U.S. furious over Israel's demolition of East Jerusalem homes

[cali]

By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya

Tags: Israel news, U.S.

The dispute between the United States and Israel over the razing of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is intensifying and will likely become the first clash between the Obama administration and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. argues that the destruction of homes constitutes a violation of commitments made as part of the road map. Israel says this is a domestic issue of law enforcement and that the future status of Jerusalem is only to be discussed in the final status negotiations.

"Apart from a dispute this issue will lead to nothing," a senior government official told Haaretz.


U.S. attention to the demolitions began after the visit to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, catching Israel by surprise. Clinton was highly critical of Israel regarding the matter during her visit. She said that the demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem did not contribute to the peace process. Clinton was under considerable pressure from the Palestinian Authority to condemn the razings. The PA says the demolitions are politically motivated and insists that the issue is a bilateral one between Israel and the Palestinians.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072813.html

[jeff30997]

1. "Hillary Clinton, catching Israel by surprise."

Caught with their pants down and their response is:Who are you going to believe,us or your lying eyes?

[elleng]

2. No, their response is,

Its none of your business!

[shira]

3. are these the illegal homes built on an archaelogical park that was once

King David's royal gardens?

[IndianaGreen]

9. The mythical King David for which there isn't one shred of archaeological proof that he existed?

Keep that biblical bullshit flowing, shira. You are as bad as those that argue for a caliphate extending to Spain.

Next thing you will say is that dinosaurs co-existed with humans.

[jeff30997]

27. Well said.

Lol,it reminds me of the peoples searching for the remains of Noah's Ark.

[shira]

30. the King David royal gardens are pretty important to many people of several

religions, but also archaelogically important. That means nothing to you? If Jews weren't involved at all, and the place had religious or archaelogical significance, would it mean more then?

[IndianaGreen]

31. Biblical sites are just a tourist trap, a cash cow for Israel

In this particular case, Israel's demolitions of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem are an abomination. Using the pretext of the mythical gardens for a mythical king, who was quite a bloody tyrant if one is to believe the Bible, really takes the cake.

Where is the archaeological evidence that there was ever a King David? For that matter, where is the archaeological evidence in Egypt that there was ever a large exodus?

[rateyes]

44. "Israel's demolitions of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem are an abomination."

Another way to say it is: "Business as usual."

[shira]

72. nice respect for others' religious beliefs

or is it just the beliefs of Jews (and maybe Christians too) that you don't give a rip about? What if such disregard were shown to anything Muslims believe to be sacred or historically significant, would you be just as indifferent to their "bullshit religious claims"?

[IndianaGreen]

80. All monotheistic religions suffer from the same fatal flaw at the very core

A jealous deity that is intolerant of other deities, or to put it in real terms, a theology with no tolerance for diverse views.

[grassfed]

40. Except the Spanish Caliphate - Al Andalus - EXISTED

and the architectural & intellectual legacy is awesome....

[rateyes]

43. As opposed to the illegal homes in the illegal settlements in the West Bank?

As opposed to the homes Israel stole from the Palestinians?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I lived in Israel and it never ceases to amaze me that people who were never there....

AND never studied the history from 1948 on, seem to think they know it all about the Palestinian-Jewish thing.

[geek tragedy]

5. Israel does not have the same values as America.

It is a state that lives by the Jim Crow ethos.

[oberliner]

6. Jim Crows laws were implemented in the United States of America

How are they not American values?

[geek tragedy]

7. Because we have rejected them and evolved.

Israel is going in the opposite direction. It is regressing.

[oberliner]

8. The US still has serious problems with racial inequality

I would say that the US and Israel are evolving in the same direction at around the same pace as far as treatment of minorities is concerned.

Both countries still have a long way to go.

[IndianaGreen]

10. We got Obama, while Israel has yet to give full voting rights to Palestinians

You took their land, now you are bound to either return the land, or make them full citizens.

[LeftishBrit]

16. deleted (posted in wrong place)

[oberliner]

41. The United States have yet to give full voting rights to Puerto Ricans

The President of the US is their head of state yet they are not permitted to vote in presidential elections.

Is the US not bound to either grant them independence or make them full US citizens?

I would also remind you that prior to the 1967 war, the West Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt. When you say that Israel is bound to "return the land" are you proposing that Israel return the land to those two countries?

Most Palestinians do not support that and would instead prefer to have an independent state established on those lands, which is what I would support as well.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. Are you likening the violent military occupation of Palestine to the US relationship with

Puerto Rico?

[oberliner]

48. No - those relationships are not similar

The poster indicated that when a country takes land then they are bound to either return it or make the people there full citizens.

In the case of the United States and Puerto Rico, neither of these things have happened.

I'm asking if there are other acceptable options besides the two mentioned, such as the case exemplified by Puerto Rico which is a self-governing unincorporated territory.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Puerto Ricans are US citizens

but if they live in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, they can't vote for President, but they don't US pay income taxes. They have their own legislature and governor. The only issue is whether they want to continue with the status quo, become the 51st state of the Union, or become an independent republic.

Comparing Puerto Rico to Palestine is comparing apples and oranges.

[oberliner]

69. Not comparing Puerto Rico to Palestine

You had mentioned that the options were either full voting rights or complete independence with regard to the Palestinian territories.

Puerto Rico is an example of a territory that is subject to the laws of a country in which it does not have a vote.

This perhaps indicates that other models are possible other than the two you listed.

[geek tragedy]

11. We have Obama, they have Bibi and Lieberman. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

12. True - but until this year, you had Bush and Cheney

At least, Israel's leaders aren't constrained to a four-year term. Let's hope that Bibi and Lieberman will last only a few months.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land has gone unabated for 41 years

Where is your outrage?

Israeli Settlements and Outposts in the West Bank to January 2002

Following the Six Day war, the Israeli government originally declared that it was ready to return all of the territories except Jerusalem in return for peace treaties with its Arab neighbors. However, religious and nationalist groups began agitating for annexation and settlement of areas in the West Bank and Golan heights. An increasing number of settlements were established as it became evident that Arab states would not negotiate with Israel. A decisive turning point was the Khartoum Arab summit, in August and September of 1967, which seemed to shut the door on the possibility of negotiations with Israel or recognition of Israel in any form. However, following a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel returned all of the territory it had conquered from Egypt, and evacuated settlements in the Sinai peninsula, including Yamit. UN Resolution 242 requires that Israel withdraw from territories conquered in the 6-day war in return for negotiated peace, but it does not specify all territories.

Given the uncertain state of the territories, and the continued Arab intransigence regarding peace, the settler movement grew in strength. Part of the push for settlement was ideological. Orthodox Jews believe that God promised the land to them. They had formed the Gush Emunim faction, mostly based on zealots within the National religious party. The Likud party, which is the ideological offspring of the Herut movement, asserted that all of 1917 Palestine, including Jordan, belongs to the Jews by right, and was unjustly divided by the British. Together with others, these ideologies formed the core of a "Greater Israel" movement. All factions believed that it was important to establish "facts on the ground" (a poor literal translation of the Hebrew expression for "Fait Accompli"). That is, to establish areas of Jewish settlement which would afterwards be the basis for negotiation of borders. This conviction grew from the historical experience, that the UN Partition plan of 1947 had awarded Israel territories on the basis of those areas that had large concentrations of Jews. Its relevance to the present situation is not clear.

Settlements were established in the Golan Heights conquered from Syria, including Gamla and Katzrin, in Sinai, taken from Egypt, including villages or resorts at Sharm as Shaikh, Ofir and Yamit, and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as in and around areas of Jerusalem that were conquered and annexed to Jewish Jerusalem. In a few cases, the settlements revived Jewish communities that had existed prior to 1948: in the old city of Jerusalem, in Hebron, in Gush Etzion near Hebron, and north of Jerusalem at Neve Ya'akov and Atarot. The Hebron and Jerusalem Jewish communities had existed for hundreds of years prior to 1948. The area of the West Bank north of Jerusalem was termed Samaria by the Israeli government, and the area in the south, Judea, according to the ancient biblical names.

At first, other than the Jerusalem area, settlements were built mostly in relatively unpopulated areas. In the West Bank, a line of settlements was establish in the desert north around and north of Jericho "The back of the mountain" ridge that runs along the West Bank or Jordan Valley Settlements. However, when the right-wing Likud party came to power in 1977, settlement building began in earnest in the West Bank, which right-wing Zionist ideology claimed as part of Israel. A large city, Ariel, was built deep in Palestinian territory and the trans-Samaria highway was created to connect it with Israel. At present (2002) there are about 210,00 Jews living in the West Bank, a small number in Gaza, and another 200,000 or so Jews living in areas of Jerusalem and environs annexed in 1967.

Jerusalem was a subject of national pride and security concerns for Israel. The city had been subject to a prolonged siege during the 1948 War of Independence, and had been divided by barbed-wire fences between 1948 and 1949. The Israel government repopulated the Jewish quarter of the Old City with Jewish settlers, and built a number of settlements in the West bank along the former border with the Jerusalem corridor (the area leading into Jerusalem from Tel Aviv). It also built the new town of Ma'ale Adumim to the east of Jerusalem to provide a protective back.

In Hebron, a small group of extremists began moving into lands that had once been occupied by Jews and were owned by Jews, in the heart of the city, and the Israeli government eventually recognized this illegal settlement, in addition to the town of Qiriat Arba built outside the city of Hebron

(Map at link)

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

[LeftishBrit]

18. I have plenty of outrage about this

I also have outrage about the messes that America has been creating through foolish policies abroad for more than 41 years: Vietnam, Cambodia, supporting dictatorships in Latin America, building up the forerunners of the Taliban, Iraq, etc.

As regards internal racism in America, there has been plenty even since the end of Jim Crow - Katrina and its aftermath being just one shocking example.

Britain hasn't had quite the same power since ceasing to have an Empire, but we've done plenty of bad things abroad too, especially recently.

No one is saying that Israel's actions are saintly, or anything like it in fact, but it isn't a question of America having completely moved forward, and Israel being infinitely worse.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. There's no doubt at all when it comes to that...

You've voiced yr strong opposition to the settlements many times and in a way that's not the slightest wishy-washy or ambiguous, which earns you respect from me, at least...

but having said that...

No one is saying that Israel's actions are saintly, or anything like it in fact, but it isn't a question of America having completely moved forward, and Israel being infinitely worse.

No, what was claimed was that the US and Israel were moving in the same direction. They're clearly not at all. While racism exists to varying extents in all countries, in the US they've just elected an African-American to the most powerful position in the world, and I'm pretty sure no fascists hold any positions of power in the new govt. The same can't be said for Israel, which appears to be backsliding to the 1960's and before. No Israeli-Arab has been elected PM of Israel, and it's not likely to happen in our lifetimes, and Israel's new foreign minister is a racist and a fascist. While I've seen some horribly racist things from US conservatives online leading up to the election of Obama (no prizes for guessing the sort of crap that was said about him), i'm not at all convinced that racism is deeply rooted or socially acceptable in many parts of the US. After reading what some Israelis have said where they've voiced concern over the way deep-seated racism aimed at Arabs has become socially acceptable in their country, I'm not convinced at all that there isn't a high level of racism towards Arabs in Israel. There used to be an Israeli who posted here for a while who posted that she'd refuse to live near an Arab and couldn't understand why other DUers had a problem with the things she was saying about Israeli-Arabs.

btw, I saw Douglas recommend Susan Nathan's book. I've read it and it's a very worthwhile read....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. Flat out: Do you think Israel has improved with regard to racism toward Arabs? nt

[LeftishBrit]

50. No. Or even, Hell No...

My point, however, wasn't that they'd improved. More that most countries keep going up and down on this matter.

E.g. - A year ago, I'd have said that Italy had improved, but now it's gotten much worse there.

I think there has been a real improvement in America, but from what I can see there's still a long way to go.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. when it is considered plausible for Israel to elect an Arab President or Prime Minister or Foreign

Minister, I will buy the argument that they are both moving at the same pace. Considering that 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabic while only 13% of Americans are African-American - it shouldn't in an equally egalitarian society be implausible. Or if the United States appoints a Secretary of State who is publicly, openly and overtly racist, I will buy that that the they are both moving at the same pace.

Your statement is patently absurd. EVERYONE agrees that ALL the trends indicate that Israel is becoming more - much more racist - not less. Good Lord! Just consider what the election of Avigdor Lieberman. If this had happened in ANY other western democracy and a character such as Mr. Lieberman was on the verge of being appointed Foreign Minister. That would be like Jean Marie Le Pen being appointed French Foreign Minister.

Just examine the recent displays of T-Shirts worn by soldiers.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/

"Sociologist Dr. Orna Sasson-Levy, of Bar-Ilan University said that the phenomenon is “part of a radicalization process the entire country is undergoing, and the soldiers are at its forefront. I think that ever since the second intifada there has been a continual shift to the right. The pullout from Gaza and its outcome - the calm that never arrived - led to a further shift rightward.

“This tendency is most strikingly evident among soldiers who encounter various situations in the territories on a daily basis. There is less meticulousness than in the past, and increasing callousness. There is a perception that the Palestinian is not a person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore anything may be done to him.”

Could the printing of clothing be viewed also as a means of venting aggression?

Sasson-Levy: “No. I think it strengthens and stimulates aggression and legitimizes it. What disturbs me is that a shirt is something that has permanence. The soldiers later wear it in civilian life; their girlfriends wear it afterward. It is not a statement, but rather something physical that remains, that is out there in the world. Beyond that, I think the link made between sexist views and nationalist views, as in the ‘Screw Haniyeh’ shirt, is interesting. National chauvinism and gender chauvinism combine and strengthen one another. It establishes a masculinity shaped by violent aggression toward women and Arabs; a masculinity that considers it legitimate to speak in a crude and violent manner toward women and Arabs.” "

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/20/idf-t-shirts-boast-of-killing-babies-pregnant-women-sodomizing-hamas-leaders/

Youth believe Arabs dirty, uneducated

"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.
On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean."

This was poll was actually based on 1600 students at 22 high schools within Israel.

""The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' among Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

-----------------------------


another poll of Israeli-Jewish attitude toward Arab citizens of Israel:

"The poll presented Wednesday showed that 68 percent of respondents said they do not wish to live next to an Arab neighbor, compared with 26 percent who said they would agree.

Responding to a question about Arab friends, 46 percent said they would not be willing to have Arab friends who would visit them at their home.

Some 63 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab civilians as a security and demographic threat, and 34 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab culture as inferior compared to Israeli culture. Half of the population, according to the poll, is anxious and uncomfortable when hearing Arabic on the street.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231048,00.html

-----------------------------

Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[LeftishBrit]

17. 'like LePen being Foreign Minister'. True.

And less than seven years ago, there was a VERY real chance of his becoming president.

Jesse Helms was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in America for quite a few years. While not as bad as being secretary of state, it was quite bad enough, and didn't exactly fill observant foreigners with confidence either.

And if 5 years ago, someone had said, "Within a few years, American will have a black president, with the middle name of Hussein", I think most people's reaction would also have been "That's absurd" - if not "What are you smoking?!" Things change in ways that are hard to predict.

I think Lieberman is a fucking fascist, and I've made the LePen comparison myself many a time; but I don't think it's as simple as 'America's getting better; Israel's getting worse.' This year, America is getting better and Israel is getting worse. In a few years time, it may be the other way about. I suppose I'm just not much of a believer in irreversible trends anywhere.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. well, I certainly hope the trends in Israel do reverse...and it is possible

Back in 2003 - there were many Americans who were convinced that the right-wing of the Republican Party would be entrenched in power for the next forty years.

I hope that Israelis discover as Americans fortunately have done that they are on a self-destructive course.

Still a Netanyahu/Lieberman government is still far to the right of even Bush/Cheney. And the current trends in attitudes in Israel especially, attitudes regarding race are more extreme than anything America has experienced in a long time.

BTW: have you ever read Susan Nathan's book, The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide?

It is the story about a British-Jewish woman who dreamed of living in Israel all her life and finally made Aliyah at the age fifty. Ms. Nathan recalls her initial ecstasy over life in Israel. Then how she moved into the all Arab, all Muslim town of Tamra in the Galilee and took up a normal like as an English teacher.

Amazon UK link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Other-Side-Israel-Journey-Across/dp/0007195117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237752290&sr=1-1

Amazon U.S. link:

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Israel-Journey-Across/dp/0385514565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237752422&sr=1-1

.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Thanks for the recommendation - sounds fascinating!

I will definitely get hold of this book.

[geek tragedy]

21. And in France, they marginalized Le Pen instead of putting

him in charge of immigration, infrastructure, legal affairs, and foreign policy.

[LeftishBrit]

25. And a huge relief it was.

Unfortunately there are other Europaean countries where the far-right was not so marginalized. The mayor of Rome is far-right, and Berlusconi borders on it. Poland had the revolting Kaczynski twins as President and PM for a while (imagine Lieberman with a literal clone!)

The marginalization of LePen was achieved in France by the socialists withdrawing their candidate and letting Chirac become president. The Israeli equivalent might be Labor agreeing to serve in a coalition under Netanyahu. That may yet happen, and might marginalize Lieberman; but I can fully see the difference between moderate conservative Chirac and hardline rightie Netanyahu.

A big ugh to Lieberman!!!! And don't think I'm NOT disappointed in the Israeli voters for letting this thug in. But I do still remember how Helms and Thurmond were given power in the American political system, and NOT marginalized, and how Helms was able to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee even after basically threatening the president.

Oh, and fuck all right-wingers!

[oberliner]

29. The last President of Israel was of Iranian descent

Granted he turned out to be a pretty unsavory guy to say the least, but nonetheless he was born in Iran.

Will the United States ever have a President who was born in Iran?

The Attorney General of Israel was born in Tunisia. In fact the previous cabinet had numerous high level members who were born in various different Arab countries.

Of course those people were all Jewish. If you want to look at non-Jewish Arab-Israelis in government and compare that number to African-Americans in government in this country, you will note that there have been 6 African-American Senators in the entire history of the United States while there are currently 10 non-Jewish Arab-Israelis who will be serving in the new Israeli Knesset.

There is only one African-American currently in the US Senate.

Lieberman came in third in the Israeli elections. If we in the United States had a similar system to Israel where the third place finisher potentially receives a position of power in the government, lord knows who we would have ended up with. Mitt Romney?

You think Rafael Eitan and Tzomet fifteen years ago was any better than Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu in terms of their attitudes towards Arabs?

Could any Israeli politician in the 1980s even suggest that Palestinians ought to have their own state?

[azurnoir]

32. there is a difference

Are there Arab member of Likud, Kadima, or Meretz for that matter? Arabs in the Israeli government have their own separate parties and their voting will always be marginalized for that reason, in the US there are not separate Black parties in our government, any minority members serving in any branch of the government do so as an integrated member of a political, not as a member of a segregated minority party

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. surely you must know about the enormous social divide between Jewish and

Arab citizens of Israel. The number of Arab citizens living in Jewish areas within the entire state of Israel or Jewish citizens living in Arab areas could practically be counted on ones' fingers,

Actually there are forty-one African American members of the U.S. Congress. But Israel's social exclusion factor far, far exceeds the official exclusion.

They simply live in entirely different worlds. Even the most liberal and progressive Jewish-Israelis rarely have even one single Arabic friend beyond the superficial friendliness one might have with the local falafel vendor.

The vast majority of young Jewish-Israelis, polls and voting trends indicate, absolutely loathe Arabs, even the most passive and apolitical Arab citizen of Israel. One of the shocking things about the last election is the popularity that Avigdor Lieberman had among the Youth - placing first place in many areas among young. first-time voters.

One of the reasons Ilan Pappe gave for moving to the U.K. is when he realized that his own grandchildren where growing up to hate Arabs and to look down on Arab people with utter contempt.

While Americans have over the past forty years have been educated on the contribution African-American have made to our history and culture and taught that that African-Americans have many redeeming qualities - Jewish-Israelis, even on the left will rarely acknowledge that Arabic culture has anything of value. This no doubt, partly explains why polls show that 75% of Israeli-Jewish high school students consider Arabs, including Arab citizens of Israel to be dirty, uneducated and utterly backward.

Of course it is possible that these trends could reverse and I would certainly hope for everyones sake that they do. Because this is a time bomb of contempt which will only increase along with of an emerging Arab majority. Unless these trends reverse, Israel will have no future. It is these attitudes that really, more than any foreign threat that could destroy Israel. A society which deeply loathes Arabs that has an emerging Arab majority and is located in the middle of the Arab world is simply not sustainable.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. What you said about most liberal and progressive Jewish-Israelis is true...

I met one on the forum I ran. He was a great guy who worked at a grass-roots level and had met PLO leaders and organised get-togethers between Israelis and Palestinians on a regular basis. But one day on the forum something someone said about Zionism pissed him off (he was a Zionist), and he flew into a torrent of pretty bigoted anti-Arab stuff and I was really shocked and disappointed to see it from him of all people....

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Was this one a trick question?

Will the United States ever have a President who was born in Iran?

Even us ignorant foreigners know that to hold the office of President of the US, they have to have been born in the US...

[oberliner]

39. Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger

President Schwarzenegger?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/28/60minutes/main652046.shtml

[rateyes]

45. The third-place finisher did receive a powerful position in the US

She is the Secretary of State. (Well, perhaps, she's actually the second-place finisher.)

[LeftishBrit]

13. At the moment, yes

But the US seemed to be regressing when it moved from Clinton to Bush. Now it's moved back in a more progressive direction.

Most countries take 'two steps forward and one step back' repeatedly before making much progress. And those are the countries that do make progress.

I would love to think that the election of Obama means a full rejection of racism in America - just as I'd like to think that the British laws on racial and gender equality mean that there is no racism or sexism here any more. But both are incorrect IMO.

One day I think Israel WILL move on considerably from its present state, as I hope Britain and America will. But in all countries, it will take time to achieve complete equality. When (not if, IMO) Israel gets its first Arab PM or president, it will be a giant step forward - but even then, the battle probably won't have been fully won, as it hasn't in America.

Those interested in supporting work for greater equality and anti-racism in Israel may be interested in the following organizations.

www.newisraelfund.org

www.bsst.org.uk

[geek tragedy]

22. Bush always had hyperthin margins.

Gore and Kerry pulled 46-49% and could have brought a left-center government into power had things broken a little differently.

Keep in mind that the main opposition from 'the left' to Likud is a party founded by Ariel Sharon that launched the invasions of Lebanon and Gaza.

There is no meaningful voice for progress and hope in Israel. Labor is a joke, and Meretz is irrelevant.

So, the question in Israel is whether it will be pragmatic rightwingers or apocalyptical rightwingers holding sway.

[bemildred]

28. Bush lost the first one and stole the second.

Well, really, he stole both, or his supporters did, just different procedures used.

[shaayecanaan]

79. But this is the crux of the matter, isnt it?

I respect your posts for the most part and I find your sunny optimism endearing, but at the end of the day like many Jews you seem to imagine that Jews are incapable of true fascism, and that any far-right dalliances are just a temporary fancy and that they will all return to being decent, kindly humanists.

There was a time when Israel was led by decent socialists, who probably took genuine regret in having to cast aside the Arabs in order to establish a state. But the days of Israeli leaders like Eshkol or Sharrett are long gone and are not coming back. When the number 1, 2 and 3 parties in Israel are right of centre, right wing and far right wing, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. And given that the relative Arab population within Israel is set to increase by 50% in the next twenty years, I doubt that the wind will change direction.

It is true that Palestine besides, Jews do not have as much ink on their sheet as the Muslims and Christians, but as Albert Einstein realised, it is only because "they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power" - and now they have the power.

The point is not that Jews or Israelis are bad people. The point is that they are just another people. As Walt and Mearsheimer wrote recently:- "We do not seek to portray Israel as a bad country. We seek to portray them as just another country."

They have no greater affinity for good than any other people. They are not the light unto the gentiles. They are not the world's conscience, or the amazingly mystical, elaborate, literate and urbane people that they imagine themselves to be. There was a time when concepts such as those were merely self-indulgent, and understandable given recent history in Europe. But since 1948 those same concepts have become dangerous, since they blind many otherwise reasonable Jews to what is obvious to outside observers.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. Hate to say it, but the upshot of this conversation is

that the Liberal zionists are defending a country that is becoming increasingly racist and violent.

You can't compare the neglect of poor communities of color with the violent actions and apartheid policies of the Israeli gov't toward the colonized people of Palestine.

I think of the case of my own husband. Here in the US, he's a respected exert in his development field. A free human being who can vote, travel, succeed or fail. And this is in a country where he's a "hated" minority!!! When he visits his family in Gaza (I should say *if*), he is viewed the same as every other Gazan: as having no more value than a pile of dog shit in the street. The reason he hasn't gone in 10 years is the uncertainty of whether an insignifcant Gazan dog -- even one with US citizenship -- would be allowed to leave.

LB and Oberliner, I hope you realize that your spirited defense of Israel's hideous racism as "not that bad," "getting better," "On par with changes in the US" is patently absurd. I am shocked that after the Gazan massacres, with all the news that has come out, that you still defend this bullshit. Is there any crime Israel can commit that you guys can't minimize or rationalize?

[LeftishBrit]

52. I don't defend them.

For the rest: if the anti-Zionists don't want people to bring in points about other countries doing awful things, perhaps they shouldn't imply that Israel is uniquely evil and no one else ever does anything nearly as bad (and yes, some posts do imply or even say this). It gets in the way of real criticism of Israel.

I am also arguing against what seems to me the naive view that because America elected Obama it's rejected the Right and racism forevermore. Maybe. I hope so. But FDR's election didn't end Jim Crow, or prevent the later McCarthy era, or the resurgence of the economic Right. The repudiation of the right after Nixon lasted just four years.


We should be against racism everywhere.

We should be against massacring civilians everywhere. What have our countries done in Iraq? Fucking awful, as is what happened in Gaza. To be quite frank, where do the evils of the Israeli government OR Hamas even begin to come near the horrors unleashed by Bush with the collaboration of Dear Tony?

What's needed is a united front against evil. The evil of racism. The evil of war. Not just those evils in one country at a time.

If we lived in Scandinavia, or even in France which marginalized LePen and refused to co-operate in the Iraq war, we might have a bit more of a right to take the higher moral ground - as it is, we all live in countries that have done horrible things over a number of years, and we need all to unite against ALL these evils, our own included.

'You can't compare the neglect of poor communities of color with the violent actions and apartheid policies of the Israeli gov't toward the colonized people of Palestine.'

Perhaps this is really the central point of disagreement, in that I consider that allowing poverty to a level that kills IS violence, and, when racially based, a form of apartheid. And this form of violence is horrendously common in the world today.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. Using your logic, one can't protest racism in a single place.

It's a cop-out LB. One can oppose all racism, but one can't be fight it everywhere at once. There are plenty of activists for every situation. We don't all have to be on the front lines in every fight.

I feel so utterly depressed reading what you write. You'll never provide the kind of criticism necessary for change in Israel. Short of genocide, what more can the Israelis do to those people, and you STILL resist focused criticism...

Do 5,000 civilians have to be killed before you'll support focused criticism?

10,000?

Another entire village?

What??

[LeftishBrit]

54. What kind of criticism do you think is necessary?

'We don't all have to be on the front lines in every fight.'

No one's even saying that. I do NOT say that no one should protest racism specifically in Israel. It just doesn't help when people act like Israel is the reincarnation of the Nazis, or that they're having an evil influence on the world at large.

It's frustrating though probably inevitable that there are several debates going on at once, and that what I say in one is taken as implying something in another that I didn't say:

i.e.

X: America has repudiated racism, while Israel is getting worse.
LB: No trend is forever (especially in politically volatile countries), and I'm not convinced that America has repudiated racism anyway.
Y: So you mean Israel has improved with regard to racism?
LB: No.


Z: Israel is just like the Nazis/ Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world/ Israel gets America into wars/ Fuck Israel!
LB: No it isn't. Most countries at war get corrupted. We should be against all wars and racism and apartheid (and oh YES, apartheid is widespread, in practice if not in law), not just in one country.
Y: So you don't support peaceful demonstrations against Israeli racism against Arabs/ the war in Gaza, because the same people aren't protesting everything everywhere?
LB: No. NOT my point at all!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

55. I think it would great for liberal Zionists to condemn the demolition of those homes.

Period.

I think it would be great for liberal Zionists such as yourself to note that the US has indeed risen far enough above its own racist foundation to elect an African-American president. It would be great to hear you acknowledge that Israel is far, far, far from that, and that its race-record vis-a-vis Arabs both in Israel and ESPECIALLY in the OTs is simply horrendous. That the apartheid-like conditions in which occupied Arabs live is sickening and must be stopped TODAY.

Think of the result if every Zionist around the world said "NOT IN MY NAME!"

Imagine that.

[oberliner]

56. Israel has come much farther in a much shorter amount of time with regard to racism than the US

It's shocking that anyone would think otherwise.

Not sure what America and what Israel you are looking at.

Even those who have used the apartheid analogy with regard to Israel and the OT have generally stated that it isn't racial apartheid.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. What kind of apartheid is it? Ethnic apartheid? Religious apartheid? nt

[LeftishBrit]

60. Nationalist/ethnic - as in many places

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. And this is less egregious than racial discrimination... how?

I'm not sure I follow your unspoken assumption that this kind of discrimination is not quite a big deal.

And I'm not quite sure I buy into your distinction anyway.... what's the dif between racial and ethnic?

[LeftishBrit]

73. It isn't better; it's just different

Ethnicity is about more than what's generally considered as race. E.g. there has been a great deal of prejudice between English and Irish, and even their descendants in other countries. This is an ethnic prejudice, but is not what is generally called racist as all the people involved are white.

Some people object to calling antisemitism 'racism' on similar grounds. Whatever - these are all forms of bigotry.

[oberliner]

68. Hey don't put words in my mouth!

I don't call it apartheid personally, but folks like Jimmy Carter, for instance, who have used that terminology have gone out of their way to make the point that it was not racially based.

Here's one such quote:

"The title makes it clear the book is about conditions and events in the Palestinian territories and not in Israel and the text makes it clear the forced segregation and domination of Arabs by Israelis is not based on race," Carter said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201557.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

71. Again I ask: does that make it somehow less egregious? nt

[LeftishBrit]

59. I condemn the demolition of these homes. Period.

And I think that the nationalist bigotry (racism is a misleading term here IMO) in the OTs is inexcusable. I think the anti-Arab prejudices in Israel are very bad, and that Lieberman is a disgusting thug. Whether my next point means that even the most liberal Brit is not immune to a degree of anti-immigrant prejudice, or is a universal point, I am myself not sure, but I do think it is particularly outrageous for someone to come to a new country and then found a new party dedicated to marginalizing and pushing out existing citizens. How dare he!

If he becomes FM, Israel will join a fairly long list of countries where I don't intend to travel until they change their governments. (Italy is the latest on this list.) Not that I have any illusion that this is going to influence anyone, and I don't consider it as boycotting them - it's just a question of ME not feeling comfortable in any place whose government includes fascists.

As regards the American comparison - ask me again in a few years' time once I've seen that the change is permanent. Or at least when we've all got out of Iraq.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. So when a young Israeli shouts "Dirty Arab!" that's not a racist slur?

Is it any less offensive is you say it's a nationalist slur? In this country, if I direct a slur like that toward someone from Mexico, I'd be labeled a racist.

How is this different?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. LB or Oberliner, can you clarify this for me? nt

[LeftishBrit]

77. I tend to think of 'racism' as prejudice against someone's colour or ethnic physical characteristics

I use 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' for other sorts.

The distinction has some relevance in the UK due to (a) a great deal of prejudice historically between English/Irish and Catholics/Protestants; and (b) a lot of current prejudice against immigrants as such - including East Europaeans as well as those of a different colour.

The distinction may not be as relevant elsewhere - I don't know.

In any case, I am not excusing any sort of bigotry, and don't consider racism to be necessarily worse than other sorts.

[LeftishBrit]

78. 'Is it any less offensive if you say it's a nationalist slur?'

No it isn't less offensive. Never said it was. Any more than a young Englishman shouting 'Dirty Irish!' or 'Dirty immigrant!' or 'Dirty French frog!' would be any less offensive because it's not racism in the sense that the term is typically used.

I was thinking in terms if a distinction between racism and other forms of xenophobia which has some relevance in the UK. Maybe it doesn't elsewhere - in which case perhaps my even bringing it up may have obfuscated the issue. At any rate, I think that all forms of bigotry and xenophobia are highly offensive and indeed disgusting - whether called racism or not. And I'd be the first to agree that exactly the same ambiguities about 'should it be called racism' apply both to antisemitism and to anti-Arab or anti-Muslim prejudice. And they are all disgusting.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Isn't that an oxymoron?

What passes for Zionism nowadays bears no resemblance to the Zionism of my youth, and it hasn't got a shred of liberalism in it. It is just another authoritarian ideology.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. How was the ZIonism of your youth liberal vis-a-vis the indigenous people?

[IndianaGreen]

65. Guess what? Jews are indigenous to Palestine, just as many

of the Arabs that are indigenous to Palestine were Jews that converted to Islam centuries before.

Nothing in the world is as simple as it seems.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. I'd still like you to answer my question.

[IndianaGreen]

67. I support right of return for all

and compensation for those that don't want to return.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

70. Gently asking here...

I agree with 99.9% of what you post... except that.

Unless you're speaking about cultural zionism a la Ahad Ha'am, I think you'd be hard-pressed to to show how Zionist treatment of native Palestinians was "liberal." It might be more public, and more vulgar today, but really, dispossession has been the MO from day one.

I think what we're seeing today is the culmination of political Zionism. In order to justify the actions, you have to dehumanize the victims. T-shirts joking about rape and killing babies are the end result. Generations can't watch their government dehumanize and destroy another people and not absorb the message loud and clear: they aren't human like us.

In any case, like I said, I agree with the lion's share of what you write, so I'm not out to attack you by any means. Just curious as to what your nostalgia "for the good old days" is really predicated upon...

[LeftishBrit]

19. Glad to hear that the USA is exerting some pressure here.

[geek tragedy]

23. What will be telling is how the pro-Israel forces react

to a clash between Bibi and Barack. Whose side will Chuck Schumer take? AIPAC?

[Jefferson23]

24. Israels arrogance is alive and well:

"Following Clinton's criticism the State Department asked Israel for detailed clarifications on the issue. Even before Israel had a chance to respond, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat added fuel to the fire by suggesting that Clinton's criticism was baseless."


Israel doesn't want some of the consequences of peace, their actions speak louder, stronger and indicate otherwise. And they are not looking forward to any international pressure, especially any from the US, to withdraw from the West Bank.

[azurnoir]

33. Well I guess SoS Clinton was overwhelmed by

Palestinian pressure as this passage suggests

Clinton was under considerable pressure from the Palestinian Authority to condemn the razings

I never knew the PA had so much power to influence American politics

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Now for some contrast: Barak freezes move to raze settlement homes built on Palestinian land

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday issued an order against demolishing Israeli homes built on Palestinian land in the West Bank settlement of Ofra, saying that the matter must be investigated before such action is taken.

Barak's order was made in response to a petition submitted last June by five residents of the nearby Palestinian village of Ein Yabrud and the Israeli rights group Yesh Din and B'Tselem, demanding that the High Court of Justice instruct the state to evacuate the settlement.

The petition referred to nine settlement structures built in an area apparently been constructed on private Palestinian land. The houses were built without permits and in violation of the settlement's master plan. Work continued despite injunctions to halt it that were issued almost two years ago, and demolition orders that were issued subsequently were also ignored.

In a response submitted to the court on Sunday, Barak said he recently decided to refrain from demolishing the houses "at this time," for three reasons.

First, the issues raised by these houses are also relevant to other houses in Ofra aside from the nine in question. Second, people have been living in these houses for many months. Third, the houses are located deep inside the settlement, not on its outskirts.

Therefore, a comprehensive policy relating to the entire settlement is needed, and it would be wrong to set a special policy that applies to these houses only, said Barak.

Nevertheless, the statement continued, Barak has ordered that planning and building laws be fully enforced in Ofra henceforth, including prompt punishment of any violations.

Attorney Shlomo Zacharia of Yesh Din said in response that Barak is abusing his position, which requires him to protect Palestinian property.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072968.html

[rateyes]

42. "Apart from a dispute this issue will lead to nothing,"...

Ain't that the truth! That's why they do it.

[jeff30997]

46. Yep.

Not even a slap on the wrist.

[Shaktimaan]

74. riiiiight.

as though the US has never interfered with the Israeli occupation at any time. suuuure.

:sarcasm:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. Other than Bush I threatening loan guarantees in the early 90s...NAME ONE INSTANCE! nt