My first New Matilda column for 2006 evaluates the mainstream media's whitewashing of Sharon's legacy:
"The Australian media's coverage of Sharon's demise reveals a predictable line. With notable dissenters such as Deakin University's Scott Burchill - who explained to readers of the Australian that Sharon was in fact an unindicted war criminal - the media elite has preferred to echo the official US and Israeli line, namely, in the words of the Australian editorial on 6 January, that 'Sharon offered hope to Israelis and Palestinians'.
"A few days later, the paper's Middle East correspondent, Martin Chulov, offered these nonsensical words: 'The end of the line for Sharon has revealed a sign of the times. Stability has not been brought to the Middle East by Arab wise men, but a Jewish warrior.' Perhaps the Zionist lobby had rewritten Chulov's copy before going to print."
My New Matilda archive is here.
"The Australian media's coverage of Sharon's demise reveals a predictable line. With notable dissenters such as Deakin University's Scott Burchill - who explained to readers of the Australian that Sharon was in fact an unindicted war criminal - the media elite has preferred to echo the official US and Israeli line, namely, in the words of the Australian editorial on 6 January, that 'Sharon offered hope to Israelis and Palestinians'.
"A few days later, the paper's Middle East correspondent, Martin Chulov, offered these nonsensical words: 'The end of the line for Sharon has revealed a sign of the times. Stability has not been brought to the Middle East by Arab wise men, but a Jewish warrior.' Perhaps the Zionist lobby had rewritten Chulov's copy before going to print."
My New Matilda archive is here.
56 Comments:
Moodymann said...
Calling someone an anti-semite simply because they critisize the actions of Israel and its government is foolish. It simply shows that you cannot counteract any of the facts or arguments in Antony's article.
BTW, Arabs are semites too.
But Moody, no one here has called anyone an antisemite simply because they critisize the actions of Israel and its government. That false cry is a canard invented by antisemites.
And antisemitism is not the hatred of semites, but the hatred of Jews. Trying to use another canard for deflection reflects your education.
01 Eddie is an antisemite, because he is an antisemite he unjustly criticizes Israel. Just criticism of Israeli policy is not antismeitism.
Eddie blowing his nose is an antisemite blowing his nose.
With all due respect.
01's attempt to deflect just criticism of those who antisemitically criticize israel is a canard well publicized by neo-nazi and islamofascist sites.
That 01 is an unwitting carrier is due to lack of intelligence, probably not due to antisemitism.
Basically, eddie is now an antisemite playing with circular logic. Ho hum.
Why bother discussing anything with an antisemite? Let him bait others with the addamo streaming out of both his ends.
It is refreshing to read something which actually tells something approximating truth about both Sharon and Israel.
The tragedy of Israel's brutal occupation and colonisation of Palestine is that while Palestinians may, for the moment, have lost land, the Israelis have lost their Soul and self respect.
Arafat may have ill served his people but Sharon has served his people worse.
The vicious, racist, vindictive attitude that so many Israelis.... thankfully not all .... take toward the Palestinians has debased their society far more than it has been able to destroy that of the people they have been encouraged to hate by Sharon and his ilk.
One can only wish saner more reasoned voices to speak for Israel in the future.
Israel's other tragedy is that those who believe they are defending her are actually betraying her. Ignorance and denial serve to undermine, not strengthen.
Whatever the reasons for the foundation of Israel the reality is that the subsequent colonisation, followed by occupation and continued colonisation have involved great wrongs committed against the Palestinians.
Until this reality is acknowledged, and until Israel, like all modern colonising nations seeks to make redress for these wrongs, Israelis will be unable to live with any true sense of legality. This is why, I think, the paranoia and denial are so great in Israel .... because the underlying wrongs of colonisation have not been addressed.
The world accepts the existence of Israel and will continue to do so. What it does not accept is the continued colonisation of Palestine and the brutalisation of its people.
Those Israelis and their supporters who turn a blind eye to this terrible reality are sucking the life blood, not to mention the integrity, from the land they purport to defend.
The other reality is that there can be no future for Israel unless it becomes a true democracy ... that means it offers equality of citizenship to all of those who live within its borders regardless of race or creed.
How many of those who believe they are 'saving' Israel are really seeking to 'save' a dream that can never survive any sort of reality?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Melanie,
You ask why Israel comes in for greater criticism than the Arab world.
It is for the simple reason that Israel purports to be a modern, civilized democracy and is therefore judged by those standards.
When you set yourself up as something you will be assessed on that basis. If Israel is seen to be more remiss it is because it says it is one thing while doing another.
You either abide by civilized principles or you do not; you either abide by democratic principles or you do not; you either abide by human rights or you do not.
Israel claims to abide by all of these things but what it says and what it does are two very different things.
You have to compare apples with apples. You are judged, in essence, by comparison with peers ... by comparison with those who purport to hold the same values, not by comparison with those, who, for whatever reason, do not.
Because Israel claims to hold to the most advanced of human values that is how it is judged. Israel, rightly, is not compared to non-democratic states but to developed, democratic states.
Herein lies the problem because with such comparisons it is found sadly wanting.
rhross - I almost wept. But then I realized that you wrote your little pile of addamo because you believed, out of ignorance, that you had the facts at your disposal. when, actually, you didn't.
Israel is not a colony of any nation. What land it owns, it owns through several articles of legitamacy. The 'occupation' is as brutal as the palestinian terrorists want it to be.
As for a 'true' democracy, it is as true as any other western civilized country.
Seems you need to by some glasses, strong glasses.
ibrahamav,
We all believe we have the truth. The important thing is to do as much research as possible, on both sides, to reach a point where balanced perception is possible. It also helps to have spent time 'on the ground.'
Israel is a colonising nation on the same basis that Australia is: a nation was created where others lived and dispossession was involved. That dispossession is a reality. The establishment of Israel was opposed by the majority of the people who lived on the land at the time. Like the US, Canada, New Zeland and other modern colonising nations.
Therefore, apology and redress. Leave religion out of it because it has no basis in any court of law and is merely personal opinion of a minority.
As to being a democracy, well, in a healthy democracy all citizens have exactly the same rights regardless of race or creed. In Israel they do not.
Neither is occupation a democratic pastime. Particularly when it is used as a cover for continued colonisation.
For my part, I accept that Israel exists and should continue to do so ... on original borders. I believe it should be a true democracy and not a semi-democracy based on religion. I believe it has great potential as one of the energetic nations of the Middle East.
I believe it deserves to survive.... but as a real nation ... not some ossified fantasty sourced in religious fanaticism and cultural paranoia.
You only have to visit Israel to see how much more Israelis have in common with their Arab neighbours than they do with so many of their diaspora 'friends.'
I wish it well, but mostly I wish it to be real.
Thanks addamo,
It's a difficult subject and we are all, to a degree, subjective, depending upon which position we take.
It's too easy to forget the humanity of the others involved, whether it be Israelis in regard to Palestinians or vice versa, or posters on this site.
Human beings seem to be hard-wired to want to be 'right' when mostly all we really want is to be 'heard' ... which means accepted.
Most Israelis and Palestinians do want peace.... they have been badly led by people who wanted victory more.
rhross'
Israel was not created on the same basis as Australia. Therefore you initial statement was incorrect. While it is not always the case, most times a false leading statement often reflects the veracity of the entire essay.
Again, Israel is as true a democracy, and all minorities have the same rights as the majority and it is seen and protected in the same fashion as the vast majority of other western democracies.
You seem to feel that Israel must adhere to a higher standard. But your feelings are not a basis for reality.
ibrahamav
The English said Australia was terra nullius ... empty land; the Jews said Palestine was 'a land without people for a people without a land,' it wasn't.
In both cases nations were created by the dispossession of many of those living there. That, in anyone's book is colonisation. You may of course call it what you will.
The majority of the people living in Palestine opposed, understandably, the creation of an Israeli state on Palestinian land.
So did the Aborigines, the Maoris and the American Indians ... it's all called colonisation.
A democracy gives equal rights to all citizens. Israeli Arabs do not have the same rights as other Israelis.
For instance non-Jewish Israelis, discrimination by religion and race, cannot get building permits in the same way that Jewish Israelis can. Neither can they marry and bring their spouse to live with them; neither can they live outside of Israel with a right of return.
That's non-democratic in most peoples books even if it is not in yours.
And I don't believe Israel should adhere to higher standards, merely the standards by which it purports to adhere.
An Olympic athlete does not compare him or herself to an amateur ... ergo, a modern, democratic society does not compare themselves to less developed, non-democratic societies.
If Israel wants to lower the 'bar' and admit it functions as a less developed, non-democratic nation it will be judged accordingly.
You know ibrahamav,
there's a saying:
if one person criticizes you it's okay to ignore it.
if two people say the same thing then you should think about it, and, if more than two say the same thing, you clearly have a problem and need to take action.
More than 'two' have been saying the same sorts of things about Israel for a very long time, and that includes some of Israel's top thinkers and academics, countless dissenting reservists and the many brave members of Israeli peace and human rights groups .... that means Israel has a problem.
It is time to stop denying, to listen and to take action.
The Jews did not claim that the region was 'a land without people'. It was said by an English Christian in the 1800's. Do not go by neo-nazi and islamo-fascist sites that will give you as much addamo as you can stomach.
Are you calling all of the other democracies as amatuer, and only Israel must rise to the level of a professional? And you are stating that you "don't believe Israel should adhere to higher standards"?
You can't have it both ways.
Neither can they marry and bring their spouse to live with them;
I do not believe a Jewish israeli may marry a palestinian and bring that person into Israel. I do believe that an Arab Israeli may marry a japanese and bring that person into Israel. How undemocratic of Isrsael!
It appears that Israel is discriminating against the Jews. this must stop.
You would about the chomsky comment. But knowing how you've already blown him, we 'd know you didn't mean it.
orang said...
Ibrahamav said...
"Neither can they marry and bring their spouse to live with them;"
Ahem, excuse me?. Could you repeat that?
That was a copied comment from rhross. You'll have to ask him.
Which is why _01 is considered a borderline antisemite. He could not possibly be spreading all of this addamo without having a suspect agenda.
He can't really be that stupid and ignorant, can he?
Whoever first used the term: 'a land without people for a people without a land,' it is historical record that the Zionists used this as a slogan. Which was the point.
If a Jewish Israeli can marry a Japanese and bring them into the country as full citizens, this DOES NOT, right the wrong, nor negate the discrimination involved in the fact that NON-Jewish Israelis cannot do the same thing.
An Arab Israeli cannot bring a spouse into the country. I am not even sure a Jewish Israeli can bring a Palestinian spouse into the country so if they can bring other nationalities it is even more specificially racist.
The charter of a democracy prohibits it from discriminating against its citizens. The government of a democracy, by its nature, represents equally, all citizens, not just ones who claim to hold a specific religion as in the Israeli instance.
Hence, logic shows that Israeli fails in terms of adhering to democratic standards.
No, I am not calling other democracies amateurs. The point is, when assessed by the standards of democracy Israel fails; when assessed by the standards of most other western democracies, Israel fails.
The point about the Olympic athlete and the amateur, which you missed, was that when one aspires to achieve the highest level one needs to compare acts and achievements against the highest level.
In the modern world modern, liberal democracies are considered to offer the greatest levels of freedoms and human rights.
Israel classes itself in this category but then uses a benchmark to compare itself, not with functioning modern liberal democracies, but with non-democratic, non-liberal, often repressive states.
When you compare Israel to non-democratic, non-liberal States int he Middle East of course it looks good but it is meaningless. When you compare Israel to other western democratic societies, it looks bad.
Ergo, when you compare an Olympic athlete to an amateur they will look good; when you compare them to other Olympic athletes they may look bad. That was the point.
Not that there is much point in making points here since the general standards of posts seems so low and most people prefer to name-call, abuse, dismiss and demonise instead of participating in intelligent, adult conversation.
Foolish of me to think reason could be found against such rant.
You keep believing Jews are under threat .... they aren't; you keep believing Israel is in danger .... it isn't; you keep believing Israelis can do no wrong while they commit great atrocities and you will truly doom this troubled little nation.
Israel's only hope lies in truth: denial is the way of death.
rhross,
A arab Israeli can marry a japanese person and bring them to Israel.
The olympian Israeli democracy looks just as good as the olympian danish, english, french, american, and south african democracies.
Sorry, but normally only antisemites try to lull jews into a sense of safety such as you are bleating. Too much addamo for us jews.
neoleftychick, you need to do some reading of history.
Israel was not created by legal land purchases.
It was created in 1948 after UN resolution 181 imposed partition upon Palestine. Israel was created because the international community imposed its decision upon Palestinians. The majority of people living there at the time were non-Jewish. Naturally they opposed it.
Certainly some land was bought legally but the actual creation of the State came about through dictate and colonisation.
in addition early Zionist groups had an active policy of terrorising, or killing, and dispossessing the Palestinians.
The truth is easy enough for you to find and has in fact been written about in detail in recent years by a number of Israeli historians.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians, with their allies, opposed this partition and colonisation and resorted to war (as the American Indians, New Zealand Maoris and Australian Aborigines did. They lost and were occupied. As were the other peoples in colonised nations.
The difference is the other modern colonisers offered full citizenship rights to those they had colonised.
And by the way, winners of wars do not get to keep the land they occupy. Read a bit more history, modern history that is, no biblical, and you will see this. Winners particularly do not get to keep occupied land when they refuse to offer the people living there full and inalienable rights.
Israel refuses to do this because it wants to try to maintain a Jewish State. One can understand some of the reasons behind this but it remains racist and in the long term, impossible.
Israel's greatest tragedy is that the US has failed to act as a friend and has allowed and enabled (funded) the continued dispossession and colonisation.
Israeli policy, for a long time, has not been defence.... it doesn't need it with nuclear weapons and the worlds most powerful nation standing behind it, not to mention the support of the international community .... it's policy has been to make life so impossible for the Palestinians that they will leave.
It won't work of course. It never does. It just creates resistance. If Israelis had been wiser and better led they would have done all that they could to make life for the Palestinians as good as it could be .... because, when that happens, birth numbers drop.
As it is the suffering and misery inflicted on the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs has just seem their birth rates boom. At tne end of the day, this, if nothing else makes a Jewish state impossible.
Because, unless Israel returns to the orginal 48 borders and helps to create a viable Palestinian State, in time the world will demand that Israel, if it is going to control all of the land of Palestine as its own, gives full rights to all Palestinians.
The irony is that the desire for a Jewish State is what is destroying Israel.
What can never be justified, even if one chooses to be flexible about the original dispossession and colonisation, is the brutality of the occupation and the continued colonisation that has taken place.
neolefty chick:
Read the history of early zionism and you will find the slogan there. The ones written by Zionists mind you.
As to the multiculturalism of Israel's neighbours: they are very multicultural, as are most nations on this planet, particularly in the Middle East.
You can be Syrian and Jordanian without being Muslim but you can't be Saudi Arabian without being Muslim just as you can't emigrate to Israel without being Jewish.
You don't have to be Jewish to be a guest worker.... but you do, or say you are, to be Israeli.
P.S. name calling does not an argument make. It merely reflects the lack of an argument.
As to me being anti-semitic. There is nothing I have said that is anti-semitic.
This is anti-semitic: Jews are dishonest. So is: Arabs are dishonest for that matter.
I don't believe either of those things.
Israel has committed great wrongs aginst the Palestinian people is not anti-semitic, it is a fact.
Hey neo,
The multiculturalism of other nations is irrelevant. The multiculturalism of Israel is irrelevant.
The only relevant thing is the fact that non-Jews in Israel do not have equal rights.
neo,
LIsten carefully because I am not going to repeat it again.
The multiculturalism of Israel and others is not relevant because it is not an issue and has nothing to do with the current topic: ie the occupation and colonisation of Palestine.
What is relevant, as has been stated before, is how well Israel holds to its purported values as a modern, liberal democracy.
It does not do well when compared to the stated values, nor the performance of other modern, liberal democracies.
In some instances it does better than non-democratic societies but that is not the point.
In the same way that you can only compare Australia or the United States to other modern, liberal democracies if you are to reach any meaningful conclusion ... so too must you compare Israel.
You can't compare Australia to Indonesia, nor the United States to China in the same way you can't compare Israel to Syria, Jordan or Saudi.
If Israel decides it does not want to be democratic, or does not claim to be, then you can compare it to its neighbours.
Ditto, when Syria or Jordan become democratic, then you can compare them to Israel and vice-versa.
You seem to have trouble grasping this concept. You have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, not apples with oranges or vice-versa, if you are to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion.
That is, if you should wish to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion which may of course not be the case.
Interestingly, I have posted on other sites in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but not for a couple of years now, and am struck by how the same posts always come up .... the tactic seems to remain the same;
ignore the actual issue
get people bogged down on meaningless trivia
respond to comment and information with insults
One could almost believe that posters like yourself are set up to derail any kind of meaningful discussion.
Now why would that be?
You don't have to answer. This is not a debate of any substance to I leave you to your puff posts.
neo,
it doesn't have to be australia or the US, pick the UK, Germany, France.... pick any modern liberal democracy. It doesn't matter. Norway, Sweden, Holland, the point remains the same.
Israel does not provide equality of citizenship. The others do. Now, while Australia, the US, UK and some others have slipped because of their invasion of Iraq, they are slightly ahead of Israel because they are not colonising.
But, if you like, the best performing liberal democracies are neither occupiers nor colonisers. These are the optimum standards by which Israel, because of what it claims to be, is judged.
The reason that Israel, the youngest colonising nations, is compared with older ones like the US and Australia is because, in historical terms, we are modern colonising nations.
It is only in the past couple of hundred years that society has become civilized enough to consider colonisation a wrong.
That is why the 'younger' colonisers, like Australia, NZ, US, Canada, South Africa.....have been called to account. And why the youngest, Israel, is called to account.
As to how Australia or the US would have reacted if the Indians or the Aborigines had brought in allies to fight the invaders.... irrelevant.
It's not a defence when you commit a crime to say somebody else did the same thing.
The fact is, the Americans Indians did join together with allies like the French and the Spanish so there is nothing unusual about the Arab alliance to fight against invasion.
But, as I said before, and of course you ignored, the core issue is not the occupation per se: but the longevity and brutality of that occupation and the colonisation and dispossession that has been carried out as a part of it.
You could argue with some justification that Israel, despite being the coloniser, when attacked, had a right to defend and when it won, a right to occupy .... in the short term.
No-one can argue with any justification that such an occupation should be long-term, nor that that occupation should involve increased dispossession, human rights abuses and greater colonisation.
The wrongs of the initial colonisation and subsequent occupation pale into insignificance when compared to the wrongs perpetrated against the Palestinians over the past half a century.
So you are admitting Israel is a coloniser? Good. It is an important start.
there is no chance of change without the ability to deal in realities.
As to democracies being colonisers, well, strictly speaking, given that the will of the people rules in a democracy, the subject of colonisation of Palestine should be raised at election time in Israel.
If it is not raised, and it has not been raised then the Government has no right to pursue policies of colonisation.
Even if Israel were to vote for colonisation such a move would still leave it in contravention of the Geneva Bill of Rights.... to which Israel is a signatory.
neo,
Don't you see the irony. You want to kill all the Muslims.... that's called genocide .... not very civilized and sadly reminiscent of the Nazi view where the inconvenient people were not Palestinians or Arabs but Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
How come it is okay for you to want to annhiliate muslims to 'solve your problem' and yet it wasn't okay for the Nazis to annhiliate people to solve their problem?
Or would that be one rule for me and another rule for the rest?
neo,
We inhabit different planets. I believe that it was good people reached a point where they believed that murder was unacceptable, for any person, at any time, for any reason.
You clearly have not reached that point.
Thankfully, in this day and age murder is a crime and genocide is a crime against humanity.
One can only be grateful for that.
You do of course see that if it is okay for people to use murder as a problem solving mechanism, as you suggest, then it is okay for others to do the same.
That means, since you support killing Muslims because of your belief it's okay for them to kill you (and others) because of their beliefs.
Thanksfully people who think like you are a minority in this world.
neo,
How can I be a supporter of terror when you are the one who said that if you had been given the chance you would have annhiliated all the Muslims? You support genocide. Isn't that terror.
I support peace and am opposed to killing of any kind.
You think it is okay to kill people to solve a problem.... by extension that means you support suicide bombers who also believe in killing people to solve a problem.
You are on the same side as any terrorist who believes in murder as a problem solving mechanism.
Well, it's a psychological maxim that what we decry in others is what we deny in ourselves.
One of the most destructive things about Jewish culture is the belief in victimhood. You can see this cultural baggage in Armenians too, for somewhat similar reasons. Somehow the gypsies, who have great justification for it still, seem to have avoided it.
Jewish victimhood is entrenched in the religion and existed long before the Nazis. It's interesting standing at the wailing wall having a translator tell you what is being said.... all too often stories of victimhood that go back thousands of years.
The trouble with being a victim is that you must always belive you are right, that you are an innocent sufferer. This means everything must be projected out onto an enemy .... if you did not have one you would have to find one or create one.
I think this cult of victim is one reason why so many Israelis have been unable to recognise and accept that in the case of the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who are the victims and the Israelis who are the aggressor.
It's hard to give up victimhood. It makes you feel special; it makes you feel superior; and, when you get together with a whole lot of other 'victims' it makes you feel safe.
I guess if we become that which we deny in ourselves then that which we hate is that which we deny in ourselves.
One of the greatest tragedies for clear thinking Israelis and Jews is that they now grieve for the loss of Israel's soul and feel deep shame that Israel has become, in so many ways, like the Nazis who so victimised them.
But that's the problem with embedding victimhood in culture and religion .... it dilutes, if not destroys, perspective and reason.
I'm not sure what it will take to wake Israel up given the terrible things that are already done in her name. I just hope something will.
It's an interesting place. I'd like to see it succeed.
addamo,
I was replying to you. Should have specified.
The addamo is so thick it's hard to see. As thje palestinians wrap themselves in victimhood, rhr attempts to find the most destructive thing about Jewish culture.
Let alone that arab kill their children on a regular basis for a matter of honor.
addamo,
That's an interesting point about Jews 'needing' Israel to feel safe. Understandable of course given the history but somewhat dysfunctional as well.
I really do believe at the end of the day that people are more ignorant than evil and more damaged than cruel.
It's being able to see the humanity in the other. I guess as an occupier one is distracted by power and as a victim, in this sense the Palestinians, one is distracted by suffering.
the tragedy for Israel is that most of its people and most of its supporters are distracted by both power and suffering.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ibrahamav,
you are moving away from the point. Negatives in Arab culture do not negate negatives in Israeli culture. Assessing the individual acts is what matters, within the context of culture and the ability of the individual to change culture.
In a supposedly liberal democratic society, like Israel, people have a great deal of freedom to bring about change, therefore they can be held to be more responsible for the wrongs committed in their name.
In a society without those freedoms, with less of a capacity to bring about change, the wrongs must be asssessed in the light of that.
No-one expects a child living under brutal parenting to have the same freedom to change as a child living in the freedom of enlightened parenting.
The same thing applies to cultures.
Any occupied people do not have to paint themselves into victimhood they are victimised.... it is a matter of degree. The brutality of the Israeli occupation is a matter of record, records established by Palestinians, Israelis and international observers.
You certainly have displayed that you are the proof of your second paragraph.
ibrahamov,
good luck to you. you are clearly incapable of reasoned debate. If that is the best you can summon then it is probably all thatyou can summon.
Go lightly in the world. We are all in this together, whatever our race, creed or capacity.
There are no enemies beyond the demond we create in our own minds. There is no safe place; ergo, there is no dangerous place. There just is.
Your opinion is as valid as mine. The only criteria is to ask if what we believe brings us joy and a sense of peace. Take care.
that was demons not demond. It has been a long day. the sentiments remain the same.
I wonder why anyone is concerned if a nazi shows respect?
I do not see why debate, layered with addamo, has any greater meaning or should have attention paid to it, because it's tone is respectful.
An antisemites opinion is not valid as his antisemitism is not valid. His opinion is as valid as Zundel's, Irving's, and loewensteins, as they are not based on facts.
But it is interesting that rhross admits he lives in a world not based on facts. Rather based on whatever he thinks up.
I never called rhr a nazi. Neither did I call him an antisemite. Even though he, like you, use terms and expressions favored by such.
I was using an analogy. Surely you've heard of them?
Because of these and other unsupported accusations, it is no wonderr people are using 'addamo' as a euphemism for bullshit.
As for Zudel. you must ask the German Justice system. Many democracies have rules and regulations as to admissible evidence. Most exclude items which have already been proven false.
He would not be allowed to introduce the protocols as proof that Jews are planning to rule the world.
Leave it to our resident ape to take comments out of context.
Palestinian people do not exist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 11, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A provocative headline? It's more than that. It's the truth.
Truth does not change. Truth is truth. If something was true 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, it is still true today.
And the truth is that only 30 years ago, there was very little confusion on this issue of Palestine.
You might remember the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir making the bold political statement: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people."
The statement has been a source of ridicule and derision by Arab propagandists ever since. They love to talk about Golda Meir's "racism." They love to suggest she was in historical denial. They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, a strategic deception.
What they don't like to talk about, however, are the very similar statements made by Yasser Arafat and his inner circle of political leadership years after Meir had told the truth – that there is no distinct Palestinian cultural or national identity.
So, despite the fact that conventional wisdom has now proclaimed that there is such a thing as the Palestinian people, I'm going to raise those uncomfortable quotations made by Arafat and his henchmen when their public-relations guard was down.
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
That's pretty clear, isn't it? It's even more specific than Golda Meir's statement.
Since the phrase regarding such a slogan was written by an english christian, Lord Shaftesbury, long before Zangill was born, you remain self-pleasuring.
Zangill may have adapted it, but he didn't come up with it. The christians did.
The point that seems to be overlooked here in regard to the Palestinians is that what matters is now.
Even if one could argue that there was no identifiable Palestinian culture (which I doubt) before the creation of Israel, one could also argue there was no Israeli identity before the creation of Israel.
So what? Here is where we are at. There was no German nation until early last century and then there was.
There is now, quite clearly, an identifiable Palestinian people and they are a people who live under brutal occupation and, like all others, deserve their freedom.
Those are the salient facts; that is what needs to be dealt with.
The reality is that Israel exists, but it exists in its only legal sense on what was someone else's land.... it is also seeking to exist, in a completely illegal sense, on what remains of Palestine.
Two peoples have to find a way to share this land.
Each has a right to a viable State.
That means economically and militarily independent with some capacity for contiguous borders.
Just as it is no longer possible for Palestinians to remove Israelis from this land so it is not possible for Israelis to remove Palestinians from this land.
It can't happen because the international community would not let it happen. It won't happen because Palestinians do not have the power to do it and if Israelis wrought genocide upon the Palestinian people there is every chance that the world community would be so appalled they would call for the end of the Israeli state and for Palestine to be given back to the diaspora Palestinian community.
So, in short, the Israelis and Palestinians are stuck with each other.
Israel, at this point in time has all the power and therefore the greater responsibility to act for a fair division of the land.... the Palestinians have no power other than resistance, sadly often violent, and so can do little.
Both sides need to talk to each other but both sides will need to be forced to agreement.
This is where the US and the international community must come in. Israel will not relinquish any of its power and the Palestinians will not give up the only power they have .... violent resistance .... until it is clear that a just and lasting solution will be imposed not just upon them, but upon Israel as well.
If this does not happen the bloodshed will continue. Israel will continue upon its path as a pariah to the world at large, ultimately facing sanctions, as South Africa did, which will destroy its already weak economy.
At the end of the day there will either be one state ... a name would need to be decided ... including both peoples with full equal rights, or there will be two states, probably on the original borders of partition with access for Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank.
My tip is that if it is two states, within decades they will function as one. Palestinians and Israelis have more in common with each other than anyone else. You only have to spend time in Israel to see that.
The only difference in any of the outcomes is the amount of death and destruction that takes place before resolution.
For anyone who cares about the future of Israel or Palestine, that is the only thing which matters.
Quite clearly, the palestinians live under a system of their own devising. If it is brutal, it is because they are brutal.
They have been offered, many time, a country of their own. Many times, they have refused. And decided to become more brutal in the hopes that they could get a better deal.
As the situation is nothing like South Africa, Israel will not face sanctions.
Forgive me if I laugh at your tip.
Israel already faces boycotts.
Sanctions will come. The South Africans tried to incarcerate their problem populations into bantostans.... prison-like areas. The Israelis are seeking to concentrate their problem people into prison-like areas. Gaza is an enormous concentration camp, surrounded by electric fences. Most Palestinian towns are prisons with exit and entry only through guarded gates. Many of them are now cut in half by the illegal wall Israel is building in an effort to try to make a Palestinian state impossible.
It won't work of course. Walls come down. The Berlin Wall did and so will this one.
Palestinians have never been offered what is their right: a viable state.
The occupation was brutal long before the first intifada. The dispossession was brutal. It tends to be.
However, the sign of a civilized human being is to respond to violence with self-discipline. The responsibility to do so is even greater when one has all the power as an occupying force does.
Most people will fight to free themselves from occupation. There is no difference between the Palestinians fighting for freedom than the French fighting the Germans, the Chechens fighting the Russians, nor, I might add, the Americans when they fought to free themselves from English rule.
The French, the Americans, the Chechens use the same tactics as the Palestinians.
One exception in a violent world is the Tibetans. They stand as an example to us all. Sadly though, despite the fact that they have not resorted to violence, the world has failed them.
When you look at the story of Tibet it is easy to see why most occupied peoples believe that fighting is the only way.
I understand why people resort to violence but I don't condone it. I can understand the motivations behind Israeli violence toward Palestinians and I can understand Palestinian violence in response but I condone neither.
Walls, bullets, bombs, brutality and prisons do not bring us safety or peace. They bring only a debased culture and greater fear.
But the boycotts are a joke.
The Palestinians did nothing to free themselves of being occupied by Jordan and Egypt.
You understand why people resort to violence, because they have the same screwed up logic that you have?
And most of the French were quite happy with German occupation. It allowed them to vent their antisemitism quite freely.
The Jordanians and Egyptians did not desire the destruction or dispossession of the Palestinians. Perhaps a reason why they did not mind the 'occupation.' Neither did they 'mind' as much the British 'occupation.'The British did not seek to take the land and destroy them as Israel does.
You miss the point, again, I understand the violence of all.... that includes Israel, to which you clearly attest. And yet I suspect you would not see their logic as screwed up. It is of course.
The Nazi ooccupation of France and the French resistance had nothing to do with Jews.... surprisingly ... the Jewish question is not the sole be all and end all of people's motives.
Of course there were French who were anti-jewish. If you were interested you might find out why. Racism came into it. And circumstance and ignorance.
In the same way that many Israelis are racist and are anti Arab ... which actually makes them anti-semitic. Again, because of racism, circumstance and ignorance.
You only have to be in Israel a short time to realise that many people are not only ignorant but completely racist about Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. As good as the French, if not better, given their discriminatory practices and getting close to the Nazis in terms of their desire for 'cleansing.'
As I said in an earlier post, the cult of victimhood is seductive... you get to convince yourself you are always the good guy even when you commit terrible acts of evil against others.
But, like all those who commit acts of evil, ultimately it catches up with you.
Have you ever pondered why anti-semitism existed? Would you be able to accept that the Chinese were seen in a similar vein in many parts of the world for similar reasons? probably not.
It isn't actually anything to do with being Jewish. It tends to be the sort of discrimination meted out to people, who for whatever reason, and i am not saying they should not do it, set themselves up within society but apart from it.... who see themselves as somehow superior.
A lot of this is human nature and it does not make the response right. I don't condone it. But when people, for whatever reason, and often it is religous.... you can find it in histories of societies which are Christian or Hindu or Muslim ....set themselves apart, cannot, or will not, become a full part of the greater community they create a situation of division.
when the society is healthy and fully functional this often does not matter. But human beings are self serving and when things are bad, everyone looks for a scapegoat.
In times past people looked to Jews... they also looked to Cathars and Huguenots and countless other 'different' groups ...and now Israelis look to the Palestinians.
At the end of the day we are all the same. The tragedy for Jews and Israelies is that, given their history, they have learned so little .... or nothing ... and are now doing unto others what was done unto them.
There is a reason for everything which you will never find... and therefore never reach resolution ... as long as you deny the part you play in it.
it takes two. it always did. It still does. It doesn't make what happens right. It just says that nothing happens in a vacuum.
When Israelis can accept and admit the wrongs that they commit they will grow up. Then they have a chance of functioning as a mature society in the world.
They are not alone of course. This is a task for many societies. But the topic here is Israel's treatment of the people it occupies and the denial it uses to refuse to accept responsibility for its actions.
But that's probably a bit complex for you.
Take care. it will all work out.Whatever you think and whatever I think.
No wonder rhr is at a loss. He is now making things up. And now he excuses French antisemitism, and objects when his own examples are thrown back at him as proof of the opposite!
Sorry, rhr, but your displayed ignorance, no doubt from perusing hate sites, have left you so screwed up that it isn't worth the time to destroy every single one of your points.
As for our resident ape, he will be dust and the Israelis will continue to be a strong nation. I think I'll go buy some more stock in Caterpillar.
ibrahamav
insults do not an argument make. Let alone debate. But this isn't of course. Sadly.
One of the major problems for Israelis is that there is little or no real, reasoned, informed debate about the problems that face them.
There is some, thankfully, because there are Israelis who care about justice and decency and human rights but their numbers are small and the majority of Israelis prefer to hide their heads in the sand and respond with ignorance and hatred.
It is impossible to win a war of occupation in the modern age which is why Israel will ultimately fail and so too will the US and its sycophantic allies.
It was possible in times past to win a war of occupation .... you merely killed or enslaved all the people you held under occupation.
But it is not allowed anymore and so occupations breed resistance which continues and intensifies the longer the occupation continues.
Israel has now bred a second generation of abused and angry Palestinians. The world may have ignored their plight in the main but at some point it will be impossible to ignore it anymore.
Justice always triumphs eventually.
To be honest, I actually feel the international community has not only failed the Palestinians, it has failed the Israelis.
Allowing Israel to use its power to continue the occupation and increase colonisation of Palestine has served only to corrupt and debase the society and culture.
The US holds greatest responsibility for this because the US, as Israel's backer .... in many ways Israel is no more than a satrapy of the US because it could not survive without American aid ...is the one that could have brought reason to to the issue.
The US, both officially and unofficially .... Jewish support at a private level .... encouraged Israel to build yet more colonial settlements and distracted Israelis from the main task .... that of building a functioning, free and healthy State.
The settlements cannot be held. They are illegal, all of them, but more than that, it is physically impossible to hold them without imprisoning Palestinians. That injustice means Israel must divert energy and much needed money to maintain the occupation army, the Palestinian 'prison states,' the defence of the illegal settlers ... no wonder Israel is heading for bankruptcy.
The other thing that the colonisation has destroyed is the tourist industry. Visitor numbers have dropped, hotels and restaurants are closed or losing money, the economy is weak, unemployment figures are up .... money that should have gone into building a First World country .... much of Israel is very Third World, ... has gone on the military, which is very First World indeed.
There is an insanity to it all. Israelis deserve better. Here they are with one of the world's most up to date military machines, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and an inferior quality of life, little hope of a peaceful future, and a tottering economy.
And all for what? Land! Land that was never meant to hold so many people. Land that does not have enough water to support so many people.
The dream of Israel, and many people admired that dream despite the fact that it involved dispossession of others .... is in tatters because of dysfunctional thinking and appalling leadership.
One can only hope that whoever replaces Sharon comes with reason and not a raised fist.
Israelis who do look around can only see the destruction that has been wrought by a policy of war, aggression and paranoia.
If you really care about Israel ibrahamav then now is the time to stop talking about past wrongs and to deal with the now.
There is only one question:
What needs to be done to provide justice and a decent quality of life to both Palestinians and Israelis as they share this small but precious piece of land?
The insults, themselves do not make a debate, but neither does your premise, as it is not based on truth.
Israel, as one of the freeist societies on earth, has ample debate. That you deny this is just one reason to turn from your faulty arguments. Why argue with a moron who can't get the first fact straight?
The palestinians have bred 4 straight generations educated to hate and kill Jews.
Go peddle your addamo elsewhere, no one here is buying such damaged goods.
ibrahamav,
You don't read things or else you have difficulty understanding.
The subject being discussed was debate within Judaism, not within Israeli society.
The comments therefore referred to religious debate.
And Israel can no longer claim to be one of the most free societies on earth as it once could because Israeli Arabs are definitely not as free as their Jewish counterparts.
Until each and every Israeli has exactly the same freedom, not just to debate, but to travel, marry and live then Israel will remain one of the least-free democratic societies on earth.
Israeli Arabs are as free as their Jewish counterparts. They all have the same freedoms.
Which makes Israel one of the most free democratic societies on earth.
No facts? Just a quote from a neo-nazi website?
neo,
One of the most unpleasant aspects of Israel's supporters is this belief that Jews are superior.
Citing Nobel Prizes and the like is racist, childish and actually, if one goes into a per capita performance of cultures, incorrect.
The Arabs were civilized when others were still barbarians. Much of our modern knowledge is drawn from Arab learning.
The beliefs of Judaism and Christianity, can all be traced back to the ancient Egyptians and beyond .... to the ancient lands that now constitute Iraq.
But so what? The reality is that every human being in this world is equal. We all come from the same place.
The divisions that arise do so because of fear and are entrenched by religion.
By all means compare Israel to its neighbours. It is meaningless. Compare Israel to its peers and you get an accurate picture of how poorly it performs.
Have you been to Israel? I have. More Third World than First despite some of its achievements.
Israel is destroying itself because of what it spends on its military machine.
On the other hand, take Dubai or Muscat, very sophisticated cities.
You are living in a fantasy which is probably why so many of your statements are fantastic.
Anyone who does wrong must be held responsible, whether Islamic or Jewish, Israeli or Palestinian.
Does Israel, for the moment anyway, have a capacity as a free and democratic nation to ensure that happens? Yes.
Do non-democratic, non-free nations have that ability? No.
It does not mean that you ignore wrongs committed in such societies but merely that you take into account the difficulties, if not impossibility, facing citizens of those societies in bringing about change.
Jewish experience shows just how impossible it is to act freely when one is held imprisoned by others.
But this is not a debate. This is a bigoted rant on your part and so I leave you to it.
RHRoss said...
neo,
One of the most unpleasant aspects of Israel's supporters is this belief that Jews are superior.
Antony states it in his arguements all the time. Here is his statement regarding his belief of Jewish superiority:
"And as a Jew, I believe it is my responsibility to speak out when abuse occurs..."
Post a Comment
<< Home