Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPalestinian activists disavow former Israeli Jew for anti-Semitism (Gilad Atzmon)
The US Palestinian Community Network and Electronic Intifada are circulating this public letter, which is not only about Gilad Atzmon – the former Israeli turned conspiracy-theorist and anti-Semite – but more importantly, makes the distinction between criticism of Zionism and relations with Jews and the Jewish people. I am not endorsing everything in this text, but it is definitely worth reading and relating to.
http://972mag.com/palestinian-activists-disavow-former-israeli-jew-for-his-anti-semitism/37917/
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon
For many years now, Gilad Atzmon, a musician born in Israel and currently living in the United Kingdom, has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles. He is currently on tour in the United States promoting his most recent book, entitled, ‘The Wandering Who.’
With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Atzmon’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.
Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.
<snip>
We reaffirm that there is no room in this historic and foundational analysis of our struggle for any attacks on our Jewish allies, Jews, or Judaism; nor denying the Holocaust; nor allying in any way shape or form with any conspiracy theories, far-right, orientalist, and racist arguments, associations and entities. Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of Jewish identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on Jewish identities, nor the demeaning and denial of Jewish histories in all their diversity.
http://uspcn.org/2012/03/13/granting-no-quarter-a-call-for-the-disavowal-of-the-racism-and-antisemitism-of-gilad-atzmon/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mosby
(16,318 posts)They seem to be saying here that Atzmon is "too Zionist" for them, and they don't like how he connects Zionism to Judaism.
What do they mean when they say "decolonization"? To me that sounds like ethnic cleansing the Jews from Israel. Funny that they don't provide any specificity.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and I can understand your possibly unhappy about this development because Atzmon was an important anti-Palestinian propaganda tool, he has been brought up a number of times here as an example of how 'evil' the Palestinians and their supports are, but to claim that he has been disavowed because he is too Zionist is a flight of fancy indeed IMO
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I would say approximately 99.99 percent of people have no idea who he is.
Not sure anyone here has said that Palestinians are "evil" - can you provide links?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and Atzmon is well known enough in I/P circles that originally the story came to my attention via +972
http://972mag.com/palestinian-activists-disavow-former-israeli-jew-for-his-anti-semitism/37917/
now as to the word evil there has been enough negative said on this forum or group seeing as how you are one for semantic exactness that "evil" could be the conclusion of one reading the comments including one on this thread "This is all lipstick on a pig" ect but if you wish to 'enforce' an exercise in posting I'll go back over threads and link to the comments 
or possibly accept the it was a euphemism
eta I'm thinking that most likely there are those on both sides that will not be too thrilled with this devlopment, as for myself I'm quite happy with it
shira
(30,109 posts)This doesn't change the movement/cause one bit.
Hey, WTF took them so long?
These pretend humanitarian, anti-Israel extremists believe that FINALLY coming out vs. the rhetoric of a nazi like Atzmon makes them look moderate or progressive. Atzmon's the bad guy, not them. Look over there! We're the good guys!
Nevermind that most of the movement has never had a problem or raised any concerns about Atzmon (for unity purposes). John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk, and untold thousands of anti-Israel activists will still continue to endorse Atzmon's views and will still be embraced by the movement. Bigots like Mearsheimer and Falk will just move on, no apologies, pretending there never was a problem in the first place. They'll ignore the "rightwingers" who will ask them about Atzmon and their recent endorsement of his nazi bile. I really wonder what Mearsheimer and Falk are going to say about this. Will they be muzzled for unity purposes? Most likely. Are they embarassed? Never. Could be entertaining. Maybe it will cause a rift in the movement. Fun times.
And it's not just Atzmon's views that many in the movement tolerate, endorse, or support.
Hamas and PLO rhetoric (see PMW) is even worse than Atzmon's. This is ignored, dismissed, or explained away by these new "moderates" just as Atzmon's rhetoric has been for at least the past 5 years. Who are they fooling? How do you throw Atzmon under the bus without saying a word about PMW videos and the like?
Atzmon also was called on to perform by these new moderates in order to raise money for the flotilla. Don't look for any introspection from the flotillistas WRT this either. No apologies. Not from the Free Gaza Movement, ISM, or any other anti-Israel outfit. They'll all pretend they had zero connections to Atzmon. As if they never talked to him and never heard a word from him that reeked of antisemitism.
This is lipstick on a pig. It's still a rotten movement that unifies people of all political stripes (from the Stalinists to the Nazis) due to the one common thing they all share. Pure unadulterated hate.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)couldn't have asked for more
shira
(30,109 posts)Do you take issue with anything in that post? Be specific.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Surely you can't be referring to EVERYBODY who feels that what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians is wrong.
That movement is broadbased, democratic, progressive and honorable. As opposed to the movement to defend the West Bank Occupation, which is right-wing and hate-driven.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)wow...this is really out there, even for you. This progressive movement of yours that contains such bastions of supporters of democracy....hamas, they're not full of hate towards the jews? (I assume the last 300 missiles from gaza were full of progressive love, since the shooters are part of your "progressive movement).
as typical: defend the occupation and your "right-wing full of hate"....Does this include EVERYBODY??
in your gross ugly generalization you cannot even fathom that there might be israelis who are not "hate driven right wingers that are worried about having kassams and grads falling on their homes if there is a repeat of the gaza experience in the west bank....
nice narrow minded world you live in.....I'm assuming that tolerance is not a value in this movement of yours, is it?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The Israelis are not the PRIMARY victims in this situation(the I/P conflict from 1948 through to the present). Yes, some Israelis have suffered in it, and shouldn't have had to, but far more Palestinians have, and you can't assume that all of them, or even most, deserved to suffer more.
And what you still don't get is that the Occupation has done as much as anything else to CAUSE people to choose such destructive options as terrorism. It's not as Palestinians have ever been rewarded for moderation or nonviolence(and many Palestinians have, in fact, chosen either or BOTH). And in Gaza, the siege has done a lot to help groups even more radical than Hamas(it wasn't Hamas that was firing the rockets recently, it was more extreme groups-Hamas had held its fire and observed the truce)recruit and gain support.
Oppression begets resistance. Hopeless begets even more desperate resistance.
If you want to break this cycle, YOU need to be calling on Netanyahu to back off and let ordinary Palestinians have some breathing space...and to make a clear distinction between the way he treats violent and NONVIOLENT resistance.
And I was speaking of people who are in solidarity with Palestinians...not Hamas. You knew that perfectly well. I have never defended Hamas...all I've done is reject the idea wiping out Hamas should come before anything else. Given the rise of crazier groups than Hamas in Gaza, I think it can fairly be asked...would crushing Hamas actually achieve anything? Wouldn't it simply clear the field for the worst of the berserkers on that side?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)at least without further crushing the entire population of Gaza
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the muslim brotherhood didn't go, the KKK is still around, thats wasn't the issue. They'll always be around in one form or another, all societies got one or two or three.
Its none of our business internally what and how they treat their own, and infact no one really cares enough to make a fuss anyway...usually most, as in the fotilias, simply look the other way or pretend nothing is happening (no news is no news, and the UN groups keep them mouths shut so they can still do their work and stay safe).
all they have to do is not shoot at us, and that includes the gaza border and indirectly though egypt....and then they won't even be in the news at all (and then they can really do their thing and apply shari law to its full extent)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They weren't shooting at you in the Nineties, and the illegal settlements kept being expanded. They weren't rewarded for not shooting at you, and Arafat ended up being stripped of credibility and prestige in the bargain. The lesson your side taught them in that was that nonviolence leads to humiliation and defeat, and does NOT lead to self-determination.
That was what the fetish your country's government makes of "strength" and "toughness" above all else led to. It did NOT lead to peace.
You might think of that sometimes. It's the reason you still HAVE to put on that uniform and pick up your gun.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is that a joke?
"The lesson your side taught them in that was that nonviolence leads to humiliation and defeat"
Hamas? Nonviolence? In the 90s?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hamas was...but at that point, the Israeli government WANTED Hamas to be growing at Fatah's expense. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have kept the settlement construction growing, KNOWING it was totally indefensible and illegal and knowing that all it could do was undermine Oslo and destroy Arafat's street cred.
And we all know what the fixation on bringing down Arafat, damn the human cost, led to.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Why would Israel want to undermine Oslo? They helped create it. If they didn't want Oslo then they could have just not participated in it. Israel had no reason to undermine Arafat, he was already completely marginalized. It was Israel that bolstered him in order to make Oslo happen. Why do all of that just so they could undermine it?
Fatah didn't HAVE to shoot in the 90s BECAUSE Hamas was doing it. The argument arafat made was "oh wow! terrorism! that sucks. Not us though, its those other dudes! sorry!"
BTW, Hamas began ramping up terror in response to Oslo, not settlements. Settlement expansion happened after Hamas started their suicide bomb campaign. They were very vocal about opposing peace. The intifada was more about settlements. But the terror spike in the 90s? That was due to Oslo.
at that point, the Israeli government WANTED Hamas to be growing at Fatah's expense. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have kept the settlement construction growing
You're not proving causation here. Israeli policitcians had a hundred more likely reasons for supporting settlement expansion than because they wanted Hamas to be growing at Fatah's expense. If you want to make that claim then you have to provide real evidence, not just a weak claim that an unrelated action proves it. Israel is a democracy. If that's really what was happening then it will be easy for you to find speeches from Israeli politicians explaining it. Settlement expansion was far too big a project to have a weird, secret conspiracy-type goal. Volumes have been written on it. If your theory has any validity then just point us to the volumes of research supporting it/condemning it as a national policy decision. If not, then consider the question of why you're actually forced to invent data to support your argument.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They were just as bitter enemies then as they are now.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That's an irrelevant point. Whether Arafat's men were directly involved in terrorism, if he was working with Hamas or if he merely turned a blind eye to their efforts, it doesn't matter to me. Here's what we KNOW happened:
More Israelis had been killed by Palestinian terrorists in the 5 years right after the Oslo Accord, than in the 15 years preceding it.
When violence flared up in September 1996, Palestinian police turned their guns on the Israelis in clashes which left 61 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers dead.
In January 2002, the "PA's direct involvement in the Intifada was confirmed ... when the IDF intercepted a cargo ship in the Red Sea carrying tons of rockets, mortars, and other weapons and ammunition from Iran, earmarked for smuggling into PA [Palestinian Authority] areas." In March 2002, just prior to the Arab Peace Initiative, suicide bombings committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians "intensified ... in buses, restaurants, coffee shops, and other public places in Israel."
---
There's no way around it. Arafat was deeply involved in the arming of Palestine to fight the Israelis. He routinely called for Jihad again the Israelis and praised terrorist attacks against them during his arabic speeches. The PA instigated a riot and then allowed its policemen to openly fire on Israeli forces AND civilians. He recruited twice as many police as the rules allowed, giving him his own personal militia 25,000+ strong.
From the Israeli side, all of the redeployments happened, Palestine was given control over their land, people, government, etc., in an unprecedented boon. Money from western and Japanese development orgs started pouring in. And the final score at the Knesset showed Israel firmly in favor of peace through Oslo.
There was settlement expansion, sure. At a greatly decreased rate. None of which was in any way against the terms of the treaty. What do you think, the Palestinians didn't think that Israel might want to expand some of their settlements? It was left out deliberately. It decreased trust amongst average Palestinians, I'm sure. So did the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.
But at the end of the day, Israel made good on all of it's commitments under Oslo while Arafat neglected to fulfill even one before he unnecessarily and unilaterally decided to end peace negotiations in favor of wide-spread violence.
eyl
(2,499 posts)which was one of quite a number sent our way by Palestinian policemen.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that were sent their way by the settlers and/or the IDF. And not all of THOSE bullets were fired with full justification, either.
At the very least, the IDF should forbid active-duty personnel from living in the settlements-allowing them to do that likely creates a dangerous division of loyalties-especially if the Israeli government were ever to try to do what it is morally obligated to do and clear all the settlers out of the West Bank. Allowing active-duty personnel to be settlers creates the conditions for an Israeli civil war-a fact that should greatly concern even those who don't give a damn about the Palestinians, since a settler victory in such a war would probably mean the end of Israel as a democratic country.
shira
(30,109 posts)You did that to make the following point:
That was what the fetish your country's government makes of "strength" and "toughness" above all else led to. It did NOT lead to peace.
You might think of that sometimes. It's the reason you still HAVE to put on that uniform and pick up your gun.
That was all a load of BS, correct? Yes or No?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Fatah pretty much did what the Israelis demanded of it in the Nineties. It wasn't perfect...but it did change and radically.
It condemned violence and rounded up the violent. On balance, Fatah did the best it could.
And all the side YOU defend did was keep saying "not enough! not enough!"
Arafat changed and wasn't rewarded for it.
At the very least, he had a right to expect to be treated as an EQUAL partner in the negotiating process. And that, if the existing settlements weren't removed, then, at least, at the VERY least, that a permanent settlement freeze be put in place, since the settlements were not only illegal but completely unjustified.
You don't think that has a lot to do with the rise of Hamas?
You don't think the continued settlement expansion, which was a humiliation to Arafat, had a lot to do with the rise of Hamas?
It's what happens when people change for the better and aren't rewarded for it. They decide they shouldn't bother changing.
shira
(30,109 posts)All Israel said was 'not enough'."
If that's true, then how do you explain Israel agreeing to the Clinton Parameters? If Fatah was doing the best it could at the time, and Arafat had changed, then why did Fatah/Arafat respond with Intifada 2?
Obviously, Israel changed for the better when it agreed to end the conflict, recognize a Palestinian state, and give up on settlements and the occupation. Fatah and Arafat did not change. So maybe Israel shouldn't bother when after changing for the better, all they were rewarded with was Intifada 2 and a massive international delegitimization campaign.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't defend anybody's violence...but the governments that re-started the settlements KNEW they'd undermine Arafat and knew they'd help Hamas-and these were the DOVISH ones.
Why, at the very least, was there not a permanent settlement freeze? Why weren't the existing settlements, at their 1994 size, ENOUGH?
If you don't want violence...the answer is to not sabotage the people on the other side who are trying to work towards peace. There was no reason at all for any of the Israeli governments to put discrediting and removing Arafat and Fatah at a higher priority than actually ending the war. Everybody in the Israeli leadership knew that forcing Arafat out could only lead to something like Hamas emerging...that there was no way that the siege of Ramallah could ever, under any circumstances, lead to a more moderate leadership. Knowing that, why did they focus on getting rid of him at all?
shira
(30,109 posts)...and Arafat changing while Israel did nothing; that's all bullshit, right?
Cry all you want about settlements, but Israel agreed to end all that in 2000-01. The Palestinians not only rejected without a counter-proposal, but declared war with Intifada 2. It's that side you are defending. If you say you want peace, how could you possibly tolerate what Arafat and Fatah did back then? Instead, you keep making excuses for them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Arafat did change a lot...Fatah was much more moderate...and wasn't rewarded for it.
There was no justification at all for continued settlement construction and continued expropriation of Palestinian land after 1994. All that should have just stopped, forever.
In spite of the fact that it didn't, Fatah did moderate. They became less moderate when, unfortunately, it became clear that it wasn't getting them anywhere. You can't pretend that they didn't try at all.
So, I've established that my post wasn't bullshit and you can kindly stop calling it that.
shira
(30,109 posts)That proves beyond any reasonable doubt they didn't change. That they preferred more conflict and blood to having a state of their own. Settlements and occupation could have ended over a decade ago and you can't muster up enough condemnation for Arafat and Fatah destroying what you allegedly wish for (2 states, peace, end of occupation/settlements).
Remember all those disgusting PMW videos? They were rolling them out in the 1990's too. That's not moderation.
The PA remained extremely relunctant to "Round up the violent". That changed in 1996, because after a series of suicide bombings (which ultimately lost Peres the election and led to Netanyahu's first term as PM) Israel threatened to invade the PA if the latter didn't take action. After some arrests were made, the PA discovered that Hamas was planning against the PA and thus stepped up its efforts.
On the other hand, the PA did remain complicit in anti Israeli activity. Let me give you two examples which I personally witnessed:
1) The first case, from which the abovementioned bullet came from, was the Tunnel Riots. Ostensibly, they were sparked by Israel opening a tunnel undermining Al-Aqsa. This was reported repeatedly in the Palestinian media, including the PA's official news organs, leading to the riots. However, even a cursory fact check would have shown this to be false; the tunnel existed for years, all Israel did in 1996 was unseal the end, and rather than undermining Al-Aqsa one opening is several hundred meaters from the mosques and it heads away from there from there. Given that Arafat had journalists who he published things he didn't like tourtured, it's inconceivable that this was reported without his approval. Furthermore, over the course of the riots armed Palestinian policemen took part in attacks against Israeli outposts (I was stationed in Nahal Elisha at the time, near Jericho; we didn't lose anyone, but two soldiers were wounded and four Palestinians were killed).
2) In 1997 or so, there was a Palestinian wanted for leading terrorist activity against Israel (he was either from Hamas or Islamic Jihad I forget which). The PA repeatedly denied knowing where he was. Eventually, the IDF captured him near Nablus - as he was on the way to the city with a Palestinian police escort. I know about this because the brought him and the Palestinian policemen to the Nablus Territorial Brigade Base, where I happened to be duty sergeant that night - I got tasked with bringing the policement food, so I actually saw them there.
Again these are just two incidents I personally witnessed. There were other incidents where PA personnel took part in attacks against Israel, and even after 1996 the PA's action against militants was...unenthusiastic, let's say.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)of certain groups of Israeli citizens based on the political beliefs that they presumably hold. As determined by where they live.
You feel they may put their ideology above their orders and decide to form an insurrection, putting the entire nation at risk. Ok. Fair enough. After all, even the United States chose to bar its Japanese citizens from combat during WWII for similar reasons. You don't yet advocate that we lock up the families of settlers into camps yet, I recognize that point.
After all, these are our own people. And all we're trying to do is prevent any kind of future schism before it happens! These are good intentions. By identifying those with dangerously different ideas than out own and stripping them of many of their rights and obligations; by literally shutting them out of such a critical Israeli Rite of Honor like serving, not only do we manage to ensure that they'll not be around to gum up the works by questioning orders or resorting to their own flawed ethics; we actually make a whole new class of people, all like them, and just FOR them.
They're still Israelis, and still Jews... but they can't serve in the IDF, so they're NOT like the rest of us. Still, a Jew is a Jew, so they're still not like the Arab Israelis or anything like that. But they're not like the Druze either. After all, the Druze DO serve. Not these guys. These are the guys we can't even trust to let serve, lest they turn on the rest of the nation.
So what JOBS can they do then? Teaching? Writing? Journalism? ...wait a second... Do we want people this untrustworthy teaching our kids their propaganda? Obviously not. But what to do about it.
Perhaps a series of hearings at the Knesset would be in order?
eyl
(2,499 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...anti-Jew, hate rhetoric? It's far worse. Remember those disgusting PMW videos that you didn't have much to say about in the past?
At least Atzmon isn't calling on his minions to blow up places where Jews are. Atzmon doesn't celebrate such acts.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Given the rise of crazier groups than Hamas in Gaza, I think it can fairly be asked...would crushing Hamas actually achieve anything? Wouldn't it simply clear the field for the worst of the berserkers on that side?
You are basically saying that the Palestinians have too many large radical faction to be able to make peace at this point.
It's not as Palestinians have ever been rewarded for moderation or nonviolence
Really? Didn't they get a semi-autonomous democracy when arafat moderated? Isn't the wb better off than gaza now?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)of the Nineties...even the "dovish" ones sabotaged its credibility among rank-and-file(yes, the PA had and has other problems, before you bring that up, but that's not the real point here)by restarting settlement expansion.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Israel acting as though the PA is an equal entity, granting them an essentially endless litany of concessions, ending and evacuating every settlement, and so on, can be interpreted as a punishment that encourages terrorism?
Look, there will always be some reason to say that not enough has been done. There will always be a justification for terrorism if you search for one. You said that Israel never offered Palestinians any incentive to refrain from terrorism. I pointed out a huge one, (and there have been tons in fact.) The stock response is always the same, "Well, THAT incentive just wasn't good enough."
If that is true then the peace process is truly doomed. Concessions are not meant to be a bribe to prevent terror. Peace is not a protection racket. If Israel takes actions that are unmistakable efforts at fostering peace and reconciliation, but the Palestinian response is increased terrorism then it entirely removes any point to Israel ever doing such a thing again. It removes any point in trying for peace at all because if peace is seen by the Palestinians as something that is a commodity that they sell and the Israelis buy then long term peace is unattainable.
You say that the Palestinians need an incentive to make peace. So does Israel. So far the Palestinians have given them no reason to expect peace at any price. Thus any Israeli concession would just be a suckers' bet. It is not Israel's job to entice the Palestinians into refraining from war crimes and terrorism. Is is Palestine's job to show Israel that they are capable of enforcing any peace treaty. That has to come first.
Your argument has always been, "Israeli concessions no matter what. Then maybe peace, we hope." When Israel made concessions in Gaza and the response was rocket fire you said, "Well it wasn't enough! Give them more if you want peace." When Israel responded to terror with force and sanctions you said, "That's causing more terrorism! Give them more concessions." Under this strategy, what is the incentive for peaceful actions by the Palestinians?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 02:44 AM - Edit history (1)
the subject. that i was referring to was and remains a post that makes gross generalizations across the board and reaks of intolerance that accuses a broad, liberal population (for the most part) of being "right wing hate filled people.
that is the subject matter that i was referring to..try address it:
_______________________
And I was speaking of people who are in solidarity with Palestinians...not Hamas
er..hamas is part of the Palestinians and your "solidarity" movement(s) have for the most part includes hamas, as well as the PA....western democracy/progressivness not being part of their program (as pre your post)
___
try to address just those two and only those two: (can u?)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is not "intolerance". Nor is opposition to the settlements(a position you yourself share).
And I didn't even say ALL settlers...I said the extremist wing, specifically excluding those who live there only because they were low-income and it was the only way they could get public housing.
It's the Palestinians who are the main victims in this scenario...not Israelis. Yes, some Israelis have suffered, but Palestinians have suffered far, far more, and a large number of them have done nothing at all to deserve it.
The best way to reduce support for the crazies on the Pal side is to give the non-crazy Pal majority breathing space. Let them have their lives back.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)where are the words: extremist wing, specifically excluding those who live there only because they were low-income and it was the only way they could get public housing
because i sure don't see them? (invisible ink?)
all i read is a broad intolerant swipe at many israelis who (unlike you) see a possibility that kassams, grads and mortars may one day rain down upon their homes, and you calling them "hate driven right wing".
_________________
try again, but this time explain the words you actually used....."hate driven!?"- i would say intolerant still fits, skepticism as per your claim is not driven by obvious "extremist" hate driven words
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The political leadership, under Netanyahu, is significantly hate-based(Netanyahu is also arrogance based, and probably vengeance-based...at some level, he's taking it out on the Palestinians that the Ethiopians killed his brother at Entebbe, even though Palestinians had nothing to do with that and even though that was over thirty years ago). I suppose there could be some other reason, but the missile thing isn't really THAT high in the rankings, I suspect.
A lot of it is based on actual hatred of Palestinians...and by the false idea some(not all)Israelis have that
a)the idea that ALL Palestinians are collectively responsible for the worst acts of the extremists(an assumption that, at one level, is not that much different than the argument some Palestinian extremists made that Israeli civilians were legitimate targets because, in theory, all Israelis have served or will serve in the IDF at some point...an idea all decent people reject, as I shouldn't have to say, but I will say it for the record...)
b)the idea that the West Bank and Gaza should rightfully be part of Israel, consequences and morality be damned(btw, I thank you for personally rejecting THIS vile notion).
I'll accept that some people might by into the fear of missiles(small rockets, actually), but that's not really a credible fear.
The thing is, the missiles were fired by Hamas, and by groups more extreme than Hamas...NOT by Fatah.
And neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad NOR Hezbollah have much support in the West Bank(it's base of support has always been in Gaza)so it's not likely that the rockets would be fired from their in any case.
The best chance of stopping the rockets is for the Israeli government to stop treating Palestinians in ways the drive them towards extreme action.
And to show those people that nonviolent resistance, unlike violent acts, can lead to change. Nonviolence has to be rewarded, has to be shown to be a credible and worthwhile path to liberation.
The WORST way is to maintain the status quo, and to continue to take this arrogant "they KNOW what they have to do to make this stop" attitude towards Palestinians. Only the personally violent Palestinians are responsible for the violence...not those who aren't involved in it themselves. Those not involved in it have no way at all to make the violence stop, and it's time to stop as though they COULD stop it.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)your still claiming that israelis who have a concern are "hate driven" right wingers?
I notice you put in a:
I'll accept that some people might by into the fear of missiles(small rockets, actually), but that's not really a credible fear.
___
so lets clarify: you have the 100% ability to tell the future and if israel does everything you say there is a100% change of not even a "small rocket" being fired from the west bank and landing on some house in jerusalem
100%
____
btw, you psych abilities are pretty fantastic:
at some level, he's taking it out on the Palestinians that the Ethiopians killed his brother at Entebbe,
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've modified it enough...this is tiresome at best and harassment at worst.
You can't seriously claim that EVERYBODY who defends the Occupation does so out of security concerns. That leaves the settler apologists and the "Judea and Samaria" extremists in Bibi's coalition out of the equation, which, realistically, you can't do. Israelis are no more universally driven by legitimate concerns than any other group of people. Some are, some are driven by other motives that are less honorable at best and more reckless at worst-the same as with people in any other country on the planet.
A lot of the time, frankly, it sounds from your posts as if you believe in an Israeli equivalent of "American Exceptionalism". I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the impression you give when you insist that the views and actions of people in YOUR country are always more legitimate than those of people in any other country. Countries that start thinking that way end up going in bad directions...I live in one, and I know. No country can truly privilege its conduct any more than any other country...in the end, most countries have a lot more in common than not, in the end.
As to the missiles...given that it was Hamas, and only groups that were more Hamas-y than Hamas that were doing the missiles, it's not that unreasonable to say that it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll be used in the West Bank an area that Hamas does not now control and(as it is losing popularity even within Gaza)that Hamas is extremely unlikely to control in the future.
Hamas has its hands full trying to control Gaza. You think they wouldn't realize that they'd be hopelessly overextending themselves trying to take over the West Bank as well? You make the mistake the U.S. made in dealing with the Soviets in that regard...you assume that your enemy is not capable of making rational choices.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)YOU made the claim, not me, not anybody else. Now if that particular group was part of the KKK, i would probably agree with you, but that particular political viewpoint is rather complex and has multiple aspects to it, that you apparently have simplified to be a "hate group".
this has nothing to do with any exceptionalism, it has to do with a simplest viewpoint calling a large segment of a population a hate group.
Now, i'm just asking, perhaps you do believe that any israeli that defends the settlements are hateful. If so, please clarify. Just repeat it and were done. Violet below believes they are all "scumbags" thats fine, she has clarified her opinion about most israelis (as far as i know)...what about you?
________
as far as hamas goes and missiles, you might note that when hamas says "stop" they all stop. (i.e. guess who controls them? DUH!!!)
you assume that your enemy is not capable of making rational choices.
actually i assume hamas and friends are intelligent, rational, goal oriented and know how to use their resources very well, starting with the western left who assumes they are a bunch of idiotes and they need an apology to feel good about themselves. The concept of hamas taking over gaza by the western left was not considered likely...before they did it, just as you believe the cannot take over the west bank, (just as the left is surprised that the muslim brotherhood and friends now have egypt, or that shari law is becoming the base for Lybia or tunisan ...the western left, lives in La La land, when it comes to understanding the middle east- i believe the mantra is that its part of the process to western democracy...ask the mullahs in iran how that works).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hamas was observing the ceasefire...it was the non-Hamas groups launching the missiles(speaking of the confrontation of last weekend).
Hamas was being denounced in Gaza for obeying "that humiliating hudna"
as the ultra-crazies called it).
What that tells us is that Hamas is losing control in Gaza, as Fatah was losing it in the Nineties when Israel sabotaged its credibility and prestige by continuing to expand settlements during the "peace process". That sabotage led to the rise of Hamas. God knows what the decline of Hamas could lead to.
Can anybody really argue that negotiating with the PLO in the Eighties could possibly have led to anything worse than the current situation? At that point, the PLO still had the ultimate credibility and was still capable of making a non-humiliating deal stick. Instead, the leaders of the government whose battles you have fought so many times decided to play weird, cynical power games by building up the Islamists as a "counterweight to the PLO".
That decision sent many of your comrades-in-arms to their deaths.
It's the politicians of your country you should be enraged about...not MY choice of words.
I want peace and justice for all...I want people like you to stop having to put on a uniform, and to stop lying awake at night knowing your kids will have to do the same...your country's leaders just want to "win"...no matter whether "winning" is actually worth a damn.
They are the ones you should be badgering. Not me. I'm not capable of doing anything that will cause you any harm.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Did you even bother to read the post Ken replied to? What about those gross ugly generalisations? Or are some acceptable as long as they're aimed at Palestinians and their supporters? Because that's what it looks like from here...
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and that is the single thing i am questioning...no matter how many times ken wants to avoid it....he is claiming that everyone who has concerns about about the west bank and missiles is hate driven.
i don't care if he believes it or not, i would like it clarified, thats all.
(i have no intention of balancing anything with anything)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)...and only getting 'offended' about generalisations that suit yr purpose. That's displaying a blatant double standard, imo...
btw, there's a difference between what Ken said and what yr now trying to claim he said. He talked about the people who defend the Occupation, and you turned it into 'everyone who has concerns about the west bank and missiles.'
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i'm just quoting him.....
and many many many many people defend the occupation because of concerns for missiles and other aspects and are not hate driven nor right wingers.
Ken perhaps believes this, or not, he can clarify......
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And bullshit. Yr not quoting him at all. Yr taking something he said and turning it into something else...
Guess what? People who support and defend the occupation are scumbags. Whether they're proudly RW or hide behind the guise of calling themselves leftists doesn't worry me. They're every bit as bad as those who support and defend the likes of Hamas and their goals...
pelsar
(12,283 posts)its his quote and i'm asking him.....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've made it clear that I did NOT include "everybody who has concerns". I was talking about the political leaders of the pro-Occupation and pro-settlement movement and their most zealous followers.
I've now put this to rest and proved, once again, that I am not a bigot. Can you PLEASE just accept that, once and for all, and stop doing these "interrogation" subthreads? It serves no purpose when you do that.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)to make a claim that all israelis who defend the settlements are hate driven is a bigoted sentence...and now i shall explain to what (if your not a bigot) you do not know: (Voilet just calls them scumbags which is an opinion of hers on their opinion, not on their personal mindset, there is a difference.)
Most israelis defend the settlements.... if you want to call most israelis hate driven, be my guest, what you don't know is this:
most israelis are well read, we see that hamas took over the gaza, both via vote and guns, we see that assad is fighting for his political life by massacring his own, we see that with mubarak gone, egypt is now in the hands of the muslim brotherhood (not a democratic movement, hizballa owns S. Lebanon, etc. The lesson here is that dictatorships are not stable environments and israel is surrounded by such entities (s. lebonon is a weak govt). The PA is not a western democratic govt, is not progressive, is not left, disavows western values....this is not even an interpretation, this is what they have declared. (do you dispute this?)
We also see that the west can do little, and the "progressive" is more concerned with the "proper govt (i.e. based on genes/racism) than actual stability and civil rights within this region.
Now I'm familiar with the theory that states all of these events are simply milestones on the way to democracy. However, for those who adhear to this theory and the many deaths that are caused on the way, it explains the acceptance of the violence that his happening internally to those countries. However a PA revolution, etc will have a direct affect upon us, we will get part of that violence and we will not sit on our hands while we are attacked while the PA dictatorship makes its way to the western democracy...Hamas as i understand is also under this transformation (as in Iran for the past 30 years) and shoots at us when need be. This "transformation process, is full of violence and not always successful)
so yes we have concerns and your 'belittling" of those concerns cries of massive ignorence or living in a fantasy. However, i do understand why you belittle then:
because you don't have answer to them: if the PA's dictatorship gets its independence, and some group via the PA (we don't buy the "its not us, its them routine) starts shooting at us...
you don't have a realistic answer for us other than do the WWII act of sit and pray we don't get killed, and that is the failure of your viewpoint. Since you do not have answers for real events that may happen, you dismiss them as "impossible". (easy way out....). The UN as in the UN in Lebanon, can do little to stop a rocket/attack from gaza or the PA, that should be obvious by now, just look at the UN's history in such conflcts.
_____
I believe you in fact are a bigot in that you believe people should be ruled by people of select genes, even if that rule is far worse than the previous:
I would expect you prefer
irans mullahs and their theocratic dictatorship to the shah
zimbabwas failed murderous state to Rhodesias apartheid
you will note that both of those examples have had many many killed after their revolution and are by no means "democratic." And its clear those are considered internal matters hence the UN stays away.
You will note, that I have not given my opinion, i'm just noting that people can be killed and its 'acceptable" because its the "right" dictatorship doing the killing and if that is the result for the PA , as is the present govt in gaza, that is in fact acceptable to you as the better govt than the Israeli occupation.
correct?
(and yes its is a real possibility, so don't dismiss it)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's not bigotry to speak in generalities about a group of people who simply share an opinion.
When you use the kind of tactics you just deployed on me...your intent is clear...you are trying to stop the discussion and chill the climate for debate by unjustly demonizing as bigots people whose only real "crime" is disagreeing with your view as an individual. You aren't entitled to do that. And there's no reason your view on the matter should be privileged and given special deference. You don't even speak for all Israelis. I've said nothing that Uri Avnery hasn't said, in one way or another(and he goes a lot further...comparing the current political trajectory in your country to the rise of militarism in 19th Century Prussia...something I would never say, by the way...)
A lot of Israelis and international supporters of Israel oppose the settlement project(a program that is illegal, as we both know) and see the same thing I do...that the settlements actually endanger Israeli security by driving Palestinians, out of rage and desperation, into support of more extreme choices. The settlements have also bred a new generation of territorial expansionist whackjobs who are gaining great influence in Israeli politics. Please tell me that at least THAT bothers you...it should, since it puts the lives of you and your fellow soldiers at risk.
And a lot(not a majority at this point, but a growing number that I think will grow larger)at least have doubts about whether the Occupation itself, or at least the way it is currently carried out, really protects Israeli security. How can continued land confiscation and the continuation of such disgusting practices as the unjustified destruction of the ancient olive groves NOT have such effect? How can making a people live with relentless provocation on a daily basis NOT be destabilizing? How can it NOT be a boon for the extremists? Do you not see how preserving the status quo actually CAUSES the things it is supposed to prevent?
The ultimate guarantee of the security of Israel is to create a situation in which Palestinians do NOT feel that the only chance they have to free themselves of the Occupation(which is a repressive situation, as all Occupations anywhere are and grows less and less magnanimous, as all extended Occupations end up doing everywhere)is to support groups like Hamas or the Al-Aksa Martyrs or those even more extreme than those groups.
Give them some reason to feel that nonviolence(a path many Palestinian resisters choose anyway)will actually lead to real gains for them, and you'd see more and more Palestinians embrace it. It's not as if they choose violence out of some genetically pre-programmed form of bloodlust or anything. They are human beings, and human beings behave more humanely when they are rewarded for it, and less so when they end up not being rewarded, or even punished(as, for example, many-though not all-of the black majority in South Africa threw their lot in with the armed struggle after the South African government massacred innocent nonviolent protesters at Sharpeville and as a large sector of the Nationalist population of Northern Ireland gave their backing for a long time to the Provisional IRA after the British Army massacre of nonviolent protesters in Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972.
And it's not fair to use the conduct of OTHER Arab states as a justification for denying Palestinians the natural right to self-determination. Palestinians are not responsible for what any other Arab people or states do, and its certainly bigotry to assume that they would act the same with self-determination simply because they happen to be Arab. It is, in fact, much more deeply bigoted to believe that than to post the line that I posted, because I wasn't speaking of all Jewish people, or even all Israelis, in what I said.
Finally, you said that I believed that Palestinians should be governed only by people with "the same genes" as they are.
You do realize that that is, more or less, some people who oppose a unitary state(and I don't support a unitary state at this point, for the record)say the same thing about Israelis? They argue that Palestinian Arabs cannot be trusted not to butcher all those who self-identify as Israeli(other than Israeli Arabs). Are not those who say a vile, bigoted and insanely inflammatory thing like that arguing that Israelis should only be governed by those with "the same genes", or at least the same cultural/religious identity?
Isn't it time to stop generalizing about EITHER side in this?
Isn't it just as wrong to generalize about Palestinians as about Israelis?
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That's so absurd. Pelsar has spent countless hours on this site debating various posters over a period of years and I rarely see him use language like this. He clearly enjoys debating and has a pretty high threshold for tolerating POVs that differ from his own. His characterization of you as a bigot centers on your tendency to make simplistic, wholesale statements about entire groups of people; usually about their motivations, what they think, etc. You are accused of bigotry because of this quality, not because pelsar disagrees with your analysis.
Give them some reason to feel that nonviolence(a path many Palestinian resisters choose anyway)will actually lead to real gains for them, and you'd see more and more Palestinians embrace it. It's not as if they choose violence out of some genetically pre-programmed form of bloodlust or anything. They are human beings, and human beings behave more humanely when they are rewarded for it, and less so when they end up not being rewarded, or even punished
This is a gross simplification. You assume that all Palestinians have a shared goal when in fact what you might perceive as a gain would really be a loss, depending on where you stand. For instance, would a viable Palestinian state and a strong peace treaty be a gain for the Palestinians? Most of them, sure. For Hamas? Not at all, that would be a disaster for them and any other extremist group. That would theoretically lead them to respond to opportunities for peace with increased violence, which is exactly what they have always done.
There are multiple motivators for violence, many of which can be manipulated through rhetoric and are outside of Israel's control. If your theory had any truth to it then the data would support it. But time and time again we see that increased sovereignty and self-determination have brought less peace and security for Israel. In truth, your suggestions do not even relate to your theory anyway. Your answer to violence from extremists is to pressure Israel to grant greater freedom, reduce settlements and reduce police activity inside the OPT. But this would be rewarding violence, not humanity. When Israel made a concession by leaving Gaza the Palestinians responded by voting for Hamas and increasing terrorism. The opposite of humanity. So according to your theory Israel should have responded by punishing them, which is what they did. Yet your prescription was, and still is, the exact opposite. To grant rewards regardless of Palestinian actions.
Palestinians are not responsible for what any other Arab people or states do, and its certainly bigotry to assume that they would act the same with self-determination simply because they happen to be Arab.
Who said that this fear is based on the fact that Palestinians are Arab? It's based on the fact that the Palestinians have already acted this way in the past and present. And because their leaders have publicly said that it is how they will act in the future. The Palestinians have consistently governed using fear, violence and repressive tactics whenever they have had the opportunity to govern or lead. What in the world makes you think they will have a democratic society?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)yes many oppose the settlement project...but not the occupation
gaza is why.....and you don't have an answer why hamas and friends keep on (almost daily) keep trying to murder us. Yes in case you didn't know that eastern fence of gaza and israel is a low level war zone...and yes hamas does control the occasional mortar, sniper fire and bomb laying attempts.
it can't because of an "humiliation" since the only checkpoints that exist are hamas checkpoints. It can't because they don't have freedom of movement since they are not attacking egypt, its not because of lack of materials, since they have two brand new 5 start hotels...
it can't be because of the settlements, israel fulfilled the "mantra of the left" that: its must do the big thing, must break the cycle, must show "good will"
..whats left, why are they trying to kill us? why do they even attack the goods entry points and stop when hamas says stop?
well?
The settlements have also bred a new generation of territorial expansionist whackjobs who are gaining great influence in Israeli politics. Please tell me that at least THAT bothers you...it should, since it puts the lives of you and your fellow soldiers at risk.
yes sharons "grab the hilltops" help create even more fanatics, and these have attacked, Palestenians and the IDF. I do believe they are probably the worst thing creation that israeli society has created, a wild youth with religious fanaticism that borders on hamas mentality. So yes it bothers me....but kassams and grads on major cities, or me and other having to enter the west bank as the IDF did in gaza bothers me more. So in the meantime we're stuck with those scumbags.
tell me when you have a solution for us with a PA dictatorship that either follows the gaza example, Lebanon example, syrian example, egyptian example.....they've already dumped western democratic values as per their own laws and actions (just do the research).....you do know this correct?
and if not, while they go through this road to democracy (irans road trip is over 30+ years and not going very fast are they....) and use us as their punching bag, are we supposed to just take it?
btw...how good at you at reading the future?...
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Ignoring the nasty generalisations in post #3 and then moving on swiftly to misrepresent what someone else said and accusing them of making nasty generalisations is a clear case of turning a blind eye to something yr complaining about if it's done by a pro-Israeli..
Here's an idea. Show some consistency and don't let things slide just because they're done by pro-Israeli types, and when you say yr quoting someone actually copy and paste exactly what they said, and don't just make up something else...
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i thought the "look over there" they are doing it too" was not considered an excuse. When Israel is "singled out" is it not "forbidden to say" but but but some one else is doing it too and much worse?
Hence, there is no concern if someone else is doing something similar, i'm sticking with the local standards...and was asking ken to explain his own words.
as far as a misrepresentation, i first quoted just part, but do believe i got the core of it
defend the West Bank Occupation, which is right-wing and hate-driven.
the complete sentence has the words movement to defend, which is pretty much most of the israeli population these days, hence i don't believe it negates the part i took, but to be sure in #22 i took the complete quote:
As opposed to the movement to defend the West Bank Occupation, which is right-wing and hate-driven.
nothing there to get confused about or misrepresent, its stands strongly on its own as a complete sentence, its irrelevant who or what he is replying to, one is responsible for ones owns words, no matter what someone elses says.
He did i believe further explain his definition of "movement" later to be "leaders of the settlements (something similar), though he never did get to the "hate driven part.
_______
Consistency is not a part of this forum: i've been here long enough to read partial truths, manipulated facts, ignored facts, outright lying, and only in the extreme cases does one "cross the line" to defend the other. (as per your rejecting the genocide claim). But what is most interesting of all, that when one is shown to be wrong, there is no admittance....an that is a shame.....
I sincerely believe that though Ken has a good heart and means well, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...i believe that fits kens viewpoint, but thats no excuse...as this is not "oz"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You couldn't find a kosher/halal animal to choose for that?
(sorry...it was there...)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is driven by "pure, unadulterated hate"...and it's especially a lie to say that all are driven by antisemitism.
Most are driven by a sense of sincere, honest solidarity with an oppressed people...the same thing that drove people to back Zionism decades ago when it was still a progressive, humanist cause...why do you find it so difficult to accept that?
(yes, there are those who have other motivations, but those who don't have them aren't responsible for the acts of those who do).
When you invoke "hate"...you set up an impossible standard...you are essentially saying that the ONLY way people can prove they aren't "antisemites" is to defend anything and everything the Israeli government does to Palestinians under the rubrics of "self-defense" or "security". You are further demanding, in effect, that we must denounce anybody on the Palestinian side you happen to want denounced upon command, and that we withhold any support of any change in the conditions Palestinians are subjected to unless and until their "leadership" ends up meeting YOUR approval(I.E., ends up accepting whatever humiliating and inadequate terms Bibi imposes on them).
This is simply too much to demand. It is not reasonable to demand that we prove we don't have ONE people by defending the continued oppression of another until the side you defend in this conflict decides that the oppression can stop.
Your position on all this goes outside and beyond the reasonable parameters of democratic debate.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #41)
shira This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)There are some decent people in it who have very good intentions. WRT antisemitism, they either don't get it or they don't care. They're uncomfortable speaking about it and wish that those who bring it up would just STFU. But they believe being in the movement is the right thing to do, regardless. Two states no matter the consequences.
I don't expect to ever again see you write that I believe everyone in the movement is driven by antisemitism.
When you invoke "hate"...you set up an impossible standard...you are essentially saying that the ONLY way people can prove they aren't "antisemites" is to defend anything and everything the Israeli government does to Palestinians under the rubrics of "self-defense" or "security".
I'm not saying they need to defend everything the GOI does. They don't. It's the opposite. They oppose everything the GOI does in self-defense, leading me to believe they don't think Israel has any right to defend itself. There's recent proof of that in the following link, in which a very popular person in the movement said recently Israel has no right to live in security:
http://972mag.com/watch-hanin-zoabi-israel-has-no-right-to-live-in-security/36847/
Zoabi is and will still remain popular in the movement. The reason the movement won't condemn her is that the vast majority agrees with her.
You are further demanding, in effect, that we must denounce anybody on the Palestinian side you happen to want denounced upon command, and that we withhold any support of any change in the conditions Palestinians are subjected to unless and until their "leadership" ends up meeting YOUR approval(I.E., ends up accepting whatever humiliating and inadequate terms Bibi imposes on them).
I demand that anti-racist progressives act like anti-racist progressives. That they don't defend jew haters like Atzmon and Helen Thomas, whose only sins were that they were too blatantly anti-semitic. Atzmon and Thomas violated the anti-zionist ground rules. They were supposed to hide their hate behind clever euphemisms.
And please don't bring up the "conditions Palestinians are subjected to". The movement doesn't care about Palestinians unless those Palestinians are alleged victims of Israel.
I'm also saying that getting rid of Atzmon isn't even the tip of the iceberg. You've seen some of those disgusting PMW videos of Palestinian leaders who promote and reward the murder of Jews. The movement pretends they don't exist. They ignore, excuse, and explain all that away. So I'm supposed to believe such a movement is progressive?
This is simply too much to demand.
You're misrepresenting what I demand.
It's too much to demand that your opponents should see the movement as enlightened and progressive when it's demonstrably the opposite. A movement that works side by side with the monsters in those PMW videos, defending them and promoting their 1-state nightmare, is rotten to the core.
A movement that works alongside open supporters of Hamas & Fatah rather than work in defiance of Hamas & Fatah in order to bring progressive values to the WB and Gaza is not progressive. A movement that describes gay rights in Israel as pinkwashing while ignoring gay rights in the territories is not a progressive movement.
Advocating and demanding progressive values in the territories is a progressive value. The movement is not interested in that. In fact, if the Palestinian state the movement is promoting operates in the future as Gaza does now, the movement will not oppose it no matter how much the Palestinians they 'support' suffer within it. Such a movement is rotten to the core.
It is not reasonable to demand that we prove we don't have ONE people by defending the continued oppression of another until the side you defend in this conflict decides that the oppression can stop.
The movement is not about addressing the oppression of Palestinians as the movement doesn't care about Palestinians.
Your position on all this goes outside and beyond the reasonable parameters of democratic debate.
If you're interested in a debate, then you should try to address what's written above rather than throw out strawman arguments like you just did.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And even the Palestinians don't have any use for him. Can we agree that this should be the end of any invocation of this deluded slimebag against people who AREN'T like him but are simply critics of the way the Israeli government treats Palestinians?
not holding my breath...but that's what SHOULD happen now...
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Atzmon, from what i've read is generally in line with hamas, hizballa, islamic jihad, muslim brotherhood within the general framework of jews and zionism. (except for the bombings, he seems to be firmly, 'no excuse' against them).
the US Palestinian Community Network and Electronic Intifada are not about to disavow hamas and friends, who are actually for the violence, so this appears to be more about PR than anything else.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)1. Those who support self-determination for the Palestinian people and don't stereotype them as potential terrorists etc are a bunch of individuals with widely diverging views, despite the attempts of some to stereotype them and pretend they all think exactly the same. What someone like Atzmon, who I've only ever heard of from reading the hysterical rants in this forum in the past, believes isn't my responsibility, any more than what some Kahanist thinks isn't yr responsibility.
2. Violence. You continually condemn violence from Palestinians, yet approve of it when it's done by Israel. Don't go condemning others just because they're doing the same thing as you do but cheering on a different 'team'...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i differentiate between aiming at a 5yr old and pulling the trigger, vs shooting at a person carrying a bomb that then blows up and kills the 5 year old as well.
_____
in the world of western courts i believe they recognize the difference....in my world of moral values, there is also a difference. Hence i will always condemn those that target innocents no matter what team they are on.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)See, Israel's responsible for the deaths of more than a few Palestinian children, but I never see anyone condemning the violence that leads to that. It's always the Palestinians who are supposed to be totally nonviolent, while Israel gets to be as violent as it wants...
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Anytime Israel engages in violence that falls outside of the parameters of legal warfare it is roundly criticized.
Sabra and Shatila? Baruch Goldstein? Deir Yassin? All widely condemned.
The difference is that this happens much less frequently than Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians. It has been a feature of the conflict that the Palestinians have always made a point to target Israeli civilians. It is not even that there is no distinction made between soldier and civilian, there is. Very much so. And it is the most vulnerable civilians that are selected as targets as a matter of strategy. This stands in contrast to the IDF practice of trying to limit civilian casualties while limiting the fighting to militants.
Of course the Palestinians are supposed to be totally nonviolent! They must either field an army and follow the rules of war to the best of their ability or they are to refrain from fighting. They are not supposed to fight while dressed like civilians, (even worse, as women), hide amongst civilians, target Israeli civilians, use red cross vehicles to transport weapons, attack Israeli trucks as they deliver humanitarian aid to Palestinians, massacre Israeli soldiers who had surrendered, and so on.
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #54)
pelsar This message was self-deleted by its author.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i find little value in writing it out. i condemn the morality behind the attacks.
i expect the fanatic settlers to be violent, attack civilians and don't defend their values
i expect hamas and friends to be violent attack civilians and don't defend their values.
i expect the IDF to be violent, believe they limit their attacks to military targets (as per the zillion briefings i have been in) and I understand judgements based on limited information and a hierarchy of values designed to protect ones own...
It doesn't make their decisions always right, but it does put them in proper moral plane and i can expect nothing less.
___________________
The Palestinians societies, can do what they want....they have had a choice to make and always have...to use violence or not. First they chose violence, that didn't work, now their attempting a mixed bag of sometimes violence sometimes not..thats not going to work because its very confusing and the IDF soldiers are going to have to assume the worse to protect themselves. You don't wait until the "rock" has landed to discover its a grenade.
the fotilia was as good example of that mixed bag of some violence and some "non violence." and it resulted in deaths.
If they as a society chose non violence they had better stick to it religiously, its their best bet and i wish them luck..but attempting to mix the two is a bad idea, a losing bet, since a confused solider is a very very dangerous thing to have.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Ali Abunimah & Co tend to present themselves as advocates of “One Democratic State in Palestine.” This leaves me puzzled: what kind of democracy do they have in mind, exactly? For by calling for my “disavowal,” they prove beyond a doubt that they cannot tolerate even some elementary cultural criticism—criticism that is endorsed and praised by some of the most respected thinkers within our movement and beyond.
In fact, I am pretty delighted with the outraged reactions to my thoughts. I guess it enables us to map the discourse and its boundaries—and means that those boundaries are now official. Not only has my latest book, The Wandering Who?, rocked the boat, but it also has managed to unite Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman with Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal. That is pretty encouraging: it means that peace may prevail after all.
However, I also have some bad news for my would-be silencers, Palestinian and Jewish alike. I do not have any plans to slow down or drift away. I am a jazz musician and an independent thinker. I am basically a free agent—I say what I think and think what I say. The popularity of my writing among Palestinians, solidarity activists and truth seekers is the direct outcome of my sincere approach to the subject matter.
http://www.countercurrents.org/gilad150312.htm
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Ali Abunimah, Abe Foxman, Max Blumenthal, and Alan Dershowitz then bravo
however we know this is just Atzmon's whining, this episode must be quite embarrassing for him. As to his 'popularity' among Palestinians we'll see time will tell, but the Palestinians he was most 'popular' with may just have disowned him.
In the future Atzmon should busy his mouth and hands with his sax and leave political/ethnic/religious ramblings alone, lest they ruin his music career.
Response to oberliner (Reply #32)
Post removed
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What an odd descriptor.
Formerly Israeli or formerly Jewish?
And to what end?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)perhaps something lost in 'translation'?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)so the term is actually quite valid.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Whether one can be a former Jew is highly open to debate, but I suppose he would like to regard himself that way.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)He seemed to be pretty genuine about his support for Palestinians. But now I wonder.....has he been losing his mind?
(Guy is a decent jazz musician, though, from what I've heard).
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His story is, at the very least, an extreme example of what therapists call "attention-seeking behavior".