Friday, March 14, 2014

What a lovely partner for peace! Yet again.

by oldschooltwentysix

Back in January, I reported here.

Now, straight from Palestinian Media Watch. A member of Fatah. A very close associate of Mahmoud Abbas. Preaching words of peace and harmony as only Jew haters can.

Why must we pretend, like too many others, that these Palestinian leaders do not mean what they say, and that they and the Palestinians they control are a true partner for peace?


There are many that lecture the rest about peace and humanitarianism, and are convinced that it's all about Israel, requiring dangerous Israeli concessions when, in fact, it has not taken anything by force. Yet, these same folks ask virtually nothing from Israel's adversaries, blind to their genocidal intent so clearly seen in the video.

You "humanitarians" may believe that showing concern for Palestinians, at the hands of Israel, absolves further action in support of people in far more dire straits, but every day come increasing numbers that see right through the double standards you employ that enables the abuse of human rights, despite that you claim to further it.

(originally posted at oldschooltwentysix)

16 comments:

  1. I just read one of these alleged 'pro-Palestinian' progressives, who I'm sure thinks they stand for peace as well, at another site seem to attempt to excuse rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel as a result of there being confusion about borders. Aside from the 'logic' of that statement which I suppose I'm just not enlightened enough to grasp, I would ask what confusion there is about Gaza's borders?

    These 'humanitarians' are either the most astonishingly ignorant people in the history of the world to ever speak on one specific conflict / subject they are not involved in personally but yet with which they're nevertheless seemingly obsessed, or they are something far worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heya folks,

      sorry that I haven't been around for a few days, but I had some things to attend to out of town.

      What these so-called "humanitarians" are up to is a form of propagandistic jiu jitzu. They accuse the Jewish victims of Arab-Muslim aggression of being the aggressors and then excuse Arab aggression as a form of righteous self-defense against and imperial occupying power.

      The thing of it is, tho, I do not believe for one second that most "pro-Palestinian" activists or believers are cynical. They are, for the most part, sincere.

      Ignorant, ideologized, ethically self-righteous, and morally narcissistic, but for the most part sincere.

      Delete
    2. Then the question becomes exactly why are these people so obsessed with this one particular conflict, and not the numerous others around the world which are much worse in terms of sheer numbers (Syria), actual militant colonialist aggression (China-Tibet; Russia-Ukraine), and all other such things (speaking of China, I don't hear many, or any, peeps from these self-proclaimed 'humanitarians' against China's current practice of purchasing and turning large parts of sub-Saharan Africa into modern-day plantations).

      In that case, it simply comes down to the fact that Jews are involved.

      And when it's Jews, it's news.

      Conscious or not, their 'deep concern' over this conflict as opposed to any other is a blatant manifestation of antisemitism. They may or may not fully know what they're playing into, but they're doing it nonetheless.

      Delete
    3. Jay,

      "Then the question becomes exactly why are these people so obsessed with this one particular conflict... Conscious or not, their 'deep concern' over this conflict as opposed to any other is a blatant manifestation of antisemitism."

      I do not believe that their demonization of Israel, and thus the Jewish people, is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. That is, I do not think that its cause is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is the effect of political propaganda, not the cause of it.

      Most people think that anti-Semitism means the disliking of Jews, but that is mistaken. Whatever one feels about the Jewish people - including if one is a Jew - anti-Semitism means the spreading of well-known anti-Semitic themes, such as the blood libel or alleged nefarious Jewish control over non-Jewish governments or media.

      Contemporary anti-Semitism has numerous sources, but what it comes down to is the succesful spread of anti-Israel / anti-Jewish political propaganda for specific political purposes. It is that propaganda, itself, which seeps into the general public and thereby inclines them to repeat classical anti-Jewish themes such as the blood libel and even to do so under the banner of human rights.

      For example, when a white western progressive on Daily Kos claims that "Israel is murdering Palestinian children," this is an example of the anti-Semitic blood libel as we have known it for centuries, but in its contemporary form. The person saying this might very well object that he or she does not dislike Jews and be entirely sincere. On the contrary, he respects the age-old suffering of the Jewish people and would like to see the Jewish State of Israel cease its murdering and mistreatment of innocent Palestinian children.

      And, thus, we get people like Michael Lerner and David Gershon.

      Delete
    4. It is a manifestation. That is the effect. A question becomes when the effect overtakes the intent, such that responsibility arises not to be antisemitic. If it was another minority, the effect would cause the same quality of conduct to be considered bigotry.

      Delete
    5. School, I find your comment to be a little opaque. I am just not quite sure what you are getting at.

      I suppose that it is a chicken-and-egg question and I do not see anyone who really has a grip on it. If you have a recommendation please pass it along.

      My understanding - and this is not an absolute assertion - is that propaganda for specific political purposes either creates anti-Semitism or is largely responsible for its rise, generation upon generation. I feel reasonably certain that Ruth Wisse would agree with that view.

      In other words, David Gershon does not spread anti-Israel propaganda because he is anti-Semitic, but that the anti-Israel propaganda he ingested caused him to spread anti-Semitic themes.

      We are crudely toying with sociology here (so, what else is new?) but it would look something like this:

      Propaganda > anti-Semitism > boycotts, individual violence, pogroms and expulsions, genocide.

      My point is that anti-Semitism does not primarily drive the propaganda, but visa versa... even as we recognize how the two play off one another within an ideological-political ping-pong game.

      Delete
    6. I think School is saying the same thing I am, and I'm not even fully sure precisely where any of us really disagree.

      Such blatant singling out of Israel, even if one does claim to also 'oppose' other far worse situations when cornered (you can see the nonsense in this at places like Daily Kos where Israel-related diaries outnumber all other conflicts by a ridiculous factor), is a manifestation of antisemitism according to the best current definition, and according to any real smell test there is.

      Their actions very well may not be driven by antisemitism, but they are a definite display of contemporary antisemitism in the obsessive targeting of Israel as the world's collective Jew.

      Delete
    7. Ultimately it's like a big honking stew with many ingredients. This is why guys like Gershon et al find themselves having to claim a pro-Israel stance. IOW, "yes we are part of the stew but we are the good tasty parts." Now I would never eat a stew with nasty parts in it but some folks will eat anything it seems. And of course they will call that stew nice tasty names rather call it Antisemitism Stew, which as Jay implies, it actually is.

      Delete
  2. Fire 50-100 rockets into one of their back yards or better yet, Kerry or Obama's hood and watch what happens. Even if not one grasshopper gets hurt, watch what happens. Hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen Kerry and Obama's neighborhood. Snipers stared at me from the roof of the Capitol on my lone walk around DC as a tourist briefly passing through on a long-distance Amtrak layover, and the only two other times I was in that city were also in Union Station, where I also got the sense that security is taken pretty seriously.

      One rocket in DC would shake up the world of anybody even peripherally involved, anywhere around the world, and, if you ask me, rightfully so. If even though I kinda got the creeps from noting snipers keeping track of me as I admired the US Capitol that beautiful late July day back in 2007.

      Hypocrites would be a fitting word, considering that some even want Israel to give up half of its own capital city in a 'peace agreement' which will never realistically amount to any such thing.

      Delete
    2. Doodad,

      you are spot on.

      Violence against Jews is not considered violence by much of the western Left.

      We have to remember that in Nov 2012 southern Israel was bombarded by over 1,000 rockets and no one cared until Israel hit back.

      Delete
  3. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/open-letter-to-the-presbyterian-church-from-an-iraqi-jew/

    Speaking truth to humanitarian jerks. A must read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That indeed is a great letter, the plain truth that too often gets lost by intellectuals and the hypocritical righeous.

      It's ironic, and deserving a post of its own, that progressives demonize born agains, actual friends of Israel, while real enemies of Israel, "humanitarian" Christians like these Presbyterians, who clamor to deny Jews as a people, mostly get a pass.

      From their blatant attempt to repudiate Zionism, they appear to hate the collective Jew, Israel, more than they care about the suffering of Palestinians and many others from conflict and tyranny.

      If the issue of Palestine went away they would likely find another reason to object to Israel as a legitimate state, but no other.

      Delete
  4. by the way, what never ceases to amaze me is that leading members of the great Arab-Muslim majority in the Middle East can scream to the heavens for the genocide of the Jews and the western-left simply doesn't care.

    Yet, if we say, "Hey, that Imam is calling for the murder of the Jews," it makes us racist even among "progressive Zionists."

    What point is there in even fighting this fight if our fellow diaspora Jews are fighting for the other side?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is no Palestinian "left."

    "Reflecting on the comments of these "moderates," I was forced to realize that the conflict is far deeper and more serious than I allowed myself to believe. It was not just about settlements and "occupation," as Palestinian spokespeople have led the Israeli left to believe. I realized that the Palestinians, who were willing to accept the need for peace with Israel, did so because Israel was strong. I realized that, contrary to the leftist views in Israel, which support the establishment of a Palestinian state because the Palestinians have a right (repeat: right) to sovereignty in their homeland, there is no such parallel Palestinian "left" that recognizes the right (repeat: right) of the Jewish people to sovereignty in its ancient homeland."

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.ca/2014/03/an-israeli-leftists-lonely-search-for.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent point, now isn't it? There is no meaningful Palestinian-Arab political left that acknowledges our rights to our own homeland. In fact, some on the Jewish Left do not either.

      It seems to me, Doodad, that the Jewish people are at a cross-roads and there is a significant disconnect between Israeli-Jewish thinking on the conflict versus diaspora Jewish thinking. The Israelis are more hard-nosed because they live there and its their kids who will have to deal with directly with foreign policy consequences. I have always been an advocate for the two-state solution, but it's obvious that there will be no negotiated conclusion of hostilities within such a scenario.

      So?

      What's next?

      How do you position yourself on the single-state solution?

      Delete