60 thoughts on “Jeffrey Goldberg’s Head Explodes…Again, Over Caryl Churchill’s Gaza Play – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. The thing about comparing apples / oranges….i.e., the ‘honest to Pete’ play by Churchill, versus the text read by one actor in the very off off Broadway ‘Rachel Corrie story’ is that one was written by an actual playright for the theater, and the other whilst the comes from a 23 year old girl’s personal journal about her life and experiences in Gaza, Palestine in 2003 before her murder March 2003, by a Caterpillar D9 driver who purposefully drove over her. But they both strike the truth which is why I suppose you’re correct, Churchill’s play will be censored too, most assuredly.

    1. Yes, of course, I understand the difference bet. a play by Churchill and a play about a 23 yr old girl. They’re not the same and not in the same league. But I guess my position is that while it was laudable to try to turn Corrie’s life into a dramatic story, it just didn’t work because very very few 23 yr olds lead lives that would make a good play. This is no fault of Corrie’s. Undoubtedly, had she lived she would’ve become a powerful, creative & righteous human being. Perhaps even a great artist or playwright. She just wasn’t there yet.

  2. Richard, on the topic of criticising Israel, did you read Peter Tatchell’s latest piece on CIF? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/18/hamas-palestine-israel-human-rights)
    It’s a first-class and important piece, one which demonstrates the following: 1) It’s perfectly possible to be critical of Hamas without apologising for Israeli crimes. 2) It’s perfectly possible to be criticial of Israel without apologising for Hamas crimes. 3) It’s perfectly possible to be in favour of radical solutions to the conflict (Tatchell is instinctively in favour of a one-state solution) without having aspersions cast on your integrity.

    It should be the subject of debate among left-wing bloggers, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

    1. Are you having a laugh here Alex! (3) would immediately put anyone beyond the pale of 90% of Zionist discourse and lead to charges of condoning genocide, being anti-Semitic, appeasing terrorism etc.etc. We live in a situation where genuine advocates of the two-state solution run foul of this by the pro-Israeli adovocates (eg Jimmy Carter), the one-staters have no chance.

    2. I’ll be thrilled when mainstream political discussion of the I/P conflict sounds like Peter Tatchell’s column. Except, of course, for the ridiculous focus on what some powerless antiwar people say or don’t say about Hamas’s brutality. On most foreign policy issues it’d be a great step forward if people would just accept what Amnesty International tells us about the human rights violations of this or that group. Not that AI is perfect, but their record of accuracy is far better than most if not all of their critics..

      Of course there are some problems with Tatchell’s column–not all Islamists are the same and it’s possible (not that I know) that there is considerable variation within Hamas.

      But anyway, by all means let’s have realistic and principled criticism of the war crimes and atrocities committed by Hamas, Fatah and our wonderful democratic ally Israel. Let it be discussed in the halls of Congress in exactly the terms Tatchall uses, with maybe some minor quibbling.

    3. First of all, no matter what Tachell’s left-wing credentials, anyone who quotes approvingly from a post at Harry’s Place is giving themselves away.

      I find his CIF piece quite curious. Though he claims to criticize Israeli policy and approve of laudable policies like negotiating with Hamas, the piece is entirely intended to dump on Hamas. He mentions his support for a one state solution only as a means of bolstering the credibility of his denunciation of Hamas. In fact, this piece is entirely tone deaf. What we have here is a British secularist who refuses to concede that there are other ways than western secular liberal democracy to be governed in regions outside Europe and the U.S. What annoys Tatchell is that Hamas is a religious movement. It’s religion that he doesn’t like in spite of the fact that he attempts to make a distinction bet. Islam and Islamism.

      I don’t know how Tatchell can predict what Hamas would do if it controlled the PA since he must not only read the minds of Hamas’ leaders, but predict the future. That’s a neat trick if you can manage. His claim too that Hamas’ popularity has declined can’t possibly be verified or authenticated. Polls I’ve read show that Hamas’ popularity has increased, even in the West Bank.

      It’s also nice that Tatchell criticizes Hamas’ tactics and strategy of resistance to the Occupation. Unfortunately, he doesn’t present his own approach to allow us to judge whether it would be any more effective. If Tatchell had lived in Gaza during the Israel war against it I doubtless think his criticism might be a tad more nuanced.

      In order to smear Hamas he must minimize not only Fatah’s depredations but Hamas’ record. THe movement didn’t serve a few meals as Tatchell disparagingly suggests. It had the premier social service program in Palestine. And the program was not political or propagandistic or religious in nature. It was simply professional. Contrast with Fatah’s every thug for himself mentality and you can see why Hamas appealed to voters in the last PA election.

      Tatchell also conveniently ignores Hamas’ actual behavior after it won the PA election victory. Did it impose sharia law? Did it oppress women? Did it force Islam on non-Muslims? No, it simply became a functioning political party. And if Israel and the U.S. hadn’t attempted a coup, Tatchell & Stein and all the other naysayers might’ve actually had an opportunity to discover whether or not Hamas was a band of Islamist thugs or a responsible political movement.

      If you want to talk thugs, those of Fatah are many times more toxic, corrupt and brutal than those of Hamas. And in many instances, the alleged thuggery of Hamas operatives resulted from payback against Fatah operatives or agents who’d been responsible for torturing Hamas followers.

      For the umpteenth time, Hamas is not a political movement I would support if I was Palestinian. I am not in favor of religion dominating politics whether it be Palestine, Israel or the U.S. But I believe in democracy too. And Hamas, contrary to Tatchell’s claim, is a democratically elected entity which has significant support among Palestinians. That dynamic should be allowed to play out within Palestine. If Hamas loses its mandate, let it do so naturally rather than under the gun or siege of foreign powers.

      1. Good points, Richard. In a way, though, it’s interesting how the dynamic has changed at left-leaning blogs–we now have Israel defenders tacitly conceding that yes, Israel does commit war crimes and so they concentrate on arguing that Hamas is also guilty of major human rights violations. No sh**.

        It’d be a big step forward if we could get the mainstream political debate to look like this.

  3. Why do you have to favour anything? Just favour justice. Stop the occupation.

    Richard, does this surprise you anymore? Goldberg is resembling more of a caricature rather than a human. If only other people would respond this way when there is a play/movie/documentary that is very racist against Arabs. But somehow I don’t think Goldberg is getting in a tiffy over Spielberg’s piece of shit Munich, is he?

  4. Richard, I’m not sure where to start. At least now I finally understand where you’re coming from.

    The fact that he posts on Harry’s Place: As George Orwell said, just because it’s in the Daily Telegraph, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.

    You are right that this is primarily a piece about Hamas human rights abuses. He has written pieces focusing on Israeli crimes elsewhere.

    Why do you think his support of a one-state solution is tactical? I see no evidence for that.

    You are right to say that Tatchell is anti-religion, but that’s not really the core of the argument. The issue is human rights abuses; something you amazingly don’t mention at all in your response (maybe you’ve done a post on this issue elsewhere; feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Or is that what you call “tactics and strategy of resistance to the Occupation”?

    As for the welfare issue, you are right that Fatah have been far worse on this than Hamas, but are you suggesting that Hamas have no political goals in ensuring that welfare goes to the Palestinian people? In which case, why did they recently seize aid sent in by UNRWA (something else which – surprise, surprise – wasn’t commented on here).

    I’ve seen two polls – one which has shown their popularity has increased, and another which has shown that it’s decreased. If you’re interested I can send you links.

    As for the issue of religious oppression post 2006, it’s not as rosy a picture as you paint, although you are right to say that Sharia law has not been imposed.

    Is it alleged thuggery or actual thuggery? Is torture of opponents justified because Fatah did it? What do you think of the recent Amnesty International report? Is it discredited because it was posted on Harry’s Place?

    Tatchell acknowledges the democratic issue; he is also opposed to the siege and the boycott etc. The point is that democracy means the right to criticise. The fact that they were democratically elected does not mean they should automatically be praised! And, needless to say, we won’t ever see a paragraph like your final one regarding Avigdor Lieberman. This is because you are incapable of principles 1 and 2 that I mentioned above. This is why your posts fail the most cursory tests of integrity, and why you consistently respond to reasoned criticism with vitriol or self-righteousness (“it leaves me cold”).

    1. just because it’s in the Daily Telegraph, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong.

      Just because it’s in Harry’s Place makes it highly suspect unless proven otherwise. Tatchell’s reaming of Hamas is perfect grist for Harry’s Place’s mill. On this subject, Tatchell & Harry’s Place were made for each other.

      Why do you think his support of a one-state solution is tactical?

      I didn’t say it was tactical. I said it was convenient and used cynically to attempt to bolster his bona fides as a disinterested observer when he is anything but.

      The issue is human rights abuses

      Precisely, and the weakness of his piece is that he refuses to place Hamas’ abuses in the context in which they are committed. Were there not an Occupation; were there not a corrupt, thuggish Fatah prepared to launch a coup against it; were there not a Gaza war in which Israel attempted, but failed to wipe it out, the criticisms of Hamas would resonate far more than they actually do. Considering the chaos which Israel and Fatah have tried to sow in Gaza it’s a wonder that their is not even more thuggery than there is.

      Now, is there thuggery there? Yes. Is it objectionable? Yes. Should Hamas be monitored closely for such abuses & called on them when they happen? Yes. But does any of this mean that Hamas’ violations should be viewed in isolation? No.

      In which case, why did they recently seize aid sent in by UNRWA

      A bunch of freelancing Hamas thugs appropriated UN food aid. When the thuggery was publicly revealed Hamas was embarrassed into returning it. Once again, there are thugs in every political movement (including Israel btw). But they don’t discredit the entire movement unless you can prove that the entire movement is based on thuggery. Despite claims by Pipes et al. this is simply not the case with Hamas, however much we might object to it.

      The overwhelming view both among Palestinians and Middle East analysts is that support for Hamas has increased. The poll showing it decreased was conducted by a West Bank polling outfit with ties to Fatah, if I’m not mistaken. It simply defies logic that support for Fatah could increase and Hamas decrease given what happened during the war.

      Is torture of opponents justified because Fatah did it?

      Asked and answered above.

      This is why your posts fail the most cursory tests of integrity

      My policy when dealing with bloggers and others who I feel lack integrity is to shun them. Curiously, you keep coming back for more. Why would you bother to joust with me when I fail your self-devised test of integrity? At any rate, yr judgments of me are nothing that concern me.

  5. Fascinating that you openly admit that you don’t deal with commenters who disagree with you. Or, in your language, “others who I feel lack integrity.” When you feel my comments show a lack of integrity, please feel free to point it out and explain why. Or to put it another way – are there any commenters here who disagree with your views who pass your integrity test? I haven’t seen any.

    The reason I comment here is because I sometimes disagree with your views, and I feel it is important to set the record straight. You have an open comment facility, I don’t break the rules, so what’s the problem?

    Your standard regarding Harry’s Place is absurd and semi-totalitarian. An article stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of where it appears. Nobody needs to provide a priori justifications.

    Do you think that Tatchell doesn’t really support a one-state solution?

    As for the issue of context, I’m sure he is aware of the circumstances you point out (albeit in a rather more nuanced manner); the point is that none of these things suffice to provide apology for the crimes Hamas have committed, and there is no reason why an article should not be devoted to the issue.

    I don’t know what it means for an entire movement to be based on thuggery; precision of language is very important here (although liable to leave you cold), so I’d be interested to hear you spell out your position a bit more.

    1. you openly admit that you don’t deal with commenters who disagree with you.

      No, you openly claim that I believe something I don’t believe and never wrote or said. I deal with commenters who disagree with me several times a day when I reply to them. As for commenters who claim I lack integrity–that I don’t deal with. I allow them to have whatever opinion they wish to form. My integrity & personal value system is based on my own standard & not influenced by people whose values I’m not terribly keen on myself. So I’m afraid as usual you’ve twisted my real views out of all context. Wouldn’t be the first time.

      Yes, there have been commenters who have disagreed with me whose values I respect.

      You have an open comment facility, I don’t break the rules, so what’s the problem?

      The pt. isn’t whether you break the rules or not. The pt is that you waste yr time bothering with someone who doesn’t meet yr standards. I find that an interesting choice to make, one which I wouldn’t make myself. If someone has no integrity they’re not worth my time period.

      Your standard regarding Harry’s Place is absurd and semi-totalitarian.

      Omigod, the histrionics are delightful. I’m afraid the semi-totalitarians are the former Trots who began the site, not me. After reading the site often enough, I’ve made a judgement about its politics, weaknesses, & prejudices. I (& you no doubt) make such judgments all the time about publications like the JPost, Commentary, & others. If you find Harry’s Place useful that’s yr prerogative. But yr judgment allows us to judge yr own prejudices & preconceptions.

  6. Alex, granted but you are not typical of most Israelis I would venture to point out and hardly typical of most pro-Israelis advocates here in the West.

    Tatchell’s article is misleading on a few counts. Firstly, he only claims he has “some sypmpathy” for a one-state solution, what exactly this means is unclear – does this mean he kind of likes the idea but knows it will never happen, does it mean it is as valid a solution as a two-state outcome or does this mean it is the only proper and just solution. For unstated reasons, this rather lukewarm anti-Zionist position is left undefined. And it is ridiculous to say one of the “major” obstacles to a one-state solution is the existence of Hamas. Granted Hamas aren’t going to be in favour of a democratic, secular state for all its citizens with equal rights – but this is what the great bulk of the Palestinian national movement have been fighting for and desirous of for most of the last 60 years or so, way before Hamas even existed. Somehow I don’t think the “major” obstacle to this is really Hamas!

    Secondly, it should be pointed out that Israeli attacks against Gaza have little to do with so called Hamas provocation; the past violations of the ceasefire and pattern of Israeli state-violence show very clearly that it is motivated by political considerations not by retaliatory intent. It is highly dissembling of Tatchell to argue otherwise.

    Thirdly, Tatchell misunderstands woefully comparisons with the ANC. I don’t know what airbrushed fantasy world Tatchell lives in, but the Freedom charter of the ANC was a political statement of high principles, which by the 1980s did not inform ANC actions on the ground. Like Hamas, there was mass violence unleashed without due process by ANC cadres against suspected collaborators and other parties that were co-operating with the Apartheid regime – necklacing anyone? Not too dissimilar to what Hamas is carrying out now. The way Tatchell and co speak it is as if Hamas are just randomly going around attacking do-gooders on the street, not quite the case. National liberation struggles can be quite intercinine as Israelis should well know given their own history.

    At the heart of Tatchell’s whining about Hamas is a fundamental misunderstanding of why many Palestinians support it and why its stock is riding so high. It is because it has made it clear that it will not compromise with Israel on the core issue of Palestinian sovereignty and this is what drives its popularity; Fatah and the PA already have which is why they are so unpopular. Palestinians see in Hamas not their best chance to have a theorcratic state or copy the Iranian model; but their best chance to have an independent state at all; they have given up hope that the PA in its current form can deliver it to them. Israel knows this quite well; which is why it has always tried to bolster Fatah against Hamas in the recent conflict.

    A word on Tatchell btw, I really detest this character; he is a one-issue demagogue that takes cheap potshots against targets and is motivated simply by a LGB agenda – these rights are important but to see the entire of global politics through this lens is distorting. His absurd personal antics with Mugabe did immense damage and virtually nil for the LGB minority in Zimbabwe – it did a lot to promote Tatchell’s profile though. A rank opportunist and stuntman of the worst kind imo.

  7. Alex,

    In response to what Peter Tatchell wrote, I would quote what Reuven Kaminer, a veteran member of the radical Israeli left, wrote on his blog a couple of years ago:

    Q: Are you supporting Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist formation?

    A: It is an old trick to accuse advocates of peace and political realism of supporting regimes, which are held in low public esteem, when we try to explain that embargo, sanctions, economic isolation, etc. are the wrong way to go. The idea is to prove that we are incompetent and irresponsible politically because we refuse to join the chorus of condemnation against “the terrorist enemy.” But, this kind of character defamation will not discourage any real fighter for peace.

    In any event, there are also many sincere friends of peace who ask us why we support Hamas. We do not support Hamas. We support accord and compromise between the two main factions of Palestinian society as the only path to prevent a major human tragedy whose scope cannot be envisaged. In truth, most secular democrats are appalled at Hamas’ values and justly so. Even so, we are against Bush’s style of demonization. We will engage in a comprehensive analysis of the strength of Islamic fundamentalism. And we will utilize every opportunity to draw Hamas into a constructive dialogue instead of doing everything to convert each and every Islamic fundamentalist group into just another arm of Al-Qaeda. It is important to stress that each fundamentalist tendency has its own history, traditions and political goals. Bush and his local partners can indeed push Hamas into more radical positions and alliances. If you are out to destroy someone, you might well take into account that he (or she) will take counsel and seek help according to one rule only – his or her interest in survival.

    It is important to stress that many impartial observers argue that Hamas can be seen as one of the more pragmatic Islamic groups. It is known that Al-Qaeda attacked it for participating in elections. It never opposed the all- Arab peace initiative on peace with Israel. It has rigorously observed cease fire agreements. Its historical and regional connections are with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, known for its abstention from and rejection of terrorist activity. Between idealization of Hamas and demonization of Hamas there is tremendous space for work on finding constructive paths that will benefit all sides.

  8. Peter – I also support unity between the two major Palestinian factions; the point is that Hamas are at least partly responsibile for the failure to achieve this. As for the rest of the quote, there is no effort to discredit anyone. Tatchell’s piece is simply a robust example of the principles I mentioned above – that it should be perfectly possible to criticise Israel without apologising for the crimes of those who profess to resist.

    Lazynative – I think it’s fair to say that today Hamas are one of the significant obstacles to a one-state solution.

    Your point about Israeli attacks being driven solely by politics is also a vast simplification, and remember – it cuts both ways. Who, for example, mentioned the role of the Palestinian Presidential impasse as a root cause for the recent fighting?

    As for Tatchell being a single issue pony; perhaps. Having a LGB person do it makes a refreshing change from the pro-Palestine one trick ponies though.

    1. Having a LGB person do it makes a refreshing change from the pro-Palestine one trick ponies though.

      Don’t know about Tatchell (never heard his name before this discussion) but there is Johann Hari if you are looking for a thoughtful and balanced critic of Israel who happens to be homosexual.

    2. Having a LGB person do it makes a refreshing change

      This was precisely the neocon approach to Muslim baiting. Get a western feminist to denounce the Taliban, Iran, Hamas, or whichever Islamist movement the neocon happened to be targeting–as being anti-women in order to rally liberal feminists to the neocon Middle East agenda. Thus those who are anti-Muslim are only too happy to have some one who is gay and feels threatened by Hamas to denounce it as well.

      As I’ve said, I don’t endorse Hamas’ attitude toward homosexuality or other subjects. But it seems to me that demanding that Hamas adopt a typical western liberal approach to the subject smacks of western cultural superiority. No doubt, Hamas should be pressured & criticized until it adopts a live & let live approach to gays. But to claim that Hamas will, if it takes power, represent all of the west’s worst fears is unfair & will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

    1. Or do you mean that Hamas should tolerate gay sex, gay bars, and even Gay Pride parades in downtown Gaza City? I mean, why not go whole hog and expect Hamas to be as tolerant and open as London or New York is?

    1. You never make even the least judgment about the value and importance of what you read based on where it’s published? I can’t say I don’t believe it because it is possible you’re one of the few people in the world who doesn’t do this. In this age of information overload it’s important to be able to classify & prioritize what we read and its value. One of the ways I do this is by categorizing sites and publications by my past experience reading them. That is why I know that most of what is published at Harry’s Place is a load of rubbish (I believe that’s what you Brits would call it). I’d be happy for you or anyone to present something published there that I would find had something useful & important to say. I’m always open to modifying my opinions. But until then I feel perfectly comfortable in my judgment of that online shmate.

  9. Alex –

    Lazynative – I think it’s fair to say that today Hamas are one of the significant obstacles to a one-state solution.
    Alex, they are an obstacle but I don’t think they are very significant from the Palestinian side at least. Their attraction has rested really on their ability to represent Palestinian national rights without compromise and their modest governance abilities. If the choice came down to choosing between a viable one-state and Hamas, I have no problem in saying that most Palestinians would opt clearly for the former. The entire foundation of Hamas’ support rests on this desire for statehood, the Islamist agenda is quite weak by contrast.
    Your point about Israeli attacks being driven solely by politics is also a vast simplification, and remember – it cuts both ways. Who, for example, mentioned the role of the Palestinian Presidential impasse as a root cause for the recent fighting?
    I didn’t say they were solely driven by politics; but it is the main factor, something claimed not only by me but by several distinguished security experts and politicians from Israel and borne out by a clear analysis of the pattern of violence.
    As for Tatchell being a single issue pony; perhaps. Having a LGB person do it makes a refreshing change from the pro-Palestine one trick ponies though

    I don’t mind him being a single issue pony; what I object to is the way he goes about – designed to generate maximum heat without light and making no real contribution to solving the problems at hand but instead grandstanding for better publicity. His split with Labour in London politics, criticisms of mainstream parties here, actions towards Mugabe all inform that this is a man who prefers the politics of stuntmanship over serious discourse.

  10. Alex,

    Tatchell’s piece is an example of what Kaminer in another blog entry calls “moral indignation instead of rational discouse”. I do not defend Hamas’ crackdown on its rivals & critics in Gaza. But for Tatchell to use the crackdown as proof of Hamas’ incontrovertible committment to totalitarian ideology, ignores the fact (as pointed out by Richard & Lazynative) that many other resistance movements, ranging from the FLN to ANC, have engaged in similar suppression of dissent. And I believe that if Fatah had accepted Hamas’ victory in the 2006 legislative elections and not tried to overturn the results (with covert American & Israeli assistance), the situation in Gaza would be very different.

    I am glad that Tatchell ends his piece by calling for talks with Hamas. But the whole thrust of his article – that Hamas is a totalitarian movement hell-bent on creating a theocratic state – undermines the whole notion of trying to constructively engage with Hamas.

  11. Glenn Greenwald in Salon on “Jeffrey Goldberg’s gasping, dying smear tactics”:
    “Neocons have long tossed around the “anti-Semite” and “anti-Israel” accusations to stifle debate over American Middle East policy. It doesn’t work any longer.”

    In reaction to Goldberg’s smear campaigns, Greenwald says:
    “But what is worth noting — and celebrating — is that a significant and palpable change has occurred. Whereas these smear tactics once inspired fear in many people, now they just inspire pity. They no longer work. Very few Americans are going to refrain from expressing their views on American policy towards Israel out of fear that the Jeffrey Goldbergs of the world are going to screech “anti-Semitism” at them.”

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/20/goldberg/print.html

  12. Richard – I might humbly suggest some of my offerings on Harry’s Place. As for the gay issue, yes – I do hope that one day Gaza might be a) free and part of a Palestinian State (or a single binational state) and b) as tolerant of homosexuality as London and New York (and Tel Aviv) are. If that makes me disrespectful of somebody’s culture, then so be it.

    1. I do hope that one day Gaza might be as tolerant of homosexuality as London and New York (and Tel Aviv) are. If that makes me disrespectful of somebody’s culture, then so be it.

      No, actually you & Tatchell are prepared to fault Hamas RIGHT NOW for not being as tolerant of homosexuality as London, NY, or Tel Aviv (that wasn’t an accident that you left out Jerusalem, was it?). That’s my problem with the way you both search out issues with which to batter Hamas. I too hope & believe that ONE DAY homosexuality will be accepted in Palestinian society. But unlike you, I’m not prepared to expect that this very second, nor am I prepared to moan about how medieval Hamas is because it isn’t quite up to western snuff.

      Cultures and societies change gradually regarding issues like this. Look at the issue of gay marriage here. 10 yrs ago it would’ve been thought bizarre. In a yr or 2 it will be accepted in every state in the nation. BTW, do you think that gays were always embraced in Tel Aviv (or NY or London for that matter?). If not, then why do you expect of Hamas an acceptance that our own societies took so long to develop.

  13. I didn’t read most of what went on there but I believe that the Islamic world and especially the recent resistance movements that deserve high scrutiny by the West, since the understanding of the Orient is so fascinating and yet so misunderstood still, are disadvantaged by the different Western standards that unconsciously are being applied to the movements that are arising against colonialism and imperialism. For instance this piece of work by Alex:

    “As for the gay issue, yes – I do hope that one day Gaza might be a) free and part of a Palestinian State (or a single binational state) and b) as tolerant of homosexuality as London and New York (and Tel Aviv) are.”

    I think the advancements by the West, usually at the expense of the Third World which it exploited and benefited immensely off the division and destruction of not only its resources but its people through indoctrination, gentrification and genocide (you could add slavery) helped thrive the Western movements while depriciating the Third World culture also. Here we have centuries of progression by the Western world and we unfairly attempt to pin so many movements and historical achievements by the West which took centuries to amass to these Third World movements who have been inflicted by post-colonialism and expect them to gain enlightenment in a few short years to reach to our “level” of civilisation.

    The case of gay rights is still quite novel even in the West; Hamas and other movements in the Third World are still dealing with a struggle to gain self-determination and even few forms of rights for themselves. Naturally they are pushed from every aspect just like other movements from years past, but unlike those from years past there were no “higher” standard who was studying their every action to declare that they abuse women and children and animals and yes, even homosexuals.

    How were homosexuals treated in the West as recent as the 50s? In fact, how are most of them treated now? Sure there have been breakthroughs and even movies about them but we still get stories of beatings and homophobia (which is now getting more latent). And this is in societies which have free access to the press, their elected officials and even free movement and labour. Gazans have to think about not being bombed or where their next meal is going to come from. And on top of that you want to lump in women’s rights, land rights, environment, water issues, sharia law and gay rights.

    I don’t think it’s “disrespectful”, just Orientalism.

  14. Joshua – I’m sorry that you consider it Orientalism that I have the same long term expectations of Palestinians as I do of Israelis or indeed anyone else. Perhaps I haven’t read enough Said, or Massad.

    1. Perhaps I haven’t read enough Said, or Massad.

      Or perhaps you haven’t read enough Snark.

      Joshua raises an absolutely valid pt. & instead of grappling with it as you should, you dismiss it with false wit.

  15. Richard – I absolutely grappled with it. I said, “I’m sorry that you consider it Orientalism that I have the same long term expectations of Palestinians as I do of Israelis or indeed anyone else.” In case it wasn’t clear to you, if it’s Orientalism to hold Palestinians to the same standards as anyone else, then I plead guilty to being an Orientalist.

    1. No, it’s Orientalism to be utterly tone deaf about the relative development of different cultures and societies & to be condescending, carry around a superiority complex, & puff out yr chest because of the alleged inferiority of the dark races & superiority of yr own. So, yes, I’d say Orientalist does suit you.

  16. Richard, as for your point: I’ve never written about attitudes towards homosexuality in Palestinian society. I’d agree with the point that there are far more pressing issues. And I’ve never used the word medieval. But people have brought up the issue of homosexuality in this discussion, so I’ve jotted down my views on it. I don’t expect gay bars right now (no need for the caps), but I do expect that gay people shouldn’t be persecuted. I am, however, prepared to criticise Hamas right now for its failure to recognise the State of Israel.
    As for the second part of your comment, that’s why I used the word long-term….

    1. I’d agree with the point that there are far more pressing issues.

      Then we agree on something.

      I am, however, prepared to criticise Hamas right now for its failure to recognise the State of Israel.

      I’d feel a whole lot better if you’d added to yr statement your being prepared to criticize Israel for the same failure (to recognize Hamas). The blindness of the pro-Israel crowd never ceases to amaze me. How you can criticize Hamas for a failure that Israel is no less guilty of–it’s truly a wonder.

  17. Richard – The Palestinians made a strategic error when they signed up for Oslo – the strategic error was to recognise Israel without getting anything substantial in return (aside from the dubious benefit of having the PLO recognised as the representative body of the Palestinian people). But – in the context the Palestinians find themselves – recognition is a tricky thing to undo, a point understood by Fatah. So Hamas’ failure of recognition isn’t just targeted against Israel; it also goes against the Palestinian consensus (polls show most Palestinians want Hamas to meet the recognition condition).

    As for my supposed hypocrisy: the international system is governed on the basis of mutual recognition between states. Our situation is a bit more complicated because Hamas isn’t a state, merely a party/movement within a non-state entity. I think you’re confusing the issue – Israel doesn’t refuse to recognise Hamas, it refuses to talk to Hamas. Whether you agree with the policy or not, you should recognise it for what it is. Hamas refuses to recognise Israel. My hope is that Hamas will issue a piece of paper along the lines of “We recognise the reality of the State of Israel even though we’re not happy with it,” thus opening the way for serious negotiations. The problem is that Hamas cannot – ever – recognise Israel as it would go against its core principles.
    Needless to say, I am equally unhappy with Likud’s refusal to issue a statement in favour of a Palestinians state.

    1. the international system is governed on the basis of mutual recognition between states.

      Typical narischkeit. Can you tell me one negotiation between enemies involving one nation and the other a guerilla insurgent group in which the latter was forced to recognize the former BEFORE negotiations began? Did the Brits & Ian Paisley recognize the IRA (or vice versa) BEFORE negotiating an end to the Northern Ireland conflict? Of course not. You’re simply being ahistorical.

      Israel doesn’t refuse to recognise Hamas, it refuses to talk to Hamas.

      I have no idea what this means, nor do you I’d guess. What is the difference? I can provide scores of public statements by Israeli leaders saying that they not only refuse to talk to Hamas, but that they refuse to recognize it. Your statement is basically meaningless.

      The problem is that Hamas cannot – ever – recognise Israel

      Boy, will you be left with egg on yr face when precisely what you claim can never happen, does happen. I simply can’t believe the narischkeit you spout. When Israel recognizes Hamas, Hamas will recognize Israel. Actually neither side has to recognize ea other. They merely have to agree to deal with the other as a legitimate negotiating partner.

  18. This idea that I believe in the alleged inferiority of the dark races and superiority of my own exists in your imagination, but not in anything I’ve actually written here. If anything, it’s your pessimism regarding the possibility of liberal values in Palestinian society that demonstrates racism and condescension. I seemingly have a far more optimistic and generous view of things than you.

    1. This idea that I believe in the alleged inferiority of the dark races and superiority of my own exists in your imagination, but not in anything I’ve actually written here

      I’m sorry, I should have been more specific–your belief in the inferiority of one specific dark race (or nation), that is the Palestinians. Or perhaps more specifically, you belief in the infinite evil inherent in certain dark Palestinian terrorist forces like Hamas. That’s what I referred to.

      I don’t feel pessimistic about the possibility of the development of liberal values in Palestinian society. If Israel and the U.S. wouldn’t intervene & truncate such developments they would actually occur much faster than they will under current oppressive conditions. If you’d tell yr prime minister & politicians to normalize relations w. Palestine (including Hamas), social developments would take a far more natural course bringing results that you claim to want & I certainly want.

      If you accuse me of racism one more time your comment privileges will be revoked. That is a violation of my comment rules. Besides it’s a patently stupid thing to say. You’re just prattling nonsense, spattering slogans on the wall hoping one of them sticks.

      You have a “generous” view of the Palestinians & Hamas?!! That’s rich. Maybe in an alternate universe. But certainly not this one.

      1. Richard, Alex, can I suggest to calm down a bit to both of you? Unlike Hamas and Israel, you both at least agree in 90% of cases, so, let’s shake hands and work together, shall we?
        Richard, I have lot of admiration for you, but as one who also at times was the object of your wrath (muted in my case) I know that you can be very impatient and I’d even say intolerant towards some of the commentators. Most of the time it is justified, but at times it is not
        Alex, try not to provoke Richard. You should consider that, in addition to your comments, however innocuous you believe them to be, there are hundreds of others that arrive in his inbox that are hateful, full of innuendo and threats (some escape his moderating and arrive in my Google Reader before Richard manages to delete them.) Not a lot of people in his position could stay totally calm and you shouldn’t take his harsh words personally.
        ================
        Now, re: the recognition thing. I always thought it to be mainly an Israeli excuse not to deal with Hamas. I cannot see any value in it. Suppose Hamas recognizes Israel – does it mean it recognizes Israel’s right to exist? Does it mean it recognizes Israel as a real entity -however evil – that simply exists? Would any of the above prevent Hamas from attacking Israel if it thinks the chances are good? In the end, any agreements are observed only insomuch as the parts to the agreement perceive the non-violation as preferable to violation thereof.

  19. Alex, personally speaking (of course) it is erroneous to compare or even attribute specific examples prevalent in today’s free societies such as Western Europe and North America (or even South America) and apply it to an occupied territory of stateless people who have been denied specific rights. I know it sounds quite reasonable to judge Palestinians with the rest of the world but that is unfair because this assumes that the Palestinians are in the same circumstance as the rest of the world here. It omits too many details that are all too important for Palestinian living which determines how and who speaks for them and what their own society reflects on themselves.

    Now unfortunately I cannot read through everything you wrote so I will apologise if I unfairly pinned something on you (but I have time constraints and one sentence really stood out for me). But perhaps what would be a better rationale is to study other resistance movements and how their behaviour patterns were as regards to social issues and justice as well as resistance. There are plenty of examples but let’s get it out in the open: there won’t be any perfect example, not South Africa, not Northern Ireland, not Jim Crow and not Nazi Germany. There are similarities but the differences can make the biggest change in favour for or against the movement.

    PS Also helpful was Rashid Khalidi’s brilliant analysis of Palestinian identity as regards to other Arab peoples. It crystallises that distinct identity of Palestinians and even showed how they compared with the Egyptians and Syrians and Iraqis and the Palestinians were by far one of the most progressive of Arabs (the Lebanese did provide great competition).

  20. Peter D – Thanks for your peacemaking efforts! Richard – I don’t take it personally and I’m sorry that you receive hatemail etc.

    Richard – your moving of the goalposts is fantastic. First I believe in the inferiority of the dark races; then it’s Palestinians; then it’s Hamas. And I don’t believe they are ‘inferior’, nor do I believe in their ‘infinite evil’ – this is your lexicon and not mine. I merely object to their rejectionism and those who whitewash it.

    As for the issue of recognition, I hope you will be proved right. Regarding Ireland, I don’t think the IRA ever denied the legitimacy of the United Kingdom, merely its authority to rule over Ireland.

    Re. the racism issue – are you allowed to call me racist then? Or is Orientalism not racism? It would help if you were more careful with your language, particularly as your latest comment shows you didn’t even mean to say I was racist, merely that I apparently dislike Hamas.

    Joshua – I still don’t see why I should be any more tolerant of homophobia in an occupied society than I should be anywhere else/

    1. I don’t think the IRA ever denied the legitimacy of the United Kingdom

      You’ve conveniently ignored the actual example I cited. Neither Ian Paisley nor the IRA were excluded from peace negotiations till they recognized ea. other.

      merely its authority to rule over Ireland

      But this is precisely what is at issue with Hamas. Israel is insisting that Hamas recognize its authority to rule over Israel. So if the IRA can dispute England’s authority to rule over Ireland and yet still participate in negotiations with England, then why can’t Hamas dispute Israel’s authority to rule over Israel while participating in negotiations with Israel? Thanks, you’ve made my point precisely.

      are you allowed to call me racist then? Or is Orientalism not racism?

      Another commenter called you an Orientalist (not a racist). I called you neither specifically. You used the term, not I. I think you are condescending towards the Palestinians & Hamas in particular. I think you are largely ignorant of real Palestinians, what they think, believe or say. I think you live your life concerning the I-P conflict in a set of theories that have some, but not enough connection to reality. Racism? I don’t think your views, generally wrong as they are, rise to the level of willfulness required to call someone “racist.” Wrong, or ignorant or condescending isn’t racism.

      I’ll use language I think best & don’t need you to warn me to be careful about anything.

  21. Then your example is a false one: Neither Paisley or the IRA were states, whereas Israel patently is. Are you seriously disputing the fact that IRA laid claim to all of Ireland (not mainland United Kingdom), whereas Hamas lays claim to all of Israel (and not just the Occupied Territories)? Is this difference really of no significance?

    I actually have much more day to day contact with real Palestinians than you do – not as much as I should have but still more than the people of Seattle. You think I am condescending towards Palestinians; I think you are as well. We will have to agree to disagree.

    What did you think of what Peter D wrote?

    1. I actually have much more day to day contact with real Palestinians than you do

      I am not talking about hailing a taxicab or buying groceries at a market. I’m talking about substantive discourse in which you really share ideas and argue political positions; or even have genuine friendships. How much of that have you ever experienced?

      You forget that not only can I have experiences with Palestinians via e mail & Skype, but that there are tens of thousands of Palestinians living here in the States. I’d still put my experience with Palestinians up against yours any day. The fact that you could make as asinine a claim as you have that I am condescending toward Palestinians truly indicates how lame your entire perspective is on this matter. I simply have no patience for someone who would argue such a point w. a seemingly straight face.

  22. Alex- I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you about the desirability of fair treatment for LGB people but “tolerance” cannot be leigislated or enacted by state policy. It is a social attitude that comes about with gradual and painful change; Homosexuality was illegal in the UK till the 60s and was only legalised because of the fear of blackmail, the first prominent elected openly gay public figure in the US got assassinated. Even now hate crimes, social discrimination and prejudice from political groups is rife in both the US and the UK; just because parts of metropolises like New York and London happen to be multicultural and tolerant. Incidentally this tolerance is not a wide phenomenon, nail-bombs still go off in Soho and people still get beaten up in NY for being gay.

    I remember when I was doing my masters there were a lot of exchange students from the US; one of them who became a good friend told me that in Philadelphia when he was at UPenn he lived in cheap housing in the “gay” part of the city which had a coveted central location but which was in a run down crime-filled area – when I asked whether this was a problem he said that most of the neighbourhood being gay organised patrols because of the high number of attacks on gay couples and so it was actually quite safe despite its location.

    I think you misunderstand how slow this change comes about and how lopsided this sounds coming from an Israeli lecturing Palestinians about the need to respect sexual minorities at a time when Israel has done everything possible to undermine any collective life for Palestinians. When Israeli missile or bombs fall, do you think they don’t kill LGB Palestinians, when Palestinians are humiliated and abused at checkpoints do you think none of them are from LGB minorities? Of course LGB minorities want equal rights but they want their national rights as well; you are trying to relativise their desire for nationhood with their sexual identity. People have have cross-cutting identities and I don’t see why Palestinians have to wait until they reach a level tolerance, many other countries have barely managed to reach in the last few decades before they somehow are seen as worthy.

  23. “I still don’t see why I should be any more tolerant of homophobia in an occupied society than I should be anywhere else”

    Then you really have eluded empathy or even an attempt at understanding conflicts. I don’t want to repeat myself as I believe I had been rather clear about the relationships and progressions and even duplicity of applying standards when they are bereft of details that make them equal. Decontextualisation of certain moments in history will make the picture very distorted and we will arrive at misguided answers as the questions were altogether wrong.

    I didn’t even hint that anyone here should be tolerant of homophobia from any form of society and I believe all commenters share this sentiment: what seems to be the sticking point is inability to rationalise why certain movements do what they do and how they emerge.

    Maybe a better way to put this in perspetive is: the US has had a state for over 200 years; the Palestinians are still stateless and Gaza barely has any food; the US are still battling over gay rights, the Palestinians are still battling for an independent state where they can determine what rights (if any) gays have.

    Doing this also absolves the horrible reality of the occupation. (It’s amazing that women are still strong and vibrant [although waning in Gaza] within the Palestinian sector. In fact, women are a major force in Palestinian life.)

    PS When nation states were given out to any fucking form of people, they did not consider minority rights at all. They even make new states in spite of it (Kosovo). Somehow, it’s only the Palestinian who have to jump through hoops to get what everyone was granted.

  24. Joshua – I never said the Palestinians should improve gay rights before being granted a state. My position on Palestinian statehood is quite clear – the entire occupied territories with East Jerusalem as a capital, and as soon as possible. I think, however, that to explain all minority problems in Palestinian society solely in terms of the occupation is a step too far.

  25. Lazynative – at no point have I lectured anyone. I’ve merely said that I object to homophobia, wherever it occurs. Aside from that, I thought your post was very interesting.

    1. Alex, I didn’t say you were lecturing anyone, I just said that I think you should try to be aware about how distorted your comments sound coming from your position. I don’t think many Palestinians who are LGB will look kindly to this kind of sentiment in the context of a discussion on ISraeli-Palestinian relations.

      This sounds very much like you are coming close to the old line used by European imperialists that colonial societies were unfit for self-government because they couldn’t respect religious minoritis, womens’ rights etc.

      It comes off as self-rightoeus when you are an occupying power that has inflicted a lot of damage on the subjugated society, that is all I am saying.

      I have no doubt about your dislike of homophobia wherever it occurs, which is I am sure a sentiment that most commenters on here share.

  26. “I simply have no patience for someone who would argue such a point w. a seemingly straight face.”

    Richard – I will make one retraction. As I don’t know anything about your life other than this blog, I am prepared to admit that I don’t know about the level of your day-to-day contact with Palestinians. Similarly, you know nothing about my day-to-day life. Are you willing to – how shall I put it – agnosticise your previous comment?

    1. You’ve made a claim that you have enough real interactions with Palestinians in order to understand what they really think, want and believe—from first hand information. I’d like to know more before I judge whether those interactions are substantive or something less than that.

  27. Richard, again you have to read things properly.

    I said: “I actually have much more day to day contact with real Palestinians than you do – not as much as I should have but still more than the people of Seattle.” A fairly small claim, which you choose to magnify thus:

    “You’ve made a claim that you have enough real interactions with Palestinians in order to understand what they really think, want and believe—from first hand information.”

    If you can explain where you got the second half of that sentence from, I will be able to continue with this conversation with you.

    I also notice that some of my comments haven’t been modified, while others have. If you could rectify that I’d appreciate it. Cheers.

    1. I also notice that some of my comments haven’t been modified

      I think you mean “moderated.”

      I don’t feature links to Harry’s Place as I find it little more than a propaganda mill, one of whose authors wrote a nasty, slashing, piece of crap post about my views of the Mumbai attack. That’s why I haven’t approved that comment.

      If you & Peter Tatchell choose to write there doesn’t mean that I have to promote the site here.

  28. You should add that to the rules, it would make things clearer. In any case, you can see more evidence of Tatchell’s integrity in this piece on CIF – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/23/hicham-yezza

    Will you be replying to my last comment? I’m ready to answer your question as soon as you acknowledge I never claimed to “understand what they [Palestinians] really think, want and believe – from first hand information.” I assume you don’t like it when people make up things about you; neither do I.

  29. “I think, however, that to explain all minority problems in Palestinian society solely in terms of the occupation is a step too far.”

    You oversimplify and you excoriate Richard for supposedly doing so at your expense. No one stated the occupation defines every sector of Palestinian social life but I think you underestimate its permeating effects as you think as much as I overstate. Studies have shown how badly effected the children of Gaza are by the turmoil and children in schools paint pictures of deaths. This really doesn’t bode well for a healthy society. Secondly, the occupation is a great purveyor of violence and that violence can breed further to its own oppressed people (I guess I am hinting more at Franz Fanon’s brilliant work on colonialism, Wretched Of The Earth.) that has hierarchal status.

    What I find confusing is that there are minority problems everywhere in this world, some even more horrendous in Western nations than the Palestinians, and in effect, the Palestinians are even a minority of their own in other countries and in Israel itself, and you have stated earlier that you base your judgements equally on everyone (which is kind of unrealistic and duplicitous). I guess it is just pandering over nothing as it seems you have concern for minorities wherever they are and wherever there are problems, even with the Palestinians, they should be understood and criticsed and hopefully highlighted but I think the “minority” issue with the Palestinians is really the least of their problems right now and what is imperative is that this should not be an obstacle to prevent any form of self-governance or self-determination for the Palestinians (or whether they want a single state). It should not be held as a prerequisite for “moderation” or a policy to get the Palestinians to qualify to be a “partner for peace”.

    Just like other issues that claim the leftist sphere (South America, Iran, Russia, Africa), the battle against imperialism and colonisation should not overwhelm the problems of the nascent states also (thinking of Cuba and Venezuela, just because they are left-leaning and oppose U.S. foreign policy should not shield them from criticism of their own human rights violations). But let’s also put everything in the proper context and try to understand the road that led to this stage in all its forms and not base conclusions on dogmas that has no basis on reality.

  30. I totally agree that it shouldn’t be an obstacle to their independnece, and nor do I think it is a particularly major issue right now. But it was brought up in discussion, and I think i was was worth commenting on . Your points are very interesting, btw.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *