I listened to an interview with Miko Peled on Clearing The Fog. He is, if you
remember his appearance on Democracy Now, the son of an Israeli general who
eventually became an advocate for Palestinian rights and who emigrated to the
US. He wrote The General's Son, which is on Bookshare, and recently, another
book about how the US unjustly prosecuted and imprisoned the American Muslims
who ran The Holy Land Foundation. What is most interesting to me is that he now
is saying something that few Jewish people will say and that is, "There is no
justification for Israel". To almost everyone, that is a blasphemy because no
matter what sins Israel commits, in most people's minds, its justification is
The Holocaust. Of course, Israel was envision by Zionists before the Nazis
existed. A phrase in Jewish prayer is, "Next year in Israel". I don't know what
that signifies because I don't know much about the Jewish religion. But aside
from that, in the 19th century, some European Jews were emigrating to Israel to
avoid anti-semitism in Europe. Miko Peled pointed out that however much one's
ancestors have suffered, their suffering doesn't give one the right to engage
in ethnic cleansing. But what percentage of American Jews would agree with his
statement? One of the most obnoxious speeches I've recently heard was in a
video of Senator Schumer talking to a Jewish audience in Brooklyn. Talk about
treason! One wonders of which country he is a citizen, the US or Israel.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 1:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
I've always been of the opinion that Israel never planned to live in peace with
Palestine. Just as the Europeans who fled poverty and religious persecution
never wanted to live with the Indigenous People on this continent and took
freely the land that spread to the West, so Israel will continue to take land
as if it is their God given right.
But I do not believe that religion has any major part to play here.
Israel is simply following the age old pattern of taking that which they are
able to take. It's called Conquest.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/4/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
As the notion of a two-state agreement fades firmly into history, the
apartheid reality becomes impossible to ignore.
by
Yousef Munayyer
"Israel is well equipped to deal with violence but it fumbles every
interaction with non-violent dissent because these interactions thrust
Israel's policies ― policies that deny basic rights ― onto center stage."
(Photo: Ma'an News Agency)
In late May of 2010, Israeli naval commandos descended onto a flotilla
of six small civilian boats that aim to break the blockade of the Gaza
Strip and bring humanitarian supplies to the besieged enclave. Nine
civilians, eight Turks and one American citizen, were massacred. It
sparked a diplomatic crisis as well as a public relations disaster for
Israel. One of the key lessons Israel took from the event, and indeed
a focus of its government's investigative report, was not that Israel
should not have massacred the civilians, but rather that it should
have done a better job of explaining why it did so.
So early last week, well before demonstrators began to amass in Gaza
for a planned protest, I could see how Israel was laying the
foundation for the massacre to come, describing the march as a
Hamas-organized event aimed at violent provocation. In the days
before, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs circulated talking
points preemptively framing the event as violent, dangerous, a cover
for terror activity and an exploitation of civilians.
The
Israeli military sent 100 snipers down to the fence between Gaza and
Israel.
The stage was set for a massacre and this time, the Israelis may have
thought they sufficiently prepared an international audience to
justify it ahead of time.
By the time the sun had set on Friday in Gaza, 17 Palestinians were
killed and hundreds of others were wounded by live ammunition. Videos
emerged of unarmed protesters dodging bullets before ultimately being gunned
down.
International condemnations would follow, as would an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to address the issue.
Once again, Israel had used lethal force against unarmed protesters,
even as Israeli soldiers faced no imminent threat. Indeed, no Israeli
soldiers were injured during the events. And it is hard to imagine how
they could be.
These are soldiers armed to the hilt and positioned atop dunes or in
armored vehicles, behind a fence as well, firing at Palestinians from
a great distance. Even if a Palestinian was throwing a stone, the
chances that under these conditions such an act could cause an
imminent threat to life ― the only situation that would justify the
use of lethal force under international law ― are infinitesimal.
Indeed, even if Palestinians were trying to climb the fence, that
would not give Israel the right to use lethal force.
Why does Israel keep finding itself in these situations with the
Palestinians? Some will argue that the Jewish state is in the
impossible position of constantly balancing efforts to maintain its
security without creating another public relations disaster. The truth
is, Israel keeps finding itself in these situations because of the
ongoing denial of basic rights to millions of Palestinians. This march
in Gaza was a demonstration against Israel's policy of encagement.
Pluralistic democracies that respect human rights do not find
themselves resorting to using lethal force against demonstrators.
That's what apartheid states do. But Israel has sold itself to the
world as something else, a beacon of liberalism and democracy. Few
things expose this image as a sham as well as massive non-violent
mobilizations or civil disobedience.
More than the atrocities committed or the condemnations that followed,
perhaps the most important and also inspirational element of the
events of last Friday was the demonstrations themselves. Tens of
thousands of Palestinians congregated in disciplined, organized
demonstrations at various points along the fence of the besieged Gaza
Strip. People of all ages joined, songs were sung, meals were cooked,
pick-up volleyball games were played. All of this, importantly, was
done as a unified Palestinian front.
Despite Israel's efforts to slap a Hamas label on it, the only visible
flags were Palestinian, not factional. For Palestinians, this was a
vision that brought us together with great hope.
These types of events are Israel's nightmare, not because they are
violent, but precisely because they are not. Israel is well equipped
to deal with violence but it fumbles every interaction with
non-violent dissent because these interactions thrust Israel's
policies ― policies that deny basic rights ― onto center stage. That
is why the Israeli government tried to frame the event as violent
before it took place, so it could brutally crack down and dissuade
Palestinians from organizing such events again.
Happening on Land Day, which commemorates the massacre of Palestinian
citizens of Israel by Israeli forces during a protest against land
confiscation in the Galilee in 1976, the march was an effort to assert
the rights of Palestinians in Gaza in a way that tied all Palestinians
together.
Israel, since it's inception, has relied on external support,
particularly from the Western world, for justification of its policies
in Gaza and the West Bank. These relationships are contingent on many
things, including values the West claims to hold dear like freedom,
democracy, civil rights and equality. The prospect of a negotiated
agreement based on two-states has allowed Israel to stave off the
confrontation between the myth of these values and the reality on the
ground.
But as the notion of a two-state agreement fades firmly into history,
the apartheid reality becomes impossible to ignore, and further
episodes where Israel will confront masses of mobilized Palestinians
demanding their rights will continue to highlight this contradiction.
It is now incumbent on the international community to encourage
Palestinian non-violent dissent and civil disobedience, to condemn
Israel's violent repression and then hold it accountable for such
violations of law. The massacre of protesters in Gaza this past week
was Palestine's version of the Sharpeville Massacre that happened
almost exactly 58 years ago in South Africa.
The international community responded then with condemnation,
beginning a process that included an arms embargo and ultimately led
to the end of the apartheid system. How the international community
responds to this event in Gaza and ones surely to come will determine
how much longer Israel will be able to get away with its separate and unequal
rule over Palestinians.
© 2018 Huffington Post
