Remove the blinkers and see the truth

[Violet_Crumble]

For two years on Cif, I've detailed the miscarriages of justice I've witnessed. But many are still convinced Israel can do no wrong


Seth Freedman guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 17 December 2008 12.30 GMT

I find people over here who keep harping on about 'human rights' violations by Israel conveniently forget or ignore that if Seth were to live in any, yes, ANY Arab or Iranian country in the neighbourhood, he would have been jailed, abused and then deported, if not accused of being a 'zionist' spy and then condemned to capital punishment.

Two years after penning my first piece for Cif, there is still no getting away from the kind of criticism seen in the comment above. No matter that the thrust of georgeindia's rant had nothing to do with the subject of my article, anyone perusing the thread is encouraged to believe that the fact that the Israeli regime has not beheaded me for my dissent is ample proof that all is well in our little corner of the Middle East. Which, of course, it isn't, despite the best efforts of Israel's squadron of cheerleaders to convince the world otherwise.

Although I am a relative newcomer to Israel's Mediterranean shores, the amount of exposure I have had during my four-year sojourn in the Holy Land to the daily humiliation and oppression being meted out to the Palestinians is more than most armchair critics will see in a lifetime. I should know – I was one of them myself for my first 24 years on the planet, and am all too aware how easy it is to be duped by second- or third-hand reporting from the front lines, whether through the media or via friends and family giving their skewed take from inside Israel's borders.

If you believe the official hype, it's a dolce vita in the Occupied Territories, one for which all right-minded Palestinians should be eternally grateful to their benevolent Israeli masters. If you believe the official hype, Palestinians have never had it so good, thanks to the milk of Israeli kindness which flows in rivulets alongside the honey in the Eretz Halav u'Dvash. And, if you believe the official hype, if only the Palestinians would finally give up their struggle for basic human rights, they too could eat from the tree of life in Israel's very own Garden of Eden.

Those are the lines so eagerly swallowed by the blinkered masses for whom Israel can do no wrong, for whom the mere existence of a Jewish state trumps all other, harsher truths, and which deafen them to the cries of those trampled beneath the wheels of the Zionist bandwagon. "We're here to stay," they cry triumphantly, as though the conflict really is as binary as that: 1 = Jews exert unilateral control over every last inch of Biblical Israel; 0 = Jews are instead driven into the sea by the monster that continually lurks under Israel's bed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast

[Behind the Aegis]

1. LOL!

:rofl:

Hyperbole and bullshit has never been so fucking entertaining.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Finally we agree on something!

The hyperbole and bullshit of the Israel Can Do No Wrong brigade is highly entertaining :)

[Behind the Aegis]

3. (insert sad smiley) We don't agree, dear.

But, then I suspect you knew that. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

4. No shit, Sherlock...

I already knew that you'd be knee-jerking without bothering to read or address any of the points in the article. Nothing new there, snookums....

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Oh baby...are you offended?

I did read the article, so much for your "crystal ball." I even read a good number of the responses. Sometimes, the best response is just a good hearty laugh. Stupidity, such as your responses and the OP are good for a laugh every now and again.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'm not offended by puerile misogynist crap like 'baby' and 'dear'...

It's just too pathetic to get offended at. If as you claim you did read the article, how about attempting to contribute some intelligent criticism of the OP instead of replying with a flurry of dull and stupid responses? I'll get you started. How about explaining *why* you think Seth Freedman's article is stupid instead of just proclaiming in a knee-jerk fashion that it is? If yr not interested in doing that, then I'm not interested in feeding any trolling session from this point on...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

8. Did you read his article about "Western-style" gyms in Ramallah?

Here is an interesting excerpt:

In Ramallah, there is a certain breed of westerner who, upon meeting a fellow light-skinned member of the human race, will nod disinterestedly and mumble a brief greeting, yet as soon as a Palestinian enters the room, literally swoons at their feet and hangs adoringly on their every word.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/19/ramallah-ngo-gym-battle

Fascinating young man.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Yes, I did, and it was a good article, but what does it have to do with the OP? n/t

[oberliner]

12. They both detail his observations about other Westerners who are interested in the conflict

In your excerpt he talked about those (presumably Western) "armchair analysts" and in the other he talks of those Westerners working in the region.

He is a very self-reflective guy in his articles, I've noticed and he has made many observations about various people who actively follow this conflict but who are not from the region.

As a guy who is only in his 20s, he seems less judgmental and more open to new ideas than some of the folks with more rigid ways of looking at things that he documents in the two pieces.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Very true, which is why I enjoy reading his articles so much...

What he said in the Ramallah gym article reminded me a lot of things pelsar has said here about Westerners working in the region. And what he describes in the OP I posted here is very much in evidence to anyone who reads CiF...

Right now Seth Freedman is one of my favourites to read when it comes to the conflict....

[oberliner]

34. Question regarding one of the paragraphs from the OP

From the article linked in your OP:

"If you believe the official hype, it's a dolce vita in the Occupied Territories, one for which all right-minded Palestinians should be eternally grateful to their benevolent Israeli masters. If you believe the official hype, Palestinians have never had it so good, thanks to the milk of Israeli kindness which flows in rivulets alongside the honey in the Eretz Halav u'Dvash. And, if you believe the official hype, if only the Palestinians would finally give up their struggle for basic human rights, they too could eat from the tree of life in Israel's very own Garden of Eden."

<end of excerpt>

Would you agree that the inverse of this is also true?

"That if you believe the OTHER official hype, it is a horrific hell-on-earth in the OT where Palestinians who have only engaged in peaceful protest are being starved to death thanks to the evil Israelis."

It seems like there are those on both sides of the conflict who view the situation through hyperbolic glasses, with very different lenses.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Yes, of course...

When I posted the OP here last night, I did so because I see those very things he speaks of happening occuring here in the I/P forum on a very regular basis. And after seeing some responses in this thread that proved his point, especially this point he made:


'Although I am a relative newcomer to Israel's Mediterranean shores, the amount of exposure I have had during my four-year sojourn in the Holy Land to the daily humiliation and oppression being meted out to the Palestinians is more than most armchair critics will see in a lifetime. I should know – I was one of them myself for my first 24 years on the planet, and am all too aware how easy it is to be duped by second- or third-hand reporting from the front lines, whether through the media or via friends and family giving their skewed take from inside Israel's borders.'

[oberliner]

77. Doesn't bode well, does it?

A lot of mindsets seems quite entrenched around these issues.

Are you hopeful that we will see a peaceful resolution to this conflict (or the beginnings of one) in the next ten years?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Huh?

How is that interesting?

I read some of his other crap articles, I didn't read that one, though. The excerpt you quoted sounds racist to me (not him, per se, but the attitude).

[oberliner]

13. He seems to be able to step back and observe things in a way that not everyone does

While he clearly has his opinions and often expounds upon them, he sometimes will step back and observe the other Westerners who have an interest in the conflict in ways that I find interesting, in that you don't normally see that kind of thing in articles about the conflict from folks.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Sorry, we disagree.

He is a propagandist. While his writing may be "interesting," his views are ignorant and shallow. He presents a warped view as would any article written by a settler in the WB.

[oberliner]

30. Here's what I find interesting (for lack of a better word) about him

He clearly has very strong opinions about the conflict and has a very definitive point of view. I would argue, however, that he is not as strident about those opinions as some others who write about the conflict (especially online). Also, unlike some of those bloggers, he has actually served in the IDF, spent time in Ramallah, and lives in Jerusalem.

He is able to chide those who reflexively demean anything "Western" and idealize anything connected to the Palestinians, as evidenced from the article about looking for a gym in Ramallah (linked upthread).

He is also able to take on some of the more rigid critics of Israel when he feels they have gone too far. This was demonstrated in his article rebuking Richard Silverstein for attacking Israel's tourist brochures and advertisements.

Here is a link to that piece:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/02/acriticismtoofar

Freedman was willing to write the above article in spite of the fact that Silverstein had expressed great admiration for Freedman on his blog.

While I certainly do not agree with many of the conclusions he's reached, I appreciate Freedman's willingness to do more than just harangue.

[shira]

33. now that rebuke by Freedman deserves some respect

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I've got a lot of respect for both Richard and Seth Freedman...

I didn't realise that just because someone admires someone whose views on the conflict are similar that it's some sort of rarity or something to openly disagree with them on some things. Expressing admiration for someone doesn't make them immune from being disagreed with and I'm not sure why you think otherwise or that it's something special. While I'm not in the same league as Richard and Seth Freedman, I have great admiration for Richard, but that doesn't translate into being obligated to agree with everything he says, and I have disagreed with him in the past on some things. While I don't know Seth Freedman, I've also disagreed with things he's said in the past. Isn't that supposed to be how things work?

[shira]

58. can you please

cite one example from the past in which you disagreed with Freedman and Silverstein?

[oberliner]

79. Freedman himself wrote that he had some hesitiation about posting that piece

He wrote that he thought the post would result in "howls of outrage" and he made sure to include in the piece that he was "as vocal as the next man" in his condemnation of Israel. I'm not sure that he would have felt the need to include that disclaimer if there was nothing odd or unusual about critics of Israel taking a position like the one he did.

I'm also not sure that I've ever seen someone whom Silverstein had praised publicly call one of his posts "detrimental to the cause" in a public and widely read forum before. In any case, I respect anyone who is willing to divert from the party line, so to speak, when they deem it appropriate to do so.

[shira]

87. ironic, isn't it?

Freedman wrote that Silverstein's article was detrimental to the cause, but Seth doesn't realize what a turnoff his irrational accusations, exaggerations, and conflations are to those who can't help but conclude from such wild-eyed nonsense that the facts obviously cannot speak for themselves. He'd be better off not writing anything at all rather than being a walking excuse to ignore Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

16. I agree.

Mostly people *only* bring up the issues that are relevant to whichever side they are supporting.

I like Freedman, and find his work interesting. That doesn't mean I always agree with every word, but I don't agree with every word from anyone!

[shira]

10. remove blinkers and see the truth? how about a little honesty instead?

What kind of balanced perspective does Freedman offer? Does he ever write about the effect Kassams have on the people of Sderot? Or the effects of terror on the Israeli populace? How about the obnoxious antisemitic hate preached non-stop by Palestinian media, in mosques, in schools? Pallywood? Does he write about a problem that PRECEDES the state of Israel, like the Hebron massacres of 1929? Or the Grand Mufti's heavy involvement with Nazi Germany? Might this have ANYTHING to do with the current situation today?

Let's admit that anyone who writes unbalanced defamatory articles of slow-motion genocide, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid like Seth Freedman does but from the other perspective - defamation and demonization against Palestine and Palestinians - would be labelled not as a mere critic, but a hate-monger.

Seth Freedman doesn't merely criticize. His articles defame and demonize, and thus can hardly be taken seriously. They contain so many grievous factual errors, I don't see why ANYONE would consider this guy to be a man of peace.

Now Amos Oz is the epitome of a dove for peace. He also criticizes Israel, but from a balanced perspective. He doesn't defame and demonize. Has Seth Freedman ever written anything like Amos Oz did here?

"Mr Arafat is a colossal tragedy for both peoples. He has allowed the newly created Palestinian authority to sink in corruption, and he has incited his people against Israel and against the Jews. Finally, he has initiated this recent burst of hateful violence, in an attempt to inspire a raging fury all over the Arab and Islamic world to start a jihad, a holy war, against the Jews.

As I listen to the rhetoric of the Palestinian official state and media, and of the Arafatesque intellectuals, I am hardly surprised by the lynching committed in Ramallah. The Palestinian people are suffocated and poisoned by blind hate."

Freedman has never written anything like the above from Amos Oz. It would ruin his one-sided narrative that only demonizes Israel. Why not write about Israel's beautiful hand-in-hand program?

http://www.handinhandk12.org/

The answer is that writing about such a program would make it appear as if Israel is not wholly evil or committed to genuine peace. Not so for someone like Amos Oz.

Amos Oz is a peace-loving critic of Israel. Seth, you're no Amos Oz.

[shira]

15. from Seth's article:

"And, if you believe the official hype, if only the Palestinians would finally give up their struggle for basic human rights, they too could eat from the tree of life in Israel's very own Garden of Eden. "

Again, how about some honesty here?

If this was about basic human rights, the focus would ALSO be on Hamas/PA brutal oppression of its own people WRT to women, gays, and religious minority (christian) civil liberties. There would have been a focus on basic human rights under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, which was FAR more oppressive than under Israel.

Finally, without a "struggle" (which means terror bomb belts and kassams), there would be no "apartheid" wall or fence, the Palestinian economy would be FAR better than any Arab economy in that region, there would be no refugee camps anymore ( http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960 ), and no bullshit claims of starvation (which Freedman buys into wholesale). A Palestinian state would be a reality, as it should have been 8 years ago. Let's all congratulate Arafat on turning that one down.

[shira]

17. more from Seth's article

Thanks to the cyclical nature of the tit-for-tat conflict, for every punitive measure taken by the IDF in the name of Israel's so-called search for peace, reprisal attacks by Palestinians and their agents endanger thousands of Jewish lives in return, prompting ever-stronger countermeasures by the Israelis. And so it goes on. Until the fear-fuelled monkey can be got off Israel's collective back, it doesn't matter how much evidence is put in front of them about the state's crimes, since they will always turn a blind eye in favour of believing that there is no other way ensure their security.

In other words, ANY action taken by the IDF is a war crime. There is not ONE thing Israel can do that can be considered "proportional" in response to Palestinian terror. Israel should never act defensively, since anything they do will be condemned as disproportionate. They should just "turn their cheek" the other way. Israel's response is just "cyclical", returning hate for hate. "Collective punishment". State crimes. Crimes in which he must have participated in, since he was in the IDF himself for 2 years. So Seth, what crimes are YOU guilty of against Palestinian women and children?

I challenge Mr. Freedman to describe ways in which the IDF should respond defensively to terror, in ways that are totally appropriate. I suspect that in response I'll only hear the sound of crickets.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Why the hell are you demanding Seth reply here? He's not a DUer,...

I challenge Mr. Freedman to describe ways in which the IDF should respond defensively to terror, in ways that are totally appropriate. I suspect that in response I'll only hear the sound of crickets.

Well, seeing as how he's not a DUer, it's pretty dumb to sit here shrieking demands that he reply to yr post....

btw, yr exactly the sort of partisan and blinded idiot he was describing in his OP.

[shira]

31. it was a facetious challenge

if you want, you can answer the question. Not that I'd ever expect it.

And thank you so much for your complement (being a partisan, blinded idiot). Maybe you should put me on "ignore" again since you appear incapable of arguing the merits (or worthlessness) of Seth's articles you seem to admire so much. That way, you won't ever have to seriously question him or yourself.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Okay, so you were just yelling 'questions' at Seth for dramatic flourish...

Lame, but if that's what rocks yr boat, go for it. And you'd be on the money not expecting me to waste my time on what you admitted was a facetious challenge, especially when you outright refused to answer questions I asked you in good faith when you first arrived at DU...

The reason I put you on ignore isn't the fantasy you concocted, but because you proved incapable of or unwilling to listen to what's said, instead preferring to twist things I'd said into something completely different. The rigidity and unswerving belief that Israel is not to blame and all the blame for everything always falls on the Palestinians gets boring in large doses, especially when it results in the True Believer replying to themselves repeatedly. I've seen variations of you over at The Guardian and anywhere where the I/P conflict gets a run, and those variations are remarkably predictable to the point where I can just about trot out their repeat-it-by-rote responses for them. So when I get bored of you again, you'll go back on ignore for a while longer. No hard feelings or anything, but there are people here who I disagree with but find I have constructive discussions with and you aren't one of them :)

[shira]

59. which questions

did you ask me in good faith when I first arrived here that I didn't answer? If you remember any, let's try again. And if you don't mind, I'll ask you the same amount of questions.

[oberliner]

32. Here's an article detailing his experiences in the IDF

He talks about how the approach taken with the settlers might have worked with the Palestinians, but his platoon commander disagreed.

Excerpt:

Despite the threats of the settlers that they would fight tooth and nail to defend their homes, our commanders decided that we would ignore their words, down tools, and deal with them without our weapons to protect us. This was, they said, to douse the tension between the two camps; it was a far cry from the way we dealt with Palestinians who made similar threats. I tackled the platoon commander: if this softly-softly approach was the best for one group of "enemies", why would it not be similarly effective in calming hostilities with the local Palestinians?

The Palestinians, he said, were a different kettle of fish entirely, for whom kid-glove treatment would be out of the question. In the event, the settlers attacked and wounded dozens of soldiers, but the incidents were brushed under the carpet by the authorities, who were keen to paint them as "peaceful protesters", in contrast with their ever-violent, ever-aggressive Palestinian counterparts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/27/israelandthepalestinians

I actually wish we could have Freedman on the forum here so that we could engage him in a debate/discussion.

[shira]

35. good article by Freedman

I respect his service in the army. And yes, the occupation morally corrupts and that is one reason why it must end.

And it would be nice if the IDF could deal with Palestinians as they do settlers. I think Seth is quite naive about the situation.

I thought this last bit by him was interesting:

A study by Haifa University concluded that "over the course of their military service, combat soldiers become less rightwing, adopt more dove-ish political views and are more open to compromise on security matters".

Great news....so what's holding up peace?

[oberliner]

36. Good question

What do you think is holding up peace?

I really do feel like we came very close under Clinton.

What do you think a comprehensive peace agreement ought to look like?

Do you have any opinions about the Geneva Initiative?

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary

I think it would be a great foundation for a peace agreement.

[shira]

44. answer

Strong Palestinian leadership is holding up peace. It's been the case for 60 years. If there were a courageous enough leader there who was capable of making peace and REALLY clamping down on terror and incitement (good luck with that since Egypt and Jordan continue the incitement) the I/P conflict would have been over long ago.

We came close under Clinton except for the fact that Arafat made the final decision, which Prince Bandar called a crime against the Palestinian people. Any Palestinian leader in charge at the time of Intifada I (not Arafat) would have easily struck that deal IMO. The leadership from that time 20 years ago was considered too dovish for the Arafats of the world so they were killed. And here we are today.

It looks like the Geneva Initiative is pretty much the Clinton/Taba initiative. I'm all for it. And for the life of me, I don't see why others congratulate Arafat and company for saying no to it 8 years ago. It's not like the deal will get any better.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Good point Shira. We NEVER hear about the poor people in Sderot.

No presidential candidates visit. No American politicians visit. Their pictures are never on TV. We never read about their "shock."

Their stories are completely ignored.

[shira]

20. we never hear about them from Seth and his skewed perspective

because writing about that may just add a little context....a little "explanation" behind the evil empire's actions.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. The media is inundated with the Israel-only POV.

Must hurt when a little light is shined, huh?

[shira]

25. does it hurt

when someone writes exclusively against Palestine and its crimes? Is it just criticism when someone constantly gets the facts wrong and uses hyperbole when describing Palestinian wrongs? And this is all they do, every day, month after month, year after year?

Or is that hate? You tell me.

It's certainly not shining a little light on the situation, now is it?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Shira, you seem ignorant of the power differential in this conflict.

That's unfortuante, but if you'd reflect on it, it might address some of your concerns.

[shira]

45. what does the power differential have to do

with the fact that when the anti-Israel crowd (like Freedman) defames/demonizes Israel, it's considered acceptable criticism, but when some criticize Palestine or political Islam legitimately - NOT using hyperbole, exaggerating crimes and motives like the anti-Israel crowd, not cooking up fake facts and counting on Pallywood - that's hateful and intolerant racist propaganda, considered Islamophobic or Arab-phobic?

You and I are both on the same page when it comes to blatant hate and intolerance, in the form of propaganda, against Arabs and Muslims. Granted, THAT is Islamophobia. But THAT is every bit as bad as the VERY same things Israel, or Jews, are accused of by defamers or those who demonize.

BOTH are bad. And while it's wrong for Pro-Israel people to call all criticism of Israel antisemitism, the fact is that blatant defamation/demonization is every bit as antisemitic as the same kind of hate propaganda leveled at political Islam or Arab societies in general is Arab or Islamo phobic.

I don't see how power differentials come into this discussion.

And BTW, do you agree or disagree with the above?

[azurnoir]

43. So this all "they" presumably THE PALESTIANS do?

well that explains Palestinian students not going to foreign universities and we thought it was that Israel wouldn't let them, but apparently THEY were to busy building bombs or whatever, gee who of thought it, thanks for your enlightening comment, please do keep on with more of the same, really we need examples such as yours.

[shira]

46. read the post again

"they" refer to Israel's defamers who demonize the Jewish state day after day, year after year - just as those who defame and demonize Arab society or political Islam. Some haters are acceptable critics, their defamation and demonization is not considered antisemitic. Although it's every bit as hateful as the racist and intolerant propaganda spewed against Arab or Muslim societies.

A clear double standard.

[azurnoir]

50. Sorry my mistake n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Of course he's written about Sderot....

He has written about Sderot, though I expect his astute observations of the armchair Israel Can Do No Wrong brigade would blind them to the fact that he writes about both Israelis and Palestinians and isn't a pro-Israel propaganda-bot like they'd like him to be...

Sderot: beseiged and abandoned

Imagine a London where a sword of Damocles hangs over every street and every building. A London where the day is punctuated by missiles raining down indiscriminately on schools, homes, parks and gardens. A London where the difference between crossing the road or not could be the difference between having your face ripped to shreds by shrapnel from incoming rockets falling from the sky.

For the last seven years, and especially in the wake of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, that has been the fate of Sderot, the beleaguered town on the edge of the Gazan-Israeli border. As the cauldron that is Gaza bubbles over with rage, Sderot finds itself in the firing line time and again, resulting in a city under siege and its people feeling utterly abandoned by their government and army.

When I last visited Sderot, I was struck by the near-deserted streets, the empty malls and cafes, and the air of impending doom that hung over the city like a cloud. Today was no different, except that this time the sense of despondency and dejection in the residents I met was far more acute than a couple of months ago.

The first person I spoke to, a Mizrachi man bedecked in jewellery scowling behind the counter of an empty shop, grimaced even further when I asked about the effect of this week's events. "Look over there", he muttered sullenly, pointing at a mother hurrying her two children along the high street. "See their suitcases? That's what it's come to now - they're all getting the hell out, and who can blame them?"

In the wake of the escalation of IDF operations in Gaza, and the increased salvo of Kassams fired at Sderot in response, the perennial white knight Arkadi Gaydamak has stepped in to pay for the evacuation of the local children. As he has done many times before - whether for altruistic reasons or for more self-serving ends - the Russian billionaire has filled the void left by the government's inaction, and funded respite care for the embattled city's residents.

However, according to Ruth, the manageress of a local cafe, his actions only highlight the utter disregard with which the government treats the citizens of Sderot. "What's going on is a war, isn't it?", she asked plaintively. "Therefore they should evacuate us all until it's over". Only the day before, her sister made headline news after being hit in the head with shrapnel from a rocket, leaving her hospitalised in Beer Sheva and her family praying she'll overcome her injuries.

"And just now , my daughter called me to say it had fallen right in front of her", she continued. Her other daughter was bussed out to a hostel in Jerusalem in the middle of the night, leaving Ruth seething at the chain of events that have wreaked so much upheaval and pain on her family.

"If this was happening in Tel Aviv, it would be dealt with in an instant", she declared forcefully, accusing the government of ignoring Sderot's residents simply because they were working class and poor. "Even a third world country wouldn't stand by and take this kind of attack on its people", she said. "We need to go back into Gaza and deal with the terrorists by force. There's no other way - there's no one on either side strong enough to bring peace through talking, so we have to let the army deal with the problem."

Maor, a local man in his 20s eating breakfast in the cafe, agreed with Ruth's prescription for ending the rocket fire. "We have to kill all the militants ", he said. "It's the only way to bring quiet back to the town". He maintained: "they had the chance to stop the rockets after we pulled out of Gaza, but they chose to carry on. I know they're suffering in Gaza too, but that doesn't excuse helping the terrorists attack us - they bring it on themselves."

He said that around three thousand of Sderot's residents had left since the rocket attacks began, and that he too would go, given half a chance. "If the government paid us to leave like they did in Gush Katif , I'd be out of here", he said. He, like many others in the city, doesn't want to live on the front line - they are in the line of fire more by accident than out of some kind of ideological desire to live on the final frontier of the country.

These are not the zealous settlers of Hebron who intentionally plant themselves alongside the Palestinians in a drive to strengthen "Greater Israel". Instead, by a cruel twist of fate, these are average Israelis trying to live normal lives in an atmosphere that is anything but. The war has been brought to their doorsteps, and while the politicians meander their way up diplomatic cul-de-sacs in their peacemaking efforts, they are the ones who suffer.

And, at the same time, their neighbours across the border suffer similarly from the cycle of violence, which is why a military response doesn't seem the best way out of the impasse. Every Israeli incursion brings a heavier rain of Kassams down on Sderot in response, and it might well be that the only way forward is through negotiations if any long-term truce is to come to fruition.

In the meantime, however, the residents of Sderot need to be taken under the wing of a government that, until now, has been woefully reluctant to come to their aid. Evacuating them to safety, whatever the cost, is the least they deserve until the dust settles. Because, as Ruth said sadly, "the worst part of all this isn't the rocket fire - it's the fact that the government just doesn't care". And, just as she claimed that no other government in the world would allow attacks from across its borders, similarly no decent government should abandon its neediest citizens so in their hour of need.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/18/sderotbeseigedandabandoned

btw, why do you flood threads with multiple posts where you reply to yrself with another barrage of multiple posts? I had to reluctantly take you off ignore for a bit coz the avalanche of 'Ignored' appearing in this thread was a bit strange looking...

[shira]

29. thank you

I was wrong about him not writing of Sderot.

But notice the subtle message of Israel virtually ignoring Sderot's poor, working class people? Seth has to get that dig in there, doesn't he? And his solution? Why, ethnically cleanse Sderot! Evacuate! What a swell idea....and when the rockets hit farther into Israel, those towns can be evacuated too. Heaven forbid, Israel responds like ANY other country to these rocket attacks.

Seth can't even admit that there is no "inevitable" overreaction" by Israel in this matter, or in many other cases in which countries would respond quite forcefully to similar attacks. His subtle message isn't that Israel is practicing ENORMOUS restraint here, but that they simply couldn't give a shit about "those" people in Sderot. Hell, he may be right to an extent, but damn, can't he EVER give Israel credit for showing restraint that the rest of the world would never demonstrate? Um, no, he can't. It destroys his narrative of Israel all bad 24/7, failed state, give it back whydontcha.

And to answer your last question, I could've responded in one large post, but I felt breaking it up would be more effective. If I'm wrong in my criticism of Mr. Freedman, do let me know and justify your remarks.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. A little bit of knowledge about Mr Freedman goes a long way....

I just showed you where you were wrong in yr criticism of Seth Freedman, which you acknowledged at the start of yr post and seemed to have forgotten by the end where you urge me to show you where yr wrong (d'uh, how about yr false claim that he's never written about the people of Sderot for a start)...

WTF? You have a problem with the people of Sderot being critical of their govt for ignoring them?? It was the people of Sderot who wanted to be evacuated, and you would have known that if you'd given the article more than a fleeting glance. Are you now going to label the people of Sderot as anti-Israel and accuse them of demonising Israel? I mean, how dare an Israeli be critical of their own government?!?! American armchair critics must put a stop to this blatant hatred of Israel!!

btw, evacuation such as that being called for by some of the Sderot residents is NOT ethnic cleansing. Do you have any idea what ethnic cleansing means? It appears not. What they were calling for was for themselves to be evacuated to safety, and evacuations are what governments do tend to carry out. It's similar to when there were mass evacuations in my city a few years ago in the path and aftermath of massive bushfires that wiped out suburbs here. I had family and work colleagues who were evacuated and couldn't return to what was left of their homes for weeks, and here I was thinking it was an evacuation. Thanks so much for pointing out that using yr 'logic', it was actually ethnic cleansing. If my family members had known they were being ethnically cleansed, they would have stayed in their burning houses refusing to become victims of a war crime...

Anyway, you've displayed exactly the sort of behaviour that Mr Freedman was talking about when it came to armchair critics. I hope you do try in future to gain a bit of knowledge about him before making false claims about him...

[shira]

60. you're misreading me

My remarks weren't aimed at the people of Sderot or any Israeli citizen's criticism. They were aimed precisely at Freedman.

Evacuating Sderot actually makes a lot of sense but is poor policy. Where will the line be drawn, will Ashkelon have to be evacuated too as soon as it's within normal rocket range for Hamas? Where will this end eventually, and what other country would do this? Israel promised to pay Israel's Gaza citizens for leaving and they never did, so what makes anyone think Sderot's citizens will be compensated for leaving?

Freedman's hostility for Israel isn't criticism. It's demonization and defamation and I'm certain you know the difference. He had a great opportunity in that article to mention that Israel was using enormous restraint WRT Sderot, but he couldn't do it as it would directly contradict most of the content of his articles the past few years, ie, Israel always overreacting, not letting cooler heads prevail. And the dig about Israel not really caring for "those" people in Sderot - classic!

Do you think Freedman is balanced? As balanced as your perspective on I/P, since you admit you don't always agree with him?

Anyone writing like Freedman but directing that exact type of vitriol at Palestine/Palestinians, Arab society, political Islam, etc.. with very little to no balance, perspective/context, hyperbole/exaggeration, and playing loose with the facts would quickly (and properly) earn the hater/warmonger, RW propagandist title.

It's astonishing that you fail to see these exact traits in the 'armchair' types you have come to admire and only sometimes disagree with.

To what do you attribute false advertising and hyperbole (ethnic cleansing, colonialism, slow-mo genocide), obfuscation, conflation, and myth (imagined warcrimes, sinister motives), little to no balance (rarely if ever speaking well of Israel decisions) when it comes to Freedman and his armchair 'critics'? I already know the answer to those you believe (and rightfully so) who do this very same thing to Palestine/Palestinians, Arab/Muslim society, and political Islam. They're hatemongering propagandists. But what of Freedman and people like Richard Falk (nazi comparisons, Israel has no reason to blockade Gaza)?

Do you have a different standard when comparing a Dan Pipes to a Seth Freedman? Their politics aside, I'm not certain Pipes has ever been as loose with the facts, and has resorted to constant overexaggeration, conflation, and failed to ever balance criticism/hostility with praise/respect like his armchair counterparts. And please, let's not derail this by talking solely of Pipes. How about Dershowitz? These guys may be blowhards, but do they really resort to the tried-and-true methods that hostile defamers of Israel utilize consistently and constantly, day after day, in their one-sided screeds?

I linked yesterday to this article and there's a quote in it that sums this up very nicely.

http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/israel-and-the-un-today/

"Falk is probably worse than nothing because his publicity-seeking exaggerations and falsehoods give the strong impression that the facts don’t speak for themselves. He is a walking excuse to ignore the Palestinians."

That could apply to Falk or anyone else like Seth Freedman (which is why ,IMO, it's hard to take Freedman, Falk, or anyone like them seriously. Their punditry reeks of an irrational hatred of Israel and is a quick turnoff. This, of course, applies in the reverse as well - to those hostile to Palestine/Palestinians, Arab/Muslim society, political Islam whose methods are the same and whose irrational hatred (Islamophobia or what have you) is to also be condemned.

The reason Falk, Freedman and similar armchair types hurt the Palestinian cause is not only because their exaggerations and falsehoods give the impression that the facts don't speak for themselves, it's that these exaggerations and falsehoods give the pro-Israel crowd (like me for example) a reason to not have to answer legitimate and measured criticism of Israeli policy. We're too busy fighting irrational, extreme and hostile defamation. The measured and legit criticism is minor in comparison. And by the way, I probably agree with just about ANY measured and legit criticism of Israeli policy.

[shira]

19. Seth's mumbo-jumbo....saving the best for last

The Palestinians are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Rise up and try to smash the chains that bind them, and what was previously a tonne of bricks will be multiplied by 10 in terms of the Israeli response. Lie back and do nothing and the authorities will walk all over them, since there is no reason for the Israelis to apply the brakes themselves.

Translated, this means "what else" can they do but strap bombs, blow kids up, and shoot rockets? If they act normally and peacefully, they'll get nothing, you know like that Camp David/Taba offer - or something like it, maybe something better. Yes, the "chains that bind them" are not Hamas/PA, because we all know life under them would be wonderful if not for Israel.....it's ISRAEL that chains and binds them, wants to starve, ethnically cleanse them, and separate them into bantustans for a "greater Israel". Ignore the Gaza pullout. Ignore the Israeli programs that preach tolerance and peace. Ignore what life was like prior to Oslo/Intifada I (and Arafat) when Palestinian life was infinitely better. Playing nice will get them nowhere. :sarcasm:

[Vegasaurus]

38. No one on this forum ever comments on these particulars, Shira

about how life was better before violent resistance, how the Palesitnians had a higher standard of living, how every time they increase their suicide bombings and rockets, their lives get more miserable, not less.

Or how they were occupied before Israel, but that occupation doesn't count.

Or how the message of taking back all of Israel continues to be the goal, despite the misery it brings its citizens.

People seem to be unable to look at these truths, and instead, like to blame Israel for all of the Palestinians' misery, instead of realizing or acknowledging that they have brought on much of the misery themselves because they have chosen terrorists for leaders again and again.

[oberliner]

39. What should the new Israeli PM do vis-a-vis the West Bank and Gaza?

Do you feel like there are any concrete steps that Israel could take to lead the region on the road to some kind of settlement to this conflict?

Is there anything that Israel could do at this point? Waiting for Hamas to change its stripes seems like a longshot.

[shira]

51. here's one idea

End the refugee camps in the W.Bank and Gaza forever:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

30 years after the original plan, let's try to really get it done this time around. If there ever will be peace, these refugees within Gaza and the W.Bank must have homes and be out of the camps. They MUST get on with real life. Let's see PA/Hamas leadership, or Arab/UN leadership worldwide try to shoot it down this time around and still claim to care for the welfare of Palestinians.

[oberliner]

52. That's not really an action that Israel can take on its own

I'm wondering if you think that there is anything Israel can do that would advance peace (as opposed to what the Palestinians could do).

[Vegasaurus]

81. Personally, I think that the new PM should declare final borders

and finish the wall.

This means no more confiscation of land, no more expansion of settlements, except within the defined Israeli borders.

I don't think there is any negotiating left.

[oberliner]

84. What do you think the borders should be?

And what happens with the settlers who are on the Palestinian side of the border?

[Vegasaurus]

85. The largest blocs of settlers will obviously be on the Israeli side

but those on the Palestinian side can choose to stay there, under Palestinian leadership, or move back within Israel proper.

The gulf between the two sides is too vast now, so it is time for Israel to unilaterally define its borders, and let the Palestinians deal with their own state.

The Israeli leadership, to its detriment, seems more apt to continue to expand settlements, which is a mistake, IMO.

Better to define borders now, and secure these, than to continue in this state of flux.

[oberliner]

88. What about Jerusalem?

Where do you believe that Israel should define the border regarding Jerusalem?

[Vegasaurus]

96. Jerusalem is a sticking point

But I think it must be divided in some way.

Israel will have to make some concessions for her overall security and to move ahead with moral clarity.

Defining borders and leaving the Palestinians to deal with their own problems is a must.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Another OP critical of Israel successfully derailed.

Good job guys!

[Behind the Aegis]

24. LOL!

:rofl:

Really, you should take your act on the road.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

42. Yes, sort of you like calling out someone else for claiming victimhood.

That's your whole schtick, isn't it?

[Behind the Aegis]

47. So sad.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. You don't see the irony in your slapping VC's hand?

BTA, you can be the watchdog for anything you want, but it's highly hypocritical to be so condescending when others ask for respect.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Uh-huh.

Whatever you say. It is one thing to ask for respect, and another to show it. You do neither. The trolls here who hate Israel and get to blast their hate on a regular basis are only asking for respect when they get a dose of their own medicine. But, you know that because you see it as well from the other side. What, you think their are only anti-Palestinian trolls here?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. You're funny BTA...

Now run on back to your hate site and whine about us!

[Behind the Aegis]

74. I would say you are, but you aren't.

So, you run back to your hate site with the Jew-haters who pretend they are nothing more than just "against Israeli policy."

[Violet_Crumble]

27. It only gets derailed if we let it....

Which is why I left the troll floundering without replying to it anymore. It's telling who in this thread gets upset over Seth Freedman. It tends to correlate with the behaviour he was describing over at CiF....

[oberliner]

37. I think some have a tendency to engage in the inverse of what he points out

There is "official hype" that presents things in the ridiculous manner he describes, but then there is also the hype on the other side that presents things in a similarly ridiculous matter, but from the opposite perspective.

Would you agree?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Isn't this one of the reasons for the intractability of the conflict?

It's that these mirror hypes tend to come from both leaderships and have a trickledown effect? The conflict isn't really presented realistically in either national narrative, which both see the 'other' as the fearful enemy out to destroy their way of life, and see themselves as the only victims. That results in the suffering of the 'other' either being ignored or being portrayed as something they deserve, and people become more hardcore in their stances. Which is why when it comes to future negotiations, I think a joint acknowledgement from both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators of the past wrongs done to both needs to happen. They might just be words, but as the official apology to our indigenous people proved, words are very strong and emotionally powerful things that can get the healing process off to a start...

[oberliner]

76. Thanks for your post but I'm curious if the poster I posed this to agrees with us on this

I eagerly await a response!

[azurnoir]

40. Some comments do not derail anything

in fact their comments are stunning examples of what the OP is talking about.

[shira]

48. CRITICIZE, DON'T DEMONIZE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/09/independentvoices

Criticise - don't demoniseCan we draw a line between 'intensified criticism' of Israel and anti-semitism?Comments (86) David Hirsh guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 February 2007 07.00 GMT Article history

Antony Lerman argues for the "Independent Jewish Voices" statement as follows:

"Pro-Israel and Zionist groups have interpreted intensified criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism as the expression of a "new anti-semitism". The IJV initiative leans towards the view that this charge is far too often used in an attempt to stifle strong criticism of Israeli policies."

Let's examine some of what Lerman describes as "intensified criticism" of Israel and let's see if some of this "intensified criticism" could reasonably be thought of as being connected to contemporary anti-semitism.

Perhaps some of this "intensified criticism" mirrors some old anti-semitic themes? Or perhaps some of this "intensified criticism" contributes to a commonsense notion that Jews, those who do not identify as anti-Zionists anyway, are in some sense reactionary rather than progressive?

First, however, let us note that Lerman believes those who think that anti-semitism is linked to "intensified criticism" of Israel are "pro-Israel" or "Zionist"; they raise the question of contemporary anti-semitism dishonestly in order to de-legitimise criticism as racism. There seems to be no possibility of a person being both an opponent of Israeli nationalism and also concerned with the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.

The IJV statement mirrors the nasty habit that it sets out to oppose. It opposes anyone who would unthinkingly brand honest critics of Israel as racists. Yet it, itself, brands opponents of anti-semitism as dishonest supporters of human rights abuses. The difference is that it doesn't happen, that a person is branded an anti-semite simply for criticism; yet IJV itself does brand those voices that it opposes as being not only mistaken but dishonest defenders of human rights abuses.

So let's look at some recent "intensified criticism" of Israel made by people and groups who think of themselves as sophisticated anti-racists. We will for the moment entirely ignore "intensified criticism" made by open anti-Jewish racists, such as the president of Iran, like the governing party in Palestine, and like Hizbullah.

In September 2006, Ilan Pappe, an Israeli anti-Zionist, argued that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Now Pappe is certainly not an anti-Jewish racist, but does that mean that this absurd claim is simply "intensified criticism" - and therefore legitimate? I don't think so. I think that Israel has committed serious human rights abuses in Gaza but that to call this genocide is so far from the truth that it feeds into a mood of irrational hatred of Israel, which, incidentally, lets Olmert squirm out of having to answer measured and legitimate criticism.

Accuse me of trying to gag Pappe if you like, but Pappe, a tenured professor at Haifa university, continues to travel the world freely and to make his absurd allegations wherever he likes. And his wages are paid by the Israeli education system. And rightly so.

John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt published a paper in March 2006 which argued that if there had been no "Israel lobby" then there would have been no war against the Saddam regime. These two professors are not antisemites but they did nevertheless hold the "lobby" responsible for the war.

In their paper and in the way the paper was widely read and used, the term "lobby" underwent an immense amount of slippage - from particular organisations into a nefarious conspiracy. The accusation that Jews are responsible for war is an old one; perhaps this time, the "Zionists" are actually responsible for propelling the USA into war against its own interest? Perhaps the incessant use of the "Lobby" to articulate anti-"Zionist" conspiracy theory is, indeed, nothing more than "intensified criticism"?

Perhaps when Baroness Tonge says that she believes that the Israeli lobby has got its financial grips on the western world then this is nothing more than "intensified criticism". Apparently this was the view of "Independent Jewish Voice" Richard Kuper, who was sitting next to her when she said it, and who saw nothing to protest in what she said.

Perhaps when her Lib Dem colleague Chris Davies accuses a "Zionist" constituent of racism and invites her to "wallow in her own filth" then this has absolutely nothing to do with a de facto hostility to Jews. Perhaps when the Independent newspaper illustrates "the Lobby" with a US flag dominated by Jewish stars, then they didn't know about the history of this image and its connection to anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

Maybe when the New Statesman illustrated its headline "A Kosher Conspiracy?" with this image, any similarity with older conspiracy theory was entirely coincidental. Perhaps it was innocent "intensified criticism" when the Independent newspaper produced a classic blood libel image of Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby? Perhaps this image from the Guardian, of a disgusting Jewish fist smashing an innocent child's face in, has absolutely no connection with older anti-semitic images? Maybe these two images, created by cartoonist Latuff, who won second prize in President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial art competition, available on "anti-racist" Norman Finkelstein's website, constitute entirely legitimate "intensified criticism"?

When Tam Dalyell claimed that Tony Blair was unduly influenced by a "cabal of Jewish advisers" perhaps this was only an inelegant way of intensifying his critique of Israel? When George Galloway goes on Syrian TV and makes almost exactly the same intense criticism of Israel as ex-Klansman David Duke, what should we think? When Respect's Yvonne Ridley declares her party to be "Zionist Free" unlike other parties that are "riddled with Zionists", what should we say? How should we react when we are on a demonstration for peace, and find ourselves surrounded by these "intensified" placards?

Why did Ken Livingstone judge that his late night silliness was a political opportunity? How come he lives in a world where if you are accused of anti-semitism then you fight back by crying "Israel"? Would Livingstone tell two "foreign" businessmen to "go back to Iran" if he couldn't spin it, somehow, as an intense criticism of Israel?

Racism is not simply about hatred; it is not enough to say: "I don't hate Jews". Racism is about ways of thinking, commonsense notions and sets of practices that discriminate and that demonise. I do not believe that any of the anti-racists who I mentioned above are anti-semites and I do not call them anti-semites. But I do believe that the discourses of anti-Zionism, which are increasingly "intense", do foster an irrational hatred of Israel, a commonsense notion of Jews as "oppressors" and do therefore, lay the basis for an anti-semitic movement in the UK.

In my judgment the campaign for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel - and only Israel - as though Israel were the most serious human rights abuser on the planet - moves onward from "intensified criticism" towards setting up concrete exclusions. Our unions and our universities would exclude Israeli Jews from our campuses, journals and conferences but would not exclude people from other states which commit equal or worse human rights abuses to Israel. Would IJV consider such a concrete exclusion to be legitimate criticism of Israeli policies?

The figures for anti-semitic incidents in the UK for 2006 were published recently. The demonisation of "Zionists" in discourse is beginning to transform into anti-semitic attacks on the streets, in the cemeteries, on the synagogues. Anti-semitic attacks are up by 31% from the previous year and have been rising sharply over the last 10 years. There is a clear correlation between Israel being in the news and between attacks on UK Jews.

Let's not tolerate any apologies for this. If you're angry with Israel, it is racist to take out your anger on UK Jews. It is not understandable, natural or inevitable. The bad behaviour of Jews in the Middle East does not cause attacks on Jews in London; anti-semites are responsible for their anti-semitism, not Jews.

I hope I have made my position clear. It is not criticism of Israeli human rights abuses that is the problem. The problem is that this criticism so often seems to be subject to a certain kind of "intensification". The kind of intensification that I am worried about is the kind that creates a commonsense notion of Israel, and of the Jews who by and large identify with it, as unique evils in the world. So criticise. Don't demonise. And don't pretend that you can't see the difference. And try to keep away from conspiracy theory. And better to avoid the old themes associated with the blood libel.

[shira]

49. Dennis MacShane comments on the same page as Hirsch's Guardian article

DenisMac
09 Feb 07, 12:40pm

I would probably go further than David, and suggest that many critics are, at a certain level, anti-Semites. A clear token of this lies in the readiness of the international Left to embrace the anti-Semitic tropes of the Islamic world ('We are all Hizbullah now'). There is an extraordinary blindness to imagery and text that is every bit as anti-Semitic as anything from the Third Reich. Not just in under-the-counter cyclostyled bumf from obscure groups of self-confessed fanatics, but on national television, the mainstream press, and school textbooks. JNust last week, it was revealed (and admitted) that a Saudi-funded school in London was using textbooks calling Jews 'apes and pigs'. Shock, horror: but this particular conceit is a daily feature of mosque sermons, children's animated cartoons, and journalistic rants throughout the Middle East and beyond. And it's not just the gross and popular anti-Semitism, it's the blatant ties with the Reich. Have the 'We are all Hizbullah now' sloganizers actually seen a Hizbullah rally, where the Nazi salute and the goosestep are the chosen style? Do they know why Hamas does much the same, tracing a link between Hamas, its parent Muslim Brotherhood, the nationalist-religious Palestinian MB led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni, a major war criminal who was never brought to task? And here is my point. How on earth has it happened that so many people on the Left are more than happy to cosy up to fascists? These are people who wouldn't shake hands with a Lib Dem if they met one, but who put their arms round the shoulders of men and women who think all Jews must be slaughtered as a prelude to world conquest, not by a chosen race, but God's final religion.

So, all the 'it's just Israel, stupid' rhetoric passes me by. Israel can and should be criticized; but that criticism has gone out of proportion. Israel, as David rightly points out, is singled out while a blind eye is turned to countries that really do abuse human rights, from Iran that hangs children, to Egypt that tortures dissidents, to Syria that massacred thousands at Hama, to Iraq under Saddam Husayn. Nick Cohen has analysed the Left's betrayal of Iraq in his remarkable book, What's Left � it makes worthwhile reading. But, to the point. Of all Islamic states, one (Mali) is a free country, with real democracy, human rightsm and so on. When did the Left criticize a single Muslim state? Israel is a genuine democracy that offers freedoms to women, gays, and religious minorities, and is no more racist (perhaps less) than the UK or France. But it's the one the Left chooses to condemn, hand in hand with the Arab and wider Muslim world that wants to wipe it off the face of the earth. No questions about the context of Israeli actions. No heart-searching about who is actually right in terms of international law. No condemnation of Palestinian terrorism.

All that adds up, for me, to anti-Semitism. Why is Jewish nationalism a bad thing when, say Kurdish nationalism or Irish nationalism or any other variety you care to name are as right on as the niqab? And why is the panoply of invective directed against Israel so replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies? Why is it smarter to believe the Palestinian PR machine than the manifestly less dramatic Israeli accounts? Why are people so easily taken in by the myth of an all-powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby when this is such a well-known anti-Semitic trope (stemming from the Protocols), and why is it so easily forgotten that lobbying is hardly unusual in politics. Everybody has a lobby, but only the Jews control governments, the media, and the world of education. That's both stupid and anti-Semitic.

When the critics of Israel expend as much of their ire on Islamic anti-Semitism and terrorism as they do on the Jewish state; when they use established channels to debate issues openly here or in Israel; when they refuse to shake hands with a man like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has praised suicide bombers in Israel; when they go on a march to protest Hizbullah's gross breaches of human rights and international law; when they start to admit Israel's achievements as well as condemn its faults; when they go out and buy some basic books about the conflict � then, and only then, will I start to believe there's sopme hope, and that they have put anti-Semitism behind them.

[LeftishBrit]

62. I am much less keen on MacShane than Hirsh, though I agree with him on some key points

Especially that:
'
Why is Jewish nationalism a bad thing when, say Kurdish nationalism or Irish nationalism or any other variety you care to name are as right on as the niqab? And why is the panoply of invective directed against Israel so replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies? Why is it smarter to believe the Palestinian PR machine than the manifestly less dramatic Israeli accounts? Why are people so easily taken in by the myth of an all-powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby when this is such a well-known anti-Semitic trope (stemming from the Protocols), and why is it so easily forgotten that lobbying is hardly unusual in politics. Everybody has a lobby, but only the Jews control governments, the media, and the world of education. That's both stupid and anti-Semitic.'


Agreed. (I do not think that everyone who is influenced by these views is personally antisemitic; but I think that the views have roots in old antisemitic themes.)

But he loses me when he makes his general accusations against 'the left'; and in particular when he supports Nick Cohen's views on the left's 'betrayal of Iraq' through their opposition to the war. Nor is this just an opinion on his part: MacShane is a New Labour MP, who has strongly supported Blair throughout. His views are just as biased and selective on this and related matters as those of the extreme anti-Israelis about Israel.

[shira]

63. all good points, I agree

I also hesitate to accuse people of antisemitism. There are so many other possible factors. MacShane's quote is otherwise dead-on.

[shaayecanaan]

64. Rubbish

Why is Jewish nationalism a bad thing when, say Kurdish nationalism or Irish nationalism or any other variety you care to name are as right on as the niqab? And why is the panoply of invective directed against Israel so replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies? Why is it smarter to believe the Palestinian PR machine than the manifestly less dramatic Israeli accounts? Why are people so easily taken in by the myth of an all-powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby when this is such a well-known anti-Semitic trope (stemming from the Protocols), and why is it so easily forgotten that lobbying is hardly unusual in politics.

A thought experiment for you. Look at this following article from Haaretz:-

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008695.html

"The big problem for Israelis in West Africa is that there are countries whose diamond industry is controled by Lebanese locals, a majority of whom openly support Hezbollah," a source in the Israeli diamond business said Monday. "In effect, these are countries which are known as Hezbollah states," he added.

Read the above paragraph, but substitute Lebanese for Israeli and vice versa. Then imagine this is an article in an Arab newspaper, alleging that America was a Zionist state because of Jewish control of its financial and mercantile industries.

The fact is, West Africa does have a wealthy and influential Lebanese minority. Central America (including El Salvador and Belize which have both had Palestinian presidents) has a wealthy and influential Palestinian minority. As a consequence both of those regions are roundly pro-Lebanese/Palestinian in their foreign policy outlook, although of course normal third world sympathy and hostility to America play a part.

America has a wealthy and influential Jewish minority. As a consequence, America is much more favourable to Israel than Western nations (such as the Scandinavian countries) that do not.

That does not mean that West Africa is indeed a Hezbollah region, because of course the Lebanon issue is only one aspect of West African politics. The same way that the Israel issue is not a bread and butter issue for most American voters (which means that there is even less incentive for American politicians to buck the pro-Israel line).

[shira]

73. what?

The Haaretz article didn't report Lebanese W.African open support for Lebanon, but specifically, Hezbollah.

[Vegasaurus]

80. Why is Jewish nationalism a bad thing?

Get back to that question.

[LeftishBrit]

82. Or rather why is it a worse thing than other sorts of nationalism?

I can understand being against ALL nationalism. I would be myself, if it didn't seem that the only likely real-world alternatives are even worse: either complete lawlessness or imperial control. But why is it bad to be 'Zionist' and not similarly bad to be nationalist with regard to another group or country?

[Vegasaurus]

86. Obviously, Jewish nationalism irks people more

so maybe we should really look at the reasons for that.

[shaayecanaan]

91. Because...

Zionism does not merely represent nationalist sentiment. Zionism specifically advocates (or advocated) the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine that would, of necessity, displace either partially or totally the existing Arab population. More particularly, however, Zionism advocates such a course of action as being normative, and not merely based on a Machiavellian appeal to national survival. Zionism is either the fulfillment of God's design for Palestine and his promise to the chosen people if one is religious, or it is the world's penance and restitution to the Jewish people for centuries of persecution if one is secular. In truth, however, the first reason looms larger in the minds of secular people than most of them would acknowledge.

In that sense, the closest comparison to Zionism would be the manifest destiny ideology espoused by the settlers of the United States - we are taking this land, and not only is it justifiable in the sense that we need land to survive, but it is morally justifiable - morally desirable in fact - in that God wants us to take this land to realise the unique mission that he has called upon our nation to fulfil.

In Australia for example there is widespread acknowledgment, if not active commemoration of the fact that the land belonged to the indigenous people and that its seizure from said people amounted to theft. There was a speech by an earlier prime minister, Paul Keating, when he essentially said that Australia was founded on theft and murder, and it was Australians who had done the thieving and murdering. Exactly how much is to be given back to the indigenous inhabitants has been a sticking point ever since, however, the principle was an important one:- the land was stolen. Australia can be justified on utilitarian or pragmatic reasons, that there are 20 million people living here and it would be impossible to move them, but it could never be justified on moral grounds. In moral terms, the invasion and settlement of Australia should never have happened. Outside of Neturei Karta and other such groups, I can scarcely think of any Jew, religious or secular, who would think the same thing.

Of course, there will never be a similar act of contrition from an Israeli prime minister. There will never be an admission that land was stolen, that that was wrong or unjust or should not have happened. The Palestinians may well get their slice of cake, but that will be a tactical concession only, borne of necessity by the fact that there are too many Arabs in the West Bank and that they will not leave.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Good article! I like David Hirsh

[ProgressiveMuslim]

65. How about focusing on the BEHAVIOR that is being criticized instead of parsing the wording of the

criticism?

It's mind boggling that Israel's defenders are more concerned with the semantics of well deserved and justified criticsm than they are with the immoral acts being committed!

This is insane... and very much unique to the I/P conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

67. Question to you:

Suppose that this referred to Islamophobia? Supposing that it was about people criticizing the 9-11 attacks, or harsh theocratic laws in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and that instead of just focussing on the actions, they used the opportunity to claim that these bad actions represent Islam; that Islam is responsible for all that is evil; that Muslims over the world are striving for world domination and must be crushed. (Such statements are indeed of course frequent in the right-wing press.) Would you then think it right to say that one should focus on the behaviour being criticized, rather than 'parsing the wording of the criticism'?

Words have power; they do influence actions. The right-wing press stereotyping of Muslims and Islam has contributed to a climate of hate which, for example, enabled a war which has killed a million mostly civilian people in Iraq. And similarly demonizing Jews has all manner of bad effects and can ignite hate-crimes.

Would you not agree that all hate-speech - whether against Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, gays or immigrants - is dangerous and to be condemned? I'm not here bringing up the question of whether there should be *laws* against hate-speech; but just whether it should be criticized.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. Are you accusing Seth Freedman of hate speech?

You can't be serious.

It's the absurd and unending parsing of legitimate criticsm that serves as a distraction.

It's ridiculous.

[LeftishBrit]

83. NO! If you have read my other posts, I actually like Seth Freedman!

Of course I am not accusing him of hate speech. Nor was Hirsh.

Hirsh was talking about those who constantly blame everything on the 'Israel lobby'; who imply that a 'Jewish cabal' are controlling the British government; etc. And he was pointing out that this can actually cause genuine criticisms of Israel to become submerged in the general paranoia, and thus reduce their impact.

[shira]

68. it's defamation and demonization, not criticism

You've probably read enough anti-Arab/Muslim hate propaganda that sometimes mixes just the right amount of little truth with a helluva lot of lies, obfuscation, conflation, exaggeration, and libel mixed in.

How do you respond to such "well deserved and justified criticism"?

You either call it for what it is, irrational hatemongering, fight the stupidity or ignore it entirely. It's certainly difficult to counter legit and measured criticism when you must first face the irrational hatred, isn't it?

You're not seeing this at all from the opposite perspective.

[Vegasaurus]

78. There are a couple of posters here, who are so filled with hate

that they couldn't see the opposite perspective if it slapped them in the face.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

70. Richard Falk says it best in his CIF piece: it's a politics of distraction:

By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/19/israel-palestinian-territories-united-nations

[shira]

75. Falk's quote is classic

"By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction."

==========================

And what is being "observed" by Falk? What are the "realities"? Ethnic cleansing, slow-motion genocide, nazi atrocities? He is personally attacked precisely BECAUSE his claims are outlandish. It is FALK and those like him who, with their irrational anti-Israel accusations, give Israeli leaders the excuse they need to deflect legit and measured criticism of Israeli policy. Why focus on legit and measured criticism when it's more imperative to first answer the most ridiculous charges?

Falk is a publicity-seeking hound who admitted such with his Nazi comparison:

“He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7335875.stm

===========================

Why the need to sensationalize if the facts speak for themselves? Which leads to this quote:

"Falk is probably worse than nothing because his publicity-seeking exaggerations and falsehoods give the strong impression that the facts don’t speak for themselves. He is a walking excuse to ignore the Palestinians."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

89. The behaviors are clear for any to see. Slandering the messenger doesn't erase the message...

hard as you may try.

[shira]

90. so why sensationalize, conflate, exaggerate....

if the facts speak for themselves? Will you ever answer this one?

And please tell me if you take seriously the claims of Islamophobics and Arab haters (they just say they're critics) who say "behaviors are clear for any to see". Do you "slander" those messengers?

It's much easier having a rational discussion about human rights violations and injustices without the "obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies, isn't it"?

Or is there some double-standard that needs to be applied in this situation? It's quite alright to defame and demonize Israel, not okay to do the same WRT Arab/Muslim society?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

100. Been there, seen it with my own 2 eyes.

I know full well what TPTB in Israel are capable of.

[shira]

101. i asked you some important questions......you're being evasive

let's try one at a time, okay?

If people make accusations against Arabs and/or Muslims that amount to overblown Islamophobic hate rants, replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies, how do YOU respond to that - and using yourself as an example - how would you suggest your opponents respond to much of the same?

Let's not pretend this doesn't happen on both sides.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

105. My answer is that of all the "crimes" in this situation, occassional exaggeration of Israel's crimes

is the least important.

The very, very least.

I do indeed wish people would let the facts speak for themselves at all times. They are brutal and gruesome enough that no further commentary is required.

I have seen those crimes with my own eyes on more than one occassion. No exaggeration needed.

[oberliner]

106. And some of us have seen with our own eyes the crimes committed against Israel

Certainly no need to exaggerate there either.

Those brutal and gruesome actions speak for themselves as well.

[shira]

107. but the exaggerations are not only "occasional"

they're par for the course.

And they're exactly why so many do not see things "your" way.

These exaggerations, myths, lies, and conflations do great damage to the Palestinian cause due to the fact that informed people (many of whom have power to do something) are led to believe that since these lies and exaggerations are so commonplace, then the facts really don't speak for themselves.

It's astonishing that you just expect Israel/Jews to ignore the massive amounts of hate libel thrown at them.

Equally amazing is that you don't recognize that the people perpetuating these lies, half-truths, and myths are doing great harm to the Palestinian cause.

[azurnoir]

92. What did Falk say exactly?

Why the need to sensationalize if the facts speak for themselves?

What I find passing "strange" here is that for all the shrill hysterics over Mr Falk's quote no one here seems to able to produce the quote it self.

But do not get hopeful I am by no means denying that he said something provocative but how provocative and exactly what was it or is using Israel and Nazi in the same paragraph enough?

BTW the American does need a wake up it has been well trained by the M$M to hear an Arab name in association with the ME and say "terrorist", hopefully our new President will change that in fact that he got elected at all is a sign of that change, maybe some are worried.

[Behind the Aegis]

93. It is from this essay (I think).

http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html

[azurnoir]

94. Thanks

I actually found it a an hour or so ago but I share my computer with one of my kids (11 year old) and he wanted his time so........

I suppose this will offend some but taken in context of the whole what he said was hardly as horrible as some make out

There is little doubt that the Nazi Holocaust was as close to unconditional evil as has been revealed throughout the entire bloody history of the human species. Its massiveness, unconcealed genocidal intent, and reliance on the mentality and instruments of modernity give its enactment in the death camps of Europe a special status in our moral imagination. This special status is exhibited in the continuing presentation of its gruesome realities through film, books, and a variety of cultural artifacts more than six decades after the events in question ceased. The permanent memory of the Holocaust is also kept alive by the existence of several notable museums devoted exclusively to the depiction of the horrors that took place during the period of Nazi rule in Germany.

Against this background, it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’ The word is derived from the Greek holos (meaning ‘completely’) and kaustos (meaning ‘burnt’), and was used in ancient Greece to refer to the complete burning of a sacrificial offering to a divinity. Because such a background implies a religious undertaking, there is some inclination in Jewish literature to prefer the Hebrew word ‘Shoah’ that can be translated roughly as ‘calamity,’ and was the name given to the 1985 epic nine-hour narration of the Nazi experience by the French filmmaker, Claude Lanzmann. The Germans themselves were more antiseptic in their designation, officially naming their undertaking as the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Qestion.’ The label is, of course, inaccurate as a variety of non-Jewish identities were also targets of this genocidal assault, including the Roma and Sinti(‘gypsies), Jehovah Witnesses, gays, disabled persons, political opponents.

Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy. If ever the ethos of ‘a responsibility to protect,’ recently adopted by the UN Security Council as the basis of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering. But it would be unrealistic to expect the UN to do anything in the face of this crisis, given the pattern of US support for Israel and taking into account the extent to which European governments have lent their weight to recent illicit efforts to crush Hamas as a Palestinian political force.

The entire piece is longer but this is the germane part, the statement is from June 25 2008 so it obviously is not in relationship to recent developments in Gaza

It was from a thread last October comment #24

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=224142

edited to correct link

[shira]

95. Falk's last paragraph in that quote is obscene

tell me, how often do you read of or hear about NAZI comparisons when you read of poverty, atrocity, and genocide in ANY part of the world that has nothing to do with Jews/Israelis?

rarely, if ever.

this is a comparison best suited for bigots, crackpots, and antisemites who use this designation almost solely for Jews/Israel.

anyone who knows anything about the holocaust and modern day Israel and its enormous amount of tolerance and restraint, given the circumstances, knows this accusation to be thoroughly disgusting.

it's as vulgar as anyone denying, minimizing, or mocking the holocaust, slavery, or gay bashing - and it should clearly disqualify Falk or anyone like him for being a reliable source of information on anything Jewish/Israeli.

finally, note the double standard.

try comparing Arab/Muslim society and its ongoing media hate-campaign against Israel to Nazi Germany propaganda. see how far you get with that comparison without pissing off lots of people who believe such a comparison is hate speech. or is it only not hate speech when directed at Israel?

[Vegasaurus]

97. Progressives seem to think that Muslim or Arab human rights abuses

and rampant, virulent anti-semitism are excusable due to "cultural differences".

Israel's open and democratic society is MUCH more evil, to these "progressives" than societies that stone women to death, hang gays, and preach hate on a daily basis.

I will never understand these double standards, but I have come to expect them.

[azurnoir]

98. IMO have seen far more obsene and vulgar

OP's posted in this forum

But do flame on the contrived nature you faux outrage is now obvious, you see the comment was made on June 25th of this year yet not a peep about about it until- wait for it...............
one of us reputed Israel haters posts it as part of a comment in late October yep that's right fully 4 months later, then it is almost 2 months after that all of the sudden it's oh the outrage oh how could he, no wonder though only one person would actually post it. All the outrage over the quote, but never admitting to what he said. But it is nice to see you admit that you support the detention of a citizen of your country and fellow Jew because he disagrees with you and "offends" the Israeli government, so do rage on.

it's as vulgar as anyone denying, minimizing, or mocking the holocaust, slavery, or gay bashing - and it should clearly disqualify Falk or anyone like him for being a reliable source of information on anything Jewish/Israeli.

are you hoping that no one will actually read the quote? you must be because anyone capable of critical thinking will quickly see he gives two paragraphs of apologetic preamble before his one fatal sentence. As for Israel's part I would wonder just who they were warning the UN or the new American administration perhaps both, or did they just get taken by surprise? As Mr Falk said if they really did not want him there they would not have OKed his visa.

Now please run along I have said my piece and will not comment further no matter what kind of pile on happens the absolutely false outrage nature of this entire episode has become plain to see

[shira]

102. wow. pathetic

You asked why the reference to Nazis was offensive and you got such a convincing answer that you not only couldn't agree and show you understand, you flame the person answering you with nonsensical babble.

Pathetic.

You just outdid yourself. Congrats.

[azurnoir]

103. wow caught in faux outrage n/t

[shira]

104. yep, you got me

I'm faking outrage WRT being pissed by Israel=Nazi comparisons. :sarcasm:

I'll remember that one when you or anyone else here ever displays 'faux outrage' about Arab/Muslim society = Naziism again.

Thanks for the laugh.


ps
Do you see how hateful the Nazi=Israel comparison is? Do you agree that this comparison is almost always made with Israel and that when the comparison is made with Arab/Muslim society it's considered hatemongering propaganda? Do you see the clear double-standard?

[bemildred]

99. Nice.

He seems to see in color instead of black and white. Of course that pisses off all the people that see in black and white.

It seems unlikely to me, whatever your sympathies are, that emotional excess and posturing are really the right way to improve the situation.