[Peace-discuss] Re: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 60, Issue 91
Joseph Parnarauskis
parnarauskis at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jan 13 18:50:25 CST 2009
Friends,
Surely you see the bankrupt policy of Obama, the Democratic Party et all. Here comes the "New Boss same as the Old Boss". Only the Socialist Equality Party leads the Revolution. Join us.-------Joe
The New York Times and the Gaza crisis: Israeli war propaganda in the guise of news
By Tom Eley
13 January 2009
The New York Times is the leading media organ of US liberalism and is closely aligned to the Democratic Party. In recent days it has planted a series of propaganda pieces disguised as news articles, which aim to justify Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.
These articles appear in the context of worldwide revulsion at the criminal methods Israel is using in the densely populated Gaza strip, home to 1.4 million people. So far, more than 900 Palestinians have been killed, about half of them civilians, and thousands more have been wounded in an Israeli air, sea and ground assault that is utilizing advanced weapons supplied by the United States against a virtually defenseless population.
On January 9, the New York Times published a brief article on its front page, “Fighter Sees His Paradise in Gaza’s Pain,” written by Taghreed El-Khodary, reporting from Gaza. The article describes a horrific scene of suffering and death in the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. But it focuses on a wounded fighter for Islamic Jihad, who is depicted as welcoming the killing of Palestinian civilians as a form of martyrdom and a boon to his organization’s aims. According to El-Khodary, this shows “the way ordinary people are squeezed between suicidal fighters and a military behemoth.”
What cynicism! The article feigns sympathy for the Palestinian victims of Israeli mass murder in order to suggest that any resistance to the perpetrators is illegitimate.
The population of Gaza is not being “squeezed” between Israel and those who are fighting its onslaught. As more and more evidence makes clear, the Palestinians are the target—not the “collateral damage”—of a campaign of bloodletting and collective punishment designed to terrorize the population.
In a January 11 article by Steven Erlanger entitled “A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery,” the Times offers a more elaborate defense of the war crimes Israel has already perpetrated—and others that will follow.
The article’s first full paragraph lays out the argument: “Hamas, with training from Iran and Hezbollah, has used the last two years to turn Gaza into a deadly maze of tunnels, booby traps and sophisticated roadside bombs. Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership’s war room is a bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital, Israeli intelligence officials say.” (Emphasis added.)
The Times serves up, as if it were uncontestable fact, Israel’s unsubstantiated claims that the “mosques, schoolyards, and civilian houses” which it continues to destroy—killing hundreds of civilians in the process—double as weapons stores, and therefore deserve to be destroyed, civilian casualties notwithstanding.
Even were Israel’s assertions of weapons stores true, from the standpoint of international law, not to mention an elementary respect for human life, this would not justify the deliberate bombing of civilian targets. Where, in any case, are the Palestinians supposed to place their weapons? Perhaps Erlanger thinks they should be stored in a clearly labeled warehouse. Or, more to the point, that the Palestinians should be totally and permanently disarmed.
Erlanger’s claim that the Gaza leadership is hiding in a “bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital” is especially chilling. He is all but justifying, a priori, the bombing of the hospital, where the maimed and dying are receiving desperately inadequate care due to Israel’s blockade and its targeting of ambulances, medical supplies and personnel. Do Erlanger’s unnamed sources in “Israeli intelligence” already have plans to destroy the hospital?
The article similarly presents as fact Israeli claims that Hamas has “training from Iran and Hezbollah.” The newspaper chooses not to point out that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) possess some of the most deadly military hardware in the world, courtesy of $3 billion in annual funding from Washington.
Erlanger then notes that Hamas militants are “unwilling to … come into the open” and are “fighting in civilian clothes; even the police have been ordered to take off their uniforms.”
Here the implicit argument is that the IDF’s killing of civilians, as well as its mass arrest of the male portion of the Palestinian population, to which Erlanger refers in passing, is justified because Palestinian fighters do not don uniforms and present themselves to the Israelis to be executed. Once again, the author fails to note that in the first hours of the Israeli attack, all Gazans wearing the uniforms of police or security personnel were targeted by missiles and bombs.
To bolster the Israeli lie that Hamas is responsible for the mounting toll of death and destruction in Gaza because it uses civilians as “human shields,” Erlanger cites “an Israeli journalist embedded with Israeli troops” to claim that “in one apartment building in Zeitoun, in northern Gaza, Hamas set an inventive, deadly trap,” placing “a mannequin in the hallway off the building’s main entrance.” He continues: “They hoped to draw fire from Israeli soldiers who might, through the blur of night vision goggles and split-second decisions, mistake the figure for a fighter. The mannequin was rigged to explode and bring down the building.”
Leaving aside the credibility of Erlanger’s source, what is the implication of this tale? Clearly, that Hamas is deliberately luring Israeli soldiers into blowing up apartment buildings and unwittingly causing civilian casualties.
The author then identifies the Israeli journalist as Ron Ben-Yishai, “a senior military correspondent for the newspaper Yediot Aharonot.” Erlanger does not let on that Ron Ben-Yishai is a right-wing journalist with longstanding ties to the IDF and the Likud Party.
The author’s choice of Zeitoun is no accident. In the neighborhood south of Gaza City, the IDF rounded up an extended family, forced it into a building at gun point and fired missiles on the building, killing at least 70 people—all civilians, mostly women and children. Then, for four days, the Israelis refused to allow the International Red Cross access to the neighborhood and stood by, offering no assistance to the dying. As aid workers finally made their way to the neighborhood during Israel’s three-hour pause in bombardment, they found unspeakable scenes of human suffering, including four young children, half-dead, clinging to the corpses of their mothers (see: Gaza: The massacre in Zeitoun)
Erlanger continues: “Israeli officials say that they are obeying the rules of war and trying hard not to hurt noncombatants but that Hamas is using civilians as human shields in the expectation that Israel will try to avoid killing them.
“Israeli press officers call the tactics of Hamas cynical, illegal and inhumane; even Israel’s critics agree that Hamas’s regular use of rockets to fire at civilians in Israel, and its use of civilians as shields in Gaza, are also violations of the rules of war.”
In reference to the now infamous IDF bombing of a schoolhouse and UN refuge in Jabalya, which killed more than 40 people, Erlanger writes: “The Israelis said they returned fire in response to mortar shells fired at Israeli troops [claims that have been rejected outright by the UN and other observers]. Such an action is legal…”
He goes on to hedge somewhat his legal brief for this particular war crime, adding that “there are questions about whether the force used was proportional under the laws of war, given the danger to noncombatants.” In fact, under international law, what the IDF did would be a crime even if its story about mortar shells were true, because such a grossly disproportionate response is illegal.
On the same day as Erlanger’s article, the Times’ public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote a column citing complaints of biased reporting from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian readers. Noting in passing, without comment or criticism, Israeli censorship of the war, including a total ban on reporters entering Gaza, he concluded with a complacent and self-satisfied: “The Times … has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job—and has largely succeeded.”
The New York Times’ dishonest and cynical defense of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza is a measure of its own moral and political degeneration and that of US liberalism as a whole. It underscores the complicity of the entire American media, liberal and conservative, in war crimes.
--- On Tue, 1/13/09, peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net <peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
From: peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net <peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 60, Issue 91
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 3:04 PM
Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says (Bob Illyes)
2. Re: USA takes orders from Israel (C. G. Estabrook)
3. Re: The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says (Bob Illyes)
4. RE: Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism (LAURIE SOLOMON)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:01:05 -0600
From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20090113115947.02c23de8 at express.cites.uiuc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Pardon my typo. "hypothetical beings if pure reason" should read
"hypothetical beings of pure reason".
Bob
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:02:24 -0600
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] USA takes orders from Israel
To: Randall Cotton <recotton at earthlink.net>
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Message-ID: <496CD730.1010104 at uiuc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
He may have made the call, but I don't think it made much difference. (The
White House says that Olmert's account was "inaccurate.") Cf.
the liberal
Haaretz' account (below) to the right-wing Jerusalem Post article.
In any case, the engagement between two flaky lame-duck executives did
precisely
nothing to change the settled policy of either government. (And it may be that
Rice et al. [Sarkozy?] was trying to do that.)
There are faction-fights within the USG, but it approved and supports the
massacre and makes sure that the UN does nothing effective. --CGE
======
Last update - 10:27 11/01/2009
Israel disappointed by UN resolution that avoids key demands on Gaza
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
...a delegation sent to New York, including eight Arab foreign ministers
working
in coordination with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, applied
diplomatic pressure on the U.S., France and the U.K. to draft their own
proposal
calling on combatants to end the fighting. At a certain stage Livni was
considering traveling to New York in a bid to counter the Arab diplomats'
initiative, but after consulting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert the idea was
abandoned because they said they did not want to give credence to the Security
Council's decision.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Olmert that if Israel accepts a
temporary cease-fire it would help the U.S. defer the Security Council's
decision. The prime minister's response to her suggestion was negative.
For many days Israel managed to thwart the passing of the resolution, but on
Thursday the U.S. passed a message to Jerusalem saying it could not continue to
remain passive and would draft a proposal together with the U.K. and France.
Rice also specifically told Israel the U.S. would not use its veto power. Livni
then delivered Israel's list of demands for a cease-fire to the U.S.,
asking for
the cessation of arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza, placing responsibility for
the outbreak of hostilities on Hamas, asking for Shalit's release and
dropping
demands that the IDF withdraws from the Gaza Strip.
Israel received word late Thursday night that the vote may be postponed by a
day
based on a promise by Sarkozy to delay it if Israel agrees to the joint
French-Egyptian cease-fire proposal.
However, shortly afterward, France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner
ignored
Sarkozy's request to delay the vote and presented it to the council a few
hours
later. After the decision was passed, Israel said it rejected the Security
Council's proposal, saying it was not practical and accusing Palestinians
of
violating its conditions.
Randall Cotton wrote:
> Bravado? Are you suggesting, Carl, that Olmert is fabricating this quite
> detailed storyline about how he single-handedly induced the President,
> mid-lecture in Philadelphia, to overrule Rice and sabotage the
> effectiveness of the UN cease-fire resolution (allowing Israel to more
> easily dismiss it)? You disregard this too easily, I think. Here's
another
> account:
>
> ***
>
> The Security Council resolution passed on Friday calling for an immediate
> cease-fire in Gaza was a source of embarrassment for US Secretary of State
> Condoleezza Rice, who helped prepare it but ultimately was ordered to back
> down from voting for it and abstain, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said
> Monday.
>
> Rice did not end up voting for Resolution 1860, thanks to a phone
> conversation Olmert held with US President George Bush shortly before the
> vote, the prime minister told a meeting of local authority heads in
> Ashkelon as part of a visit to the South.
>
> Upon receiving word that the US was planning to vote in favor of the
> resolution - viewed by Israel as impractical and failing to address its
> security concerns - Olmert demanded to get Bush on the phone, and refused
> to back down after being told that the president was delivering a lecture
> in Philadelphia. Bush interrupted his lecture to answer Olmert's call,
the
> premier said.
> America could not vote in favor of such a resolution, Olmert told Bush.
> Soon afterwards, Rice abstained when votes were counted at the UN.
>
>
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
>
> R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> To: "Ron Szoke" <r-szoke at illinois.edu>
> Cc: "Morton K. Brussel" <mkbrussel at comcast.net>;
"peace-discuss Discuss"
> <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] USA takes orders from Israel
>
>
> : Probably bravado by the feckless Olmert. He undoubtedly knew the story
> of the
> : Bush administration's slap-down of the Iran hit was about to break.
> Remember
> : Sharon had said after 9/11, "First Iraq, then Iran." Olmert
leaves
> office
> : having failed at the grand design.
> :
> : Remember too that the US primary role all along (as in 2006) has been to
> keep
> : the UN (and the "int'l community") off the back of the
Israelis as they
> continue
> : their diry business. The US has used the veto threat to do that, and had
> here
> : crafted an innocuous resolution that could maintain the lie of US
> even-handedness.
> :
> : If Rice was traduced in the event, it probably has more to do with
> faction
> : fights in the Bush administration (the neocons hate Rice for staging the
> : ineffective coup against Hamas in 2007) than the laughably small
> influence of
> : the departing (and indictable) PM of Israel. He's pretty erratic
> anyway -- see
> : the famous interview with Yedioth Aharonoth -- and is not even running
> the war
> : in the final days of his premiership. He tries to insist he's not
> totally
> : irrelevant and leave his successor (Netenyahu?), who'll be dealing
with
> a new
> : gov't in DC anyway -- to overcome the embarrassment. --CGE
> :
> : ============
> :
> : Last update - 19:44 29/09/2008
> : ANALYSIS / Olmert's epiphany is too little, too late
> : By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
> :
> : At the age of 63, just moments before his departure from premiership,
> Ehud
> : Olmert has reached an extraordinary epiphany. In order to make peace
> with the
> : Palestinians and the Syrians, Israel must withdraw from "nearly all
the
> : territories, if not all." As he told Yedioth Aharonoth in a holiday
> interview,
> : even East Jerusalem must be given to the Palestinians.
> :
> : Whoa.
> :
> : What an epiphany: In order to make peace with the Arabs, we must give
> them land.
> : How come we never thought of that before? And where was Olmert when the
> Israeli
> : left, and the whole international community, was repeatedly exhausting
> this
> : claim? Was he really among the screaming spokesmen for the camp opposing
> all
> : agreements and all compromises? Or was that just the evil child within
> him, and
> : not actually the real Olmert?
> :
> : Olmert is repenting now for his sins: For 35 years, he said, "I was
not
> prepared
> : to see reality in all its depth." Now he is regretting his vote in
> Knesset
> : against a peace agreement with Egypt, as well as his stubborn refusal to
> annex
> : even a millimeter of Jerusalem's wide border. But most regretfully,
he
> has
> : reached this realization too late for it to have any influence.
> :
> : In his words, agreements with the Palestinians and the Syrians are
"very
> close."
> : If he were to stay in his post, he could fulfill them, could "bring
the
> State of
> : Israel to a decision." But then this mishap occurred, and the State
of
> Israel
> : brought about his dismissal, with just "one dubious witness, no
trial
> and no
> : substantial evidence."
> :
> : So now it's clear who is to blame for dragging out this state of war
and
> : preventing peace: the state prosecutor, key witness Moshe Talansky, the
> justices
> : who decided to hear his testimony, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak who
> coerced
> : the prime minister to resign.
> :
> : Olmert fell, he says, due to the lust for power of unrestrained clerks,
> who did
> : not like his tendency to initiate and to make decisions. He would not
> discuss
> : the suspicions and investigations against him, but was rather insulted
> by the
> : criticism against him. A hedonist? Olmert? All he did was smoke some
> cigars.
> :
> : Olmert believes so strongly in himself and in his self-righteousness,
> that he is
> : trying to make us forget a few of the details that don't fit into
his
> new image
> : as prophet of peace.
> :
> : First of all, his negotiating partners have been painting an entirely
> different
> : picture altogether - if not opposite - of peace progress. Palestinian
> President
> : Mahmoud Abbas has said the Palestinians would never accept Olmert's
> proposal for
> : "partial peace." Syrian President Bashar Assad has still not
agreed to
> direct
> : negotiations with Israel, even at a low level. This does not mean that
> they are
> : right and he is wrong. It is clear that there is a huge difference of
> opinion
> : when it comes to the chance for an agreement.
> :
> : Second, let's assume that Olmert is right and he soon signs an
agreement
> with
> : Abbas. What could be done with this agreement? Should it be hung on the
> wall?
> : Who would execute it and when? And what would happen on the ground in
> the meantime?
> :
> : Third, Olmert's attitude toward the settlers raises doubts about his
> : trustworthiness. Olmert disparages Ariel Sharon in the interview, saying
> that he
> : spoke only of vague concessions without detailing what they would be.
> Olmert is
> : willing to be specific. "What I am saying, no other Israeli leader
has
> said
> : before me," Olmert boasts.
> :
> : Sharon really was vague, but he was the only leader willing to stand up
> to the
> : settlers and evacuate them from their homes. Actions, not words. Olmert
> is a
> : hero in a newspaper interview, but in reality has been a marionette of
> the
> : settlers just like the leaders who preceded him.
> :
> : Olmert knew full well that settlement expansion would be an obstacle to
> any
> : peace agreement in the West Bank, and had said as much in the past.
> However,
> : after the bloody 2006 evacuation of the Amona settlement outpost during
> his
> : early days in office, Olmert became fearful of any confrontation or
> friction
> : with the settlers. And when extremist settlers became increasingly
> violent
> : toward their Palestinian neighbors and Israel Defense Forces soldiers,
> Olmert
> : did not even try to curb it. What was he waiting for? Why did he decide
> to add
> : thousands of housing units to settlement blocs that only add to their
> rivals'
> : propaganda, even if they are ultimately absorbed into Israel? And why
> did he
> : leave the outposts where they are?
> :
> : The conclusion that emerges is that Olmert is an excellent commentator,
> but he
> : lacks the firmness to execute his ideas. The interesting parts of the
> interview
> : touch on security issues. Olmert expresses doubts about a potential
> attack on
> : Iranian nuclear facilities, and he strongly opposes a new incursion into
> Gaza -
> : something he was unwilling to say during the barrage of Qassam rockets
> into
> : Israel, when the topic was at the center of public discussion.
> :
> : But Olmert also acts like a politician: He ignores the only political
> agreement
> : reached during his tenure with the Palestinians - the truce with Hamas
> in Gaza -
> : because that accomplishment is credited to his rival Barak.
> :
> :
> : Ron Szoke wrote:
> : > Olmert says called Bush to force change in U.N. vote
> : >
> : > Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:52pm GMT
> : >
> : > JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said a
> telephone call
> : > he made to U.S. President George W. Bush last week forced Secretary
of
> State
> : > Condoleezza Rice to abstain in a U.N. vote on the Gaza war, leaving
> her
> : > "shamed."
> : >
> : > Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday, Olmert said
he
> : > demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a
U.N.
> Security
> : > Council vote Thursday on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for
an
> : > immediate cease-fire.
> : >
> : > "When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did
not
> really
> : > understand, wanted to vote in favour of the U.N. resolution ... I
> looked for
> : > President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a
> speech,"
> : > Olmert said.
> : >
> : > "I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him
now,'" Olmert said,
> describing Bush,
> : > who leaves office on January 20, as "an unparalleled
friend" of
> Israel.
> : >
> : > "They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and
I spoke
> to
> : > him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this
resolution.' He
> said, 'Listen, I
> : > don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar
with the
> phrasing.'"
> : >
> : > Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it.
You can't vote
> in favour.'
> : >
> : > "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not
vote in
> favour of it -
> : > - a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred
for.
> She was
> : > left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she
arranged," Olmert
> said.
> : >
> : > Fourteen of the Security Council's 15 members supported the
> resolution, which
> : > has failed to halt Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip and
Hamas's
> cross-border
> : > rocket fire.
> : >
> : > Olmert, under police investigation over alleged corruption,
resigned
> as prime
> : > minister in September but is serving in a caretaker capacity until
a
> new
> : > government is formed after Israel's February 10 parliamentary
> election.
> : >
> : > (Writing by Jeffrey Heller, Editing by Alistair Lyon)
> : > _______________________________________________
> : > Peace-discuss mailing list
> : > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> : > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> : _______________________________________________
> : Peace-discuss mailing list
> : Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:50:29 -0600
From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Revolutiona ry Communist Party says
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20090113123708.02c8c008 at express.cites.uiuc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Another clarification:
When I refer to inherent human rights, I refer to rights that are implicit
in human nature. Hence my perhaps not obvious leap from human nature to
human rights.
This way of looking at things has been out of vogue for a long time, but I
suspect it is resurfacing, this time with input from ethology and cognitive
science. It's connected to the natural law thought begun by the ancient
Greeks and continued by the Church.
Bob
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:46 -0600
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism
To: "'Morton K. Brussel'" <mkbrussel at comcast.net>,
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Message-ID: <000001c975c0$9d054a30$d70fde90$@NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mort,
I would make a few points that I think should be taken into consideration.
First, ironically, Zionism was initially and still to a large extent is a
Western and Eastern European (and probably predominantly an Ashkenazi - not
a Sephardic) phenomena and definitely not a general Jewish phenomena per
se.
Secondly, Jews from Africa, Asia, and other Middle Eastern countries - while
allowed to immigrate and accepted into Israel - are treated as second and
third class citizens as compared to Jews from Europe and North & South
America. They are often regarded with racial and ethnic discrimination and
often have a status only slightly above that of Palestinians.
Thirdly, nationalism as an umbrella category for naming attitudes and
orientations is a collection of many different practices. Not every example
of it will be characterized by all those practices or even the same subsets
of them. While Northern Ireland was not Catholic Ireland but both Catholic
and Protestant Ireland with the English and Protestants controlling
governmental functions and policies for the most part for a very long period
of time, there were formal and informal restrictions on where one could go,
live, and own property (and probably who would be allowed to migrate to the
country) based on religion and possibly race and ethnicity. I am sure that
the Irish of both religions saw Northern Ireland (if not all of Ireland) as
a country primarily for the Irish and would object to a large influx of
non-Irish immigrants who wanted to settle in Ireland with alien cultures,
traditions, languages, and beliefs; but for the most part they were not in
control - the British were similar to the British Mandate in Palestine prior
to their pulling out. Other countries partake of nationalism which involve
practices that restrict property ownership to nationals of their country.
Until recently, I understand that one could not own property in Mexico
unless one was a citizen of Mexico - most of whom were Spanish speaking
Mexicans with native Indian peoples being treated as second class
minorities who frequently were restricted in what land they could own - even
after the Mexican Revolution and the later land reforms. In short, Israeli
nationalism may have its own peculiar collection of nationalist practices
which differ in specifics and sameness to that of other instances of
nationalism; but it is nationalism none the less.
Lastly, I would suggest from the stories that I have heard from relatives
who lived in Europe during that period and what I have read during those
student days when I did most of my reading many Jews obtained a false sense
of security in the appearance of assimilation; but beneath the surface there
was a deep current of discrimination, isolation, and even hatred that
defines an informal caste system. Overt anti-Semitism did come to the
surface to varying degrees and ways with some frequency. In North America
(the US and Canada), that was also the case as illustrated by the KKK
popularity and its views of Jews, the WASP control over public positions and
private jobs in which anti-Semitic policies and attitudes permeated at both
a formal and informal level below the surface only to break through from
time to time. One only has to look at the restrictive covenants that
limited the neighborhoods that Jews could live and that limited college
admissions and admissions to medical and law schools as well as many
professions up until the 1960. In fact, much of this discrimination still
exists beneath the surface with respect to Jews, Afro-Americans, Latinos,
etc. in the US despite appearances. Needless to say it is probably the
history of having been fooled into a false sense of security in Europe and
the US as to their assimilation that probably feeds the underlying current
of suspecting that everyone who disagrees with them is an anti-Semite which
many Jews embrace.
As for me, I don't trust anyone very much anymore with respect to anything.
I think that maybe some of the other species may be worth extending the
benefit of doubt to but not the human species, which has turned out to be
more of a plague on the world than a benefit. I sincerely think that human
beings will destroy each other if they do not destroy themselves first; and
that this might be for the better.
From: Morton K. Brussel [mailto:mkbrussel at comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:28 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: David Green
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism
Thanks for your thoughts, David and Laurie,
I am not convinced by David's distinctions. The nationalism as was seen in
places like Catholic Ireland has not invoked such things as immigration
restrictions to non-Irish, or had property ownership restricted to Catholic
Irish, but Zionism, i.e., reserving Israel as a nation for the Jews (as well
as its initial goal of bringing the world's [or Europe's] Jewry to the
Promised Land) , has instituted such measures. It's not just the usual
nationalism in my view. It is a very prejudicial nationalism of the Jews,
which I think the word Zionism conveys. One hopes that under the pressures
of Palestinians, humane Israelis and the surrounding world, perhaps the
fervent nationalism, or Zionism, will gradually fade. The unfortunate fact
in my mind is that Israel is a western excrescence inflicted upon the Middle
East, a kind of affliction, and unless it changes from its extreme
nationalism, Zionism, it will continue to be troubled, to have its fears
made manifest in inhumanity to the non Jewish members of the Land of Canaan
.
On the issue of the ability of Jews to be accepted as citizens in the
nations of Europe, I'm not particularly well informed, but I've seen
arguments claiming that this had already been accomplished to a large
degree. Some think that the Nazi persecution was a dreadful discontinuity in
a gradual process of amalgamation.
And of course, you may be right about Chomsky's recent silence. I just
would
have expected him to speak out in any case, given the extremity of behavior
now taking place. But, as David has signaled, Chomsky is speaking out at MIT
today about Gaza events, and more broadly I'm sure.
Mort
On Jan 13, 2009, at 10:31 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
I think, in Chomsky's defense, he is quiet because he probably is in
mourning for his wife who recently died and is involved in not only making
all kinds of arrangements but in readjusting to her death. I think that
David is probably saying that Zionism, these days, is just another form of
nationalism similar to the sort of nationalism that that the Irish express
for Ireland even if they were born and raised in another country. Like the
Irish, it is probably also deeply infused with religious identifications as
well as nationalist ones. But David can speak for himself and much better
than I can speak for him. J
The difference, as I see it, between early and current Zionism is that the
early Zionists did not have a modern existing state to be in charge of and
identify with; now they do. Where they once were ostracized in the
countries that they lived prior to the establishment of Israel and had no
home base to call their own or escape to, they sought to fight for the
establishment of one; now they have one and are paranoid of losing it,
fearing that the Arab world will do unto them what they did unto the Arab
world in order to establish their nation-state, while the rest of the world
over time withdraws its unquestioning support for Israel and forgets its
quilt over historic treatments of the Jewish population down the ages.
Unfortunately, now that the Jews have power and authority over a territory
in the form of a nation-state, they have become power politicians (political
realists) who are as bad if not worse at ruling than those who mistreated
them with respect to dealing with their minorities (including non-Western
Jewish immigrants), their neighbors, and their paranoia. Now it appears
that the Palestinians have become the Jews of the Middle East and many in
authority in Israel are hell bent on exercising the "Final Solution"
on both
Racist grounds and out of fear of the demographics and what it portends for
Israeli government, society, and theocratic pretentions of its religious
right wing components. Hearing and watching the Israeli settlers and those
who support them reminds me of the attitudes of Amerikan settlers and their
behavior toward the Native Americans and of their talk about "Devine
Destiny" to justify their expansion and occupation of the Amerikan West.
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K.
Brussel
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:55 PM
To: David Green
Cc: Peace Discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism
David,
You say Zionism is no longer the problem, but I associate Zionism with the
construct of and adherence to a Jewish state, a state for the Jews. And the
laws of the country still emphasize that. And in what sense is Zionism
finished? Can it be distinguished from the nationalism of a Jewish state?
You also mention the blatant anti-semitism of certain commenters. Who are
they? What are they saying?
Chomsky seems to be uncharacteristically subdued these days with regard to
Israel. I sometimes think he has too soft a spot in his heart for that land.
I wonder, after all that has happened to Palestinian infrastructure, if he
still thinks a two state solution is the only feasible solution.
Finkelstein still speaks up powerfully, as he did on DemocracyNow! with
Indyk recently.
--Mort
On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:12 PM, David Green wrote:
Mort,
This is an incisive post by Philip Weiss, who spends most of his energy on
discourse with other Jews in New York. I'm not as interested in this issue
as I once was, which will come as a relief to most of the people on this
list who haven't yet pressed the delete key. Zionism was a powerful
ideology
toward establishing a Jewish state, and up to 1967 in attracting Jewish
immigrants, absorbing Jews from Arab and other non-European countries,
assigning Arab non-Jewish Israelis to 4th class citizenship at best, and
maintaining the siege mentality that led to the 1967 war and subsequent
occupation. Obviously, it still is a powerful motivator among settler
fanatics, in a religious manifestation that was of course not intended by
the founders (although territorial expansion was).
Ideologies outlive their usefulness, and its harder and harder to attribute
Israel's behavior to Zionist ideology, in my opinion. In fact, I would see
Zionism per se as having almost nothing to do with Israel as it now exists
and behaves. The ideology is greatly overshadowed by material realities,
facts on the ground, power and domination--and, of course, it's choice to
be
an American surrogate. The Jewish state is like any other state at this
point; the people who run it do so for their own aggrandizement; along with
that goes racism, militarism, neoliberalism, etc. Zionist ideology is now
windowdressing, intended more for American Jews than Israeli Jews.
I understand that those dissenters who seek an alternative need to
articulate their positions and address the problems of Zionism and a Jewish
state, especially those who are Jewish, especially in discussions with other
Jews. Your post is from Philip Weiss, on whose blog I've attempted to
participate. It's extremely informative and has become quite popular, if
one
can tell by the greatly increasing number of individuals who participate in
the comments sections. In spite of all the nutcases it attracts, I think
it's a positive interaction. The blog is also run by a guy named Adam
Horowitz, who is more to my liking than Weiss, who is much too giddy about
Obama, JStreet, etc.; and who is also obsessed with the Lobby.
What's concerns me, however, is that a basic Chomsky/Finkelstein leftist
Enlightenment orientation is not often clearly and plainly articulated (in
my comments, I started referring to myself as a boring whitebread leftist
socialist). There's too much time wasted on the Lobby, dual loyalty, etc.
There's obvious and blatant anti-Semitism by some frequent commenters. Add
to that the anti vs. post Zionist discussion. Having a state based on Jewish
domination of non-Jews has obviously turned out to be a horrible idea, a
moral and humanitarian catastrophe. But now we've got 6 million Jews living
with five million Arabs in Israel and Palestine. Anti or post, Zionism is
finished. The choice is either continued state-sponsored terrorism and a
national security state vs. the Enlightenment and human decency.
If one has to make choices, anti-Zionism implies correctly that it's a
racist ideology, and disregards the minimal (sadly) influence of bi-national
Zionism as endorsed by Einstein, Chomsky, etc. Post Zionism asserts the
validity of the original necessity of a homeland for the Jews, which was a
terrible idea but now is a fact on the ground that we all have to deal with.
Just my 2 latkes.
DG
_____
From: Morton K. Brussel <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
To: peace-discuss Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Cc: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:11:00 AM
Subject: Another Jew talks about Zionism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-weiss/rethinking-zionism_b_156955.html
Dana Goldstein
<http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_n
ame=draft_draft_draftthe_idea_of_i> , whose thoughtful condemnation of the
Gaza slaughter after years of reserve I welcome, is a little uncomfortable
with the embrace.
<http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_n
ame=postzionism#112060> She points out that I have identified myself as a
non- or anti-Zionist, and says that anti-Zionism is redolent of
antisemitism. She's a post-Zionist, she says. Goldstein's comments
deserve a
response, especially at this moment in intellectual life, when so many
people are crowding the doorways of this conversation.
I also used to say post- or non-Zionist to avoid being negative. The
playwright <http://www.davidzellnik.com/> David Zellnik told me that
anti-Zionist felt to him like a denial of Israel's considerable
achievements
and I respected David's view. Now I've come to say that I'm an
anti-Zionist
for several reasons.
First: My feelings are not neutral about Zionism; I don't like it. As a
Jew,
I think about it a lot and there is nothing I can really feel positive about
outside of the Jewish pride and its historical significance of it and its
visionary component. All these elements have lost their value: Zionism
privileges Jews and justifies oppression, and this appalls me. Saying I'm
anti-Zionist is a sincere expression of my minority-respecting worldview.
Second, Post-Zionist strikes me as an evasion. At this moment, Zionism
reigns in historical Palestine and in American Jewish leadership. To say
you're a post-Zionist is like saying you're a post-Communist during the
Stalin purges. You are tastefully separating yourself from the world, dainty
as an English person drinking tea with their little finger in the air.
Zionism remains a very powerful force in Middle East affairs and American
society. It's not helpful to those who are trying to understand these
matters to evade this fact or suggest that post-Zionism is actually a real
factor in, say, the life of Gaza City. I urge people to take a stand if they
find Zionist beliefs that privilege 6 million Jews over 5-6 million non-Jews
and that have entailed apartheid on the West Bank and ethnic cleansing a
supportable ideology, especially in the age of our mutt president-to-be.
Third, anti-Zionism is an idealistic Jewish tradition. In fact, it draws on
the same visionary and If-you-dream-it feeling that Zionism did 100 years
ago, before the militants ruined it, and engages the same young restless
sensibilities and liberationist feeling as Zionism did by imagining Israel
as a state of its citizens, not a Jewish state. We anti-Zionists can say
with honor that anti-Zionists like Rabbi Elmer Berger identified the
problems with Zionism 60 years ago, accurately when he said that Zionism
meant contempt for the Arab population, dependence on a backroom lobby in
the United States, and the introduction of dual loyalty into American Jewish
life. All true. Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin and Norman Mailer all
opposed Zionism to one degree or another out of concerns with
ethnocentrism--didn't like its Is-it-good-for-the-Jews backbeat. These
problems are larger today than ever, especially post-Iraq-war and the Iraq
war's idiot stepson, Gaza.
Finally, declaring I'm anti-Zionist is a way of trying to make room in
American life for this view. Right now being critical of Israel means that
you can hurt your business, as a Bay Area professional told the
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/sf-chron-says-breakup-of-jewi
sh-monolith-on-gaza-will-give-obama-room-to-move.html> San Francisco
Chronicle. True and disgusting. As Jimi Hendrix said when he was changing
attitudes: I'm going to wave my freak flag high!
As to the antisemitism point, the American Jewish Committee has said the
same thing: anti-Zionism is antisemitism. It thus conflates Jewishness with
Zionism, and this conflation is damaging the Jewish experience around the
world. When Dana says she worries about the antisemitic suggestion of
anti-Zionism, I feel a shadow of censoriousness. There are things you can
and can't say. Well, I am an empowered Jew who has never experienced
functional antisemitism ever in my life, and my empowerment is also part of
this conversation: I insist on speaking about Jewish cultural/financial
power in the U.S. as a component of my Zionist critique. Do I think that
Jews should be denied power? No! Do I think that there should be quotas on
Jewish inclusion in elite institutions? No! Well: I would like Jewish
participation in mainstream media roundtables on the Middle East held to 50
percent. That is my quota. These ideas have made some of my readers
uncomfortable. They've made me uncomfortable. I grew up in fear of lurking
antisemitism. But I have decided in my 50s that these are things I think
about all the time as a mature person, however flawed I am, and I think
they're important--so I am going to talk about them.
And I would add that shutting down debate in the name of
"antisemitism"
strikes me as selfish. Our phantom worries about a second Holocaust take
precedence over the real evidence that surrounds us of man's inhumanity to
man, not just man's inhumanity to Jews. And our phantom worries mean that
we
cannot address the incredible, everyday, real suffering of Palestinians that
has been perpetrated politically in large part by empowered American Jews
who are all over the media and political establishment, some of whom limit
debate of the issue by citing a possible infraction of our tremendous
freedoms. Believe me, when our freedoms are encroached upon, I will howl.
Today and tomorrow I howl for the Jewish leadership's actual crushing of
the
Palestinian right of self-determination.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090113/fe64a09e/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 60, Issue 91
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090113/5e99d375/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list