There are several protests scheduled for Northern California in the next several days. We live in exciting times. And aren't we lucky?
SUNDAY DECEMBER 7th (MORNING) - SACRAMENTO
The anti-AIPAC crowd, which includes some phenomenally psychopathic Israel-haters, will protest outside the AIPAC luncheon. Observe classic anti-Semites and their modern-age fanclub in action while dodging organic fruit and ignorant slogans! Fun for the entire family!
[We've met several of those people - oh boy are they sick. ]
SUNDAY DECEMBER 7th (EVENING) - SANTA CLARA
South Bay Mobilization intends to gather all the anti-Israel trolls outside the South Bay AIPAC dinner for hysterical behaviour. These folks are nearly as ungrounded in reality as the Sacramento crowd, but a bit more numerous and potentially violent.
[Evil by conviction, dangerous by design. Only some are medicated.]
TUESDAY DECEMBER 9th (EVENING) - SAN FRANCISCO
California's most anti-Semite-laden metropolis will host Middle East Children's Alliance, Tri-City Peace and Justice, Global Exchange, The Rebuilding Alliance, International Solidarity Movement - Northern California, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Bay Area Women in Black, as they stage what is probably their most popular event of the year: a daemonize Israel by destroying plate-glass windows and lying down in traffic die-in at the Hilton Hotel on O'Farrell Street at the edge of the shopping district.
[Think of it as a group-sex orgy for Jim Harris (hi Jim!) and you will not be far wrong. Welcome to San francisco; please expect evidence of dysfunctionality on a grand scale.]
Stay tuned for updates and reports.
Bli neder, I'll let you know if Jim Harris (hi Jim!) gets lucky.
But don't count on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A DUMPSTER FIRE OF TWITTERY
Often while at work I get to hear the sour old dingbats in the backroom spouting Republican drivel and venom. Which does not leave me positi...
17 comments:
as a Jewish "pro-Palestine" activist who doesn't live in the City, I'm quite surprised and upset reading about the levels of harassment and intimidation you guys seem to go through.
Having said that, I do get the feeling you interpret criticism of Israel essentially as a sign of anti-semitism, and thus end up defending policies that are no more Jewish than the war in Iraq is about being American. Being pro-Israeli does not negate showing solidarity with our Palestinian and Lebanese brothers and sisters. It seems to me that displays of humanity and sympathy towards people's plight, which you must be aware of (did you hear the latest news from Hebron, for example?), would go further in swaying people's hearts and minds than protests and counter-protests. This isn't to negate the suffering of people in Sderot, or the renewed threat of suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, but it doesn't have to be either/or.
It is racist, and condescendingly so, to treat the Palestinians as some sort of lesser being that have no responsibility for their behavior. To state that you show "solidarity " with the Palestinians is saying that "they need to be relieved of the consequences of their actions" as if in your American Liberal version of the White Man's Burden, you know far better whats good for them then they do. Its also rather arrogant to treat Palestinians as if they thought the exact way that you do rather than asking them what they think and what they want. When I have asked Palestinians what they want it generally involves all of Israel, free of all Jews and not a whisper about "peace", "co-existance", "a desire to be understood", etc. This makes you a classic "useful idiot."
R
>>To state that you show "solidarity " with the Palestinians is saying that "they need to be relieved of the consequences of their actions"
I don't understand your logic. Is expressing solidarity with people of Tibet releaving them from the consequences of their actions? I gave the example of recent events in Hebron, where several people were shot inside their house by crazed settlers while the army stood idly by. You don't have to be an "Israel-basher" to be shocked by this, even the current PM, Ehud Olmert, described this as a "pogrom".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3634453,00.html
Do you not feel any solidarity with the victims of this attack?
>> Its also rather arrogant to treat Palestinians as if they thought the exact way that you do rather than asking them what they think and what they want.
I agree, but this is why I am in daily contact with Palestinians and work with them within the same political movement. Plenty of Palestinians want either a two-state solution or to live with Jews within one state. You seem to have spoken only with extremists.
btw, I also think we should all express solidarity with the inhabitants of Sderot who constantly suffer from attacks. Is this also racist and condescending? or are you saying they don't deserve to be attacked, but the inhabitants of Hebron do?
Having said that, I do get the feeling you interpret criticism of Israel essentially as a sign of anti-Semitism
That is correct - as a sign, though not a guarantee. There is plenty of criticism that is valid, as there is for any government. But the two key distinctions are the double standard - not holding any other state to the same impossibly high standard - and the overlap of criticism with antipathy - the denying of Jewish national aspirations often coupled with resentment and hatred of Jews. It is possible to be critical of Israel without denying the Jewish state a right to exist, and without being anti-Jewish. Unfortunately many who despise Jews also deny the Israel's right to exist, many who deny Israel's right to exist also despise Jews.
Valid points of disagreement exist concerning borders, for instance. Our position is that the border between Palestine and Israel is strictly to be determined by those two parties, not by demands and ultimata, not by outside interference, not by international dictat. Hence we support the ongoing negotiations.
Being pro-Israeli does not negate showing solidarity with our Palestinian and Lebanese brothers and sisters.
Forgive me, but while I can sympathize with their pain and their aspirations, solidarity is too much to ask. What I wish for them is peace and prosperity, while protesting the excesses and terrorism committed by their activists and agencies.
did you hear the latest news from Hebron, for example?
I had already heard about four days of yassamnik violence and teargas against the activists in the beit hashalom, but I had not heard, until this morning, about the behaviour of settler protestors. Which I will need to read much more about before I can venture an opinion.
Plenty of Palestinians want either a two-state solution
That is what we also support. Two nations for two peoples. While the Palestinians did not exist as a people till after Yasser Arafat invented them in 1967, their mistreatment by their fellow Arabs has effectively made of them a nation. And in any case, their dominant narratives and self-definitions today make it impossible to roll back the clock.
or to live with Jews within one state.
If that were to include all the west-bank, I personally feel that it would mean the end of a Jewish state. So in that regard I cannot possibly support it.
But, adding an inconvenient shade of grey, this also brings up the matter of the Arab residents of parts of the old-city who fear living in a Palestinian state would diminish their income while exposing them to gross inefficiency and corruption emanating from Ramallah. Ideally, there would be two states: one with a clear Jewish majority, one with a clear Palestinian majority, both secular, both co-operating on a number of issues. The final border needs to be negotiated, and there will probably have to be 'agreement to disagree' on some issues (while continuing to negotiate/argue/discuss).
I, personally, refuse to regard some Arab village twenty miles from the old city as being part of Jerusalem - give it up. But on the other hand, I would desperately wish to include the Druze and the Bedouin in Israel. Palestine can have the Christians.
You seem to have spoken only with extremists.
Those often dominate the discourse. At demonstrations opposite the consulate, the extremists get the most attention, form the largest block, scream the most violent slogans. And on campuses, the extremists are the ones who create the threatening atmosphere. While it IS very possible to speak in favour of Palestinians among Jews, it is neither comfortable nor safe to admit wholehearted support for Israel among the Bay Area's Arabs and angry white pro-Palestinians.
One that note, it should also be mentioned that discussion with some Arabs is easier than with either pro-Palestinian white suburban revolutionaries OR pro-Israel fundamentalist Christians. Neither of those two "extremes" is much given to nuance. The suburban revolutionaries often conflate 'sticking it to the establishment' with hating all of America's causes, especially if one can sympathize with poor fluffy third-worlders. And in the case of some of our Christian fellow-travelers, I have to wonder if their support is not merely a continuation of a crusader ideal coupled with an end-times hope. Apocalypsis deadens perspective.
thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with much of what you said. Still,
>>the two key distinctions are the double standard - not holding any other state to the same impossibly high standard - and the overlap of criticism with antipathy - the denying of Jewish national aspirations often coupled with resentment and hatred of Jews.
if you mean people who portray Israel as the source of all what's wrong with the world, I agree. But if you are saying anyone who criticizes Israel should simultaneously criticize evry other human rights abuser in the world (as some activists seem to think), you are guaranteeing no end to the conflict until every other problem in the world is solved, which is kind of bleak.
>>At demonstrations opposite the consulate, the extremists get the most attention, form the largest block, scream the most violent slogans. And on campuses, the extremists are the ones who create the threatening atmosphere
I'm active within SJP at UC Berkeley, and although we're getting continuously slandered by another organization, Tikvah, we've had several Zionist groups stand up for us - including current members of the Israel Action Committee http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/36637/format/html/displaystory.html
and former ones
http://www.dailycal.org/article/103721/perspectives_on_fight_in_eshleman_hall
this is because underneath the surface, in quieter and less overt ways, there are different and less extreme relations between many jewish and zionist students and Palestinians on campus.
>>the border between Palestine and Israel is strictly to be determined by those two parties, not by demands and ultimata, not by outside interference
if there were two sides negotiating in good faith with equal power, that would make sense. Since, however, there are powerful forces within Israeli society pushing to deepen the occupation and set up more settlements, lack of external intervention isn't neutral, it's backing up these forces. Every consecutive governemnt has increased the number of settlements - how can we get from there to a two state solution without external intervention of some sort?
As someone on the sidelines, with absolutely no axe to grind, I would like to applaud the lack of stridency being displayed by both sides on this comment string. Kudos, everybody: this is a very pleasant change from the invective which has marred previous posts.
By admitting your membership in SJP, you've as much admitted that you don't understand the issues. Since the basic premises you asserted are wrong, its no surprise that your conclusions are equally as flawed. Lets start with the idea that the history of the conflict didn't begin in 148, nor with the Balfour Declaration.
By the way, I've NEVER heard a Jew assert "that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism". Usually, when I hear that said, the next thing said by the same person is something wildly anti-semitic, but comfortably couched in terms of "Zionism" and "Israel" as if that excuses it and as if we don't get the "code".
>> "you've as much admitted that you don't understand the issues. Since the basic premises you asserted are wrong, its no surprise that your conclusions are equally as flawed".
just saying "you are wrong" isn't a counter-argument. How am I wrong and what pre-Balfour instances of the conflict are you referring to (and why are they important to my argument)?
instead of attacking me for being in SJP and getting back into the boring old routine of attacks and counter-attacks, couldn't we take this somewhere different?
I was at the 2006 demonstration near the Israeli embassy, which apparently makes me the "other side" in relation to some of the people here. I'm constantly trying to figure out what that means. I used to think it was about right-wing/left-wing, but the views "back of the hill" expressed on this thread are far from being right-wing. So maybe it's about how we view anti-semitism: for you, a lot of what sound like innocent political critiques are really about anti-semitism, whereas for me a lot of what sounds like anti-semitism is either a symptom of something deeper, or it isn't at all anti-semitism. I'd like to get some of you to see it that way, because I think this fear of antisemitism is exaggerated, and it prevents all kinds of useful cooperations and alliances. (witout denying that there is a kernel of truth in it, from the experiences some of you are describing).
Part of what got me to think that way was really listening and learning about 1948. We have a ton of formulas which we use not to learn the details of what happened (AlHusseini was a Nazi, if only they had accepted the separation plan, the Arab countries neglected them etc. etc.). All of these are true, but at the same time they are all ways of not facing the idea that many regular people had been living in their villages for hundreds of years, didn't want to get involved in the fighting, and ended up in refugee camps for the rest of their lives. Studying this is humbling, it makes you feel more empathic and less critical of Palestinians, it helps you put yourself in their shoes.
Another piece is that when you have a zionist upbringing and you work closely with arabs and muslims, you realize that there is a whole dictionary of signs that mean one thing to you and something completely different to them. Keffiyas mean hating jews; one state is about disenfranchising jews; the right of return means throwing jews into the sea, as does any map of the whole of Palestine/Israel. Saying you oppose the current regime in Israel because it is predicated on inequality means you want a new Holocaust, and so on. These things seemed obvious to me, but my arab and muslim friends were sincerely puzzled by my reactions, since none of them had the same Zionist education. For them, the right of return was about people missing their homeland. One state was about a deeper democracy and living together. Saying Palestinians have a connection to the whole country doesn't mean throwing out the Jews. If I had only met people once you could say I was naive, but the wonderful thing about SJP is the deep friendships that are formed between jews, arabs and muslims (as well as plenty of other groups) - people go to each other's birthday parties, celebrate holidays together (including a whole bunch of Palestinians at the Seder, learning about the Aramaic words in the Haggada and how they are related both to Hebrew and to Arabic), share flats, help each other with homework and just hang out like regular students. When you have an abundance of experiences like this, the idea that "beneath all of that they want to throw us into the sea" gets weaker and weaker. It's a very hopeful feeling and I wish more people could partake in it.
I used to think it was about right-wing/left-wing
It is not a right-wing/left-wing issue.
Support for Israel cuts across all political lines. Support for the Palestinians cuts across those same lines. And, in so far as bigotry is involved, hatred for Arabs or Jews seems to have a great appeal to elements on all sides.
I appreciate that you have an abundance of positive experiences with Arabs. That is perhaps an accident of your activism. My activism does not expose me to any such positive experiences. Yesterday evening I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was inhuman, worse than an animal, a dog, a murderer, utter filth, and a Nazi.
You will understand, I hope, that being told that by people who I know are Arabs (a Moroccan, an Egyptian, and three Palestinians), must necessarily colour my perceptions of the other side. Please do not for a moment doubt that the message was delivered in a threatening manner.
Because of such incidents, I do not feel that I can trust Arabs. Which is a pity, because there are several with whom I get along very well indeed. But I will not tell them about my support for Israel. I have already made that mistake too often, with others. For whatever reason, they cannot handle it.
On that note, I also have to say that I have never yet heard an Arab express regret for the bus-bombings, or what happened at Sbarro's Pizzeria on August 9, 2001. But the American Jewish community almost universally agonized over what happened in Lebanon, and still agonizes over the situation in Gaza and the West-Bank. Are Israelis not worthy of the same consideration? Do Jewish victims of unconscionable acts not merit equal treatment?
Bear in mind that I am still quite furious about last night. Both at the Arab protestors and their sympathizers, and at elements within my own group who evidently did not grasp our stated goals and ideals. It will take a few days before I am calm enough to discuss this with an open mind towards the other side, or a spirit of equinamity towards some of our own.
I'm trying to think of how to respond intelligently without sounding callous. First of all, I really appreciate your ability to criticize the behavior of both sides, which is something quite rare.
Secondly, I feel almost strange saying "you people" shouldn't have to undergo horrible antisemitic intimidation, since that makes me sound like an outside observer. When people on "my side" of the pavement started shouting stuff about how "the jews are our dogs" at that rally, they were directing that not just towards you but towards me, as a jew. It's stronger than wanting to denounce it, it's very clear gut feeling of revulsion at these threats, particularly the one about the elevator shaft.
Lastly - I don't know how to say this without sounding like I'm blaming the victim, which I honestly don't mean to do, but - like every government, the Israeli one sometimes does stuff that generates a lot of anger. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like some organizations are always out there to support it even if they criticize it among themselves. For example, there really were scores of Lebanese civilians killed unnecessarily in the war (without justifying the deaths of Israeli civilians). By standing up for the government at that point people were perceived as supporting such actions, even if that wasn't their intention. I think we could think of better alternatives, if you do agree that the Israeli government is sometimes worthy of criticism, just like any other government. I think that if you could communicate to the other side that you distance yourself from such actions, your interactions would probably be different.
When people on "my side" of the pavement started shouting stuff about how "the jews are our dogs" at that rally, they were directing that not just towards you but towards me, as a jew.
Oh hell, they were yelling that too? If I had been on that side I wouldn't have been able to stand there at all. That's just crass.
Saying Palestinians have a connection to the whole country doesn't mean throwing out the Jews.
Saying it is one thing. Conceding a right of return would destroy Israel.
And please remember, they left before as many of us were forced to leave Arab lands as revenge against Jews for the rebirth of Israel. That which was stolen from the Jewish refugees then was used to found and fund the PLO. They have already been paid in full by the Arab despoliation of the Jews who were stripped of property, livelihood, citizenship. They should audit their own organization to find out why it has not benefited them.
"The day of realization of the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine means the liquidation of Israel."
Guess who said that.
at that rally in 2006 at the time of the war I think people sais something like "Jews are our dogs".
>>Are Israelis not worthy of the same consideration? Do Jewish victims of unconscionable acts not merit equal treatment?
I don't know if you know this Edward Said article, and you probably would object to him and to the implicit SA-Israel comparison, but I find the following self-criticism especially interesting
>>What we never concentrated on enough was the fact that to counteract Zionist exclusivism, we would have to provide a solution to the conflict that, in Mandela's second phrase, would assert our common humanity as Jews and Arabs. Most of us still cannot accept the idea that Israeli Jews are here to stay, that they will not go away, any more than Palestinians will go away. This is understandably very hard for Palestinians to accept, since they are still in the process of losing their land and being persecuted on a daily basis. But, with our irresponsible and unreflective suggestion in what we have said that they will be forced to leave (like the Crusades), we did not focus enough on ending the military occupation as a moral imperative or on providing a form for their security and self-determinism that did not abrogate ours.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/523/op2.htm
>>That which was stolen from the Jewish refugees then was used to found and fund the PLO. They have already been paid in full by the Arab despoliation of the Jews who were stripped of property, livelihood, citizenship
until now I actually wasn't aware of any actual connection between the two ethnic cleansings. Do you have a source for that?
Post a Comment