top
Racial Justice
Racial Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Speaking out for justice in the Middle East can bring a rain of calumny and hate on one

by Jordy Cummings
Yet when I have ten e-mails and even snail-mail letters a day,
theatening vengeance, telling me that God will punish me and
other such bullshit, it becomes a little disconcerting. Not
surprisingly, these libels ended up on the letters column of
the Canadian Jewish News. All of them are still online, and
many of them are quite unbelievable and Talibanic in their irrational
zeal.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cummings0805.html

Imagine if, in the midst of these horrendous suicide bombings, prominent Arab-Americans sat on television and celebrated the bombings, sometimes in language even more intense than the nihilist leadership of Hamas? 'Tis hard to imagine, because it probably would not happen. Indeed, if it were to happen, the heads of Arab-American associations and publications would probably roundly condemn the statements. Suicide bombings, after all, do nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the Palestinians (or, as many more people realize, the Israelis who live under Sharon's junta.)

Yet, in what seems to be one of the most shameful moments in Jewish history, prominent "intellectuals" and journalists in our community are only all to glad to lend their support, not to the Israeli people who are victimized by suicide attacks that Sharon intentionally provokes, but to the Sharon junta--which incidently recently introduced that old favorite, neo-liberalism. Palestinian towns are refered to as "nests" of terrorism. The ubiquitous "the" is always placed before "Palestinians" in conversation, quantifying and qualifying a whole people as deserving of collective punishment. And sometimes the most animus is reserved for us Jews who aren't "with the program."

I have never considered myself instinctively anti-Israel any more than I am anti-American or anti-Papua New Guinean, for that matter. I don't believe that nation-states are the arbiters of behaviour, therefore I believe it is a ruse to start using such language. As Noam Chomsky pointed out years back, it would be laughable to start referring to "anti-Italianism" in Italy. In fact, with the Berlusconi government in power, it is actually quite pro-Italian to oppose the Itaian state. Likewise, it is very Pro-Israel, in a tangible way, to advocate an end to the occupation, a just solution to the refugees, a two-state solution that is federated so that within a few decades and dissipation of religous extremism, the border will dissipate, and justice for the extremists in both Hamas and Likud.

But I am digressing here. As I was saying , I've never considered myself instinctively anti-Israel. I do consider myself somewhat religous- Jewish and this is what informs my opposition to Israel at this point. Because I have correlated opposition to Israeli policies with both the secular and theological morality Judaism, I have been singled out for extra threats, intimidation and otherwise McCarthyite treatment from the self-apponted guardians of Zion. An innocuous column in a Montreal newspaper at the dawn of the Sept. 2000 intifada brought open death threats and other perversions from self-asppointed sayanim. My point at the time was that on Yom Kippur, Jews should atone for not speaking out against "the series of actions that have led up to the intifada." On Yom Kippur itself--the holiest day of the Jewish year--I was accosted walking out of Synagogue with the old canard of "self-hating Jew." I had not even taken off my tallit.

Fast forward 18 months, many periods of calm, followed by Israeli assassinations which are inevitably followed by suicide-bombings. I had come to be very angry--even angrier than usual--at the Sharon government. As one friend of mine in Israel had said, he was an Israeli Pinochet. In other words, not only had he increased oppression and provocation of Palestinians, but he had imposed "austerity" and neo-liberal economic policies that are cutting away at the perhaps one good legacy that Israel has at this point, its robust social democracy. After Sharon re-invaded the Palestinian territories after the horrendous--and predictable Passover bombing, I started to take more action.

My plan was--and is- the last frontier of Israel-Palestine--the Jewish Community. As a proud Jew and a writer, I feel an obligation to explain to my community that we are all implicated in Sharon's perversions, which go directly against Jewish values. I nearly convinced Montreal Hillel to publicly criticize Sharon. I know for a fact that the spokespeople who wanted to do so were told to keep their mouths shut. It reminded me of the February 2002 issue of the Jerusalem Report, in which Israel's PR chief talks of how Israel would use "student organizations" in North America to control the debate. It is highly sad when organizations like Hillel that have been a part of the Jewish struggle for equality and self-determination whore themselves.

As well as writing a few pieces meant to galvanize Jewish opposition, here at Counterpunch, I wrote one piece (also featured at Counterpunch) that was quite moderate and concilliatory--for the Canadian Jewish News, a high circulation weekly community newspaper. This was, to me, an important coup, since the CJN has been dominated by the most right-wing, horribly racist libels against Palestinians as well as Jews who, again, are not part of the program. Among the features in the last few months were ressurections of the discredited Joan Peters "time immemorial" theory, the old "Palestinians don't exist" bullshit, and always, always, always excuses for Israel's actions that seem straight out of Pravda. As well, it was used to discredit the Canadian labor union CUPE directly before its strike in Toronto (Cupe had made a statement criticizing Sharon as well as Arafat.) Many CUPE members feel that the attempt to drive a wedge between the labor movement and th!e historically pro-unoin Jewish community, was guided not by Jewish, but by management interests.

After publishing a piece that refuted the notion that "the left is Anti-Semitic," I became even more of a target. I wil say that I don't take these bullies and terrorists seriously (humorously, the CJN published my piece directly opposite one of the wildest conspiracy theories I have ever read, about the "dangerous allure of.......NGOs!"!) Yet when I have ten e-mails and even snail-mail letters a day, theatening vengeance, telling me that God will punish me and other such bullshit, it becomes a little disconcerting. Not surprisingly, these libels ended up on the letters column of the Canadian Jewish News. All of them are still online, and many of them are quite unbelievable and Talibanic in their irrational zeal. Replying with reason has allowed me to introduce ideas normally off-limits to the Jewish community. To most people, calling for an end to war and occupation is more reasonable than calling for the "transfer of those who suck evil from their mo!ther's breast milk."

So my egotistical response to the letters was to reply to them, and argue their merits, which to the CJN's credit, they have allowed me to do. However, what really disturbs me is the amount of incitement, which often can be traced straight to current Israeli Hasbarah policy. I am not speaking of those at publications like the New Republic, the intellectual collaborators with Sharon's policies. I am speaking of those who are manipulated by the Peretzes and others of this world, the working-class Jewish community, some of whom are survivors. Old men and women are being manipulated to believe that they are in danger, and that Arabs are out to get them. Young men and women are told to use "any means neccessary" including threats and intimidation (spying on Palestinian human rights advocates, threatening to expose others' petty criminal records) to "support Israel."

Thus it has become de rigeur in public and private, in my beloved community, to go against Jewish values in thoughts, words and actions. The Reform Temple that I was raised in (before Reform became overtly Zionist) has hosted prominent Anti-Arab scholars, but refused to support the Refuseniks, despite overwhelming Jewish grassroots support. The Rabbi who I once thought was a holy man has publicly and explicitly endorsed collective punishment. Jews rightfully get up in arms, as noted, when the odd Islamic cleric endorses Jew-hatred. What is to be said then, when the Jewish clerics themselves--with some notable exceptions--endorse Arab-hatred?

Jordy Cummings can be reached at: yorgos33ca@yahoo.ca

http://www.counterpunch.org/cummings0805.html
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by vic
Whenever people on the inside are working for change. Thanks for sharing this info.

I'm constantly amazed by the number of intelligent and articulate people that I know - particularly men in SF - who spit out the phrase "Those Palestinians just want Israel to go into the sea."

I've never heard that phrase from any Arab - which isn't to say it isn't out there - but I have heard Arabs say that is wrong, that they do not want that. However, there are now many examples of Zionists who call for the expulsion of the Palestinans, even US leaders on mainstream media.

So why are supposedly intelligent Americans, with good jobs and social lives, so irrational and uninformed about ths? Why are they like Stepford wives, digesting CNN, loving the Simpsons, going along like robots, buying cell phones and going to BBQs and caring less about the world?

When I point out that things might stop when the occupation is ended they just say "Well that won't really end it," and are resigned to do nothing. They proudly state, "I listen to NPR."

It's really sad how incredibly damaging American stupidity and lack of compassion is. And sadly, yesterday I met someone from Europe, and same stupid phrase came out - "Those Palestinians . . . "
by Alex Evers
How can you be so sure you are right ? What makes you think your understanding of this situation is divine ? When virtually all of the non-arab world is in agreeance that arabs inded do not want peace with israeli jews, but the complete end to the jewish country of israel. It appears you are in denial to me.
When the klan shows its ugly beak it is often in the name of some form of christianity. No number of U.S. christians gather in groups to applaud the klan. When hamas shows its ugly beak, there are crowds in every nation of islam cheering in the streets.
All religions are hideous deceptive incestuous things. islam is globally today the most vile organization on earth. Dont be suprised when your denial doesnt hide this fact from the rest of us.
by John Kampfner
Reported By
John Kampfner

Battle for the Holy Land - Transcript
PBS Frontline: Program #2015
Original airdate: April 4, 2002

full transcript available online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy/etc/script.html

March, 2002

ANNOUNCER: But Islamic Jihad's leader, Ali Safuri, who has now escaped from house arrest, says it may not be up to Arafat.

ALI SAFURI: [through interpreter] I don't believe that the brother Yasser Arafat would order a ceasefire after all that has happened to the Palestinian people. Actually, he should not order a ceasefire until the Palestinian people gain their complete rights. We will have no ceasefire, and we will not put our gun aside until the liberation of Palestine, with its capital Al-Quds Ash-Shareef, holy Jerusalem.

INTERVIEWER: What, right up to the sea?

ALI SAFURI: This is our legitimate right. Palestine from the river to the sea, that is our legitimate right in this homeland. Yes.
by vic
Generally when men get this upset about a comment I make, it's a good one!

While some Arab extremists may call for Israeli to go into the sea, they don't represent all Palestinians, just like Bush & Sharon don't represent all of their people.

Also, see below.
.....................................................................................
The groups contend that Armey called for an "ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinians, during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball program earlier this week.

According to a program transcript, Armey said, "I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank."

Matthews then asked Armey, "Well, where do you put the Palestinian state, in Norway?" Armey responded, "There are many Arab nations that have many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and soil and property and opportunity to create a Palestinian state."

When Matthews asked whether Armey believed "the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there?" Armey replied, "Yes."
.......................................................................

Lots of men I know just aren't very informed on the situation . . .
by z
Could you please post the location of the Dick Armey interview transcript? Not to say that it didn't happen, but I'd like to see it with my own eyes.
by JMCC
This issue of the Palestinian Opinion Pulse is dedicated to analyzing some of the most interesting findings of poll no. 45, which was conducted by JMCC on May 29th to June 2nd 2002.

The Final Goal of the Intifada.
Respondents were asked whether the final goal of the Intifada should be the improvement of Palestinian negotiating conditions, ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state based on UN resolution 242, or the total liberation of Palestine (area under British mandate before 1948).

43% of respondents believed that the final goal of the Intifada should be ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state based on UN resolution 242

51% believed that it should be the total liberation of Palestine (including Israel)

4% believed that it should be improving the Palestinian negotiation conditions

2% did not provide an answer/ did not know

It is worthwhile to note that the percent of Palestinians who believe that the final goal of the Intifada should be ending the occupation and forming a Palestinian state based on UN resolution 242 has decreased since the latest JMCC poll conducted in March 2002 from 48% to 43%, and the percentage of Palestinians who believe that that the final goal of the Intifada should be the total liberation of Palestine has increased from 44% to 51%.

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

JMCC was established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. JMCC's Jerusalem and Gaza offices provide a wide range of services to journalists, researchers, international agencies, individuals and organizations interested in obtaining reliable information on the Palestinian territory.
by vic
Do you really believe that Bush has an 70 - 80% approval rating?

Chances are you and most others voted for him if he really does.

Funny how he didn't even win half the US vote, but somehow he has such a huge rating in 'the polls.'

Polls aren't very exact science in politics, I hate to tell you.

by I was at work and forgot
I don't know where I got that exact source, but here's pretty much the same story:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0508.html

One thing I haven't brought up is - what if the Palestinians *do* want Israelis to all go into the sea - is an occupation and forcing them out going to change that wish? Wouldn't they just regroup elsewhere and continue after Isreal until they all died?

Why are the people who have so little, who have had twice the number of casualties lost, who have dirt roads and no hot water and who live in *UN camps* being expected to *start* a peace process?

Why can't Israel take the first step - by ending the occupation and moving the settlers out - and see what happens?

Should the Palestinians be expected to all live in a single skyscraper while Isrealis fill in around them with their settlements?

And, have any of you writing on here even *seen* a map of the area which shows the current locations of the settlements? It's pretty shocking. For an example, someone described a checkpoint to me as taking the Bay Bridge toll plaza and reducing it to one booth, with no lane divisions. Now, picture one of those every few miles in Oaktown or SF. Then, after you reach the point where only 30% of the population even can get to work and have a job, picture trying to organize a peace process. 70% of the population with nothing to do but plan attacks - real great process happening there. They should *really* be doing the right thing - eh? Not just planning attacks on the people who took all their men and boys.

We need to have compassion for people who have been reduced to these levels and help to get them out. Punishment and murder isn't going to solve anything.

In the recent peace march in Israel, the number of people that showed up - when you equated it to London's population - would put it at an equivalent in London at 600,000.

Occupying and brutalizing and bombing the Palestinians won't solve anything. You'd have to kill every man woman and child to stop the bombings at this point.

Isn't ending the occupation and taking the settlements out a little easier? Isn't it at least worth offering? Why not just leave the Palestinians alone, and see what happens. Because, could it be any worse than what it is now??


by works for me
JMCC is respected for it's very thorough polling methodology. I suggest taking a look at their site and some of the monthly polling data.

As for the reason why Israel won't unilaterally leave Palestine, I belive you're missing the big picture. We have a classic Mexican standoff -- all of this violence stems from stalled negotiations.

Each side has a gun pointed at their head, and the only thing that ensure survival is keeping that gun pointed exaclty where it is. The only way to lower the guns is for both sides to lower them simultaneoulsy. For Israel, that gun is the settlement/occupation and for Palestine, that gun is the right of return. Both issues must be addressed in unison if there is any hope for peace.

Thankfully, the moderates on both sides know this. It is they who know who the real enemies are -- extremists like Sharon, Hamas, settlers and suicide bombers. I only wish there were more moderates in this forum -- so much venom is spewed forth here on a daily basis that it fouls any hope to make good use of our collective power.

Compromise is inevitable. Israel will never accept 4 -5 million Palestinian refugees. At the last round of negotiations, the actual figure Israel would accept was not finalized, but it was reported to be around 800,000. Palestine in turn will want monetary compensation for those who can't return, and Israel will put together a package which will include pre-built communities (former Israeli settlements) to lower the cash-payment portion of the agreement.

Compromise is the political solution the extremists of both sides have been using terrorism to avoid. Peace will happen, and so too will compromise.


"Yes, the Palestinian refugees over the years have played a large role in the Palestinian national struggle against the Zionist project. This is very natural, as your question itself indicated, because the cause of the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland was and still is the crux of the conflict with the Zionist-Western colonial vision."
Dr. George Habash answers questions posed by the Center for Palestinian Return - http://www.pflp-pal.org/main.html
by aaron
Anyone inclined to accept works for me's faux reasonableness should take a look at a map of Barak and Clinton's proposal for Palestinean independence: a bunch of non-contiguous cantons segmented off by check-points, Israeli settlements, and Israeli-only roads. This is what the liberal press in the US refers to as "Israel's generous offer". Ha.

If the South Africans had made a similar offer to the ANC it would have been, correctly, called a bantustan state.

Arafat was perfectly prepared -- and still is I'm sure -- to preside over a neo-colonial arrangement. There was plans in the works for a nifty free trade bloc with Israel and Jordan and Arafat probably would have enjoyed sheparding Palestinean proletarians into unventilated maquiladoras and calling that freedom. But he knew that if he were to accept a deal as patently humiliating as the one Barak and Clinton offered he would have been offed or overthrown in no time.
by works for me
Or you could put away prejudiced opinions and read more., like this...


Peace in the Middle East is a four-way street
by Mark Rosenblum

President George W. Bush’s recent speech on the Middle East was criticized for providing a light at the end of the tunnel ­ but no tunnel. However, several unofficial efforts are now underway to create a passage between today’s grim reality of Israeli-Palestinian violence and the two-state solution that Bush envisions for tomorrow. Although the success of such work does not look promising at the moment, it nonetheless can help create a political climate more conducive to negotiations.

There are four major attempts being made at present to flesh out the broad concept of a peaceful solution.
First, the International Crisis Group (ICG) ­a private multinational organization working to address global conflicts ­has produced a detailed set of recommendations for reaching bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon.

The ICG proposal is unique in recognizing the broader dimensions of the Israeli-Arab conflict and the need to address Syrian and Lebanese issues as well as Palestinian ones­ in the context of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Indeed, some of the more interesting aspects of the ICG effort are the serious proposals that it offers for the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, which have been largely overlooked since the collapse of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations during former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s administration. The ICG plan also carves out a prominent role for the international community in monitoring compliance with agreements, patrolling borders, deterring attacks, helping with reconstruction, and assisting refugees.

Second, the former director of the Israeli internal security service, Major General Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh, the top PLO representative in Jerusalem, recently produced a plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on Israeli recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with land swaps and slight border revisions, in exchange for Palestinian concessions on the right of return.

Third, Ziyad Abu Zayad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, has released a working document from a group of Palestinian intellectuals that looks generally like the Clinton proposal from December 2000. Both the Ayalon-Nusseibeh and Abu Zayad concepts include significant concessions on the refugee issue and the concept of sovereignty over the Al-Haram Al-Sharif Mosque.

Fourth, former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo are leading an effort to complete the work started at the bilateral negotiations held in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001. These talks benefit from being led by two of the main participants at Taba.

All four of these efforts attempt to revitalize and improve upon many of the concepts proposed by Clinton toward the end of his presidency. It would be preferable for the Bush administration itself to be picking up the threads of the peace talks and attempting to build upon them. But these proposals still perform the vital function of putting alternatives to violence into the public forum in the hope of stimulating debate and perhaps building momentum for political change.

They are floating trial balloons for ideas that may lack broad support at the moment. Further, with opinion polls consistently showing that Israelis and Palestinians are willing to pursue reconciliation once the violence stops and with the Arab League’s adoption of the peace initiative, unofficial peace proposals can encourage these better instincts. The proposals demonstrate to Israelis and Arabs on the street that partners exist for undertaking peace talks and building a better future.

Given the environment that currently exists, one cannot underestimate the importance of putting a compassionate human face on Israelis and Arabs alike. The fact that Israelis and Arabs are still meeting and working on joint projects at any level, much less trying to tackle such weighty issues as those involved in the peace process, also contributes to the long-term effort of restoring confidence between the two peoples.

But important as they are, these attempts at crafting a final status plan will simply not be enough to turn the situation around. The focus at the moment is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with Israeli-Palestinian trust almost nonexistent, it will take significant, coordinated unilateral gestures from both sides to reach a point where they are willing to seriously discuss final status arrangements.

On the Israeli side, this should involve a call for a return to negotiations, accompanied by a withdrawal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza and an evacuation of many of the settlements from the West Bank as a way to improve its own security situation and signal that it is serious about future peace talks. On the Palestinian side, the establishment of a broad, sustained, and enforced cease-fire would improve the image of the Palestinian cause and signal to Israelis a genuine commitment to returning to negotiations as the exclusive way of resolving differences.

Rebuilding a strong constituency for the renewal of negotiations is not going to be a quick process. It will take a vigorous multi-track approach to recover the ground that has been lost and to reach the goal of a contiguous, economically viable Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israel, as well as to strike accords between Israel, Syria, and Lebanon.

Mark Rosenblum is the founder and policy director of Americans for Peace Now
by Mr T
"Compromise is the political solution the extremists of both sides have been using terrorism to avoid. Peace will happen, and so too will compromise."

First off nice article. And as I have said before I generally like what yo have to say on this matter, and especially this statement. however, i cannot beleive you endorse the Clinton Barak plan? That clearly just couldn't work because who wants to have a state which is consistenly stained by sovereign territory of another. Think about it. What if Cornwallis told Washington that yes, you can have your state but, Boston, Albany, this area of Apalachia, this outpost on the Hudson, this one on the Mississipi, and this port in South Carolina will remain ours. Washington would have told him to go fuck off. With good reason. Borders need to be clearly defined. I agree with you on the fact that Israel cannot possibly take in all 1.4 million refugees, and I think that particular section of the treaty was okay, but the borders could not be accepted by any halfway sane individual. It was on this that the compromise needed to be made. Israel must stop occupying the land it took after 1967. That is their end. At least some Palestinians need to give up their 'right of return, and they all have to accept the sovereignty of Israel.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 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.

IMC Network