Greenwald writes: "When Palestinians fight against occupying troops on their
soil, they are denounced - and often killed - as 'terrorists.' Meanwhile,
nonviolent campaigns to end the occupation through a South Africa-style
boycott are demonized as 'anti-Semitism' and officially barred - censored -
in all sorts of ways, in numerous countries around the world."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is "Terrorism." Boycotting Is
"Anti-Semitism." What's Allowed?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
04 April 16
That terrorism is a malleable term of propaganda, with no fixed meaning or
consistent application, is now quite well-established. Still, its recent
application to a spate of violence targeting Israels occupying soldiers in
the West Bank is so manipulative and extreme that its well worth
highlighting.
Israel has militarily occupied the West Bank for decades (its also still
functionally occupying Gaza, as this two-minute video proves). The West Bank
occupation is illegal under international law and the United Nations has
repeatedly told the countrys government to vacate Palestinian territory.
Even ardent defenders of Israel admit that the West Bank is under a legal
regime of belligerent occupation and Israels settlement enterprise is,
and has always been, grossly illegal under international law. Despite this
world consensus, Israeli settlements continue to grow rapidly. Israel is not
engaged in any meaningful efforts to negotiate an agreement to end the
occupation, and leading Israeli ministers now openly oppose such efforts.
In response to this, there has been a series of attacks over the past year
by Palestinians on Israeli occupying soldiers in the West Bank. In the
Israeli and American press, the Palestinians attacking these occupying
soldiers are invariably called terrorists and their attacks are denounced
as terrorism (The two soldiers were stabbed while at a guard post at the
Har Bracha settlement, located in the northern West Bank.
Troops were
searching for the terrorists).
For those (such as myself) who have long contended that the term terrorism
now has little meaning beyond violence by Muslims against the West and its
allies, and no purpose other than to delegitimize violence by one side
while legitimizing the other sides, can there be any better proof than
this?
There have been Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians of course (while
far more Palestinian civilians have died at the hands of the Israeli army),
but in these specific cases, these Palestinians are attacking purely
military targets, not civilians. Those military targets are soldiers
deployed to their soil as part of an illegal occupying army. In what
conceivable sense can that be terrorism? If fighting an occupying army is
now terrorism simply because the army belongs to Israel and the attackers
are Palestinian, is it not incredibly obvious how this term is exploited?
The U.S. has frequently done the same: invade and occupy countries such as
Iraq and Afghanistan and then label anyone who fights their occupying armies
as terrorists, even putting some in Guantánamo for that. Similarly,
attacks against military bases of the U.S., U.K., and other Western
countries are routinely labeled terrorism.
Needless to say, both Americans and Israelis (along with most others in the
world) reserve for themselves the absolute right to fight against any
foreign army that occupies their land. Indeed, Hollywood, in the 1980s,
produced a film called Red Dawn, which imagined an occupation of the U.S. by
the Soviet Union and its Nicaraguan and Cuban allies. It told the story of
the heroic U.S. citizens, led by high school students, who waged a guerrilla
war against the occupying troops, killing dozens upon dozens of them.
Imagine the widespread confusion, and outrage, that would have resulted if
someone accused the filmmakers of glorifying terrorism by demonizing the
fictional American resisters as terrorists:
The film was updated in 2012 with a sequel depicting one group of unlikely
[American] heroes who waged guerrilla warfare against North Korean forces
who had invaded and occupied the U.S. (the film originally depicted these
American heroes attacking and killing an occupying army from China, but, in
post-production, the producers changed the identity of the occupiers to
North Korean in order to preserve access to Chinese theaters):
When Americans resist military occupation by fighting against occupying
troops on their soil, they are noble heroes. But when Palestinians do this,
they are terrorists. This discourse, by design, equates Palestinians
resisting occupation by fighting against an occupying army with al Qaeda and
ISIS, and thus posits that any use of force by Palestinians to resist
Israeli occupation even when done on Palestinian soil, aimed exclusively
at Israeli military targets there is illegitimate.
So if violent resistance is illegitimate terrorism, what about other
alternatives for resisting the decades-old, still-expanding illegal Israeli
occupation? The nonviolent route embraced by Palestinian activists and their
anti-occupation allies around the world is a campaign of boycott, sanctions,
and divestment (BDS) aimed at Israel, modeled after the campaign that helped
end South Africas apartheid regime in the 1980s (a regime that, just by the
way, was a close ally of both the U.S. and Israel).
But there is a highly successful campaign by Israel and its U.S. allies not
only to decree this nonviolent boycott campaign illegitimate, but literally
to outlaw it. Official bodies are enacting rules to censor and officially
suppress it by equating the campaign with anti-Semitism even though, as
fervent Israel supporter Eric Alterman wrote in the New York Times this
week, it is filled with young Jews.
The Intercept and other outlets have repeatedly reported on official
governmental and university actions to ban BDS activism by equating it with
anti-Semitism. In California, the regents of the nations largest
university system just enacted a resolution strongly implying that BDS
activism is anti-Semitic and thus in violation of university rules. In New
York last week, dozens of state legislators, from both parties, have
demanded the de-funding of a pro-Palestinian group at CUNY, a move denounced
by the campus free speech group FIRE. Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, when running for office, announced that BDS has no place on
Canadian campuses. In France, people are literally arrested as criminals
under hate speech laws for wearing T-shirts advocating BDS. Measures in
the U.K. have been enacted to legally bar support for such boycott
movements. Laws and proposed bills in Israel ban advocacy of the movement
and bar supporters from entering Israel.
So look at what has happened here. When Palestinians fight against occupying
troops on their soil, they are denounced and often killed as
terrorists. Meanwhile, nonviolent campaigns to end the occupation through
a South Africa-style boycott are demonized as anti-Semitism and officially
barred censored in all sorts of ways, in numerous countries around the
world.
If fighting Israeli occupying forces is barred as terrorism, and
nonviolent boycotts against Israel are barred as anti-Semitism, then what
is considered a legitimate means for Palestinians and their allies to resist
and end the decadeslong, illegal Israeli occupation? The answer is: nothing.
Palestinians are obliged to submit to Israeli occupation in a way that none
of the people demanding that would ever themselves submit to occupation of
their land. All forms of resistance to Israeli occupation are deemed
illegitimate. That, manifestly, is the whole point of all of this.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/fighting-israeli-occupying-forces-is-ter
rorism-boycotting-is-anti-semitism-whats-allowed/https://theintercept.com/20
16/04/03/fighting-israeli-occupying-forces-is-terrorism-boycotting-is-anti-s
emitism-whats-allowed/
Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is "Terrorism." Boycotting Is
"Anti-Semitism." What's Allowed?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
04 April 16
hat terrorism is a malleable term of propaganda, with no fixed meaning or
consistent application, is now quite well-established. Still, its recent
application to a spate of violence targeting Israels occupying soldiers in
the West Bank is so manipulative and extreme that its well worth
highlighting.
Israel has militarily occupied the West Bank for decades (its also still
functionally occupying Gaza, as this two-minute video proves). The West Bank
occupation is illegal under international law and the United Nations has
repeatedly told the countrys government to vacate Palestinian territory.
Even ardent defenders of Israel admit that the West Bank is under a legal
regime of belligerent occupation and Israels settlement enterprise is,
and has always been, grossly illegal under international law. Despite this
world consensus, Israeli settlements continue to grow rapidly. Israel is not
engaged in any meaningful efforts to negotiate an agreement to end the
occupation, and leading Israeli ministers now openly oppose such efforts.
In response to this, there has been a series of attacks over the past year
by Palestinians on Israeli occupying soldiers in the West Bank. In the
Israeli and American press, the Palestinians attacking these occupying
soldiers are invariably called terrorists and their attacks are denounced
as terrorism (The two soldiers were stabbed while at a guard post at the
Har Bracha settlement, located in the northern West Bank.
Troops were
searching for the terrorists).
For those (such as myself) who have long contended that the term terrorism
now has little meaning beyond violence by Muslims against the West and its
allies, and no purpose other than to delegitimize violence by one side
while legitimizing the other sides, can there be any better proof than
this?
There have been Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians of course (while
far more Palestinian civilians have died at the hands of the Israeli army),
but in these specific cases, these Palestinians are attacking purely
military targets, not civilians. Those military targets are soldiers
deployed to their soil as part of an illegal occupying army. In what
conceivable sense can that be terrorism? If fighting an occupying army is
now terrorism simply because the army belongs to Israel and the attackers
are Palestinian, is it not incredibly obvious how this term is exploited?
The U.S. has frequently done the same: invade and occupy countries such as
Iraq and Afghanistan and then label anyone who fights their occupying armies
as terrorists, even putting some in Guantánamo for that. Similarly,
attacks against military bases of the U.S., U.K., and other Western
countries are routinely labeled terrorism.
Needless to say, both Americans and Israelis (along with most others in the
world) reserve for themselves the absolute right to fight against any
foreign army that occupies their land. Indeed, Hollywood, in the 1980s,
produced a film called Red Dawn, which imagined an occupation of the U.S. by
the Soviet Union and its Nicaraguan and Cuban allies. It told the story of
the heroic U.S. citizens, led by high school students, who waged a guerrilla
war against the occupying troops, killing dozens upon dozens of them.
Imagine the widespread confusion, and outrage, that would have resulted if
someone accused the filmmakers of glorifying terrorism by demonizing the
fictional American resisters as terrorists:
The film was updated in 2012 with a sequel depicting one group of unlikely
[American] heroes who waged guerrilla warfare against North Korean forces
who had invaded and occupied the U.S. (the film originally depicted these
American heroes attacking and killing an occupying army from China, but, in
post-production, the producers changed the identity of the occupiers to
North Korean in order to preserve access to Chinese theaters):
When Americans resist military occupation by fighting against occupying
troops on their soil, they are noble heroes. But when Palestinians do this,
they are terrorists. This discourse, by design, equates Palestinians
resisting occupation by fighting against an occupying army with al Qaeda and
ISIS, and thus posits that any use of force by Palestinians to resist
Israeli occupation even when done on Palestinian soil, aimed exclusively
at Israeli military targets there is illegitimate.
So if violent resistance is illegitimate terrorism, what about other
alternatives for resisting the decades-old, still-expanding illegal Israeli
occupation? The nonviolent route embraced by Palestinian activists and their
anti-occupation allies around the world is a campaign of boycott, sanctions,
and divestment (BDS) aimed at Israel, modeled after the campaign that helped
end South Africas apartheid regime in the 1980s (a regime that, just by the
way, was a close ally of both the U.S. and Israel).
But there is a highly successful campaign by Israel and its U.S. allies not
only to decree this nonviolent boycott campaign illegitimate, but literally
to outlaw it. Official bodies are enacting rules to censor and officially
suppress it by equating the campaign with anti-Semitism even though, as
fervent Israel supporter Eric Alterman wrote in the New York Times this
week, it is filled with young Jews.
The Intercept and other outlets have repeatedly reported on official
governmental and university actions to ban BDS activism by equating it with
anti-Semitism. In California, the regents of the nations largest
university system just enacted a resolution strongly implying that BDS
activism is anti-Semitic and thus in violation of university rules. In New
York last week, dozens of state legislators, from both parties, have
demanded the de-funding of a pro-Palestinian group at CUNY, a move denounced
by the campus free speech group FIRE. Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, when running for office, announced that BDS has no place on
Canadian campuses. In France, people are literally arrested as criminals
under hate speech laws for wearing T-shirts advocating BDS. Measures in
the U.K. have been enacted to legally bar support for such boycott
movements. Laws and proposed bills in Israel ban advocacy of the movement
and bar supporters from entering Israel.
So look at what has happened here. When Palestinians fight against occupying
troops on their soil, they are denounced and often killed as
terrorists. Meanwhile, nonviolent campaigns to end the occupation through
a South Africa-style boycott are demonized as anti-Semitism and officially
barred censored in all sorts of ways, in numerous countries around the
world.
If fighting Israeli occupying forces is barred as terrorism, and
nonviolent boycotts against Israel are barred as anti-Semitism, then what
is considered a legitimate means for Palestinians and their allies to resist
and end the decadeslong, illegal Israeli occupation? The answer is: nothing.
Palestinians are obliged to submit to Israeli occupation in a way that none
of the people demanding that would ever themselves submit to occupation of
their land. All forms of resistance to Israeli occupation are deemed
illegitimate. That, manifestly, is the whole point of all of this.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
