Pros and Cons of Solidarity with the Palestinian Struggle (Richard Falk)

[shira]

<snip>

The witness of unwelcome truths should always exhibit a posture of humility, not making judgments about the tactics of struggle employed by those fighting against oppression, and not supplying the solutions for those whose destinies are directly and daily affected by a deep political struggle. To do otherwise is to pretend to be a purveyor of greater wisdom and morality than those enduring victimization. In the Palestine/Israel conflict it is up to the parties, the peoples themselves and their authentic representatives, to find the path to a sustainable and just peace, although it seems permissible for outsiders to delineate the distribution of rights that follow from an application of international law and to question whether the respective peoples are being legitimately represented.

These comments reflect my reading of a passionate and provocative essay by Linah Alsaafin entitled “How obsession with ‘non-violence’ harms the Palestinian cause,” which was published online in the Electronic Intifada on July 11, 2012. The burden of her excellent article is the insistence that it is for the Palestinians, and only the Palestinians, to decide on the forms and nature of their resistance. She writes with high credibility as a recent graduate of Birzeit University who was born in Cardiff, Wales and lived in England and the United States, as well as Palestine. She persuasively insists that for sympathetic observers and allies to worship at the altar of Palestinian non-violence is to cede to the West the authority to determine what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of Palestinian struggle. This is grotesquely hypocritical considering the degree to which Western militarism is violently unleashed around the planet so as to maintain structures of oppression and exploitation, more benignly described as ‘national interests.’ In effect, the culturally sanctioned political morality of the West is indicative of an opportunistically split personality: nonviolence for your struggle, violence for ours. Well-meaning liberals, by broadcasting such an insidious message, are not to be welcomed as true allies.

<snip>

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/14/pros-and-cons-of-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-struggle/

Multi-culturalism on steroids.



Richard Falk serves as the human rights council’s “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”

[King_David]

1. 'being unwittingly paternalistic'

Ha ,Who he thinks he is fooling ? He thinks himself a leader of 'the struggle'.

[King_David]

2. As the UN “Special Rapporteur ''

He is very balaced and impartial.




''a supposedly democratic and morally sensitive society such as they allege exists in Israel ''




But the 'impartial' UN keeps him on.

[holdencaufield]

8. You have to admit...

... "Rapporteur" is one SEXY title.

The guy must get more arse than a toilet seat.

[kayecy]

3. Thank you for that article Shira.....

Interesting that you should chose to post this article.....Does that mean you want us to understand that the the Palestinians will not get anywhere until they take up violence?

[azurnoir]

4. I think we're supposed to beleive that the Palestinians are violent period

this piece was based on an article from Electronic Intifada, unfortunately that thread was locked as EI is not allowed to be used as a source here however EI is allowed to be used in comments

How obsession with "nonviolence" harms the Palestinian cause

During the outbreak of what became known as the first intifada, in 1987, the iconic image of a Palestinian rock thrower facing a fully-armed, sophisticated army “redeemed” the Palestinian resistance of hijacking planes in the 1970s.
No need to explain

Nowadays, Israelis and internationals and unfortunately even some “enlightened” Palestinians champion “nonviolent resistance” and consider throwing a rock to be a violent act. The argument goes that throwing rocks tarnishes the reputation of Palestinians in the western world and immediately negates the “nonviolent/peaceful” resistance movement. This argument falls into the trap of western- (read, colonizer) dictated methods of acceptable means to resist.

Oppressed people do not and should not have to explain their oppression to their oppressor, nor tailor their resistance to the comfort of the oppressors and their supporters.

The last time we truly had a genuine, grassroots popular resistance movement in Palestine (before the protests against Israel’s apartheid wall in the West Bank village of Budrus in the early 2000s) was during first three years of the first intifada.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-obsession-nonviolence-harms-palestinian-cause/11482

that OP was sold as "Electronic Intifada and their faithful cheerleader friends don't even pretend to oppose the murder of Jews anymore.

Just a little FYI."

however if one reads the article it is most certainly not about "murdering Jews" it is about how the Palestinian resistance is being dictated to by foreigners

[shira]

6. You agree that you shouldn't judge Hamas' "tactics of struggle"? To quote Falk...

"The witness of unwelcome truths should always exhibit a posture of humility, not making judgments about the tactics of struggle employed by those fighting against oppression."

[azurnoir]

17. still going with the Wizard of Oz tribute?

must be cause you certainly seem to luv that 'strawman'

[shira]

20. Yes or No, you agree with Falk WRT that statement or not? n/t

[azurnoir]

21. once again with the scarecrow so first show me where I mentioned Falk at all

but do keep digging it helps build your comment count

[shira]

22. Falk quoted from the EI article. As I recall, you didn't object to that one bit. I can only assume

....you're in agreement. I'm asking to make sure.

[shira]

5. The Palestinians have never given up violence. n/t

[shira]

7. Richard Falk (UN Rapporteur of Human Rights in Palestinian territories) has compared Jews to Nazis..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7335875.stm
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2009/12/31/uns-911-conspiracy-theorist-compares-gaza-to-world-war-ii-call-for-israel-boycott/

Falk was also denounced by Ban Ki Moon for being a 911 troofer...
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/01/24/un-watch-victory-ban-ki-moon-condemns-u-n-palestine-expert-for-denying-911-terror-attacks/

Falk called out for blatant antisemitism...
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358029

Falk endorsed a known antisemite's anti-semitic book recently...
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/11/mearsheimer_and_falk_endorse_a_1.html

Falk is also a member of Human Rights Watch's Santa Barbara Committee:
http://www.hrw.org/cities/santa_barbara/committee

[zellie]

9. This is really scary..... unless youre a 1930's kind of person.

Thanks for posting.....I think.

now have to shampoo my brain. Yuch.

[kayecy]

10. You are misquoting your own references Shira......

Your heading was:

Richard Falk (UN Rapporteur of Human Rights in Palestinian territories) has compared Jews to Nazis..

You are misquoting the BBC and UNWATCH.......What they said was ".....has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis."

No mention of Jews........You might not like his opinion of Israeli actions but there is no need to misquote your own references.

I assume you are aware of the DU rule which specifically states 'Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".'

[shira]

12. Come on, seriously? The Israel/Nazi reference is Jew-baiting par excellence....

It's considered to be antisemitic according to the EU Working Definition of Anti-semitism.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:


Denying the Jewish people their right to self­determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Also, it's Holocaust Inversion:

The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel, Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves against the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. “The victims have become perpetrators,” is one major slogan of the inverters. By shifting the moral responsibility for genocide, Holocaust inversion also contains elements of Holocaust denial.

The motivations of the Holocaust inverters are manifold. Some aim at the destruction of Israel and seek to lay the infrastructure for its moral delegitimization through demonization. Some are extreme pro-Arabs, others anti-Semites. Yet others know little about the Holocaust, the Nazis, and contemporary Israel. For Europeans it is also an effective way to cover up for Holocaust crimes of their countries and expunge guilt by claiming that what was done by the Nazi perpetrators and their many collaborators is a common phenomenon and by now is practiced by Israelis and Jews.

http://jcpa.org/article/holocaust-inversion-the-portraying-of-israel-and-jews-as-nazis/

The accusation is about as vile as it gets.

[kayecy]

13. But why did you change "Israeli" to "Jew"?.............

Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)

But why did you change "Israeli" to "Jew"?.............If the Israeli/Nazi reference was the same as "Jew baiting", why misquote the BBC & UNWATCH?


You must know that some of you fellow Israeli-supporters think anyone using the term 'Jew' when they mean 'Israeli', is racist so WHY did you chose to change the wording?

[shira]

14. It's considered an antisemitic attack (against Jews) even when directed "only" at Israel/Israelis

Therefore, it's an anti-Jewish attack.

[kayecy]

15. So you are not prepared to say why?

You insist on conflating ‘Israeli’ with ‘Jew’ even though the DU specifically tells you to avoid doing that.

You presumably do not accept what Daniel Finkelstein wrote in the Jewish Chronicle about analogies which compare Nazi actions to Israeli military action in Gaza?

I find this a nasty, obtuse point to make, one that lacks all sense of proportion and knowledge of history. I think less of those who make it. I do not, however, regard the insult as racist.

You are not prepared to say why you changed the wording from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Jews’ because you do not want to admit that you did it to paint Falk blacker than he is……..That is not the sort of manipulation expected from a DU poster is it?

[shira]

16. You believe I conflated Israeli with Jew b/c you don't believe the Nazi comparison is antisemitic...

That's where our disagreement really is.

A few posts up, I cited a couple paragraphs clearly explaining how antisemitic it is.

Moreover, the EU working definition defines Nazi comparisons to Israel as antisemitism, as does every other Jewish Agency devoted to fighting antisemitism. Like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Vidal Sassoon Center, and ADL.

Only bigots, racists, and anti-Semites would ignore every major Jewish Institution devoted to fighting bigotry.

[kayecy]

18. You are wriggling again Shira......

You believe I conflated Israeli with Jew b/c you don't believe the Nazi comparison is antisemitic

That is rubbish and you know it.....You deliberately changed the wording to make it look as though the BBC was making a racist accusation.

Moreover, the EU working definition defines Nazi comparisons to Israel as antisemitism, as does every other Jewish Agency devoted to fighting

And I provided citations, including the DU's own rules which proved you were wrong.


Admit it Shira.......You were not satisfied with the BBC statement as it was.... You thought it should have been stronger so you changed the wording...That is inexcusable when you are making an accusation of such gravity.


PS: It is also against DU rules to accuse someone of being racist and an anti-semite by implication......That was clearly what you were doing with your final statement.......

[shira]

19. Let's get one thing straight first. Despite the EUMC, CST, ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Ctr...

...and Vidal Sassoon Ctr all making it clear that Nazi Comparisons to Israeli actions are antisemitic, you don't believe them.

Comparing Israeli actions to those of the Nazis is not antisemitic in your view, right?

All those organizations are wrong and you're right?

[kayecy]

23. That is not the question........

Comparing Israeli actions to those of the Nazis is not antisemitic in your view, right?

There you go again with your inuendo.......Whatever has lead you to think that?....It is not my view and I have never made such a suggestion.

........................
Anyway, that is not the question.......We were talking about why you deliberately changed the words of your reference.........I see you haven't denied my suggestion that you thought the reference should have been stronger so you 'edited' it and used it for your heading......An omission is as good as an admission when you refuse to answer an accusation.

Other DU members will no doubt decide for themselves, but what with you breaking all the rules of civilised debate and refusing to admit when you have been caught out, there is little point in continuing.



Have your usual final say and that will be the end of the matter...I dare not hope that you will actually produce something sensible instead of bluster and red-herrings.
.

[shira]

24. So if you agree Israel = Nazi Germany is antisemitic, then those nazi claims...

...were attacks against Jews disguised as criticism of Israel.

Where do we disagree?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Ahhh, I can't listen to Rap.

Give me Jimi Hendrix, or the Dead, but not that.

[shira]

25. UN Watch Blasts UN Rapporteur Falk After He Demands “Investigation”

Mr. Falk, in the first page of your report, you attack my NGO and ask this Council to launch an investigation in order to shut us down.

Does your report allege a crime? No, you simply object to our words. We are the only watchdog at the UN, and we report what you say. In reprisal, you now seek to muzzle our voice, to avoid being held accountable.

The real issue is whether your work, conducted under the banner of human rights, actually exonerates and exculpates the perpetrators of terrorism.

Exhibit A, which I am holding up, is this book by David Ray Griffin, the bible for those who blame America, instead of Al Qaeda, for the 9/11 attacks. Do you deny that this is your name on the front cover, praising the author’s “fortitude,” “courage,” and “intelligence”?

Do you understand why Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, appearing in this room in January 2011, delivered an unprecedented condemnation of a UN expert, when he called your remarks, quote: “preposterous, and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic terrorist attack”?

Exhibit B: “The Wandering Who,” a book condemned as antisemitic even by your own top supporter, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada. Do you deny that, once again, this is your name on the front cover, endorsing it? Do you understand why the British Foreign Office has officially accused you of racism, on multiple occasions?

Exhibit C: Your article of two months ago, blaming the Boston terrorist attack—which left more than 300 dead and grievously wounded—on, quote “the American global domination project and “Tel Aviv.” Do you deny justifying the attacks as a form, of quote, “resistance”?

Do you understand why the Secretary-General announced that he rejected your comments, saying they, quote, “undermine the credibility and the work of the United Nations”? And why this condemnation was echoed by Britain, Canada, the U.S., and many others?

When we recently brought all of this to the attention of Human Rights Watch, within 24 hours they removed you from their committee.

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2013/06/10/un-watch-blasts-un-rapporteur-falk-after-he-demands-investigation/#more-3863