Around a year-and-a-half ago, I received an email from Mira Sucharov, a professor at Carleton University, inviting me to join a conference roundtable, “Israel-Palestine Scholarship, Activism, and the Threat to Academic Freedom.” The request was polite and professional and the topic seemed fine (though the term “Israel-Palestine” always give me pause). A day later, I declined the invitation.
You see, Mira Sucharov once compared me to racist demagogues Bridgette Gabriel and Pamela Gellar. (See also: here and here.) After people intervened on my behalf, she doubled-down by promoting a “nuanced” article I would generously describe as offensive. This happened shortly after I’d been fired from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and desperately needed support. I especially needed Jewish colleagues to renounce the phony (and injurious) claim that I’m anti-Semitic, which I consider a responsibility of Jewish anti-Zionists vis-à-vis people of color unfairly smeared with the accusation.
I hold onto grudges, it’s true. But I tried to look beyond the flaw when I received Sucharov’s email. I kept returning to the same thought: this reticence isn’t simply a grudge; it’s a question of existential dignity. This person had caused me harm. At one of the lowest points of my life, in a moment that demanded solidarity from below, she sided with a center of power. I wasn’t prepared to forget the episode. The consequences of that moment continue to affect my daily life.
In 2014, Sucharov was a liberal Zionist. She’s since moved left. I don’t know how she would now identify—post-Zionist? un-Zionist? soft Zionist? anti-Zionist? Zio-ambiguous?—but these days she’s visible in Palestine solidarity spaces. That visibility raises complex questions often broached in private but difficult to explore in public.
The Palestine solidarity movement is filled with people, of varying ideological shades, who at some point identified as Zionist (Jewish and Christian and in a few cases Hindu and Muslim). Some experienced a generally apolitical but vaguely pro-Israel upbringing; others once advocated on behalf of the state. Some do courageous work; others seem dodgy. Such judgments tend to be subjective and inconsistent, so it’s helpful to examine the conditions at play when a political community welcomes former antagonists.
I don’t want my grudge against Sucharov to become communal property—my preference is that she be left in peace—but neither do I want the grudge to be understood as an idiosyncrasy. I’ve reflected plenty on it and, despite the baggage I carry, it seems to me that an important precept informs the situation: why the hell should we let people who once caused us harm waltz into our spaces as if nothing happened?
*****
We process oppression differently. It’s why developing a model of restorative justice can be daunting. But oppression has a communal component. Our subjectivity interacts. We don’t always agree about the value of certain discourses or the trustworthiness of institutional or individual interlocutors. Some of my friends may believe Sucharov is terrific and that my recalcitrance is irrational. On it goes. It’s not easy, not always possible, to make sense of the implicit values that govern a community, but treating those values as natural or immutable is never a wise option.
For the Palestine solidarity movement, a larger context exists. One day, according to our aspirations, Israeli Jews will have to account for what they’ve done to Palestinian Arabs (and to Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Guatemalans, South Africans, and Salvadorans). People disagree about what might constitute a “solution,” but everyone recognizes that it must include formal acknowledgment of Zionist atrocities, followed by serious efforts at restitution, however painful or acrimonious.
Put more simply, Israel can’t sign a document and then expect its victims to suddenly forget decades of misery.
Obviously, a process of national reconciliation (if it ever happens) is more serious than whatever personal grievances we bear, but those grievances can emblematize larger issues. Anyway, national liberation isn’t extraneous to grief; it’s supposed to be a geography of relief for the aggrieved.
*****
What I’m speaking of isn’t quite forgiveness, although there’s overlap. Forgiveness is an overwhelming topic I’m ill-prepared to discuss. The issue will arise among Palestinians for years to come, as it does among all communities that experience systemic violence. I’m thinking more along the lines of confession. Too many ex-Zionists act as if the past is immaterial, but until hardship disappears, we can’t ignore its sources of accumulation. What are the dangers of uncritical acceptance? (We already know the dangers of being too insular.) On whom are the wretched supposed to confer their finite energy?
Movement across antagonistic ideologies can illuminate profound, almost mystical, dimensions of human need: how we organize into familiar enclaves; how we rely on people with filial ties to our oppressor to assuage the pain of unbelonging; how we sometimes encounter sorrow in the guise of comfort. Palestinians can’t have nationalism without Jewish participation. Yet the participation of non-Palestinians is a constant source of negotiation that both dilutes and defines the disposition of our national movement. When former adversaries switch sides, it can produce stress even (or especially) when the reversal occurs without comment.
I was recently chatting with a Palestinian friend about the propensity of outsiders to accumulate credibility (and often rewards) while ethnic Palestinian nationalists suffer various forms of punishment. In the course of my comments, I proffered a disclaimer conditioned by years of academe: “Of course I don’t think we should use a litmus test…”
“Why not?” she interjected. “Why shouldn’t we have a litmus test?”
It wasn’t a rhetorical question. The term “litmus test” is too loaded to inspire calm discussion, but it conveys a sensibility always in use among the dispossessed. My friend had snapped me out of old habits of professional decorum, which obscure how people uninvested in civility organize their loyalties. All colonized groups at least implicitly demand from outsiders minimal gestures of sincerity. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the Palestine solidarity movement in the USA celebrates mechanical avowal of Palestinian humanity and refers to Bernie Sanders as “amo,” which reads less as affection than subservience, for “amo” is an honorific Sanders hasn’t earned. Perhaps, I realized, it’s not a question of trust, but of standards, of what we’re willing to accept (or readily embrace) amid decades of relentless hostility. We can’t maintain a consciousness synchronized with resistance in Palestine because we’ve conceded too much intellectual and emotional space to the logic of US settler colonization, the progenitor of Zionism.
This tendency to concede, which unlocks the turnstiles into an arena packed with opportunity and competition, can make survival feel easier, but also leads to lasting harm. The same turnstiles, ominous barricades surrounded by the advanced weaponry of an occupying army, are permanently locked to Palestinians trying to work, to visit family, to seek medical care, to reclaim their ancestral land.
*****
We’ve seen the issue of uncritical acceptance play out in US election campaigns, even if the conversation rarely got around to questions of harm and redress. (Reinvention from an unsavory past is a common motif of electoral politics.) How, for example, do Palestinians in the USA approach a situation like Julia Salazar’s?
Salazar, a progressive member of the New York state legislature, generated a ton of tabloid interest during her campaign after a Zionist rag questioned many of her biographical claims. Subsequent digging verified that Salazar had served as president of Christians United for Israel [CUFI] at Columbia University. I had known of Salazar from Palestine solidarity work, so the revelation was unnerving.
I’m happy that Salazar disavowed her Christian Zionist history, but agitating to have professors fired and students punished for supporting Palestinian liberation isn’t something I can simply overlook. Salazar may have changed, but the CUFI chapter over which she presided continues to slander and harass Palestinians. If Salazar publicly acknowledged her history with CUFI following her departure from the group, then it wasn’t effective, because her Christian Zionism came to many people as a huge surprise.
We don’t want individuals to shoulder responsibility for structural problems, but it’s hard to feel comforted by an antagonist’s transition to anti-Zionism when that person’s prior work facilitated an ongoing culture of repression.
Last year I complained on Twitter about a contract course I had been recruited to teach at a prestigious university. The course’s content (having nothing to do with Palestine) had been determined and I had worked out a schedule with the hiring unit. At around the time I should have signed the contract, the faculty member in charge of the process informed me that the hire had been cancelled. I’m not privy to the internal happenings around the decision, but it’s clear that upper administration had intervened (and that faculty with supposedly good politics had allowed it to happen). I saw the course as an opportunity to earn much-needed income and perhaps create groundwork for a return to teaching. I’d been repelled from job possibilities at the point of hiring more than once, but this instance was particularly disappointing because I knew it signaled the end of my time in the classroom.
That university was Columbia. Salazar surely would have deplored the decision. By that point she identified as pro-Palestine. Still, when I see the video of her defaming Palestinian academics to Glenn Beck, it’s difficult not to be upset. I suffered a material harm resulting from a mendacious culture in which she once participated. By what ethical metric am I obliged to ignore that history? Am I supposed to contentedly accept that a former Zionist is enjoying a prominent career as a Democrat whenever I open an email with “unfortunately” as its salutation?
What about the professors and students at Columbia unremittingly harassed by Zionist thugs? Palestinian students have been profiled on websites that aim to wreck their careers. Joseph Massad has endured two decades of hassle and defamation, a period that coincides with Salazar’s Christian Zionist activism. I won’t speak for these students and professors—it may well not bother them at all—but it seems fair to at least raise the point rather than hewing to some exculpatory ideal of decorum. Political punishment isn’t a one-time event; it’s a lifelong burden.
*****
The examples I’ve provided are an effort to raise questions about reparation. While I have strong feelings about the conditions underlying these questions, I don’t necessarily have any answers. This sort of burden is essential to decolonial thought: we have to outfit visceral feelings of rage and suspicion with a political language, one that conveys the depth of pain so many of us experience.
Salazar’s situation isn’t especially vexing. In the end, she’s a Democratic politician and so any half-decent decolonial formation will understand her inherent limitations. The more pressing issue is how we process newcomers with a dubious history. People have the right to transform their politics without external interference, but one-time subjects of their hatred have a right to decide whether the transformation is adequate.
A more complicated picture emerges from my reaction to Sucharov. It’s easy to create distance from politicians (they’re usually the ones who accomplish the task), but in shared spaces where people interact, often closely, we’re less at liberty to pick and choose comrades according to reflexive criteria. We’re free to dislike anybody, sure, but it’s instructive to analyze what is easily dismissed as taste and see if it might constitute a principle.
I believe a principle underlies my reaction to Sucharov. If I were merely afflicted by personal hurt, I’d be able to identify a remedy. But I don’t seek an apology (it would probably annoy me). Ditto friendship or dialogue. I don’t even seek an acknowledgment that she was wrong for comparing me to repugnant culture warriors just days after losing my livelihood.
I don’t know what I want. Activists on social media like to demand accountability, but it’s not always clear what exactly they mean. I suppose I’m not demanding anything. I’m making a confession: I’m uncomfortable that politicians and academics who once caused harm to Palestinians take a positive reception for granted, as if that harm was merely a rite of passage or a silly phase best gone unnoticed. This ease of forgetfulness implies a low opinion of Palestinian sentience.
Let’s think beyond the individual. Why would an increase in ranks among former Zionists cause misgiving? To begin with, misgiving is a tacit recognition that, like any grassroots movement, Palestine solidarity attracts no small number of frauds and hucksters. With that recognition, the questions hidden beneath grudges emerge: do we simply write off people who use Palestine to burnish leftist credibility as an annoying net positive? Amid fierce competition for market share in the information economy, how do we keep focused on the needs and sensibilities of the dispossessed? What about the newcomers’ propensity to turn every discussion of Palestine into a referendum on anti-Semitism or the relationship of Jewish people to the state of Israel? (These are fine topics, but not as replacements for affirmation of Palestinian life.)
Moreover, because of a long history of recrimination against anti-Zionists (especially if they’re Black or Arab), conversation can be profoundly, almost disarmingly, sensitive. This problem compounds the corresponding problem of selectively invoking Palestine as a discursive convenience. Ever since the BDS movement became legible, thanks to the unseen labor of activists working in conditions of great adversity, spaces of Palestine solidarity attract pundits committed to redeeming Israel from unfortunate excesses. And we’ve all encountered the allies who spend much of their time hunting for imperfection among Palestinians.
The thing is: anger and inelegance are necessary to decolonization. We can’t always entertain the sensitivities of people tied by economics or ethnicity to the settler class. Difficult conversation can occur only in situations of mutual trust. Otherwise we’ll never properly unpack the disparities of power that govern discourse around Palestine in the West.
I’ve settled into the following standard: if a non-Palestinian makes it so that I’m uneasy discussing in their presence what I would say to people in Dheisha or Gaza City, then we have a problem, one that supersedes decorum. I can’t serve on a roundtable with Sucharov because I’d probably self-censor. Acceding to a set of imagined limitations for fear of being branded insensitive or savage is a grave impediment to decolonization.
A corresponding standard exists: nobody should expect acclaim for recognizing the immorality of ethnic cleansing. Electoral commonplaces or professions of cultural treason don’t count as fidelity to Palestinian liberation. If a person spent time materially harming those who have struggled and suffered to maintain ideals of freedom, then merely joining the winning side isn’t enough. The native is too busy with the labor of survival to indulge the newly awoken.
Mira Sucharov has consistently dodged affiliating with Palestine solidarity groups, even Jewish ones like Independent JewishVoices Canada which was the first Canadian group to come out publicly for BDS. I don’t wish to slander Sucharov but we are way past the time to be playing games. Trying to maintain one’s “credibility “ by not taking a firm stand of support for Palestinian liberation is not defensible. Sucharov knows the truth but cannot seem to face the consequences, which involve becoming a pariah in the Jewish community. I’d rather live as a pariah than make the kind of moral compromise demanded by liberal Zionism.
Welcome to Pariah Land. You are in good company with JVP.
Exceptionally well said
Thanks! After reading your books and articles for five years, writing more than 27 comments on your blog, and waiting for 252 days, I finally have an answer to what you really meant by “decolonization”: It is not completely well-defined, at least not for you and other “social media activists.”
As I said before, “if as Palestinians we want our message to reach more people, we need to be consistent.” Clarity is a prerequisite for consistency. What will the chances of success in bringing about change be, if one does not articulate a clear, compelling and practical, albeit hypothetical, alternative? (This is a rhetorical question, but never mind, since we shall hold everyone accountable except for ourselves.)
You’re free to write anytime. I don’t normally respond to the comments here. If you like, I’m happy to write you at the email listed on your profile and we can chat on that medium, which I prefer.
There is usually no inconsistency between my public and private propositions; however, we can discuss via e-mail if this is your preference. It will be extremely irresponsible not to clarify a possible definition of “decolonization” that is morally consistent, one that illuminates truth while charting a viable path for reconciliation. Irrespective how complicated our emotions are, we owe that to future generations.
– Walid
Hello, Steve. If you can hear me, I am still waiting for your e-mail. (I do not have your e-mail address, nor do I have any social media account, so I can not reach you outside of this blog.) I had to wait for so long and to resort to provocation to get an answer in the above article (well, some sort of confession of ignorance) to my original question, so Godot does show up after all. In the mean time, I am starting to enjoy my new found role as an agitator. You no longer have complete control over this theater! For the first time ever, the actors actually heard each other and spoke outside of the given script: There was an honest and open discussion in the comment section! Thanks Rick, Jeff and everyone else (that includes you, dear Frank)! As Karl Popper said, “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.” We have a long way for truth to liberate us, so I will not let my guard down.
I think we need to formulate a post-decolonization narrative (which encompasses post-Zionism). I know, Fanon et al … but for the sake of a hypothetical discussion, let us put aside linguistic candy and devoid buzzwords and investigate the problem from the bottom-up. Here is an appropriate example: The natives in Canada have some limited self-governance on reserves due to the 1763 Royal Proclamation that prohibits non-natives from disturbing native tribes and their territory. However, through a patchwork of treaties, their self-governance is reduced to a mere voice in consultative processes, and the Crown effectively yields considerable power over the natives. This is not limited to (the lack of) native justice. The latest recent example of the Crown’s power is the Privy Council directing the National Energy Board to issue a certificate allowing the expansion of the Trans-Mountain project, despite the fact that not all natives are on board. The project will disrupt their environment and their lives even further. You might say “Exactly! It is the fault of settlers and Capitalist greed!”. I agree, but the solution is not what Fanon et al have to offer. The problem is the concentration of any power, no matter how well-intentioned, in a central structure. In a parallel universe, a Marxist central government could have equally imposed projects that are detrimental to the natives. (The famine of Ukraine in the early 1930’s is a vivid example of that.) Any concentration of power inevitably becomes evil; such is the nature of the beast. The solution is to have a local system. Had the natives lived in a country where decisions are taken locally through direct democracy, the power of someone outside of their territory to impose projects on them is neutralized. Now this is genuine liberation where the natives are masters of their own fates! Whether they opt for a socialist, capitalist or whatever system on their territory, it is their collective free choice.
How is this relevant to your article? For most of this year, I have been repeating in this theater the need for a structurally stable and consistent system that is just for everyone: apply the reciprocity ethics and locality in a neutral country with direct democracy and equal rights. (I do not care what you call it, but it is definitely not Israel.) Calling for decolonization without expounding such a system is a recipe for instability and needless pain and suffering in the future.
It is more than decolonization. Inequality is growing not only due to central bank policies and the non-ergodic dynamics of the flow of money in a capitalist system, but also due to technological advancements. The latter also makes the notion of worker uprising in a class struggle obsolete. Once quantum computers are operationally functional and can do computations with several thousand qubits, the effects of technology on concentrating power and on exacerbating inequality will be orders of magnitude of what we are witnessing today. How to counter that? Is it at all possible to evade such an ominous future? Promote a local system for everyone, and let the people decide what suites them best by voting directly. I need to go back to the real world. (Unlike the Greek deity that rules this theater, aka, the Admin, I am a mere mortal who is bound by 24 hour days.) Bye for now!
My organization, Social Democrats USA, supports BDS through a Democratic Zionist perspective. We march with Adalah-NY, the BDS organization in New York City. So we’re not even ‘former’ Zionists. By our deeds, not just words, we’ve earned some trust among our allies in Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine.
At the 2018 Left Forum, we sponsored a panel on BDS featuring Nada Elia of PACBI and myself, not only for the intrinsic value of her viewpoint but as a protest against the tokenization of Palestinian views on matters relating to her people.
I have been deeply involved with this issue for more than 45 years and, from that experience I find the notion that there is a “Democratic Zionist perspective,” absurd because the terms are inherently contradictory, not only by definition but from what I viewed during two two month trips to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza over a 20 year interval.
In 1983, I interviewed Israeli reservists who had refused to participate in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon or who had gone with the first wave and after viewing the atrocities committed against Palestinians and Lebanese by their so-called “comrades in arms,” they refused to return to the front. None had any illusions that Zionism was in any way democratic, that way of viewing the Zionist project seems to exclusively the province of American Jews who wish to eat their cake and have it, too.
And, if that is not enough, they believe they have the right to determine the language in which the Israel-Palestine conflict will be discussed, with an emphasis on not offending Jewish sensibilities as if, somehow, to do so would mitigate speaking the truth about Israel’s sordid history and that of the organizations in the Jewish community, in which I include Jewish Voice for Peace, have made sure that a healthy discussion of the Israel Lobby and it’s role in shaping US policy towards the entire Middle East is not on the table.
If it were, there would be national campaigns against US military aid to Israel as there was against support for the Contras back in the 1980s when the amount of money involved, $15 million, is almost equal to what Israel receives on a daily basis, when broken down. Yet there was not even a whimper of protest let alone a campaign to stop the $38 billion ten year gift from Obama to Netanyahu which was openly discussed in the mainstream media for months before it was finally approved. As for the focus on BDS, that seems, in the US, at least, to have provided a convenient cover for doing absolutely nothing to change the reality on the ground in Occupied Palestine or the Lobby controlled US Congress.
Moreover, while not having any effect on Israel’s bottom line, we now see 27 states that have made it against the law for businesses not to trade with Israel, another issue which JVP, aside from mentioning it in emails to its members, has done nothing to educate the public about how such state actions came about.
Rejecting Sucharov’s invitation was, without question, the right decision on Stephen Salaita’s part. Holding those who have done the work of the enemy and who now believe that, claiming to have had a change of heart,at a distance. They have no place in the movement and if they wish to do something to make amends and show support for the Palestinians, there is a larger society out there that needs to be educated.
Based on your writing and history, a healthy discussion of the conflict is the last thing you want. Your rejection of those, misguided at best, who actually support your position, places you in the Atzmon camp. Congratulations.
Jeff, I know you’ve had a long history in the movement, which makes it all the more surprising to see you taking unfounded swipes as JVP. A) “we now see 27 states that have made it against the law for businesses not to trade with Israel, another issue which JVP, aside from mentioning it in emails to its members, has done nothing to educate the public about how such state actions came about.”… B) “with an emphasis on not offending Jewish sensibilities as if, somehow, to do so would mitigate speaking the truth about Israel’s sordid history and that of the organizations in the Jewish community, in which I include Jewish Voice for Peace, have made sure that a healthy discussion of the Israel Lobby and it’s role in shaping US policy towards the entire Middle East is not on the table.”
JVP has done all manner of public education to Op-Eds in major America newspapers, sat-in and got arrested in Congressional offices, etc. on behalf of Palestinian rights, and you want to claim that has
This does seem reminiscent of Gilad Atzmon’s “nobody but me can be a Jewish Anti-Zionist/they’re all Jewish gatekeepers” narcissism. I don’t know how you can miss the fact that JVP is the largest anti-Zionist Jewish group in the country, growing from 7 chapters in 2008 to now 70, mobilizing thousands of supporters in various BDS and other Palestinian rights programs, that apparently you’re not familiar with. It is and has been pro-BDS and for Palestinian Right of Return for many years, and you want to claim that is ” not offending Jewish sensibilities”?? I don’t know what Jewish universe you’ve been inhabiting, but I do know that you can count the Jewish congregations in the U.S. that would even allow us to speak therein on one hand. Maybe you or some other individual or group has done better, done more, so please, do inform us and list that for us. Do you have some elaborate theory why BDS and massive public outreach on behalf of Palestinian rights and anti-Zionism by a Jewish organization, with many non-Jewish members, is somehow the work of the devil, as undoubtedly some hasbara troll will immediately asset here?
First, let’s leave Atzmon out of this since his preoccupation with Jews and Jewish culture and his move to the political right have done nothing to help the Palestinians. As for Jewish Voice for Peace, my first “experience” with it was when I learned, early on, that it was “monitoring” me because of my “obsession with the Lobby.” Then, following the US invasion of Iraq, Berkeley radio station KPFA, tried to arrange a debate between me and Mitchell Plitnick, the first head of JVP, over the role of the Israel Lobby (mostly PNAC) in fomenting the war. Plitnick refused as did JVP’s Number Two, Cecile Surasky (sp?), telling the KPFA host that JVP would have nothing to do with me. They ended up getting Stephen Zunes, an apologist for AIPAC, as a replacement. By coincidence, on the very night that KPFA was scheduled to air that debate, Plitnick gave a talk in the Bay Area on why the Israel Lobby was not involved in pushing for the war.
None of that surprised me since JVP was the successor organization to New Jewish Agenda which went out of its way to marginalize me when I began breaking the taboo on speaking about the Lobby in the late 1980s. JVP is very proud of its connections to NJA and that’s not surprising since a number of its members, now longer of tooth, were prominent in NJA.
I have three letters in my files or rather copies of three letters on NJA letterhead in my files. One, from the national office to the SF chapter, warns the chapter that if it takes a position calling for the end or suspension of US aid to Israel, that the chaper would be dissolved. and suggests that the chapter follow the example of the Orange Co. chapter which has taught the Palestinians they work with not to raise the subject of aid.
Another letter came from David Mandel, currently JVP’s big poobah in Northern California, who wrote a letter, on NJA letterhead, to KPFA, demanding that they no longer allow the recognized historian, Lenni Brenner, to speak on it airwaves.
Perhaps, the most sinister, was a letter, signed by seven high ranking members of the Bay Area NJA, demanding that Amos Wollin, be taken off Pacifica’s airwaves and so, the Zionist director of Pacifica, David Salniker, did just that. Wollin, who had emigrated to Israel from Germany, hosted a unique program on US airwaves that dealt exclusively with the Israeli political scene and it was terrific. When I arrived in Israel from Jordan in 1983, I met Wollin at a meeting of Yesh G’vul, the organization of Israelis reservists who refused to fight in the war on Lebanon. On being introduced to Wollin, I asked him why he was no longer on the air. He told me to come to his office the next day and I would find out. What he showed and made a copy for me was that letter from Berkeley’s NJA charging Wollin with having an anti-Israel bias and demanding his firing, and so it came to pass.
When I returned to Berkeley and confronted Salniker with the letter, he explained that Wollin’s accent had been a problem, but KPFK in LA continued to air his program on its own. But imagine that the only radio program to discuss Israeli politics to a broad American audience and a group of so-called progressive Jews get it taken off the air.
There is a lot more on NJA’s charge sheet but let’s look at JVP whose leadership apparently believes it is in a position to determine who is and who isn’t a legitimate part of the Palestinian support movement. It’s main target, in recent years, has been Alison Weir, an independent journalist who created If Americans Knew, a small organization which seeks to educate Americans who have no vested interest in the outcome of the Israel-Palestine conflict but whose tax money has flown freely to Israel over the years with absolutely no debate and who might also be interested in learning about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war about which JVP has said not a word.
So, Alison, whom I have known for years, has made it her goal to speak to as many ordinary American audiences as possible, filling them in on information that JVP, like NJA, considers taboo, like the power of Jewish establishment organizations in controlling Congress and targeting for defeat and member who dares to challenge Israel’s funding or its treatment of the Palestinians without genuflecting to Israel and acknowledging its “right to exist,” a demand asked by no other state.
Alison has also campaigned against stopping US aid to Israel for which there is absolutely no excuse, and not only because Israel’s economy is booming (wit h BDS having had zero effect) and its standard of living higher than ours. ( I am waiting for someone to explain why JVP has not made stopping aid to Israel into a national campaign, given the size of its membership and fund raising.)
Alison’s reaching out to the broad American public, something that JVP has not even professed to attempting, became a threat and so JVP used, as an excuse, her appearance on a talk show hosted by a right winger whom I and I suspect most Americans and JVP members had never heard of, to smear her reputation and prevent her appearances before progressive audiences.
I have been active on behalf of Palestinian rights since spending four and half months in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan in the summer of 1970 and co-founded the Labor Com. on the Middle East and edited its publication, the Middle East Labor Bulletin from 1988 to 1995. During the First Intifada, because of divisions in the Palestinian ranks, LCOME organized virtually all of the demonstrations on its behalf and in 1993, I exposed to the media the name of the ADL spy who had infiltrated our organization and hundreds of others as well as keeping files on thousands of individuals across the entire left. Three of us sued the ADL and eventually forced them to make a cash settlement. In none of this did we have any support from NJA or the Jewish progressives who headed most of the Left groups and I wrote about this at the time and no, doubt, will write again.
In sum, it should be clear that by any measurable standards, whether making changes on the ground in Occupied Palestine, in the halls of Congress or in the mainstream media, the Palestinian solidarity movement has been an utter failure, but it has been obviously a terrific success for Jewish Voice for Peace.
In 1963, Sen. Fulbright held two sets of hearings on Israeli influence in the US, about which I am sure, few people reading this are aware. One of the documents revealed in these hearings was one from the American Zionist Council (AIPAC’s predecessor) stating its goals, one of which was to infiltrate/ penetrate every key sector of US society to propagandize on Israel’s behalf. There was, of course, labor, the educational system at every level, organizations of minority groups, etc. Does anyone seriously think they would ignore doing the same when it came to Israel’s critics and supporters of Palestine?
P.S. JVP has NOT been in support of the Palestinian right of return for many years or anti-Zionist.
Jeff, thank you sincerely for going into such detail and providing a background to why you are so critical of JVP. I can imagine if I were censored by an organization I would also consider that something horrible and feel deeply hostile to that organization as well. You make some good and well documented points. Nonetheless, with no disrespect to you, the stances that you cite and the individuals that you cite are no longer at the center of JVP, and as you’ve noted, the organization has only recently turned to publicly proclaiming itself anti-Zionist, much to its credit.
Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you would) but it seems that many if not all the instances of “lapses” by JVP are from several years ago, and the personnel and their influence in the organization are not current. One person is gone, and two others are still “in the mix” and one them is not in a top leadership role at all.
None of that would make right what you object to, if in fact they were wrong, but it’s fair to point out that in the meteoric growth of JVP has undergone, much has changed quickly and somewhat recently. For a large national Jewish organization to decide to take on the label of “anti-Zionist” is a brave decision, in my opinion, and it was done in what I thought was a deeply democratic manner. That tell us something not only about JVP ‘s ability to adjust to the quickly changing zeitgeist of both American Jewry and the larger body politic in the U.S., which has been successfully influenced by people like yourself, Alison, and JVP folks as well.
On the matter of JVP and Alison Weir which you went into in depth; I understand your stance on this, and I respect that. I saw the video of that broadcast and I had a different take, leading to a different take on what JVP did distancing themselves from her. I think the whole thing was unfortunate and I don’t see any point in bickering about it.
I still think you have to agree that JVP’s actions have contributed considerably to educate the public about U.S. support for the apartheid government of Israel.
Jeff Blankfort, thank you for your powerful exposure of JVP hypocrisy. Allison Weir is the victim of their efforts to vilify her while she is doing the grassroots work on a thimble of a budget compared to JVP. Your support of Steve Salaita is appreciated here in far away China where every day provides opportunities to lay out for people the settler/colonial travesty that is Israel. Your information will help me immeasurably in making the case for the establishment of a free Palestine where people of any and all ethnic backgrounds are able to exercise the power to make their vital life decisions in a racism-free environment. While it has all the markings of soft-headed idealism, the road back from Zionism requires the upending of the racist Zionist entity and yes, in our advancing AI world, a re-examination of our precepts of what constitutes a revolution on behalf of humanity.
Hi Steve! Good piece. I was wondering how your twitter criticism of Abby Martin and pundits like her ties into all this? She has a history of propagating conspiracy theories before she found a niche as a reporter for “radical” news, which to me makes her new movie on Gaza seem opportunistic and does not serve the Palestinian struggle overall. I know you prefer not to talk on here, but could you email me?
Thank you for your very thorough piece. Having grown up here in the States in the 50’s and 60’s one was typically immersed in Zionist propaganda. I can still remember the first time I met someone (it was in Damascus in ’63) who called himself a “Palestinian”. I had no idea what that was. I was summarily fired from a Jewish Federation job for making critical comments about the Occupation in 1999. Since then I introduce myself at gatherings on this topic as “A Recovering Zionist”, explaining that for that reason I must keep going to meetings. It’s one way of saying I am a Jewish anti-Zionist activist. As a JVPer, I’m glad anyone marches with JVP and ADALAH, even if I, with my intellectual limitations, cannot imagine how “democratic Zionist” is not an oxymoron. Then again, I stopped counting all the people who see me as inconsistent or worse. It’s more important that we all fight for Palestinian rights and liberation.
Hi Rick:
“Democratic Zionism” is the concept that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and the state of all its citizens. SD USA stands for Israel living up to its own Declaration of Independence, which it has never done. The three demands of the BDS movement are consistent with Democratic Zionism. (Note: I am a recovering liberal Zionist).
This is exactly why there needs to be an open and honest discussion, because we all have to deal with long-lasting pain and with difficult moral dilemmas. We should not be in the business of excluding anyone, nor should we let our ego and grudges stop us from arguing our position in any discussion, no matter how hard, because it is not only about us. It is about the future. One possible morally consistent solution: apply the reciprocity principle (negative version for those who think the positive one is too generous) and localism in a neutral state with direct democracy and equal rights (like Switzerland).
Why you should think ignorance is something to advertise is a wonder. However, as you are a in the JVP, it is no wonder that you stay ignorant.
“ad hominem: a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument. ”
Mr Chertoff might be more informed than you can imagine, Frank, and he should be commended for his courage and honesty.
Thank you Rick for your humanity!
I second that!
He might, but based on his post, it is doubtful. How can anyone in 1963 not know what a “Palestinian” is? Further, he states he is in JVP, the organization that fully supports the M4BL’s manifesto that accuses Israel of committing genocide, who authors use the exceptionally poorly sourced paper written by the vaguely antisemitic Katherine Franke, as proof. Franke may be an expert on gender law, has very little concept of the law regarding genocide. It is also doubtful that she has any but superficial knowledge of genocide in general.
There is no doubt that Mr. Chertoff is honest, but that takes no courage. It is also no proof of any special humanity. In fact, membership in JVP may be proof of the lack of such.
I welcome your personal attack as a clear proof that you have no factual argument to make. I’ve got so much to do today that to untangle the fallacious assertions of hasbara factual distortions can be very time consuming. Much better to have someone show the emptiness of logic at the outset so I can get to important organizing.
Thank you, Mr. Chertoff, of a further display of your ignorance. You have stated nothing that I have distorted.
Let us see if Mr. Salaita has the courage to post comments contrary to his, especially as they are honest and courageous comments? As a note, he refused to publish my earlier comment on his paper. It is beyond me how he allows me to respond to those comments fawning over him.
The issue regarding “trusting” former Zionists is merely an exercise in the ability to forgive those who have “reformed.” Let us look at the opposite. How can an Israeli trust a “former” Palestinian Arab? After all, the 1947 Palestinian Civil War, as well as the subsequent Arab-Israeli War, was fought by the Arabs with genocidal intent, at least that is how it appears based on the rhetoric coming from the Arab leadership. That rhetoric was bolstered by the PLO charter and later by the Hamas charter. Therefore, can Israelis “trust” any former Palestinian Arab?
Like any anti-Israeli activity, “Palestine solidarity attracts no small number of” antisemites, frauds and hucksters. As for the “true believers” upset that some Jews within the Palestinian Solidarity movement have a “propensity to turn every discussion of Palestine into a referendum on anti-Semitism or the relationship of Jewish people to the state of Israel,” grow up. You are going to have to deal with both sides of the equation.
As for “formal acknowledgment of Zionist atrocities, followed by serious efforts at restitution, however painful or acrimonious,” you are going to have to wait for the Arabs of the Palestinian region, as well as the Arabs from all the states that attacked Israel and expelled Jews to express their formal acknowledgment of their atrocities, followed by serious efforts at restitution, however painful or acrimonious.
The wind blows in both directions, but the stronger wind prevails. If you want to get, you have to give. So far you have given nothing.
Frank, I do not know if it will make you feel any better, but I was also censored by the admin multiple times because my comments were too critical. You are also giving the “rhetoric” of so called Arab leaders a lot of credit: They employ mendacious hyperbole in order to distract the population from real issues and keep their corrupt selves in power.
Jack, no one in my family and all the families I know took anything from the Zionists. However, the Zionists took almost everything from us. Whatever they did not take, a fascist section of the Lebanese and the corrupt Palestinian politicians and “freedom fighters” and writers and so called intellectuals (with few exceptions like Naji al-Ali) took away. We are supposed to pay restitution for what, exactly? That we accidentally came into existence? That we are also humans? I would have opposed Jews being displaced from the surrounding countries in the past had I been born. I know very well my grandparents were strongly against it, even in the height of the pan-Arab nationalism and after all the horrors and suffering they went through. Jews belonged to their countries as much as we (historically Christian, Muslim and Jewish Palestinians) belonged to Palestine.
As for Mr Salaita, I doubt you will hear any courageous statement from him. See
https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/1192805840341876736
He dismisses any serious scrutiny of an ill-defined and recycled notion of “decolonization” as “liberal platitude”, instead of being critical and learning from the failures of many “decolonized” countries that were unsuccessful in genuinely liberating and empowering their people. Any “decolonization” that is not morally consistent or that does not include genuine reconciliation is incomplete.
Should that be a cause for concern? I do not know. As I replied to you on this blog in July, “[w]hen the realization of a nationalistic ideology is structurally tied to an imbalance of power and to the oppression of locals, it is quintessentially fragile. As in any complex system, the balance of power will eventually shift (due to external factors and/or internal factors, such as corruption).” Almost surely Zionism will fail (it already failed morally). Will the Palestinians be liberated then? Most likely not, and definitely not due to the efforts of “social media activists” who vent their anger and crave their “likes” without formulating a single consistent narrative that has a possibility of success.
Is it all futile? There is no more space in the margin of Mr Salaita’s books for me to write comments that refute his arguments. I should stop wasting my time, since people who mainly care about aggrandizing themselves and who are chained in their mental caves will never believe there is light outside. My energy and time will be better spent elsewhere.
Salam/Shalom
Walid
Thank you for the response. As for the veracity of Arab rhetoric, I prefer to go by the only lesson that the Holocaust provides – if someone threatens to kill you, believe them.
The restitution deals with the property that Jews were forced to leave behind when they were exiled from their homes in the Arab regimes where they lived. As for you, personally, I have no knowledge. It is for the Arab Islamist governments to come up with the funds. Saudi Arabia can surely give the Arab League a loan to cover the costs. Then the Israeli government can afford to provide the Palestinian Arabs their due, which means they accept the fact that Israel legitimately exists.
All system fail on a moral basis. The issue also deals with the foundation of that morality. However, as all systems moral fail, there is no cause for concern for those who support Zionism. Even bringing it up is sort of a red herring.
Talmud, Shabbath 31a: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”
We shall see how far your political Zionist zeal will strip you from what really matters. Good luck to you (and also to the “social media activists”).
As I recall, the Quran states that the Palestinian region belongs to the Jews. My “Zionist political zeal?” It is far less than your Islamist zeal combined with your “pity me” attitude.
by the way, you are not my neighbor and if my people were as murderous as yours, I might refer to your misuse of Talmudic lore.
I do not know how many times I have to repeat the definition of ad hominem on this blog.
No Jack, reference to my family in replying to your claim for repatriation is not anecdotal, but it has never been and should not be about me or any single one of us, see
https://stevesalaita.com/what-to-do-about-corporate-media/#comment-118
https://stevesalaita.com/an-honest-living/#comment-229
https://stevesalaita.com/the-utility-of-fear/#comment-381
What you refer to as the “tiny jibe” is a clear statement of the reciprocity principle, which was a reply to your claim that morals fail in all systems. It is the same principle repeated frequently in the Tanakh, in many nuanced versions.
This is the conversation between the sword and the neck that Kanafani referred to. He went astray when he lost his humanity. Hateful bigots like you will never defeat us, simply because we will keep our humanity, and we will teach our children to do so. (You might want to read Viktor Frankl to better understand Palestinian refugees who were rendered invisible by most of our “revolutionaries” and so called intellectuals. The latter care more about Palestine than the Palestinians.)
Mathematically, the failure of political Zionism is an almost certainty. (As I said on this blog in the past, think of it in terms of game theory.) Let us hope there is enough thoughtful people out there who will articulate alternative political structures that will bring a more stable and peaceful future for all our children in this region, including Jewish children. Simply repeating “one country with equal rights” is not enough, since it does not give different groups self-determination and self-governance, nor is a two-state solution possible due to settlements.
As Jack has stated: Zionists took nothing from you. You voluntarily subscribe to the revisionist history, hatred and lies espoused by the Haj Amin al Husseini Arab supremacist movement instead of embracing men like his murdered cousin Fauzi Darwish el-Husseini.
You’ve clearly spent no time using tools like Lexis Nexis, pulling up newspaper and magazine articles from the 1948 time frame, which make it abundantly clear that Zionists took nothing from you. Zionists paid top dollar for their land (even from hitler’s mufti himself). Zionists were perfectly happy hiring and employing remaining fellahin–but bear no responsibility for the Arab feudal system that had kept almost all Arabs poor. As Arabs became more murderous toward the Jews, the fellahin workers had to be replaced with Jews. Non-violent Arabs from 1948 became Israelis and are living quite well.
Regarding 1948, Arabs were the pets of western imperialism, poised to help the British put air bases all over palestine, eagerly accepting help from imported German and Bosnian nazis. It is quite a miracle that David beat Goliath–but Goliath controls the mass media and academia that uses the big-lies to try to hide these facts even today.
Your stance is predicated on fiction and bitterness, not unlike some American blacks that some sort of abuse of their ancestors is why they are bitter and violent today.
Well put. Sources would be nice (so that I can steal them for later use). Making these Islamists and antisemites go back to school is a worthwhile endeavor.
A few years ago, when I had Lexis Nexis access as a student, I put some articles on https://app.box.com/s/86jltj9p8i
Also if you google, ‘British Record on Partition’, which is taken from the May 8, 1948 issue of the Nation Associates, that is a very good read–British field reports that entirely debunk the PLO narrative.
As you and I grasp: spending a mere hour or two reading high quality articles from 1948 enables a person to become infinitely more knowledgeable than spending weeks reading the revisionist tripe of Said, Pappe, Benny Morris, Finklestein, etc.
If you have Lexis access, there is a wealth of information. I had found some articles describing how the mufti husseini did a lot of WWII radio propaganda saying that the bosnian muslims needed to be ‘liberated’ from the Serbs, who were tormenting them and stealing their land. Thus, these lies told about Jews have been used against other victims of Islam, people who are being abused and attacked by the forces of islam and the great powers that sponsor it.
Looks like I had a typo in my last sentence to W, which should have said: “Your stance is predicated on fiction and bitterness, not unlike some American blacks that insist that some sort of abuse of their ancestors is why they are bitter and violent today.”
Thank you for the link. I do rely on Morris for what appears to be factual information and I find that just relying on 1948 material, while fascinating, leaves out to many details and is not that reliable as communication was not that reliable during those times.
I agree that Finkelstein and Pappe are wastes of time but I do read them so I know where certain material comes from. It appears you have nailed Walid to his cross but I am sure he will wiggle off. Blankfort loves his cross.
Morris has changed his tune a bit on some of his stuff, and it’s definitely conceivable that his interpretations were sometimes bad (as opposed to the sources he uses).
I believe that in the last 10-20 years he realized the damage he had done with his earlier stances, and he’s been more honest. Efraim Karsh is an excellent historian, worth checking out.
I have been deeply involved with this issue for more than 45 years and, from that experience I find the notion that there is a “Democratic Zionist perspective,” absurd because the terms are inherently contradictory, not only by definition but from what I viewed during two two month trips to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza over a 20 year interval.
In 1983, I interviewed Israeli reservists who had refused to participate in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon or who had gone with the first wave and after viewing the atrocities committed against Palestinians and Lebanese by their so-called “comrades in arms,” they refused to return to the front. None had any illusions that Zionism was in any way democratic, that way of viewing the Zionist project seems to exclusively the province of American Jews who wish to eat their cake and have it, too.
And, if that is not enough, they believe they have the right to determine the language in which the Israel-Palestine conflict will be discussed, with an emphasis on not offending Jewish sensibilities as if, somehow, to do so would mitigate speaking the truth about Israel’s sordid history and that of the organizations in the Jewish community, in which I include Jewish Voice for Peace, have made sure that a healthy discussion of the Israel Lobby and it’s role in shaping US policy towards the entire Middle East is not on the table.
If it were, there would be national campaigns against US military aid to Israel as there was against support for the Contras back in the 1980s when the amount of money involved, $15 million, is almost equal to what Israel receives on a daily basis, when broken down. Yet there was not even a whimper of protest let alone a campaign to stop the $38 billion ten year gift from Obama to Netanyahu which was openly discussed in the mainstream media for months before it was finally approved. As for the focus on BDS, that seems, in the US, at least, to have provided a convenient cover for doing absolutely nothing to change the reality on the ground in Occupied Palestine or the Lobby controlled US Congress.
Moreover, while not having any effect on Israel’s bottom line, we now see 27 states that have made it against the law for businesses not to trade with Israel, another issue which JVP, aside from mentioning it in emails to its members, has done nothing to educate the public about how such state actions came about.
Rejecting Sucharov’s invitation was, without question, the right decision on Stephen Salaita’s part. Holding those who have done the work of the enemy and who now believe that, claiming to have had a change of heart,at a distance. They have no place in the movement and if they wish to do something to make amends and show support for the Palestinians, there is a larger society out there that needs to be educated.
As you continue with your antisemitic trope regarding Jews controlling the US government, all you do is marginalize yourself. The choir may lap up your rhetoric but critical thinkers laugh at it.
Yes, Frank, that’s the problem with telling the truth about this issue: It’s anti-Semitic.
I like to quote what an unnamed member of Congress, described as pro-Israel told the very pro-Israel Morton Kondracke of Marty Peretz’s New Republic back in 1989 (Aug.Sept. issue), “It’s not out of affection for Israel that Congress votes to give Israel $3 billion every year without debate. It’s that you don’t want to wake up the next morning and find that your opponent has a $500,000 war chest to run against you.”
I have written about this subject for years but have had trouble finding any one of my Jewish critics to debate me. Stephen Zunes, who might be described as a Shabbas plus Goy (he’s not limited to Saturdays) did it twice and was, frankly, pathetic.
Why on Earth would anyone agree to debate an antisemite? It is little different than debating a Holocaust denier. Hope you and Alison have still have fun rewriting your propaganda spiel.
By the way, Gore Vidal quotes a very dead named US president regarding a bribe given to Harry Truman. Your story is just as fake.
The death of that president, John F Kennedy, was no doubt greeted with sighs of relief in some quarters in Israel, and wild cheering and toasting, in others because Kennedy had three positions which the Ben-Gurion government considered red lines that Israel could not allow to be crossed.
Not necessarily in order of importance was the fact that he was unalterably opposed to Israel developing nuclear weapons (and he was getting tired of Ben-Gurion lying about it), he supported the Palestinian right of return to the degree that he wanted Israel to accept at least 100,000 who the 48 war had made refugees, and perhaps, in retrospect, the most important of all, he had ordered the Justice Dept. under brother, RFK, to force the American Zionist Council, Israel’s official lobby at the time, to register as what it was, a foreign agent, with FARA.
The AZC’s lawyers were clever enough to keep postponing the AZC’s accomodation with that order until Nov.22, 1963, when the event in Dallas made their efforts no longer necessary. No president since has, wisely, I might add, taken any of those three positions.
Kennedy did not initiate but was repeating the well know story how Abe Feinberg, known to the FBI as a Mossad asset, slipped an envelope into the pocket of Harry Truman which contained enough money to enable Truman to continue his whistlestop train campaign that helped him win the presidency.
As Seymour Hersh wrote in The Samson Option, it was the very same Feinberg who came into JFK’s office after his victory, which had apparently occurred with some assistance from Feinberg’s “friends” in Illinois, and demanded of the young US president that he turn America’s Middle East polices over to him and his Zionist friends. JFK was, of course, irate, but kept himself under control until Mossad’s Feinberg, had left his office.
Blankfort, very amusing lies you tell. You, of course, were in the room.
Jeff, thank you sincerely for going into such detail and providing a background to why you are so critical of JVP. I can imagine if I were censored by an organization I would also consider that something horrible and feel deeply hostile to that organization as well. You do make some good and well documented points. Nonetheless, with no disrespect to you, the stances that you cite and the individuals that you cite are no longer at the center of JVP, and as you’ve noted, the organization has only recently turned to publicly proclaiming itself anti-Zionist, much to its credit.
Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you would) but it seems that many if not all the instances of “lapses” by JVP are from several years ago, and the personnel and their influence in the organization are not current. One person is gone, and two others are still “in the mix” and one them is not in a top leadership role at all.
It is fair to point out that in the meteoric growth of JVP has undergone, much has changed quickly and somewhat recently. For a large national Jewish organization to decide to take on the label of “anti-Zionist” is a brave decision, in my opinion, and it was done in what I thought was a deeply democratic manner. That tell us something not only about JVP ‘s ability to adjust to the quickly changing zeitgeist of both American Jewry and the larger body politic in the U.S., which has been successfully influenced by people like yourself, Alison, and JVP folks as well.
On the matter of JVP and Alison Weir which you went into in depth; I understand your stance on this, and I respect that. I saw the video of that broadcast and I had a different take, leading to a different take on what JVP did distancing themselves from her. I think the whole thing was unfortunate and I don’t see any point in bickering about it.
I still think you have to agree that JVP’s programs, reach and actions have contributed considerably to educate the public about U.S. support for the apartheid government of Israel.
Jeff, thank you sincerely for going into such detail and providing a background to why you are so critical of JVP. I can imagine if I were censored by an organization I would also consider that something horrible and feel deeply hostile to that organization as well. You do make some good and well documented points. Nonetheless, with no disrespect to you, the stances that you cite and the individuals that you cite are no longer at the center of JVP, and as you’ve noted, the organization has only recently turned to publicly proclaiming itself anti-Zionist, much to its credit.
Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you would) but it seems that many if not all the instances of “lapses” by JVP are from several years ago, and the personnel and their influence in the organization are not current.
It is fair to point out that in the meteoric growth of JVP has undergone, much has changed quickly and somewhat recently. For a large national Jewish organization to decide to take on the label of “anti-Zionist” is a brave decision, in my opinion, and it was done in what I thought was a deeply democratic manner.
That tell us something about JVP ‘s ability to adjust to the quickly changing zeitgeist of both American Jewry and the larger body politic in the U.S., which has been successfully influenced by people like yourself, Alison, and JVP folks as well.
On the matter of JVP and Alison Weir which you went into in depth; I understand your stance on this, and I respect that. I saw the video of that broadcast and I had a different take, leading to a different take on what JVP did distancing themselves from her. I think the whole thing was unfortunate and I don’t see any point in bickering about it.
I still think you have to agree that JVP’s programs, reach and actions have contributed considerably to educate the public about U.S. support for the apartheid government of Israel.
Frank, you are wading in hogwash. It should have been clearly evident to the Ashkenazi Jews who plotted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state on land to which none had any provable connection, that doing so would have a massive and perhaps tragic impact on the lives of the Mizrachi, the Arab Jews who inhabited all of the surrounding countries. That none, in any numbers, were consulted, was in keeping with the internal anti-semitism of the Ashkenazi who looked down with contempt on their dark skinned co-religionists, an attitude that was reflected in their treatment upon their arrival in the new Jewish state and for years afterward.
There is a lot of nonsense spread in this country about how the Arab Jews were expelled from their home countries with few attempts to distinguish the experiences of Jews from one country to another. Many Iraqi Jews, who were better off than most, had no desire to pull up their roots and go to Israel so they needed to be encouraged to do so. Bombs thrown by Mossad agents in Jewish cafes did the trick.
In Yemen, planes were sent to pick up the Yemeni, long at the bottom of the Jewish totem poll, who would be expected to provide cheap labor while in Morocco, where many Jews lived quite well, the king begged them to stay. In Egypt, of course, Operation Susanah, in which the Mossad had Jewish Egyptians carry out a series of firebombings of US and British targets in order to get the Brits and the US to turn against Nasser, guaranteed that Jews could no longer live comfortably in Egypt.
The migrations of Arab Jews to Israel did not come at once but over a period of years. In December, 1970, I visited a Jewish town in the mountains of Algeria, Beni-Yeni, with a long history of producing beautiful coral and silver jewelry and those Jews were pleased that the government did a better job of helping sell their creations in foreign markets than had the French when they ran the country. Of course, their story never made it through the veil of Zionist propaganda or hogwash that has for too long polluted the US and its political and educational institutions. Consequently, I am not surprised to find it on this site, as well.
Jeff, your propagandistic outlook forces you to refer to the truth as hogwash. So sad for you. Obviously, there is no need to address the rest of your “hogwash.”
Thank you for giving a slightly more refined picture of reality. Zionism also impacted Sephardi Jews. No one seems to talk about the Palestinian Jews who were given the bitter choice of either joining a political movement that went against their faith and their history, or to suppress their Jewishness while keeping its morals alive by resisting political Zionism. Zionism not only stole (and still unjustly takes) our homes, our fields and our life; it relentlessly ruptured our civil society, scattered our families, demonized us and strove to break us down as humans. As for repeating the characterization “Arab” all the time, aside from some tribes in the Jordan valley and Badiyat al-Sham, and the descendants of the Nabataeans and the Ghassanids, people in the region are not historically Arab, and they are referred to as “Musta’aribin” by the Arabs of the Hejaz. Lumping them together is not entirely innocent, since it is meant to further erase the rich and complex history of the people in the region.
As the history books, written by Jews, by Arabs, by defenders of Palestinian Arabs, all refer to the nascent nationalistic movement, not run by Jews, as either Islamist or Arabic, it stands to reason that the body Palestinia was, by a vast majority, Arab. And based on the fervent hope to be part of Syria, Syrian Arab. The difference between a “Palestinian” and a Jordanian is the difference between a Texan and an Oklahoman. They can tell there is a difference by a Floridian can’t. They are all Americans. There might be an Armenian, a Greek, or a Moroccan among them, but that is just an aberration.
Zionism took nothing from you. Zionism received the fruits of a war forced upon them, first by the Palestinian Arabs aided by a clandestine Arab volunteer force, and then by the states of the Arab League, aided by Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs, particularly the Palestinian Arabs, lost that war.
War and a fair trial have much in common. When you commit to one, you commit to the possibility of an unfavorable outcome. So sad for you that the outcome was unfavorable.
Frank, I am not sure a lot of people committed to any war. Their world was turned upside down pretty much overnight.
As a society, we might have outsourced violence (or the collective part of it) to armies. At the same time, we have the Geneva conventions that aim to protect civilians. I am not sure they have ever been applied in this case.
We can go on forever in this blame game, but it will not change anything if we are not seeking truthful answers.
Who did? Who didn’t? Was a court supposed to be set up and every individual questioned and their veracity determined?
You started the blame game. You are posting less than factual answers. Of course, you are so much better than Blankfort but he deserves no praise.
Jack, to be clear, I only talked about my family after you raised the issue of repatriation. I never sought the pity of anyone, nor do I need it. No one said there is justice in this world, but it is our personal choice to seek a more just world. As for the Talmudic lore, it does not belong to you alone, and definitely not to people who do not live by it.
So you only have anecdotal information. While you state you are not asking for pity, almost every word you write says the opposite. As for your tiny jibe about the Talmud, worry about the beam in your eye.
Frank, to cite a motto of Mossad and policy toward non-Jews advocated by the Talmud, “by way of deception,” telling the truth to Gentiles is only required when not to do so would be “bad for the Jews.” The same rule applies to coming to the aid of a non-Jew on Shabbos. Only if not helping a Gentile in distress would be “bad for the Jews,” is a Jew expected to act in a humanitarian way. Witnessing the refusal of a group of Orthodox Jews come to the aid of a Palestinian hurt in an auto accident on a Saturday was what turned by late friend, Prof. Israel Shahak into an enemy of Zionism and a harsh critic of Orthodox Judaism.
Consequently,, lying about history come easily to you and your brethren. It’s part of the Zionist DNA.
Blankfort, Thank you so much for that bit of antisemitic nonsense. It makes it so much easier to identify you with your true intentions.
I do not know how many times I have to repeat the definition of ad hominem on this blog.
No Jack, reference to my family in replying to your claim for repatriation is not anecdotal, but it has never been and should not be about me or any single one of us, see
https://stevesalaita.com/what-to-do-about-corporate-media/#comment-118
https://stevesalaita.com/an-honest-living/#comment-229
https://stevesalaita.com/the-utility-of-fear/#comment-381
What you refer to as the “tiny jibe” is a clear statement of the reciprocity principle, which was a reply to your claim that morals fail in all systems. It is the same principle repeated frequently in the Tanakh, in many nuanced versions.
This is the conversation between the sword and the neck that Kanafani referred to. He went astray when he lost his humanity. Hateful bigots like you will never defeat us, simply because we will keep our humanity, and we will teach our children to do so. (You might want to read Viktor Frankl to better understand Palestinian refugees who were rendered invisible by most of our “revolutionaries” and so called intellectuals. The latter care more about Palestine than the Palestinians.)
Mathematically, the failure of political Zionism is an almost certainty. (As I said on this blog in the past, think of it in terms of game theory.) Let us hope there is enough thoughtful people out there who will articulate alternative political structures that will bring a more stable and peaceful future for all our children in this region, including Jewish children. Simply repeating “one country with equal rights” is not enough, since it does not give different groups self-determination and self-governance, nor is a two-state solution possible due to settlements.
-Walid
Jack, reference to my family in replying to your claim for repatriation is not anecdotal, but it has never been and should not be about any single one of us, see
https://stevesalaita.com/what-to-do-about-corporate-media/#comment-118
https://stevesalaita.com/an-honest-living/#comment-229
https://stevesalaita.com/the-utility-of-fear/#comment-381
I am tired of being selectively censored by the Admin. I will exit this blog here.
Would you prefer I provide the full quotes of the fortunately late leading Israeli rabbi, Ovadia Yousef, who described Gentiles as donkeys who only exist to serve Jews?
When this old racist buzzard passed his final fetid breath, 800,000 Israelis turned out for his funeral, the largest in the country’s history. The story, with the quotes was published in the Israel press which, you may have guessed, I read religiously.
Provide whatever antisemitic material you would like. The promotion of hatred is your forte. Likely few will attend your funeral after you pass your final fetid breathe. It seems more will come to urinate on your grave, though. I understand it takes armed guards to keep the Arabs from doing so on Arafat’s tomb.
While there is no doubt that you are an antisemite who reads antisemitic material religiously, did you read the one about pigs and apes that travel about in your inner circle?
Hey Steve,
I raised this issue before. I realize you enjoy watching the theater of the absurd from the top of mount Olympus. However, giving bigoted ignoramuses a platform is a circular form of peddling hate.
Do you really wish to refer to the deeply antisemitic Jeffie Blankfort in that manner? I can see you doing so as reference to Alison Weir and Gilad Atzmon, but Blankfort is standing right in front of you, albeit that his back is turned to you. Regardless, don’t you think that is twisting the knife?
Mr Sigman,
I was not referring to any of the persons you listed. Steve knows what I am talking about, and the message is sent to him. I see you never managed to tunnel from the wall at the back end of the theater. Good luck staying exactly where Steve wants you to be.
Mr. W.,
Based on your post, it is quite obvious that you should have been referring to all of the persons I listed. Steve likely agrees with that sentiment, if truth is important to him, as it is clearly not important to you.
On another note, are you preoccupied with digging tunnels? Related to Hamas? Have genocide on your mind?
As long as Steve is kind enough to allow me to comment in the manner which you and your idol Blankfort deserve, then I am fine where I am.
Astounding!! Especially given the fact that I have been advocating on this blog all year long for a consistent and practical solution that offers all children in this region, including Jewish children, a stable and peaceful future: Applying the reciprocity principle and locality in a neutral state with direct democracy and equal rights.
You seem to have missed the section in one of Steve’s articles where he discusses goofy characters from Sponge Bob. (I had to look up Sponge Bob.) A friendly word of advice to you (plural?) and Mr Schwarz: There are no rails at the far end of the theater where you are standing, but do not despair, there is no limit to how low you can go. I know you would love for me to stay, but I have other things to do. Enjoy your stay, and Steve, enjoy the irresponsible show!
Not so astounding. I am not a regular reader so I have no idea what you have proposed as a “consistent and practical solution that offers all children in this region, including Jewish children, a stable and peaceful future,” is realistic or even workable.
The entire purpose of the Zionist cause is the formation of a State wherein Jews would be in control of their destiny, not subservient on the whims of political leaders, elected or not, who would treat Jews as chattel or as a minority that could be treated as a second thought. That movement became Israel.
Your superficial plan, which would then flood the Jewish state with 5 to 7 million Arabs, 90% Islamist, as citizens of that state, would quickly change the state into an Islamist republic, complete with Sharia law. All accomplished democratically. Thus leaving the Jews of Israel (the name now democratically changed to Palestine) at the whims of the Islamist majority, which as history shows, is quite blood thirsty. No thank you.
Even more amazing!! I specifically had an N number of exchanges last summer with you and Mr Schwarz about locality and direct democracy (and the evolution of such a system in Switzerland after multiple civil wars). Someone in canton Bern can not vote in canton Ticino or Graubunden, and cantons have a lot of independence, self-governance and self-determination, while belonging to a neutral state with a defense alliance. You and Mr Schwarz should also know by now that I do not reply to ad hominem. If you are both still wondering who are the bigoted ignoramuses, you might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Steve, when will this charade end? Are you not entertained enough? There are a lot of very decent Jews out there, and the likes of Jack and Peter are not doing them any favors.
Hardly amazing. So much has happened since then and you are even on the non-priority list. However, I believe you have struck a nail with that bigoted hammer of yours. “Multiple civil wars” might just be the ticket out of this conflict that, at the moment, has no solution. Several civil wars between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs should see the extinction of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and a host of other genocidal Arab threats. Then the remnant of the Palestinian Arabs can bring about a peaceful representation that will negotiate in honesty with no pre-conditions. Yes, you have now proposed a workable solution. It is a wonder no one else has come up with it.
You know Jack, two can play this game. Anything along the lines of, “Your superficial plan, which would then flood the Jewish state with 5 to 7 million Arabs,” is an unwitting admission that removal of non-Jewish persons was a prerequisite for the Zionist movement to establish a state and an outcome it would’ve been seeking under any circumstance. I’m sure you didn’t mean to say this just as W. wasn’t intending to propose multiple civil-wars. Today’s lesson: Any turds you throw can be thrown right back at you.
Just kidding. I didn’t throw any turds because that’s exactly what the Zionist movement was after.
In 1948, it was quite common to consider deportation to solves issues of ethnic strife. The Allies approved the deportation of 12 million Germans from Czechoslovakia and Poland. India and Pakistan saw the combined deportation of 10 million. Turkey and Greece did forcible exchanges, backed by treaty, in the 1920s. While not the best of all possibilities, at the time it was not considered a violation of Human rights nor a crime against humanity, even though millions died with each event.
When the Palestinian Arabs started the civil war in 1947 and the Arabs in general started the first Arab Israeli war, they left the nascent Jewish state no choice but to consider forced deportation as to prevent a sizable genocidal enemy within the state borders.
While there had always been the idea of reducing the Arab population within the state, the violent approach was not really considered until the Palestinian Arabs started a civil war. Additionally, with the unfortunate loss of life, at only 6000 would make the episode the most humane in history, if humane can be used in the conversation.
I hope you enjoyed the sandwich. It was made specifically for you.
Herzl has been caught at least twice on paper wishing he could invade Palestine.
“In the first excitement I wanted to write to Eulenburg and make proposals in case it was true. Germany would then have to welcome a Jewish settlement on Cyprus with delight. We would rally on Cyprus and one day go over to Eretz Israel and take it by force, as it was taken from us long ago.”
https://archive.org/stream/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzl_201606/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume3_OCR_djvu.txt
To Max Nordau: “Let us accept the chance offered us to become a miniature England. Let us start by acquiring our colonies! From them we shall launch the conquest of our homeland.”
(“A Man Alone: The Life of Theodore Herzl”, 244)
It seems Herzl secretly declared war on the non-Jewish persons in the hypothetical state. These quotes are a good indication that if he was granted the power Zionism would’ve skipped the League of Nations Mandate and gone straight to the Nakbah.
Caught? These were secret writings he kept in a shoe box that you found under your bed?
The Nakba was the defeat of the Palestinian Arab and neighboring Arab armies. The humiliation of being beaten by a Jew is too much to bear for an Islamist Arab. Had the Arabs not attacked the Jews, there would have been no Nakba and no constant humiliation that the Arabs will never escape.
Well, I’m satisfied you’re not trying to dispute my contention that had Herzl invaded Palestine like he wanted to, an early 20th century Palestinian refugee crisis was the likely result. We’ve clearly been talking about mass population removal these last few posts and you know exactly what I meant by “Nakba”.
Invade the Ottoman Palestinian region (there was and still is no state of Palestine to invade) with what army?
I do know that you are deliberately using an incorrect and totally inaccurate definition of Nakba.
And you are clear about nothing. Misinformation appears to be your sole stock in trade.
The of indigenous lands is a hallmark of the colonial settler state phenomena, whether in colonial Brit/French America, after 1776 in N. America, Canada, S. Africa, and Palestine. It is the gradual invasions and war against Palestinian people; their dispossession, and their incremental genocide at the hands of settler colonial Israel. The initiation of hostilities by Jewish militias in 1948 and their Plan Dalet (13 years in the planning) was successful in expelling about 2/3 to 3/4 of the Palestinian population. You can (but you won’t) read about it in meticulously document form by any number of Israeli authors, mostly Oxford PhD’s, but we know you are not remotely interested in those most inconvenient facts, so do go on about how the Arabs attacked Israel because they are anti-Semites. Most tedious though it is in the face of evidence you, the Israeli state, and the Israel Lobby must ignore.
It appears you have attended the Greta Berlin School of deliberate misinformation. Dr. Dirk Moses would be proud of you.
It appears the Jews did not colonize the Ottoman Palestinian region nor British Mandate Palestine. They legally (sometimes illegally) immigrated to the land. They bought farms, ranches, orchids, homes, and vacant land. They built hospitals, universities, schools, industries and institutions of democracy.
When Britain told the UN they would relinquish their mandate over the region, the UN after study and deliberation, in full consultation with the Arab membership, recommended partitioning the land between a Jewish state and an Arab state. Immediately following the vote, the Arabs of the Palestinian region started a civil war. They lost. By March, the Jews realized that the Arabs would never let them live in peace. Regardless, they only started emptying the Arab villages near the front lines so that they would not be attacked from the rear. Pretty smart.
After the Jews declared the independence of the Jewish state of Israel, the combined Arab armies joined the Palestinian Arab Liberation Army and attacked Israel. They lost. But in the meantime, Israel continued to empty the Arab villages on the front line, as who can trust a people whose leadership continues to threaten genocide? The only lesson of the Holocaust is that when a homicidal maniac threatens to kill you, your family, and all of your friends, believe him and act accordingly. Pretty smart.
By the end of the war, the Jews had humiliated every Islamist Arab state, established a state with armistice borders, and reduced the Arab population from the state of Israel by 5/6ths. However, 90% of all those Arabs remained in the borders of historic British Mandate Palestine. 95% stayed within the borders of the “historic Palestinian” borders.
By the way, Ilan Pappe, likely the most hated Israeli historian alive, who insists he has the right to interpret historical data based on his political agenda, rather than an unbiased devotion to truth, would say you have no idea about the events that you on which you write.
According to the British Mandate census of Palestine in the late 40’s (’47?), Jews owned 5% of the land. They constituted 33% of the population and received 53% of the land, including 2 or the 3 of the most populous cities, Haifa and Tel Aviv-Jaffa, i.e. the coastal cities and the most productive agricultural lands (the coastal plain). Again, a minority of 33% gained 53% of the land; bizarre, particularly since they were interlopers.
You state, ” Ilan Pappe, likely the most hated Israeli historian alive” but you do not cite a factual basis for who hates him, nor do you cite any factual errors by Pappe. I have a feeling Zionists hate him for telling the truth about their crimes. His most important book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine would epitomize why you might hate him, so I challenge you to cite one single error in that book. It’s still in print, and while you’re at it, do read the 23 pages of footnotes for more to object to. Let’s see specific reasons why hate him. Please do remember: we are talking about Palestine, not Sudan.
By the way, why did you not include the settler-colonization of the Darfur region by the Arabs of the Sudan? They murdered 400,000 Dafurians and made 2 million refugees. al-Bashir is due at The Hague to be tried for genocide.
It’s always gratifying when you blunt someone’s counter-factual assertion with a statement of facts, and their reply is a random irrelevancy.