UCB Wheeler Hall Occupied, Cops Move In! 4/9/02

END THE OCCUPATION! FREE WHEELER FROM SJP!

It's about time the obvious link between apartheid, racisim and zionism was discussed publicly.

Asking UCB, and others, to defend its investment in a state guided by racist policy will lead, at the very least, to an interesting display of semantics.

Black apartheid - bad.
Jewish apartheid - good.

It's just that obvious.

I was one of the arrestees today in Wheeler. I received a citation for trespassing. It's my understanding that all protestors received citations for trespassing, some for resisting, and one person received a citation for battery and was taken to the Berkeley Jail and held on $5000 bail (or 10%). Please try to confirm the front page story (posted at 5:27) that more were taken to the Berk Jail. Thanks.

Rachel,

Good point. It's always instructive to analyze the rationalizations presented by those attempting to justify ther glaring contradictions.

From the spirit of your posting, I assume that you meant to say that supporters of the Israeli government will essentially have to argue:

Black apartheid - bad.
Palestinian apartheid - good.

I don't think any rational person is arguing for Jewish apartheid.

I heard the Jewish students interviewed on the radio tonight, 4/9/02, and was appalled at their arrogance. They all had the same line: This is Holocaust Remembrance Day and no one else has a right to remember anything today. It also happens to be Deir Yassin day and it happens to be Paul Robeson's birthday. Then, these filthy rich little snotnoses had the unmitigated gall to claim that Palestinians are taught as children to be suicide bombers and blamed "them" (whoever "them" is was not explained, but implied to be Palestinians or Arabs generally) for the Reichstag Fire of New York and Washington DC. There is no evidence linking any Arabs (or the poor Afghans whom we bombed so Unocal could build its oil pipeline in Afghanistan). There is a great deal of evidence linking the US military and the CIA to what was obviously a Reichstag Fire on Sept 11 to perpetrate fascism at home and blood for oil wars abroad.

Jewish children in Israel are taught to have contempt for Arabs; their government is a theocratic state (no separation between Church and State) and thus undemocratic by definition; Arabs are discriminated against in all aspects, including admission to university; the settler colonies-military outposts have Jews-only roads connecting them. In other words, Israel is a viciously racist state and Jewish children are taught to be racists. Since Israel exists only due to US tax dollars, we pay for this horror.

What is most outrageous is that these filthy rich hoodlums did not hesitate to attack Arabs, and according to press accounts, booed the Palestinian memorial to Deir Yassin, when the ZIonists massacred 100 people in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin. That was part of the Zionists' chasing of 750,000 Arabs off their land in Palestine so the Zionists could occupy it. For this, the Zionists expect our support? Not from this Holocaust family member, nor from any other member of our family.

It is long overdue that Americans boycott all politicans who are pro-Israel at all levels of government. That means all the Democrats and Republicans at the city, county, state and federal levels as they are all, by definition, pro-Israel, which means they support the massacre of the Palestinians.

Even if I did not know all of the above and more, just hearing the arrogant manner of these people who have no concept of suffering on the radio would compel me to reject their position. To all UC students: Most of the population is much too poor to go to your fancy school and any time we hear any arrogance from any UC student, whose school is paid for by us taxpayers who are mostly the workingclass, you can be sure we will oppose your position. It is quite clear from the interviews I heard that the people who understood suffering and could articulate what horrors their families are experiencing are the Palestinians. The UC Jewish students are now at least 2 or 3 generations removed from the Holocaust and of course many generations removed from poverty, if any poverty existed in their family. The Zionist students sound very arrogant. Shame on all of them, and shame on their parents for teaching them anti-Arab racism. Anti-Arab racism and anti-labor attitudes usually go hand-in-hand. I have seen the whole routine on the job.

And let us remember that plenty of the Palestinian supporters today were Jewish.

I entered Wheeled hall on the North side at 2pm, and several police officers (both city and UC) were closing the doors of the halls on all floors, though not locking them. I wasn't aware of the protest at all, though I was concerned with all the brass and any potential interference with my plans. After meeting (~2:30pm) with a professor in Wheeler during the protest, I left the building the way I came and circled around to the south side to get the jist of the shouting that echoed through the halls.
I have seen many other protests on campus since September 11th, 2001; and this reminded me of those events. I am strongly against violence, and intensely objected to the propaganda forcefed to the public via commercial media; though I felt that this protest had become very gimmicky for various groups fighting for the attention of the passersby.
I saw activists from several different campaigns shouting nonsensical chants: "No War No Peace" amidst much agressive banging on doors and more shouting, after students and photojournalists were detained inside the closed Wheeler Hall. This behavior was encouraged by some of the speakers, while others wanted to proceed with the ceremonial singing and dancing. There was rumor that a fight instigated the UCPD's eventual closing of some of the doors on the south side of Wheeler Hall. This fight was claimed to be between the participants of Holocaust Rememberance event, and the protestors directing their anger towards current event: specifically acts against humanity by Ariel Sharon. Altogether, the thesis behind this event was not in solidarity with the actions and results sought by the participants. As an uninvolved bystander - I could not tell what was really going on, though I respect some activists (and their respective causes) involved in the event. The one political statement that I took with me as most impactful, was a woman walking with a baby carriage - cradling the photograph of a baby that was shot in the name of Ariel Sharon's agenda. This was subtle, but effective. It was a hard task to get the full attention of the entire crowd for many dedicated leaders. A majority of those present were not students at all, and I think were visibly singled out for arrest because of it.

In response to Holocaust Family-Member: I think the issue of finances that a student has to struggle with is a non-issue in regards to how sincere they are about expressing their social conscience, more specifically that money may be better used towards equality than division.

I don't understand how the Jewish students can't recall their historical oppression and stand with the oppressed Palestians against the brutal and, yes, I can say it, fascist Israeli government. These students have a lot to learn about oppression. One more thing: I watched the video looking for my daughter who was in the protest and I didn't see her. The camera man should be more selective next time. She is very photogenic

FACT: Israeli military reaction has been one of incomparable restraint. After the brutal lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, Israel limited its response to bombing one floor of the headquarters of the negligent Ramallah police, the radio station that had been broadcasting incitement to violence, and two targets in Gaza. Israelis gave a 3-hour warning, to allow Palestinians to evacuate; indeed, no one was killed. Similarly, following the recent torching of an ancient synagogue in Jericho, Israel's only response was to bomb a military training school.

On the front lines of this "intifada," Israeli soldiers have orders not to shoot unless they are in direct danger. Israeli soldiers are told never shoot at an ambulance or at women. Unless the Palestinians begin shooting first with live bullets, Israeli soldiers are instructed never to shoot to kill, and then, to aim only at the source of the shooting, never randomly. No other army has such restrained orders.

As the world decries the 100 Palestinian deaths, no one stops to ask how many would be dead if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of -- shooting indiscriminately into crowds with automatic weapons. If that were the case, many thousands of Palestinians would be dead.

But what about Palestinians youth who have been tragically killed in the fighting?

What kind of parent encourages children to go to the front lines to throw stones and firebombs at armed troops?! Palestinians know that Israelis are reluctant to shoot at children; and if a child does wind up getting killed, it makes for excellent anti-Israel propaganda.

Children are taught in school the heroics of dying as a martyr for the Palestinian cause. The Jerusalem Post reported that the Palestinian Authority is encouraging children to participate in clashes by offering their families $300 per injury and $2,000 for anyone killed. How tragic that Palestinians send their children at risk of death and then cynically use this against Israel in the court of world opinion.

But perhaps Israel should not be using force at all to stop the violence?

The BBC recently asked a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council if Arafat truly had the power to stop the mob violence. He replied that it probably could not be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. Given that reality, how can the world possibly expect Israel to stop the violence without such force?

It is the duty of any government to protect its citizens from violence. Imagine what the response would be if this violence was occurring to any other country. When the British tried to control the last Palestinian intifada, the Arab revolt of 1936-1939, entire villages were burned and more than 3,000 Palestinians were killed.

During "Black September" when Palestinians rioted in Jordan in the 1970s, King Hussein massacred 2,500 Palestinians in 10 days. Likewise, Syrian President Assad slaughtered 20,000 of his own people during civil unrest in Hama, then paved over the dead -- a toll that the Israel intifada would need 100 years to match.

Sharon's massacres in Lebanon show that he and Israel are quite capable of liquidating people much more efficiently.

We ought to face squarely the origins of the Palestinian descent into barbarism. In July 2000, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak made a peace offer that stunned Israel and the world: Israel would re-divide Jerusalem -- would turn over large pieces of its ancient capital to the same people who had destroyed its synagogues, desecrated its cemeteries, and banned Jews from entering when they last ran the show. Arafat rejected the offer. Then in September 2000 the new wave of murderous violence began, supposedly triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

In short, the Palestinian response to Israel's generous peace offer was, "Drop dead." How could that possibly have happened? A trick question -- because the obvious but wrong answer is so close to the right one that it's hard to tune the right one in. You have to fiddle the dial back and forth. Yet the difference between the two is crucial. The "lesson of appeasement" is not that appeasement is futile. Appeasement is not futile, it is dangerous. Israel's enemies claim that Israel herself provoked the ongoing Palestinian pogrom, and in a sense they might well be right. Outlaws interpret an openhanded offer as weakness, not generosity. They interpret weakness as an incitement to violence. You can goad a dangerous animal to attack by threatening or by shrinking back. Unless you want to fight, the only safe maneuver is to stand still.

Everyone knows about Munich, September 1938: Britain and France generously donate a big slice of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in exchange for "peace with honor," "peace in our time," and the Brooklyn Bridge. Many people know about the Kristallnacht pogrom, November 1938: Germany's approach to the Jews turns from mere oppression to bloodthirsty violence. Kristallnacht was "triggered" by the murder of a German diplomat by a deranged Jew. But some (not all) historians point out the obvious: A leading cause of Kristallnacht was Munich itself. Hitler read the Munich agreements as a proclamation by England and France stating: "We are weak; you have nothing to fear; do what you like." Appeasement doesn't merely fail to prevent catastrophe, it provokes catastrophe.

The analogy is not close, just close enough. Israel is no Czechoslovakia and was not sold down the river. Barak made his offer freely and in good faith. But to a significant number of Palestinians, the offer obviously said: "We are weak; you have nothing to fear; attack." Appeasement doesn't merely fail to prevent catastrophe, it provokes catastrophe.

Now everything has changed, and we are only gradually coming to grips with the implications. Evidently the whole world is outraged by Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Even before the new violence, the world's outrage was hard to swallow. Some Israelis live among Arabs in settlements on the West Bank, some Arabs live among Jews in "settlements" (otherwise known as towns and cities) in Israel proper. What's the difference? The Israeli settlements are new, the Arab ones old. But if old settlements are legitimate and new ones aren't, what are all those mosques doing on the Temple Mount? Some European journalists refer to the great Temple Mount plaza as the "supposed" site of ancient Israel's holy temple -- as in, "that beat-up white shell on the hill in mid-Athens is supposedly the 'Parthenon.'" The plaza was expanded to its current enormous size by King Herod of Judea during the final years of the last century B.C.E. During the peace talks two thousand years later, in July 2000, a Palestinian negotiator helpfully explained why Barak's offer of control but not legal sovereignty over the Mount had been rejected: "We can't sell our Haram to the Jews," even though (he forgot to add) they built it. (Arabs refer to the Temple Mount as the Haram.)

"New" and "old" depend on your point of view. Jews have as much right as anyone to settle on the West Bank. But it long seemed to me (as to many other American Jews) that, leaving right and wrong out of it, the settlements were causing Israel more grief than they were worth and ought to be stopped. But everything has changed. Who in his right mind could still believe today that to stop building new settlements (or even to abandon old ones) would appease the Palestinians? On the contrary: Such a move is likely to be dangerous, as Barak's offer turned out to be. Palestinians don't want to live peaceably among Israelis.

We now know what Palestinians want, and what they think of Israelis. After all, what exactly is the point of sending killers to massacre children at random? What do you accomplish? You impose hatred. You ask Israel, in effect: What do we need to do to make you all (not some of you; everyone) hate us? To make you unable to look at a Palestinian without revulsion? To force you eventually to take the terrible step of setting up enclaves where Arabs are banned? Palestinians don't want to live peaceably among Israelis; the natural conclusion is that they think about Israelis as they choose for Israelis to think about them.

Everything has changed, including (for many of us) our ideas about Islam. We ought to have paid more attention to the latest developments. We now learn that suicide bombers are told to expect a heaven full of comely virgins as their next assignment. To the suicide-murderers, those waiting virgins are real as dirt. The killers call themselves "martyrs," but in their own minds they are the next thing to sex criminals. "Pardon me, sir or madam, do you know why I plan to murder your child? Because the authorities are offering me great sex -- and, after all, I don't get many opportunities."

People who think this way are shielded from view, up to a point, by their own sheer evil. They are painful to contemplate. We instinctively look away, as we do whenever we are confronted with monstrous deformity. Nothing is harder or more frightening to look at than a fellow human who is bent out of shape. And moral deformity is the most frightening kind by far. How can Muslims of good faith allow such people to call themselves Muslim? But they do allow it. What does that mean? And is it possible that we have located here, in this inspiring vision of heaven as a whorehouse, the most loathsome idea in the history of human thought? This is the civilization that condemns "licentious" America?

And what is Israel to do? Kill terrorists? Lock up incipient terrorists? Fine, but not enough. Develop the Palestinian opposition also. People who say there is none can't be serious. Among all those mothers and fathers of children who have become suicide-murderers, not one? Not one who believes: "The 'leaders' who did this to my child must be stopped"? Of course you don't dare say such things in the territories. But surely (one optimistically assures oneself), Israeli intelligence could locate a few such families if it tried, and if they were removed to safe ground and protected. "Safe ground" couldn't be Israel or America, or the credibility of this new opposition would be fatally compromised. But it could be Europe. (Khomeini preached the Iranian revolution from France.) Those few families would be mere people, not "leaders," not politicians. But prospective leaders and politicians would come. Being (as a rule) without passion themselves, they are drawn by passion. The Palestinian leadership would try hard to silence these families and their followers, but the message would get through: Our barbaric leadership is destroying us.

But what of Europe? Not long ago I picked up a copy of Le Monde, which reports on the recent meeting where work was started on a constitution for Europe -- the goal being to allow Europe to campaign, as the equal of any great power, "pour affirmer ses valeurs," to assert its values; and you can't help but wonder, exactly what "valeurs" are we talking about? Indifference? Complacency? Spiritual exhaustion? "European values" (certainly "French values") has come to sound like "Palestinian moderates" -- a contradiction in terms. To any instance of Western man -- American or not, Jew or gentile, male or female -- Europe's spiritual collapse is heartbreaking. It is strange but true that the only European country one can picture (by the remotest stretch of the imagination) cooperating on the sly with Israel to help create a Palestinian opposition is Germany - or maybe, if the Untied States made an issue of it, Britain.

THERE ARE LARGER questions about Israel's role in the World that have been pressing for years, but nowadays seem to grow more acute by the hour. The axioms that underpinned Zionism have been turned inside out. Modern Israel was conceived as a safe haven for Jews. It had other reasons for existing -- but safety, and the dignity that only comes with safety, were Zionism's emotional mainsprings. In recent decades, though, especially sine the end of Soviet tyranny, the safe-haven idea has lost cogency like an unwound watch running down. In the last few years, Israel has started to look (on the contrary) like the most dangerous place for the Jews in the world -- if we exclude the small Jewish communities that still exist in Arab countries. Israel must change the way in which it explains itself. (Yoram Hazony made essentially this claim in his seminal "The Jewish State" of 2000.)

When we look at Israel today, it is crucial that we not allow Palestinian barbarism to distract us from another part of this picture: the everyday heroism that lights the whole place up from end to end. A large proportion of Israelis have relatives or connections abroad, mainly in the United States, and they could run to safety if they wanted to. Who would blame them? Who would even have the theoretical right to blame them? But overwhelmingly they have chosen to stay and stand fast. The whole population, man, woman, and child, is holding (is refusing to abandon) a dangerous forward position under fire. It's hard for Israelis to praise Israeli courage, but Americans ought to.

Why do they do it? Partly for powerful negative reasons. It isn't easy to leave home; and many Israelis are determined that Jews will never again be driven from their homes into alien lands by thug mobs. But there is more to Israel than resolve in the face of a uniquely tragic history. Israel still pays its way using the world's only emotional currency denominated entirely in negative numbers. It needs a new currency with positive markings.Israeli thinkers have talked enough desert; it is time to talk lava.

Israeli thinkers ought to speak less about the tragedy (or the ordinariness) of Israel's 3,000-year history, and more about its luminous greatness; ought to talk up the nation's brilliant prospects, and the central role it has played from Moses to Wittgenstein in creating and molding Western civilization. They don't like to talk this way, but they ought to steel themselves and do it anyway. "The Jew is a desert region," Wittgenstein wrote, "but underneath its thin layer of rock lies the molten lava of spirit and intellect." Israeli thinkers have talked enough desert; it is time to talk lava. Much of the world is at a spiritual lowpoint right now, dragging its belly on the ground. Israel has known before what to do about that. Israel has addressed the whole world and wrought spiritual revolutions, and ought to do it again now.

In reply to "Holocaust Family Member"'s disbelief that Palestinian children are taught to be suicide bombers, I refer him/her to a recent study of Palestinian school textbooks:
http://www.memri.org/MEMRI_Book_PGS.pdf

In particular, look at chapter 4 (starting on p.17), and p.34, which talk about encouraging children to defend their homeland using all means necessary, and about becoming a martyr and joining the intifada. And before you say that defending your homeland is an honourable cause, it is important to note that the textbooks describe Palestine as including *all* land west of the Jordan river (see p.14 and figure on p.43), so the textbooks are encouraging violent resistance to the existence of Israel proper, and not just the occupied territories.

There is no such thing. It's as artifical a construct as Northern Ireland.

Both have a right to exist without violence. But both will never know peace untill they both pull their heads out of thier self ritious asses!

Hitler commited attrocities towards jews.
Muslims recieved their fare share of abuse.

Both are victims of opression. But both can co-exist.

It sounds utopian, but what other solution is there that is more humane?

My question is, how can they get to that point?

The conflict is no different than the conflict between crips and bloods.

Here is a short, poor quality excerpt from the Ramallah lynching video.