NOVANEWS
-
MSNBC discusses the urgency of the I/P issue, but promotes claim that ‘everybody knows minor land swaps’ will create two states
-
‘Tears of Gaza’ – lest our tears dry up
-
Sullivan’s rule, or How the paradigm of Jewish liberalism morphed into selfish blindness
-
The Norway massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism
-
Are you stupid enough to be a blogger for the Washington Post? Take the Norway test
-
UN reports increase in ‘forced displacement’ of Palestinians under occupation (and 2500 Bedouins at risk in Jerusalem)
MSNBC discusses the urgency of the I/P issue, but promotes claim that ‘everybody knows minor land swaps’ will create two states
Jul 23, 2011
Susie Kneedler
A little forward movement the other day on MSNBC. First Martin Bashir’s guest hostRichard Lui allowed Anthony Summers (“The Eleventh Day” about Osama BinLaden and Saudi royal funding of Sept. 11 attacks) to name “the Palestine/Israel issue” as “driving” the hijackers, as well as to conclude that solving the Israel/Palestine problem is central to US security.
Dylan Ratigan offered more discussion of that point, in a segment titled, “Israel-Palestine: Why It’s Key to Regional Stability,” which he began by announcing:
“The latest incursion: 15 activists deported from Israel after their Gaza-bound boat was captured by Israeli Navy commandos.”
Ratigan defines the boat to Gaza as an “incursion”–rather than explain Israeli government rule over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the illegal siege of Gaza, or the unlawful Wall and checkpoints in the West Bank. That limit is only the start. Ratigan invites Jeremy Ben-Ami, of J Street which is “Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace,” to discuss how his new book, “A New Voice for Israel: Fighting for the Survival of the Jewish Nation,” posits that the Arab Spring can only achieve stability through solving the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Ben-Ami tells us: “I begin with the commonly held understandings over decades among nearly every expert whether it’s on the Israeli or the Palestinian side or internationally about what the resolution of this conflict looks like. The saddest thing about [this] conflict is–while it festers along, decade after decade–everybody knows the broad outlines of what the resolution looks like:…Two states for two peoples. The borders are on the ’67 lines with some moderate adjustments to keep the majority of Israeli settlers within Israel and you trade land to the Palestinians, you divide Jerusalem and you have the Palestinian parts under Palestinian rule and the Jewish parts under Jewish rule….”
Ratigan chimes in, “Two states, two peoples, ’67 borders with….”
Ben-Ami emphasizes, “Minor. Minor adjustments.”
Ratigan: “Minor finagling, and split Jerusalem….”
Ratigan asks what the “barrier” is to such an agreement. Ben-Ami blames, “Lack of leadership on all sides…Israelis and Palestinians,” as well as “political constraints” in the United States, who he claims is the only credible arbiter in the international community. But Ben-Ami unfortunately bows to those very political constraints when he fails to name the many Palestinian concessions for peace, which the Israeli government has invariably countered with new demands–like calling for Palestine to betray the twenty percent of Israeli Palestinian citizens, by recognizing Israel as “a Jewish and democratic state.”
Ratigan asks about benefits to the region, “How significant would that… agreement be…from Syria, to Egypt, to Libya…?” Ben-Ami claims that the biggest beneficiary would be revived U.S. influence: “If America can help to broker that deal, it restores Ameican credibility in the region. This is a vital American national security interest.’
Matt Miller congratulates Ben-Ami on his book, then announces, “I’m an American Jew: I think I’m your target audience. I’ve felt some angst about the way American Jews participate in this debate. What’s your message…to an American audience of how American Jews as they express themselves can help be a force for the kind of progress that you think needs to happen?”
Ben-Ami argues that “achieving the two-state-solution is the absolute existential necessity of the state of Israel” for “Israel itself is never going to make it as a Jewish and a democratic nation,” “if it doesn’t separate into two states and let the Palestinians have their freedom and independence in their own state.” Miller and Ratigan ask about why “too many” in the U.S. resist the idea of a two-state solution, inquiring about the “politics” and “the fear.” Ben-Ami answers, “Number one is physical security….Any Jew whether they live here or elsewhere” worries: “the concern is that you have Prime Minister Netanyahu who comes here and says that the ’67 borders are indefensible.” Ben-Ami counters that anxiety: “But you have all these military experts” from “the Mossad and Shin Bet” who say that what is indefensible is the present situation, this is unsustainable….This is insecurity by definition.”
“The Washington Post”‘s Jonathan Capehart and Ben-Ami agree to dismiss the role that concern over Israel and its Occupation of Palestine played in the Arab uprisings, mistakenly narrowing their ideas: “The issue is the United States’s ability to play a new role in the new” “more democratic, more populist” “Middle East”–that is, not to be seen “on the wrong side of the grand scope of history.” Imogen Lloyd Webber asks what the Obama Administration should do; Ben-Ami answers: pressure all sides equally.
Yet MSNBC’s title for the video clip is, “Author Jeremy Ben-Ami and panel debate whether the Arab Spring has recast the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” What’s encouraging about this exchange is that all four panelists–far from debating–actually praise Ben-Ami’s prescriptions. What’s discouraging is that all four panelists praise Ben-Ami’s perspective.
For Ben-Ami is wrong when he says that “minor” swaps will create a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. MSNBC floats maps in the background, comparing “1967” to “Today,” but no speaker points out the obvious: Palestinian areas have shrunk and dispersed. No one considers how to inspire Israel to return the stolen lands, or whether such a necessity undermines Ben-Ami’s insistence that both sides are equally intransigent, requiring equal prodding. That disintegration of territory parallels the shriveling of American debate about Palestine and Israel. MSNBC–by inviting only a thinker whose “target audience” is “American Jew[s],” whose regressive goal is “fighting for the Jewish nation”– stunts the debate while trying to advance it. No panelist mentions the sinister double meaning when Ratigan twice describes border swaps as “finagling,” or when Ben-Ami quotes Binyamin Netanyahu’s declaration that the 1967 lines are “indefensible.” The unstated truth is that neither trickery can be defended.
Ben-Ami, Ratigan, and the rest focus on the so-called enlightened self-interest of the U.S. and Israel, playing down the claims of shared human values throughout Palestine and the world. But their conclusion reminds us that enlightened self-interest is still selfishness, leaving us with a larger question. How can the United States become “a [diverse] and democratic state,” in which reporters can look out for the inalienable human rights and “security” needs of all, including Palestinians–starting with the Rights of Return, self-determination, self-defense, freedom to move, and equality under the law?
‘Tears of Gaza’ – lest our tears dry up
Jul 23, 2011
Susan Abulhawa
‘Tears of Gaza‘ by Vibeke Lokkeberg is a documentary film that should be watched by every American, to see how Israel spends our taxes. Every European should watch it, to see the true face of Israel. It should be viewed by every Arab, to renew our resolve not to allow a racist nation to wipe Palestine and her children from the map and from history.
I had read the stories from Gaza after Israel’s so called “operation cast lead”. I had read the reports. I thought I had cried enough then not to cry again. But this film went to my heart, stirred everything up, made the tears fall and fall and here I am now, with a hollow, spooned out hole in my gut because bombs were dropped on sleeping children, helicopters rained the death and disfigurement of white phosphorous on terrified civilians huddling at a UN school for shelter…and no one is doing anything about it.
Tears of Gaza lays bare the lies, the cover ups and Richard Goldstone’s moral flip flopping. It takes you into the heart of Gaza’s tormented landscape to show the truth behind craven and mendacious headlines with words that describe Israel’s slaughter as an “incursion” or “self defense”. This film shows us these truths through the luminous spirits of children. It is not to be missed!
I first heard of “Tears of Gaza”, or “Gaza Traer” as the original Norwegian title is called, when Bernard Henri-Levi launched an attack against Lokkeberg and me in major newspapers throughout Europe. She and I were in touch after that and I was finally just able to get hold of the film to watch it. It is a monumentally important work. It is beautiful and painful and honest and devastating.
Vibeke Lokkeberg gives us the names, faces, and stories of three ordinary Gaza children with extraordinary spirits. We first fall in love with Yehya, a 12-year-old boy who wants to become a doctor so he can heal people who are shot by Israelis. We see him on a small motorboat, lost in the magic of childhood as he is taught to steer the boat. His beautiful eyes and brilliant smile during these moments make his tears all the harder to bear when he talks about his beloved father. The losses that follow in his life are incomprehensible and overwhelming merely to hear about.
Until you meet Amira, 14 years old, and walk through her world.
Amira is beautiful. It’s the kind of beauty that holds an ineffable pain not often seen in the young. Her life, too, is marred by death and destruction and disfigurement of her body by ammunition. She tells us that she wants to become a lawyer so she can take the Israelis to court for the crimes they’ve committed. Then, recalling her father and brothers, she admits wishing she had just “gone with them”.
Like Amira, Rasmia is far beyond her 11 years. Arabic speakers might detect things about her that non-Arabic speakers will not. This is largely because of the translation; and this is my only criticism of the film. When Rasmia goes into what seems like a waking trance, her mother tells us in Arabic that she is “imagining”. The translation says “memorizing”, which doesn’t make sense and it distracts from an important subtlety. Her mother explains that she sometimes just “imagines” things from the attacks. I suspect that most psychologists witnessing those scenes and hearing her mother’s explanation would agree that she was experiencing flashbacks and exhibiting clear signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Another example where the wrong translation obscures important nuances is when Yehya is telling us about losing his father. He is, in fact, speaking in the third person: “when someone loses their father, it’s like they’ve lost the whole world” etc. But his words are translated as if in the first person: “when my father died, it’s like I lost the whole world.” The distinction might not seem important, until you realize that he cannot get the words out without breaking down when he speaks in the first person. It’s a faint distinction, but one that makes your heart break even more.
And we should all allow our hearts be broken over Gaza. It’s the least we can do. To hear these three children and ask others to hear them is the very least we can do. Vibeke Lokkeberg has given us a monumentally important record of what happened in December 2009 to January 2010; so no one can ever say “I didn’t know”.
Lest we forget, lest our tears dry or outrage subside, and lest our hearts heal before Palestine is free, I hope this film will be shown throughout the world, across university campuses, communities, organizations and living rooms. Take this not just as a review, but a call to action.
– Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury 2010) and the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine.
This article is crossposted @ Palestine Chronicle
Sullivan’s rule, or How the paradigm of Jewish liberalism morphed into selfish blindness
Jul 23, 2011
Philip Weiss
Andrew Sullivan quotes Michael Koplow on the boycott legislation in Israel, then offers a rule:
“Israel cannot afford to erode its liberal democratic credentials much further.”
And yet it does. Because that is what domestic politics in an increasingly religious and illiberal Israel demand. The only thing you can depend on: the American Jewish Establishment will always look the other way.
Thanks to Peter Voskamp.
The Norway massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism
Jul 23, 2011
Alex Kane
Details on the culprit behind yesterday’s massacre in Norway, which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of at least 91 people, have begun to emerge. While it is still too early for a complete portrait of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, there are enough details to begin to piece together what’s behind the attack.
Although initial media reports, spurred on by the tweets of former State Department adviser on violent extremism Will McCants, linked the attacks to Islamist extremists, it was in fact an anti-Muslim zealot who committed the murders. An examination of Breivik’s views, and his support for far-right European political movements, makes it clear that only by interrogating the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism can one understand the political beliefs behind the terrorist attack.
Breivik is apparently an avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel. Breivik’s political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site document.no, which author and journalist Doug Sanders put up.
Here’s a sampling of some of Breivik’s comments:
And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called “moderate Muslims”.
There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they’re still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?
Now it unfortunately already cut himself with Marxists who have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work asprofessors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.
For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies…(page 2-3)
What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?
And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70’s. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?
Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.)…(page 7)
We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments based on anti-racism. This has proven to be very successful which explains why the modern cultural conservative movement / parties that use the Vienna School of Thought is so successful: the Progress Party,Geert Wilders, document and many others…(page 13)
I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna school of thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.
The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).
To sums up the Vienna school of thought:
-Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)
-Against Islamization
-Anti-racist
-Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)
-Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries
– Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity
– To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)
– Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists…(page 20)
Daniel Pipes: Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists Have Been praying for.
link to www.youtube.com
The following summarizes the agenda of many kulturmarxister with Islam, it explains also why those on death and life protecting them. It explains so well why we, the cultural conservatives,are against Islamization and the implementation of these agendas… (page 27)
We must therefore make sure to influence other cultural conservatives to come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line. When they reach this line, one can take it to the next level…(page 41)
Breivik’s right-wing pro-Israel line, combined with his antipathy to Muslims, is just one example of the European far-right’s ideology, exemplified by groups such as the English Defense League (EDL). The EDL, a group Breivik praises, along with the anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, share with Breivik an admiration for Israel.
Anti-Muslim activists and right-wing Zionists share a political narrative that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a “clash of civilizations,” one in which Judeo-Christian culture is under attack by Islam. Israel, in this narrative, is the West’s bulwark against the threat that Islam is posing to Europe and the United States. The nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism was clearly on display during last summer’s“Ground Zero mosque” hysteria, which culminated in a rally where Geller and Wilders addressed a crowd that included members of the EDL waving Israeli flags.
This comment by Breivik is one example of the twisted way in which Islamophobia and a militant pro-Israel ideology fit together:
Cultural conservatives disagree when they believe the conflict is based on Islamic imperialism,that Islam is a political ideology and not a race.
Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect themselves against the Jihad.
Kulturmarxistene refuses to recognize the fact that Islam’s political doctrine is relevant and essential. They can never admit to or support this because they believe that this is primarily about a race war – that Israel hates Arabs (breed).
As long as you can not agree on the fundamental perceptions of reality are too naive to expect that one to come to any conclusion.Before one at all can begin to discuss this conflict must first agree on the fundamental truths of Islam’s political doctrine.
Most people here have great insight in key Muslim concepts that al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxister refuses to recognizet hese concepts.They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so erodes the primary argument that Israel is a “racist state” and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah)
Breivik’s admiration for the likes of Daniel Pipes is also telling, and should serve as a warning that, while it would be extremely unfair and wrong to link Pipes in any way to the massacre in Norway, Breivik’s views are not so far off from some establishment neoconservative voices in the U.S. For instance, both Pipes and Breivik share a concern with Muslim demographics in Europe. In 1990, Pipes wrotein the National Review that “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”
Pipes was appointed by the Bush administration to the U.S. Institute of Peace, andsits on the same board than none other than the Obama administration’s point man on the Middle East, Dennis Ross.
Pipes’ and Breivik’s concern about Muslim and Arab demographics also recall the remarks of Harvard Fellow Martin Kramer, who infamously told the Herzliya Conference in Israel last year that the West should “stop providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status…Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have.”
Adding to the Israel/Palestine angle here is the fact that the day before the attack on the island of Utoya, a Palestine solidarity event was held there.
Why Breivik, and his accomplices if he had any, would attack young Norwegians remains unclear. But it probably had something to do with Breivik’s belief that European governments, and the Norwegian government, were run by “Marxists” allied with Islamist extremists who were bent on destroying Europe through “multiculturalism.”
Of course, support for Israel and its current right-wing policies do not automatically translate into support for extremist right-wing violence. But Palestinians, and the larger Arab and Muslim world, know far too well the consequences of Islamophobia and far right-wing Zionism. Now, it seems that Norwegians do too. While much remains to be learned about the attacks in Norway, it has exposed the dangerous nexus of Islamophobia, neoconservatism and right-wing Zionism, and what could happen when the wrong person subscribes to those toxic beliefs.
Alex Kane, a freelance journalist currently based in Amman, Jordan, blogs on Israel/Palestine at alexbkane.wordpress.com. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.
Are you stupid enough to be a blogger for the Washington Post? Take the Norway test
Jul 23, 2011
Philip Weiss
Amazing. Neoconservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin blames the Norwegian horror on jihadists, and Jim Fallows nails her. Rubin:
We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra.
She says we need to keep funding the war on terror and drags Gary Schmitt of American Enterprise Institute into it. He says: “But as the attack in Oslo reminds us, there are plenty of al-Qaeda allies still operating. No doubt cutting the head off a snake is important; the problem is, we’re dealing with global nest of snakes.”
Fallows:
Seven Seventeen hours after the Post item went up, six sixteen hours after its claims were shown to be false and hysterical, it’s still there, with no correction or apology.
Steve Clemons also weighs in on Rubin’s “fearmongering.”
Perhaps you should link the extremist violence from right wing fanatics, Christian religious zealots within our countries — within the US, within Norway, and elsewhere — to your pet causes. Would at least be more technically correct.