Zionism is Dead, What Now?

Photobucket

So said Tony Karon, the proprietor of Rootless Cosmopolitan, on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence. Zionism is Dead. Karon is a senior editor at Time.com where he analyzes the Middle East and other international conflicts. He was born in South Africa and became active in the Labor-Zionist Habonim movement in his teenage years, before moving on to join the anti-apartheid struggle as an editor in the alternative press and as an activist of the banned African National Congress. Karon is now a New Yorker and maintains the website Rootless Cosmopolitan.

Here's Karon's latest condemnation of Zionism. Like his fellow South African, Ronnie Kasrils, Karon cannot abide with the injustices entailed in the Zionist quest for a greater Israel. However, if Zionism is dead, then you have to wonder why the house demolitions, land confiscations, and all of the other dispossession techniques continue on the West Bank, as reported daily by the International Solidarity Movement Is he really getting it?

Israel at 60 is an intractable historical fact. It has one of the world's strongest armies, without peer in the Middle East, and its 200 or so nuclear warheads give it the last word in any military showdown with any of its neighbors. Don't believe the hype about an Iranian threat - Israel certainly fears Iran attaining strategic nuclear capability, but not because it expects Iran to launch a suicidal nuclear exchange. That's the sort of scare-story that gets trotted out for public consumption in Israel and the U.S. Behind closed doors, Israeli leaders admit that even a nuclear-armed Iran does not threaten Israel's existence. (Israel's security doctrine, however, is based on maintaining an overwhelming strategic advantage over all challengers, so the notion of parity along the lines of Cold War "Mutually Assured Destruction" with Iran is a major challenge, because without a nuclear monopoly, Israel loses a trump card in the regional power battle.)

Palestinian militants may be able to make life in certain parts of Israel exceedingly unpleasant at times, but they are unable to reverse the Nakbah of 1948 through military means. (Hamas knows this as well as Fatah does, which is why it is ready to talk about a long-term hudna and coexistence - although it won't roll over and accept Israel's terms as relayed by Washington in the way that the current Fatah leadership might.)

Israel, in other words, is here to stay - and its citizens know this, which may be why they appear to more indifferent to the search for peace with the Palestinians than at any time in the past three decades. So confident are the Israelis in being able to withstand whatever the Palestinians throw at them that they are able to turn away from the hellish life they have created for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Sure, let Olmert - a weak and skittish leader whose domestic political standing is comparable to that of President Bush, except that the Israeli prime minister can't seem to shake off the whiff of corruption - engage in the charade of negotiating a hypothetical peace (let's be very clear about this: the current talks between Abbas and Olmert are aimed only at designing a "shelf" agreement, the elaboration of an "horizon" not unlike the Geneva exercise by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed-Rabbo a couple of years ago - not a series of steps or deadlines that anyone plans to implement -- this is its most optimistic outcome; even that seems doomed to fail, though...) with a hypothetical Palestinian leader. (To paraphrase Stalin on the pope, how many divisions does Mahmoud Abbas command?) Who cares? It's not as if Olmert is going to confront the settlers or even dismantle most of the 600 or so roadblocks that choke life in the West Bank. So let him and Abbas perform their endless duet of the Beach Boys' "Wouldn't It Be Nice"...

The fact of Israel's survival until now, and for the foreseeable future, is a grim reality for its 1 million Palestinian citizens, whose citizenship is at best, second-class - and more so for the 4 million Palestinians over which it maintains sovereign power in the West Bank and Gaza, without granting them citizenship - for whom Israel means living under an apartheid regime. And that, in turn, means that the trappings of globalized modernity enjoyed by Israel's secular middle class - the American lifestyle, the high-tech economy and the European football - all come at the price of perennial uncertainty under a cloud of potential violence.

Just as there's little chance of Israel being eliminated in the foreseeable future, so is there little chance of it militarily eliminating Palestinian resistance. There's no serious peace process in the works, right now, and the geography created by Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since their capture in 1967 has made the prospect of a Palestinian state largely hypothetical, too - it takes an optimistic imagination to conceive of a viable independent state comprising of Gaza and those West Bank cantonments that lie between the major Israeli settlement blocs and the roads that connect them.

So, while Israel has prevailed in the conflict over its creation that has raged since 1948, it has been unable to end that conflict on its own terms. The Palestinians driven out during the Nakbah have not simply disappeared or been absorbed into surrounding Arab populations, as Israel's founders had hoped. And without justice for the Palestinians, Israel is no closer now than it was 60 years ago to being able to live in a genuine peace with its neighbors.

At this point, however, the Israelis don't seem to care.

LINK to the rest of this article here:

What most Israelis care about today are things like McDonalds and other trifles of daily living made possible by the exclusion of Israeli Palestinians from participating in Israel's Jim Crow democracy, and the Wall, which keeps the alien Palestinian "terrorists" (i.e., freedom fighters) in the West Bank at bay. It is only occasional incidents, like the bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem the other day, that remind Israelis that the frustrated Palestinians are still there and will not go away.

If Zionism is dead, as Karon contends, then what is it that drives the stalemate. One would guess here that it has much to do with the death of the two-state solution and Israel's dilemma: where do we go from here. If Zionism is dead, there is certainly no evidence of it in Israel's relentless colonialism in the West Bank.

The right wing Zionists these days like to talk a two state solution when they know damned well that such a solution is now way out of reach. But it makes them sound peaceful, doesn't it?



Display:


Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (1.00 / 1)

Pulled Pork on Matso?


by QTG on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (none / 0)

Sausage McMatso?


by QTG on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for this..
Rec'd

Rachel Corrie lives...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article 1248.shtml


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (2.00 / 2)

I am certainly not a supporter of right-wing Zionism. Nor am I unsympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people. But this statement by you had to be answered.

It is only occasional incidents, like the bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem the other day, that remind Israelis that the frustrated Palestinians are still there and will not go away.
And, the occasional suicide bomber at one of those McDonald's restaurants you mention.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (2.00 / 1)

Just not getting it. Sorry.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (2.00 / 1)

Oh, I get it. West Bank settlements are an attempted land grab. The wall will keep the two sides from every making true peace. Israel has no desire to share Jerusalem. The Palestinians are oppressed. What is happening in Gaza is a disgrace. I get all of that. I also get that there are two sides to every dispute. If there weren't two sides there wouldn't be a dispute. I also get that there have been wrongs done by both sides.

I also get that there will never be peace unless the United States takes a very strong stance and pushes for a truly fair peace. Even then, it may be impossible. There are Israelis who will never accept a two state solution. There are Palestinians who will never accept any less than the destruction of Israel.

Do you think this has been on-going for sixty years, because people won't accept simple solutions? There are no simple solutions to this conflict.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (2.00 / 2)

Sorry but this is not a dispute about some land that has been going on for 60 years. Far from it. It is no more a dispute than the Vietamese-French conflict and then the Vietnamese-American conflict was a dispute about some land.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about one people dispossessing another people of the homes, lands, and villages in a region known as Palestine through military force. The notion of a "dispute" trivializes the reality of what actually happened and is happening, and why this conflict remains ongoing. As I stated, the Palestinians will not go away, no matter how much of their lands Israel succeeds in wresting from them. The ethnic cleansing is ongoing today and continues.

Dispute? Dispute, my ass, if you can excuse the expression.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (none / 0)

"There are no simple solutions to this conflict."


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (2.00 / 2)

I offer you this bit of reality about terrorism, especially state terrorism, a term Jimmy Carter recently repeated to discuss the "human rights crime" going on in Gaza:

This material is quoted by Lawrence of Cyberia about Israel's targeting of civilians and children. Here you have a occupying military force attempting to colonize another people's lands, while Israeli soldiers are given orders to take out Palestinian civilians.

Palestinian deaths during the first and second Intifadas were not unintentional collateral damage. It was terrorist murdering by an occupying force.

Israel's claim that its soldiers adhere to a doctrine of "purity of arms" in dealing with the Palestinian civilian population has been going on for a long time. In the first intifada, Ehud Barak was the IDF's Deputy Chief of Staff, and proclaimed: "We do not want children to be shot under any circumstances ... When you see a child you don't shoot." That was untrue then, just as Bradley Burston's insinuation that Palestinian civilian deaths aren't intentional is a lie now:

The Swedish "Save the Children" organization estimated that "23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the [first] intifida," with nearly one‐third sustaining broken bones. Nearly one‐third of the beaten children were aged ten and under. It also states that 6,500 to 8,000 children were wounded by gunfire during the first two years of the Intifada. Researchers investigated 66 of the 106 recorded cases of "child gunshot deaths." They concluded that: almost all of them "were hit by directed ‐‐ not random or ricochet ‐‐ gunfire"; nearly twenty percent suffered multiple gunshot wounds; twelve percent were shot from behind; fifteen percent of the children were ten years of age or younger; "most children were not participating in a stone‐throwing demonstration when shot dead"; and "nearly one‐fifth of the children were shot dead while at home or within ten meters of their homes."

-    cited in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (chapter 2, end note 49); by Mearsheimer and Walt.

That's how the IDF killed Palestinian civilians - children - during the first intifada. Not through a careless use of missiles or the occasional errant tank shell, but by individual Israeli soldiers pointing their guns at children in the Occupied Territories - even children under ten, even children who had turned their backs and were running away - and shooting them dead.

And the IDF's record in the second intifada is much worse. Firstly, because the IDF announced in March 2003 that it would no longer routinely investigate the deaths of civilians killed by Israeli soldiers, but would allow individual Israeli officers in the field to decide whether to call in the Military Police whenever their troops killed a civilian, or to simply declare the killing an "unfortunate incident of death", which required no investigation. A policy that has had the following, entirely predictable, result:

The IDF effectively grants immunity to soldiers who open fire illegally. Since the beginning of the intifada, the IDF has ceased to automatically open an investigation into every case in which a Palestinian is killed by IDF fire. The decision as to whether to open a Military Police investigation into each incident is now made by the Judge Advocate General's office, based on the results of the field de-briefings, which are also carried out by the army itself. In one case that was exposed by B'Tselem, it was clear that an eleven-year-old child had died as a result of the violation of procedures and illegal shooting. Despite this, the Judge Advocate General's office decided not to request a Military Police investigation. In addition, the investigations that are opened are generally protracted and based primarily on soldiers' testimonies, while completely ignoring the Palestinian eyewitnesses.
This policy has unavoidably resulted in a situation in which shooting at innocent Palestinians has practically become a routine. (B'Tselem)

And secondly, because at the very beginning of the second intifada, the IDF issued extremely broad open fire regulations, concerning who might be considered a legitimate target:

Sniper: "They forbid us to shoot at children".
Journalist: "How do they say this?"
Sniper: "You don't shoot a child who is 12 or younger".
Journalist: "That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?"
Sniper: "Twelve and up is allowed. He's not a child anymore, he's already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that".
Journalist: "Thirteen is bar mitzvah age".
Sniper: "Twelve and up, you're allowed to shoot. That's what they tell us".
Journalist: "Under international law, a child is defined as someone up to the age of 18."
Sniper: "Up until 18 is a child?"
Journalist: "So, according to the IDF, it is 12?"
Sniper: "According to what the IDF says to its soldiers. I don't know if this is what the IDF says to the media."
-- Amira Hass' interview with an IDF sharpshooter, explaining why so many Palestinian children were killed in the first weeks of the intifada, when the IDF was largely confronted by stonethrowers. Published in Ha'aretz, Don't shoot till you can see they're over the age of 12, 20 November 2000.

Other "reality" material from the site, If Americans Knew.

The first suicide bombing in the second intifadah was on Dec. 22 (no Israelis died in it). By that time, 86 Palestinian children (<18 years of age) had been killed by Israelis http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/rem ember2000.html

The first Israeli child was killed on Jan. 17, 2001 http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/rem ember2001.html
By that time, at least 90 Palestinian children had been killed by Israelis.

Alison Weir, in her documentary Off the Charts, noted the following:

Before a single suicide bomber had entered Israel after the start of the Second Intifada, sometimes called, after Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the al Aqsa Intifada, during its first month, 27 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza, the youngest only four months of age, and the majority due to gunshots to the head. Numerous children were also wounded. In the first three months alone, 159 children lost an eye presumably to rubber bullets shot from IDF rifles. Clearly the IDF were intentionally targeting these children, aiming at their heads with either rubber bullets or real bullets in the case of the child kills. We are talking here about a trained, mechanized army versus civilians, children participating in the intifada, the nonviolent resistance instituted by child and teenage Palestinian boys and girls. Oh, yes. Let's be fair. We did hear that an Israeli soldier lost his eye from a rock thrown by a Palestinian boy from a pretty IDF spokeswoman, but it was the only such incident reported in three years.

In addition to these children, many more innocent adult civilians were killed, in the month before suicide bombings commenced. If terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians, then clearly, Israel's armed forces were deep into terrorism, state sponsored terrorism, long before the Palestinians engaged in it to any degree. As a people fighting a military occupation, it would seem that the ultimate cause of all of these horrors on both sides rests with Israel and the purpose for which it continued its long occupation, the stealing of Palestinian lands.  

See Alison Weir's short documentary, Off The Charts: Media Bias and Censorship in America for the names, ages, places, and dates of these child killings.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -5600677940569035557&q=Alternate+Foc us

To be accurate, there were sporadic bombing incidents engineered by Hamas extremists in Israel during the Oslo period. None at all occurred between 1998 and 2000. But the strong resumption of attacks after 2000, over fifty in the first year, was directly related to civilian and child killings by IDF, and it was not just Hamas, but Islamic Jihad and other Fatah associated organizations that were involved.

This Time.com article apprises of what motivated them:

"Until recently most Palestinians believed they had alternatives to the kind of militancy practiced by Hamas. For years after the 1993 Oslo peace accord, which brought limited self-rule to the Palestinians and the prospect of an independent state, polls showed a strong majority of Palestinians supporting the peace process with Israel and only a minority endorsing suicide bombings. Thus, in their headhunting, the fundamentalists were limited to stalwart followers of their doctrine, which holds that any kind of peace with Israel is anathema. Even then, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had to cajole--some might say brainwash--young men into believing that the rewards of paradise outweighed the prospects of life on earth.

But with the breakdown of the peace process in the summer of 2000 and the start of the latest intifadeh that September, the martyr wannabes started coming to Hamas--and they didn't require persuading. "We don't need to make a big effort, as we used to do in the past," Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of Hamas' senior leaders, told TIME last week. The TV news does that work for them. "When you see the funerals, the killing of Palestinian civilians, the feelings inside the Palestinians become very strong," he explained."

From the mouth of Rantisi, but it also motivated Fatah supporters, to exact revenge for the killing of Palestinian civilians. Revenge is not a formal use of terrorism. See Alison Weir's film, Off The Charts, at Google Video.

(Why Suicide Bombing Is Now All The Rage)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1101020415-227546,00.html

This commentary is from an article by Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut newspaper, The Daily Star, which cynically denounced Olmert's statements professing concern for the well-being of Palestinian children:

(Ehud Olmert's Profound Ethics and Deep Lies)
http://www.ramikhouri.com/

For anyone interested in the facts about the impact of Israeli policies on Palestinian children, a good place to start is the carefully checked data disseminated by the Palestinian Nongovernmental Organization Network (www.palestinemonitor.org). Their data is compiled and verified on the ground by the Ramallah-based Health Development Information and Policy Institute, which has been honored by the World Health Organization for its work in promoting Palestinian health needs. So these people know what they are talking about when it comes to health conditions on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some of the facts they provide are as follows.

In just the first two years of the second intifada, from September 2000 to November 2002:

* 383 Palestinian children (under the age of 18) were killed by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers, i.e. almost 19% of the total Palestinians killed; those figures have increased since then.

* Approximately 36% of total Palestinians injured (estimated at more than 41,000) are children; 86 of these children were under the age of ten; 21 infants under the age of 12 months have been killed.

* 245 Palestinian students and school children have been killed; 2,610 pupils have been wounded on their way to or from school.

* The Israeli policy of widespread closure has paralyzed the Palestinian health system, with children particularly vulnerable to this policy of collective punishment. Internal closures have severely disrupted health plans which affect over 500,000 children, including vaccination programs, dental examinations and early diagnosis for children when starting schools.

* During the first two months of the intifada, the rate of upper respiratory infections in children increased from 20% to 40%. Almost 60% of children in Gaza suffer parasitic infections.

* An overwhelming number of Palestinian children show symptoms of trauma such as sleep disorders, nervousness, decrease in appetite and weight, feelings of hopelessness and frustration, and abnormal thoughts of death.

* There have been 36 cases of Palestinian women in labor delayed at checkpoints and refused permission to reach medical facilities or for ambulances to reach them. At least 14 of these women gave birth at the checkpoint with eight of the births resulting in the death of the newborn infants.

The Israeli army killing of Palestinian children continues apace. In its annual report May 16, the respected global human rights organization Amnesty International accused the Israeli army of killing 190 Palestinians, including 50 children, last year (2005)."

Here is some commentary from Jonathan Cook about a grandmother suicide bomber:

If one thing offers a terrifying glimpse of where the experiment in human despair that is Gaza under Israeli siege is leading, it is the news that a Palestinian woman in her sixties -- a grandmother -- chose last week to strap on a suicide belt and explode herself next to a group of Israeli soldiers invading her refugee camp.

Despite the "Man bites dog" news value of the story, most of the Israeli media played down the incident. Not surprisingly -- it is difficult to portray Fatma al-Najar as a crazed fanatic bent only the destruction of Israel.

It is equally difficult not to pause and wonder at the reasons for her suicide mission; according to her family, one of her grandsons was killed by the Israeli army, another is in a wheelchair after his leg had to be amputated, and her house had been demolished.

Or not to think of the years of trauma she and her family have suffered living in a open-air prison under brutal occupation, and now, since the "disengagement", the agonising months of grinding poverty, slow starvation, repeated aerial bombardments, and the loss of essentials like water and electricity.

Or not to ponder at what it must have been like for her to spend every day under a cloud of fear, to be powerless against a largely unseen and malign force, and to never know when death and mutilation might strike her or her loved ones.

Or not to imagine that she had been longing for the moment when the soldiers who have been destroying her family's lives might show themselves briefly, coming close enough that she could see and touch them, and wreak her revenge.

Yet Western observers, and the organizations that should represent the very best of their Enlightenment values, seem incapable of understanding what might drive a grandmother to become a suicide bomber. Their empathy fails them, and so does their humanity.

Just at the moment Fatma was choosing death and resistance over powerlessness and victimhood -- and at a time when Gaza is struggling through one of the most oppressive and ugly periods of Israeli occupation in nearly four decades -- Human Rights Watch published its latest statement on the conflict. It is document that shames the organization, complacent Western societies and Fatma's memory."

This is not dispute. It is a human rights catastrophe.  


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

I have said that I already agree that the Israelis are in the wrong on many things. I agree that their actions amount to state sponsored terrorism. I don't dispute that claim. What I am trying to say is that there are two sides here.

Both sides have targeted civilians. If you condemn Israeli actions that amount to terrorism you must also condemn Palestinian actions that amount to the same thing. Yes, the Israeli actions cause more damage. More death and destruction. Yes, the Palestinians have more right on their side. After all, they are the ones who have been and are continuing to be displaced. That does not justify targeting civilians, by either side.

When two unequal combatants fight, the stronger one will cause the most damage. If two men, one large and strong and one smaller and weaker, hit each other in the face, the stronger man will do the most damage. Does this excuse the weaker man's punch?

If you condone suicide bombings as nothing more than a response to Israeli actions then you have to condone Israeli actions as nothing more than a response to Palestinian actions. You can't have it both ways.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

You keep coming back to the notion of a dispute, that these are just two equal adversaries that happened to get into long term strife. That is not what it is. The Palestinians had their homes and villages taken from them during the ethnic cleansing of 1948, and then suffered a second reign of military terror after the occupation of the remaining territories, ongoing now for the past 41 years, during what was essentially a colonial takeover of Palestinian lands, 42% to date.

This is a dispute? Quit kidding.

And no one excuses the intentional killing of civilians on either side. As far as the second Intifada is concerned, I posted data above that indicate that it was Israel, under Ariel Sharon, that instigated the use of terrorism, by which I mean the intentional killing of Palestinian civilians. This is a new definition of terrorism. The reality is that after the killings of their civilians, the Palestinians retaliated with suicide bombings, and the Israelis retaliated against those with more civilian killings.

This a conflict between a military occupier/colonialist and the occupied.
 


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

You seem awfully fixated on the word "dispute". I used it once in reference to the conflict (a word I also used in the same post) between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Any kind of interaction between two conflicting groups can legitimately be called a dispute. Here are a few definitions for dispute.


to quarrel or fight about; contest.
to strive against; oppose: to dispute an advance of troops.

You continue to argue from a one-sided point of view. You will not accept that there are two sides in this CONFLICT. (is that better?)

The establishment of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948 was a repartition of Palestine. There was a two-state solution. Both Jews and Palestinians fled from the other partition. This was mainly by choice. The Palestinians were led to believe that they would be able to go back with force and drive out the Jews. This failed in 1948 and in each succeeding war between the two sides.

Most of the lands Israel seized were during wars with invading forces. They have returned many of those lands, not all. That is something that needs to be settled before there can be peace.

The Palestinians have been used by their supposed Arab backers for sixty years. Arab leaders have used the plight of the Palestinians to their own advantage. This is why Palestinians have never really been welcomed in the countries surrounding Israel. This is why they are still in camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They are nothing more than pawns to those countries.

I have many friends from the middle-east. I grew up in southeast Michigan. We have the largest middle-eastern population in the country. Many are highly respected members and leaders of their communities - the whole community, not just the middle-eastern community. I have had many conversations through the years with Hamadys, Khouris, and others. While they are firm backers of the Palestinian cause, none of them have a one-sided point of view like yours.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

The reality is that the UN had no right to take a land in which Palestinian Arabs had lived for over a thousand years, and carve it up, taking their lands and giving it to Jews that had only recently emigrated to the country. The Palestinians in essence were being offered a state in their own country.

As for the so-called partitions, someone suggested that the Palestinians were greedy and wanted it all. No, they just didn't want their country bifurcated. As an example of what partition meant, one Jewish partition, which included choice lands near the coast, contained over 400,000 Palestinians, living in their own homes, lands, and villages and towns. Was it expected that they would leave their property behind, their way of life for hundreds of years, and file into impoverished tented refugee camps in the Palestinian partition. I think only a fool would expect such behavior. The problem here was Zionism: the Jews wanted a country that was purely Jewish and contained no Palestinian Arabs.

Hence, once Israel's independence was declared, the ethnic cleansing proceeded. No one doubts that there was a great deal of sympathy toward the Jews in Palestine, many of whom had escaped the Holocaust. Indeed the Holocaust was sufficient. But no one could argue that the Holocaust justified what followed and what continues today. The Palestinians paid dearly for that sympathy.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:29:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

I have no serious disagreement with your last comment. What do you propose? Send all Jewish inhabitants of Israel to their parents or grandparents country of origin and give all of the land back to the Palestinians?

BTW, the Palestinian claim to the land gives them no more moral claim than that of the Jews. They were inhabitants of the land before the Palestinian.  The Jews held the land for centuries until they were expelled by the Romans. If we are going to use moral claims for the land instead of legal claims under international law, then we have to consider the Jewish claims to the land.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

The owner of land is that person with the deed to the land, irrespective of his origin. Many of the villages bulldozed into the ground or whose name was changed after the Nakba and given to new inhabitants had been there for numerous centuries in the same family.

Your view is that ethnicity determines ownership, and that the ethnicity that was there first owns the land.

Well, from that reasoning, I suppose we can next expect Greece to invade Sicily and southern Italy and take back its jewels, Syracuse and Neopolis. Fortunately, history does not move backwards, but that seems to be the reasoning behind your view. The truth is what justified Israel's taking of land belonging to Palestinians was nothing less than the gun.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

The truth is that it was a United Nations resolution.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

Yes it was a UN Resolution. But not even the UN expected Israel to engage in the ethnic cleansing known as the Nakba. Over 750,000 Palestinians including more than 10,000 killed were driven out of Palestine or what became Israel.

Six months later, realizing what happened, the UN passed Resolution 194, giving the Palestinians the right to return to their homes. That resolution Israel has yet to honor. Indeed, since 1948, the UN has been viewed by Israel as an organization hostile to Israel, mostly for maintaining and supporting refugee camps for the ethnically cleansed Palestinians all over the Middle East. Is there any wonder why?


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (2.00 / 1)

Why this sudden interest in al-Nakba? Is it fear, because it appears that there may finally be a slim chance that the two state solution will be accepted by both sides?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (2.00 / 1)

Forget the "sides" and look at the facts. I know that is hard for people. But seriously. Children are being shot by soldiers?

Who cares what the argument is from that "side?" Is there something they could say to you that would make it okay? Is there a reason they could have for their behavior that would make it acceptable?

Why is it, that in the face of human rights violations and possible genocide, this is the only time we have ever been told to stop and consider the other sides reasons and arguments?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

I always want to get input from all sides before making a decision. How else can you find a way to get all sides to agree?

Your argument could be used by either side. Is there something the Palestinians that fire rockets at Israel or participate in bombings could say to you to make it acceptable?

There are two sides to this conflict. Focusing only on one side will solve nothing.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

The rockets aimed at Sderot were always fired in retaliation for Israeli incursions into Gaza and the West Bank which led to the killings of Palestinians, often innocent civilians.

Hamas, the source of those rockets, proposed a cease fire at last a half dozens times in the past year, and twice voluntarily stopped firing rockets for a month each time, to no avail. Israel was not really interested, at least until recently. In spite of the recently negotiated cease fire, Israel continued incursions, and in spite of it, Palestinian fighters fired rockets back into Israel.

All in all, Israel forces killed over 13 times the number of Palestinians as Palestinians killed Israelis with rockets.

Who is to blame? My input is this. Israel is just not interested in stopping the conflict, because it serves its purpose: the colonization that goes on under its veil.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:21:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

And there are Palestinian groups that have no desire to see an end to the conflict. It is their only reason for existence.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

Do I find it acceptable? No.

Do I find it necessary though...


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

That argument could be thrown right back at you by an Israeli who is arguing just the opposite in defense of Israel's actions.

This is what I have been trying to say. There are two groups involved here. Arguing from one side alone will not solve anything. All groups need to be involved, and yes, I believe that Hamas and other groups need to have a seat at the table.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your mention of suicide bombers. (none / 0)

That argument could be thrown right back at you by an Israeli who is arguing just the opposite in defense of Israel's actions.

Please, by all means, do present those arguments you say an Israeli or you have to justify the 41 year old military occupation/colonization of Palestine and its people.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:24:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but that article=fail. (2.00 / 4)

The reality on the ground in Israel contradicts Karon's attribution of motives.  It is true that many Israelis who were formerly sympathetic to the Palestinian plight no longer are.  The reason for that, however, is most certainly not that they no longer view Palestinians as a threat; on the contrary, the reason for their newfound indifference is because the Intifada has led them to view the Palestinians as threats (instead of innocent victims as before).  This may come as a shock to you, but it is awfully damn hard to care deeply about the people who frequently take to the streets to celebrate the murder of your friends and relatives.

Whether or not that is the view Israelis should take is certainly debatable.  But misrepresenting that view does nothing to advance the cause of  peace.

Finally, I would like to point out that any article that uses the term "Nakba" seriously can be instantly disregarded by anyone who knows history.  In 1948, the UN voted to create both a Palestinian and an Israeli state.  In the lead up to statehood, Jews living in the soon-to-be Palestine fled for their lives to soon-to-be Israel, and vice versa--neither side has a monopoly on either victimhood or the perpetration xenophobic brutality in that period.  Nonetheless, the vast majority of Israelis were content with the little slice of land they were granted, and would have been all too happy to leave the Palestinian state alone if the Palestinians hadn't gotten greedy and tried to make a grab for the whole land.  The real "Nakba" was the Palestinians' decision to attack Israel, for which they have no one to blame but themselves and their leadership--and blaming Israel for fighting back after being attacked is like blaming the victim of an attempted rape for breaking her assailant's jaw in self-defense.

Israel has done a lot of immoral shit to the Palestinians.  Existing isn't one of them.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:13:55 PM EST

Re: Sorry, but the Nakba will not go away. (none / 0)

The rest of your last paragraph is likewise a preposterous version of the history. See Pappas or Morris' histories concerning the Nakba and get better educated about its reality.

As for what you began with, no doubt that Israelis have been subjected to as much right wing propaganda as Americans. See the documentary in my signature or click here for Part I of Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land:

Part I

Here for Part II:

Part II

Photobucket

Here are some excerpts:

Rabbi Michael Lerner, Founder & Executive Director, Tikkun Magazine: "When you have a population that is being occupied, when their fundamental human rights are systematically being denied, when they are not allowed to move from city to city and place to place, without a huge amount of harassment, when they are being subject to torture, when people are essentially in desperate conditions, it is not a surprise that they are going to be very, very angry. There is no understand by the public media, or the American media, what creates this circumstance. Israel occupies, people strike at Israel against that occupation. They use means I think are wrong means, namely, the terror, and then Israel imposes punishment on the entire people, which creates a climate which makes it easier to recruit."

Major Stav Adivi, reserves, Israeli Defense Forces, Israel: "we have to understand that these (suicide bombings) are the effects of the occupation."

Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas-Austin: "In contrast to the international press, in American media, there is a reversal of cause and effect in that the occupation is framed as a response to the suicide bombings. All of the Palestinian actions are attacks and Israel actions retaliation, is meaningful. Retaliation suggests a defensive stance against violence initiated by someone else. It places a responsibility for the violence on the party provoking the retaliation. In other words, Palestinian violence like suicide bombings is seen as cause and the origin of the conflict. Since the September 11 attack on the US, Israel's PR strategy has been to frame all Palestinian actions, violent or not, as terrorism. To the extent that they can do that they have repackaged the illegal occupation as part of the war on terrorism."

News headlines: "This is Israel's war on terrorism. F16s hit a Palestinian in the Gaza Strip this morning....The case the Israelis are trying to make: this is no different than what the US is doing in Afganistan (air attacks in the West Bank)...Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared on television tonight, that he was determined to root out what he called `the terrorist infrastructure.'"

The myth of the Palestinian terrorist, who just happens to be fighting a long and incessant military occupation that the UN has called illegal, began during the second Intifada. Yet Israel, with its state terrorism, killed five times as many Palestinian civilians including children. See the above post for the details.

Summary of the documentary:

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others--work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported.

Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied territories appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one. The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It can't go away... (2.00 / 1)

if it never actually existed.  So, we agree.

Ah, shergald, you've gotten so amusingly predictable.  If facts are raised that don't support your view, you call them propaganda and bias...then proceed to post propaganda and bias.  What is that old joke, again--"Don't confuse me with fact, my mind's made up!"

Israel is here to stay, and has every right to.  It does not, I agree, have the right to oppress the Palestinians or continue to deny them their own state.  But I get the distinct impression that, even if the Palestinians got their own state on the 1967 borders, with all the settlements removed and a joint capital with Israel in Jerusalem, you would still be posting these diaries to complain that Israel was oppressing the Palestinians by their mere existence.

News of Zionism's death have been greatly exaggerated...it is alive and well, in both its extreme and its justifiable forms.  Your crusade for overturning a sovereign state legally created by the U.N., however, was dead on arrival, and rightly so.

If only you fought for the Palestinians with as much fervor as you fight against Israel.  Then, you might actually accomplish something worthwhile rather than embarrassing yourself.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It can't go away... (none / 0)

Next time read the article, Karon's in this case, or just the paragraphs of his I posted. I don't believe the cast of Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land are propagandists, nor would anyone else, but you and others like you who support Israel's occupation/colonization of Palestinian lands, and the brutal treatment the Palestinians have had to endure for the sake of Zionist nationalism and ethnocentrism.

Slaying the messenger just doesn't work any more. Americans are getting to know the reality and are seeing just what it is their tax money is supporting: a human rights crime, to quote Jimmy Carter.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (none / 0)

This situation is another reason it is critical to elect Obama.


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST

Re: Zionism is Dead, What Now? (none / 0)

We all hope that you are correct. It just cannot go on for another decade, through another presidency. Bush offered the two state solution earlier this year, but Israel was not buying it. In fact, Israel has not bought into any of the many proposed settlements, preferring to continue its colonization of the West Bank.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I don't want to play. (2.00 / 2)

The game - -
  1.  take strong position in diary in intemperate terms (with hostile title, if possible) esposing either pro Israel or pro Palestinian position;
  2.  comment equally strenuously in opposite direction;
  3.  devolve to anti semitic and/or jewish chauvinistic remarks; and,
  4.  solve nothing.
It doesn't look like fun, and I'm even tired of watching.  
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:19:13 PM EST

Re: Sorry, I don't want to play. (none / 0)

I wish you would draw our attention to even one diary that supports the proIsrael side, meaning the right wing Zionist project which continues in the West Bank in the form of ethnic cleansing or perhaps the killings, or even the siege of Gaza that Jimmy Carter called a "human rights crime."

I haven't seen the other side of this game you claim is afoot. In fact, I have time and again encouraged supporters of right wing Zionism to make their case in a diary and present us all with the rationale for the continued oppression of the Palestinian people, and the deprivation of their freedom and self-determination.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Earth to the simple-minded: (2.00 / 2)

I have yet to see a single supporter of right-wing Zionism on this site.  I have, however, seen a lot of people who oppose the Palestinian occupation but still support Israel's right to exist, and who tell you that your propagandizing is unhelpful and an oversimplification of the facts...which, in your mind, makes one a "right wing Zionist."

Call us what you want, but we will continue to be both Pro-Israel and anti-occupation--and if that distinction confuses you, too bad.  I am sorry that the real world is not as simple as it appears in your head, but that is your cross to bear.

Now run along and do something useful--like, say, donating to one of the fine charities that provide goods and services to needy Palestinians, as this "right wing Zionist" does.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Earth to the simple-minded: (none / 0)

Haven't heard that latest bit of hasbara, the "right to exist" canard, in several days. I hope that you will do a diary on your views soon. Good night.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HEY COLONIALIST - WHEN ARE YOU RETURNING... (none / 0)

...and giving your land back the native peoples of America?


Cindy is John McCain's Personal GI Bill
by demwords on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:47:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.