Israel protests silent on occupation issue (with video at link.)
Richard Seymour has a few more observations,
Because in Israel the colonial dynamic still predominates, and because the vast majority of Israeli workers have not begun to break with Zionism, and indeed many could reasonably claim to get some benefit from it, how these social antagonisms and elite fissures work out depends primarily on the regional context. If the Arab Spring continues and radicalises, the weakening of Israel’s position, its usefulness to Washington, and its ability to sustain military policies that sections of its ruling class already find burdensome, then the prospects of major social struggles in Israel are increased. If not, then I suspect the Israeli ruling class can resolve its difficulties at the expense of the Palestinians and take a further lurch down the road to some sort of fascism.
In other words, this looks ugly.
One of the most sensitive aspects of the murderous terrorist attack in Norway by a right-wing gunman is this irony: The youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially (though the campers didn’t see it that way, no doubt) a pro-terrorist program.
The camp, run by Norway’s left-wing party, was lobbying for breaking the blockade of the terrorist Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, and for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, without that entity needing to do anything that would prevent it from being used as a terrorist base against Israel. They were justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israelis, killing thousands of people like themselves.
”Q
Anonymous asked:
Do you support Israel or Palestine?
A
I refuse to talk about this as if it were an athletic event or a marketing scheme for Bella’s Twilight partner preference.
From March 24th, 2011: Anthony Weiner Falsely Claims There’s ‘No Israeli Occupation’ In The West Bank And No IDF Troops There
WEINER: You can see a difference in the development in the West Bank with 11 percent year over year growth, with no Israeli occupation there either, with increasing access to checkpoints —
COHEN: What about area C, D,
WEINER: Hold on, maybe this would be helpful
COHEN: No occupation in the West Bank, did I hear you right?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: Have you been to the West Bank lately?
WEINER: Yes.
COHEN: You didn’t see the IDF there?
WEINER: In Ramallah? No. In Nablus? No. Now can I tell ya there might be some people in this room who think Jerusalem is occupied.
COHEN: Well hold on a second there, let’s stick to the West Bank. You’re saying there is no IDF presence there?
WEINER: Yes.
Of course this is patently untrue. This is courtesy of the faux-liberal website Think Progress.
From Mondoweiss: Weiner - Baird debate lived up to it’s billing
The chief response to the debate so far (besides the predictable at the National Review) has been shock at Anthony Weiner’s contempt for international law and Palestinian humanity. A politician who has distinguished himself on healthcare reform and economic justice issues in the U.S. resorts to “It’s war, and war is hell” arguments when Brian Baird, a clinical psychologist by training, describes the destruction of schools and innocent families and U.N. compounds by Israeli bombing, and the collective punishment of millions of people denied lentils, toothpaste, building materials, and the freedom to move beyond a territory less than the size of New York City.
Meanwhile over at the blog of Peter Belmont who was at the debate:
On the other hand, I heard much to lower my opinion of the standards for factual accuracy (or is it honesty?), legal acumen, and evenhanded judgment on the part of Congressman Weiner that I took with me going into the hall. Perhaps I was naïve.
Congressman Weiner appeared to use language in a very different way than I am used to hearing (or reading) it used, either in a deliberate attempt to mislead us, his audience of the moment, with knowingly false statements or else in a perfectly innocent expression of “received” ideas which he did not know enough to question, ideas which I judge him to have “received” from people who were using knowingly false statements with the intention of misleading their audience, including the Honorable Congressman.
The following is also from a Salon article that I’ve linked to in the past:
Will the liberals who only know Weiner from his feisty MSNBC appearances and his staunch support of the president’s domestic initiatives be put off when they hear him taking the “Israel can do no wrong” side in the debate over Israel’s botched raid, in international waters, of a humanitarian aid flotilla?
Weiner’s statement is comical. “Even if we are the only country on earth that sees the facts here,” Weiner says, “the United States should stand up for Israel.” That’s the statement of a man with whom there can be no reasoning.
And it’s not, by any means, outside the norm for Weiner. He’s precisely the sort of liberal establishment politician that Peter Beinart accused of failing young American Jews in the New York Review of Books recently. In the past, Weiner has matter-of-factly accused Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International of being anti-Semitic. And not just them!
“I would argue that in many cases, the New York Times has” anti-Israel bias, Weiner told Amy Goodman in 2006. The idea of any elite, establishment newspaper in New York having an “anti-Israel bias” makes sense only if you consider any criticism of any action taken by the state of Israel to be out of line.
Just a quick word: I’m confident that Israel-Palestine transcends political party identification. My goal in pointing this out is not to rally ‘liberals’, a title I do not and have never identified with, but to draw public attention to one man’s views on an issue that many of my followers do care about. I know that politics has largely been reduced to a sporting event in this country, (i.e. defend Team A at all costs over Team B or see the embarrassing lengths that those on the left [Daily Kos, etc…] went through to defend Anthony Weiner prior to all of the data being known and despite his use of the word certitude) but I’m not one to play those games with our politicians. Frankly, one should be capable of critique, and there are valid, important critiques to be made of liberals in this nation, without juvenile labels or resorting to impish language in retorts. I should also point out, in case you have forgotten, that this is not a discussion about Anthony’s penis. Instead the attention has been shifted to actual policy, positions and the actions of a congressman with that capacity. As an example, I care a great deal if a media staple of the US American left has parties thrown for him by men that have previously said, “I think we should kill a hundred Arabs or a thousand Arabs for every one Jew they kill.” For what it’s worth, I think you should care too. As a general rule, if you wouldn’t allow it from the right, then why defend it when it’s on the left? As I have said in a previous post with regard to Anthony Weiner, surely the left in the United States can do better than this.
Please also see the Anthony Weiner Valentine’s Day card I made this year.
In light of recent events and a few posts that have made rounds, I am reminded of this 2009 piece by Joseph Massad. It’s centered around the use of the phrase “right to defend itself” and it’s relationship to Israel. It’s important to note that article was published by the website on the day after the Gaza War was ceased. The following is an excerpt,
The logic goes as follows: Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian land, lay siege to Palestinian populations in Bantustans surrounded by an apartheid wall, starve the population, cut them off from fuel and electricity, uproot their trees and crops, and launch periodic raids and targeted assassinations against them and their elected leadership, and if this population resists these massive Israeli attacks against their lives and the fabric of their society and Israel responds by slaughtering them en masse, Israel would simply be “defending” itself as it must and should.
After taking a couple of shots at Thomas Friedman, Joesph continues,
The major argument here is two-fold, namely that while Israel has the right to defend itself, its victims have no similar right to defend themselves. In fact, the logic is even more sinister than this and can be elucidated as follows: Israel has the right to oppress the Palestinians and does so to defend itself, but were the Palestinians to defend themselves against Israel’s oppression, which they do not have a right to do, Israel will then have the right to defend itself against their illegitimate defense of themselves against its legitimate oppression of them, which it carries out anyway in order to defend itself legitimately.
This is why, not only does Israel have the right to arm itself and to be a nuclear power and to have a military edge over the combined militaries of the entire region in which it lives, but it also must ensure that the military power of its neighbors is used to quell the Palestinians and not Israel, indeed to help Israel lay siege to the resisting Palestinians. When and if Palestinians try to arm themselves to defend their lives against Israeli invasions and slaughter, Israel makes every effort to prevent them from doing so and considers this “illegal smuggling.”
I’m not advocating for an armed resistance but it is important to note that when we hear the phrase right to defend itself brought up in a discussion regarding Israel/Palestine, it’s always at the expense of any discussion about the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves as well. It’s a phrase that seems to solely exist in the realm of fantasy for those that are being systematically subjugated. Understandably, no Israeli should live with the fear that their child, or anyone in any part of the world for that matter and this includes Palestinians, might die at the hands of a few extremists or a rogue state apparatus. However given the context under which Palestinians are forced to live, I am reminded of Omar Barghouti’s words on Democracy Now!,
What’s important is to place this in context, because for many viewers, they would forget that the context is occupation. Israel continues to be the occupying power that’s controlling Gaza, and it has imposed a very illegal, barbaric and immoral siege on Gaza, causing the slow death of hundred, even thousands, of Palestinians, the pollution of the water supply, and many problems with access to healthcare, education. During the 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, Israel destroyed many houses, hospitals, university buildings and schools and so on, U.N. centers. So that’s the context that we have to see this in. It’s not enough to see it as a ping-pong: Hamas attacked this, and Israel retaliated. Israel is never retaliating, because it’s the occupying power, and occupation, by definition, is aggression and violence.
I believe that this is a very important point that is left out of the narrative and it’s important to remember that final sentence moving forward, occupation, by definition, is aggression and violence. Therefore given that understanding of an occupation, why don’t Palestinians living under the occupation have a right to defend themselves?
Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Hamas or any extremist faction, nor is it an endorsement of violence, it’s simply one interpretation of what it means for Israel to have the right to defend itself. The issue is complex one and I don’t mean to simplify it in any form by making it black and white. This is simply some food for thought.
A few links of interest:
- This is a link to the Palestine Papers. (remember those?)
- This is a PressTV link on a discussion of Israel’s Nuclear Ambiguity for those that are interested.
- U.S. House bill in the middle of the Gaza War that recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself.
- This is a piece by Michael Oren about why Israel is the Ultimate Ally.
- Google search, Amazon search Right to Defend Itself to see many of the articles, news articles or videos in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.
