In response to yesterday's comment, it is true, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Arab world has pretty much abandoned the Palestinians. People of Palestinian descent born in Lebanon are not considered Lebanese citizens. It is illegal for them to own property, and can only work 18 jobs that are allotted by the government. They have been living in refugee camps since 1948. The Lebanese government says that if they granted them the same rights as their other citizens, than that would encourage the Palestinians to settle, and the Lebanese government thinks they should return to their land. It's an almost childish argument that goes something like this: We're not going to let Israel win and get away with doing this to the Palestinians. If we accept the Palestinians, than we are complicit in Israel's crime. And of course, it becomes our problem, and it should be Israel's problem.
Of course, this is all horrible. And yes, as everyone knows, the Palestinians get screwed over from every side. But I think it's just as silly or manipulative for Israel to always use this argument as if 1948 and Al-Nakba are okay, because hey, none of the other Arab countries are helping the Palestinians. No, it doesn't make it okay to take people's land.
It's as silly and manipulative as blaming Yasser Arafat for there not being peace. "Arafat blew his big chance. He didn't accept the peace." This is also BS. Israel loves to blame the corrupt Palestinian leaders for the problems of the Palestinians. Sure, corruption compounds problem. But this is blaming the victim, and shifiting blame. Again, if anyone's looked at the terms of these peace settlements, they would see why it would be impossible for any Palestinian person or leader to accept the terms.
It's a matter of shifting blame. Pointing the finger. Blaming the victim. It's the oppressor coopting the language of the oppressed. Edward Said talks about this discourse that Israel uses to always defend itself. It's so old. And then when it's pointed out that Israel commits human rights abuses that would be unacceptable for any other country to commit, you're called an anti-Semite. Please. Europeans in the media say things how they are. They aren't coopted by the Israeli lobby that controls the media. Call me a conspiracy theorist, call me an anti-Semite.
There's a big, fat elephant in the room and you have to pretend it's not there. = Israel commits major human rights abuses. Oh wait, so does the U.S. We have 1% of our population in prison, performing slave labor. But is that at the same scale as the destruction and daily humiliation that the Palestinians have to live with. Well, that's a whole other bag of worms.
4 comments:
what have you drunk lately Jane? Why are you spouting conspiracy theories and repetitive epithets filled with bitter hate?
Palestinians are victims, but not just victims. They also have responsiblity in what happens to them and what they do to themselves, what they demand and what they can live with.
When you go to war, you take a risk, of losing. It has happened to them again and again. And again and again they wish to be rewarded with victory, and now pity. And again and again, they are screwed, by all sides. And that is a tragedy. Nonactions, reactions, and their own self-destructions.
Wow. I'm guessing that you've lost a lot of credibility with certain parts of this post (you certainly have with me), but I wanted to respond to some of the things you've said which are legitimate.
I was the one who asked earlier about the relationship between Palestinian refugees and other Arab countries, and I'm not sure that you really answered the question. I didn't mean to imply (and don't think I did) that that the lapses of the Arab world, no matter how gratuitous, absolved Israel of its responsibility for the refugee problem. That responsibility still stands.
What I fail to get is why the Arab world, or at least vocal parts of it, is willing to sanction the murder of children ostensibly in the service of the Palestinians, but isn't willing to consider, for instance, granting citizenship or property rights to these people they claim to care about (and kill in the name of). I think I understand the power of pride in this conflict; that is, that it's very hard to feel as though one side is acquiescing to another. But I'm not sure that that's an excuse for the inaction of groups who have devoted themselves to the Palestinian cause. Repeated calls for repatriation only get you so far, particularly when many of the people in the camps have actually never set foot in Palestine.
Again, I agree that this gross inaction doesn't excuse Israel's huge neglect. But you say, "It's a matter of shifting blame. Pointing the finger. Blaming the victim. It's the oppressor coopting the language of the oppressed." Why, in the midst of a decades-long conflict involving multiple countries, several wars, and at least three religions would you speak as though there is always only one victim and one oppressor in every situation? It's far more complicated than that, regardless of what Edward Said thought.
In reality, all sides bear great responsibility for the escalation of the conflict and all sides have unfulfilled responsibilities. On Israel's side, I see the need for (at least) a full pull-out from the Palestinian territories (with an possible exception for the heavily populated settlements right on the Green Line), a clear endorsement for a Palestinian state, and a commitment to end the blockades which make trade and travel difficult. On the Arab side, it is imperative that they recognize the state of Israel, commit themselves to land negotiations, and - this is really important, I think - begin to build a culture the cohesion of which does not depend on the continued demonization of Israel. One of the possible reasons why the Arab world is so slow to help the refugees is because without the spector of Israel, the Arab world might have to actually consider some of the other reasons why their society is plagued with structural problems. Israel functions as an effective scapegoat, but this isn't doing much to get people jobs.
Now. Your other comments seemed like non-sequiturs, to say the least, and I'm unsure if I should dignify them. Israel has a well-documented record of human rights abuses. But your statement that, "when it's pointed out that Israel commits human rights abuses that would be unacceptable for any other country to commit, you're called an anti-Semite" is really inaccurate. In reality, while many countries have human rights records far worse than Israel's (including a number of Arab countries), Israel's is pointed out far more frequently. Contrary to your assertion, it seems that it's actually much more acceptable for other states to transgress (and often in far worse ways)than it is Israel. I realize that the middle eastern conflict captures the imagination, for reasons religious, political and so on, but the double standard is one of the most troubling aspects of the conflict.
As for your comments about the media: even assuming for the sake of argument that the nefarious "Israel Lobby" has coopted the US media, I'm unclear as to why you would assume that the European media are unaffected by interest groups or other external influences. For instance, a number of people, American and European, have suggested that European support for Arab causes is at least partially due to the fact that the growing Arab population in Europe seems both very vocal and willing to commit violence (per the Paris riots or the London subway bombings). Whatever the causes, it's incredibly simplistic to say that Europeans "say things how they are." I'm not even sure that in a conflict like this, such a thing is possible.
Having mentioned the question of influence on the media, however, I think it is both wildly inaccurate and offensive to declare that the "Israeli Lobby controls the media." However you define said lobby, a statement like that is far too dramatic to just throw in (as well as straight out of the Protocols, alas). If this belief is based on your prior statement that the US media is biased toward Israel, I'd refer you to a link that someone posted awhile back talking about how people of all ideologies tend to feel that their cause is being shortchanged (i.e. supporters of Israel are as sure that the press is slanted against them as you are that the press is slanted against the Arab world). Moreover, if this is the reason for your statement, it's still quite a leap from "people who watch tv and feel strongly about something" to the ominous "Israeli Lobby."
I wonder if you haven't, for whatever reason, confused correlation with causation. What I mean is, let's say that the way the press present an issue coincides with AIPAC's point of view. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they simply happen to agree, instead of the media being browbeat into line by the lobbyists? Or can you provide other reasons for making a statement which, far from being measured or temperate, is a stark, unequivocal statement? I mean, let's say that the Israel Lobby is an influential one. (It is). How on earth do you get from there to the unequivocal statement that this lobby "controls" the entire American press? That statement is, at the least, paranoid, simplistic and naive.
What do you mean repetitive eptithets filled with hate???
What have I drunk? I told you I'm watching Fox and CNN. I need to stop because it's poison. Of course, it makes me mad--seeing one side of the story, to get the Republicans reelected. It makes me sick. Because I do think uninformed Americans believe this.
Of course, everyone should take responsiblity for their actions.
And all I was saying was that Israel should take some responsibilty for theirs, instead of shifting the blame to corrupt Palestinian leadership, or even worse, the Holocaust.
But I have faith in the Israeli people. It seems like they're not going to let some of these guys they elect to do this stuff.
And it's the same case in the U.S. We've elected bad leaders who do bad things, and the American electorate has to stop them.
I find it remarkably arrogant that when pushed by others you excuse your own extreme ramblings by blaming them as a reaction to cnn and fox and at the same time declare that the rest of the country is fooled by these media conspiracies. How is it that you have the clarity to see some organized conspiracy when you can't defend your own ramblings without coping out to paranoia? And it's pretty outrageous that you're constantly calling israelis/ americans / politicians to task for not taking responsibility when you immediateyly retreat to claims of poison or paranoia or whatever anytime anyone reasonably questions one of your more extreme janisms on the world. Instead of lashing out at the "uninformed" American populace and policymakers, maybe you should spend more of your energy actually broadening your fairly myopic and increasingly tiring perspective on the issues in a region that you claim to have so much perspective on. Wally (bless you - you're the reason I keep checking this blog) has repeatedly pointed you to rich resources on the aspects of the conflict you don't have much experience with in order to help you frame your own experiences. How about taking a break from looking for people to blame and trying to put all of this in context.
And in the interest of pushing on some of your own biases that may be shaping your perspective of the world, I find your descriptions of Katy to be lacking one pretty important fact. The one group (ethnic, religious, racial, whatever) that we had almost no exposure to growing up were Jews. I know for me it was an incredible cultural shock to go from Katy and knowing one Jew to a college where the 2 largest populations were Jews and Arabs. And please don't waste your breath credentializing yourself with the seder you once attended, or how you had jewish friends at Harvard, or how you are highly-educated. A little self-examination and perhaps some recognition that reasonable people can disagree might help ease some of that "paranoia" that seems to invade your brain oh so frequently. And for what it's worth, you were paranoid before fox news ever even existed.
Post a Comment