blades' efforts should be applauded, as well as the efforts of someone like Volleyboy1, a liberal pro-Israel dKos participant who is also trying mightily to create bridges between the pro-Israel faction and the pro-Palestinian faction. Nonetheless, I find myself rather ambivalent. While I think their intentions are of the highest order, I find myself wondering if making nice with radical ideological anti-Zionists does not legitimate their point of view?
From my perspective, the problem we have with dKos I-P is that any number of the pro-Palestinian side are actually anti-Israel. That is, some of them believe that Israel should never have come into existence as a Jewish state and should be dismantled as such via the single-state solution. As a Jew concerned about the well-being of other Jews, what should my attitude be towards people who would see the Jews, yet again, living as a minority dependent entirely upon the good-will of non-Jews? The history of the Jewish people has shown us again and again and again that such arrangements have not worked out well. Without belaboring an obvious point, for 2,000 years the Jewish people have, to be blunt, gotten their collective asses kicked all around the world. We have been subject to a seemingly never-ending series of pogroms and persecutions and exiles all leading to the Holocaust in which one-third of our number were entirely wiped out by the Nazi regime.
What, therefore, can we possibly have to say to people who demand that the Jews must throw themselves upon the mercy of non-Jews by giving up Jewish self-determination and self-defense other than, "NO"? Is Jewish autonomy negotiable? I do not think so. Of course, ideological anti-Zionists do not characterize the dKos pro-Palestinian position as a whole. There are also any number of pro-Palestinian advocates who believe in the two-state solution, yet who always and forever blame Israel for everything that has happened there.
For example, yesterday I published a diary, at Meteor Blades' request, laying out some of my thoughts on what a reasonable Israel-Palestine peace might look like. It essentially called for a two-state solution, shared control of East Jerusalem, easing and then ending the blockade of Gaza, and a sort-of "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinian state in order to create the conditions necessary for the emergence of a Palestinian middle-class. One of the final comments in my diary was this one.
What can one say to this? None of us were overjoyed with Operation Cast Lead and nobody wants to see other people get hurt. The blockade of Gaza is not something we take pleasure in or in any way benefit from. But what this commenter ignores is any Palestinian responsibility for the situation there. After Israel vacated the Gaza in 2005, Hamas came into power and Israel was forced to endure thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rocket attacks into southern Israel over the course of years. Yet that commenter, as with so many others in dKos I-P, lays every bit of blame for the entire situation at the feet of Israel. In fact, I believe it's more than fair to say that he lays all blame not only at the feet of Israel, but specifically at the feet of Israeli Jews. It is the Jews, after all, that control Israeli policy. The unspoken assumption in that comment, whether people choose to acknowledge it or not, is that the only guilty actor, viz-a-viz Gaza, are the Jews of Israel.
Is anything that we say going to change that person's mind?
I suspect not.
Yet we are encouraged to respond in a calm and reasonable fashion to people who refuse to acknowledge any non-Jewish responsibility for the never-ending tensions and violence between Israel and the Palestinians and who lambaste the Jewish state in the most corrosive fashion possible. I suppose there is nothing else that we can do, however. Should we instead scream at the guy that he's an idiot? I don't think so.
So, what can we do? I, for one, wish Meteor Blades and Volleyboy1 the best in their efforts, but I suspect that they're pissing in the wind.
Posted by Karmafish
Such is my impression, anyway.
If this impression is correct, Meteor Blades' efforts should be applauded, as well as the efforts of someone like Volleyboy1, a liberal pro-Israel dKos participant who is also trying mightily to create bridges between the pro-Israel faction and the pro-Palestinian faction. Nonetheless, I find myself rather ambivalent. While I think their intentions are of the highest order, I find myself wondering if making nice with radical ideological anti-Zionists does not legitimate their point of view?
From my perspective, the problem we have with dKos I-P is that any number of the pro-Palestinian side are actually anti-Israel. That is, some of them believe that Israel should never have come into existence as a Jewish state and should be dismantled as such via the single-state solution. As a Jew concerned about the well-being of other Jews, what should my attitude be towards people who would see the Jews, yet again, living as a minority dependent entirely upon the good-will of non-Jews? The history of the Jewish people has shown us again and again and again that such arrangements have not worked out well. Without belaboring an obvious point, for 2,000 years the Jewish people have, to be blunt, gotten their collective asses kicked all around the world. We have been subject to a seemingly never-ending series of pogroms and persecutions and exiles all leading to the Holocaust in which one-third of our number were entirely wiped out by the Nazi regime.
What, therefore, can we possibly have to say to people who demand that the Jews must throw themselves upon the mercy of non-Jews by giving up Jewish self-determination and self-defense other than, "NO"? Is Jewish autonomy negotiable? I do not think so. Of course, ideological anti-Zionists do not characterize the dKos pro-Palestinian position as a whole. There are also any number of pro-Palestinian advocates who believe in the two-state solution, yet who always and forever blame Israel for everything that has happened there.
For example, yesterday I published a diary, at Meteor Blades' request, laying out some of my thoughts on what a reasonable Israel-Palestine peace might look like. It essentially called for a two-state solution, shared control of East Jerusalem, easing and then ending the blockade of Gaza, and a sort-of "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinian state in order to create the conditions necessary for the emergence of a Palestinian middle-class. One of the final comments in my diary was this one.
"Continuing Israeli War Crimes in Gaza is a garenteed deal breaker."
What can one say to this? None of us were overjoyed with Operation Cast Lead and nobody wants to see other people get hurt. The blockade of Gaza is not something we take pleasure in or in any way benefit from. But what this commenter ignores is any Palestinian responsibility for the situation there. After Israel vacated the Gaza in 2005, Hamas came into power and Israel was forced to endure thousands upon thousands of Qassam and Katyusha rocket attacks into southern Israel over the course of years. Yet that commenter, as with so many others in dKos I-P, lays every bit of blame for the entire situation at the feet of Israel. In fact, I believe it's more than fair to say that he lays all blame not only at the feet of Israel, but specifically at the feet of Israeli Jews. It is the Jews, after all, that control Israeli policy. The unspoken assumption in that comment, whether people choose to acknowledge it or not, is that the only guilty actor, viz-a-viz Gaza, are the Jews of Israel.
Is anything that we say going to change that person's mind?
I suspect not.
Yet we are encouraged to respond in a calm and reasonable fashion to people who refuse to acknowledge any non-Jewish responsibility for the never-ending tensions and violence between Israel and the Palestinians and who lambaste the Jewish state in the most corrosive fashion possible. I suppose there is nothing else that we can do, however. Should we instead scream at the guy that he's an idiot? I don't think so.
So, what can we do? I, for one, wish Meteor Blades and Volleyboy1 the best in their efforts, but I suspect that they're pissing in the wind.
Posted by Karmafish
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Karmafish Peace Proposal
Meteor Blades has requested of several I-P regulars, including myself, that we put forward what we think a reasonable peace might look like. His purpose is, I think, to demonstrate that most pro-Palestinian advocates have considerably more in common with most pro-Israel advocates on Daily Kos than one might think given the never-ending vitriol. I was foolish enough to agree to this request and below are a few of my thoughts on the matter. Pretty standard stuff, really. The two-state solution.
The West Bank:
Israel will remove itself from most of the West Bank in a one-to-one land-swap deal in which Jewish settlements near the Green Line will become incorporated into Israel. The so-called "security fence" shall be adjusted so that it is entirely on Israeli land. If, after a period of two to five years, Israel endures no terrorist activity out of that region, it will remove the fence entirely.
Jewish settlements within the newly created state of Palestine will remain intact, subject to Palestinian review and adjustments, and Palestine will consider its Jewish residents full citizens, with equal of rights under the law and full freedom of worship. Likewise, Israel shall remove any obstacles in law that prevents Arab-Israelis from enjoying full equality of citizenship, with the lone exception of "right of return." All Jewish-Palestinians will be afforded access to Israel, and all Palestinian-Israelis will be afforded access to Palestine, without undue restrictions, in perpetuity. Any Jewish-Palestinians who wish to migrate into Israel will be allowed to do so without restriction. Israel will provide initial housing for any such migrants from Palestine. The remaining Jewish settlements in Palestine will be opened to Arab residency without restriction.
A rail-line shall be constructed by the Palestinian and Israeli governments connecting Gaza to the West Bank. Israel will maintain the right to guard both sides of this line as a security measure.
The Golan Heights:
As a gesture of good-will, Israel shall return the Golan to Syria. Given Israel’s military superiority, it no longer needs the Golan to protect itself from potential hostilities.
East Jerusalem:
The state of Israel and the state of Palestine shall maintain joint sovereignty over East Jerusalem. This will allow Palestine to set up its capital in that city, if it chooses, while hindering neither Jewish, nor Muslim, religious practitioners from access to various "holy sites," such as the Western Wall for the Jews, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for the Muslims. If such an arrangement proves unworkable, or if either side opposes such an arrangement, than the Arab majority sections of East Jerusalem shall be Palestinian while the Jewish majority sections shall remain Israeli. In that case, the UN will control the "holy sites" to ensure equal access to anyone who wishes to visit for any reason.
The Right of Return:
Israel shall grant limited "right of return" to any Palestinians who can demonstrate reasonable proof of residency on Israeli land prior to 1948. "Limited" shall be construed to mean that the Israeli government will reserve the right to decide just how many Palestinians will be afforded this privilege.
Security Measures:
United Nations forces will occupy a security zone bordering the two countries for a period of no less than ten years. After that period the UN, in consultation with the Israeli and Palestinian governments, will assess the necessity of maintaining its presence in order to preserve the peace.
Both governments will agree to prosecute and punish any individuals who plan, or commit, acts of violence against the citizenry of the other state, according to prosecutorial guidelines established by the UN in consultation with Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
For the first ten years of its existence Palestinian security will be provided by UN forces, both in the security zone, as well as within Palestine, proper. After that period, if Palestine has not shown itself aggressive toward the Jewish state, UN forces will commence a process of withdrawal and Palestine will be free to commence a UN guided process of militarization. After twenty years, if Palestine has still not shown aggression toward the Jewish state, it will be free to create its military free of restrictions and UN forces will completely depart.
Israel will agree to respect Palestinian sovereignty over its air-space.
The Blockade of Gaza:
Israel shall maintain the blockade of Gaza only so long as rocket fire continues into Israel from that region. As such rocket fire has significantly decreased, however, Israel’s blockade must also ease. Israel will commit itself to ending the blockade entirely contingent upon the cessation of attacks upon it. Israel shall, however, immediately begin the process of easing the blockade by allowing into Gaza any, and all, food and medical supplies, as well as the building materials needed for Gazan reconstruction.
Economic Development:
The United Nations shall, upon Palestinian approval, sponsor an economic development plan for Palestine in the spirit of the post-World War II "Marshall Plan." In order to successfully achieve an ongoing peace there must also be economic development in the state of Palestine. The United Nations will therefore spear-head a program in which any governments or corporations throughout the world may participate.
The purpose will be to create the material and economic infrastructure necessary for the emergence of a strong Palestinian middle-class.
Note: This diary is, obviously, not dKos I-P meta, but I would still be curious to know what you guys think. I am, of course, flexible on my suggestions.
Posted by Karmafish
The West Bank:
Israel will remove itself from most of the West Bank in a one-to-one land-swap deal in which Jewish settlements near the Green Line will become incorporated into Israel. The so-called "security fence" shall be adjusted so that it is entirely on Israeli land. If, after a period of two to five years, Israel endures no terrorist activity out of that region, it will remove the fence entirely.
Jewish settlements within the newly created state of Palestine will remain intact, subject to Palestinian review and adjustments, and Palestine will consider its Jewish residents full citizens, with equal of rights under the law and full freedom of worship. Likewise, Israel shall remove any obstacles in law that prevents Arab-Israelis from enjoying full equality of citizenship, with the lone exception of "right of return." All Jewish-Palestinians will be afforded access to Israel, and all Palestinian-Israelis will be afforded access to Palestine, without undue restrictions, in perpetuity. Any Jewish-Palestinians who wish to migrate into Israel will be allowed to do so without restriction. Israel will provide initial housing for any such migrants from Palestine. The remaining Jewish settlements in Palestine will be opened to Arab residency without restriction.
A rail-line shall be constructed by the Palestinian and Israeli governments connecting Gaza to the West Bank. Israel will maintain the right to guard both sides of this line as a security measure.
The Golan Heights:
As a gesture of good-will, Israel shall return the Golan to Syria. Given Israel’s military superiority, it no longer needs the Golan to protect itself from potential hostilities.
East Jerusalem:
The state of Israel and the state of Palestine shall maintain joint sovereignty over East Jerusalem. This will allow Palestine to set up its capital in that city, if it chooses, while hindering neither Jewish, nor Muslim, religious practitioners from access to various "holy sites," such as the Western Wall for the Jews, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for the Muslims. If such an arrangement proves unworkable, or if either side opposes such an arrangement, than the Arab majority sections of East Jerusalem shall be Palestinian while the Jewish majority sections shall remain Israeli. In that case, the UN will control the "holy sites" to ensure equal access to anyone who wishes to visit for any reason.
The Right of Return:
Israel shall grant limited "right of return" to any Palestinians who can demonstrate reasonable proof of residency on Israeli land prior to 1948. "Limited" shall be construed to mean that the Israeli government will reserve the right to decide just how many Palestinians will be afforded this privilege.
Security Measures:
United Nations forces will occupy a security zone bordering the two countries for a period of no less than ten years. After that period the UN, in consultation with the Israeli and Palestinian governments, will assess the necessity of maintaining its presence in order to preserve the peace.
Both governments will agree to prosecute and punish any individuals who plan, or commit, acts of violence against the citizenry of the other state, according to prosecutorial guidelines established by the UN in consultation with Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
For the first ten years of its existence Palestinian security will be provided by UN forces, both in the security zone, as well as within Palestine, proper. After that period, if Palestine has not shown itself aggressive toward the Jewish state, UN forces will commence a process of withdrawal and Palestine will be free to commence a UN guided process of militarization. After twenty years, if Palestine has still not shown aggression toward the Jewish state, it will be free to create its military free of restrictions and UN forces will completely depart.
Israel will agree to respect Palestinian sovereignty over its air-space.
The Blockade of Gaza:
Israel shall maintain the blockade of Gaza only so long as rocket fire continues into Israel from that region. As such rocket fire has significantly decreased, however, Israel’s blockade must also ease. Israel will commit itself to ending the blockade entirely contingent upon the cessation of attacks upon it. Israel shall, however, immediately begin the process of easing the blockade by allowing into Gaza any, and all, food and medical supplies, as well as the building materials needed for Gazan reconstruction.
Economic Development:
The United Nations shall, upon Palestinian approval, sponsor an economic development plan for Palestine in the spirit of the post-World War II "Marshall Plan." In order to successfully achieve an ongoing peace there must also be economic development in the state of Palestine. The United Nations will therefore spear-head a program in which any governments or corporations throughout the world may participate.
The purpose will be to create the material and economic infrastructure necessary for the emergence of a strong Palestinian middle-class.
Note: This diary is, obviously, not dKos I-P meta, but I would still be curious to know what you guys think. I am, of course, flexible on my suggestions.
Posted by Karmafish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)