"No partner"

[Saudade]

For years, Israel has evaded any negotiation with the Palestinian people on the ground that it has no "partner" for such negotiations.

This is a lie insofar as Israel's goal has been and remains the destruction of any possible partner, in order that Israel can continue its real narrative, which is the ethnic cleansing of the land of inferior brown people, in the colonial tradition.

"Terrorism" -- the most dishonest word in the english language, thanks to Israel -- is the pretext for this ongoing denial of the existence of a partner. And "terrorism" provides the model for Bush's ongoing fraudulent campaign of racist world conquest, for Israel's and the American right wing's interests are one.

Here are some quotes that demonstrate how Israel's complaints about having no "partner" are in fact self-fulfilling by virtue of the only power Israel knows: sheer force in the absence of honesty of morality:

Former Chief of Israeli intelligence Shlomo Gazit from 1967 yo 1973 observed that the basic principle was "that it is necessary to prevent the inhabitants of the territories from participating in shaping the political future of the territory and they must not be seen as a partner for dealings with Israel." Hence, the "absolute prohibition of any political organization for it was clearly understood by everybody that if political activisim and organization were permitted, its leaders would become potential participants in political affairs." The same considerations require "the destruction of all initiative and every effort on the part of the inhabitants of the territories to serve as a pipeline for negotiations, to be a channel to the Palestinian arab leadership outside the territories." Israeli policy is a "success story," Gazit concludes, because these goals have been achieved.

When the PLO and the arab states submitted a proposal for a two-state solution to the UN in January 1976, Rabin's response was this: Israel will reject any negotiations with the PLO even if it recognizes Israel and renounces terrorism, and will not enter into "political negotiations with Palestinians," PLO or not.

The logic is this:

1. Whenever any potential "partner" threatens to appear on the horizon, Israel will launch a military "preemptive strike" or a political assasination -- always to "deter terror" -- that destroys any such partner before the fact;

2. Deliberabely provoke "terror" -- which is the word used by every colonial power in the last 200 years to characterize the native's resistance -- in order to preempt any possible discussion with the inferior subhuman natives.

3. The key to this is essentialism -- the requirement that one people be essentially good and pure (white, jewish, etc) and the other be essentially evil, irrational, impossible as "partners," i.e., "terrorists."

All of this is transparent to those of us who actually care about human rights, justice and the future. It is completely obscure to those who don't.

Bush's "war on terror" is a fraud.

So is Sharon's "war on terror."

"Terrorism" is an abstraction used by the right wing to deny the existence of history, deny the existence of their opponents and critics, deny the existence of their victims.

The "war on terror" is a right wing scam.

[wtmusic]

1. The classification of Palestinian actions as 'terror'

is a terrorist action in itself--calculated to promote fear and violent retribution. What the Bush administration calls 'terror' is simply war being waged by those who don't have stealth fighters.

[sushi]

2. I agree that

"All of this is transparent to those of us who actually care about human rights, justice and the future."

I don't agree that "it is completely obscure to those who don't," because I simply can't believe that all those who don't agree are that ignorant or stupid.

[lefty_mcduff]

3. The 'war on terror' or 'terrorism' is a crock.

As it's being levelled now, and despite some questionable languange logistics, the 'war on terrorism' presupposes that there is a finite number of terrorists regardless of polictical motivation or goal. Once the 'terrorists' are all dead the war is over. What is completely ignored or glossed over is the *conditions* that breed desperation, and subquently desperate people willing to wage asymmetrical warfare.

[sushi]

4. That's right

The number of terrorists has gone up, and moderates have been radicalized. Now that Saddam Hussein, the bad one, has been captured, how come we're still scared, with flights cancelled and passengers subjected to long delays, etc.

[lefty_mcduff]

5. Wasn't this why Dean was skewered by the RW press?

He had the audacity to claim that he didn't feel safer after the capture of Saddam. Turns out he was right (unless F-16s escorting passenger planes *is* a sign of peace and calm).

[undergroundrailroad]

6. Locking per I/P Guidelines

New Threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece. They may not be based on editorial cartoons or photographs. Citations and references should include a link to the original source. Exceptions will be allowed if, based on prior approval, the moderators feel a thread is appropriate.

UGRR
DU Moderator
I/P, N/S Affairs