Skip to main content

About the series: Adalah ("justice" in Arabic) is a diary series about the Middle East, with special (but not exclusive) emphasis on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The authors of this series believe in the right of self-determination for all the people of the Middle East and that a just resolution respecting the rights and dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis is the only viable option for peace. Our diaries will consist of news roundup and analysis. We invite you to discuss them in the comments or contribute with stories from the region which deserve attention. We ask only that you be respectful and that the number of meta comments be kept to a minimum.

You can follow our group here.

On March 30, 1976, six Palestinian citizens of Israel were shot and killed by the Israeli military protesting continued confiscation of their land by the Israeli state.  Since then, March 30 has been commemorated as Land Day, and, this year, activists around the globe have engaged in acts of solidarity with the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions for Palestine until Israel abides by international law.  Here in St. Louis, we held signs at our local TIAA-CREF office urging the financial services giant to divest from companies complicit in the violence of the occupation of the Palestinian people.  Here is one of our messages:

Photobucket

An article published in Dissent magazine yesterday describes the healthy debate about the boycott movement in American Jewish circles:

Fading faith in the peace process, in the United States’ ability to act as an honest broker in it, and in Israel’s willingness to compromise in order to make peace (reinforced by the recently leaked “Palestine Papers,” which revealed that major Palestinian concessions were still not enough to satisfy Israeli negotiators) have created a new political space in which once inconceivable ideas are gaining currency. American-Jewish “doves” are considering what other options exist to peacefully end the occupation, bring about a two-state solution, and “save Israel from itself.” For better or for worse, the only option that appears to be available is BDS. These combined tactics promise to gradually raise the economic cost of the occupation for Israel, thereby supposedly making the status quo increasingly intolerable for Israelis.

Right now the power of the boycott, divest and sanction movement is its ability to raise awareness and educate.

My brilliant friend Sinan Antoon published his translation of two poems by the Palestinian writer, Rashid Hussein.  This one seems especially appropriate here:

With the Land

The land comes near me
drinks from me
leaves its orchards with me
to become a beautiful weapon
defending me

Even when I sleep
the land comes near me
in my dream.
I smuggle its wild thyme
between exiles
I sing its stones
I will even sweat blood
from my veins
to drink its news
so the land comes near me
leaves a stone of love with me
to defend it
and defend me

When I repay it
I will embrace it a thousand times
I will worship it a thousand times
I will celebrate its wedding on my forehead
on the rubble of exiles
and the ruins of prisons

I will drink from it
It will drink from me
So that the Galilee would remain
beauty, struggle, and love
defending it
defending me

I see the land;
a morning that will come
and the land will come near me

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  UN: Israel's occupation is unsustainable (13+ / 0-)
    The UN chief  chastised Israel, the report said, calling on the government to take the necessary steps to improve economic and security conditions for Palestinians by removing obstacles to freedom of movement, stopping military operations and enhancing the PA's scope of influence in the West Bank.

    Ban also implored Israel to further ease its blockade in Gaza, the report said, which has been under Hamas control since 2007. Israel has refused to negotiate with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction and is responsible for numerous attacks perpetrated against Israel and its civilians.

    In recent weeks, Hamas and the more moderate West Bank-based Fatah have been engaging in preliminary talks, with the possibility of unification in the future. Israel has made it clear that in the event that Fatah and Hamas join forces, Israel will not be open to negotiations, and Fatah must choose its ally.

    Ban reportedly condemned the recent escalation in rocket fire from Gaza to Israel, calling on both sides to prevent civilian casualties and act in conformity with international law, reiterating his “strong condemnation” of the recent bombing in Jerusalem, in which a 59-year-old British tourist was killed and over 30 wounded.

    He stressed that "Israel has the right to live in peace and security within internationally recognized and secure borders." According to the report the secretary general then said that both Palestinians and Israelis are entitled to Jerusalem as its capital, with "arrangements for holy sites acceptable for all."

    The UN chief also said there "must be a just and agreed solution to the prolonged plight of the Palestinian refugees," an issue that has been highly disputed in past peace negotiations.


    http://www.haaretz.com/...
    •  What if Gaza were Libya? (14+ / 0-)
      While rumors circulated of a pending Israeli ground invasion, the body count for December 27th, 2008 surpassed 220 – the highest one-day death toll between Israelis and Palestinians in decades. Horrified by Israel’s barbaric attack, the United Nations Security Council convenes an emergency meeting on December 28th, 2008. Soon, talks of a “no-fly zone” over Israel dominate the public discourse.

      While the Security Council convenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosts a press conference where she pulls no punches in revealing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for the genocidal maniac that he is. During the televised speech, Rice states, “We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Olmert would commit unspeakable atrocities.” She doesn’t stop there. In an unprecedented show of solidarity with the Palestinians, Rice warns, “Further delay will only put more civilians at risk. So let me be very clear on the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the no-fly zone and protect Palestinian civilians…and we will use our unique capabilities to prevent further bloodshed.”

      Condoleezza Rice’s strong stance against Israel’s Operation Cast Lead did not come as a surprise to many throughout the international community. Lacking airplanes, tanks, artillery, and other forms of advanced weaponry, the Palestinians in Gaza stood no chance against Israel’s military might. Somebody had to protect them.

      Jawaher Abu Rahme, rest in peace. The struggle for freedom will continue.

      by soysauce on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:10:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry soy but you are not portraying that (10+ / 0-)

    article in Dissent accurately.. You pick the quote to make it look like Waxman and Zonszein are supporters of BDS

    Particularly here:

    For better or for worse, the only option that appears to be available is BDS. These combined tactics promise to gradually raise the economic cost of the occupation for Israel, thereby supposedly making the status quo increasingly intolerable for Israelis.

    But that is not what Waxman and Zonszein support. They support a more limited boycott revolving around the Occupation and NOT blanket BDS. In fact, they make a great case for NOT supporting a comprehensive BDS.

    As for J Street, they put Vilkomerson on that panel to present views but as an organization they are firmly against BDS as it is configured now.

    J Streets position:

    J Street strongly opposes views and positions such as those captured at the Palestinian BDS National Committee’s website, www.bdsmovement.net, because, among other reasons, they fail explicitly to recognize Israel’s right to exist and they ignore or reject Israel’s role as a national home for the Jewish people. In addition, the promotion by some in the BDS Movement of the return to Israel of Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their families indicates support for an outcome incompatible with our vision of Israel and incompatible with a two-state solution to the conflict.

    For some, the BDS movement has become a convenient mantle for thinly disguised anti-Semitism. While concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people is both legitimate and warranted, these concerns do not justify for categorically delegitimizing and demonizing another people.

    the piece in Dissent though is interesting reading so thank you for bringing that the discussion.

    No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

    by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:08:58 PM PDT

  •  Settlement Construction Quadrupled in 2010 (19+ / 0-)
    Settlement building increased fourfold in 2010

    PCBS found that in 2010, Israel built 6,794 Jewish-only housing units on occupied Palestinian land, four times more than in 2009.
    ...
    Israel's separation wall has confiscated around 733 square kilometers of occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank, the report notes.

    Made possible by US protection and financing.  

    "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

    by weasel on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:20:17 PM PDT

  •  Israel's Ethnic Cleansing goes on & Americans pay (13+ / 0-)

    for it.

    How repugnant is that?

    Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:25:02 PM PDT

  •  Rather than get into it... (8+ / 0-)

    with people who, to me, lack capacity to recognize validity of other narratives alongside their own, (not to mention a tendency to take thinks intentionally out of context, thus making dialogue futile) I'll offer these two links to anyone interested, as they show the another side of the BDS matter.

    Make Music, Not Boycotts:  A Letter to Roger Waters from Kobi Oz

    http://forward.com/...

    Ignoring Israel’s goodness
    Op-ed: Israel’s amazing altruism largely ignored by media as it doesn’t fit with Zionist stereotypes
    Giulio Meotti

    http://www.ynetnews.com/...

    In my view, the BDS will not succeed for several reasons, among the most important is that most people see what Oz says, and they can tell that Israel is no South Africa using their own eyes.  They also see in comparison Israel's neighbors and the inequities to basic human rights that prevail in each.  Are the latter any less deserving?

    Thus, the BDS message as perpetrated does not ring true, except for the most committed.  

    Anyway, Oz's letter says it better than me, and Meotti shows the ludicrousy of it all, in terms of utility.

    Of course, there are other matters concerning BDS, its leader and specific agenda, but that can be for another day.

    •  I'm curious what procedures you believe (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, PeterHug, poco, Celtic Merlin, capelza

      should be undertaken to stop the occupation of mor and more land by 'settlers' who are in reality gangs who attack and often kill unarmed Palistinians.

      •  I don't buy your description... (6+ / 0-)

        for starters.  Nor do I pretend to have answers.  I only know that it's far from the black and white on the BDS matter provided by proponents.

        For example, in a Palestinian state, will Jews even be permitted to reside?  Indications say no.  Would that be more like Apartheid than in Israel, where 20% of the population come from Arab ancestry and have more rights and opportunities than Palestinians anywhere else?  Should settlers have the right to live in equality in Palestine if they so choose?  Should Palestinians have the right to live in equality in any of their habitual states if they so choose?

        I am no fan of settlers, but that is not really what I see BDS is all about.  If there was a chance for living in peace with its neighbors, as contemplated in the ceasefire brokered in 1949, I believe that Israel would quash the ultra-orthodox Zionist desire.  You do concede that Israel removed all settlers from Gaza.  That did not help, however.  So what should Palestinians do to stem the flow of settlers?

      •  A necessary first procedure (7+ / 0-)

        would be for Hamas and Fatah to successfully conclude their negotiations by agreeing to some kind of power-sharing arrangement, one which makes clear who will be negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians.  On the Israeli side, a necessary first procedure would be putting in place an administration that is serious about negotiating with the Palestinians towards a two-state solution.  Until we get those two things in place, it will be hard for anything constructive to occur.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 01:32:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not necessarily (7+ / 0-)

          In the Global Edition of the New York Times, Bernard Avishai writes: Next, an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan.

          Avishai suggests that President Obama's conduct in gathering support for action in Libya offers a model for a way forward to Israeli-Palestinian peace:

          Obama gained a mandate from the U.N. Security Council, working with the European Union to rally the Arab League. He enlisted support from leaders of the Group of 20 in the process. His leadership, in short, did not just turn the tide against one Arab tyranny, but produced a model of statecraft for the region as a whole.

          This model now has an even more important task. Obama should, and can, lead the Quartet (the U.S., U.N., E.U. and Russia) in presenting a new blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Whatever happens in Libya, America will never be seen as a champion of Arab democracy if it continues to appear cavalier about the occupation of the Palestinians.

          The immediate objective, Avishai maintains, is not to get Netanyahu and Abbas to "yes."  but rather

          at getting world powers to “agreed.” After presenting his plan to the Quartet, Obama should seek endorsements from one O.E.C.D. leader after another (diplomats in Jerusalem tell me the E.U. Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton is just “waiting for the word from Washington”).

          An Obama blueprint should be declared in the spirit of the Arab League Initiative of 2002. It should be endorsed in advance by key U.S. Senate leaders, such as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry.

          In crystallizing an international consensus regarding what peace should look like, a blueprint will create ambient pressure on the parties. It would start a new international conversation and provide a utilitarian benchmark, like the U.N. Partition resolution of 1947.

          Avishai, a Canadian-American-Israeli, believes a blueprint for a peace settlement "would have enormous impact on Israeli politics," empowering the moderate Israeli parties, like Kadima and Labor, to win back the center of Israeli politics from Netanyahu and the Right.  

          •  Which is precisely the point of (0+ / 0-)

            Abbas' refusal to return to negotiations. It seems a better deal can be had by waiting until something is imposed on the Israelis.

            •  Who said anything about "imposed" on Israelis? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1, Mets102, hikerbiker, Eiron

              Passing over my view that your characterization of the state of peace negotiations is simplistic, the point of Avishai's article is is that Israeli public opinion, Palestinian public opinion as well for that matter, is up for grabs.  For many years, public opinion polls in Israel have shown, on the one hand, majority support for a two-state peace settlement and, on the other hand, majority doubts about the existence of a Palestinian partner for peace (thank you Mr. Arafat and proponents of the second intifada).

              An international consensus for a two-state peace settlement already exists.  Even Netanyahu paid it lip service in his speech at Bar Ilan University.

              But significant gaps divide the parties.  The idea is to put flesh on the bones of the international consensus.  Some Jews  will be unhappy, because bridging the gaps will involve, for example, spelling out the division of Jerusalem and evacuation of settlements.  Some Palestinians will be unhappy, because bridging the gaps will involve, for example, spelling out limitations on a Palestinian right of return to the state of Palestine (except to the extent that Israel, in its sovereign discretion, may permit a small number to come within its borders).

              The hope, which I happen to think is well-grounded, is that the kind of blue print for peace that Avishai wants President Obama to lead the way on will garner sufficient support among both Israelis and Palestinians to lead to a peace settlement.

              Who could object to that?

              •  Question: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattman, PeterHug

                the consensus 'round these parts seems to be that Netanyahu is not honestly interested in a two-state solution.

                Other than reject a continuation of the settlement freeze, what has he done in this term as PM that would indicate the truthfulness of this consensus?

                Thank you.

                •  In this instance, the consensus is correct, or, (5+ / 0-)

                  to be somewhat charitable towards him, the kind of two-state solution he would like does not accord with the international consensus of what a genuine two-state solution entails.

                  Rejection of a settlement freeze is itself substantial evidence, although one might question President Obama's wisdom in bringing the issue to the fore when he did.

                  More fundamentally, Netanyahu chose to form a right-wing government that depends on racists and annexationists.  Were he genuinely interested in a two-state peace settlement he would have formed a government with Kadima and other like-minded parties.  He still could.

                  One problem for him is that doing so probably would split his party, the Likud.  Recall that Kadima was formed by Ariel Sharon when he lost control of the Likud to Netanyhau & Co.  In that event, Netanyahu's continuation as Prime Minister would depend on Kadima's willingness to keep him in office, even though it would be by far the largest party in the coalition.  The problem there is that, for good reasons based on experience, no one trusts Netanyahu to keep his word.

                  •  Thank you for your response. (0+ / 0-)

                    I am not nearly so knowledgeable on this topic as many, many people here and I very much want to listen to both sides as I continue to think on this issue.

                    In truth, I find myself somewhat reluctant to participate here because it seems like the community is split straight down the middle.

                    Some people are pro-I and some people are pro-P and you even have teams formalized.

                    As I am sure that you appreciate, these are rough waters, indeed.

                    •  You're welcome. You should draw your own (5+ / 0-)

                      conclusions, but my take on the I-P situation here is that, among the regular participants, there are two major groups:

                      One group, sometimes called "pro-I," supports a genuine two-state peace settlement.  Its outlines, with links to third-party sources, may be found inthis old diary of mine.

                      The other group, sometimes called "pro-P," insists that any acceptable peace settlement must include a right for Palestinians to emigrate to Israel (the so-called Palestinian right of return).  Those of us who support a two-state peace settlement, in addition to thinking it a non-starter as a practical matter, oppose it in principle because we believe in Israel's right to continue to exist alongside a Palestinian state.

                      A few people, Heathlander if I am not mistaken or her position has not changed, support a Palestinian right of return in principle but endorse, or would accept, a two-state peace settlement as the best practically available possibility.

                      •  Just FYI - Heath is a him... (6+ / 0-)

                        No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                        by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:25:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Ahem. (8+ / 0-)

                        To clarify: the relevant debate is not between two-states vs. one, as if either is a realistic possibility at the moment. It's between those who recognise US-Israeli rejectionism to be the principle obstacle to achieving any kind of negotiated settlement, and who are determined to press for serious action to overcome it, and those who obfsucate, prevaricate, apologise, or otherwise refuse to take a strong position on that issue.

                        To the extent that it is helpful to split people on this site into "camps" - and it is not very helpful at all, in my view - that's the relevant division. The 'two states' vs. 'one-state' divide might be significant in some alternate universe, but, regrettably, it has precious little relevance to this one.

                        •  Apologies for any gender confusion, but that said (6+ / 0-)

                          I tried to provide information in a relatively neutral, non-pejorative manner.  I regret you chose not to do the same.  Accusing people, myself included, of such things as obfuscation, prevarication, apologetics, etc., is not conducive to reasoned discourse.

                          •  Your presentation was inaccurate. (7+ / 0-)

                            At least as far as your description of where Pro-P folks stand on the issues.

                            Describing the Pro-P folks as a monolithic group which rigidly demands absolute full right-of-return for all of the Palestinians who were forced out of Israel is hardly the case.

                            Your statement:

                            "Those of us who support a two-state peace settlement, in addition to thinking it (Palestinian Right of Return) a non-starter as a practical matter, oppose it in principle because we believe in Israel's right to continue to exist alongside a Palestinian state."

                            . . . strongly implies that Pro-P who support RoR (in any form, and there are several) do not believe in the two-state solution, and virtually (in not so many words) states that the Pro-P folks don't believe in Israel's right to continue to exist . . .   Neither of which is true.

                            You should stick to describing your own beliefs regarding these issues - whatever those may be.  You obviously have NO grasp of the facts concerning the Pro-P folks here.

                            Celtic Merlin
                            Carlinist

                            Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

                            by Celtic Merlin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:12:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please explain then how an unlimited (5+ / 0-)

                            Palestinian right of return to Israel is compatible with Israel's continued existence as a democratic, predominantly Jewish state.

                          •  No worries about the gender confusion. (5+ / 0-)

                            As for the rest: I'm not here to "provide information" in a "relatively neutral" and "non-pejorative" manner. I think that the position taken by yourself and a few other commenters on this site is complicit in the repression and subjugation of the Palestinians, and the destructive mystification about the role of US foreign policy in the world.

                            I retract 'prevaricate' because that implies a deliberate intent to be deceptive, which I didn't mean and don't believe is the case (and even if it were, so what). Apologies for that. But people who obscure the real obstacles to a peace settlement in Palestine and who apologise for Israeli repression in the meantime do have a lot of answer for. The fact that some people do all this while simultaneously claiming to support a two-state settlement is neither here nor there.

                  •  I would say that your first paragraph (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102, livosh1, Corwin Weber, hikerbiker

                    is correct. PM Netanyahu is interested in a Two-State Solution but it is nothing like what people envisioned when the idea was first put forth.

                    There is ample evidence that he does not want to annex the entire West Bank...  and there is ample evidence that his solution is far from an acceptable version of "Two States"...

                    ... oh aA check your messages - there is a better translation for you.

                    No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                    by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:58:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

                you did not use the word "imposed". I just assumed that a  plan drafted by and agreed to by world powers, completely absent of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and based on already rejected ideas (Arab League Initiative and division of Jerusalem) - would somehow have to be imposed in order to proceed past the circle jerk of work opinion.

  •  Did you read Ma'an in the last couple of days? (17+ / 0-)

    If it's not the expulsion of a child from his home, it's soldiers beating a teenage boy. If it's not that, it's evicting an entire village from their homes and beating their elderly. If it's not that, it's the torture of a middle-aged Palestinian woman in the occupation army's custody.

    This is all on top of the spate of hit-and-runs, the stabbings, and the vandalism that people have been subjected to at the hands of unaccountable settler-colonists. This is all on top of the deaths of eight people, including two children, in Gaza.

    And then the Israeli occupier has the gall to threaten Palestinians with further retaliation if they try to free themselves from this tyranny.

    How do you commemorate a tragedy from 35 years ago when it has yet to finish? Is this supposed to be our fate, commemorating one milestone of abuse and death after another?

    If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

    by unspeakable on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:39:43 PM PDT

  •  thank you for the diary (10+ / 0-)

    the information included in it is valuable to me.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:41:45 PM PDT

  •  soysauce, the TIAA-CREF divestment petition (10+ / 0-)

    has, according to its website, three main points:

    Please refrain from investing in any company that contributes to violations of human rights or international law by:

    Directly profiting from, or contributing to, the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

    Providing products or services that contribute to the construction and maintenance of Israeli settlements and/or the Separation Wall, both of which are illegal under international law.

    Providing products or services that contribute to or enable violent acts that target civilians.

    The first two points seem straightforwardly and unambiguously to be directed at the occupation of land occupied by Israel beyond the borders of June 4, 1967, the so-called Green Line.  In the context of the "petition in full," it appears that the third point is so directed as well.

    The interesting Dissent Magazine article by Dov Waxman and Mairav Zonszein makes the following important points, among others (bolding added):

    Perhaps the single biggest problem that BDS poses for progressive American Jews is that it is widely perceived as being anti-Israel, not just anti-occupation. That is, the BDS movement is seen as aimed at delegitimizing Israel as a Jewish state. Nor is this perception wholly inaccurate. Although the global BDS movement is very broad and diverse, many of the activist groups associated with it openly express hostility to Israel as a Jewish state, and many BDS advocates are “one-staters”—supporters of a single, binational state in Israel/Palestine rather than a two-state solution. More specifically, the BDS movement supports the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel proper—something that is a red line for pro-Israel supporters since they see it as tantamount to the destruction of a Jewish state.

    The fact that BDS generally fails to make a clear distinction between Israel and the occupied territories is something that troubles American Jews who support Israel but are against the occupation. For them, it is imperative to distinguish between Israel within the Green Line—which is seen as legitimate—and Israeli rule beyond it—which is deemed illegitimate. By blurring this distinction, intentionally or not, BDS makes a resolution of the conflict harder, not easier, to achieve.

    So, soysauce, when you were standing outside the TIAA-CREF offices in St. Louis, were you supporting a campaign limited to opposing the occupation, or were you engaged in a broader effort against Israel within the Green Line, as well?

    This is not an idle question.  Indeed, it goes to the numb of the Waxman-Zonszein analysis (bolding added):

    WHAT, THEN, are progressive American Jews to do? If the peace process is a waste of time, and BDS is unfair and unhelpful, is there another alternative? Indeed there is: a selective boycott against settlement products, not Israeli products or people in general. This is already being practiced by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and several Israeli peace organizations, such as Gush Shalom and the Coalition of Women for Peace, both of which actively advocate the boycott of settlement products and companies that profit from operating in the West Bank. Left-wing American-Jewish groups like the New Israel Fund and Meretz USA have also recently expressed support for such a boycott.

    A boycott of settlement goods is aimed at anything that is produced in the occupied territories, not just goods actually made in Israeli settlements. This includes a wide variety of agricultural produce (such as fruits and flowers) and manufactured goods (such as plastics, textiles, cosmetics, food, and wine) that are made in factories located in large Israeli industrial zones within the occupied territories. While most of these products are purchased locally by Israelis and Palestinians, some are exported abroad (Israeli wine from the West Bank and Golan Heights and skin-care products from the Dead Sea inside the West Bank, for example, have a large international market). Although it would target only a small fraction of the goods Israel exports—an estimated 2 or 3 percent—a boycott of these goods still has an economic impact. In particular, by penalizing Israeli companies now operating in the territories, a boycott of their goods encourages them to relocate their production inside the Green Line, as some have reportedly already done due to the boycott. In practice, however, it can be difficult to boycott only goods produced in the territories, since they are not clearly labeled and companies operating in the territories are permitted to have marketing addresses within Israel. A labeling campaign, such as the one that has been conducted in Europe in recent years, is one remedy for this.

    A more focused and limited boycott of products made in West Bank settlements has many advantages. It combines BDS’ appeal of direct consumer activism with commitment to a two-state solution as the only acceptable outcome to the conflict. It underlines the fact the settlements are not in Israel, and hence that boycotting their products is not the same as boycotting Israeli goods produced inside the Green Line. While it will certainly not hit Israeli pockets in the way that across-the-board BDS intends to do, it will not alienate Israelis in the same way either. It also has a much greater chance of gaining broad support among Americans and Europeans, who are unwilling to boycott and sanction Israel as a state.

    Indeed, targeting the products of the occupation, not Israel, already may be having a notable success.  Ha'aretz reports:  "Following political pressure, SodaStream International is moving its manufacturing plant in Mishor Adumim to within the Green Line, according to reports from Swedish retailers who sell its goods there."  The balance of the article somewhat muddies the waters, but it clearly emerges that SodaStream is sensitive to what its president calls "the political atmosphere."

    Some of us, like me, already boycott such products.  I expect that more would join such a campaign, if they could feel comfortable that they were acting against the occupation, not against Israel as such.

    The question, therefore, arises:  Do supporters of BDS really want to end the occupation?  Or, is BDS a cover for ending Israel?

    •  I reject your framing about ending Israel (13+ / 0-)

      and I do not want to rehash old arguments here.  

      BDS will continue until Israel abides by international law.  Ending the occupation is part of the BDS demands.  It also calls for a just resolution of the issue of the Palestinian refugees, who make up more than half of the Palestinian population, and for equality among Jews and non-Jews inside Israel.  Bravo to you for endorsing a targeted boycott.  Israel's abuses of the Palestinians did not begin in 1967.  

      I support a full boycott including a cultural and academic boycott of Israeli institutions based on the premise that these institutions are complicit in the system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law.

      Jawaher Abu Rahme, rest in peace. The struggle for freedom will continue.

      by soysauce on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 01:48:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hi Soysauce, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, elliott

    thank you for this diary.

    I want to learn more about this issue (P-I in general) and I am looking forward to seeing what you folks have to say on both sides of the issue.

    Peace.

    •  You know I have a cousin (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Green, Mets102, MBNYC

      named David Green in WVa.. you wouldn't be him would you?

      No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

      by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 02:59:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  West Virginia? (0+ / 0-)

        I think that I drove through once.

        So, no, I would not be your cousin.

        I think that this question (P-I.  I-P.  Whatever.) is just so vital, so important, and yet so entirely lacking in nuance.

        To be perfectly honest with you, I am not entirely certain where I stand.

        On the one hand, the Jews have been persecuted for 2,000 years and deserve a state for themselves.

        On the other hand, the Palestinians have gotten a raw deal by history, if not by the Israelis.

        I realize, of course, that my response goes well beyond your question, but I wonder where the commonalities are between the pro-Israel side versus the pro-Palestinian side.

        The emphasis always seems to be on what separates people and it makes me wonder if the best way to approach the entire question is to find what both sides have in common and work from there.

        Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud.

        •  Thanks for the thoughtful response (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          David Green, Mets102, zemblan

          you certainly put a lot of thought into your comment. I recommend reading both Adalah and Team Shalom diaries and then parsing out where we all stand. I would not rely on the comment threads to give you an accurate picture of views here.  

          No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

          by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:17:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How strange.. (13+ / 0-)

            ..this user appears to have the same dog, with the same name as Karmafish, along with the coincidence of having the same name as your cousin!

            "It's not the end, It’s the beginning." ~ Nadia Magdy, protester in Tahrir, Feb 11th

            by sofia on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:23:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is very strange... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, another American

              My cousin's name is David Green and he is a union organizer in West Virginia.

              Karmafish's name is not David Green and he lives in SF.

              If this person is a Karma sock then I will remove my uprate.

              Anything else you would be implying?

              No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

              by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:27:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Busted! (9+ / 0-)

              You rock, sofia. :)

              If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

              by unspeakable on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:31:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You know what is even funnier (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, Red Sox

                I thought he was a sock from one of you guys....

                ROFLMAO... This is a message I sent out to some friends:

                New user David Green... says: "I would really love to learn about P-I issues"... First of all Mr. Green is either a zombie or some ISM Troll. How would we know? He shows up in soy's diaries only and refers to the issue as "P-I"... "P-I" is only popular amongst Palestinian activists. It is and has always been known as the Israeli Palestine conflict.

                Just a heads up.

                LOL, looks like  I was wrong on this one.

                No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:38:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And it looks as if you are right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              I just followed your link... uprate removed.

              No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

              by volleyboy1 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 03:33:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow -- you are good! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, sofia

              Well done.

            •  Isn't it interesting (7+ / 0-)

              that the admins responded almost instantaneously to a complaint that someone has come back as a zombie, but it takes a week of both public and private advocacy, by numerous people, to get the admins to do anything about someone like borkitect, a serial ratings abuser who accused someone of a serious felony?  And despite being sent to the hiddens every time he pops up, International Cause still roams free here, spewing his anti-semitic Jew-hatred, without any consequences at all.

              But hey, gotta let some things slide while protecting the site's integrity from zombies and sockpuppets!

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 07:48:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it's (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                unspeakable, sofia, simone daud

                an easy call for site admin, pulling the plug on banned racist zombies like karmafish. Your concern is touching, though. I assume you similarly whined and cried when site admin moved to swiftly pull the plug on banned racist zombies like shergald and Bughouse. Please provide links demonstrating that this is so.

                •  You seem confused. (6+ / 0-)

                  No one thinks zombies shouldn't get the axe.

                  We're wondering why antisemitic shits and libelers are ignored.

                  •  I'm wondering why (6+ / 0-)

                    people try to make excuses for anti-semitic shits and libelers.  I'm wondering why banning such people isn't considered "an easy call" for certain people.

                    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                    by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:20:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    simone daud, sofia

                    not at all confused. I'm simply reading Paul's whining and crying about "instantaneous" admin attention paid to the banned racist zombie karmafish, and awaiting his links to those instances when he whined and cried about "instantaneous" admin attention paid to banned racist zombies like shergald and Bughouse.

                    Meanwhile, you may recall that people here similarly "wondered why" racist shits and libelers like karmafish and keith moon and ambrose burnside and deaniac were "ignored." And you may remember that, eventually, they weren't.

                    •  Bizarre (7+ / 0-)

                      He's not complaining about instantaneous banning of zombies, he's complaining that the zombies get lightning fast moderator attention, while bork was able to accuse him of being a kid-fucker with only delayed and minor consequence.

                      No one is upset with the "'instantaneous' admin attention paid to the" likes of karma, bugsy, ambrose, moon, etc. Some are upset with the laissesz faire approach to all other noxious users. Paul was clearly drawing a contrast.

                      Your reaction to that is just strange.

                      These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                      by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:46:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  zombies (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        unspeakable, sofia, poco

                        "get lightning fast moderator attention" because the decision has already been made, at the time of their initial banning, that they have forever forfeited their right to be here.

                        Prior to banning, however, racist shits and libelers like karmafish and keith moon and ambrose burnside and deaniac were allowed to shit and libel around these parts for months. You all know that. And nothing has changed. So racist shits and libelers may still frolic freely, shitting and libeling, until such time as the Great Moderator In The Sky decides that enough is enough.

                        Thus, the contrast Paul draws is a false one. You all know that, too. But please, by all means, continue to remain true to your school.

                        •  Wow, when you go stupid (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Corwin Weber, Red Sox, Moshe789

                          you go 110%

                          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                          by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:02:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  True to Your School (6+ / 0-)

                          wasn't as good as Kokomo. Kokomo had Uncle Jesse playing hand drums in the video.

                          Thus, the contrast Paul draws is a false one.

                          Only if you're a drooling moron, and since you're not, this is why your reaction is bizarre. Banning zombies quickly is great, and we agree that there is no gray area on those bans--bully for management taking such quick and decisive action. There are a few folks here who might also believe that there is no gray area if I were to start suggesting that you hump kids.

                          Also, it's worth noting how your goalposts have made a marked shift. First it was Paul complaining about the banning of zombies (a clear lie on your part) to now drawing false contrasts. At least you get credit for not being as rooted in unadulterated horseshit as before.

                          These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                          by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 11:58:31 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  no, (7+ / 1-)

                            dullard, my "goalposts" did not "shift"; I simply responded to your nonsense about Paul and his "contrast," which, as I said, is a false one, as anyone who knows how this blog operates understands.

                            I would expect Paul to respond to a simple explanation of how this site is run by pronouncing it "stupid," and I would expect the yet-to-be-banned racist Corwin Weber to uprate it, but I did not expect the same from you.

                            Paul has been in a non-stop pout since his little friend the vile racist karmafish was booted off this blog, and here he had to shed more tears about how very quickly karma's zombie ass was tossed while rending his garments that bork wasn't dealt with soon enough to suit him.

                            The wheels grind more slowly for active users—no matter what they say—than they do for zombies. That's just a fact, and everybody who's been here for a while understands that. I realize that none of you are the brightest lights on the site, but neither are you dumb as dirt. So I can only conclude that your willful refusal to admit this simple fact is yet another blockheaded manifestation of terminal be-true-to-your-schoolism.

                          •  for the record (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102, Corwin Weber, Red Sox, arielle

                            I wasn't calling the site or your explanation stupid.

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:44:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  HR'd.... (4+ / 0-)

                            ....both for the lies and the unfounded accusation of racism.

                          •  In terms (5+ / 0-)

                            of who constitutes the brightest lights on this site, I'd be curious to read your own self-assessment.

                            While active users are, indeed, slower to get the ban hammer than zombies, there are also plenty of instances where admins have been alerted to scumbags and they have been dealt with promptly. It is my understanding that Paul and Volley both went to MB and after substantial pestering, got nothing more than a warning to bork and a demand that he apologize. Others have gotten harsher punishment in the past for worse, and while it's not my biggest concern, it's probably owing in large part to the fact that I wasn't the one called a kid toucher.

                            What this has to do with karmafish is probably something that is only clear to you and the voices.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:56:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It wasn't just to MB... (4+ / 0-)

                            and it wasn't just Paul and volley.  It involved several of us going to several administrators and it involved the application of public pressure when nothing was initially done.  The warning only came following a comment in one of the open threads posted by MB with subsequent action only coming following a lack of apology from borkitekt coupled with a public conversation on the issue with site attorney Adam B.

                            Enacting our agenda requires winning elections

                            by Mets102 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:08:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i think (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, sofia

                            you folks should spend more time outside the I/P bubble, and then you'd understand that the perceived sloth in re bork is not something that is out of the ordinary. Out on the big site, we recently had a bullying, bloviating racist post the details of his personal involvement in what he himself believed to be the racially motivated killing of a black man, and this character too initially received but an admin "warning," until people, on site and off, went nuts, and the then-moderator reviewed a more general sampling of his comments, and pulled his plug. And now he's got a little fan club on this site, trying to "rehabilitate" him.

                          •  I don't suggest it's in, out, near, or around (7+ / 0-)

                            the ordinary. I do think that Paul is justified in his anger over inaction, and that being specifically accused of molesting children is an instance where he can plausibly argue that, after bringing it to management's attention, swift and decisive action should be taken. That is irrespective of how things are generally done, unless we were to accept that other inaction justifies this inaction, which I find to be a logical fallacy.

                            As you may have noticed, I don't tend to get too exercised over what I'm called, and I think bork has done far more to himself and taken himself out of serious consideration on a topic he clearly likes to discuss. But others feel differently about what actions ought to have been taken, and in light of not only the quick zombie banning, but the fact that MB managed to weigh in on TwatGate before making what was, at the time, a mostly cosmetic gesture toward bork, I can't very well fault them for it.

                            I/P and, to a lesser extent, RKBA issues will always be a little different than things are on the rest of the site. When I've diaried about marriage equality, Mark Sanford, or puppy mill legislation, I had a reasonable expectation that I'd be preaching to the choir. I/P is different, primary because there are starkly divergent and deeply personal feelings on the subject.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 01:41:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  to be clear, (4+ / 0-)

                            I don't condone administrative inaction and sloth; I'm just setting forth what is. To my mind, this site is now the moral equivalent of the Republican Party. The GOP condones and even protects its racist teabaggers, because it values their money and their votes. This site condones and even protects its racists, presumably because it values their money and their page hits.

                          •  You get no argument from me (5+ / 0-)

                            about this comment:

                            This site condones and even protects its racists, presumably because it values their money and their page hits

                            No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 02:09:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's like the site is trying to become (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102, Corwin Weber

                            The Drudge Report of the center-left

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:16:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Asdf (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            As you may have noticed, I don't tend to get too exercised over what I'm called,

                            I doubt blueness pays enough attention to you to know either way.   As if anyone here is noticing your reaction to insults.  

                            and I think bork has done far more to himself and taken himself out of serious consideration on a topic he clearly likes to discuss.

                            Agreed.  

                            But others feel differently about what actions ought to have been taken [..] but the fact that MB managed to weigh in on TwatGate before making what was, at the time, a mostly cosmetic gesture toward bork, I can't very well fault them for it.

                            Could you expand on what you're referring to here?

                            After reviewing the three threads where the topic was discussed (that I'm aware of - Bork's diary, volley's last diary, and the thread mets linked to above) I see only one comment, that received no recommends, where the view was expressed that borkitect shouldn't necessarily be banned,  (rather apologize and leave the site for a while. )

                            Also, I find less than humorous your reference to "TwatGate".  

                            "It's not the end, It’s the beginning." ~ Nadia Magdy, protester in Tahrir, Feb 11th

                            by sofia on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:38:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, yeah (6+ / 0-)
                            I doubt blueness pays enough attention to you to know either way.   As if anyone here is noticing your reaction to insults.  

                            As you may have noticed in my response, I said "may have noticed." I'm confident you understand the meaning of "may."

                            Could you expand on what you're referring to here?

                            Sure. Bork accused Paul of being a child molester and accused volley of associating with child molesters. Had he done so to me, I probably would have just come up with something more offensive to say back to him, but Paul and Volley were outraged and offended, given the explosiveness of being charged with child molestation and association with such, and went to management with a request for action. After having gotten little if any response, they ultimately got what they deemed an inadequate reaction from the moderators.

                            While their requests were apparently falling on deaf ears, MB managed to weigh in on the issue of the use of the word "twat." So, one could reasonably deduce that L'Affaire Twat was worthy of his attention, while false accusations of a heinous crime were not.

                            Also, I find less than humorous your reference to "TwatGate".

                            You'll hopefully forgive my indifference. It's hardly much worse than referring to it as "the controversy over the use of twat," while it is significantly fewer keystrokes.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:26:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So... (0+ / 0-)
                            But others feel differently about what actions ought to have been taken [..] but the fact that MB managed to weigh in on TwatGate before making what was, at the time, a mostly cosmetic gesture toward bork, I can't very well fault them for it.

                            When you implied in the above that "others" and "them" voiced opposition to the banning of bork; the "others" and "them" you were referring to were dkos moderators?    

                            Just wanted to make that clear up that point.  

                            "It's not the end, It’s the beginning." ~ Nadia Magdy, protester in Tahrir, Feb 11th

                            by sofia on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never (5+ / 0-)

                            implied that anyone voiced opposition to the banning of bork. "Others" and "them" are those who wanted a stronger response from management.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:52:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah nt (0+ / 0-)

                            "It's not the end, It’s the beginning." ~ Nadia Magdy, protester in Tahrir, Feb 11th

                            by sofia on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 08:09:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't you think (6+ / 0-)

                            honestly, that you're going a little over the line here? Just a bit?

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 12:57:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  blue.... I believe you are reading this wrong. (7+ / 0-)

                      Paul is not concerned that Karma was banned quickly. He has no issue with it whatsoever actually. His comment was that borkie and Romo2Austin called him a child molestor and accused me (a parent of two young boys) of associating with pedophiles. YET.. it took a week just to deal with this libelous behavior.

                      If there was any complaint it was how libelous behavior can be allowed to stand for so long yet a zombie can get instantly banned. That's all. I believe you are reading this wrong.

                      No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                      by volleyboy1 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:52:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Im gonna take it slow (0+ / 0-)

            and just chew on things as time goes by.

            Even in just this diary alone I see people making comments that strike me as rather inflammatory, extreme even, and yet infused with such certainty.

            I want to allow myself to be uncertain for awhile.

            Peace.

  •  Land day poetry (14+ / 2-)

    as its crown the poems of the late Toufiq Zayyad. Who lead the first land day march.

    My all Palestinians be liberated from the racism that has visited them. The sojourn of racism and colonialism is temporary.

    There is of course a need for leadership within our civil rights struggle to emerge from the north American Jewish community. A leadership like we have yet to see. An uncompromising leadership for the sake of civil rights and the end of racism.  A leadership that will emerge as genuinely Palestinian unencumbered by sectarianism; seeing all Palestinians (Jews, Christian, Muslim, the native Arabs, the immigrants from Europe) as equals demanding equality.

    •  Uh hum. (4+ / 0-)

      Then I suggest you get some poetry that doesn't remind those who are literate of some very, very bad things in history. That whole romanticizing the land thing borders on the repulsive.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 06:18:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Palestinian (14+ / 0-)

        poetry and literature places special importance on the land because Palestinians are a dispossessed people, a nation in exile. The fact that you can dismiss this so cavalierly as "repulsive" is further reflection of your complete inability to understand or listen to the Palestinian experience.

      •  Romanticizing the land? (15+ / 0-)

        you might want to go read Ojibwa's diaries that describe the relationship of the people to the land. Chief Seattle's letter to Franklin Pierce makes the point about 'We are a part of the earth and the earth is a part of us'. He cannot imagine how you can buy or sell the sky or the warmth of the land.

        The concept of the people belonging to the land is a feature of many indigenous peoples' views. Australian aborigines believe that they belong to the land, not that the land belongs to them.

        I know from my own experience just how Levantines feel about their land and what grows on it. And I know that I belong to it. Your view of simone's post is something I find difficult to comprehend and have no conception about where you are coming from but I'll try to make a go of it. Bad things did happen in Palestine and now millions of Palestinians are in exile, under seige or occupation or living as second-class citizens within Israel. They have the right to hope and aspire for their liberation from the very unjust circumstances they live in. And Jewish Israelis don't have the right to keep them from having those aspirations. They may have the military power to keep them from achieving their freedom but not the right.

        I'd like to remind you that the land where the bad things that happened to the Jews was Europe, not Palestine.

        •  While much of your comment (8+ / 0-)

          is unobjectionable, I'd like to remind you that the land where bad things happened to the Jews included Palestine.  The destruction of the Temple, it happened in Palestine. The Diaspora, it happened in Palestine.  That's just ancient history. I can refer to more modern events too, if you wish, but I think at this point, you probably don't want me to embarrass you further.

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:28:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure what you are talking about (10+ / 0-)

            I'm not trying to make light of anyone's experience nor am I embarrassed by what I wrote above. Your post is confusing because as far as I'm aware, the Palestinians didn't destroy the temple, nor kick the Jews out of Palestine. And nor do I see what that has to do with the Palestinian attachment to their land and why having that attachment is so inflammatory to some.

            How about you put the blame for what the Palestinians did on the Palestinians and blame the Israelis for what they did. And when you've finished that tiresome and unproductive game, how about we just let eveyone have equal rights?

            •  I can tell you aren't following (6+ / 0-)

              or maybe you are, and you just threw in the strawman to avoid further embarassment. In either case, let me summarize for you:

              Firebad said:

              "I'd like to remind you that the land where the bad things that happened to the Jews was Europe, not Palestine."

              Paul responded:

              ...I'd like to remind you that the land where bad things happened to the Jews included Palestine.  The destruction of the Temple, it happened in Palestine. The Diaspora, it happened in Palestine.  That's just ancient history. I can refer to more modern events too, if you wish, but I think at this point, you probably don't want me to embarrass you further.

              You will notice if you actually read carefully the words that I actually wrote, that I never said that the Palestinians were responsible for the bad things that happened to the Jews in Palestine 2000 years ago.  I didn't blame the Palestinians for that, but if you really like, I can recount all the nasty shit the Palestinians did to the Jews in the area during the 20th Century.  It all depends on you, at this point.

              In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

              by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:38:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Try to follow more closely (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco, unspeakable

                The intial objection to simone's argument was about his views of the land and I made my comments in response to that. You then bring in all sorts of things that don't have to do with the Palestinians and I question you on that. You then specify what Palestinians can be blamed for and I respond with everyone's done bad things here, let's give them all equality.

                Now, what are you trying to say? That Palestinians don't deserve equality for the bad things they did? I think the onus is now on you.

                •  I agree let's give them all equality (5+ / 0-)

                  Two States, with protected minority rights in each State. Favorable immigration laws that reflect the National intention of each State. Same rules for both countries.

                  I love that idea.

                  No Groin, No Krav Maga.. Hello Groin!

                  by volleyboy1 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 03:14:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Again, you demonstrate an inability (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Corwin Weber, JNEREBEL

                  to read and understand.  My initial response to you stated that I largely agreed with what you said, and disagreed only with your historically ludicrous statement that all the bad stuff happened to Jews in Europe, and nothing bad every happened to Jews in palestine.  And I didn't bring in "all sorts of things that don't have to do with the palestinians."  I brought in two things that happened in palestine.  Two very big things in Jewish history.  Which you would be aware of if you had bothered to ever study history.

                  Really, if you want to continue this, that's fine with me, but the more you write, the more you demonstrate an appalling lack of intelligence, a substandard ability to read even at a 4th grade level, and an ignorance about world events and history that would make even George W. Bush say "dang, and they say I'm dumb!"

                  In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                  by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:21:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My initial reference was to the Jewish (4+ / 0-)

                    Holocaust which happened in Europe which did not happen in Palestine. You then bring up 2 other events in Jewish history which were not caused by Palestinians. And I'm the one who is confused? So you get to randomly introduce facts that have no relation to ongoing discussion? Fine, but when you do that, you will confuse people and they will question you. FYI. And then  instead of trying to clarify what I am not 'understanding', you instead choose to insult me? What a novel approach for you! Unfortunately, this is where I say "I'm out".

                    •  I know better than you (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mets102, volleyboy1

                      what you said. I actually bothered to read your comment, and you are the one that is deviating wildly from both your own comments and mine in a pathetic and fruitless attempt to "win" an argument you can't possibly win.

                      What makes your actions even more ridiculous is that I largely agreed with most of your original comment, and only tried to correct one glaringly incorrect statement. And in deference to your heritage, I chose to limit my correction to ancient history, rather than to modern events. But you freaked out nonetheless, making wild accusations that I was somehow blaming the palestinians for things that happened 2000 years ago.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you were ignorant about things like the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the expulsion of the Jews 2000 years ago, it's quite likely you would also be ignorant of the fact that those actions were perpetrated by the Romans.  But you seem to enjoy flaunting your ignorance, holding true to the Team p philosophy of "when caught saying something stupid or wrong, double down and make yourself look even more moronic."

                      I really hope you mean it when you say you are "out," because I don't really get any enjoyment or pleasure out of constantly having to educate you to the facts.  If you showed any aptitude, it might be different, but I guess I just don't have the patience required to deal with someone who is both woefully ignorant and proud of it.

                      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                      by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Apr 01, 2011 at 11:13:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  LOL. You've just defined chutzpah (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        unspeakable, sofia, soysauce
                        I know better than you what you said.

                        The issue is that I clarified the point and you refused to accept that. I'll leave it for anyone still bothering to follow the diary to make their own judgements about this.

                        As for the rest of your post, I can't imagine why you would think that your random and anonymous opinion should be granted any importance or attention by me.

        •  "Blood and soil"-type nationalism (4+ / 0-)

          is often associated with reactionary politics (cf. Zionism). But plainly context matters -  typically only those on the far-right are unable to make a distinction between colonial and anticolonial nationalism, for example.

      •  Hahahahaha (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unspeakable, elliott
        "That whole romanticizing the land thing borders on the repulsive."

        You realise of course that you're describing Zionism, right? (See, e.g., Shapira; Sternhell; Finkelstein). This is of a piece with Zionism's character as an nineteenth century romantic nationalism more generally, as Shapira explains:

        "The concept of nation that originated in the French Revolution was not serviceable as a basis for a Jewish conception of nationhood. A stateless people, the Jews could not embrace the idea of citizenship based on the notion of a state. Ironically, it was the Romantic-exclusivistic [or “volkisch”] brand of nationalism (whose prescriptions meant that Jews could never be an integral part of the organic nation) that contained certain ideas able to function as a basis for an elaborated notion of a Jewish nation and national movement."

        What did you think all the "redeem the land", "making the desert bloom", etc. nonsense was about, exactly?

    •  Oh, and just (4+ / 4-)

      a point of order, two, actually: immigrants to Israel did not come just from Europe. Rather more than half are refugees from Arab countries.

      In short, they fled from precisely what simonedaudistan would be: another place where Arabs are in the majority and get to oppress their minorities, like, say, the Kurds.

      Funny that nobody finds that scenario attractive, isn't it?

      The HR, of course, is for the repeat of the European strangers meme.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 07:24:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  simone (12+ / 0-)

        did not say that immigrants to Israel came just from Europe, so you're intentionally lying about what he wrote.

        Your comments in this diary are repulsive and worthy of HR's. simonedaudistan? Another place where "Arabs...get to oppress their minorities". Yes, gee, because it's in our blood to do so. You know, like white people (intentional irony there).

        In fact, I am HR'ing you for more blatant anti-Arab racism.

        •  Pfft. (6+ / 0-)

          First, your HRs don't interest me.

          Second, all of us here are familiar with professor ZOG's entries into the hall of shame, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when he says something that might just be unintentionally offensive. Like denying that there have been Jews in Israel for twenty five centuries.

          Third, maybe you can point me to ethnic or religious minorities in the Mideast that are treated well by Arab majorities. Like Saddam's Kurds and Shia, for example.

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:16:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there (11+ / 0-)

            was absolutely nothing HR'able about simone's comment. Period.

            And to quote you: all of us here are familiar with MBNYC's anti-Arab entries into the hall of shame, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt...

            To your last point: you don't even know what you are taling about. "Saddam's Shia" WERE Arabs. So what are you even arguing? You see, your anti-Arab prejudice comes back over and over again to reveal itself. Arabs are an ethnicity, nothing more. An educated person would not engage in the kind of broad, essentializing discourses about an ethnicity that you do about Arabs.

            And oh, my family did quite well as minorities living among those scary "Arabs". And we didn't even oppress any Kurds either? Well, imagine that.

            Your complete ignorance on display yet again.

            •  He did in fact.... (6+ / 0-)

              ....say ethnic or religious minorities.

            •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, Paul in Berkeley

              So now we're minimizing Saddam's brutal onslaught on Iraqi Shiites - and yes, I do know they are Arabs - all the while ignoring the really salient issue of how minorities fare in the Middle East, and top that off with the always pleasing confusion of anecdotes with data.

              So I'll say it again: simonedaudistan doesn't sound like a good place to retire.

              Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

              by MBNYC on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:37:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  last comment to you (13+ / 0-)

                because you are absurd. The issue, if you recall, was your sweeping generalization about "Arabs", not about how minorities fare in the Middle East. If you wanted to have a discussion about that, an educated discussion based on being informed, that might have been possible. But instead you choose to play loose with language and disparage some ahistorical category of "Arabs" and their oppressive natures.

                Again though, you are wrong with the facts. Shiites in Iraq have never been a minority. Don't you think you might need to educate yourself before speaking?

                And as for anecdotes, here's the point of that anecdote: Iraqi Christians have prospered in Iraq for centuries. In the 20th century, they tended to be upper middle class, educated professionals. They were a kind of elite in the country, as are Jordan's Christians, and Syria's Christians, and Lebanon's Christians. Today's persecution of Christians in Iraq is a result of political instability and GW Bush's war. In other words, there are specific, concrete historical and political explanations for things such as how minorities fare, and they can't be reduced to "that's the way the Arabs are" a la MBNYC and his deluded anti-Arab thoughts. The point here is that your snide, generalized comments reflect such a profound ignorance that if I didn't know the arrogant personality I was dealing with, I'd be stunned that you offer your uneducated views so openly.

                •  Right. (4+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  volleyboy1, Mets102, Corwin Weber, JNEREBEL
                  Hidden by:
                  heathlander

                  But right now, we're talking about Jews, not Christians, so we can deduce from your lack of interest in that subject your own deep contempt of them. The

                   

                  specific, concrete historical and political explanations for things such as how minorities fare

                  are all very interesting, but irrelevant, because you're uncritically trying to apply them to a different ethné.

                  Anyway, I'm done here for the day. Toodles.

                  Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                  by MBNYC on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:56:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We're talking (11+ / 0-)

                    about minorities. YOU specified minorities. But, if you want to talk about Jews, the same methodology applies. Persecution of Jews in Iraq occurred because of specific, historical reasons, not because Arabs are intolerant. Why, I am wondering, is this even a discussion? Why do I have to prove that "Arabs" are no less or more tolerant than any other group of people? And fyi, Jews did quite well in Iraq for centuries, and were part of an upper class in Baghdad that included Christians. Some of the biggest landowning families in Iraq were Jewish, and Iraqi Jewish accounts of their lives in Iraq testify to how well they were integrated. The expulsion of Iraqi Jews occurred through a confluence of historical and political factors. It was indeed terrible, and unacceptable, just as the expulsion of Iraq's Christians today is terrible and unacceptable. But neither of them have occurred because of some inherent Arab intolerance toward minorities.

                    •  So.... just out of curiosity... (4+ / 3-)

                      ....just how many times do these 'specific, historical reasons' get to crop up before we're expected to stop giving the Arab world a pass on them?

                      •  Just out of curiosity (6+ / 0-)

                        how many times do Jewish financiers have to be caught committing fraud before we're expected to stop giving the Jewish world a pass on them?

                        Yeah, that's actually quite a racist thing to say isn't it? I'll be reporting this to MB, but even if nothing happens, it's good to have you three on record with your racism, at least (or, I should say, on record again). Now kindly fuck off.

                        •  Take your own advice. (3+ / 0-)

                          We're talking about minority rights in Arab countries. That's what Israel is supposed to become to have 'justice'.

                          So what would that look like?

                          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                          by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:16:37 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (4+ / 0-)
                            "That's what Israel is supposed to become to have 'justice'"

                            Says who? That's your deceitful caricature of the argument calling for a secular, democratic state in Palestine with equal civil rights for all its citizens. The basis of your caricature is that in some other Arab countries minority rights are not respected, and Palestinians are Arabs, ergo they could not be trusted to respect the rights of Jews if they were in the majority. Leaving aside the historical idiocy of this "argument" - for one thing, Israeli Jews would be a very large minority, and would be a minority with greatly disproportionate wealth, education, employment prospects, and so forth; for another what you are choosing to call "Arab societies" could equally be called "politically repressive societies", "dictatorships", "economic unequal societies", and so on - it rests on the racist premise that disrespect for minority rights is somehow intrinsic to Arabs, so that pointing to minority persecution in Saudi Arabia can be taken to demonstrate Palestinians' incapacity for tolerant politics.

                            It's textbook racism, as anyone can see if they simply substitute "Arab" for "Jew" of "Gypsy" or whatever else they want. That's the last I have to say on the matter - I feel filthy even talking to you. Why any Arab or Palestinian poster would want to continue their membership on this site when idiot racists like you are free to spout your garbage, I have no idea.

                          •  Not really, no. (6+ / 0-)

                            The same argument can be made with elements of the Palestinian polity, cf. Hamas in Gaza. Not exactly a paradise for, say, women's rights, or gay rights, or Jewish rights. You and your cohorts back in the day never ceased to remind us that Hamas, in fact, won a democratic election.

                            And as far as talking about the characteristics of a given region, we have no problem talking about, for example, Scandinavia. That is presumably because we assign the Scandinavian countries benign characteristics, so making judgments about them in toto isn't controversial.

                            Why any Arab or Palestinian poster would want to continue their membership on this site when idiot racists like you are free to spout your garbage, I have no idea.

                            Do you have any idea how many Jewish posters have left this site precisely because of the noxious I/P discourse? I do.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:52:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As a matter of logic, (8+ / 0-)

                            you're correct.  And it's worth noting the problems created for Israeli democracy by the influx of voters from the former Soviet Union, who grew up in a highly-repressive society.

                            On the other hand, an Israeli looking at the lived experience of Gazans under the rule of Hamas, West Bankers under the rule of Arafat (and still, to some extent, under Abbas), and masses in Egypt, Syria, etc., are entitled to view with skepticism the notion that the "secular democratic state in Palestine" of which you speak is more than a phantasm or, in some cases, a debater's slogan.

                            One possible proof of the foregoing is the stiff resistance of Israel's Arab citizens to the suggestion that, as part of a peace settlement with Palestine, their towns be ceded by Israel to Palestine.  That I oppose compelling such a transfer of sovereignty is beside the point.  What this suggests to me is that, with all the problems these citizens face as Israelis (at least under current circumstances in which their nation is in conflict with their people), they prefer governance by Israel to governance by Palestine.

                            But there's a more fundamental problem with your argument.  Achievement of the "secular democratic state" ideal, even if sincerely meant, cannot be accomplished without the consent of the peoples involved.  And they don't want it.

                            So far as we can tell, the great majority of Palestinians want to live in a Palestinian state, quite possible one in which Islam is officially recognized as the state religion, even if religious minorities (at least, religious minorities not regarded as heretical) are allowed to worship.  Likewise, the great majority of Israeli Jews want to live in a predominantly Jewish state.

                            Looking only at Israel, for the moment, the only plausible path to reconstituting Israeli society in the way proclaimed -- and I do not find it at all plausible -- is through military victory over Israel, because its Jewish citizens at least will fight to defend their collective life.  First, it is difficult to believe that the hypothetical victors will have marched under the banner of a secular democratic state.  Second, it is even more difficult to believe that on the day after such a hypothetical victory (= defeat for Israeli Jews), that the Israeli Jewish population will command the power and status that your utopia requires.

                            Not every problem in life has an achievable solution.  In the case of Israel and Palestine, we at least can say that the two-state solution, with all its difficulties, offers by the best chance of improving the lives of Israelis and Palestinians, and that no other proposal has a ghost of a chance.

                            Nevertheless, I will refrain from casting personal aspersions on you.

                            Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

                            by another American on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 06:53:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                            "On the other hand, an Israeli looking at the lived experience of Gazans under the rule of Hamas, West Bankers under the rule of Arafat (and still, to some extent, under Abbas), and masses in Egypt, Syria, etc., are entitled to view with skepticism the notion that the "secular democratic state in Palestine" of which you speak is more than a phantasm or, in some cases, a debater's slogan."

                            That's not the argument being made here though, is it? The argument being made was an explicitly racist one, as described above. So don't conflate the two.

                            One can make an argument that says: look at the specific forces that are currently dominant in Palestinian politics; they don't have a good record when it comes to political and religious tolerance; so therefore we can't trust them to respect those values in the event that Palestinians become a majority in Israel.

                            But again, if one wants this arguments to go beyond essentialising trash and be remotely persuasive, one has to look at the conditions in which those intolerant forces became dominant, and further show that the changes in political and material conditions implied in any one-state or binational solution - an end to military occupation, a political compromise that would have to be worked out between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, greatly increased economic and other ties between the two communities, etc. - wouldn't change those forces. But that would require some actual intellectual work, instead of a lazy reliance on racist generalisations.

                            In fact if you look at the balance of forces, in any single-state settlement the main danger would not be Palestinians repressing a Jewish minority but vice versa: Jews would continue to be the economically dominant constituency - they would be far wealthier, more educated, and more integrated into social institutions - so the risk would be, if anything, that a South Africa-style situation would develop, in which formal political equality would mask a continuation of the same huge economic inequalities that characterised the apartheid era.

                            There's also the matter of how any future binational or democratic settlement between Jews and Palestinians would work out - what the specifics would be. Presumably it would involve drawing up a constitution, which would be a product of negotiations (negotiations between, to repeat, parties that would be grossly mismatched in terms of economic power - in favour of Israeli Jews). All this needs to be taken into account. You can't simply say: look at what Arabs do to minorities when they're in power in Saudi Arabia, obviously that's what they'll do in Palestine too. One because it obscures essential differences between the two cases (in fact they are completely different in almost every respect - the only parallel is that Arabs are involved in both cases). And two because it racializes intolerance. MBNYC's (and Paul in Berkeley's, and Corwin Weber's, and Mets102's, etc.) argument is actually an argument against permitting any Arab majority in any state ever. Because clearly, they can't  be trusted.

                            The rest of your comment levels some arguments against a one-state solution that I agree with, some that I don't. In any case, as you know, you're talking to someone who agrees with you on that point: I agree that a two-state settlement "offers by the best chance of improving the lives of Israelis and Palestinians, and that no other proposal has a ghost of a chance." I don't see how that's relevant here.

                          •  I'm off to a meeting, so all I can say is (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Mets102, zemblan

                            that what you call "the argument being made here" is not an argument I've ever made.  Generally speaking, DKos is something of an open forum; private messages are available, if one doesn't want others to join in.

                            Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

                            by another American on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:20:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I must be missing something here. (4+ / 0-)

                            I never said that you made this argument - my comment was responding to MBNYC, not you, and referred specifically to his upraters, which as far as I know didn't include you.

                            I don't know what you mean with the remark about private messages - I haven't referred to any such messages. My comments were directed towards the arguments being made in these (public) threads by MBNYC and Corwin Weber. I'm not sure what you're finding confusing here...?

                          •  Right. (8+ / 0-)

                            The problem with your shoddy argument is this: economic power can be taken away. That is, of course, precisely what happened to the Jewish populations of Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere, for example, Libya.

                            The bigger problem with your argument is this: you infer that I argue that no Arab-majority state, however defined, can ever be a tolerant place. That is not my argument.

                            Rather, I am saying that based on the historical record in the Mideast, Jewish minorities do not fare well. There is no concrete evidence whatsoever that I'm aware of that would support the case being made by some here, namely that a post-Zionist Israel would be the same kind of safe harbor for Jews that it is today.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 07:47:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah... (4+ / 0-)
                      Persecution of Jews in Iraq occurred because of specific, historical reasons

                      ...if by persecution we mean 'the complete and violent dispossession and exile of an ancient community', and we're supposed to take it on good faith that these specific, historical reasons were a one-time deal.

                      In especially when, as you say, much the same is happening today again to Iraqi Christians.

                      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                      by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:44:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Let's be (6+ / 0-)

                        frank here. I was being polite earlier and held back what I was actually thinking, but I will say it now. First of all, I don't accept your racism that Arabs are inherently intolerant. Your frame and mode of analysis is ahistorical, illogical, and it is the kind of shit worthy of a Sam Huntington, Fu'ad Ajami, or Bernard Lewis, right wingers all of them. Displacing racialized thinking onto other cultures is what you are doing, and it's filthy, absolutely filthy and repulsive. You are here targeting "Arabs" but could just as easily be talking about the intolerance of "Muslims" or Islam, but something tells me you're aware that doing that would put you in the category of the David Horowitz's of the world. Your disparaging of "Arabs" is still safe enough, even if it is completely ahistorical and illogical.

                        But let's get back to the issue of how minorities fare. Historically, and I know you are aware of this, minorities fared much better in the lands of MY ancestors than they did in the lands of YOUR ancestors. In fact, Jews fared much better in the lands of MY ancestors than the lands of your German ancestors. Is that impolite of me to say? Oh well, it is indeed true. To have you, a person of European, and specifically German, ancestry, lecture anyone, let alone me--a minority from the Arab world, about tolerance, about minority rights, about historical persecution, is the height of the kind of arrogance we have come to expect from Europeans. From the continent that marched around the world committing genocide after genocide, chattel slavery, colonial adventure after colonial adventure, scientific racism culminating in the extermination of European Jews who to be safe fled TO the Islamic world, we get lectures about OUR supposedly inherent ethnic and cultural intolerance.

                        To your comment about Iraqi Christians and whether what is happening to them is a "one time deal" in the Arab world, as though again this is somehow evidence you can use to prove your point that Arabs are inherently intolerant: you can ignore the evidence which I gave you, that Christians in Iraq prospered until today, and you can ignore what was done to Iraq by the West which opened up the gates of hell there. You're free to ignore thinking about history rationally and instead be a liberal European racist who will look selectively look at these events as more evidence to buttress your already formed racist opinions about "the Arabs" and their intolerance. Go right ahead. It only reveals you more and more for what you are: a self-described "Eurocentric" bigot.

                        Ciao.

                        •  Go ahead and be frank. (5+ / 0-)

                          It just exposes you as what you are. The guy who claims that non-Arabs are just too inferior to understand Arabic poetry, and that Jews really need to learn Arabic. You seem not to understand, what with your ingrained discourse of victimization, how incredibly offensive some of your views are.

                          That said, this isn't about you at all. I'm taking issue with soy's political demands. And what I'm saying about them is that I find them intrinsically offensive, because she has no regard for Jewish self-determination that I can detect. That disregard is what all the talk about 'justice' is meant to disguise. Or even take simone daud's comment upthread, the one you deemed not hideable: Jewish Palestinians? European immigrants? Is that what you want to stand for, denying a people the right to determine their own future or even to name themselves?

                          We here rightly don't accept the old trope that 'there are no Palestinians'. It's offensive nonsense belied by facts. The same basic courtesy doesn't apply, apparently, to Jewish Israelis.

                          As far as my views on Islam and Muslims are concerned, I refer you to my numerous comments on this site defending both. Soysauce should be able to back me up on that, since I recently did just that in mets102's diary about Pamela Geller's unconscionable attempt to block a mosque here in Brooklyn.

                          My heritage is obviously less important to me than yours is to you. Just for starters, I don't run around this site vilifying my opponents in a language they don't understand and would need to work to have translated, though I could probably do both. I'm also not going to say something profoundly ignorant like, I don't know, that you personally are incapable of understanding Marx and Voltaire, just because you'd presumably need to read them in translation, and I don't.

                          And as far as Europe's past is concerned, what you conveniently overlook is that the main European colonizer and imperial power was Britain. I've never seen you or anyone else posit that, just to make up one example, your friend heathlander holds his views out of guilt over his country's past. That would be a silly suggestion.

                          Lastly, what we're talking about here is not some posited innate Arab inability to safeguard minority rights. We're talking about real examples in the past of the persecution of Jews specifically. Which subject is salient, because right now, we're talking about an Israel where Jews are a minority.

                          And if someone is going to make a political case here to that end, they expose themselves to having the consequences of it examined in light of experience.

                          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                          by MBNYC on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 10:25:10 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Honestly, (9+ / 0-)

                  it's beneath you and a waste of your time to engage with these distractions, sortalikenathan.

                  The hijacker deliberately brought up Iraq's Shi'ite and Kurdish populations and this racialist specter of "Arab oppression" because he wanted to provoke a flamewar.

                  As he himself has stated:

                  As far as slamming people, yes, I do that, and quite well, I think. That's really mainly for my amusement, because I love the well-turned phrase, especially my own. I also know that I've said some really foul stuff over the years. Part of what I'm talking about here is my fault, because I'm sometimes such an asshole.

                  The purpose of this sorry attempt at a flamewar in this thread is revealed in that comment. He attacks Arabs to push our buttons. When you respond to him, you're giving his MO legitimacy.

                  If the people one day wish to live / destiny cannot but respond / And the night cannot but disappear / and the bonds cannot but break. -- Abu'l-Qasim al-Shabbi

                  by unspeakable on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 09:27:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  1! tsk, tsk. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

      by JNEREBEL on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 08:01:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  did you see (9+ / 0-)

    this clip of the flash mob at grand central, march 26?

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Also, I think some Darwish poetry sung by the great Lebanese singer Marcel Khalife is in order:

    •  Flash Mob FTW ! ! ! (6+ / 0-)

      If there'd been one going on while I was on my way through Penn Station, I'd have applauded wildly at the end.

      I met 3 Yemenis in a deli on 9th Ave. while I was waiting for my bus.  We chatted for 90 minutes.  Cool guys, all of them.  Turned one on to this website.  He wanted to give me his Qur'an so that I might learn more of Islam, but I promised him I'd buy my own copy.

      I have it here on my desk.

      Celtic Merlin
      Carlinist

      Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

      by Celtic Merlin on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 11:28:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the diary. (8+ / 0-)

    I stand with you on Land Day.

    “The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer.”
    –Jewish National Fund director Yosef Weitz, March 20, 1941

    That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

    by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 05:44:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site