Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Let's table the "Jewish state" issue and cooperate to stop the human crisis in Gaza
The peace movement in the US is often paralyzed by controversy over Israeli government policies. The underlying problem among Americans seems to be a fear that something will happen so that over time there will no longer be a Jewish state in the world. Can we table the discussion on the pros and cons of having a Jewish state into the distant future? Can we just agree to disagree and move on with opposing the slaughter of innocents in Gaza and the injustice against the Palestinians in general?
Can we agree to disagree about Israel and still do something about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza?
First, let's get rid of the obfuscation. The US and the UN Security Council (in which Israel's strongest ally has a veto) call for restraint and an end to violence "on both sides." Yes, Gaza is shooting (pathetic) rockets into Israel. But is that a band of powerful, scary, irrational "terrorists" on the verge of annihilating the Jewish people? Or is that more like a slapped kid sticking out his tongue?
Not all "violence" is created equal. One Israeli has died since the expiration of the ceasefire, and over 300 Palestinians. The people in Gaza have lost their police and security services as well as many of the supply tunnels used to smuggle essential supplies from Egypt during the siege. All that Israel has lost is a few more popularity points.
Forget those who take satisfaction in the disporportionate body count in favor of the strong against the weak. Forget those who have investments in Israel. My comments here are addressed to the "humanitarians" among us. For American advocates of social justice and health, the Israeli siege of Gaza and now the aerial attacks create an ethical dilemma. Why? Because our country has been siding with Israel financially and morally and politically--and we can't even talk to each other about it!
Can we agree to disagree about the ultimate conflict and still talk about how to stop the killing?
Those among us who claim to care about social justice can't just ignore the situation. Nor can we continue to let Israeli policy and the difficult statements of Israel's neighbors/rivals in the region rip our own social justice movement apart. Concern about what's good for Israel have even complicated the views of American peace activists on the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially Iran.
In the West Bank, in the UK, and even in New York City, there are demonstrations condemning what's being called an Israeli "massacre" in Gaza. Words like "apartheid" are being thrown around. But here in the country whose tax dollars pay for the aerial bombardments and buy the bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes, in the country whose veto in the Security Council protects Israel from international sanctions, most of us are sitting on our hands. Our increasingly bloody hands.
My suggestion is that we agree to disagree on what seems to be the underlying bone of contention--the "Jewish state"--and move on.
How? We need to acknowledge and respect that people have different ideas. Some people perceive an everlasting "Jewish state" as a life or death issue. Others perceive a "Jewish state" as a call for an exception, if not a violation, of the general international consensus in favor of secular democracy. Advocates of the two views sometimes destructively, and inaccurately, accuse each other of "racism" on the one hand, or "antisemitism" on the other. This must stop.
My suggestion is that we figure this "Jewish state" issue out later, after dealing with the humanitarian crisis of the Palestinians, most notably in Gaza, in the same way we would discuss a humanitarian crisis anywhere else in the world. Lots of international, European, and Israeli rights groups are doing just that.
Here in the US, we're stuck on the "Jewish state" issue. Many people have assumed that a "Jewish state" requires a Jewish majority on a defensible piece of territory, and that that is why the Israeli government does what it does. So, for example, sometimes they "have to" violate the human rights and territorial claims of others and even meddle in US foreign policy. Given that perception, it's not hard to understand why there's been a silence on the siege of Gaza, for example--even among Americans who condemn violations of human rights by our own country. The United States, no matter what happens or who criticizes its actions, will probably continue to exist more or less as currently constituted, that is, as a multi-ethnic, secular democracy of sorts. But no one can be confident that Israel will remain a Jewish state decades after regional peace conferences, fair agreements, handshakes, cultural exchanges, redrawing of borders, and return of refugees.
If I'm right that the sticking point is the issue of the "Jewish state," then that helps explain why the police forces and elected governments of the Gaza strip and of Iran have been demonized and portrayed as "legitimate" targets. The leadership of Hamas and of Iran have been accused of threats to commit genocide against Israelis, and by implication, against all Jewish people everywhere--another Holocaust. But those "threats" didn't happen--it's an excuse to cover up the real reason for the demonization, namely, a conflict in political views. (See Juan Cole on the manufactured "quote" of Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran. http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html) The "unforgivable crime" of the leaderships of Hamas and of Iran is that they are saying out loud what millions of people all over the world are thinking. They demand that the Palestinians be given a say in their futures and about where they should live.
Hamas does not prefer the notion of a Jewish state, given that Israel can't afford to allow the right of return to large numbers of non-Jewish Palestinians if it wants to remain a "Jewish state" into the future. The government of Iran has publicly called for a referendum among all the residents of the area comprising Israel and the Palestinian territories about how many states and what kind of government they want. Iran has also challenged Israeli military dominance in the region by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and by calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-free zone and for all countries in the region (read Israel) to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Generally, threatening to assassinate or bomb someone because of their political opinions is not acceptable. Hence, "friends" of Israel use demonization and create false threats. The result has been that public opinion, which normally would oppose aerial attacks that kill and wound human beings, is ready to make an exception for the people in Gaza and Iran.
But Americans don't have to be fooled again. We can find a way to get together and do better than this.
Here are some useful links on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and what some people are doing to help:
International Committee of the Red Cross (Palestine)
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine
Palestinian Red Crescent Society
http://www.palestinercs.org/
Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/countries/middle-east-eurasia/west-bank-and-gaza-strip.html
B'Tselem
http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Make_a_Difference.asp
Gush Shalom
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html
Jewish Voice for Peace, Gaza Information Center
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/gaza.shtml
And a painful story ("Screams of pain, tears of grief fill a bloodied hospital")from an Australian news source
http://www.watoday.com.au/world/screams-of-pain-tears-of-grief-fill-a-bloodied-hospital-20081228-7683.html?page=-1
First, let's get rid of the obfuscation. The US and the UN Security Council (in which Israel's strongest ally has a veto) call for restraint and an end to violence "on both sides." Yes, Gaza is shooting (pathetic) rockets into Israel. But is that a band of powerful, scary, irrational "terrorists" on the verge of annihilating the Jewish people? Or is that more like a slapped kid sticking out his tongue?
Not all "violence" is created equal. One Israeli has died since the expiration of the ceasefire, and over 300 Palestinians. The people in Gaza have lost their police and security services as well as many of the supply tunnels used to smuggle essential supplies from Egypt during the siege. All that Israel has lost is a few more popularity points.
Forget those who take satisfaction in the disporportionate body count in favor of the strong against the weak. Forget those who have investments in Israel. My comments here are addressed to the "humanitarians" among us. For American advocates of social justice and health, the Israeli siege of Gaza and now the aerial attacks create an ethical dilemma. Why? Because our country has been siding with Israel financially and morally and politically--and we can't even talk to each other about it!
Can we agree to disagree about the ultimate conflict and still talk about how to stop the killing?
Those among us who claim to care about social justice can't just ignore the situation. Nor can we continue to let Israeli policy and the difficult statements of Israel's neighbors/rivals in the region rip our own social justice movement apart. Concern about what's good for Israel have even complicated the views of American peace activists on the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially Iran.
In the West Bank, in the UK, and even in New York City, there are demonstrations condemning what's being called an Israeli "massacre" in Gaza. Words like "apartheid" are being thrown around. But here in the country whose tax dollars pay for the aerial bombardments and buy the bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes, in the country whose veto in the Security Council protects Israel from international sanctions, most of us are sitting on our hands. Our increasingly bloody hands.
My suggestion is that we agree to disagree on what seems to be the underlying bone of contention--the "Jewish state"--and move on.
How? We need to acknowledge and respect that people have different ideas. Some people perceive an everlasting "Jewish state" as a life or death issue. Others perceive a "Jewish state" as a call for an exception, if not a violation, of the general international consensus in favor of secular democracy. Advocates of the two views sometimes destructively, and inaccurately, accuse each other of "racism" on the one hand, or "antisemitism" on the other. This must stop.
My suggestion is that we figure this "Jewish state" issue out later, after dealing with the humanitarian crisis of the Palestinians, most notably in Gaza, in the same way we would discuss a humanitarian crisis anywhere else in the world. Lots of international, European, and Israeli rights groups are doing just that.
Here in the US, we're stuck on the "Jewish state" issue. Many people have assumed that a "Jewish state" requires a Jewish majority on a defensible piece of territory, and that that is why the Israeli government does what it does. So, for example, sometimes they "have to" violate the human rights and territorial claims of others and even meddle in US foreign policy. Given that perception, it's not hard to understand why there's been a silence on the siege of Gaza, for example--even among Americans who condemn violations of human rights by our own country. The United States, no matter what happens or who criticizes its actions, will probably continue to exist more or less as currently constituted, that is, as a multi-ethnic, secular democracy of sorts. But no one can be confident that Israel will remain a Jewish state decades after regional peace conferences, fair agreements, handshakes, cultural exchanges, redrawing of borders, and return of refugees.
If I'm right that the sticking point is the issue of the "Jewish state," then that helps explain why the police forces and elected governments of the Gaza strip and of Iran have been demonized and portrayed as "legitimate" targets. The leadership of Hamas and of Iran have been accused of threats to commit genocide against Israelis, and by implication, against all Jewish people everywhere--another Holocaust. But those "threats" didn't happen--it's an excuse to cover up the real reason for the demonization, namely, a conflict in political views. (See Juan Cole on the manufactured "quote" of Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran. http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html) The "unforgivable crime" of the leaderships of Hamas and of Iran is that they are saying out loud what millions of people all over the world are thinking. They demand that the Palestinians be given a say in their futures and about where they should live.
Hamas does not prefer the notion of a Jewish state, given that Israel can't afford to allow the right of return to large numbers of non-Jewish Palestinians if it wants to remain a "Jewish state" into the future. The government of Iran has publicly called for a referendum among all the residents of the area comprising Israel and the Palestinian territories about how many states and what kind of government they want. Iran has also challenged Israeli military dominance in the region by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and by calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-free zone and for all countries in the region (read Israel) to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Generally, threatening to assassinate or bomb someone because of their political opinions is not acceptable. Hence, "friends" of Israel use demonization and create false threats. The result has been that public opinion, which normally would oppose aerial attacks that kill and wound human beings, is ready to make an exception for the people in Gaza and Iran.
But Americans don't have to be fooled again. We can find a way to get together and do better than this.
Here are some useful links on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and what some people are doing to help:
International Committee of the Red Cross (Palestine)
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine
Palestinian Red Crescent Society
http://www.palestinercs.org/
Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/countries/middle-east-eurasia/west-bank-and-gaza-strip.html
B'Tselem
http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Make_a_Difference.asp
Gush Shalom
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html
Jewish Voice for Peace, Gaza Information Center
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/gaza.shtml
And a painful story ("Screams of pain, tears of grief fill a bloodied hospital")from an Australian news source
http://www.watoday.com.au/world/screams-of-pain-tears-of-grief-fill-a-bloodied-hospital-20081228-7683.html?page=-1
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
-
Ruth Wangerin = 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Can we table the discussion on the pros and cons of having a Jewish state into the distant future?"
'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS (AND MANY OTHER EVEN 'LIBERAL' WHITE RACISTS) ALWAYS WANT TO IGNORE THE _ROOT_ OF THE PROBLEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Can we agree to disagree about the ultimate conflict...?"
WHO IS "WE", KIMOSABE: 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "My suggestion is that we agree to disagree on what seems to be the underlying bone of contention--the "Jewish state"--and move on."
HOW *CONVEEENIENT* FOR 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Others perceive a "Jewish state" as a call for an exception, if not a violation, of the general international consensus in favor of secular democracy."
YOU 'MEAN', SOME OF US CALL ZIONISM WHAT IT IS: A _MORALLY REPUGNANT_ RACIST IDEOLOGY. ...AND WE OPPOSE *ALL* RACIAL-/ETHNIC-SUPREMACISM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "This must stop."
IN OTHER WORDS, WE MUST ALL AGREE WITH *YOU* -- A 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "My suggestion is that we figure this "Jewish state" issue out later..."
'YEAH', HOW *CONVEEENIENT* FOR 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "given that Israel can't afford to allow the right of return to large numbers of non-Jewish Palestinians if it wants to remain a "Jewish state" into the future."
YOU MEAN, ISRAEL/ZIONISTS WORRY ABOUT _"TOO MANY PALESTINIANS"_ THE WAY THE *ORIGINAL* NAZIS ONCE WORRIED ABOUT _"TOO MANY JEWS"_?
THAT'S CALLED _NA_TIÖNALIST _ZI_ÖNIST HYPÖCRISY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "The result has been that public opinion, which normally would oppose aerial attacks that kill and wound human beings, is ready to make an exception for the people in Gaza and Iran."
YOU MEAN, THE PUBLIC OPINION _ALL OVER THE WORLD_ THAT HAS BEEN _MORALLY CONDEMNING_ ISRAEL'S WHOLESALE MASSACRES AND MASS DESTRUCTION IN GAZA?
ISRAEL'S WHOLESALE MASSACRES AND MASS DESTRUCTION THAT MAKES YOUR ZIONIST "LAND OF MILK AND HONEY", YOUR "LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS", YOUR "LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE", _LOOK BAD_, MAKES FOR BAD PR, SPLASHED ACROSS NEWSPAPER HEADLINES AND PHOTOS, AND THE TV'S OF THE WORLD?
WHICH MAKES YOU 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
OR DO YOU MEAN THE "PUBLIC OPINION" OF 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_NA_TIONALIST _ZI_ONISM AND THE RACIST IDEOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF "A JEWISH STATE" IS WHAT HAS BEEN **CAUSING** PALESTINIAN SUFFERING FOR THE PAST 60-75 YEARS
...AND WHAT IS *CAUSING* THE KIND OF WHOLESALE GROSS ATROCITIES AND MASS DESTRUCTION IN GAZA THAT WE SEE TODAY.
SO, _*NNNO*_!: WE *CAN'T* "AGREE", _Ruth Wangerin_, TO STOP TALKING ABOUT AND MORALLY CONDEMNING ZIONISM -- JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES EVEN *YOU* 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
...AND THE MORALLY REPUGNANT _RACIST IDEOLOGY_ OF AN IDEOLOGICALLY "JEWISH STATE" IN A LAND WHERE *AT LEAST HALF* THE POPULATION IS *STILL* _PALESTINIAN_.
-
Ruth Wangerin = 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Can we table the discussion on the pros and cons of having a Jewish state into the distant future?"
'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS (AND MANY OTHER EVEN 'LIBERAL' WHITE RACISTS) ALWAYS WANT TO IGNORE THE _ROOT_ OF THE PROBLEM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Can we agree to disagree about the ultimate conflict...?"
WHO IS "WE", KIMOSABE: 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "My suggestion is that we agree to disagree on what seems to be the underlying bone of contention--the "Jewish state"--and move on."
HOW *CONVEEENIENT* FOR 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "Others perceive a "Jewish state" as a call for an exception, if not a violation, of the general international consensus in favor of secular democracy."
YOU 'MEAN', SOME OF US CALL ZIONISM WHAT IT IS: A _MORALLY REPUGNANT_ RACIST IDEOLOGY. ...AND WE OPPOSE *ALL* RACIAL-/ETHNIC-SUPREMACISM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "This must stop."
IN OTHER WORDS, WE MUST ALL AGREE WITH *YOU* -- A 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "My suggestion is that we figure this "Jewish state" issue out later..."
'YEAH', HOW *CONVEEENIENT* FOR 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "given that Israel can't afford to allow the right of return to large numbers of non-Jewish Palestinians if it wants to remain a "Jewish state" into the future."
YOU MEAN, ISRAEL/ZIONISTS WORRY ABOUT _"TOO MANY PALESTINIANS"_ THE WAY THE *ORIGINAL* NAZIS ONCE WORRIED ABOUT _"TOO MANY JEWS"_?
THAT'S CALLED _NA_TIÖNALIST _ZI_ÖNIST HYPÖCRISY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'LIBERAL' ZIONIST: "The result has been that public opinion, which normally would oppose aerial attacks that kill and wound human beings, is ready to make an exception for the people in Gaza and Iran."
YOU MEAN, THE PUBLIC OPINION _ALL OVER THE WORLD_ THAT HAS BEEN _MORALLY CONDEMNING_ ISRAEL'S WHOLESALE MASSACRES AND MASS DESTRUCTION IN GAZA?
ISRAEL'S WHOLESALE MASSACRES AND MASS DESTRUCTION THAT MAKES YOUR ZIONIST "LAND OF MILK AND HONEY", YOUR "LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS", YOUR "LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE", _LOOK BAD_, MAKES FOR BAD PR, SPLASHED ACROSS NEWSPAPER HEADLINES AND PHOTOS, AND THE TV'S OF THE WORLD?
WHICH MAKES YOU 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
OR DO YOU MEAN THE "PUBLIC OPINION" OF 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_NA_TIONALIST _ZI_ONISM AND THE RACIST IDEOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF "A JEWISH STATE" IS WHAT HAS BEEN **CAUSING** PALESTINIAN SUFFERING FOR THE PAST 60-75 YEARS
...AND WHAT IS *CAUSING* THE KIND OF WHOLESALE GROSS ATROCITIES AND MASS DESTRUCTION IN GAZA THAT WE SEE TODAY.
SO, _*NNNO*_!: WE *CAN'T* "AGREE", _Ruth Wangerin_, TO STOP TALKING ABOUT AND MORALLY CONDEMNING ZIONISM -- JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES EVEN *YOU* 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.
...AND THE MORALLY REPUGNANT _RACIST IDEOLOGY_ OF AN IDEOLOGICALLY "JEWISH STATE" IN A LAND WHERE *AT LEAST HALF* THE POPULATION IS *STILL* _PALESTINIAN_.
-
Well, this is certainly a first for me, being called a "liberal zionist." I hope the unnamed writer of the above rant feels better now, but to me, that kind of talk is not helpful. Rhetoric on the issue of "Zionism" is keeping the American peace movement divided and paralyzed, unable to stop America's third war in the Middle East. We--I mean we Americans who generally campaign against war and injustice (except, for some people, when Israel is involved)--may be most effective if we concentrate on America's role now and cut the funding and support for war. The Jewish state issue will be worked out eventually.
-
[THIS IS WHY THERE AREN'T **ANY** BLACKS *WHATSOEVER* (or for that matter, Palestinians/Arabs) AT INDYBAY -- BECAUSE INDYBAY EDITORS ARE A BUNCH OF WHITE SO-CALLED 'LIBERALS' WHO *DON'T LIKE* THE ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION OF BLACK LEFTISTS -- AND THEREFORE KEEPS _*DELETING*_ WHATEVER THEY DON'T LIKE FROM BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE -- HOWEVER TRUE IT IS.
BUT, I'LL *KEEP* POSTING THIS OVER AND OVER AS OFTEN AS IT KEEPS BEING DELETED BY INDYBAY EDITORS.]
-
My my
by Ruth Wangerin
Tuesday Dec 30th, 2008 8:11 PM:
"Well, this is certainly a first for me, being called a "liberal zionist.""
YOU MEAN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE HAS _SEEN THROUGH YOUR ACT_ AND PUBLICLY _*NAILED*_ YOU FOR WHAT YOU *REALLY* ARE?
WELL THEN TELLING YOU IS WAY _*OVERDUE*_.
(Although I meant to put 'liberal' in *single* quotes.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "I hope the unnamed writer of the above rant feels better now, but to me, that kind of talk is not helpful. Rhetoric on the issue of "Zionism" is keeping the American peace movement divided..."
YOU MEAN KEEPING THOSE OF US WHO ARE _*SERIOUS*_ DIVIDED FROM THOSE OF YOU WHITE 'LIBERAL' [CLOSET 5TH COLUMN] ZIONISTS WHO _*AREN'T*_?: **GGOOD**.
AS I SAID IN MY HEADLINE CAPTION BEFORE, WE NEED TO *KICK* YOU WHITE 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS OUT OF THE MOVEMENT _SO WE CAN FINALLY POLITICALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY *ADVANCE*_.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "and paralyzed, unable to stop America's third war in the Middle East."
ANOTHER PRIVILEGED WHITE SO-CALLED 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST TRYING TO TELL THE *OPPRESSED* WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T TALK ABOUT.
As I said before, white liberals *NEVER* want to talk about and get to the *ROOT* of the problem: *NEVER* want to talk about what's causing the mass death and suffering in the first place. Because you're really out just to save your ideologically "Jewish state" in 85% of historic Palestine, controlling 90% of the resources, 95% of the economy, and 100% of the borders and the sky,while you push (ethnically cleanse) the rest of the Palestinians out of expanded Israel itself, and then call it "fair & square" and a day -- and *over*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "We--I mean we Americans who generally campaign against war and injustice..."
WELL, YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE -- AND YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OR MAKE THE CALL
-- LIKE 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS ALWAYS THINK THEY CAN DO IN ALWAYS TRYING TO DELIMIT AND GATE-KEEPER THE DEBATE
(like NOAM CHOMSKY, Phyllis Bennis, token do-gooder Jeff Halper, Greg Palast, other lecture circuit and "progressive" radio icons I shouldn't be forgetting, and now Norman Finkelstein -- mostly Jewish 'liberal' closet Zionists and apologists -- most of those major icons on the lecture circuit -- unlike the very morally courageous INT'L JEWISH *ANTI-ZIONIST* NETWORK)
-- "DON'T SAY RACIST, DON'T SAY ZIONIST, DON'T SAY APARTHEID, DON'T SAY ISRAEL LOBBY, DON'T SAY BOYCOTT/DIVESTMENT/SANCTIONS, DON'T EVER COMPARE ZIONISM TO NAZISM"
-- ALWAYS TRYING TO TELL THOSE OF US WHO ARE _*SERIOUS*_ ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION WHAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT
-- NO ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS OF *COLOR* EVER SAY THIS
-- EVERYTIME WE HEAR SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS (WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LOOK UP AND SEE WHO THEY ARE!) THEY'RE *WHITE* AND FROM THE RESPECTIVE (WHITE GENTILE OR JEWISH) *OPPRESSOR* CLASS.
Would you have told European Jews during the Nazi era that they shouldn't mention, criticize, or condemn *Nazism*?: now *there's* the real litmus test of double standards with 'liberal' whites like you. Would you have told them, "Now let's wait until Nazism can sort itself out first"? *NO*, because that involves *white* people suffering -- in particular, *Jews*.
Would you have told Black-Americans during slavery or Jim Crow that they shouldn't mention white-supremacy?
Would you have told blacks in South Africa that they shouldn't mention aparthied?
Would you have even told the Irish that they shouldn't mention colonialism?
Would you tell *women* that they shouldn't mention sexism and patriarchy?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "may be most effective if we concentrate on America's role now and cut the funding and support for war. The Jewish state issue will be worked out eventually."
ZIONISTS AND THE UNITED STATES GOVT'S POSITION IS THAT WE CAN'T CALL ZIONISM *RACISM* -- BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?: THOSE OF US WHO ARE *SERIOUS* ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION JUST WENT RIGHT AHEAD AND CALLED ZIONISM WHAT IT IS AND NOW MOST ACTIVISTS ACCEPT THAT IT *IS*.
IF YOU AIN'T GOT THE STOMACH, Ruth Wangerin, THEN YOU BETTER _GET OUTTA THE WAY_, BECAUSE YOU _AIN'T STOPPIN'_ THE REST OF US WHO _*ARE* SERIOUS_ ABOUT FIGHTING RACIST, COLONIALIST, AND/OR IMPERIALIST OPPRESSION FROM CALLING IT WHAT IT IS BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS.
THOSE WHO _ARE *SERIOUS*_ ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION _*DON'T ACCEDE*_ TO THE INTEREST OF THE *OPPRESSOR* IN WHAT WE CAN AND *CAN'T* TALK ABOUT -- OR HOW WE CAN'T CONDEMN OPPRESSION -- EVEN IF FASHIONABLE 'LIBERAL' WHITE NAMBY-PAMBY DILETTANTE "ACTIVSTS" LIKE YOU DO.
-
(And as for "unnamed", almost everyone who's a pro-Palestinian human rights activist in the Bay Area, and has seen my *serious* comment posts before at Indybay [sometimes so serious and incisive that even Indybay deletes them], knows who I am -- even if you don't.)
-
[THIS IS WHY THERE AREN'T **ANY** BLACKS *WHATSOEVER* (or for that matter, Palestinians/Arabs) AT INDYBAY -- BECAUSE INDYBAY EDITORS ARE A BUNCH OF WHITE SO-CALLED 'LIBERALS' WHO *DON'T LIKE* THE ANALYSIS AND ARTICULATION OF BLACK LEFTISTS -- AND THEREFORE KEEPS _*DELETING*_ WHATEVER THEY DON'T LIKE FROM BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE -- HOWEVER TRUE IT IS.
BUT, I'LL *KEEP* POSTING THIS OVER AND OVER AS OFTEN AS IT KEEPS BEING DELETED BY INDYBAY EDITORS.]
-
My my
by Ruth Wangerin
Tuesday Dec 30th, 2008 8:11 PM:
"Well, this is certainly a first for me, being called a "liberal zionist.""
YOU MEAN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE HAS _SEEN THROUGH YOUR ACT_ AND PUBLICLY _*NAILED*_ YOU FOR WHAT YOU *REALLY* ARE?
WELL THEN TELLING YOU IS WAY _*OVERDUE*_.
(Although I meant to put 'liberal' in *single* quotes.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "I hope the unnamed writer of the above rant feels better now, but to me, that kind of talk is not helpful. Rhetoric on the issue of "Zionism" is keeping the American peace movement divided..."
YOU MEAN KEEPING THOSE OF US WHO ARE _*SERIOUS*_ DIVIDED FROM THOSE OF YOU WHITE 'LIBERAL' [CLOSET 5TH COLUMN] ZIONISTS WHO _*AREN'T*_?: **GGOOD**.
AS I SAID IN MY HEADLINE CAPTION BEFORE, WE NEED TO *KICK* YOU WHITE 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS OUT OF THE MOVEMENT _SO WE CAN FINALLY POLITICALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY *ADVANCE*_.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "and paralyzed, unable to stop America's third war in the Middle East."
ANOTHER PRIVILEGED WHITE SO-CALLED 'LIBERAL' ZIONIST TRYING TO TELL THE *OPPRESSED* WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T TALK ABOUT.
As I said before, white liberals *NEVER* want to talk about and get to the *ROOT* of the problem: *NEVER* want to talk about what's causing the mass death and suffering in the first place. Because you're really out just to save your ideologically "Jewish state" in 85% of historic Palestine, controlling 90% of the resources, 95% of the economy, and 100% of the borders and the sky,while you push (ethnically cleanse) the rest of the Palestinians out of expanded Israel itself, and then call it "fair & square" and a day -- and *over*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "We--I mean we Americans who generally campaign against war and injustice..."
WELL, YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE -- AND YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OR MAKE THE CALL
-- LIKE 'LIBERAL' ZIONISTS ALWAYS THINK THEY CAN DO IN ALWAYS TRYING TO DELIMIT AND GATE-KEEPER THE DEBATE
(like NOAM CHOMSKY, Phyllis Bennis, token do-gooder Jeff Halper, Greg Palast, other lecture circuit and "progressive" radio icons I shouldn't be forgetting, and now Norman Finkelstein -- mostly Jewish 'liberal' closet Zionists and apologists -- most of those major icons on the lecture circuit -- unlike the very morally courageous INT'L JEWISH *ANTI-ZIONIST* NETWORK)
-- "DON'T SAY RACIST, DON'T SAY ZIONIST, DON'T SAY APARTHEID, DON'T SAY ISRAEL LOBBY, DON'T SAY BOYCOTT/DIVESTMENT/SANCTIONS, DON'T EVER COMPARE ZIONISM TO NAZISM"
-- ALWAYS TRYING TO TELL THOSE OF US WHO ARE _*SERIOUS*_ ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION WHAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT
-- NO ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS OF *COLOR* EVER SAY THIS
-- EVERYTIME WE HEAR SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS (WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LOOK UP AND SEE WHO THEY ARE!) THEY'RE *WHITE* AND FROM THE RESPECTIVE (WHITE GENTILE OR JEWISH) *OPPRESSOR* CLASS.
Would you have told European Jews during the Nazi era that they shouldn't mention, criticize, or condemn *Nazism*?: now *there's* the real litmus test of double standards with 'liberal' whites like you. Would you have told them, "Now let's wait until Nazism can sort itself out first"? *NO*, because that involves *white* people suffering -- in particular, *Jews*.
Would you have told Black-Americans during slavery or Jim Crow that they shouldn't mention white-supremacy?
Would you have told blacks in South Africa that they shouldn't mention aparthied?
Would you have even told the Irish that they shouldn't mention colonialism?
Would you tell *women* that they shouldn't mention sexism and patriarchy?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Wangerin: "may be most effective if we concentrate on America's role now and cut the funding and support for war. The Jewish state issue will be worked out eventually."
ZIONISTS AND THE UNITED STATES GOVT'S POSITION IS THAT WE CAN'T CALL ZIONISM *RACISM* -- BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?: THOSE OF US WHO ARE *SERIOUS* ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION JUST WENT RIGHT AHEAD AND CALLED ZIONISM WHAT IT IS AND NOW MOST ACTIVISTS ACCEPT THAT IT *IS*.
IF YOU AIN'T GOT THE STOMACH, Ruth Wangerin, THEN YOU BETTER _GET OUTTA THE WAY_, BECAUSE YOU _AIN'T STOPPIN'_ THE REST OF US WHO _*ARE* SERIOUS_ ABOUT FIGHTING RACIST, COLONIALIST, AND/OR IMPERIALIST OPPRESSION FROM CALLING IT WHAT IT IS BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS.
THOSE WHO _ARE *SERIOUS*_ ABOUT FIGHTING OPPRESSION _*DON'T ACCEDE*_ TO THE INTEREST OF THE *OPPRESSOR* IN WHAT WE CAN AND *CAN'T* TALK ABOUT -- OR HOW WE CAN'T CONDEMN OPPRESSION -- EVEN IF FASHIONABLE 'LIBERAL' WHITE NAMBY-PAMBY DILETTANTE "ACTIVSTS" LIKE YOU DO.
-
(And as for "unnamed", almost everyone who's a pro-Palestinian human rights activist in the Bay Area, and has seen my *serious* comment posts before at Indybay [sometimes so serious and incisive that even Indybay deletes them], knows who I am -- even if you don't.)
-
Rather than follow my usual practice of commenting on what other people have specifically said, I'm going to lay out my own framework for viewing the issues here.
!) I firmly hold the position that Zionism is a racist ideology and that "Israel" is an apartheid European settler colony that has no right to exist. What they call "Israel and the occupied territories", I call the Zionist Occupation Regime (ZOR) in Palestine.
2) I am willing to participate in demonstrations with people who disagree with these formulations, provided that the demonstrations are clearly in support of the Palestinians against the Zionists, and not for a "peace" that strengthens "Israel" and its agents like Abbas against the Palestinian resistance. Moreover, I hope that the sharply-worded signs I carry will drive away those who are really defenders of the existence of racist "Israel".
3) I support any actions, regardless of the ideologies behind those actions, that target entities that provide material aid to the Zionist regime, provided that reasonable care is taken not to seriously harm innocent persons. Likewise, I support the provision, by anybody of any persuasion, of material aid to the people of Palestine -- including, of course, the resistance fighters -- provided that aid is not given with conditions meant to undermine the resistance or channel it in a reactionary direction.
While these are the general ideas I defend, I'm sure that some of my wording will change in response to future discussions. Equally, I hope my points help others of like mind to clarify their own formulations.
!) I firmly hold the position that Zionism is a racist ideology and that "Israel" is an apartheid European settler colony that has no right to exist. What they call "Israel and the occupied territories", I call the Zionist Occupation Regime (ZOR) in Palestine.
2) I am willing to participate in demonstrations with people who disagree with these formulations, provided that the demonstrations are clearly in support of the Palestinians against the Zionists, and not for a "peace" that strengthens "Israel" and its agents like Abbas against the Palestinian resistance. Moreover, I hope that the sharply-worded signs I carry will drive away those who are really defenders of the existence of racist "Israel".
3) I support any actions, regardless of the ideologies behind those actions, that target entities that provide material aid to the Zionist regime, provided that reasonable care is taken not to seriously harm innocent persons. Likewise, I support the provision, by anybody of any persuasion, of material aid to the people of Palestine -- including, of course, the resistance fighters -- provided that aid is not given with conditions meant to undermine the resistance or channel it in a reactionary direction.
While these are the general ideas I defend, I'm sure that some of my wording will change in response to future discussions. Equally, I hope my points help others of like mind to clarify their own formulations.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$255.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network