In today’s New York Times (5/25/11), columnist Tom Friedman issues yet another call for Palestinians to practice non-violence:
May I suggest a Tahrir Square alternative? Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things–an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: “Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders–with mutually agreed adjustments–including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”
If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there.
The implication–a familiar one in corporate media–is that there’s never been much Palestinian non-violent resistance. This is false–see here, here, here, or especially here–a piece by Yousef Munayyer titled,”Palestine’s Hidden History of Nonviolence: You Wouldn’t Know It From the Media Coverage, but Peaceful Protests Are Nothing New for Palestinians.”
The other part of Friedman’s argument is that media would pay this movement serious attention. Again, we don’t need to imagine what might happen if Palestinians were to take Friedman’s advice. Regular non-violent protests against the West Bank separation wall are ignored in the U.S. media, as Patrick O’Connor documented in 2005. A 2009 Guardian report is a reminder of what often happens in response to such demonstrations. As the subhead put it, “Palestinian demonstrations intended to be peaceful met with Israeli teargas, stun grenades and sometimes live ammunition.” And one of the most prominent non-violent Palestinian activists is Adeeb Abu Rahma, who was held in an Israeli prison for 17 months before being released late last year.
Or take a more recent example:
On March 24, the Israeli government arrested Bassem Tamimi, a 44-year-old resident of the small Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh, which is just west of Ramallah. Tamimi was arrested for leading a group of his neighbors in protest marches on a settlement that had “expropriated” the village’s spring–the symbolic center of Nabi Saleh’s life.
Tamimi was brought before the Ofer military court and charged with “incitement, organizing unpermitted marches, disobeying the duty to report to questioning” and “obstruction of justice”–for giving young Palestinians advice on how to act under Israeli police interrogation. He was remanded to an Israeli military prison to await a hearing and a trial. The detention of Tamimi is not a formality: Under Israeli military decree 101 he is being charged with attempting “verbally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a way that may disturb the public peace or public order.” As in Syria, this is an “emergency decree” disguised as protecting public security. It carries a sentence of 10 years.
And activist Abdallah Abu Rahmah:
Abu Rahmah, a high school teacher at the Latin Patriarch School in Ramallah, began organizing Bil’in’s protests in 2004, even as the violence of the Second Intifada was beginning to wane. Every Friday after prayers, Abu Rahmah would lead a group of Bil’in residents on a protest march towards a local settlement–and every Friday his march would be intercepted by the IDF.
In one demonstration, an IDF sniper used a .22 caliber rifle to disburse the protesters, killing a Palestinian boy. Twenty-one unarmed demonstrators, among them five children, have been killed in nonviolent West Bank demonstrations since the beginnings of the movement.
So when do the TV cameras arrive, Tom Friedman?
Do you really think Thomas Friedman is unaware of the existence, actually the tradition, of Palestinian non-violent resistance?
Friedman knows all that already.
Friedman’s job, on Israel, is to reassure liberals that yes, the Palestinians really are the problem.
Now if someone could just advise the Israelis on nonviolence. Still waiting for an Israeli Ghandi.
It would apparently be a full-time job to correct the misconceptions disseminated by Hart, but I’ll take a crack now and then as a contingent worker (and long-time FAIR subscriber).
Hart argues against the “implication” in the corporate press “that there’s never been much Palestinian non-violent resistance.” This is a straw man. Whether or not there’s been non-violent resistance, no one can dispute that the Palestinians (and their promoters in the Arab world) have largely relied on horrific violence directed chiefly at civilians.
Take the West Bank separation wall invoked by Hart. He should recall that the Israelis erected this in response to the Second Intifada, in which the Palestinians took pleasure in blowing up school children, pregnant women and other civilians. All because Arafat walked away from peace talks when he couldn’t gain the absurd “right of return.” Some non-violent resistance.
Then there were the innumerable pogroms against Jews by the Palestinians prior to the War of Independence. And Palestinian leader al-Husseini’s role, as an ally of Hitler, in massacring Jews, Serbs and Gypsies in Bosnia, and planning a Final Solution against the Jews in Palestine. And the war of aggression by the Arab states after the U.N. partition plan in 1947. And the many wars of aggression by the Arabs against Israel subsequently. And the PLO’s embrace of terrorism. And, as Goldstone conceded, Hamas’ policy of targeting civilians with rockets. And so on and so on.
If more evidence were needed, how about Hamas’ Charter (that’s right, the same Hamas that Hart is always condemning Israel for refusing to negotiate with), which states, inter alia: “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”
Here’s another gem from Hamas’ charter: “…until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslilm! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” A nice animist touch.
I will give Hart credit for creativity. Usually apologists justify Palestinian terrorism by claiming it’s the cry of the oppressed, or a product of asymmetrical forces, etc., etc.
But for Hart to compare Hamas to Martin Luther King, Jr., really takes the cake!
I’m confident Hart knows full well that
Anspach’s response is as inaccurate as it is idiotic. Hart never compared Hamas to MLK, Jr, in fact, neither name even appeared in the article. Hart’s main point is that American media ignores significant acts of Palesetinian non-violence–a point for which he provides ample evidence. In Anspach’s world, however, to mention the “Twenty-one unarmed demonstrators, among them five children, have been killed in nonviolent West Bank demonstrations since the beginnings of the movement” is simply a “straw man”.
…But remember, the Palestinians are the truly and only violent ones in this conflict!
> the Israelis erected this in response to the Second Intifada
If this were true, the wall would have been erected on the 67 line, and there would not have been hundreds of thousands of colonialists in the West Bank.
> the Palestinians took pleasure in blowing up school children, pregnant women and other civilians.
Funny how the Palestinians who take pleasure in killing civilians manage to kill many fewer civilians than the Israelis do, despite their presumed extreme caution. Bloodthirsty and incompetent.
@Richard: I have come to believe that Tom Friedman’s ignorance is absolutely genuine. That’s not to say that such ignorance doesn’t make good business sense for him.
Trevor, what’s inaccurate about Anspach’s response? You need to follow up with ample evidence after you make such statements. Kudos on regurgitating Hart’s main idea — but you idiotically missed Anspach’s response! He stated that, even if there were acts of non-violence by Palestinians, it is irrefutable that Palestinians have mainly resorted to brutal attacks against Israeli civilians.
If Hart wants to take the media to task for imbalanced reporting on this issue, then he ought to be truly FAIR in his consideration for the many other related incidents that go unreported by the mainstream media. For one thing, he should go to the West Bank to investigate how the PLO and Hamas beat and arrest Palestinian journalists, torching the equipment of those who try to practice freedom of press. And he should be outraged by the fact that Palestinians are still living under Jordanian Law, whereby Palestinian men are permitted to treat women like slaves, brutally murdering them in the name of “honor.” Before you condemn the democratic state of Israel, you ought to think deeply about the implications of defending a way of life that: 1) is run by Hamas, a terrorist organization which outright calls for the destruction of Israel; 2) treats its own women as second-class citizens; and 3) denies its people the basic right of free speech that you are enjoying today.
@ Ronit: by “the many other related incidents that go unreported by the mainstream media.” do you mean the reality of operation cast lead for instance?
Nice try, Trevor, but no cigar. Hart’s object was to divert attention from the obvious fact that the Palestinians’ chief mode of “resistance” is terrorism. In fact, Palestinian apologists generally don’t try to deny this, but rather argue that terrorism can sometimes be justified (a grotesquely immoral argument, but that’s all they’ve got).
Further, you make the obvious error of failing to distinguish between violence and terrorism. Of course Israel commits acts of violence – that goes without saying during times of war. Unless, that is, you expect Israel not to defend itself when it is repeatedly attacked by the Arab states. What is worth noting, however, is that Israel does more than any other country in the history of the world to minimize civilian casualties, even though the Palestinians make it a habit to employ civilian human shields. Hamas, on the other hand, does everything possible to maximize civilian deaths, particularly given that they consider Jews to be sub-human.
Now do you get it, Trevor?
As for Marjane, when you refer to “the reality of operation cast lead for instance,” are you referring to the reality of a nation’s right to defend itself from fascists who target civilians? For instance?
As for Sortition, you invoke the war in 1967. It always makes me laugh when people (like Hart) claim the key is returning to pre-1967 borders. After all, before 1967, Jordan had the West Bank, Egypt had Gaza, and there was no discussion of a Palestinian state. (And I bet there was no boycott movement against Egypt or Jordan.) If those borders are so sacrosanct, why didn’t they prevent the Arabs from launching a war of extermination in 1967?
It was precisely because of the 1967 War that Israel saw that the pre-’67 borders weren’t defensible.
Try taking a look at a map sometime, Sortition, you might learn something.
As for Ronit, she’s asking the right questions. Indeed, why is the Left so eager to cozy up to fascists like Hamas? (Then again, remember how Foucault defended Khomeini and Derrida wouldn’t give up on De Man?) I’m afraid we’ll have to attribute some of the blame to Hart’s less than fair and accurate coverage.
Anspach, you are just too much. You’re not worth the time to refute your many Ziolies such as “… the Arabs from launching a war of extermination in 1967?” None other than the terrorist Manachem Begin himself admitted that Israel “had a choice” — and its choice was to initiate the 1967 War.
The only fascists I note in the Holy Land have the names Lieberman and Netanyahu (and their sycophants and fellow-traveleers).
But you’re really not worth my time, Anspach.
Yes, the “mainly violent” is irrefutable, because it’s not even well-formulated. It’s also not provable. It’s all about your perception, which is informed by anecdote and by the media. But what gets more media attention, the weekly protests in Bil’in, or someone blowing up a pizzeria? The US media has a definite viewpoint on this.
Anspach’s approach seems a lot like “Palestinians have been violent, so all Palestinians get what is coming to them.” The idea that Israelis, and indeed the Israeli state have been violent (indeed, much more) is disregarded.
But regardless of numbers, there is nothing Palestinians could do that would make ethnic cleansing or ethnocracy or continuing political right. The mindset of Zionism in this age promotes this appalling “ends justify the means” reasoning.
Nice try, William Anspach . . . you wrote this bit of self-serving bullshit: “Hart’s object was to divert attention from the obvious fact that the Palestinians’ chief mode of “resistance” is terrorism. In fact, Palestinian apologists generally don’t try to deny this, but rather argue that terrorism can sometimes be justified (a grotesquely immoral argument, but that’s all they’ve got).” (emphasis mine –TimN) So, how exactly do you know that Peter Hart is a liar? And that his real motive is to gloss over Palestinian terrorism? So, anybody who points out truthful matters has ulterior motives because you think so? You’re calling Hart a liar because the truth here is unacceptable to you. For Christ’s sake, re-read the goddamn article–I defy you, or any of the other reactionaries bound to follow in your leaden footsteps, to show me how you divined, from Hart’s straight-forward account, his ulterior (anti-Semitic, naturally, unless he’s a Jew, in which case he’s a self-hating Jew) motive of soft-pedaling (in your mind, anyway) palestinian treachery.
And what’s with the non-sequiturs about Foucault and Derrida? Just more nutty linkings of all things Left with “terrorists.” If you don’t like it when FAIR puts the horn (richly deserved, always on the mark) into assholes like Friedman, stop with the patronizing, know-it-all attitude (“. . . long-time FAIR subscriber”) quit your subscription, and seek enlightenment elsewhere.
P.S.: Are you one of the guys who writes those crazy FLAME ads that appear in the Nation regularly? As a loyal reader, thanks for the ad revenue, and the gales of laughter your work provokes.
Stiver, if I’m not worth your time, why did you bother? At least get your facts straight, though. The Arabs began the 1967 War, both by closing the Straits of Tiran and by massing on Israel’s border and boasting of their desire to destroy Israel. And you’re not really denying that Hamas is fascist, are you? Or that Palestinian leader al-Husseini was allied with Hitler? Better bone up on your history, Stiver, or you won’t be worth anyone’s time.
“Save the Oocytes” has it exactly backwards. It’s the Palestinians who claim the end justifies the means when they defend terrorism.
And Tim N., I can’t prove that Hart was being deceptive. But if he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I may as well infer that he’s a duck.
Nice suggestion that I cancel my subscription to FAIR. You sound like those yahoos who
advise anyone critical of the U.S. to move someone else. As an alternative, how about if FAIR starts reporting on the conflict fairly and accurately?
And I do subscribe to the Nation, but have nothing to do with the FLAME ads. Those ads, however, contain a much more accurate analysis of the conflict than most of the Nation’s reporting. I note that you, like all of the others who bombard the Nation with anti-FLAME screeds, never point out what’s inaccurate in the FLAME ads.
But this isn’t about FLAME – it’s about Hart’s (and your) pathological and unfounded animus towards Israel. Why don’t you work on that before you start worrying about my subscription status?
You need help, William, and I’m not qualified to give it. Of course you can’t prove Hart’s being deceptive, and your wrong about my (and his) “unfounded animus towards Israel.” You’re a bit overly-sensitive, no? Relax a bit. You’re badly mis-reading things here and elsewhere (the FLAME’s nutty, hysterical, paranoid, historical revisionism–or, more simply, lying). I couldn’t care less about your subscription status, and I don’t need to work on anything. You do, though.
And, finally, you wrote this: “You sound like those yahoos who
advise anyone critical of the U.S. to move someone else. As an alternative, how about if FAIR starts reporting on the conflict fairly and accurately?” If you can’t deal with the fact that FAIR is being fair, again, my advice to you is to seek the propagandistic, reactionary, lunatic nonsense one finds on Glenn Beck’s show, in the screeds of the FLAMERs, and at the foot of the FOX channel. Every rant posted by you here unequivocally suggests that you possess an extraordinarily rigid mindset–something quite common on the Right. That you are in total agreement with FAIR blog’s worst and most ignorant and bigoted right-winger is absolute proof of your bad faith and rancid, unfounded fear-mongering and innuendo.
P.S.: You wrote, in your mis-guided slander: ” . . . You sound like those yahoos who advise anyone critical of the U.S. to move someone else.” Presumably you meant somewhere. Actually, as you know (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Mr. Anspach), as a reader and long-time subscriber of The Nation, as well as a long-time subscriber to FAIR, and The Progressive, and a half dozen other leftist rags and pamphlets, I quite often harshly criticize the good old USA, it’s Presidents (including the current one), it’s Congress, and especially it’s Press.
“It’s the Palestinians who claim the end justifies the means when they defend terrorism.”
Yes, they defend terrorism. All of them. Even the ones practicing non-violence resistance, who you dismiss as irrelevant. So they all should be punished.
Racist generalizations and collective punishment, hurray.
Huh?
I think the Israelis should march carrying signs, “We will give back Palestinian lands and Palestinian dignity”. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Anspatch, since you insist on justifying Israeli violence by exagerating the amount of Palestinian violence, and ignoring Palestinian NON-VIOLENT demonstrations, I would like to hear your justification for Israel’s attack on the US Liberty.
The American ship was in international waters, a non combatant ship. 47 US killed, and almost 200 wounded.
Tom Friedman is one of the most vacuous well known journalists anywhere. The puzzle is how he has been considered by many to be a thoughtful unbiased journalist with a strong understanding of a world that he fails to relate to.
Like Clelland-Morin, I also believe in land for peace. The Arabs should give up land in order to gain peace with Israel.
What’s funny is that the Arabs are encouraged to dictate the terms of the peace after losing a series of wars of aggression against Israel. To the losers go the spoils, I guess.
In returning the Sinai to Egypt, just to give one example, Israel gave up more land proportional to its size than any other country in history.
Perhaps I’ll supply a sign to Clelland-Morin for her next demo: “The Arabs will recognize the dignity of Israel and finally accept a Jewish state.”
As for Donr’s invocation of the US Liberty episode, this only establishes Donr’s desperate anti-Zionist aims (aside from having absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand). A. Jay Cristol, among many others, has definitively rebutted the claim that this was anything but a case of mistaken identity. Why don’t you stick to the usual argument that Israel is a mere lackey of the U.S.?
I wish every American adult would read the following books: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Geneva Accord by Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras, Healing Israel/Palestine by Rabbi Michael Lerner, From Oslo to Iraq and the Roadmap by Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine by Edward Said, Out of Place by Edward Said, Einstein on Israel and Zionism by Fred J. Jerome, We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land by Jimmy Carter, and a dozen more.
6,000,000 American Jews dictate our foreign policy, and as the lobbyist for the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brags, he has in his pocket 60 senators for any vote Israel wishes to pass.
I hope Hart and his supporters are gratified to see the sort of gross anti-semites attracted to this site. We now have Frank Walter invoking the usual anti-Israeli propaganda, coupled with the claim that “6,000,000 American Jews dictate our foreign policy.”
There’s an obvious slippery slope here. You start with well-meaning lefties (I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt) defending Hamas, whose charter calls explicitly for the killing of Jews. And then you end up attracting the likes of Frank Walter, who probably has The Protocols of the Elders of Zion lined up for his summer reading.
Ah, the final lie–it’s those goddamn “anti-semites” who come before us, with their books and their facts and their irrefutable statistics and their plain old straight-forward observations on matters clear. Hart and his supporters, who must unequivocally support Israel no matter what she does, have failed in their assignation, and are therefore clearly anti-semitic. Thanks to William A., fighting the lonely good fight, up on the ramparts, by day as by night, making sure that the rest of us sinners don’t commit any thought crimes.
The lobbyist for AIPAC is full of shit, actually: Virtually every congressman and Senator can be counted on for their hysterical, boot-licking support for Israel, no matter what. They don’t need AIPAC to make them go apeshit for Israel everytime a reactionary liar like Bibi Netanyahu condemns the US (!) and it’s sitting President (!!) before it’s own Congress (!!!). It’s not because of AIPAC that the US Senate and House goes completely off the rails when Israel does something outrageous and obviously crazy to the rest of the world (and the vast majority of Americans). There’s something deeper at work here–how do we explain this utter madness, this crazy, embarassing palavering for a state out of control?
P.S.: Like I gave you the benefit of the doubt above, William A.? Frank Walter is wrong–six million American Jews most certainly do not dictate US foreign policy. Like all other Americans, any “group” of people contain therein a myriad of opinions and ideas; to imagine that all Jews are of the same mind on this or anything else is to imagine that all Muslims (or Palestinians) are of the same mind on all things. Precisely what you do, and nearly all the members of the Congress of The United States. It’s lunacy, it’s counter-productive, and it virtually guarantees that Israel will continue to suffer violence (and the Palestinians, too; far more than the Israelis). Try to imagine what others feel, for once.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/
I may be wrong but…..I still feel if a policy of non violence was enacted (yes the arab side of the equation)and a disconnect from terrorist influence was a reality; that long ago the palestinians would of realized most of their needs.I don’t think the lack of attacks on israel for the past decades would of made Israel MORE of a fascist ,militaristic(your words)state.I can’t think of anything that would not be better today for all concerned.And that is the bitter lesson of people like Arafat.He and people like him have been hurt his own people and the middle east as a whole.Nothing has been accomplished.Just death and bitterness exploited, and given new earth to reproduce.
“Save the Oocytes,” nice work building on Frank Walter’s anti-semitic ranting.
By the way, I thought of another satirical piece for the Onion. It would go something like this: the world demands that Israel negotiate with a fascist, terrorist militia whose charter explicitly states that all negotiations are useless. Oh, wait, that wouldn’t be satire.
TimN, I don’t know why I bother, but here goes. The point is not that Hart should unequivocally support Israel, but that – particularly as a purported watchdog against media bias – he shouldn’t invariably attack Israel.
But you’re right about one thing, there is something deeper going on here. Why is Israel demonized by much of the world? Why is it treated as “the Jew among nations,” as it were? Perhaps our friend Frank Walter will offer some illuminating commentary on this issue.
I disagree with Anspach with respect to the most important point: it is absolutely clear to me that Israel has basically no other choice than to comply with the US foreign policy. And the argument is simple: more than half of the Israeli government’s external debt is owed to the US and the debt is huge (and exponential)…
Well, it is up to you to continue dreaming that Israel has a truly independent foreign policy…
Now with respect to the other points (media treatment and antisemitism), I agree with Anspach.
Hart: “The implication–a familiar one in corporate media–is that there’s never been much Palestinian non-violent resistance.”
I fail to see that implication in Friedman’s paper — even though I believe this guy has an overkill influence in mainstream (corporate) media.
And in any case — I believe no one (at least those well-meaning people hanging out in US) has a real advice to give, nor is in a position to do so. And to disclose fully my own position: while
I believe US aid to Israel is an extremely poisoned gift, I have no illusion with respect to the other people (self-proclaimed Palestinians) in terms of political self-organization. I know firsthand that the clan mentality is just too powerful. But then again, you can argue that the clan mentality in the West exists too: it’s called corporate interests.
Leo and William….A bell is ringing loudly in FAIR headquarters.It is an alarm bell.The last time three bloggers in a row cut Israel slack was…………………well actually in never has happened here.
Frank …..Come on you can not believe this nonsense.I have read some of this claptrap.It leads me to believe you would say of the nazis that of course they went too far “BUT”……..as to some of the things ol Dolfy believed about the jews……
No he was a nut.Das cuckoo .A rug pounding- frothing at the mouth-eyes in the back of his head lune.
Just as “ah ma needs a job”(the leader of Iran) is.Me i am a realist. 6 million jews do not direct our foreign policy.Only one does.Sammy davis jr!He never died ,and is now leading the zionist movement in a bunker somewhere under las vegas.
Michael e, you’re right about the alarm bells. Perhaps we three bloggers will end up controlling U.S. foreign policy. That’ll really give Hart something to foam at the mouth about…
Sounds good Bill.I would like to be the envoy to Greenland or Iceland.My lord but they have beautiful woman.(Can you tell i once worked for Bill Clinton :)