It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Israeli government, its representatives and advocates to get a fair hearing even in US campuses. Look at the desperation of Oren’s host here, as he virtually pleads with the crowd to stop heckling Oren.
The Gaza blockade explained by an Israeli official:
“The Karni crossing won’t resume operating,” said one. “At least not as long as Hamas controls the Strip.”
Remember, this is after rockets have fallen to practically zero (after a mutual ceasefire, and thena unilateral ceasefire). The Israeli government is teaching the Palestinians a) they must vote for collaborationist parties or suffer the consequences b) Israel alone has the right to commit terrorism.
There will come a time when people will be asked why they were silent during the siege on Gaza, and why they didn’t speak out.
Look at how he reports on an Australian citizen (Bridgette Chappell – who looks oddly familiar, I may know her slightly) being arrested in the West Bank.
She had also been a part of several weekly protests against the separation barrier built by Israel to enclose the West Bank to prevent suicide bombers from crossing into Israel.[emphasis added]
I mean, firstly, it is unlikely he has even interviewed her (obviously that would require actual journalism), let alone people who know her. That would require actual journalism. But put that aside. Is that why she is protesting the “separation barrier” as he calls it? Note how it’s not even a case of “the Israeli government says the wall was built for the following reasons”. It’s simply – this is why it was built. He’s so biased that he repeats the official claim of the Israeli government without even sourcing it (obviously, we should trust whatever it tells us, especially a supposed journalist covering the area), without even pretending to offer the contrary view. Such as, for example, the view of those protesters Koutsoukis pretended to be reporting on. From Koutsoukis’s balanced and fair article, we would think protesters simply support suicide bombers crossing into Israel.
Also, note how for most of the article, Koutsoukis claims its about visa violation issues (surely, the reason she was “arrested at gunpoint” in Koutsoukis’s words). At the end, Koutsoukis casually mentions – but doesn’t think this is significant or is any reason to revise his earlier claims:
In court the prosecution admitted the IDF had made a mistake by arresting the couple in Ramallah, but said the two women posed a security threat because of their role in inciting protests against the state of Israel. [Emphasis added]
So the article begins: “THE Israeli Supreme Court last night ordered the release of an Australian woman who was arrested at gunpoint in Ramallah on Sunday because her visa had expired.”
Right? First, he tells us she was arrested because her visa had expired. Then, he quotes her saying she was arrested for political reasons, without explaining ANY context, such as the general crackdown on NIF, on international support for Israeli NGOs like Breaking the Silence, on the history of violence and prosecutions against activists in the occupied territories and so on (let alone, the reasons for protesting the apartheid wall). THEN, almost at the end, Koutsoukis reveals the prosecution had charged them with being a “security threat” because they incited protests against the Israeli government. The two activists of course are totally vindicated by the facts, but Koutsoukis hides this in his framework of Israeli propaganda.
Note also at the end – he says some Israeli “said he was Ms Chappell’s boyfriend”. Everything said by leftists (let alone Palestinians – count the Palestinians he sources in this, or more generally) is to be treated with skepticism and openly sourced so that people can judge it for themselves. On the other hand, the Israeli government is simply trustworthy, so we should basically just believe what they say, no need to even say who said it.
This is actually a surprisingly good and decent article at J-Wire. I think it’s remarkable the extent to which the ultra right Zionist consensus is proving impossible to maintain in public. The author lives in Israel, and is alert to many of the issues in Israel/Palestine. I would take exception to one thing – his seeming praise of the JNF (surely he should know better).
I was linked to it by someone on Galus. I was going to say who, but I might’ve misread it. Originally, I saw the words “neo-fascist” applied to Im Tirtzu, which I found surprising. After all, it can’t be so hard to find counterparts (to whom such epithets were never applied [and I think they are inappropriate in both instances]) in Australia, such as those who have called me anti-Semitic and urged that newmatilda stop printing things I write.
This interview with Desmond Travers – the lead military expert for the Goldstone Mission – is fascinating.
HC – Why did you agree to undertake such a contentious and monumental role? What was your motivation? Politics? Justice?
DT – I had a very, very apolitical reason for doing this. If one teaches about war crimes, one has to be up to speed on current military operations. I wanted to see this so that I could produce a better product for investigators when I was giving lectures in The Hague later. I had no special romantic or moral agenda, I simply wanted to see how a modern, highly technically advanced army fought against an insurgency, because this is the new phenomenon. People are now saying this is the way it is going to be from here on out. Even the horrid word “asymmetric” has come into the conversation, which I reject entirely. It’s a totally nonsensical word, but it’s a big word so it impresses people. When I hear the Israelis saying, “How else can you fight an asymmetric war except by killing civilians?” immediately a razor sharp critique apparatus starts working in my head because it is a nonsensical phrase.
…
And in fact I only came across two incidents of where there was an actual combat situation, in other words where there were Hamas operatives and there were Israelis, and the reason I came across that was quite simply because the Israelis had got a 59 year old man and made him go into this house where there were three Hamas operatives in hiding, repeatedly, because they wouldn’t go in themselves. This human shield tactic, known among the IDF soldiers as the “Johnny” or “Good Neighbour” tactic brings me to another point. It was practiced and applied in all the Israeli brigade areas in Gaza and is strongly indicative of prior training. It does, however, also reveal an emphasis in that training on “risk aversion”. This aversion in turn imposed the transference of such risk onto the civilian population be they women or children. This is very troubling for various reasons but one in particular to me, an ex-soldier, and it is this: What is an army that commits its soldiers to avoidance of risk? Whatever it is now, it is no longer an army, in my view.
[We know what the Israeli occupation forces really are - ed]
…
DT – It astonishes me the degree to which the Western world have come to accept the idea that Red Crescent Ambulances are military trucks for ordnance and that mosques are repositories for military material. I was actually upbraided, when I came before the Irish government’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which is a public forum; I was upbraided by the only Jewish member of Parliament in Ireland because when I said we found no evidence of mosques being used whatsoever, he said, “How many mosques did you examine?” And I said that I had examined two, because they were ones that had been struck by missiles, and he said, “But did you examine any of the mosques that weren’t struck?” In other words, if I had not examined all mosques I had not provided a sufficiency of proof that they were ALL free of weapons…
Let me just give you an example of where I see it. Very few people have taken on board the implied negative stereotyping inferences about mosques and Red Crescent ambulances but let me give you a case in point. It couldn’t be applied elsewhere. During the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland if a British public figure or a military figure had said, “Catholic Churches are warehouses for Semtex”, there would have been an international outcry, especially in the Catholic world, over such a slur. HC – Double Standards. DT – Totally, totally. And then when, for example, you see photographs of weapons caches found in mosques, like ones taken in the Zaytoun area where the Israeli Giv’ati Brigade went in – and demonstrated a particular enthusiasm for brutality and racist abusiveness in their operation in that area – I would say that unless they can give me absolute forensic proof, I do not believe the photographs.
…
HC – Did your report find the Israeli politicians and military leadership culpable of war crimes? DT – Well, in fact, it was Professor Norton who drew my attention to it more than anything else in conversation, there were extremely aggressive statements made about what the Israelis would do when they went into Gaza made by Tzipi Livni and by the Minister of Defence and by several generals and some academics. Those statements are incitements of war crimes in their own right.
…
HC – Much of the British public seem to have reacted very favourably to the findings of the Goldstone Report and have been moved to campaign against Israel by taking part in Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns, protests and so on. How best do you suggest the public now demonstrate their support for the Palestinian people and the findings of your Report, as well as their condemnation of Israel?
DT – I think they (the public) have to be alert to the insidious anti-Islamic inferences that legitimise, down the road, actions that would not be tolerated any place else in the world. For example, when I was in Lebanon there was a standard accusation that Red Crescent ambulances were ammunition carriers for Hisb’Allah. So what did they do when they got to Gaza? They knock out 29 ambulances, kill 16 ambulance crews and injure 19 and the West doesn’t even rate it! Ergo, now that mosques (are seen as) a place for ammunition, next time they’ll hit all the mosques in Gaza and the West are going to say, oh well, we’ve been prepared, we’ve been conditioned, we know mosques are ammunition warehouses. The fact that they firebombed Al-Quds Hospital means that it was just an extension of the ambulance park outside that they had levelled. You know that they drove Merkava tanks over ambulances? So I would be saying to young people, it’s time we gave the same courtesy and civility in our determinations of guilt or innocence to the persons of the Islamic tradition just as persons of the Judeo-Christian traditions have come to expect such considerations.
…
DT – Probably not but that would be a matter to be determined by jurists. But what I would like to see is, a term used as a consciousness raising issue. Gaza has now come into the history books in the same way as Guernica, Dresden, Stalingrad. Gaza is a gulag, the only gulag in the Western hemisphere; maintained by democracies; closed-off from food, water, air.
…
[note also how left wing the interviewer is]
HC – Absolutely. Let’s go back to Gilad Shalit for a moment. By naming him, you say that, in a way, you were trying to address one of the causes of the invasion, but on the other side there are still thousands of men, women and children and not one was mentioned by name. You only mention one name, on one side, (Israel’s) and he is a soldier, whereas on the other side they are civilians. He was given prominence over all of them.
DT – I think mainly it was because of the realisation during our interviews amongst those who had been interrogated that the Israelis were very, very anxious to get his release.
HC – But then don’t you think it is playing into Israel’s hands to mention the things that they are concerned about and not the other side? Do you not think that, in a way, you were trying to appease them?
DT – Can I come back to the question of Palestinian prisoners? When the Palestinians sign up to, say, the release of Shalit for 2000 Palestinians, they degrade their own value system. They ought not to do that. But then no civilized country ought to detain 8000, is it 8000 Palestinians? Very nearly 9000.
HC – I think the most disconcerting thing to me is the number of child prisoners. A child throwing a stone at the [Israeli apartheid] wall can get up to 20 years in jail, which means that the Israelis attribute more value to an inanimate object than they do to a human life, which is crazy.
DT – The treatment of children in this fashion is unacceptable. One human rights representative seemed to accept that it was understandable that the Israeli security forces had a right to take this kind of action when children throw stones at them. I explained that the British Forces in Northern Ireland had the same issues to contend with and never had to resort to such measures. Nevertheless, they won! Further, a soldier who takes issue with a child for throwing a stone demeans himself.
HC – All standards of international law are against the arrest, detention and torture of children and…
DT – All I can say is that it is unspeakable, outrageous. Some of the items described to us about the detention of children are very, very, very troubling.
It’s weird – one of my most read posts was on Hamid Dabashi. Has he googled himself? Where did the interest come from?
I’d like to recommend two books I’ve just read. Walter LaFeber’s Inevitable Revolutions, and Fake and Funk’s Scramble for Africa. The former is an outstanding study of US policy towards Central America during the 20th century, and the latter is a study of Darfur activism in the West, placed in political context. The research and analysis is outstanding.
Most interesting is – at Galus Australis, they printed an article by Larry Stillman, which says Israel practices apartheid. I think he very cautiously hints at the end for a preference for a one state solution.
Phil Mendes, of course, writes in to complain. He remarkably says the apartheid analogy (and it is not an analogy – there is international law which criminalises apartheid) – “is based on essentialising all Israelis – academics, sportspersons such as Shahar Peer etc – as uniquely evil by virtue of their nationality and ethnicity.” Unsurprisingly, Mendes thinks another critic of the Israeli occupation is anti-Semitic. Remarkably, Mendes then says “there are some similarities with Indonesia and East Timor”. It is remarkable the extent to which Mendes moral compass has no North. The occupation in East Timor was genocidal. About a third of the Timorese population was wiped out. Presumably, the only reason Mendes would prefer this comparison is that it would not have the same political implications as the apartheid comparison, given that most people thought boycotting apartheid in South Africa was legitimate.
But then, Mendes goes on:
“But these are legitimate debates unlike the apartheid analogy. Those who propound the latter demonstrate that they have moved well outside the boundaries of the mainstream Jewish Left.”
So this is not a legitimate debate. Presumably, because such views are anti-Semitic, and we can’t debate anti-Semitism can we. Saying its outside the boundaries of the “mainstream Jewish Left” is a joke. The Jewish left isn’t mainstream. Mendes is comfortable within the Labour/Kadima/Likud fold where he belongs on the Israel/Palestine question. The liberal/progressive/left is perfectly comfortable with the apartheid comparison. In Israel, let’s say the progressive liberal end of the spectrum (not the left) is haaretz, Akiva Eldar, B’Tselem, Meretz. They’ve all used the apartheid comparison. (for the last, see Aloni and Sarid). None of them even should be considered the Left. The left is people like Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein (etc). The Left in Israel is (at least arguably) Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Anarchists Against the Wall, Jeff Halper, Gush Shalom etc.
But I want to make one point. Mendes describes “the inconvenient fact for some on the pro-Palestinian Left that the East Timorese resistance never blew up Indonesian children in the discos and pizza parlours of Jakarta.” This is a fundamentally reactionary point – that Palestinian rights are somehow less worthy because of the atrocities of Hamas. (one could oppose rights for blacks in South Africa on the same basis. In fact, Mendes has counterparts in the case of Apartheid South Africa who would make exactly the same argument. Why grant rights to such savages as would practice necklacing?). It reminds me of a passage I’m reading in a book right now (David Day (2001) Claiming a Continent. Sydney, Harper Collins. p 60)
The military technology of the Aborigines, limited mainly to spears and waddies, was well suited for hit and run attacks on small parties of Europeans, particularly if they could be taken unawares. But it was incapable of defending their territory in a sustained way against European attacks using guns and horses. The Aboriginal use of such guerilla tactics helped to undercut any sympathy that their plight evoked among the Europeans. It painted them as treacherous savages who did not merit the respect they might otherwise have conceded to foes adopting more conventional methods of warfare.
The National Times, of course, has vulgar Israeli propaganda about its aid in Haiti. This is why people are cynical about Israel’s efforts. I mean, look at the vulgarity of what is written
“Israelis seem determined to do all they can to help the inhabitants of a frail nation thousands of miles away, people with no connection to Israel other than the fact that they both have a history of suffering. Watching the Israeli response, it is striking to see the enormous gap between the grotesque image of Israel woven by its enemies and the reality of the country’s character.”
The propagandist goes on to claim that Israel is so unfairly smeared, even being accused of killing Palestinian children and being bloodthirsty and amoral creatures (note the conflation of actual criticisms with fabrications). These are supposedly all in the traditions of medieval anti-Semitism. And then:
They will ignore Israel’s restraint but if the escalation ultimately leads to a response, they will fulminate against Israel’s efforts to stop its attackers and they will ignore it in discussing the tough question of the Gaza blockade. What would critics do if their own civilians were subjected to thousands of rocket attacks?
It is not a tough question, and if anyone were to talk about civilians being subjected to rocket attacks, it would be Gazans. “A grateful mother named her new baby “Israel”.” Look at how even that was trotted out. The conclusion is unbelievable:
Israel’s demonisers will concoct sinister reasons for Israel’s good deeds. You can count on that. Israel’s response to Haiti’s plight shows the country’s true face – a face its enemies don’t want you to see.
I think its vulgar, but I think this shows how defensive Israeli propaganda is. To wipe away the moral stains from Gaza, they can’t just aggressively promote the aid effort. Um, I think this is the problem Israel faces. Bad news sticks on countries easier than good news, and once a country has a reputation of violating human rights, it is hard (if not impossible) to erase that reputation.
But let’s go from the dreaded critics of Israel to Israeli media. What do they say? Put aside the Ynet article I mentioned the other day. Let’s just look at Haaretz.
Firstly, it’s basically openly acknowledged that the Haiti operation was designed to show a new face to the world of Israel.
Netanyahu told the returning team. “As many plot against us, distort and muddy our names, you have shown the real IDF.”
…
“Many have tried recently to tarnish our image,” Ashkenazi said in his welcome. “With you deeds, you have proven that the opposite is true.”
…
In his welcoming address, Barak added his own accolades and praised the team for its efforts. “We all watched with excitement as the eyes of the world were on you. It warmed the heart to see you fulfill your professional mission.”
“In a world where the IDF is criticized, you showed the true spirit of the IDF and the true spirit of Israel,” Barak added.
Okay, so let’s read Akiva Eldar – who really isn’t a radical by any means – in Haaretz.
But the remarkable identification with the victims of the terrible tragedy in distant Haiti only underscores the indifference to the ongoing suffering of the people of Gaza. Only a little more than an hour’s drive from the offices of Israel’s major newspapers, 1.5 million people have been besieged on a desert island for two and a half years. Who cares that 80 percent of the men, women and children living in such proximity to us have fallen under the poverty line? How many Israelis know that half of all Gazans are dependent on charity, that Operation Cast Lead created hundreds of amputees, that raw sewage flows from the streets into the sea?
…
The disaster in Haiti is a natural one; the one in Gaza is the unproud handiwork of man. Our handiwork. The IDF does not send cargo planes stuffed with medicines and medical equipment to Gaza. The missiles that Israel Air Force combat aircraft fired there a year ago hit nearly 60,000 homes and factories, turning 3,500 of them into rubble. Since then, 10,000 people have been living without running water, 40,000 without electricity. Ninety-seven percent of Gaza’s factories are idle due to Israeli government restrictions on the import of raw materials for industry. Soon it will be one year since the international community pledged, at the emergency conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, to donate $4.5 billion for Gaza’s reconstruction. Israel’s ban on bringing in building materials is causing that money to lose its value.
A few days before Israeli physicians rushed to save the lives of injured Haitians, the authorities at the Erez checkpoint prevented 17 people from passing through in order to get to a Ramallah hospital for urgent corneal transplant surgery. Perhaps they voted for Hamas. At the same time that Israeli psychologists are treating Haiti’s orphans with devotion, Israeli inspectors are making sure no one is attempting to plant a doll, a notebook or a bar of chocolate in a container bringing essential goods into Gaza.
…
Even the images of our excellent doctors in Haiti cannot blur our ugly face in the Strip.
With the mission’s return to Israel Thursday, the real criticism should be directed toward much of the Israeli media – which overstated its praise for the mission’s work and turned them into the heart of the story.
…
It will be intersting to see whether the Israeli media will continue to cover rehabilitation efforts now that there are no more uniformed Israelis in Port-au-Prince.
Israel donates 0.042 percent of its Gross Domestic Product in aid to developing countries – one fifth of the average amount of aid contributed by members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which Israel is seeking to join.
A large portion of what Israel declares as assistance to developing countries are actually funds earmarked for the absorption of Ethiopian immigrants in Israel.
And of course, those who follow the Israeli press know how well Ethiopians are treated in Israel.
Then there is this video of Israeli satire, surely motivated by hatred of Israel too. (I particularly enjoyed the “Begin” joke)
I mean, the fixation on Israeli aid seems bizarre even before looking at the facts about. Lots of countries gave some sort of aid. Why single out Israel’s aid? If Haiti needs anything, it could benefit from a cancellation of its debt (see Oxfam), being paid the debt it is owed by France. It could also use the restoration of its twice elected president, in exile after being kidnapped by the US, with the support of France and complicity of much of the world. Sending in security – like Israel and the US did – helps US foreign policy goals, but is hardly the most urgent (or even a real) issue facing Haiti.
Okay, so moving past Haiti, what’s Israel deflecting attention from? Firstly, the Goldstone Report remains an issue. Given Amnesty, HRW, Dugard and Breaking the Silence also wrote reports, it is a measure of his significance that he remains such a nightmare for Israel. Note the casual threat at the end of the article.
Arab commentators and leaders say they hope the [Goldstone] report will paralyze the IDF in the next round. Asked about it this week, a senior officer in the General Staff replied without hesitation: “When missiles fly at Tel Aviv in the next war, and we presume that they will, we will respond with all the necessary force. Don’t delude yourselves that anyone’s going to wait for the lawyers.”
This casual admission that the army won’t worry over whether they are committing war crimes is almost unbelievable, yet of course will also go ignored.
The Haaretz editorial attacked the terrorism (and it doesn’t shy away from using this term) of settlers, who responded again to evacuations of settlements by attacking Palestinians (they call this a “price tag”)
There is no way to describe the West Bank settlers’ attack on the Palestinian village of Bitilu but as a well-planned terror attack. The settlers’ “military” organization and violent resistance to the cabinet decision to destroy the illegal outpost of Givat Menachem, as described by Chaim Levinson in Haaretz yesterday, are no different from the activities of other terrorist organizations. This includes the incitement, ranting and raving preceding the act of vengeance on Bitilu, the attempt to set a house on fire, the injuring of villagers with stones, and the threat to continue these violent tactics.
Also in occupation news you won’t read in the odes to aid in Haiti, there’s female soldier testimonies about the occupied territories and the routine crimes they commit against the Palestinians. It’s a very important article. But it won’t be publicised anywhere. Certainly, I don’t expect to read about it in Australian media, which never reports on these things.
I’ll post a few bits.
A female Seam Line Border Guard spoke of the chase after illegal aliens: “In half an hour you can catch 30 people without any effort.” Then comes the question of what should be done with those who were caught – including women, children, and elderly. “They would have them stand, and there’s the well-known Border Guard song (in Arabic): ‘One hummus, one bean, I love the Border Guard’ – they would make them sing this. Sing, and jump. Just like they do with recruits… The same thing only much worse. And if one of them would laugh, or if they would decide someone was laughing, they would punch him. Why did you laugh? Smack… It could go on for hours, depending on how bored they are. A shift is eight hours long, the times must be passed somehow.”
Most of the female soldiers say that they sensed there was a problem during their service, but did nothing.
Another female soldier’s testimony, who served at the Erez checkpoint, indicates how violence was deeply rooted in the daily routine: “There was a procedure in which before you release a Palestinian back into the Strip – you take him inside the tent and beat him.”
That was a procedure?
“Yes, together with the commanders.”
How long did it last?
“Not very long; within 20 minutes they would be back in the base, but the soldiers would stop at the post to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes while the guys from the command post would beat them up.”
This happened with every illegal alien?
“There weren’t that many…it’s not something you do everyday, but sort of a procedure. I don’t know if they strictly enforced it each and every time…it took me a while to realize that if I release an illegal alien on my end, by the time he gets back to Gaza he will go through hell… two or three hours can pass by the time he gets into the Strip. In the case of the kid, it was a whole night. That’s insane, since it’s a ten minute walk. They would stop them on their way; each soldier would give them a ‘pet’, including the commanders.”
…
“We caught a five-year-old…can’t remember what he did…we were taking him back to the territories or something, and the officers just picked him up, slapped him around and put him in the jeep. The kid was crying and the officer next to me said ‘don’t cry’ and started laughing at him. Finally the kid cracked a smile – and suddenly the officer gave him a punch in the stomach. Why? ‘Don’t laugh in my face’ he said.”
…
“ There was a policewoman, she was bored, so okay, she said they threw stones at her. They asked her who threw them. ‘I don’t know, two in grey shirts, I didn’t manage to see them.’ They catch two guys with grey shirts… beat them. Is it them? ‘No, I don’t think so.’ Okay, a whole incident, people get beaten up. Nothing happened that day.”
…
A female Border Guard officer spoke of how Palestinian children would arrive at checkpoints with bags of toys for sale – and how the Border Guard would deal with them: “‘Okay, throw the bag away. Oh, I need some batteries,’, and they would take, they would take whatever they wanted.”
What would they take?
“Toys, batteries, anything… cigarettes. I’m sure they took money as well, but I don’t remember that specifically.”
…
“Because the one child is Jewish and the other is Palestinians, it’s somehow okay… and it was obvious that there would be a mess afterwards. And you also don’t really know which side you are on…I have to make a switch in my head and keep hating the Arabs and justify the Jews.”
In her frustration, the same female soldier told of how she once spit on a Palestinian in the street: “I don’t think he even did anything. But again, it was cool and it was the only thing I could do to… you know, I couldn’t take brag that I caught a terrorists… But I could spit on them and degrade them and laugh at them.”
Another female Sachlav soldier told the story of the time an eight-year-old settler girl in Hebron decided to bash a stone into the head of a Palestinian adult crossing her passing by her in the street. “Boom! She jumped on him, and gave it to him right here in the head… then she started screaming ‘Yuck, yuck, his blood is on me’”.
The soldier said the Palestinian then turned in the girl’s direction – a move that was interpreted as a threat by one of the soldiers in the area, who added a punch of his own: “And I stood there horrified… an innocent little girl in her Shabbat dress… the Arab covered the wound with his hand and ran.” She recalled another incident with the same child: “I remember she had her brother in the stroller, a baby. She was giving him stones and telling him: ‘Throw them at the Arab’.”
Fisk is back in Palestine. To be honest, though I think he is an outstanding correspondent, he hasn’t been good in a while. With the exception of his reporting from Iran after the elections, he has generally avoided the kinds of areas where he used to be the best Western reporter.
Even the western NGOs working in Area C find their work for Palestinians blocked by the Israelis. This is not just a “hitch” in the “peace process” – whatever that is – but an international scandal. Oxfam, for example, asked the Israelis for a permit to build a 300m2 capacity below-ground reservoir along with 700m of underground 4in pipes for the thousands of Palestinians living around Jiftlik. It was refused. They then gave notice that they intended to construct an above-ground installation of two glass-fibre tanks, an above-ground pipe and booster pump. They were told they would need a permit even though the pipes were above ground – and they were refused a permit. As a last resort, Oxfam is now distributing rooftop water tanks.
When Obama’s elderly envoy George Mitchell headed home in humiliation this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated his departure by planting trees in two of the three largest Israeli colonies around Jerusalem. With these trees at Gush Etzion and Ma’aleh Adumim, he said, he was sending “a clear message that we are here. We will stay here. We are planning and we are building.” These two huge settlements, along with that of Ariel to the north of Jerusalem, were an “indisputable part of Israel forever.”
I disagree with Fisk here though. He claims the first holocaust of the 2oth century was the Armenian genocide. What about Leopold’s genocide in the Congo? And the German genocide against the Herero in South West Africa? He does deal with Israeli hypocrisy on the Armenian genocide though:
This piece of brash hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by Yossi Sarid who has described how, a few months after Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the Gaza war, “an important Israeli personality telephoned me and said the following: ‘Now you have to hit back at the Turks, to denounce them for the crimes they committed against the Armenians You, Yossi, have the right to do so…’” Sarid was appalled. “I was filled with revulsion and my soul wanted to puke,” he wrote in Haaretz. “The person who telephoned me was an example of the ugly Israeli who had disgracefully been at the forefront of those who denied the Armenian Holocaust.” So now “new tunes” – Sarid’s phrase – are being heard in Jerusalem: “The Turks are the last ones who have the right to teach us ethics.”
Firstly, I wish to endorse Gregory Wilpert’s book on Chavez, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power. It very carefully and seriously looks at Chavez’s policies until 2006, with illuminating discussion of historical background. It is obviously a much better book, and a better left wing guide to Venezuela, than Tariq Ali’s hollow Pirates of the Carribean. For my part, I think Wilpert’s study essentially shows much that I had already suspected. Chavez’s policies have been rather moderate, and in my view have not come near to matching his extravagant rhetoric. For me, I personally have been unable to speak in even fake enthusiastic terms about Chavez since looking into the issue of illiteracy in Venezuela – or should I say, his alleged eradication of it, which has proven to be unsubstantiated. Whether or not his literacy programs are desirable, I consider it inexcusable for a government to lie about such a thing. Pretending to help out the workers is not the same as actually doing so. There are various positive measures in Venezuela. Among these should be included the food programs, elimination of poverty (even if it tracked economic growth from oil, which has actually been disputed elsewhere, this obviously isn’t a common feature of economic growth in comparable countries), and the attempts to create a participatory democracy. The problem is Chavez has also created very strong presidential powers, and has closely tied himself to every reform measure. Rather than creating or empowering a movement, he is leading people. This is not the way to 21st century socialism. There are lots of other issues in Venezuela worth discussing. But I think a lot of people on the left in Australia are under illusions about the Chavez government. Wilpert’s book is possibly the best eye opener on what is really happening there. And considering his website Venezuelanalysis is very popular among the Trotskyists here who worship Chavez, I think he should be considered carefully.
Australia Day and Movie World
okay, if that works, you should see two of the Australian chauvinism t shirts that were on sale not so far from where I was staying in the Gold Coast. They were worn by at least half a dozen people I saw around in SP, and I’ve seen someone wearing one of those t-shirts today in Bondi Junction. It’s revolting – and it’s completely fake. There’s nothing that makes these people with Aryan features more Australian than anyone else living here. I’ve been complaining to practically everyone I know for the last week about nationalism and patriotism, so I won’t dwell on it too much here. Thankfully, on Australia Day, I saw Avatar, which I should write about here too when I have more time, and avoided crowds of idiots.
However, because I’m white, I’ve felt less personally threatened by these racist idiots. But I think I was a bit shaken by the ease of transfer of prejudices. I went to Movie World. They had a stunt show which seemed to me based around vulgar anti-Semitic stereotyping. The hammy bad guy who makes life difficult for the directors of the stunt show is … Goldstein. Goldstein is the boss obsessed with money. Oh, and then there’s the bumbling Marty, who on his first day almost ruins everything. Then at the end, we learn he’s related to Goldstein – presumably why he got the job. I was amazed that such a thing could be publicly performed, that Movie World of all places could get away with such stereotyping, that however many people who saw it before me had regarded it as unobjectionable. Just now I wrote a message of complaint to Movie World – we’ll see how they reply. To me, it was just a message that anti-Semitism too is not so far from the big stage.
Israel and Palestine stuff
Firstly, I waited a long time for Yitzhak Laor’s book, and got it as soon as I could. It was a very disappointing book. It was badly written, contained nothing new on the Israelis he loves to pick on, and had a surprising amount of waffle for such a tiny book. I do not recommend it. Read his essay, Did you two squabble? That’s Laor at his best.
Meanwhile, there’s been all sorts of fuss about Israel’s propaganda mission to Haiti. Why is this a big deal? Because it’s obviously propaganda, we keep hearing about how wonderful Israel is, and why don’t people say how great Israel is? The whole thing is a farce. Firstly, if Israel wanted to help the starving and desperate, it could start by letting food and repairs to the water supply into Gaza. Secondly, no one would talk about it at all if the Israeli government and its fawning servants internationally didn’t constantly raise it. Even Bradley Burston, who can think independently sometimes, fell over himself to attack those who responded with the appropriate cynicism to Israel’s aid efforts. So put aside the article in Electronic Intifada. Take what happened. Israel sent armed officers to Haiti. This is not the most urgent and pressing need in Haiti – those who have been following the cynicism of US foreign aid and its actual effects on Haitians should not be surprised this was Israel’s agenda. Yet to single this Israeli effort out as flowing from some halo-like nobility verges on the childish.
Larry Stillman at the AJDS, however, went to the effort to complain that Saudi Arabia’s help was less than Israel. Yes: perhaps he hasn’t noticed that the only people who seem to think highly of Saudi Arabia are on the AIJAC payroll. Of course, Israel has already left Haiti. Presumably, this is because the crisis there is now over. It’s not because they’ve had their photo op. Netanyahu couldn’t even make it to Copenhagen. But I’ll put that aside too. Note in the YNet article Israel is thanked… by Colombians. Presumably, the propaganda was for US sake – choosing one of the last American puppets in Latin America (who have a terrible human rights record) to thank them is almost funny. Why couldn’t they find a Haitian to thank them? I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t have sent aid (but it shouldn’t have sent soldiers). I’m saying people should not believe its from any more noble reason than pretty much any other aid given, except Israel’s aid is particularly cynical, and credit given to it is particularly remarkable given the plight of Gazans.
I would also like to add that credit should be given to AJDS for strongly opposing the siege on Gaza. They oppose the “collective punishment” of Gaza. Good. The only thing I have reservations about is talking about Australia’s experience as a peace maker, citing East Timor. After decades of supporting the occupation there, we really don’t warrant such a title. In the midst of occupying Afghanistan (and perhaps quietly Iraq too), it’s ridiculous.
Funnily enough, Stillman links to a very good article on Israel’s aid to Haiti, based largely around an article translated from Yediot Ahronot by… Sol Salbe. If he’s reading this – he sent me an email ages ago about whether I’d like to join his emailing list. I said yes and never heard from him again – what’s that about?
Also, I enjoyed reading this silly article about Jewish leftists. It claims that the Left insists that Jews are European. He then declares: no, we should be able to define ourselves. Okay, firstly this is ridiculous. Secondly, I do define myself as a Jew of European background. My parents are white, so am I. The author claims that Leftists say Jews “falsely pretend to be descended from the ancient Judeans, Israelites and Hebrews, whose connection to the land of Israel is merely a post-Holocaust and Western colonial phenomenon.” Isn’t it funny when people throw tantrums at imaginary enemies? But then, remember all those eminent signatories to a letter against the boycott which made basic factual errors. Of course, Mr Forbes is very impressed by Mahmoud Abbas. No surprises there. In an article which rails against Ahmadinejad’s human rights violations and Holocaust Denial, this isn’t felt to be inconsistent. But then, he also rails against Iran’s imaginary threats against Israel, oblivious to the routine threats issued by Israel to Iran (and for that matter, to Palestinians and Lebanon too). And in that case, Israel actually might bomb Iran (in that it has the capacity to do so), and it pressures the US to do so too.
Interestingly, this week’s Jewish News (29/01/10) has a poll. 55% of Jews say Yom Haatzmaut means more to them than Australia Day. I don’t celebrate either day, but this at least explains why I was spared Australian patriotism growing up, for which I’m thankful. In the vox pop, everyone said YH.
In the op eds, Mendes shows how left wing he is by opposing Tony Abbot, and offering a pious hope that Australian Jews will too. The quotes below his article are more interesting. Under the headlines as follows, it says
Indigenous Australia
“The gap between Aborigines’ and other Australians’ life expectancy is more the result of different lifestyles than different access to health services.”
Iraq
“Iraq will need substantial western help for some years to come, but, thanks to the surge, there’s now every chance that it will come to resemble Jordan or Egypt rather than Iran or Somalia.”
They’re both pretty disgraceful statements, and it is good AJN provides them (though one suspects the editors didn’t find them appalling). Yet the interesting thing is – Iraq will in some respects combine the theocracy of Iran with the instability of Somalia for a whiel. Yet Abbot’s support for repressive dictatorships really says enough about his foreign policy views.
Next is James Kennard, who was very proud at his son having a gun in the Israeli army. He says he reads the Economist (which is surprising, because often its coverage of Israel/Palestine is pretty good). He is strongly opposed to US drone attacks in Pakistan. “The intended victims are not even terrorists, but “suspects” who have never been tried in court. And the number of civilians slaughtered in these attacks is “unknown” because a journalist has not bothered to find out.” Kennard claims the “world stands by. Not a whimper of protest”. Apparently he hasn’t noticed the opposition to this (eg Scahill, Chomsky, Tariq Ali etc) comes from the left – not to mention the Pakistani public. Not to brag, but I’m also on the record opposing these attacks. Yet Kennard cites double standards, forgetting that these crimes are exactly what Israel has done for years in targeted assassinations – if he were consistent, he would oppose these crimes, whether carried out by the US or Israel.
Amira Hass wrote a very good and important column in Haaretz. She knows Gaza very well, is scrupulously honest, and is not keen to whitewash Hamas. (eg “But by and large, this variegated whole sounded a message of militant pacifism and feminism, liberation theories and a lot of faith in the cumulative, positive effect of popular, non-hierarchical action and its ability to bring about change.
It’s a pity, I thought to myself: The Egyptians are preventing us from seeing what happens when this direct, transparent democracy meets the Hamas regime.”)
The important bit is here:
At midnight, about 12 hours after leaving Cairo, we arrived at a hotel in Gaza. There the first surprise awaited us: A Hamas security official in civilian dress swooped down on a friend who had come to pick me up for a visit, announcing that guests could not stay in private homes.
The story gradually became clear. The international organizers of the march coordinated it with civil society, various non-governmental organizations, which were also supposed to involve the Popular Committee to Break the Siege, a semi-official organization affiliated with Hamas. Many European activists have long-standing connections with left-wing organizations in the Gaza Strip. Those organizations, especially the relatively large Popular Front, had organized lodging for several hundred guests in private homes. When the Hamas government heard this, it prohibited the move. “For security reasons.” What else?
Also “for security reasons,” apparently, on Thursday morning, the activists discovered a cordon of stern-faced, tough Hamas security men blocking them from leaving the hotel (which is owned by Hamas). The security officials accompanied the activists as they visited homes and organizations.
During the march itself, when Gazans watching from the sidelines tried to speak with the visitors, the stern-faced security men blocked them. “They didn’t want us to speak to ordinary people,” one woman concluded.
Hijacked or poorly organized?
The march was not what the organizers had dreamed of during the nine months of preparation. The day before the trip to Gaza, they already knew that the non-governmental organizations had backed out. Some people said that Hamas government representatives had found the NGOs did not have a clear, organized plan for the guests and therefore had taken the initiative. One Palestinian activist insisted: “When we heard there would only be 100, we canceled everything.”
Another said, “From the outset, Hamas set conditions: No more than 5,000 marchers, no approaching the wall and the fence, how to make speeches, how long the speeches should be, who will make speeches. In short, Hamas hijacked the initiative from us and we gave in.”
Hamas, or its Popular Committee, brought 200 or 300 marchers. The march turned into nothing more than a ritual, an opportunity for Hamas cabinet ministers to get decent media coverage in the company of Western demonstrators. Especially photogenic were four Americans from the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jewish group Neturei Karta, who joined the trip only at Al Arish. There were no Palestinian women among the marchers – a slap to the many feminist organizers and participants, both women and men.
After the march, the guests voiced protests to some of the official Palestinian organizers. “We came to demonstrate against the siege, and we found that we ourselves were under siege,” they said. Their variegation and the transparency of their behavior did not suit the military discipline the official hosts tried to impose.
…
In meetings without the security men, several activists got the impression that non-Hamas residents live in fear, and are afraid to speak or identify themselves by name. “Now I understand that the call for ‘Freedom for Gaza’ has another meaning,” one young man told me.
We should be unequivocal about what this means. Hamas and Fatah are equally complicit in the blockade, they both sabotage attempts to resist it, except they do so differently. Hamas is so authoritarian and intolerant that they felt threatened by leftist, non-heirarchical organisers. And they presumably realise how sharply leftist (and secularist and feminist) activist values clash with their own.
I think the political ideology of Hamas is bad enough, but that’s for the Palestinians themselves to sort out. However, their failures to even live up to their unearned reputation as a party of resistance (committing atrocities really shouldn’t warrant this at all) means that they should be resisted the same as Egypt, Israel, the US and Fatah (etc).
Note also the atmosphere of fear Hamas is creating. Their authoritarianism is undoubtedly exacerbated by the siege and so on (even if this doesn’t justify it, it’s a universal response by governments), but this is when they aren’t even a real government. We should remember their Egyptian counterparts were called clerical fascists by Maxime Rodinson. Edward Said once said that nationalism could not be the answer. He was of course right, and this should be a reminder to activists for Palestine that national liberation is not liberation.
I think we should acknowledge that the Gaza Freedom March was in many respects a failure. Firstly, there was a greater expectation that Egypt would let the protesters into Gaza, and I think an inadequate preparation among participants for a response. That the group could be so easily divided by Egypt’s proposal to let in only 100 activists, in my opinion, reflects strategic confusion. I think things Finkelstein resigning from the steering committee or whatever it’s called was sign enough of things going wrong. Finkelstein’s strategy (based on his Gandhi speech) really had great promise. It was compromised, and the result was that they couldn’t get the kinds of figures they wanted to lead the march.It wasn’t really different from all the other attempts, except for the planned convergence with Palestinians inside Gaza. Other convoys and boats to Gaza have had figures just as prominent and well respected. The “statement of context” probably alienated the kinds of people (Tutu, Mandela) Finkelstein thought might otherwise have joined them.
I think it should also be made plain: the division over Egypt’s offer was in my view incredible. If they were devoted to ending the blockade, Egypt’s collusion and participation is the perfect thing for them to draw attention to, and use their privileged position to target with protests. GFMers complained about being pushed by Egyptian security forces: really, try doing that as an Egyptian. I’m not in any way criticising the bravery of the protesters, which was considerable. But if they went to break the blockade, why participate in it, by letting Egypt determine how many people can go to Gaza? Compromise meant legitimising the blockade in my view. The blockade is as cruel on the Egyptian side as it is on the Israeli side.
However, the real point I wanted to raise was the bigger issue. This protest was going to be different, if not by international participants, then by mass Gazan participation in a demonstration to end the blockade. In the end, it was by one count 500 Gazans who marched with the internationals to the Israeli border. That’s a failure. Is it because Palestinians don’t protest? No. In mid-December, 70 000 Gazans marched waving communist flags and supporting the PFLP. Why didn’t they protest with GFM?
Firstly, it should be noted that the Palestinian left is about as impressive as the Australian left [or pick your country, really] (see Angry Arab on the subject - he says, for example, PFLP is a tool of Dahlan).
But more than this, I think those who support Palestinian rights should think carefully about the politics involved. Hamas undoubtedly could have thrown its weight behind supporting the protesters. Why wouldn’t it? Might it have discouraged protest?
At this point, we should recall that Hamas’s major financial backing is from neither Syria nor Iran: it is Saudi Arabia. Angry Arab follows the Hamas Saudi relationship closely. With contempt. See here, here, here, here and here.
Saudi Arabia of course doesn’t want international leftist protesters challenging Arab (US puppet) regimes. Egypt isn’t just a US puppet: its repression of the Muslim Brotherhood is brutal, if less spectacular than Israel’s efforts. It thinks of Hamas with the same fear and hatred as their own Muslim Brotherhood (read Maxime Rodinson – he called them something like a clerical fascist organisation in Israel and the Arabs). It’s hard to try to estimate whether its stupidity or corruption and cooption by petro-dollars, but the fact is that Hamas is cooperating with collaborationist Arab regimes. As I noted before, they refused to criticise the Egyptian wall. An act about as treasonous as Abbas deferring action on the Goldstone Report. When the GFM was focused on Egypt, Hamas was silent, and wouldn’t support protesters against Mubarak. Protesters should insist that there are three primary parties that we should hold responsible for the blockade: Israel, Egypt and the US. Resistance which compromises on this is not resistance to the blockade. That rules out the Arab regimes, Fatah and Hamas. Palestine should be an issue for leftists.
UPDATE
I forgot to say: The point is, Hamas could easily could trouble in Egypt, particularly with the Muslim Brotherhood, and more generally by stirring anger in the Muslim world against this puppet regime (and others too for that matter). But they don’t. I’ve said before that they’re headed to becoming Fatah with beards and theocratic restrictions.
This is comical. SMH reports on Marie Claire magazine, combining with Butterfly Foundation, putting Marie Claire on its cover naked. This is to raise awareness….. of the need for women to have healthy body images. This was progressive, they say, because they didn’t airbrush the photo.
That’s right. They chose a supermodel, Miss Universe or whatever she won, to make this point. Not only this, the head of the Foundation explained further:
Foundation general manager Julie Parker, speaking on Radio 3AW today, said the photo, which apparently shows ‘flaws’ including a slightly dimpled thigh and a tiny crease on her waist, was intended to get the discussion on body image rolling.
That’s right. You’re meant to see supposedly the most beautiful woman in the world, and notice a dimple in her thigh and a crease in her waist – unforgiveable “flaws”. It’s remarkable that these are supposed to be flaws, and that the head of this organisation is actually criticising the appearance of Jennifer Hawkins, which apparently isn’t good enough for Ms Parker. The article also notes Hawkins is in makeup. Of course she is. They have to make her beautiful enough, don’t they?
Then Parker has the audacity to explain why what she’s doing is progressive:
“It’s so excessive in magazines these days and young girls and women are constantly telling us that they don’t even know what they’re looking at any more, and what they want to see is more real, untouched and natural photos of celebrities and people in magazines, and I think this delivers that.”
So to help girls and women see normal looking women, they’ve chosen a supermodel, with presumably expertly applied makeup. Yes, this is perfectly reasonable. Then we learn the real reason for the measure:
When asked why the foundation did not put forward a more average Australian woman, Ms Parker said magazines had tried that tactic in the past, to no avail.
“The thing is unfortunately it doesn’t make the same point, because Jennifer sells magazines and she creates awareness. If Marie Claire had chosen to put on their cover an ordinary women, say myself or a friend of yours, it would not have created the awareness it does.”
Oh, she sells magazines? Having a naked supermodel sells magazines? I might’ve thought it was about something else. And I think we should be unequivocal about the issues involved. Magazines like Marie Claire presumably get most of their revenue from advertising. They can’t afford to tell readers that women don’t need makeup and all that shit. Instead, they tell women about the sorts of “flaws” Parker mentioned, and then sell products so that people can look like the Jennifer Hawkins who they feature on every single cover, so that their readers receive the important message that they are ugly and abnormally hideous, but if only they bought a few dozen things in the magazine, they would be a little less worthless as women.
