Arun Gandhi forced to resign from Nonviolence Institute

The New York Times reports today that Israel is pressing Egypt to use force against Palestinian civilians in order to restore the international border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt:

There were small clashes throughout the day, with short episodes of rock-throwing. Egyptians fired guns into the air and aimed water cannons above the heads of the those in the crowd to keep them back. The new breaches in the wall were large enough for cars and trucks to drive through, and some Egyptian guards then retreated.

Egypt is under pressure from Israel and the United States to restore the international border and regulate it, but does not want to use excessive force against the Gazans, whom the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, has insisted are starving under the pressure of Israeli restrictions on imports and travel.

Meanwhile, Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Arun has been forced to resign from the Nonviolence Institute he founded because he dared criticize Israeli militarism.  Details on the flip.

According to Michelle Boorstein writing in the Washington Post, Arun Gandhi has been forced to resign from the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence -- which he had founded some twenty years ago in his grandfather's memory -- after writing comments critical of Israel on the Post's "On Faith" blog.  Gandhi's January 7 comments noted that Jewish identity has become "locked into the holocaust experience," and that some Jews "overplay" that experience "to the point that it begins to repulse friends."  His comment also included this passage:

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity

In keeping with his pacifism, Gandhi wrote that the Jewish nation is too reliant on bombs and weapons, and should instead seek to befriend its enemies.

As other critics of Israeli militarism have also learned recently (see for example the injustice visited upon Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University), the mechanisms of ideological control exercised by Israel's friends are quite extensive.

At the very moment Israel is subjecting an entire civilian population of 1.5 million people to a punishing blockade rather than engage in negotiations that might very well lead to a peaceful solution, an internationally recognized pacifist -- heir, indeed, to the greatest pacifist the world has ever known -- is humiliated by the directors of the very organization he founded to promote peace.

His crime?  He spoke the truth.

Welcome to the machine.

•  Tip jar

  in memory of the Mahatma, and in memory of the pacifist dream.

  by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:50:21 PM PDT

  •  But Arun Gandhi has apologized for

    speaking "contrary to the principles of nonviolence." For additional information, please see my comment below.

    by another American on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM PDT

  •  Generalizations, stereotypes and lack of empathy

    Generalizations, stereotypes and lack of empathy are not a route to the nonviolent resolution of disputes. Although he bears the Gandhi name, Arun Gandhi's remarks show a sweeping insensitivity.

    The diary describes his "comments critical of Israel" as follows:

    Gandhi's January 7 comments noted that Jewish identity has become "locked into the holocaust experience," and that some Jews "overplay" that experience "to the point that it begins to repulse friends."

    This is a misrepresentation. The actual text shows that Mr. Gandhi expressed comments critical of all Jews:

    Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.... But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

    The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. [emphasis added]

    There is no limitation here to "some" Jews. The word "Israel" does not appear. Mr. Gandhi wrote about "Jewish identity", and his references to a nation deal with a subset of that identity.

    I won't belabor the other lapses in Mr. Gandhi's words: the historical ignorance, the presumption to psychoanalyze an entire community, the implicit justification of resentment and anger against the victims of the Holocaust for remembering it. If anything of redeeming value can be salvaged from the Holocaust, it is the memory of violence so evil that it can serve to deter comparable violence in the future.

    I believe that the conflicts involving Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors can and must be solved by non-violent means. As part of that process, the parties must reach an understanding of each others' fears, sensitivities, and historical experiences. Israelis will have to come to terms with the anguish of the Nakba, the misery of the occupation, and the despair of the refugee experience. The Palestinians will have to understand the pain of 2,000 years of persecution suffered by Jews, the yearning of the Diaspora to end its exile, and the trauma of living in constant fear of attack.

    To anyone who admires what Mr. Gandhi wrote, and evidently some Kossacks do, let me rephrase his words by replacing "Jews" and "Holocaust" with "Palestinians" and "Nakba":

    Palestinian identity in the past has been locked into the nakba experience -- an Israeli burden that the Palestinians have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.... But, it seems to me the Palestinians today not only want the Israelis to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Palestinians. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

    The Palestinian identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs.

    Disgraceful.

    by word is bond on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:29 PM PDT

    •  Jews are implicated

      in the actions of the Jewish State.

      That is the entirety of Gandhi's message, and it is true.

      by litho on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:32:04 AM PDT

      •  All Jews everywhere are implicated

        in the actions of the Jewish State?

        So you support the acts of 'resistance' against the JCC in Washington or the JCC in Argentina.

        by Pumpkinlove on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:21:57 AM PDT

      •  as are you implicated

        in the actions of your state.

        by nojihad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:09:50 AM PDT

        •  Exactly right

          That is the point exactly.  As the Mahatma put it:

          non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good.

          Thoreau, who helped inspire Gandhi, wrote in Civil Disobedience of a citizen's duty:

          when... oppression and robbery are organized... it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.

          The government of Israel claims to act in my name and on my behalf.  I have a duty to do my best to prevent it from committing oppression.

          by litho on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM PDT

          •  litho

            While I disagree with you on a few points here, I deeply respect your sense of responsibility to speak out, "not in my name' when Israel claims to speak and act in your behalf.

            by Rusty Pipes on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:47:59 PM PDT

      •  re: Jews are implicated

        How intrepid of you to defy the Diabolical Zionist Machine and hold all Jews responsible for the genocide being committed against the starving Palestinians who storm into Egypt to buy motorcycles and cigarettes but not food.

        Yet why did you refuse to itemize? By not naming names you allow some of the Hebrews (past and present) whom you hold in such contempt to escape responsibility.

        Here are just some of the culprits: Jackie Mason, Sandy Koufax, Harry Houdini, Barbra Streisand, Charles Schumer, Blue Oyster Cult, Wynona Ryder, the guys who created Superman, Pauly Shore, Dinah Shore (related to Pauly only by their shared complicity in murdering Gaza tots), Jerry Seinfeld, Howard Stern, David Berkowitz, Kinky Friedman, The Three Stooges, my newborn nephew Joshua, Yaphet Kotto, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Elaine Boozler, Moses, Rabbi Michael Lerner, bikini model Cindy Margolis, Dolph Schayes, the kindergarten Torah class at Temple Beth Israel/Philadelphia, Annie Liebowitz, Lenny Kravitz...

        The entire list literally includes millions and millions of culpable Jews who must be held accountable for every Israeli action. This sampling is just a push start for you and the other anti-"Zionists" who grace this site, litho. You will be able to complete the litany after they release you from the psychiatric facility.  

        by dijelo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM PDT

        •  Well said

          by Pumpkinlove on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:06:06 PM PDT

      •  "implicated" is a weaselword

        It is not only vague, but it can be based not on a person's own actions, but the viewpoint of others: a person becomes implicated because someone (not necessarily themselves) implicates them, fairly or not.

        And beyond that, when you say "Jews are implicated" do you mean "some Jews" or "all Jews"? If you mean "some Jews", your statement is so self-evident as to be meaningless. If you mean "all Jews", then I have to ask whether all Jews aren't equally "implicated" in the Jewish and Jewish-Palestinian organizations whose actions and policies you approve.

        Next, we would have to get to the question of who is Jewish enough to be "implicated". Does one have to be religiously observant, culturally identified, or merely Jewish by descent (and then in what percent  matrilineally, patrilineally, or both)? Can one who is Jewish by descent cleanse oneself of the taint of "implication", and if so, what does it take?

        (On the latter point, I would say that anyone who feels burdened by his or her Jewish identity in view of the experience of the Palestinian people, but who has written extensively and passionately on behalf of the Palestinian cause, ought to consider him/her guilt by implication to have been expunged.

        Generalizations, stereotypes and lack of empathy will never lead to wisdom, understanding, non-violence or peace. That is true for Arun Gandhi (who seems to have acknowledged it) and for every Kossack who engages in that kind of "thinking" on any side of any issue.

        by word is bond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 02:24:23 PM PDT

        •  Israel claims to be

          the "Jewish" State.

          That claim implicates all Jews in its actions.

          by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM PDT

          •  Yes, and no

            Israel is the Jewish state. If there were more Jewish states, Israel would be one of the Jewish states.

            But as I noted above, "implicate" is a weaselword. It is so ambiguous and elastic that it can apply to almost any relationship. Your use of it is a fudge.

            The people who are "implicated" by Israel's actions are its citizens, or at least those citizens who supported the government that took those actions.

            The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) both claim to be the Chinese state. Do their (often incompatible) actions "implicate" all overseas Chinese, or all Americans of Chinese descent? Of course not.

            Nevertheless, we are asked to believe that any right-thinking person lays a guilt trip on every Jew in the world because of Israel's actions. It follows, we are told, that any Jew who disapproves of those actions has "a duty to do [his/her] best to prevent it from committing oppression". Other diarists have provided information on a large number of organizations in which Jews, or Jews and Palestinians working together, are doing their best to change Israel's actions. Compared to them, the sterile squabbling over I/P diaries by a handful of dKos regulars is hardly a significant contribution.

            Since you are likely to insist on having the last word, let me leave you with a question. I have never believed that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but now you make me wonder:

            If all Jews are implicated by Israel's actions, isn't criticism of Israel's actions a criticism of all Jews?

            by word is bond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:34:42 PM PDT

            •  Pure sophistry

              Not even worth a response.

              by litho on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:15:08 AM PDT

              •  My mind is open

                If you see a logical fallacy, you ought to explain what it is.

                by word is bond on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:43:24 AM PDT

                •  Not playing

                  come back when the diary is fresh.

                  by litho on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:50:07 AM PDT

•  What a shame.

  I am glad that Jimmy Carter has not suffered the same fate.

  by NogodsnomastersMary on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:57:18 PM PDT

  •  Well ...

    Jimmy Carter was not part of the M K Gandhi Institute .... I don't get it!

    by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

    •  Jimmy Carter has not been

      ousted from the foundation he started because of his criticism of Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

      by NogodsnomastersMary on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:54:41 PM PDT

      •  Carter is too high profile for that tactic

        by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM PDT

•  He did make a mistake.

  "We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players)".

  the Jews may not have been meant as a generalization and a smear - but it is. From that quote, he's not just blaming an organization (Israel, for example), but the entire body of Jews.

  And that's wrong. That's unnacceptable. Just turn it around - "India and the Hindus have created a culture of castism" - that clearly wouldn't be kosher, beside being factually incorrect.

  by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:58:54 PM PDT

  •  See my sig...

    You're right... it's the extremists in any cult that create the problems.  Fundamentalist Christians are another, as are extremist Muslims.  All religious cults have their good, their bad, and their ugly.

    by MjolnirOfThor on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:01:18 PM PDT

    •  Mjollnir...

      I love your screenname... Hail to Thor, Hail to Freyr, Hail to Odin!

      by Matthias on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:27:40 PM PDT

  •  That is precisely the red herring

    upon which Arun was hung.

    The fact, however, is that Israel -- the self-identified "Jewish" State -- is indeed one of the biggest players in the world in creating a culture of violence, and Jews around the world have been complicit in allowing Israel to act in our name.

    Until we speak in a loud voice demanding Israel desist from its madness, we deserve the criticisms leveled by fundamentally decent human beings like Arun Gandhi.

    Instead, thugs claiming to act in our name hound him from his job and smear his good name.

    The name that he inherited from none other than Mahatma Gandhi himself.

    by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM PDT

    •  Agreed.

      I was raised as a Jew, but have converted to a spiritual form of agnosticism.  It is frustrating that the vast majority of my fellow Jews refuse to even contemplate the notion that perhaps the Israeli occupation is illegal and immoral.

      by Mannabass on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM PDT

    •  You're claiming that Jews, collectively,

      are responsible for Israel's actions? Not most Jews, some Jews, Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox, Hasidic, AIPEC, Tikkun, or ... are responsible?

      Words matter. It's not a red-herring - it gives comfort and aid to movements and parties that hopefully Arun Gandhi does not support. It's the kind of language that allows events like the pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat to occur. The leader of a non-violent institution must be very careful about his words, particularly in cases like this. To be ambiguous, even if unintentionally so, can be literally deadly.

      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM PDT

      •  Gandhi wrote about Jews overplaying

        the holocaust experience.  What you do here is overplay the antisemitism card.

        Gandhi was clearly and explicitly criticizing Israeli militarism.  That you seek to conflate that with antisemitism is exactly the problem he attempted to address.

        by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM PDT

        •  You're missing the point.

          What he appears to have said could be interpreted as anti-semitic. Whether or not that was the intention is besides the point when you are acting as the representative of a non-violence movement - the appearance has substance for the organization. Even whether it is out of context is irrelevant, practically.  The fact that someone could claim that it is anti-semitic, even cynically, is dangerous (from either side).

          Arun misplayed his hand (I assume). The best of intentions are simply not relevant at that political level. You have to get it right, and not allow your point to be submerged by propagandas of other parties.

          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM PDT

          •  You are the one making the claim

            but the context of his remarks is quite clear.

            Gandhi was criticizing militarism in general, and Israeli militarism in particular.

            That's all.

            by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM PDT

            •  "Jews overplaying the holocaust experience"

              You find nothing wrong with that and consider it a criticism of Israel? Wow!

              by bankbane on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:28:14 PM PDT

              •  I reference Finkelstein in the diary n/t

                by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:29:37 PM PDT

                •  What?

                  The injustice against Finkelstein proves that "Jews overplay the holocaust experience?"

                  by bankbane on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM PDT

                  •  Perhaps you are unfamiliar

                    with one of the books that motivated the fuss against him.

                    by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM PDT

            •  "Even whether it is out of context is irrelevant,

              practically".

              Arun should get better proof-readers. It would have been worth the money.

              by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:29:46 PM PDT

            •  But Gandhi acknowledges speaking "contrary

              to the principles of nonviolence." Since this statement by Arun Gandhi is in the very WaPo article to which you linked, I have to wonder how closely you read your source.

              by another American on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM PDT

            •  He was criticizing the Jews.

              by Pumpkinlove on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:26:40 AM PDT

        •  Didn't MK Gandhi also criticize Jews

          for fighting back against a government intent on eradicating them from its soil? Maybe that's just an urban legend that I've never seen debunked, you tell me.

          Pacifism... is not a viable foreign policy doctrine. That's not to say that militarism, its polar opposite, is viable either; to maximize success, and minimize costs, a government has to strike a balance between the two.

          I would compare the situation to a bunch of people sitting together in a room, and a number of them are poking each other, occasionally punching or slapping each other, or doing things like putting tacks on each other's chairs. A person who sits there meekly and takes all the punishment without making any attempt to defend himself will be bruised and have an arse full of tacks. A person who gets up and starts beating the shit out of the people near him is going to end up with the shit beat out of him, because everyone else will gang up on him. The sensible policy for minimizing your number of bruises, and the number of tacks pricking your arse, is to be aware of your environment and do your best to forcefully intercept attacks. If someone tries to poke you, grab his finger. If someone tries to slap you, catch his arm and twist it. And if you get up, sweep your chair clean before sitting down. This strategy won't make you any friends, but it won't make the others resent you so much they'll gang up on you to pound you into the floor.

          But, in the end, it's like this: the people? The ordinary people on both sides are okay. I know some of them, I like most of the ones I know. What more is there to say about the people? But the politicians, the rabble-rousers, the people actually giving orders to fire into the neighbor's territory, to hell with them.

          Eh, one of these days I think the Israelis are going to have to succumb to pressure from around the world, stop trying to eliminate Qassam crews, and just accept that rockets are going to rain down. Instead, they'd rely on some kind of purely defensive weapon. THEL, if not for the fact that it had all those cost overruns and used horribly toxic and corrosive fuel, would have been a nice idea. It'll just have to wait until someone develops an electrical MW-class laser.

          Let's face it: the Israelis are probably condemned to lose the war that started long before their modern State was founded, but at least they could lose it in style.

          by Shaviv on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM PDT

          •  The analogy I prefer

            is that a boxer (the Israeli government), after destroying his opponent, props him up on the ropes to create the illusion that he is still in the fight, then pummels him with countless blows to satisfy the audience.

            by Ptah the Great on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:13:16 PM PDT

            •  Ah... Israel is propping up the Palestinians?

              So it is the Israelis providing them with rockets, suicide bomber vests, etc?

              I think your analogy is flawed.

              by chike on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM PDT

              •  As though these was a real threat

                to the existence of Israel.

                by Ptah the Great on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:33:14 AM PDT

                •  As though

                  these were, I meant, of course.

                  by Ptah the Great on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:41 AM PDT

          •  Ghandi, like every person considered a saint....

            is much more complex in reality.

            Even after he had completely abjured violence he was
            honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. He did not--indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not--take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the "you're another" type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr.  Louis Fischer's GANDHI AND STALIN. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

            http://www.george-orwell.org/...

            by laxmatt on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:17:07 AM PDT

        •  Clearly and explicitly?

          Gandhi was clearly and explicitly criticizing Israeli militarism.

          Explicitly?  I think you don't know what the word means.

          Clearly?  Clearly not clearly enough for the directors of his institute to recognize it.

          If that had been is intention I don't see why he didn't explicitly mention "Israeli militarism" in his article.

          by chike on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM PDT

    •  WTF? Turn it around

      Palestinians around the world are complicit in allowing Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian "Freedom Fighters" to act in their name.

      Muslims around the world are complicit in allowing Al Qaeda to act in their name.

      You do recall that you have called me racist on a number of occasions for referring to Palestinian violence?

      What a fucking double standard you have.

      by Pumpkinlove on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:25:20 AM PDT

      •  This comment is priceless!

        by callmecassandra on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:34:28 PM PDT

  •  The jewish state

    Unfortunately, all pro israeli supporters have no problem blurring Israel, Jewish identity, and current Israel military position.

    In fact it's the default mode (which always end in "are you anti semitic, when confronted with all evidence of Israel wrong doing)  One can even find it commonly in dkos.

    by wittg1 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM PDT

    •  It is unfortunate and dangerous.

      Nationalism is a disease. Jingoistic patriotism is a cancer. But you can't fight a symptom while at the same time feeding the underlying monster.

      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM PDT

      •  feeding the monster?

        So what's the solution? keep quite and hope it will all go away?

        Right. putting people behind wall, then starving them. And let's not talk about it.

        Notice how quite the neocons are over this wall collapse.

        1. The wall itself is huge. It won't look good on TV

        2. Women and children, people getting food. contrast to they are all terrorists claim.

        3. The entire arab world is seething over this siege.

        by wittg1 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:31:00 PM PDT

        •  What are you talking about?

          Who said keep quiet? Just be careful when you speak - speaking loudly and acting doesn't mean acting recklessly, or using any means necessary.

          Stoking the fires of nationalism just keeps the whole cycle on. That's exactly what lead to Isreali militaristic nationalism -- a response to a real threat with tactics that in the long run are counter to the interests of Israelis.

          Wasn't it Gandhi (grandpa) who said "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"? This is an opportunity to weaken the militaristic wing/tendencies in Israel and outside, but only if you use judo instead of blundering like a drunken boxer who thinks he sees an opening.

          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:39:22 PM PDT

          •  The drunken boxer

            is the one who forced Gandhi to resign.

            by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:40:16 PM PDT

            •  There are quite a few drunken boxers

              playing this game, with quite a few bodies at their feet. It takes special, very careful skill to judo all the players simultaneously. And if someone doesn't find out how to, the body count will keep on growing.

              by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:48:47 PM PDT

      •  How can you

        get "Jingoistic patriotism" from the actions of Israel?  I have not seen an instance of Israel going into Gaza without it being in response to an attack by either rocket or suicide bomber.  Most of witch were in the middle of a civilian crowd.

        So, where is this monster that you speak of?

        by dashound on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, that is not true.

      So I don't know whether you made this statement out of ignorance, out of haste, or out of a desire to spread misinformation, but you should take it back.

      You said "all". Please don't get metaphysical on the meaning of "all". If you did not mean "all", then say so; if you did mean to say "all", choose which of the above explanations you think best describes your motives.

      by Shaviv on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:36:09 PM PDT

      •  That's exactly the point ...

        they got him on a meaningless technicality ... completely and willfully ignoring the essential truth of what he said.

        In other words, you're entirely right, and thus illustrate the point beautifully.

        by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:00:55 PM PDT

        •  It's not a meaningless technicality,

          even if it's not what he intended. It could quite easily be quoted out of context. He should have said what he meant - but he made a mistake. He fucked up, and it's going to lead to him strengthening the very pro-violence movements that he wishes to oppose.

          Don't doubt that it's not just Israeli jingoists that would use this as a weapon - Palestinian eliminationists will be quite willing to quote this out of context to show that "even Gandhi's grandson thinks that..."

          Political statements are like legal documents. Parse them carefully before transmitting them and eliminate all unintentional ambiguity, because your opponents will find them.

          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM PDT

        •  Hah.

          Except this gentleman's statement is not true in any essential way.

          There are some Zionists who conflate Judaism with support for Israel and support for every warlike edict of the Israeli government.

          However, how many Zionists has he discussed Zionism with? How many have you discussed with, for that matter? I'm going to say it simply: his statement is not essentially true, it is essentially false. If we take Zionism at its face value - the ideology that there should be a state of Israel as a Jewish homeland - that by itself includes nothing conflating acts of government with ethnic identity with support for the homeland.

          Most Hassidim, for example, are opposed to the concept of a Jewish state. One Hassidic group that goes way overboard in its loathing for the state of Israel offers moral support and at one point offered financial support to Palestinian terrorist groups - they're the Jewish equivalent of the WBC, except that they only picket events supporting Israel in any way.

          I also think you'll find serious disapproval for Israel's military posture in Jewish communities that take their religion seriously, given that the fundamental tenet of the faith is "Leave the world better than you found it".

          There are a number of Zionists, whose motivation is primarily one of wariness - basically, just because you're living in a country that respects your freedom to be who you are doesn't mean it always will be that way (witness the US internment of the Japanese or continuing abuse of people of African or Latin-American descent) - and therefore you need somewhere you can get your back to a wall and start kicking back, if the rest of the world isn't interested in helping you.

          And then there are the Christian Zionists, some of whom assume that position because of their religious beliefs but, I am guessing, mostly because they believe that a friendship and alliance with Israel is beneficial to the USA and to Israel as well.

          So. Are there right-wing nutjobs, yes there are. It would be foolish to deny it. However, I can see no difference between wittg1's statement,

          all pro israeli supporters have no problem blurring Israel, Jewish identity, and current Israel military position. In fact it's the default mode (which always end in "are you anti semitic, when confronted with all evidence of Israel wrong doing)

          and the kinds of statements I heard from a couple of Australians I met once, based on the fact that a small percentage of black people commit crimes and feel it is their perogative to do so, you know, are sociopaths (probably about the same percentage of white people, brown people and green people, but this guy just didn't like black people),

          all black people are criminals, but when confronted about this they call you a pro-apartheid racist.

          The "all" here makes a big difference.

          If you say "Some", or "a very few", see, you change the meaning dramatically. Little words or phrases like that, it's amazing how much they contribute to the meaning of the whole sentence.

          Australia's a weird country. So's DKos.

          by Shaviv on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:28:02 PM PDT

          •  I understand and agree with what you say ...

            But I understand and agree with what Arun Gandhi is trying to say, as well.

            It goes to the heart of the non-violence movement -- the idea that people are complicit in the acts of violence committed by governments in their name, unless they take positive (and non-violent) steps to resist.

            by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, Arun Gandhi is not all wrong.

              I am not even sure he's mostly wrong.

              I was mostly taking issue with another poster, though. He was "this gentleman" that I referred to, not Gandhi.

              by Shaviv on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:30:48 PM PDT

  •  The Hindus have created a culture of castism ...

    is very true. A number of prominent Indians would say as much.

    It does not mean that every Indian is castist, or every Israeli Jew condones militarism.

    by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:57:24 PM PDT

    •  It's not "the Hindus" -

      castism is part of Hinduism, and particularly certain sects. It's not a quality of "the Hindus". Wrong category - it may belong to the cultural in general, it may belong to institutions in the culture, individuals may agree with it, but it's not a quality of all the Hindu individuals.

      Saying "the Hindus" does imply that it is an essential quality of Hindu individuals, in general. That is just nonsensical.

      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM PDT

      •  Not really ...

        The Caste System is even a larger construct than Hinduism. It is an Indian construct and even Muslim and Christian sects in India have participated in it. (Naturally, they've called it a Hindu abomination ...)

        Caste refers to a way that a society organizes itself, just as militarism refers to another.

        It is not about whether everybody agrees with the system or not -- at some level everybody participates.

        by Bronxist on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM PDT

        •  Right.

          It's not a quality of "the Hindus", it's a quality of Indian society which is distinct from Hindu individuals or any aggregation of Hindu individuals. That distinction is very important.

          It may seem like hair-splitting, but less than that has led to genocides.

          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM PDT

•  What about Egypt?

  Apparently Gaza borders up against Egypt.  I didn't realize that, as I'm too ignorant to read maps.  They're saying on the news that the Egyptians some how don't want people coming from Gaza to buy food and stuff and are attacking them with clubs and water cannon.

  by The Other Steve on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM PDT

  •  nah

    Egypt is being pressured to seal of the border again. Because Israel needs to keep Gaza ghetto intake.

    It's as simple as that.

    Hamas itself obviously has it's own supply line.

    by wittg1 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM PDT

  •  Gaza and Egypt

    Like Israel, Gaza was part of the British Mandate of Palestine that the UN voted to partition into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Gaza would have been part of the Arab state.

    At the expiration of the mandate in 1948, the Jewish State of Israel was declared, and several armies, including the Egyptian army, entered the territory of the former British Mandate. When the fighting stopped, Egyptian forces controlled Gaza.

    Egypt continued to control Gaza, which borders on Egypt, until the 1967 war. During the same 19 years, Jordan controlled the West Bank. A Palestinian state was not established.

    As a result of the 1967 war, Israel displaced the Egyptians in Gaza and the entire Sinai Peninsula. Under subsequent treaties and agreements between Israel and Egypt, Egypt recovered the Sinai but did not attempt to recover this territory and it remained under Israeli control with the intention that Gaza and the West Bank would be a self-governing territory.

    by word is bond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM PDT

•  while the news about ghandi is disturbing

  if you'll permit me to note that it may not be his criticism of Israeli militarism per se, that led to the request for resignation as it was some none-too smart comments about what the Holocaust may (or may not) mean to some Jews.  Critiquing Israeli militarism is a difficult enough task (ask the Israeli peace movement) why make it all the more difficult with gratuitous snide observations that create lots and lots of heat while adding absolutely no light.  

  As someone who's deeply concerned about finding ways to not simply critique or oppose Israeli militarism, but end it and the almost reflexively unthinking support for it that its handlers manage to produce for it, the excerpt you provided here is a textbook example of what not to do.  

  I do so want those spokepeople for those viewpoints to be smart about it.  Why am I so often disappointed in this?

  by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:02:24 PM PDT

  •  Probably because

    there is no correct way to criticize Israel.  Israel cannot be criticized.  

    While it's unspeakable to indict all Jews by use the term "Jews" when talking of Israel's barbaric and illegal treatment of the people who's land they occupy, it's okay for Israel to indict all 1.5 million Palestinians by denying them food or heat or water, etc when punishing of the actions of Hamas.

    by Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM PDT

    •  Who said it was OK?

      Please specify. Criticizing the uncritical use of "the Jews" does not imply that you support any specific policy of the state of Israel, just as criticizing the state of Israel does not imply anti-semitism.

      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:45:46 PM PDT

    •  "Israel cannot be criticized."

      What crap.

      by zemblan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM PDT

  •  Half of me agrees with you

    But the other half thinks this is a double standard.

    Americans killed Sikhs after 9/11. Stupid phrases like 'Islamofascism' permeate our national thought process.

    People blend Wahabi stateless terrorism with nationalists movements like Hamas and Hizballah with the drop of hat.

    All of these things are done on a daily basis, and at times intentionally by our government.

    Lebanon is a mess because of this. Fatah Al Aslam has made large inroads because so many people were playing the anti-Syrian card for political gain instead of caring what was going on in the Palestinian camps. Elliot Abrams encouraged it.

    I see no one condemning those that stray one word from provable facts when it comes to the Arab world.

    President Bush says Saddam was responsible in Iraq because he pulled the UN investigators out. He lied. Can you imagine if someone lied that bad against Israel?

    by mickT on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:17:52 PM PDT

    •  Actually,

      The more I think about, the more I get pissed off.

      No professor will lose his job for being a supporter of Zionism. Jewish non-supporters of political Zionism have to watch what they say if they want their career to advance.

      No politican will lose for declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

      (Sadly) Bills in Congress dealing with our rights and the the budget get passed with far less scrutiny than anything dealing with Israel.

      When Norman Finklstein writes, he gets far more attention and critisism than the Patriot Act. No one bothered to read the Patriot act when they voted on it. Finklstein writes and the world is up in arms demanding he never get a decent job.

      by mickT on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:44:19 PM PDT

•  this is from 'the onion', right?

  Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Arun has been forced to resign from the Nonviolence Institute he founded because he dared criticize Israeli militarism.

  wow...  well, those god-damned ghandis...sometimes you have to put them in their places...

  

  by james risser on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:08:15 PM PDT

•  I read the story on NYT and was left scratching

  My head.

  Since when did physical force put down a people? If folks cant talk, and they are subject to ill treatment and violence, then violence and physical retaliation will occur.

  by wuod kwatch on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:12:32 PM PDT

•  Yay, an I/P diary......

  refreshing.
    Heh.

   Ghandi's first peice, linked above is this one: Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence

  ...Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs....

  Then, there's some blowback...Ghandi's Institute is at the U of Rochester, my family's historic school.
     The President of the UofR wrote:
  Joel Seligman:
  U of Rochester Statement on Gandhi Post

  I was surprised and deeply disappointed by Arun Gandhi's recent opinion piece in the Washington Post blog, On Faith. I believe that his subsequent apology inadequately explains his stated views, which seem fundamentally inconsistent with the core values of the University of Rochester.

  In particular I vehemently disagree with his singling out of Israel and the Jewish people as to blame for the "Culture of Violence" that he believes is eventually going to destroy humanity.....We are also committed to the right of every person to address complaints or allegations personally and directly. Arun Gandhi currently is in India. I will discuss this matter with him in person as soon as he returns to Rochester later this month. (posted 1/14/08)(my bold)

  Right before that, Ghandi published an apology and clarification, the feedback was heavy...400+ comments.
  My Apology for My Poorly Worded Post

  I am writing to correct some regrettable mis-impressions I have given in my comments on my blog this week. While I stand behind my criticisms of the use of violence by recent Israeli governments -- and I have criticized the governments of the U.S., India and China in much the same way -- I want to correct statements that I made with insufficient care, and that have inflicted unnecessary hurt and caused anger.

  I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people. Indeed, many are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes, by Israel and many other governments.

  I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends. But as I have noted in previous writings, the suffering of the Jewish people, particularly in the Holocaust, was historic in its
  proportions. While we must strive for a future of peace that rejects violence, it is also important not to forget the past, lest we fail to learn from it. Having learned from it, we can then find the path to peace and rejection of violence through forgiveness.

  (This is the whole thing...so short and the website loads soooo slow I thought it best to paste it all here. Link takes you to the 300 comments, where you can comment personally and directly, if you are so moved.
    I found it interesting to give the fuller back story to Ghandi's writing and the blowback.

  by KenBee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:16:10 PM PDT

  •  I suppose the candidate diaries

    do make I/P appear almost tame in comparison...

    Thanks for the additional background.  It helps clarify exactly what Gandhi was trying to do, and what looks to me like people willfully misunderstanding his intent.

    by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM PDT

  •  That is a definite improvement of the thread.

    by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:51:55 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for those links and quotes

    which give fuller context to the story.  

    by Rusty Pipes on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:05:06 AM PDT

•  News from Gaza

  by wittg1 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM PDT

•  The government of Israel

  has a lot to answer for, but to claim that Israel and "the Jews" are the worst players in the culture of violence is pretty ugly stuff.

  by bankbane on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:32:56 PM PDT

  •  I agree that what Israel has done

    to the Palestinians over the past sixty years is pretty ugly stuff.

    That's what you meant, isn't it?

    by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:34:41 PM PDT

    •  claiming that Israel "and the Jews"

      are the worst players in the culture of violence is what I consider really ugly stuff, and I'm not even Jewish.

      by bankbane on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:41:19 PM PDT

      •  So you don't agree

        that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is pretty ugly?

        And I am Jewish, by the way.

        by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM PDT

        •  If you think

          this is the worst violence that's happened in the last sixty years, then you don't get out much.

          Yes it is ugly and it should be criticised, but not by blaming it on "the Jews."

          by bankbane on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM PDT

          •  You're right

            we should blame the Russians...

            by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:50:25 PM PDT

            •  How about actually blaming those responsible?

              Not "the Jews" or "the Russians" or "the Americans" or "the Palestinians" or "the Muslims", but actually specifying organizations and individuals? Otherwise, it is not just easily misconstrued, (even willfully), but is actually empty of meaning.

              Now, in casual speech, you might drop something like that out of laziness - or in a blog comment - but in something that is actually published? How about we just ban imprecise language that inevitably, intentionally or unintentionally, becomes a bludgeon that leads to literal deaths, even if indirectly?

              How about people stop thinking and writing lazily, which then leads their less intellectually hefty brothers to incorrect conclusions? Get rid of the categorical mistakes, and you may actually have a chance at improving the dynamics. Continue with categorical mistakes and deaths will follow on all sides.

              by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:00:17 PM PDT

              •  How about we blame the "Jewish" State

                because that is in fact the entity responsible.

                And it bears pointing out that Gandhi's comment was in fact made in a "blog comment."  And you still want to crucify him for it.

                by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM PDT

                •  "Crucify" ???

                  Who said crucify? There's a lot of projection going on here.

                  He said it was a mistake. It may have been a mistake that cost him his position, and it may be in the best interest of his organization that he take a less visible role. He may need to spend a little time in the wilderness... It's a good lesson for others who want to step in these battles without actually making the situation worse.

                  I often wonder how many of the Israeli sympathizers are actually Palestinian agents provocateurs, and visa versa. It's the only reasonable explanation...

                  by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:14:55 PM PDT

                  •  You're calling him an anti-semite

                    and basically saying he deserved to get forced out because of a careless comment for which he apologized.

                    You're also siding with those who seek to distract the issue from the real point he made -- that Israeli militarism is a major, perhaps even determinative, part of the problem in the Middle East, and a major factor in driving the world toward increased levels of political violence.

                    In fact, Gandhi was right.  The Jewish State is a militaristic one.  And we Jews have been incapable of reining in a government which claims to act in our name.

                    We deserve the criticism.  As long as Israel continues to call itself the Jewish State.

                    by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM PDT

                    •  When did I call him an anti-semite?

                      Please, quote, so I can remove you mis-understanding. I've been quite clear that barring further information, I'm quite willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt, and his apology seems to be quite clear about the matter.

                      That doesn't mean he didn't fuck-up, and dangerously so. That it may be best for his organization that he take a break or less visible role.

                      I've got to strongly disagree with "We deserve the criticism.  As long as Israel continues to call itself the Jewish State." Many Jews do deserve criticism, but to make it a universal statement is simply wrong. Israel doesn't ask permission from every Jew to call itself the Jewish state - not all Jews even believe that there should exist a "Jewish" state. You're playing into the hands of both actual anti-semites and (simultaneously) the most radical of Israeli militarists. Want to make it a trifecta?

                      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:36:00 PM PDT

                      •  Oh, the stupid

                        it hurts.

                        I can't argue with you.  I'd do better with a brick wall...

                        by litho on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:40:08 PM PDT

                        •  At least we agree on that...

                          teh stupid really is quite painful. You would do better with the brick wall - the wall will just sit there and listen to any inanities without trying to improve your arguments. Like playing soccer without any other players on the field.

                          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM PDT

                  •  And why was it that

                    professor Finkelstein couldn't be tenured at dePaul (?) university.  Did he mistakenly or inadvertently use the term Jew universally?  Naw.  But fear not.  There's always a reason (or a guise) to silence (if not crucify) an Israel critic.

                    by Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM PDT

                    •  What does one have to do with the other?

                      And you're playing a dangerous game shooting the critics of Israel being crucified. There's a little story behind that... it's a best selling book.

                      by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:29:06 PM PDT

                      •  As litho suggested in

                        a comment above.  You're hopeless.  You suggest it's important

                        That doesn't mean he didn't fuck-up, and dangerously so. That it may be best for his organization that he take a break or less visible role.

                        to punish the "dangerous" comment of a critic of Israel but have no comment on or suggestion for the punishment of Israel for committing genocide against the Palestinian people.  Yeah.  Don't look over here where genocide is being committed.  Look there!  An antisemite!  Go get him!

                        by Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:55:56 PM PDT

                        •  Are you on the AIPAC payroll?

                          The title of the post is "Arun Gandhi forced to resign from Nonviolence Institute" not "Gazans starving to death".

                          Instead of focusing on either issue, which are two independent issues, you want to dole out emotionalism and propaganda. A hell of a lot of good it'll actually do to any Gazans.

                          One issue is whether Arun messed up, and whether it is in the interest of his organization and the advancement of it's principles of Arun to leave. The other is Israeli policy in the occupied territories. Instead you want to take advantage of the convergence to paint any criticism of your statements as being a kind of reverse anti-semitism.

                          And know we see why IP diaries are nonsense, and the entire political process is frozen in death and destruction. Rather than thinking, folks want to win, by any means necessary.

                          by RandomSequence on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:14:37 PM PDT

                          •  As the author of the diary

                            I would have to say that Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death is doing a better job of interpreting it than you are.

                            The point here is that a false charge of antisemitism against Gandhi has served to divert the issue away from Israeli militarism.  As a result, Gazan suffering will continue -- because moral criticism of Israel has been deemed off limits in our culture.

                            People lose their jobs when they transgress that boundary.

                            Routinely.

                            by litho on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:37:05 AM PDT

    •  "Ugly stuff"

      Yes, Israelis prefer to live, instead of be killed, so they have fought back against those attempting to kill them.  Mr. Gandhi's greatgrandfather also considered that "ugly stuff," because it was not pacifist.  He advised the Jews not to flee to Palestine, but to offer up their throats to be cut by the Nazis, to show that they were more saintly people.  Maybe this is the same advice the younger Gandhi, and Litho, recommend for those Jews' descendents.

      by Goggins on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM PDT

      •  I'm actually referring

        to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists.

        Nobody serious -- leaving aside a small coterie of ideologically driven Zionist historians -- even bothers to challenge that historical truth anymore.

        Yeah, ethnic cleansing is pretty ugly.  Pretty damn ugly.

        by litho on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM PDT

        •  Ethnic Cleansing

          So the Zionists are doing the ethnic cleansing.  Why is it, then, that about 20 percent of the population of Israel are Arabs, who freely pray in mosques, and elect representatives to the legislature.  Whereas, when the Israelis left Gaza, not a SINGLE JEW was allowed to remain and live there. During negotiations for a new state of Palestine, similarly, one absolute condition of the Palestinians is that not a single Jew shall be allowed to live there.  The Palestinian Authority has enacted a law, imposing the death penalty for the crime of selling property to a Jew.  And now the Palestinians have elected as their representatives a group using the same Jew-hating propaganda the Nazis used (the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is cited in the Hamas charter). Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc etc. do not have to deal with a Jewish minority -- why not?  Because they've expelled every last one of them from their borders.  Maybe people like Litho would be happier if the Israelis followed this example.

          And Litho, why don't you address the sentence in Mr. Gandhi's piece, in which he said that not just the Israelis, but the Jews as well, are not just big players in the culture of violence, but the BIGGEST players of all.  Is that what you meant when you said he "spoke the truth."  Why don't you defend what you wrote.

          by Goggins on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

          •  Read Bennie Morris

            and leave me alone.

            by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM PDT

            •  "Leave me alone"

              You post a diary and then whine when people question your views.  "Read Bennie Morris" is not much of a defense.  I've read plenty, including Bennie Morris.  Yes, Israel committed some sins, not nearly as awful as those committed by, say, the United States, where you live in easy peace and comfort.

              by Goggins on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:37:49 PM PDT

              •  I posted this diary on Friday

                Today is Sunday.

                Don't you have anything better to do than troll dead diaries and post annoying ahistorical bullshit?

                by litho on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:48:32 PM PDT

                •  Name one

                  "ahistorical" thing about what I've posted.  You seem intent on doing anything but replying to the substance of what I've written.  Ad hominem attack seems to be your m.o.

                  by Goggins on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:45:00 AM PDT

                  •  You bet I'm not responding

                    You're trolling.

                    by litho on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:11:55 AM PDT

                    •  Whatever trolling is,

                      I'll gladly cop to it, it doesn't sound too bad.  What you are, is cowardly, for deflecting criticism and engaging in personal attack rather than responding specifically, when it is shown that you have written something ugly.

                      by