67 not “48 Years of Zionist Occupation”

ED Note:

Palestine from River to Sea is occupied.

The core issue of the Palestinian cause is the Right of Uprooted Palestinians to return to their Land occupied in 1948 and their destroyed village

Palestinian Villages Destroyed During the Nakba 1948

We will never forget and will never forgive traitors in Ramullah, in Doha and the Slaves of “Anti-Zion” Elders

End the Occupation from River to Sea
Freedom for Palestine From River to Sea

48 years

 Remembering al Naksa – today marks the 48th anniversary of Israel’s illegal military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. 48 years too long.
Support the Palestinian BDS campaign. Boycott Israel.
End the Occupation! End Israeli Apartheid!
Freedom for Palestine!

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!



A Window Into Jewish Vindictiveness

May 31, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Canary Mission’s clip is a glimpse into Jewish vindictiveness. The Canary Mission is a Jewish Zionist organisation that vows to track pro-Palestinian activists and ruin their lives as well as any prospect of a professional future for them. Pretty grim but slightly more merciful than traditional crucifixion.

But the Canary Mission is not at all unique in its spite. Sadly enough, the ‘liberal’ JVP is practicing some very similar tactics. We recently came across JVP’s call to excommunicate Alison Weir, a legendary American activist.  Along the years, we have seen JVP, JFJFP and Mondoweiss campaigning repeatedly and relentlessly against some of the most profound speakers for Palestine, peace and justice – people such as Ken O’Keefe, Greta Berlin, George Galloway, Myself and many others.

I guess that the conclusion is inevitable. This form of vindictiveness that is manifested by the Canary Mission, JVP, Mondoweiss and JFJFP is actually intrinsic to Jewish Diaspora politics, both Zionist and anti-Zionist.  If Jewish liberals want to reinstate their position in the solidarity movement, they must take a clear step and openly retract their recent campaigns and also vow to avoid repetition of these tactics in the future.

Dear Abu Mazen: End This Farce

“ A declaration of the end of the Oslo process — justified by the fact that the path to a permanent-status agreement is blocked — is the most reasonable, nonviolent option for putting the subject back on the world’s agenda, with the aim of renewing genuine efforts to reach a conclusive solution.” YOSSI BEILIN [Is the most reasonable option for Liberation of Palestine all Palestine] –Nothing but Full Liberation

An open letter to the Palestinian leader.


Mahmoud Abbas
President, Palestinian Authority
Muqata, Ramallah

Yossi Beilin (left) and PA Minister
Yasser Abed Rabo
talking at a 2002 meeting in Jerusalem.
I admit that I never believed the moment would come when I would have to write these words. I am doing so because U.S. President Barack Obama has convinced you not to announce, at this point in time, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority’s institutions and the “return of the keys” of authority for the Palestinian territories to Israel.
Because there have never been serious negotiations with the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the last three years, and because you did not want to perpetuate the myth that a meaningful dialogue existed, you have been sorely tempted to declare the death of the “peace process” — but the American president urged you to maintain the status quo. It is a mistake to agree to Obama’s request, and you can rectify this.

Oslo and Geneva initiative architects-
The selling out of Palestine and ROR 

The Oslo Accords were a tremendous victory for the peace camps on both sides. And this agreement did not fail. It was thwarted. The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Palestinian terrorism, and the political victories of the opponents of the agreement — both on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side — have turned the agreement into a device that has allowed the parties to block a two-state solution.
Oslo’s opponents, on both sides, were initially startled by a process that promised to lead to a partition of the land in a few years. They later turned Oslo into a tool to prevent partition by prolonging the interim agreement, claiming that, as long as it is not replaced by a permanent agreement, it must continue and be binding to both sides. Oslo’s adversaries have turned the interim agreement, which was supposed to last not more than six years and serve only as a pathway to a final solution, into an arena where they can continue to build settlements or spin their dreams of an Islamic empire, without the world putting serious pressure on them to put an end to the conflict.
The extremists’ gutting of the Oslo agreement has been complete.

They have uprooted the permanent-status negotiations — where the two sides pledged to tackle core issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the future of Israeli settlements — from the peace process. They have succeeded in preventing the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with land swaps, the establishment of two capitals in the current area of Jerusalem, the formulation of appropriate security arrangements, and a fitting symbolic and economic resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees — as was proposed in the Geneva Accord, in which you were involved in all of the details. Their aim is to perpetuate the interim process indefinitely, and every single day that passes plays into their hands.
One simply cannot continue with an interim arrangement for almost 20 years. This was not the intention when we spearheaded the Oslo process in late 1992 — you from Tunis and I from Jerusalem — or when we assiduously worked on what subsequently became known as the “Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement” between 1993 and 1995. 

I can’t Yusi

You and I both understand that the current situation is a ticking time bomb. From my point of view, what is at stake is the loss of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. From yours, it is the loss of the chance for an independent Palestinian state. And from both of our points of view, the failure of the two-state solution risks a renewal of terrible violence.
Anyone who believes these things must take action. You can do it, and for this step you do not need a partner. A declaration of the end of the Oslo process — justified by the fact that the path to a permanent-status agreement is blocked — is the most reasonable, nonviolent option for putting the subject back on the world’s agenda, with the aim of renewing genuine efforts to reach a conclusive solution.

In case you missed it

  • A Letter to Mother Palestine and her Daughters
  • The Women of Palestine and the Struggle for Liberation
  • Jerusalem; A Cry for Support, A Cry for Justice – Where is the millions?
  • Call me a Palestinian from Palestine
  • PA Political Terminology 101: When Talks Are Not Talks
  • One Heart; Beating for Palestine
  • A free Palestine: Free from the River to the Sea
  • Embracing the Land
  • The Eagle of Palestine
  • Returning to Jerusalem
  • 63 Years Later, Palestine From River To Sea
  • They Call it “Independence” … We Call it Nakba
  • On Land Day, Listen to the Land
  • Occupied Palestine from A to Z: Basma – a Woman from Palestine
  • River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

    The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

    "Two Peoples, One Future"- NO, BUT NO THANK YOU

    By Nahida the Exiled Palestinian

    In his artcile Alan Hart present us with a myth of a solution to the chronic Palestinian suffering, presented as an alternative way to solve this long-lasting problem.

    Mr. Hart wants us to believe that the only hope for Palestinians is to turn to the major powers, led by America, and find a way to make them “put Israel on public notice” and that if Israel “resort to a final round of ethnic cleansing” that “it would be universally condemned as a criminal state and subjected to sanctions of every kind, universally applied

    I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Hart, but his calculations, his conclusion and his solution are wrong, yet again!

    In his analysis and elucidation, Mr. Hart puts “zero” value for the Arab and Muslims populations, these millions of oppressed masses, who have been raging for decades, do not even surface in his conscious or subconscious mind.

    His three possible outcomes that he presents in his article are not the only scenarios as he would like to believe.

    There are many more that he seems to be unaware of or ignore.

    How about for example; a Tsunamic march towards occupied Palestine by Palestinian refugees, their Arab, Muslim and international supporters… where people march in their MILLIONS, as they did in Tahrir square?

    We know that Tsunamis are forces of nature, but there can also be a human Tsunamis!

    How about a “Hizbullah” or “Salah-Eddinscenario??

    Palestinians are people who know their history well; their pre-school children know, as well as they do that the Crusaders have occupied Palestine for 200 years. So what is 60 years in comparison!

    Where are the crusaders now???

    As for the second scenario that which Mr. Hart prefers best, as a solution:

    The Jews, generally speaking, are the intellectual elite of the Western world. The Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership in One State with equal human and political rights for all, they could play the leading role in changing the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world

    Palestinians, especially Palestinian women, have already reached another conclusion, Mr. Hart. They have realized that their future can NOT be materialized with chaining themselves as slaves to the self appointed “Chosen”, “masters”, “Jewish elite”, “bankers” and “financiers”. This is called suicide by enslavement. We see it happening all around us in the “civilised”, “democratic” and “capitalistic” (or should I say “Cabbalistic”?) world, at the hands of the same “elite”, whom Mr. Hart is so fond of and infatuated by.


    Palestinians, who have been steadfast and who have practiced Sumud for over a century do not accept to be tails to any dog, elite or no elite.

    can only have a future when they sever every tie with the criminal rapists “Israeli Jews” and fully Liberate their homeland from the occupiers
    , who have failed during a whole century to behave like normal human beings.

    “Israeli Jews” and their supporters need to realize, and the sooner the better, that:

    There is no future for the occupiers in the land they have colonized by force.

    Forced marriages with rapists are unethical and inhumane.

    We Palestinians, especially Palestinian women, we REFUSE such UNHOLY union.


    The Sumud that kept us going for a 100 years will keep us going until the FULL Liberation of Palestine

    I hope that the above will clarify the average-Palestinian vision and aspiration to Mr. Hart and to all others who still insist that tying the Palestinians’ future with that of the supremacist invaders is the only way forward.

    The frayed mantra of “Two peoples, one future” cannot be recognized anywhere in the Middle East, it is best taken to one of the Rothschild banks to be cashed.

    No decent Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or human being would be ready to cash such fraudulent claim.


    Alan Hart: To Pevent the rising tide of anti-Israelism from being transformed into violent anti-Semitism, requirepreventing the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine


    After Obama’s total Surrender to Zionism, Alan Hart  re-stated his well known priorities:


    “Priority number one is preventing the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

    Priority number two is preventing the rising tide of anti-Israelism from being transformed into violent anti-Semitism.”


    In other words, reading between the kines, and connecting the dots her and there in his latest articles, the real agenda is stopping the rising tide of anti-Israelism from being transformed into violent anti-Semitism

    According to Debbie Manon: Fake ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charge Losing Its Edge, “and all we have to do now is wait until it buries itself in time, as the world will insist”.

    So why Alan is so worried??  

    And Why Alan created this term “anti-Israelism”, and avoiding the proper term “Anti-zionism”? 

    To my best knowledge 20% of the so-clled israelis are arabs, the only remaining people of Semitic origins in the zionist entity.

    Is Alan still frightened from the Anti-semitism Zionist sword?

    My brother Gilad Atzimon hate to be called an Ex- ‘Israeli’ instead considers himself as a ‘Hebrew speaking’ Palestinian. (Check this great interview).
    Last month, Gilad Atzmon spoke (video here) at the Stuttgart Conference on Palestine held in Germany on November 26-28, 2010.  
    •“We all agree about one state –

    •“The world “Shalom” doesn’t mean “peace” – in Jewish culture it mean “security of the Jewish peyour neighbor” is quite foreign to Jewish culture”.
    •“The political ople”.

    •“The “loving concept of Western is disastrous. Look at their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    •“A few weeks ago a very brave Israeli came up with names of 200 Israeli war criminals in Gaza. Some Israeli media outlets blamed me for leaking that information.”
    •“The Israel’s comparison with Nazi Germany is wrong because Israel claims to be a ‘democracy’ while Germany under Nazis was not. Israeli are worse than Nazis”.
    •“Israel’s comparison with appartheid South Africa is wrong. South Africa never carried out the ethnic-cleansing of the Native Africans as Israelis are carrying-out against the Native Palestinians.”
    •“Israelis are doomed. The US, Britain and Germany would not be able to save them. Ultimately, they are subject to Palestinians’ kindness”.

    I am, the Arabic Speaking Palestinian, and Brither Gilad the Hebrew speaking’ Palestinian. who never met, are on the same page because for us, the core of conflict is Jewish racism…Jewish tribalism, chuvenim, supremacy and so on … therefore, we are a problem with Careful Activists who try to appease the Zionists, and call for equal rights for the Victims and war criminals. 

    Obama to Netanyahu – “You win”

    • December 8, 2010

    Those of us who are associated with the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and who call for justice for the Palestinians, now have reason to say “Thank you” to President Obama.

    With his decision to abandon efforts to persuade Israel to renew a freeze on illegal settlement building on the occupied West Bank, he has proved that the makers of American policy for resolving the conflict are Israel’s leaders and their lobby in the U.S. (including its many stooges in Congress and the mainstream media), not the man who occupies the Oval Office in the White House.

    Of course I know this has always been the case (actually since the departure from the Oval Office of General Eisenhower who was the first and the last American President to oblige Israel to act in accordance with international law), but for a sitting president to provide by default the absolute proof is quite something.
    The implications are truly terrifying, obviously for the occupied and oppressed Palestinians but also for Americans; and why is not difficult to explain.

    As all seriously well informed people know (sadly the very few, not the very many), unconditional American support for the criminal state of Israel is not in America’s own interests. It is the best recruiting sergeant for violent Arab and other Muslim extremism and the prime cause of the gathering, global storm of anti-Americanism at street if not yet government level.

    The first responsibility of any American president is to protect the security of his own people. With his latest surrender to Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby, Obama is effectively saying to his fellow Amer
    icans, “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to do that.”

    As things are, the name of the game from here on in my view is not the pursuit of peace, that’s a mission impossible.

    Priority number one is preventing the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
    Priority number two is preventing the rising tide of anti-Israelism from being transformed into violent anti-Semitism.

    River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

    Never WAS and never will BE an Israeli peace camp


    By Gideon Levy, Haaretz Correspondent

    The Israeli peace camp didn’t die. It was never born in the first place. While it’s true that since the summer of 1967, several radical and brave political groups have been working against the occupation – all worthy of recognition – a large, influential peace camp has never existed here.

    It’s true that after the Yom Kippur War, after the first Lebanon War and during the giddy days of Oslo (oh, how giddy those days were), citizens took to the streets, generally when the weather was nice and when the best of Israeli music was being performed at rallies, but few people really said anything decisive or courageous, and fewer still were willing to pay a personal price for their activities. After the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, people lit candles in the square and sang Aviv Geffen songs, but this certainly isn’t what one would call a peace camp.

    It is also true that the stance advocated by the so-called Matzpen movement immediately after the Six-Day War has now more or less become the Israeli consensus position – but it is mere words, devoid of content. Nothing meaningful has been done so far to put it into practice. One would have expected more, a lot more, from a democratic society in whose backyard such a prolonged and cruel occupation has existed and whose government has primarily invoked the language of fear, threats and violence.

    There have been societies in the past in whose name frightful injustice has been ommitted, but at least within some of them, genuine, angry and determined left-wing protest took place – of the sort that requires personal risk and courage, and which is not limited to action within the cozy consensus. An occupying society whose town square has been empty for years, with the exception of hollow memorial rallies and poorly attended protests, cannot wash its hands of the situation. Neither democracy nor the peace camp can.

    If people didn’t take to the streets in large numbers during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, then there isn’t a genuine peace camp. If people don’t flood the streets now – when dangers lie in wait and opportunity is wasted time after time, and democracy sustains blow after blow on a daily basis and there are no longer sufficient resources to properly defend it, and when the right wing controls the political map and settlers amass more and more power – then there is no genuine left wing.

    There is nothing like the debate over the future of the Meretz party to demonstrate the sorry state of the left. This comes in the wake of the strange and ridiculous report last week about the party’s poor showing in the last election, and which gives every possible recommendation. Meretz disappeared because the party fell silent; you don’t need a commission to find that out. But even during its relatively better days, Meretz was not a real peace camp. When Meretz applauded Oslo, it deliberately ignored the fact that the champions of the “historic” peace accords never intended to evacuate even a single settlement over the course of the great “breakthrough” that earned its promoters Nobel peace, yes, peace prizes. This camp also overlooked Israel’s violations of the agreements, its illusions of peace.

    Above all, however, the problem was rooted in the left’s impossible adherence to Zionism in its historical sense. In precisely the way there cannot be a democratic and Jewish state in one breath, one has to first define what comes before what – there cannot be a left wing committed to the old-fashioned Zionism that built the state but has run its course. This illusory left wing never managed to ultimately understand the Palestinian problem – which was created in 1948, not 1967 – never understanding that it can’t be solved while ignoring the injustice caused from the beginning. A left wing unwilling to dare to deal with 1948 is not a genuine left wing. The illusory left never understood the most important point: For the Palestinians, consenting to the 1967 borders along with a solution to the refugee problem, including at least the return of a symbolic number of refugees themselves, are painful concessions. They also represent the only just compromise, without which peace will not be established; but there’s no sense in accusing the Palestinians of wasting an opportunity. Such a proposal, even including the “far-reaching” proposals of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, has never been made to them.

    Meretz will surely find some kind of organizational arrangement and will again get half a dozen members elected to the Knesset, on a good day maybe even a dozen. This doesn’t mean much, however. The other left-wing groups, both Jewish and Arab, remain excluded. No one has any use for them, no one thinks about including them, and they are too small to have any influence. So let’s call the child by its real name: The Israeli peace camp is still an unborn baby.

    Update: There was a Man Of peace

    Uri Avnery: Against the Israel Boycott, SO BUY FROM THE JEWS

    My comments are in GREEN

    Uri Avnery: Against the Israel Boycott

    by Uri Avnery, (THE “GOOD” ZIONIST)

    August 31, 2009

    How much did the boycott of South Africa actually contribute to the fall of the racist regime? This week I talked with Desmond Tutu about this question, which has been on my mind for a long time.

    No one is better qualified to answer this question than he. Tutu, the South African Anglican archbishop and Nobel Prize laureate, was one of the leaders of the fight against apartheid and, later, the chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which investigated the crimes of the regime. This week he visited Israel with the “Elders,” an organization of elder statesmen from all over the world set up by Nelson Mandela.

    The matter of the boycott came up again this week after an article by Dr. Neve Gordon appeared in the Los Angeles Times, calling for a worldwide boycott of Israel. He cited the example of South Africa to show how a worldwide boycott could compel Israel to put an end to the occupation, which he compared to the apartheid regime.


    I have known and respected Neve Gordon for many years. Before becoming a lecturer at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, he organized many demonstrations against the Separation Wall in the Jerusalem area, in which I, too, took part.

    I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time – neither about the similarity with South Africa nor about the efficacy of a boycott of Israel.

    There are several opinions about the contribution of the boycott to the success of the anti-apartheid struggle. According to one view, it was decisive. Another view claims its impact was marginal. Some believe that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was the decisive factor. After that, the U.S. and its allies no longer had any reason for support the regime in South Africa, which until then had been viewed as a pillar of the worldwide struggle against Communism.


    “The boycott was immensely important,” Tutu told me. “Much more than the armed struggle.”

    It should be remembered that, unlike Mandela, Tutu was an advocate of nonviolent struggle. During the 28 years Mandela languished in prison, he could have walked free at any moment, if he had only agreed to sign a statement condemning “terrorism.” He refused.

    “The importance of the boycott was not only economic,” the archbishop explained, “but also moral. South Africans are, for example, crazy about sports. The boycott, which prevented their teams from competing abroad, hit them very hard. But the main thing was that it gave us the feeling that we are not alone, that the whole world is with us. That gave us the strength to continue.”

    To show the importance of the boycott he told me the following story: In 1989, the moderate white leader, Frederic Willem de Klerk, was elected president of South Africa. Upon assuming office he declared his intention to set up a multiracial regime. “I called to congratulate him, and the first thing he said was: Will you now call off the boycott?”

    It seems to me that Tutu’s answer emphasizes the huge difference between the South African reality at the time and ours today.

    The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the whites amounted to less than 10 percent. That means that more than 90 percent of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.

    In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80 percent of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60 percent throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9 percent of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel. (INCLUDING ANVERY AND HIS “PEACE MOVEMENT”)

    They will not feel the “the whole world is with us,” but rather that “the whole world is against us.”

    In South Africa, the worldwide boycott helped in strengthening the majority and steeling it for the struggle. The impact of a boycott on Israel would be the exact opposite: it would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme Right and create a fortress mentality against the “anti-Semitic world.” (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.)

    Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness. Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy” (Proverbs 28:13).

    I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it. (HE DON’T ADMIRE THE OTHER LADERS WHO CHOSE THE OTHER PATH- THE PATH OF “TERRORISM” AND THE PEOPLE WHO ACCEPTED IT)


    by Carlos Latuff

    by Carlos Latuff

    One of the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust.

    Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust. Every Jewish Israeli child (INCLUDING AVNERY) learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the 6 million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it.

    (That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.)

    It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational.

    The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime.


    The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” – don’t buy from Jews.


    That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism.

    (“fighting for peace is Israeli public opinion”)

    One of the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable. (DURING THE 11 YEAR FIGHTING FOR PUPLIC OPINION THE ISRAELIS STRTED WITH SHORON AND ENDED WITH BIBI


    When the archbishop asked what we, the Israeli peace activists, are hoping for, I told him: We hope for Barack Obama to publish a comprehensive and detailed peace plan and to use the full persuasive power of the United States to convince the parties to accept it. We hope that the entire world will rally behind this endeavor. And we hope that this will help to set the Israeli peace movement back on its feet and convince our public that it is both possible and worthwhile to follow the path of peace with Palestine.

    No one who entertains this hope can support the call for boycotting Israel. Those who call for a boycott act out of despair. And that is the root of the matter.

    Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the state of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the state of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)


    I do not share either view – neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather worldwide momentum, the U.S. must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse, and the morale of the Israeli public must break.

    How long will this take? Twenty years? Fifty years? Forever?

    I am afraid that this is an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy.


    True, the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid system have certain similar characteristics. In the West Bank, there are roads “for Israelis only.” But the Israeli policy is not based on race theories, but on a national conflict. A small but significant example: in South Africa, a white man and a black woman (or the other way round) could not marry, and sexual relations between them were a crime. In Israel there is no such prohibition. On the other hand, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries an Arab woman from the occupied territories (or the other way round) cannot bring his or her spouse to Israel. The reason: safeguarding the Jewish majority in Israel. Both cases are reprehensible, but basically different.

    In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both whites and blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the blacks.

    In this country, (THE STRUGGLE IS ABOUT THE LAND)Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common – not a common national feeling, not a common religion, not a common culture, and not a common language.

    The vast majority of the Israelis want a Jewish (or Hebrew) state.

    The vast majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian (or Islamic) state.

    Israel is not dependent on Palestinian workers (IT IS DEPENDANT ON US TAX PAYES, SEX SLAVET, DRUGS TRAFFICING AND ORGAN HRVESTING)– on the contrary, it drives the Palestinians out of the working place. Because of this, there is now a worldwide consensus that the solution lies in the creation of the Palestinian state next to Israel.

    In short: the two conflicts are fundamentally different. Therefore, the methods of struggle, too, must necessarily be different.

    URI YOU FORGET TO QUOTE: Tutu Says Arabs Paying the Price of the Holocaust!



    Uri, Like your fellow settlers, in 1948 you did the same, committed massacres and war crimes to uproot 750000 palestinian from their homeland, turned them into refugees in their own land and neigbour countries, denied and still denying their right of return.Your real concern is not the Palestinians under occupation, it is new settler endangering the future of Israel, and the future of Zionism.

    Back to the archbishop, an attractive person whom it is impossible not to like on sight. He told me that he prays frequently, and that his favorite prayer goes like this (I quote from memory): “Dear God, when I am wrong, please make me willing to see my mistake. And when I am right – please make me tolerable to live with.”

    Sand’s The Invention of the Diaspora: Shattering a National Mythology?

    99.9% of the Jewish People

    Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of new book Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi? (When and How Were the Jewish People Invented?; Resling, in Hebrew) is sure to prov… more →

    Avnery’s dangerous argumentation

    Posted by Helena Cobban
    August 30, 2009 9:30 PM EST Link
    Filed in Israel-2009

    I have a lot of respect for the veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery. The first time I met him was in the PLO headquarters in Tunis in the late 1980s– a place that was anathema to both of our governments, but to his a lot more than to mine. (Indeed, for him as an Israeli it was actually illegal to meet with PLO people then.)

    However, the argument he published yesterday that was against the burgeoning BDS movement was had some deeply flawed and dangerous arguments in it.

    Anees of Jerusalem has highlighted one serious (and apparently very racist) flaw in Avnery’s argument. His criticism was of these statements:

      Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee.

      Actually, Avnery’s argument there is not only racist– with the clear implication that the Palestinians (“unlike the blacks of South Africa”) are indeed intent on a bloodbath; but also illogical.

      Because yes, it is true that a “bloodbath” was what was widely predicted in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime– but western liberals went along with the sanctions campaign notwithstanding that.

      And then, it didn’t happen. So what good are the predictions of western liberals in regard to South Africa or Palestine, anyway??

      Anyway, Anees was right to call Avnery on the racism of his argument there.

      I want to call Avnery on a couple of other aspects of his argument.

      First, he plays a deliberately deceptive numbers game.

      He writes,

        The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the Whites amounted to less than 10%. That means that more than 90% of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.

        In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80% of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60% throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9% of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.

        They will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.

      No, regarding Israel and Palestinians the situation is not “the very opposite” of what it was in South Africa. There are around six million Jews in Israel (and maybe 99.9% of them oppose the BDS campaign; or maybe fewer than that.) But there are some 5.5 million ethnic Palestinians in the area under Israeli control– and an additional five million or more Palestinians forced to live in exile from homeland.

      Avnery just wipes the Palestinian exiles from his tally-board of political relevance as if they have no legitimate say in anything!

      Well, that is one huge problem with his numbers game.

      Don’t you think it would be important to Avnery as a peace activist that Palestinians moldering in refugee camps in Lebanon or elsewhere might finally be able to say, “the world is with us”?

      But apparently, he doesn’t care.

      Another problem with his argument comes where he tries to say that the Israelis have nothing in common with the Afrikaners– because only the Israelis siffered the Holocaust, and besides, many Afrikaners were pro-Hitler.

      But guess what. The Afrikaners were also acting from a very deep sense of past community hurt and community vulnerability. They were the people for whom the whole concept of “concentration camps” had been invented in the first place, for goodness sake!

      And they too, like many Jewish ethnonationalists in Israel, had a profound sense of having been “called” by G-d to create their settler state in Africa.

      So the two peoples have many similarities in their core culture. But one big difference is that the Israelis have not thrown up their “Frederik De Klerk” figure yet: a peacemaker moved to recognize the equal humanity and equal rights of the long-despised “other.”

      What can all of us do to help persuade Jewish israeli society to generate its own De Klerk?

      Wide-reaching BDS may indeed be one of the best ways.

      But at a very minimum, in the first instance, all those governments in the west that espouse the cause of human equality and human freedoms should absolutely stop the generous and quite unconditional subsidies they continue to give to the Israeli state and business community.

      See also the close critique of Avnery’s argument by the South African Ran Greenstein, that Avnery’s own organization was good enough to publish, here.

      … Regarding Avnery, this is sadly not the first time I’ve had to remark on the limits of this veteran campaigner’s vision. Earlier this month, I wrote about the plea he had written to his fellow veteran in the peace movement Dov Yermiya, urging Yermiya not to go ahead with his planned renunciation of Zionism as a guiding philosophy.

      %d bloggers like this: