Iranian 'intifada' is celebrated in the US, while Palestinians are still ignored
Note that the heroic Iranian woman on the CNN page is about to throw a stone. Have you ever seen coverage of a Palestinian throwing a stone during a protest highlighted so prominently and positively?
Joseph Dana has pointed out the similarities between the popular resistance being displayed on the streets of Iran and that in the West Bank. While Robert Fisk sees similarities in the repressive response of the Iranian and Israeli governments:
Unleashing a rabble of armed government forces on to the streets and claiming that all whom they shoot are "terrorists" is an almost copy-cat perfect version of the Israeli army's public reaction to the Palestinian intifada. If stone-throwing demonstrators are shot dead, then it is their own fault, they are breaking the law and they are working for foreign powers.When this happens in the Israeli-occupied territories, the Israelis claim that the foreign powers of Iran and Syria are behind the violence. When this happens on the streets of Iranian cities, the Iranian regime claims that the foreign powers of the United States, Israel and Britain are behind the violence.
And it is indeed an intifada that has broken out in Iran . . .
For all the similarities in the inspiring David vs Goliath imagery, it has been crushing to see the vast difference in the way Iranian protest is being handled in the US versus the ongoing Palestinians nonviolent resistance to the Israeli occupation. And it's not just in the media. Today in a press conference President Obama said:
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.
If Obama is to be judged by his actions, that last sentence is simply a lie. In the first six months of the Obama administration at least two Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while nonviolently protesting the theft of their land without a comment from the US. Israel even shot and critically injured a US citizen during a nonviolent protest in the West Bank and the administration had nothing to say.
This is in no way to take away from the outrage or solidarity people feel when watching incredibly brave people taking to the streets in Iran. But there are brave examples in other places as well. And in the case of Palestine, the US is funding the repressive regime putting the protests down with over $3 billion a year.
During the question portion of the his press conference today President Obama commented on a video of an Iranian protester who was killed over the weekend. The woman, Neda Agha-Setan, has become a face of the protests and the video of her death has become the iconic image of the protest so far. From the press conference:
All right. Last question. Suzanne.Q: Thank you. Back to Iran, putting a human face on this. Over the weekend, we saw a shocking video of this woman, Neda, who had been shot in the chest and bled to death. Have you seen this video?
THE PRESIDENT: I have.
Q: What's your reaction?
THE PRESIDENT: It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking. And I think that anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust about that.
Mr. President, we're waiting for your comment -
Read more at Mondoweiss.
It would be more relevant to say "while Americans are still ignored".
June 24, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are the Palestinians going to acknowledge Israel's right to natural growth as a Jewish state?
When Palestine agrees to cede land, water, and demography to whatever extent Israel covets these things, I think the Palestinians will receive much more positive coverage in the U.S.
They might also try wearing t-shirts that say
"We are all Israelis now*
* metaphorically, not legally"
June 24, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the news is being manipulated! And of course there is a double standard, entirely biased in Israel's favor.
The contrast between the American MSM treatment of the massacre of Gaza and the treatment of the riots in Iran couldn't be more flagrant.
My personal experience with the subject of this thread, was to have the following video, which I put together at the height of the Gaza massacre, pulled from YouTube with a stern warning about being under six months probation with the possibility of having my IP banned forever.... within a half hour of uploading the video.
Here is the link to the video itself:
Harmless it isn't, but there is a lot rougher stuff on youtube that doesn't touch Israel and stands without problems.
My conclusion is that Google is biased, very biased, unselfconsciously biased and so is most of the American media.
The death of Neda, sad as it is, cannot compare with dropping white phosphorus on children, but.... why go on?
June 24, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But David, you know well that what the media is interested in is the hot, fresh story and only the hot, fresh story. They consider stories in isolation. The Iran uprising story is one they like. It's simple. It has a good side and a bad side and those two are uncomplicated because the official American posture toward the Iranian government is hostile and so they don't have to get into any messy moral questions or to do any critical analysis that might raise questions about the US which is naturally all good all the time.
The Israel/Palestinian story is an ongoing, seemingly endless story. It isn't hot, is isn't fresh and it is, if told accurately, filled with moral ambiguity. It is very often unclear exactly who is good and who is bad in this story so they don't like it. Officially, Israel is supposed to be the good guy in the story so it makes portrayal of the IDF as anything but good very messy indeed. So they just avoid it as much as possible.
June 24, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why was Weiss' version of this post removed from the site and yours put up in its stead when there were already comments on the first one?
Because you didn't like the comments? Should people even bother to comment on the blogs you two guys produce, since it's not a sure thing they won't disappear? Is there some time frame we have to wait until we know a post will stay, disappear, or reappear in another form? Or are you just looking for dittohead comments?
I know I am not imagining things because the two comments I made on Weiss' post are still listed on "My Comments," but access to them is denied. I believe that with this system it is even possible to retrieve them, they still exist on Weiss' now unpublished blog entry.
June 24, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your comments. Anybody else want theirs re-posted?
I just got done reading some totally different frame for this theme, flipped as it were, which provides a very different picture than yours:
From The Arab World Reacts (or Doesn’t), June 23:
....debate is lively in the Arab media and on Arab-language Web sites. But there is one exception: the Palestinians seem almost indifferent to what is going on in Iran. This may seem surprising.
The most prominent Palestinian to have publicly expressed an opinion on the events is a former Israeli Knesset member, Azmi Bishara, who fled Israel and is wanted for questioning for allegedly spying for Hezbollah.
In an op-ed piece earlier this week in Al Jazeera, Bishara concluded that the events in Iran reflect the views of middle-class Iranians, not those of the majority of the population. And to the extent that Iran becomes more westernized, he stated, this process will result from an ideological clash within the regime itself.
Bishara did not say a word about how all of this might affect the Palestinians. Even when his piece was copied to Hamas’s most active forum, Paldf, it did not give rise to a discussion on what the impact on the Palestinians would be.
Perhaps this is because the Palestinians realize that what happens in Iran — short of a complete overhaul of the regime, which is highly unlikely — is not going to have an effect on the support they receive from the Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence....
continued in
Palestinians Know Nothing Will Change by Ronen Bergman @ the above link
....Lebanon’s Hezbollah is keeping generally silent on the post-election turmoil in Iran, but one can be certain that the emerging power struggle between Iran’s clerical rulers is under close scrutiny from Beirut.
Of greater concern for Hezbollah is the emerging power struggle among Iran’s top clerical rulers.
Hezbollah’s structural ideology is rooted in “wilayet al-faqih,” or the rule of the jurisprudent. It is the system of governance developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the godfather of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, in which supreme authority, political and religious, is invested in one man. Hezbollah answers to the supreme leader in Iran, presently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not the state itself, which is why the identity of the president is largely immaterial to the Lebanese party.
Although it maintains a careful neutrality in public, Hezbollah prefers Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, sent a warm note of congratulations to Mr. Ahmadinejad, saying....
continued in
Why Hezbollah Is Quiet by Nicholas Blanford @ the above link.
Posted by artappraiser
June 24, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
user-pic
I also can imagine citizens of the Congo wondering why Iranians get most of the attention, and Palestinians get what's left:
June 21...The United Nations says all men in uniform are committing atrocities against the civilian population. It says Congolese government soldiers and rebel groups alike extort money from the villagers, rob them of their belongings and of their seeds and cattle....if the villagers do not give in to the threats of the men in uniform, their villages are torched and they are attacked with machetes.... the humanitarian situation has significantly deteriorated....the number of rapes has skyrocketed....
or Somalia or Zimbabwe...
We could play "Oppression Olympics: Unfair!" all day.
You might say its because the Mideast has oil, but then you might note that Nigeria has oil, too, and a glance at a google news search for "Nigeria" shows it's not all nifty there, either. American blogosphere outrage, interest, even a small mention now and then, on Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria? Pfffft....game just as "unfair." Don't go blaming the MSM if you don't show any interest in hearing about it. Seems to me if I was on an oppressed team, I'd say it might be wise to figure out what the things are that the Iranians do to pique so much interest.
Posted by artappraiser in reply to a comment from artappraiser
June 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also can imagine citizens of the Congo wondering why Iranians get most of the attention, and Palestinians get what's left:
June 21...The United Nations says all men in uniform are committing atrocities against the civilian population. It says Congolese government soldiers and rebel groups alike extort money from the villagers, rob them of their belongings and of their seeds and cattle....if the villagers do not give in to the threats of the men in uniform, their villages are torched and they are attacked with machetes.... the humanitarian situation has significantly deteriorated....the number of rapes has skyrocketed....
or Somalia or Zimbabwe...
We could play "Oppression Olympics: Unfair!" all day.
You might say its because the Mideast has oil, but then you might note that Nigeria has oil, too, and a glance at a google news search for "Nigeria" shows it's not all nifty there, either. American blogosphere outrage, interest, even a small mention now and then, on Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria? Pfffft....game just as "unfair." Don't go blaming the MSM if you don't show any interest in hearing about it. Seems to me if I was on an oppressed team, I'd say it might be wise to figure out what the things are that the Iranians do to pique so much interest.
Posted by artappraiser in reply to a comment from artappraiser
June 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bill that was certainly nice of you, especially since I suspect from your reading you in the past that you don't agree much with me! I saw it soon after you posted it, but had to leave soon after. You made me realize I might be able to retrieve them, I suspected what you did was go "back" on your browser, so I left mine open and I did manage to get them back as well as the other six. I am going to repost them now, with my formatting and links, at the bottom of the thread. Even though it seems a little silly, I went through the trouble of a long slog back, just out of principle of not getting censored by devil-may-care blog posters.
June 25, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering what was going on, too. I clicked on the author's name (on this post) to see what else he had written. TPM tells me that this person does not have a blog here. How does that happen, anyway?
June 24, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
On what might be going on--
I vaguely recall from a previous post by writers from Mondoweiss where Versha Sharma from TPM explained. Strange things happen with their posts because the people at Mondoweiss are using some kind of feed to copy their posts at their site, (Mondoweiss) to this one, and then sometimes they or someone here edits them after the fact so they make more sense for this audience.
This time it looked to me like Phil Weiss from Mondoweiss posted it originally and then someone came and took Weiss' off and replaced it with Adam Horowitz's, which may have more content and detail, I don't know because you can't compare, the old one is gone.
I recall that Versa Sharma also said at the time that they meant no disrespect to the TPM audience by doing it this way, that it wasn't just a case of plopping copies for more traffic.
But they certainly haven't convinced me about that since then, doesn't seem to me like they are even reading the comments on this post, they haven't replied to the queries about what happened, and they deleted the 7 comments that were on the first version without a word as if they didn't matter.
This is not the way to handle editing after the fact if one is using the TPM software. You don't have to delete the comments if the original poster edits the original post. But they are doing something odd to supposedly save time, and it's actually causing problems.
So far all I see is evidence that they want to drive more traffic to their own blog and not to try to work within this one's system and audience, and they aren't paying much attention to what the comments say.
If they're too busy to handle two audiences, maybe they should only be writing for one?
P.S. I must say that I know that columnist M.J Rosenberg has in the past on several occasions deleted whole threads, with more than a few comments on them, but hasn't done so lately.
June 24, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I must say that I know that columnist M.J Rosenberg has in the past on several occasions deleted whole threads, with more than a few comments on them, but hasn't done so lately.
Isn't that the same M. J. Rosenberg who was complaining about google removing videos from its site? Interesting.
June 25, 2009 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg also simply removes or edits parts of his blog that commenters effectively debunk or attack. Leaving those comments hanging there as a response to nothing in the blog making them seem like unwarranted attacks. That's one of several reasons I no longer pay much attention to his blogs.
June 28, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see this. Thought maybe I was going nuts since I had posted but then it was nowhere to be found. What happened exactly?
June 24, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, here is a copy of your comment on the original post which I retrieved from my browser's memory. May I say to whoever is responsible that I think it is really kind of nasty to just delete a comment of this length and thoughtfulness without a second thought, without saying anything about doing it?
If anyone wants to know how this was done, I don't know about other browsers, but if you use Internet Explorer, if you haven't closed the window/tab you were using to post the comment, if you go "back" to the page where you got a preview, you will get a message that the data is no longer available but suggests that a "refresh" might produce it. If you hit "refresh" you should get your preview window with your comment in it and all the other comments that were there on the thread at the time. This will only work if you haven't closed it.
June 25, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AA!
June 25, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranians are fighting for something that everyone can understand and empathize with, regardless of background or political outlook...fair elections. They are essentially unified under a leader calling for non-violence. This is key.
What exactly the Palestinians are fighting for is less clear. The right of return? The return of all land lost in the wars of 1948 and 1967? The end of Israel as a Jewish state? The ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Palestine? The Palestinian leadership is not in agreement at all in its objectives, with the militant Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel in its charter, which some people believe means also the destruction of Israelis (or at least stripping them of most of their property). Violence, especially chilling acts of terror like the suicide bombing at a child's birthday party at Sbarro's, has been an important element of Palestinian resistance, and the martyrs most actively mourned have been suicide bombers.
So while there has always been a pro-Israel bias in the US media, there are important differences between the Palestinian strategy and the Iranian one (so far). If the Palestinians were to unite around a leader calling for massive non-violent protests, Israel would quickly lose US support. However, the Palestinians don't seem to have that kind of leadership.
June 24, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is this: Iranians are fighting to take their country back from what many believe is a corrupt leadership. The Palestinians are fighting to take their country back from foreign invaders who claim that a Divine Real Estate Agent/Iron Age Sky-God gave them the land 3500 years ago.
Now do you understand?
June 24, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I forget: Did you even bother to watch the video of Isareli police murdering a non-violent Palestinian protester?
I guess it's "unclear" only if you choose to not understand.
June 24, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't the Jews have any national and historic connection to that land at all? Do you buy into the Khazar narrative?
June 25, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they have a connection. They way that Peter de la Billiere, the UK commander in original Gulf War, had a connection to Normandy.
The point isn't whether Jews lived in Ancient Israel/Judea/Palastine. It's whether a Jew born in New York has rights over a Palestinian born in Ashdod in 1947.
June 30, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a Palestinian born in Ein el-Hilweh in 1990 is to have the same right as an Israeli born in Petah Tikva in 1960, then why not?
June 30, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh gee, TPMcafe has a new Israel-obsessed Jewish poster! Blumenthal, welcome to the club of ethno-centric narcissists like Avisahai, Gitlin, Rosenberg, Weiss and sometimes Marshall... at least Robert Reich believes there are other issues in the world.
June 24, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an ad hominem personal attack. Do you agree or disagree with the post and/or the ideas of the people you're attacking?
June 24, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can characterize things in the manner you did, but the fact is, even if all that stuff you said were true (and I don't think it is), the Israel/Palestinian problem is central to a huge amount of conflict on this planet and so merits the close attention of thinking people everywhere. It is worth paying attention to, if for no other reason than it is so perilous and fraught with all sorts of danger. It is also important for those who would like to see an easing of the tensions in this world.
If, by some miracle, we untie the gordian knot of Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it will have been worth all the time and attention given it. Personally, I think it unfair of you to assert these folks are only interested in the issue because they are Jewish. The manner in which you deliver your comments smacks of some pretty rank bigotry if you ask me and I am not Jewish so please don't interpret my position as a simple knee jerk reaction of circling the ethnic wagons. The hostility conveyed by you coupled with the implication that their interest is solely because it is "their" issue is ugly and unwarranted.
June 24, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following is my first deleted comment from the first version of this post made at 2:50 pm June 24.
---------------
I just got done reading some totally different frames for this theme, flipped as it were, which provide a very different picture from yours.
From The Arab World Reacts (or Doesn’t), June 23:
continued in
Palestinians Know Nothing Will Change by Ronen Bergman @ the above link
continued in
Why Hezbollah Is Quiet by Nicholas Blanford @ the above link.
June 25, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And following is a repost of my second deleted comment on the original version of this post, made shortly after the above:
-----
I also can imagine citizens of the Congo wondering why Iranians get most of the attention, and Palestinians get what's left:
or Somalia or Zimbabwe...
We could play "Oppression Olympics: Unfair!" all day.
You might say its because the Mideast has oil, but then you might note that Nigeria has oil, too, and a glance at a google news search for "Nigeria" shows it's not all nifty there, either. American blogosphere outrage, interest, even a small mention now and then, on Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria? Pfffft....game just as "unfair." Don't go blaming the MSM if you don't show any interest in hearing about it. If I was on an oppressed team, I'd say it might be wise to figure out what the things are that the Iranians do to pique so much interest.
June 25, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the other comments that were deleted along with the original version of the post, which I was able to retrieve from my browser memory (I have already reposted Oleeb's deleted comment above @ 12:25 AM and I leave off Bill Walker's deleted comment as I presume he was able to retrieve his own):
June 25, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks to Artappraiser for re-posting the comments.
The comparison the author seeks to draw here is ludicrous on its face. As others have mentioned, the I/P conflict has dragged on for more than 60 years, has sparked several wars, and has led to atrocities on both sides. Allow me to go further and point out that the Iranian protesters do not have a history of hijacking aircraft, blowing themselves up in cafes or firing rockets into civilian centers. They have not rejected numerous partition plans. They do not seek the destruction of Iran. During the first intifada, the brutal Israeli response to stone-throwing youths earned the Palestinian national movement some international sympathy. Much of that has since dissipated with the extreme violence of the second intifada and the rise of Hamas in Gaza. The comparison only makes sense by erasing the entire history of the I/P conflict.
But of course, this is as obvious as the nose on one's face, even to those who sympathize with the Palestinian cause. Which once again makes me wonder why Josh Marshall allows these idealogues such a prominent voice here.
June 25, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. The comparison is only possible when one is able to characterize the history of the Palestinian resistance as "the ongoing Palestinians nonviolent resistance to the Israeli occupation."
The I/P conflict is indeed one of the crucial global conflicts that need to be addressed for the very reason that how it unfolds impacts an entire region and the whole globe in a way that many other horrible conflicts do not.
Unfortunately the discussion is bogged down by ideological agendas (Israel is all good, Israel is all bad, etc).
June 25, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
AG - I was in Israel many times between 1967 and the breakout of the first infitada in 1987 and in fact lived there in 83-84. During this period there were literally hundreds of peaceful demonstations by Palestinians objecting to their statelessness and the confiscation of their farm land for new settlements.
These demonstrations were met by either Israeli indifference or outright hostility. The government's response was NO, NO, NO!!!!!! So the Palestinians figured rightly they would get nowhere peacefully and they started throwing rocks.
You disagree with the violence and so do I but what else can the Palestinians do? Do you really believe if the Palestinians marched in the streets like Iran, that Israel's response would be much different from Ahmadinejad? Go out to Bil’in and see for yourself how the IDF treats protesters.
The day that Israel offers the Palestinians a state where they control their own borders, airspece and water is the day 95% of the violence ends. The Palestinians have repeatedly offered to ban heavy weapons but where Camp David and the latest Annapolis offers fell short was Israel's insistence on controlling the borders and all aspects of Palestinian life and economy. The percentages of west bank land, whether it's 90% or 95% are irrelevent. As the Geneva and Taba proposals proved, the Palestinians are willing to give up the right of return for a just piece of Jerusalem.
June 25, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with nonviolent movements is that at any time they can be derailed when there is a parallel movement for the same cause that choose the road of violence. In the public eye, a hundred peaceful demonstrations can be undone by one violent demonstration or other acts of violence.
The reason so many around the world was able to come together and help make Apartheid a thing of the past is that for most part the movement avoided violent methods of protest. People were standing up for the victims of Apartheid, not one side in a on-going violent conflict. One could have also argued that the protestors in SA would have been justified in turning to widespread violence, but it is to their credit that they did not, including after the transition and the oppressed were able to sit in the seats of power.
June 25, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Acamus - The African National Congress(ANC) found out that non-violent protests alone did nothing. The ANC had a parallel violent front that was at least as bad as anything the Palestinians have done.
June 25, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of it is a matter of perception than reality - that is what i meant by the "public eye." And there is an debate whether the worst of the Palestine attacks were on the same level as the ANC, especially when it comes to targetting civilians (and of course that depends on who is considered a civilian). For instance, in the public eye, intentionally sending rockets onto civilians is a whole other ballgame. What we are talking about is why what is happening in Iran and what is happening in Palestine, regarding media coverage and American reaction is not the same.
Some blame is on the MSM and the way they cover stories about the I/P conflict, but the Palestine movement has made some bad choices in the past if what they want to do is elicit support in Western countries. The same could be said for the IRA, when they crossed the line too many times when it came to involving civilians in the "crossfire," which turned people away who otherwise might be sympathetic to their cause.
June 25, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
JDL, I was really just responding to the absurd comparison of the media coverage of the Iranian and Palestinian "Intifadas." But since we're here, a brief response to some of what you said.
First, the Palestinian national movement has never been nonviolent. Here and there there may have been peaceful protests but these have been isolated and never gained widespread support. Unfortunate, in my opinion, not just because of the senseless slaughter it has perpetuated but because it has set back their cause immeasurably.
Second, I would not be so quick to excuse the violence as somehow inevitable or natural consequence. Arab violence against Israeli settlement predates the creation of the state of Israel. This is not to say the Israelis have not been guilty themselves of excessive force, but laying the blame for the violence of the occupation solely on the Israelis is wrong. My own view is that if the Palestinians had at some point chosen nonviolence and true acceptance of Israel, we would not be talking about the brutality of the occupation or the feasibility of the two state solution. Rather, the Palestinians would be celebrating a decade or more of independence.
Third, I also disagree that the day Israel offers statehood to the Palestinians 95% of the violence ends. I am not convinced that the goals of the Palestinian national movement would be met through the creation of a state in the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Palestinian "acceptance" of the two-state solution is a relatively recent phenomenon. It was not the position of the PLO until Oslo, and even then, Arafat tried to have it both ways, mouthing the two-state language to the international community while saying different things to his domestic audience. And when push has come to shove, neither Arafat nor Abbas has shown any willingness whatsoever to compromise on the right of return, despite numerous proposals from the Israeli side that would give them most of what they wanted. Taba was never accepted by either side. Geneva was all well and good but was immediately and harshly denounced by the PA on the right of return. My view of the situation is that the Palestinians are still negotiating for 1948.
Of course, we can't really know. What is clear is that both sides are going to have to give up long-cherished myths and take a giant leap of faith if there is to be any hope of resolving this.
June 25, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - Here is my response.
"First, the Palestinian national movement has never been nonviolent" This is a BS statement and you know it. I lived there and I was one of at least 50,000 Palestinians marching in East Jerusalem in May,1983 protesting the occupation and statelessness. Sure there was Palestinian violence and it always overshadowed the peaceful protests. You are correct that violence has been extremely counter productive to the Palestinian cause.
"Arab violence against Israeli settlement predates the creation of the state of Israel."
So does Jewish violence against arabs predate the creation of the state. The Jews gave as good as they got. I hope you understand that without the violence by Jews against the British and arabs there is a good chance Israel might not have been created or at least delayed. Notice how forgiving we are of Jewish violence in support of an end we wanted.
"mouthing the two-state language to the international community while saying different things to his domestic audience." Israel takes a back seat to NO ONE when it comes to double talk. The entire settlement enterprise was based on deception. Read about the Nahal security outpost deception used to establish clandestine settlements. I can remember speeches by Abba Eban about the west bank settlement that I knew from my relatives and my visits were outright lies. Last February I heard Bibi tell an audience straight out, he was going to engineer Palestinian reservations and to pay no attention to what they heard him say in the otherwise to the International audience.
Israel Jews are not saints and Palestinians are not monsters. As you say, both sides must give up some of their cherished dreams for this nightmare to end.
June 25, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
JDL: Having corresponded on these boards for some time, I hope you realize that there is little in what you wrote that I would disagree with. Yes, I am a partisan here, having married into Israel after having been mostly indifferent for much of my life, but I have little sympathy for the Netanyahu government. If I often take Israel's side it is primarily to counter what I consider the unfair and constant drumbeat of criticism and because I really do continue to believe, despite its overwhelming military superiority, that Israel is still fighting for its survival and cannot afford to be wrong. I also continue to believe that the majority of the Arab world and most importantly the Palestinians, still have not fundamentally accepted Israel's legitimacy. Yes, there is much to criticize on both sides. Unfortunately, at TPM, there is no criticism whatsoever of the Palestinian/Arab side, and too often an unrelenting anti-Israel bias that ignores any sense of life in that country.
On the subject of Palestinian non-violent resistance, you might be interested in this piece by Gershom Gorenberg, the Missing Mahatma, in (of all places) the Weekly Standard - which I originally found through Jim Sleeper's blog. Here is the link. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C329fvswo.asp
June 25, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
AG - I understand that many comments on TPM are one sided, including my own. I, too, am an Israeli partisan. I consider Jews and Israel to be my family. If my two sons or my daughter, my brothers or sister did something I considered wrong I was all over them like a wet blanket. If someone in another town did something wrong, I might contemplate it intellectually but not get too worked up.
I want Jews to be the best they can be - not perfect but better in the future than they are today. I can remember my youth where my synogogue and Jews everywhere in America were heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement. I was so proud of us and our faith. That was Jews at our best. Present day Israel does not live up to those ideals and the occupation is darkening our souls.
Israel is involved in a war with the Palestinians and proper counter terrorism techniques are the only way Israel is going to win. That involves winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. Israel is approaching this war like WWII - a total victory over a vanquished and humiliated foe. You hear that all the time from Israelis and IDF - the war will not end until the Palestinians cry uncle. With that attitude, the war will last another 60 years.
On your next trip to Israel go visit the settlement of Sha'are Tikva and while there gaze at the ajoining arab town of Azzun Atma. The entire town is fenced in with razor wire and no one enters or exits without calling the IDF to come open the gates. Maybe they will and maybe they won't. Only people who live in the town can enter - no visitors or relatives allowed. This town is a prison even though no known terrorist or terror activity has emanated from there.
Please go to the West Bank and see things that will turn your stomach. I cannot and will not condone these things, especially by Jews. Do I hold Israel to a higher standard? You bet I do - they are my "family" as much as my children or siblings.
June 26, 2009 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just jumping into the Jdell and AG conversation here. One of the reasons for the perception that the Palestinian struggle is violent is the high visibility of the actual wars: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. Without getting into the particulars of these different events, most people lump these events together with, say, the first intifada and suicide bombings. IOW, they see it as one long conflict in which Israel had to fight her way into existence and then defend herself against other countries who, presumably, were fighting for the Palestinian cause. You don't have that context with the Iranian protesters.
June 26, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armchair Guerilla,
And how could they...?
(This is not a comment on Armchair Guerilla's overall point so much as it is a reflection on the particular rhetorical device employed above.)
Accepting as we may be of the notion that the overall coarsening of Israeli society and culture is the inevitable result of its long occupation of the territories, then the occupation itself can surely be seen as a product of the habitual delegitimization and demonization of Jewish national self-determination in Israel made manifest in the reflexively common characterization of the region as "the Arab world."
June 26, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar - As usual you make a perceptive comment. From my own experience after 67 and 73 there was a defensiveness in Israel as a result of those wars that encouraged Israel taking whatever steps it needed to remain secure, including occupation. This was particularly true after 73 when the shock of Israel's losses really sunk in.
However, over time the IDF has become stronger and the arab armies much weaker. Couple that with the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties, PLO recognotion of Israel, the Arab Peace Initiative and peace talks with Syria has fundementally changed the atmosphere. It's time for Israel to change also.
June 27, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No argument, JD. Sooner or later Israel must change in the manner you write about, as it is the necessary requirement for Israel to achieve Zionism's ultimate goal, which is of course the reintegration of the Jewish people in its native region with all the national dignity it deserves. Meanwhile, however, those of us who ought to know better need to stop characterizing the region in a manner suggesting that only Arab peoples possess such national legitimacy.
June 27, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Meanwhile, however, those of us who ought to know better need to stop characterizing the region in a manner suggesting that only Arab peoples possess such national legitimacy."
Bar - I hope my criticisms have not been interpreted as denying Jews the right to a national homeland in Israel. If you ever find one of my comments even bordering on that kind of interpretation, I hope you publically take me to the "woodshed".
June 27, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me ask what I think is a more appropriate question. Why make such a ridiculous comparison at all? Why does the author focus entirely on Israel when there are so many other conflicts, less morally ambiguous, that have claimed so many more lives than the one between Israel and the Palestinians?
In Sudan?
In Sri Lanka?
In Congo?
While we're at it, has the author ever mentioned the plight of Palestinians living in deplorable conditions in Lebanon and subject to official discrimination?
June 25, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we never mention Israel again? Then we don't have to deal with all this moral ambiguity.
June 25, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You always have "the Zionist Entity."
June 25, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
sudan, sri lanka, congo, the palestinians are not trying to get the usa into war with iran, which if it were to come to pass would greatly have an effect on the usa.
tell israel to stop taking our money. tell israel to fight its own wars. leave the usa out of it. until then, israel better learn who's the boss. get it?
June 25, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that has nothing to do with the topic of why Iranians are getting more attention than Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka or the Palestinians.
But I will be glad to add to your change of topic. I see neither nor AG mentioned Somalia. But I did.
June 26, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for the Congo, I haven't kept up lately with Obama's policies on aid, but I recall this report from February where we were extremely involved in December after having been involved for several years:
The quote in the second last paragraph sounds strangely similar to the approach to Israel.
Meanwhile, if you go back to my initial link citation on the Congo, on the UN report on the current situation, it also sounds like we helped really break something with this little operation that we haven't fixed; civilians are still being hacked with machetes and rape is escalating. No publicity in the blogosphere or in the media. I'm serious now: if we are going to play the silly game of who deserves some more attention from Americans for their suffering, Congo wins hands down, and Palestinians are quite a bit farther down on the totem pole, especially given the gazillion words and reports spent on them on the internet and in print news.
June 26, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi everyone,
Sorry that it seems there have been technical problems here. Neither I nor Phil deleted any comments, or know anything about it.
Thanks for all the comments,
Adam
June 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing new. If Iraqis fight against a foreign presence in their country, they're terrorists. If Afghanis do, they're put in Gitmo. Even if you didn't fight, like the Uyghurs, you get 7 years detention. On 2001, we declared any natural extension of self-preservation and defense "terrorism". Unless it fits our goals.
It kind of goes along with our perverse attitude about elections - that they show "democracy", even if we send in our own PR teams and money to prop up the opposition, and let the people know what repercussions there will be if they elect the wrong one. We managed this with Chamorro over the Sandanistas (the Ortegas are back, having been elected later, but we're so post-Reagan now it doesn't matter). The Palestinians didn't take the hint, or perhaps more telling, the status quo was too draconian.
June 28, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink