I Delegitimize Occupation
After the IDF’s intelligence unit, Aman, came up with the bright idea to create a special unit to investigate, monitor and spy on Diaspora groups opposed to the Occupation (enemies now known by the catchy phrase, “delegitimizers”), I thought the only proper response was to step up proudly and say: “I am one.” Not a delegitimizer in the terms they employ since they falsely claim that delegitimizers wish Israel’s destruction. That’s not the kind of delegitimizer I am. I delegitimze Occupation as do all the groups they’ll be harrassing. So Michael Levin and I came up with this poster which we hope you will share, promote, circulate via social media, etc.
Let’s tell the generals, spooks, inquisitors and ideologues that we want to be first on the list to be investigated. I delegitimize Occupation. There. Now I said it. I feel better already. Now when can I be expecting that knock on the door in the middle of the night from someone from headquarters saying they just have a few questions?
46 thoughts on “I Delegitimize Occupation – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
Beautiful graphic and (I suppose) quite a comprehensive list of organizations.
To the IOF: I demand to be listed. On Silverstein’s precise terms.
RS: I’d add “SEARCH for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel” to your list. It “flourished” in 1980-1990 or thereabouts, led by the energetic (now late) Ned Hanauer.
Love it! And thanks for including the Arab Jewish Partnership!
Zionism, not Judaism, is a problem or rather an obstacle…
Judaism is the problem. Zionism is just fine thank you very much.
Zionism was doing fine when it was atheist. The more judaism is injected into it, the more things go to hell. Starting with the 1929 attempt to threaten muslim sovereignty over the temple mount.
[comment deleted due to comment rule violation; please read the rules carefully and do not engage in gross, offensive overgeneralizations about Jews or Zionists.]
I think that’s extreme. I think & hope you mean the “Judaism” practiced by the settlers & their ultra Orthodox supporters, which isn’t Judaism as I know it.
I mean judaism as I know it, which is maybe a little bit less severe than the settler version. I really can’t imagine what’s left of judaism when you take out the racism. Prehaps some kind of “tradition” – I don’t see the point of it.
Zionism, however, is essential. While we have no right to hold on to our overtly racist notions of being chosen by god, we do have a right for a state. Actually, maybe we lost that right…
How can you write “we do have a right for a state” and at the same time be a One-Stater ?
From a Palestinian point of view, it’s definitely (political) Zionism and NOT Judaism (per se) that causes a problem.
By the way, I often think the best solution would be two states: one for ‘average’ Palestinians and Israelis, and another for the religious nutcases on both sides. They could get the Negev – except Dimona – and I’m sure these Jewish and Muslims Talibans will get along just fine.
How right you are!!
I fully support your solution to the conflict.
What attempt to threaten Muslim soverignty over the temple mount? Jews praying at the WESTERN WALL were attacked and some were murdered in 1929. Are the revisionists now trying to manufacture an excuse for this massacre?
And what is meant my “Muslim sovereingty over the temple mount?” How can Muslims have sovereingty over a site that was holy to Jews 1600 years before the birth of Mohamed?
Hasbara buddy & WAY off topic, a major comment rule violation.
“Hasbara buddy & WAY off topic, a major comment rule violation.”
Sorry. I was responding to Duck’s: “The more judaism is injected into it, the more things go to hell. Starting with the 1929 attempt to threaten muslim sovereignty over the temple mount.”
As you did not say that his statement was off-topic I didn’t realize that a reply to his comment would be deemed off-topic. I mentioned the well-documented massacre because Duck used the date 1929, and I thought that was what he was referring to. To be honest, if that was NOT what he was referring to, then I cannot imagine what he meant!
I’m also not sure where presenting well-documented facts favourable to Israel ends and “Hasbara” begins.
I frown on trying to refight old wars and trying to use ancient history to justify one pt of view or another unless it’s directly relevant to some contemporary issue. I didn’t see Duck’s original comment nor the context in which it was published.
Jews setting up a synagogue infront of the western wall, in an attempt to threaten the muslim population, started said murders. I’m not excusing the murders, I’m showing that every jewish turn zionism has made only leads it to it’s death.
“How can Muslims have sovereingty over a site that was holy to Jews 1600 years before the birth of Mohamed?”
Racism just exploded in my face.
“Jews setting up a synagogue infront of the western wall, in an attempt to threaten the muslim population started said murders,”
The Western Wall is OFF the Temple Mount. Why should the Jews setting up a synagogue at a Jewish holy site be deemed threaten any reasonable tolerent Muslim?
“I’m not excusing the murders, I’m showing that every jewish turn zionism has made only leads it to it’s death.”
It didn’t lead to death. The decision by others to murder them led to death.
“Racism just exploded in my face.”
You mean reality. I stated facts.
It is part of the entire complex, not “off” anything. And yes, anything done in or around the Temple Mount including at the Wall is a very, very sensitive matter.
Learn some history will you. Ottoman custom forbade setting up a synagogue there, so very very close to the mount. Zabotinsky did this just to show off some jewish muscle. Lives were lost because of this.
When you invoke an angry mob, you need to take responsibility. Doubly so when you survive and bystanders don’t. And only judaism could lead zionism to such insanity.
You asked how can another people hold something YOU want. So really what you said is that people of other ethnicities should do what you tell them to. THAT is racist.
What you REALLY meant was even worse:
“How can Muslims have sovereingty”
DUCK:”Ottoman custom forbade setting up a synagogue there, so very very close to the mount.”
1) There was no attempt to build a synagogue, merely to pray at the site.
2) By 1929 Palestine was under a British Mandate not under the Ottomans. Even if there had been a breach of the prevailing Ottoman Law, it would have been up to the (British Mandatory) Courts determine what breach, who committed it and what the penalty should be. Not a mob.
DUCK: “When you invoke an angry mob, you need to take responsibility.”
That is a classic argument of the Blame-the-Victim school on a par with “He shouldn’t have crossed the picket line” or “she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt.” It is those who PARTICIPATE in an angry mob who are to blame. The Jews did not “invoke” an angry mob on that occasion. The most that you might say is that they DEFIED an angry mob. To me defiance of a mob is a virtue – again whether the mob be Jewish or Arab and whether those who defy them be Jews or Arabs. If Jews had attacked Muslims praying on the Temple Mount that would also have been wrong.
RICHARD SILVERSTEIN: “And yes, anything done in or around the Temple Mount including at the Wall is a very, very sensitive matter.” Sensitive yes. But if a person is sensitive to another’s worship (of the same God) then it is the sensitive one who should change his attitude rather than the tolerant one give his right to worship. (This applies equally to Jews and Moslems.) The important thing as that the Jews stayed off the Mount itself and that was already a concession to the intolerence of the other party.
DUCK: “You asked how can another people hold something YOU want. So really what you said is that people of other ethnicities should do what you tell them to. THAT is racist.”
A) I don’t “want” the Temple Mount – I am atheist.
B) I didn’t say anything about ethnicity. Islam is a religion and I was asking about how a religion that came into existence 1400 years ago could claim ownership (as opposed to the more reasonable access to) a site that was holy to another religion for 3000 years? (I think I know the answer you will give, but I would prefer to hear it from you in order not to be accused of putting words into your mouth.)
Yes, I agree!
RE: “I delegitimize Occupation.” – R.S.
‘OLDE SNARKY’ SEZ: Heretic!
Beautiful! Couldn’t find Free Gaza Movement, but maybe it’s hiding in there somewhere. Meantime I’m covered by ISM and Women in Black-Los Angeles.
My organisation is on there! 😀 I wasn’t expecting to see it, as we’re nowhere nearly as well known as the big groups like Women in Black and ISM. I’m going to print off the graphic and show it to the women in our creative arts group, to see if they want to make a banner version for the wall. If they do it I will send you the photo, Richard.
“I delegitimize Occupation.”
Technically I would disagree – this would only be true if there was something “legitimate” about the Occupation in the first place, which there isn’t. Rather, you are recognizing an already-illegitimate situation (I use this language in the same sense that the U.S. Constitution recognizes rights that you already have courtesy of Natural Law).
Israel’s occupation of Jehuda & Shomron (west bank)
was in response to the Jordanian shelling of the populous narrow costal area of Israel between the Jordanian west bank and the mediterranean sea on June 5,1967 and King Hussein’s subsequent refusal to cease hostilities despite Israel telling him that she did not want war with Jordan.
Ha kam le-or-ge-kha askm le-orgo.
He who rises to kill you,get up earlier to kill him.
Self defense….very legitimate.
First, we don’t accept the settler narrative either in language or hasbara. No reference to the extremist terms you’ve used. The correct usage recognized by the world & most Israelis is the Occupied Territories. I simply will not allow settler propaganda to be disseminated here & their terms are part of this hasbara.
Israel’s Occupation was the result of Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egypt. Israel has had scores of opportunities to negotiate the return of the settlements after the war & refused at every opportunity.
I’ve also dealt with yr inapt reference to the Talmudic dictum allowing murder of an enemy. Do not bring this completely irrelevant hasbarist nonsense up here again as it’s been discussed & roundly rebutted. This teaching was only meant to refer to an individual and not to a nation. Also, there is ample historical evidence that no war need have broken out in 1967 until Israel destroyed the Egyptian air force. Whether or not Israel wanted a war before June, 1967, by that date it decided it did want war and was convinced it could win through starting the war first. Aside from Nasser’s bellicose verbal threats, there is no solid evidence that he intended or was prepared for war. Therefore, once again the teaching is off point, way off point.
The words that Jews have called those area from the start of human history is: Judea and Samaria. What next ? You will not allow to use the term Jerusalem, only El-Kuds ?
If you want to ban me cause I say the words, please do. I will be honored.
You can claim they are held illegaly by Israel.
You can claim many things, but you cannot deny those terms however hard you try.
Don’t addopt the 1984 talk.
Bull. What does such a grandiose, empty phrase like “the start of human history” mean anyway? Jews didn’t exist at the start of human history & there certainly was no such thing as Judea or Samaria at the start of human history. Jews in the ancient past used such terms to describe the entire Kingdom of Israel, not the Occupied Territories. The use of the term to refer specifically to the territory conquered by Israel in the 1967 war is a relatively recent and entirely propagandistic phenomenon professed by settlers & their supporters. You won’t use it here.
I will allow terms that are commonly accepted in usage by people in the world such as Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, Occupied Territories, etc. But not those 2 terms.
free man, can you imagine that human history may have started even before Jews started to call those areas Judea and Samaria? Ever heard of Canaanite and Amorite civilization? Ever heard that Jericho, Hebron, Lachish, Jerusalem, Nablus, Megiddo, etc. existed long before the Israelite conquest of Canaan? To a historian, your exclusive claim on these lands and names sounds ridiculous at best. You can call places what you want, but the rest of the world outside Israel uses the terms West Bank, Palestine, Occupied Territories, Nablus, etc.
Juan Cole has a 90-seconds “Imperial History of the Middle East” on his blog. Kind of contradicts the ‘from the start of human history-stuff’:
Maybe we should call it “southern Levant”.
In any case, names are just names, and the region has many of them. For me, Land of Israel is just as valid as Palestine, Judea & Samaria, Levant, or whatever name someone will come up with next.
I looked in the index of a world atlas, but there was no listing for “Occupied Territories”. However, I found a Christian bible that referred to “Judea”. It didn’t refer to “Occupied territories”.
That’s because you’re using the ‘Hilltop Youth’ World Atlas. You should try these, which clearly indicate the “Occupied Territories:”
Wow, a Christian Bible translated the ancient Hebrew term Yehudah into “Judea.” That’s impressive. Meaning what in terms of contemporary usage? Efes, gornisht, zip,nada.
Nasser had set up gun emplacements in Sharm el-Sheikh and threatened to sink any Israeli (or Israeli-bound) vessel attemting to pass through the Straits of Tiran.
The USA tried to put together an international convoy to accompany Israeli vessles through the Straits. This would have put Nasser in the position of having to fire upon other ships if he wanted to attack Israeli ships – but also have provided him with a means of backing down without losing face. However only two of the six other nmations requested by the US agreed to join the convoy so the plan was dropped.
At the time the Straits were Israel’s oil import route and Israel only had three weeks reserve supply of oil. Furthermore, although Nasser had only two divisions on Israel’s border, he had another seven in transit across Sinai approaching the Israeli border. That was why the Israelis had to act when they did.
Sorry, I meant SAVE face.
We’re not refighting the 1967 War here. If that’s your intent go find a forum that deals with military strategy and war fighting. This is SO far off topic. Stay ON TOPIC.
“We’re not refighting the 1967 War here. If that’s your intent go find a forum that deals with military strategy and war fighting. This is SO far off topic. Stay ON TOPIC.”
Once again, I am not sure where I stand regarding the scope of the topic. I was responding to the following written by you in this very thread:
“Aside from Nasser’s bellicose verbal threats, there is no solid evidence that he intended or was prepared for war.”
It seems that the scope of the topic widens or narrows without any clear indication of the why and wherefore. I know the topic is the Occupation. But the occupation had causes. You seem to be saying that an argument to the effect that the causes leave Israel culpable (such as the quoted passage above) is on-topic, but when I put an exculpatory counter-argument pointing out that “Nasser’s bellicose verbal threats” were accompanied by physical actions that made them likely to materialize, you accuse me of going off-topic.
If you want a discussion let’s have one. But a discussion has at least two sides.
I don’t have the time to go back & figure out why I mentioned Nasser in the thread, but it was undoubtedly in reply to another commenter who was also off topic.
We’ve had numerous discussions here about the 1967 war here before you arrived & I’m not prepared to refight it. Your claim that Nasser was likely to start a war if Israel hadn’t started one first is hypothetical & not supported by solid facts. It is mostly supported by the notion of his rhetoric. But rhetoric, no matter how disturbing is not a fact or an action. So no, we’re not reopening the 1967 war.
Comment on the topic of the post and you’ll stay on topic and within the rules.
Now posted on the IOA website, here:
and on homepage.
The IOA Team
“Your claim that Nasser was likely to start a war if Israel hadn’t started one first is hypothetical & not supported by solid facts.”
I made no such claim. I stated the well-documented fact that Nasser made specific threats (to sink Israel ships attempting to navigate the Straits of Tiran) accompanied by a specific action (setting up gun emplacements in Sharm el Sheikh capable of implementing the threat). In International Law that is a Causus Belli.
Setting up a gun emplacement is a causus belli? Really. Where did you earn that degree in international law. I suggest you go back & do a CLE & refresh yr memory, which seems to be pretty darn hazy.
“Setting up a gun emplacement is a causus belli?”
It is not my memory that is hazy, but your reading of what I wrote. It is setting up a gun emplacement IN CONJUNCTION with an explicit threat (in this case: “we will sink any ship going to or coming from Israel that attempts to pass through the Straits of Tiran”) that is the causus belli. Indeed you have only to consider the alternatives open to the threatened party to understand realize WHY it is a causus belli.
Oh, that makes a world of difference! Why didn’t ya say so?
If every nation went to war over the nutty statements or threats of a neighbor there would be 100 times the number of wars there actually have been. And even if you marry Nasser’s over the top bellicosity to his creating one gun emplacement you still can’t get there from here. Sorry but your argument still doesn’t wash.
Israel didn’t need any threats. It had decided to launch a pre emptive attack on Egypt. And last I checked examining the psyche of a nation that launched a pre-emptive strike against another nation didn’t create justification for the war in terms of international law.
“even if you marry Nasser’s over the top bellicosity to his creating one gun emplacement you still can’t get there from here. Sorry but your argument still doesn’t wash.”
Okay then, what would you have done in Israel’s place in those circumstances? As I see it, there were only four possible courses of action:
1) Accept the closure of an international waterway to ones shipping by the unilateral action of a neighbour as a fait accompli;
2) Send a civilian vessel through to test Egypt’s intentions, thus risking the lives of civilians;
3) Send a military vessel through with identical results but then be accused of provokation;
4) Take affective military action against the party that had unilaterally imposed the illegal blockade of the international waterway such as to end the blockade and negate their capacity to retaliate.
Israel took course 4 and IMO rightly so. If there are any other courses of action available at the time, please let me know what they are and also please tell me which one you would have taken.
“Israel didn’t need any threats. It had decided to launch a pre emptive attack on Egypt.”
Prior to the blockade? Is there any reliable documented evidence to prove this?
You don’t understand. Israel WANTED to attack Nasser. It didn’t NOT want to attack. If I believed Israel didn’t want a war I would participate in yr exercise. But it clearly wanted one (though on ITS terms & not Nasser’s). I think they judged Nasser as not just a specific national threat, but also a broader regional threat given that he was preaching pan-Arabism. I think Israel was afraid he might actually succeed at uniting the Arab nations against it & therefore he had to be taken down a peg or 2 & very publicly. What better way than to humiliate him in a war. And guess what, it worked. He was dead in a matter of months.
You can pretty up Israel’s pre-emptive attack any way you wish just as you can put a dress on a pig and call her “Betsy.” But alas, she’s still a pig.
Have you actually read any books by credible authors on the subject? Try Tom Segev’s 1967 for starters. Perhaps other readers will have other suggestions.
“Israel WANTED to attack Nasser”
If you had said that SOME Israeli politicians (Israel is an intensely pluralistic society) we might have found some common ground. However, the voices of moderation in Israel prevented war UNTIL Nasser pushed the Israelis too far with his own unreasonable (and illegal) actions.
“He [Nasser] was dead in a matter of months.”
He died more than two years after the Six Day War.
“Try Tom Segev’s 1967 for starters.”
Are we now going to start trading secondary sources?