| | new | old | profile | links | rings | cast | reviews | email | gbook | notes | host | image | design | |
|
- alright, so it's been forever since i've posted on here, i know. It's just been HELL around here. i was in my school newspaper ; ) this is the first picture i get. I've cowritten a published author and have been quoted in two other articles, but this time i've actually got a picture : ) btw school work and the cause, i dont have a spare minute. today i went to a lunch meeting with three of my friends , and two old SDSers (students for a democratic society, started in the 60's). It was SO cool to hear them talk about what we so fondly refer to as the hippie era. anyways, i'm exhausted, so i'm out. I just thought i'd let everyone know i'm still alive. much love. ps that article i got my arm pictured for was SO biased. Furthermore there was an oped in the daily texan . . . well, one of our members wrote a perfect response. btw. israeli block party was SO fucking political, and the guy that wrote the oped, one of our members talked to him for an HOUR about the conflict. anyways, read and enjoy . . . (my friends comments are interspersed in the oped. they're the pro-palestinian parts) Anonymous signs, known conflict (and a bunch of lies) By By Nitay Elboym I have never had a Palestinian friend. I have never had the chance to meet an Iranian in person. In fact, as an Israeli, I have never even had the opportunity to hear what they think, or to express out my own views in a neutral environment. How unfortunate. The truth is that I usually "met" them during military service, when my IDF uniform and the uniform of their own made us too far away. But in Austin, it happened to me for the first time. I met Lebanese, Iraqis and Saudis. Recently, I even went to a Friday-night dinner with an Iranian and a Palestinian at Kirby Lane Cafe. Interesting. I hope he tried the queso, it is quite delicious. The only goal of the Israeli Block Party that took place on campus Thursday was cultural and to show the diversity of people and cultures in the state of Israel. Not one tent, sign or song dealt with politics. The argument that the Israeli Block Party (IBP) was �just a cultural event� is blatantly false. Anyone who is not blind would have seen a tent with flyers saying that Israel is the only place where Arabs can vote. Gee, umm, I am pretty sure that Arabs voted in the Palestinian Authority elections. In fact, Hamas ran women candidates in the election. Iran has elections and there is an Arab minority there. The last time I checked, Arab Americans can vote too. Another flyer claimed that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where daughters are �valued� as much as their sons. That doesn�t even merit a comment. At the IBP there was also the distribution of flyers justifying the apartheid wall claiming that it was an �anti-terrorist fence.� It claimed that suicide bombing decreased 90 percent since the building of the wall, conveniently omitting any causal relationship. Likewise, the flyer hypocritically claimed that it was not a wall for the most part but just a �fence.� If this is true, I really wonder how this simple fence magically reduces terrorism. The IBP also gave people the opportunity to write letters to IDF soldiers. To top it off, one of the tents attempted to tell a completely discredited version of Israeli history. If all of this is not political I do not know what is. What other organization on campus spends over ten thousand dollars to have an orgy of self-aggrandizement? This was clearly a public relations campaign that attempts to paint Israel in such a positive light so that one might not even know that there is in fact an occupation. Despite that, a group of a few dozen people decided to make a silent protest. They carry signs calling Israel an apartheid state. "Silent" in this case meant that they were not open to discussion. We in fact had designated speakers at the event. Anyone who wished to talked to us was directed to the speaker and we were more than welcome to discuss any of the issues with anyone who came up to us. I know Zaki, Benjamin, Tanya, David, and many others spent much of the night talking to people. The reason we made it a silent protest is exactly because we wanted civil discourse and not just angry yelling. At least from my experience, the response was really productive and positive. I am not sure what party he attended. The organizers of the event delivered an official offer to the Palestine Solidarity Committee to make their own tent at the block party. The group refused, preferring to protest. An opportunity was wasted to talk about the problems in the region rather than only spreading accusations. As Tanya noted �we were casually invited to have a table at the event. We did not �refuse.� I was the one on the phone; those here claiming that "we refused" were not. I said we would consider it and let them know. Our reasons for not having a table: That glosses over our objections to Israeli policy. If Zionists and anti-Zionists shake hands in Texas, that does not make Palestinians and Israelis any more equal; it only creates such an illusion.� Moreover, we did not want to be included as just part of the event because that marginalizes our opposition to the occupation. Our goal was to protest and be noticed, not just be seen as part of the �party.� We did not �waste� an opportunity to talk about the problems, we in fact embraced the opportunity. Moreover, an unidentified person or group decided to interfere with the event by parodying the original flyers that were posted as ads for the block party, using such phrases as "Apartheid Block Party," "human rights abuses," "ethnic cleansing" and "Palestinians don't matter." This was not the PSC!!! Whoever this person or group is, they were "responsible" enough to take off the Student Government logo, but they weren't brave enough to put on their own. Once again, a one-way debate. I�m sure this is all about �bravery� and �responsibility.� Israel has its problem regarding the way it treats Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. As an Israeli, I admit that acts of aggression, suppression and humiliation exist to some degree. But as I am honest enough to write that, I would also like to explain where it comes from and why the comparison to apartheid is cheap propaganda. Even if Israel does misbehave sometimes, to say that its actions are similar to apartheid, such as what occurred in South Africa, is absolutely wrong. Apartheid is the existence of separate legal system for two ethnic groups and the conferral of second-class citizenship to one group. He claims that �apartheid is the existence of separate legal system for two ethnic groups and the conferral of second-class citizenship to one group.� It takes an incredible amount of ideological obedience to ignore the fact that within the West Bank Isreali settlers are subsidized, protected, and guaranteed the rights of a regular Israeli citizen. Palestinians, on the other hand, are not granted these rights but are instead subject to curfews, checkpoints, house demolitions, daily harassment, and the denial of freedom of movement, among many other things. Moreover, if in fact there is not two distinct legal systems for two different peoples then how does one explain Israel�s Jewish Birthright law, and the rejection of Palestinian refugee�s right of return? I�m sure this former soldier really did not notice that he was guarding Israeli Only roads in the West Bank either. Please!! Benjamin Pogrund is a South African native who also lived in Israel for eight years. In a 2006 article, he wrote that in South Africa, change for the better was simply not possible: the apartheid system had to be eradicated. In contrast, the situation in Israel is different. One South African says something and all of the sudden we are suppose to believe it is the truth. If that were the case then I wonder if our mind can handle the intellectual tension caused by Desmond Tutu claiming to the contrary that what is happening in the Occupied Territories is indeed apartheid? Perhaps a logical argument might be worth a little more. The high court of justice handed down a precedent-setting decision that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality when allocating state land to Israeli citizens. Israeli courts, at various junctures, have also legalized torture, targeted assassinations, and house demolitions. The key word in this sentence is �Israeli citizens.� What is convenient about this is that it conveniently ignores that there is an occupation at all. The first Arab was appointed to the high court of justice three years ago, and two years ago an Arab was appointed director-general of a government ministry. Does this mean everything mentioned above is justified? Although these are certainly progressive steps, they have nothing to do with the fact that Palestinian lands are being confiscated, houses are demolished�..and the list goes on. An accusation that the central Bank of Israel had a discriminatory employment policy with no Arabs among its 800 staffers drew the assurance from the bank's then-governor that tenders would be advertised in the Arab-language press. Every government school, whether Jewish or Arab, gets identical funding - differences and, hence, resources arise through what parents pay and what local authorities pay. There is no bar to Arabs attending Jewish schools, and some do. US State Department on Human Rights Practices: �The Government [Israeli] did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens. The Government did not recognize marriages performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, compelling many citizens to travel abroad to marry.� Many other human rights reports elaborate on this. I can�t believe that this representation of Israeli society is taken serious now days. In almost 60 years, this state that was built as a result of genocide against Jews had gone through six official wars, and six more "unofficial" wars. In the first war, the Arab-Israeli War, or the War of Independence, six Arab states simultaneously attacked Israel on the very same day of the Declaration of the Establishment in 1948. This war, which created the Palestinian refugees' problem, broke out because the Palestinians and the Arab nations refused to accept the U.N. Partition Plan, which was actually supposed to divide the country equally between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Nazi-German Government is responsible for the genocide of the Jews, not Palestinians. The notion that six monstrous Arab states were bound together to crush the nascent Israeli state has bee discredited by the Israeli New Historians of the 1980s. Historian Avi Shlaim notes that by �mid-May 1948 the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in the Palestine theater was under 25,000, whereas the IDF fielded over 35,000 troops. By mid-July the IDF mobilized 65,000 men under arms, and by December its numbers had reached a peak of 96,441.� When Moshe Sharett was arrested by the British in 1946 Golda Meir became the acting head of the Jewish Agency�s (JA) Political Department. Twelve days before the UN announced the partition plan Meir met with King Abdullah of then Transjordan. At the meeting Abdullah and Meir made a tacit agreement that Transjordan would not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish State and the JA would allow Abdullah to annex the West Bank for the Hashemite Kingdom. Likewise, in 1947 the British foreign secretary told the Jordanian Foreign Minister that they (Britain) wanted them (Jordan or Transjordan) to occupy the territory allotted to be the Palestinian State. Thus, there was collusion on numerous fronts. When the three strongest actors�Jordan, Britain, and what became Israel�were all under agreement, one could hardly say that this poor rag-tag army had to fight off six big bad Arab armies. Elboym�s portrayal of what happened in 1948 is simplistic and misleading. First, the Jordanian army, which commanded most of the other Arab armies, never crossed into the territory that was to be allocated for the Jewish State. The Iraqi army, under the command of the Jordanian army, also had to tacitly agree to the Abdullah�British�Jewish Agency agreement, so Iraq also never crossed the line into the Jewish State during the war. When one considers that the partition plan actually put Jerusalem under international control, one begins to see that almost all of the fighting that took place was either in the �international zone� or in what was suppose to be a Palestinian State�neither armies actually invaded Israel proper. The same goes for the Lebanese army�it never crosses into what was suppose to be Israel. Saudi Arabia and Yemen had no regular armies at the time so they too can be excluded. The only two states that actually invaded Israel was Egypt and Syria. Nonetheless, the two most important actors on the Arab side�Jordan and Iraq�were bound to an agreement with Israel during the conflict. They kept this agreement not because they were afraid of Israel but rather the more powerful actor, Britain. The Jewish Agency did not just simply �accept� the partition plan but rather they saw it as a stepping stone for the creation of greater Isreal. Ben-Gurion stated this explicitly. These desires are affirmed by what actually happened: Although the plan called for the allocation of about 55 percent of Mandatory Palestine to the Jewish State, by the end of the war Israel took up almost 80 percent of mandatory Palestine. In a sense, one could argue that in fact the Zionist leadership rejected the partition plan because they disregarded it and took as much land as they could get. As for refugees: in the area allotted for the Jewish State, Arabs owned most of the land and the demographic was about equal. The Zionist leadership was quite frank in their discussion of the necessity of a Jewish majority in Israel. There were explicit plans for �transfer,� a euphemism for expulsion. Forced expulsion of the Arab people has been very well documented by Israeli historians who have had access to Israeli archives since the 1980s. Virtually every serious historian, Israeli or otherwise, have concluded that what happened in 1948 was ethnic cleansing�this includes Oxford trained historian and former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. Nowadays, Israel is still beset by enemies sworn to its destruction and Arab states that refuse to recognize its existence. Add to that the "wipe-out" rhetoric of Iranian president and Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Again, this is a complete distortion of the documentary record. As recently as 2002, there was an Arab summit that not only offered peace but normalized relations with Israel on the basis of UN Resolutions 242 and 388 which requires Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. This document does not even require the right of return but rather demands a �just solution� to the refugee problem. EVERY major Arab state signed this but Israel refused peace in favor of expansion and colonization. Israel has been offered peace for nearly 30 years but has rejected it in order to keep the occupied territories. As for Iran, I am not going to defend Ahmadinejad. What he says is inexcusable. However, where is the outrage of Sharon�s role in the Sabra and Shatila Massacres which were murderous actions, not just rhetoric. Numerous Isreali leaders have said far worse things about Palestinians than Ahmadinejad has ever stated about Isreal. Where is the outrage???!!!! Awareness of these threats can somewhat explain the security dilemma that Israel faces daily. To comprehend, imagine what would you do if you feared taking the 40 Acres bus every day, because your older sister or a good friend had died at the hands of a brain-washed suicide bomber who exploded the bus. There is certainly a security threat to Israel. However, it is not an existential threat. Isreal has one of the most powerful military in the world�no Arab state even comes close to matching Israeli power. Most military analysts rank Israel around number 4 in terms of their military. Although it is perfectly legitimate to be concerned for the lives of Israeli citizens, it is a complete farce to pretend that Israel is on the verge of destruction. On the other hand, Israel is actively destroying even the possibility of a Palestinian state. Israel is the only nation with nuclear weapons in the Middle East and it has�arguably more than any other country in the region�been willing to display their willingness to display their destructive power, most notably in Lebanon and Gaza. Where is the concern for the safety and security dilemma of Palestinians? For every Israeli killed there are three dead Palestinians. This is not because Israelis are evil but rather it is a function of their power. Israel is clearly more powerful, therefore it is capable of doing much more harm. In fact when the ratio of dead Palestinians to dead Israelis was 20 to 1, no one even cared. It wasn�t until it became 3 to 1 that we are all serious about Israel�s �security dilemma.� If we are going to talk about security threats lets be honest and fair. Palestinians are in a far worse position than Israelis but all we ever hear about is suicide bombers and Israeli civilians. Although that is certainly a concern, Palestinian suffering�which has been far worse by any measure�has been virtually ignored here and most mainstream media accounts. A year-and-a-half ago, Israel completed the Disengagement Plan, pulling out of all Palestinians territories in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian Qassam rockets fell before then and continue to fall despite Palestinian promises to stop. The so-called �Disengagement Plan� was simultaneously a pullout of Gaza and the annexation of parts of the West Bank. Regardless, Israel controls the Gaza borders and do not allow the freedom of movement�in violation of international law�thus creating a virtual prison. Gaza remains the most densely populated area in the world and is completely surrounded and controlled by Israel. As for the Qassam missiles: Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 to right before this summer�s conflict approximately 1,000 Qassam missiles were launched. On the other hand, it is estimated that Israel in that same amount of time fired over 7,000 heavy artillery shells. The casualties reflect this power asymmetry with Palestinians loosing far more lives than Israelis. All this violence is wrong. It does not matter who commits it but this article is completely misleading because the reality is that the most insecure and threatened people are the Palestinians and the one who is committing the majority of violent acts is Israel. The Qassam missiles must stop, but so should Israeli attacks which happen to be far greater substantively and quantitatively. So why then, in a place like Austin where we can talk, discuss and debate, are there still people who keep increasing hostility? Hostility? We were having a silent protest. On the other hand, on a couple occasions we were yelled at and told we supported terrorists. Instead of posting anonymous flyers about non-existent apartheid, we have to take advantage of this scarce opportunity to sit together, far away from the core of the conflict, and talk to each other without hiding. The only thing non-existent is the facts in this article. Apartheid has been very well documented and supported by the evidence of virtually every human rights organization. We have always been open to discuss and debate the issues. TFI has unfortunately chosen to ignore us and refused to debate. If after this they feel they would like to take the opportunity to have a debate, we would be more than happy to participate. |
|
| |