One notable thing that happened at our panel discussion on Gaza, at Georgetown University Thursday night, was that a young Israeli student directed a question at me asking why I had said that “all Israelis are stupid”– and also asserting that her country had had “no choice” but to launch the war on Gaza.
I replied that I had never said “all Israelis” are stupid– though I had certainly pointed out the counter-productive nature, from every point of view, of the decision her country’s government had made to launch the most recent war; and I’d pointed out too, with some sadness, that that decision seemed to have received high levels of support from Jewish Israelis.
But certainly not from all of them– as I had also pointed out in my main presentation.
What I’d referred to specifically was this extremely insightful (and courageous) article, published on December 31 in the WaPo by a Jewish Israeli social-work lecturer called Julia Chaitin. Chaitin, by the way, lives in southern Israel so has a deep understanding of the concerns and fears of the people who live there.
Her whole article is worth reading and re-reading. She wrote:
- This war is wrong. It is wrong because it cannot achieve its manifest goals — long-term “normal” life for the residents of the Negev region. The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian and Israeli civilians whose only “crime” is that they live in Negev or Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another. It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because, even before the last smoke rises from the rubble and the last ambulance carries the dead and wounded to hospitals, our leaders will find themselves signing a new agreement for a cease-fire.
And so this is an unnecessary, cruel and cynical war — a war that could have been avoided if our leaders had shown courage during the months of the cease-fire to truly work toward creating better lives for people whose only crime is that they live in the south.
Since the Israeli air force began bombing Gaza, it has been almost impossible to speak openly against the war. It is difficult to find public forums that welcome a call for a new cease-fire and for alternative solutions to the conflict — ones that do not rely on military strength or a siege of Gaza. When people are in the midst of war, they are not open to voices of peace; they speak (and scream) out of fear and demand retribution for the harms they have suffered. When people are in the midst of war, they forget that they can harness higher cognitive abilities, their reason and logic. Instead, they are driven by the hot structures of their brains, which lead them to respond with fear and anger in ways that are objective threats to our healthy survival. When people are in the midst of war, voices calling for restraint, dialogue and negotiations fall on deaf ears, if their expression is allowed at all…
This analysis is so true. I have seen it in many, many theaters of conflict… That people who normally have full command of their capacities for both rational thought and human empathy suddenly lose those faculties when they’re thrown into a situation of great– and often officially stoked– mass fearfulness.
Hey, we’ve certainly seen that happen in the USA in the past eight years… (Thank goodness that for now, at least, we seem to have escaped from the worst of that mass fear here, though many of its effects still linger.)
Anyway, thinking a bit more about Julia Chaitin’s marvelous article these past couple of days, I have also been thinking about the generally sad state of the Israeli peace movement.
Remember back in 1982 when, after the revelations of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, some 600,000 Israelis took to the streets in utter disgust, and just about forced the downfall of the government? That was fully one-fifth of the country’s entire population at the time!
Where is the Israeli peace movement today– at a time when it’s been revealed that roughly the same number of civilians as died in Sabra and Shatila were killed directly by the IDF itself in Gaza? (Whereas in S&S, Sharon’s IDF had subcontracted the killing work to the Lebanese Falangist militias.)
The general weakness of Israel’s peace movement is a cause for real sadness. It also means the politics of the peacemaking that’s so badly needed now will be much more complex than it might otherwise have been.
However, the fact that there is no broad peace movement of the kind there was from, roughly, 1978 through 1998 means that the Jewish Israeli voices we do hear speaking out clearly in favor of ending the occupation(s), concluding fair and durable peace agreements, and building a culture of mutual respect with Israel’s neighbors are more valuable than ever…
Voices like those of Julia Chaitin… or Naomi Chazan (most recently, here and here), or Uri Avnery and his colleagues at Gush Shalom…
And as for sad old argument that Israel “had no choice” but to launch the war against Gaza? There are numerous other things it could have done to defuse tensions along its border with the Strip, other than launch the “shock and awe” war of December 27- January 18.
The Israeli government could have:
- 1. Placed considerably more value on the tahdi’eh (ceasefire) it concluded– through the Egyptian intermediary– back last June, and sought to fulfill the terms of that ceasefire and then use it as a basis for building an even more robust agreement with Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians. It didn’t do that. It did nothing to lift the siege, as the Hamas negotiators would happen as the ceasefire progressed. That ceasefire had a six-month initial term, and for the first four and half months it was pretty well observed by both sides. But then, on Nov 4– election day in the US– the Israeli government authorized a large-scale IDF operation against Gaza that directly contravened the terms of the ceasefire and set in motion a new cycle of violence that, though it went through ups and downs, set the stage for the failure of the ceasefire-extension negotiation.
2. Even though the ceasefire-extension negotiations at the end of November and the beginning of December were held in a situation of cross-border tensions, still, the Israeli government could have pushed for a successful extension and strengthening of the ceasefire. True, the Hamas negotiators made clear they would only do so if the Israelis agreed to lift the siege of Gaza. So why didn’t the Israeli government make strenuous efforts to explore ways for that to happen– even including ways to verify that the re-opened borders would not allow a significant rearming by Hamas? Those ways exist. They are being actively explored by the diplomats right now. So why– as both Chaitin and Chazan write– did Israel have to go through this ghastly and damaging war in order to arrive at a diplomatic place it could have reached in mid-December without launching that war at all?
3. In general, if someone is doing something that really bothers or harms you, there are always scores of ways that intelligent people can use to try to prevent them from taking those harmful acts. So maybe Israel didn’t want to talk to Hamas directly? It could talk through the Egyptians or the Turks, or numerous other potential intermediaries. So Hamas had its own conditions, too? Why not? They are people, after all, and could not be expected simply to lie down under the harsh siege forever without demanding that it be lifted. (Also, a blockade/siege is, strctly speaking itself an act of war.) Besides, having a Gaza population that is busily engaged in economic development and through that development acquires an increasing socio-economic stake that it would be reluctant to put at risk in a renewal of hostilities with Israel surely makes a lot more sense, for Israelis, than having 1.5 million neighbors in Gaza who feel a deep sense of grievance and also feel they have little or nothing to lose in any new round of hostilities?
Well, now at least we have a president in Washington who has called on his supporters to “lay aside childish things”… and hopefully childish attitudes of selfishness, self-referentiality, and racism, as well.
So let’s hope that the six million Jewish Israelis can now join this new global movement and grow up a bit… grow out of thinking that their needs always have to come first and that they can behave as they darn’ well please in wrecking their neighbors’ lives.
I’m just not sure that this can happen fast enough to change the outcome of the election in Israel February 10. When, as I’ve noted before, Israel’s opposition Likud Party now looks very well positioned to pull of a significant victory.
(Which is, as I’ve also noted, yet another way in which the present Israeli government’s decision to go to war looks totally stupid and counter-productive. Oh my. War and fear really do have the most amazing capacity to addle people’s brains… )
Hey Helena-
I’m delighted to see you carrying on as energetically as ever. I haven’t posted here in quite awhile. I think it’s because one needs a certain level of optimism to speak out, even anonymously, in support of the less valorous ideals of compromise, acceptance, accommodation, quietude. I haven’t had enough optimism lately.
Isn’t that the fundamental ill affecting our Israeli friends? An optimistic nation does not engage in gratuitous slaughter of the wives, sons, daughters and second cousins twice removed of the handful of people who managed to goad it into a frenzy. This so-called “war” was a cynical, pessimistic and unimaginative exercise in doing something for the sole purpose of avoiding the frustration of not doing anything.
I can’t say I’m disappointed in the Israelis for acting as humans act under their circumstances. I would like to see my country help to change their circumstances, by removing the temptation to resort to high-tech weaponry every time a stone is cast.
Anyway, I remain your loyal fan.
John C.
So Helena doesn’t say that “all Israelis are stupid.”
But she does say that 6 million Israelis “need to grow up a bit.” And previously refers to the “racism that’s so prevalent in Israeli society.”
Gee, no stereotypes here.
Funny how Helena blames Israeli immaturity and racism for the selection of the Likud government, yet has no criticism of all when the Palestinians voted in a party that explicitly quotes from the protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter.
Maybe its Helena that needs to grow up a bit. Maybe rather than condescendingly lecture her “young friend” in Israel she should actually listen to Israelis in good faith. And no, that doesn’t mean a quick latte with Naomi Chazan.
The sad thing is, I remember when this blog was a pretty nice place. Helena definitely was partial to Palestinians but showed nuance and empathy to those she disagreed with. There was a good variety of opinion in the comments, too.
It has since degenerated into more and more increasingly hateful tirades against Israelis. And she has allowed her fellow anti-Israel brigade to go completely unhinged, with more and more explicitly racist comments. How sad.
I am, I suppose, disappointed in the Israeli peace movement. Actually I very much admire Uri Avnery and the refuseniks. Theirs is courage unseen in America.
I am much more disappointed in the American peace movement. It seems now to be congratulating itself on having elected Barak Obama, the angel of light and peace.
Barak Obama has just put forth the Israeli plan for Gaza as his own.
Israel is the “brains” behind the expropriation of Palestine and the murder of Palestinians, but the US is the “brawn”.
Without the US’ military, financial, political and diplomatic aid the US/Israeli far-right wing would be as paralysed as Ariel, that angel, Sharon, if he is still “alive”: All evil will and no action.
It is the supporters of Barak Obama and his sell-out to the Israeli far-right who are most responsible for Israeli actions from here on in.
I know we feel like we “deserve” to feel good about America again. But we don’t. Really.
Because Barak has our acquiescence the final solution will proceed during his reign. He’ll make it seem like we and he are doing the Palestinians a favor.
And those who share his theatrical bent will continue willingly to suspend their disbelief.
And the curtain will come down on Gaza, the West Bank, and the Palestinian people.
John Francis Lee, what’s all this “will” stuff? The future hasn’t been written down yet. From here on, it’s the responsibility of the U.S. public to hold him on changing Israel/Palestine policy. Things will stay the same if the public is complacent, but let’s forswear complacency from now on then. All your “wills” paralyze productive action.: If your doom of the crisis will happen then why bother doing anything? We need to get rid of the attitude of writing off Obama without any chance, as much as assuming that he’ll do everything right on his own.
I was reading an article in Columbia Magazine
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alumni/Magazine/Winter2008-09/feature1.html
about the “Paranoid Style” of U.S. Politics as proposed by Richard Hofstadter. “The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization.” The article focuses mostly on right-wing examples of the paranoid style, but notes that left-wing examples exist as well. John Francis Lee’s posts has the apocalyptic characteristics of the paranoid style. I feel that the posts from many other commenters on the boards has this same paranoid tone that characterizes Obama as unredeemable to the point of discouraging any effort to try.
I strongly believe Helena didn’t say this statement “all Israelis are stupid”. She is more wise than make this mistake. I think the Israeli student misunderstood her or wants to undermine her reputation as a world figure.
Helena! keep struggling for human-being.
Hafid
You might all be interested in this insight into doings in the Middle East.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058847.html
Leading the protest against Sharvit-Baruch’s appointment is Professor Chaim Ganz of the university’s Minerva Center for Human Rights.
Ganz wrote a letter to Professor Hanoch Dagan, the dean of the law faculty, claiming that Sharvit-Baruch’s interpretation of the law during Israel’s Gaza offensive allowed the army to act in ways that constitute potential war crimes. Ganz also said that Sharvit-Baruch harms Israel’s values system.
Dr. Anat Matar, a lecturer at Tel Aviv University’s philosophy department, said, “I was shocked to learn that half of the second-year law students will learn the foundations of law from someone who helped justify the killing of civilians, including hundreds of children.”
Gosh now we know where this description of the Geneva Conventions as Quaint comes from.
I wonder if John Francis Lee is right
Zippy certainly thinks she calls the shots.
Meanwhile Monday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Obama could use Israel’s success in its recent offensive against Hamas to change the reality in the Middle East.
“The IDF operation in Gaza can and must serve as a turning point, not only restoring calm to the residents of the south, but also strengthening the regional processes which both Israel and the U.S. seek to advance,” Livni told James Cunningham, the U.S. ambassador to Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058855.html
Inkan, some of us at least have never been complacent, nor have we ever been quiet. Some of us, in fact, have been very non-complacent and non-quiet for decades. Unfortunately, our decades of non-quiet has not resulted in any real improvement in U.S. government policy regarding Palestinian rights or Israeli responsibilities, though it has resulted in significant improvements in public perceptions and attitudes.
U.S. governments have never been responsive to public pressure on the issue of Israel or anything else to do with the Middle East. Therefore, we have no reason to expect our efforts to make a difference with Obama’s administration either. You should not, however, conclude from our recognition of that reality that we are going to suddenly sink into a quiet complacency. Some of us are so used to beating our heads against a concrete wall that we wouldn’t know how to stop.
Sooner or later the basic premise of monotheism needs to be examined. The universal state of the absolute is basis, not apex. So the spiritual absolute would be the essence of consciousness from which we rise, not a moral or intellectual ideal from which we have fallen. As much as we wish to believe in simplistic absolutes and ideals, reality is a complex and relativistic process and linear belief patterns create reactions. There is no such thing as an objective perspective, because it is an oxymoron. So when you have two groups of people, each believing in their own absolute ideal, there is no room for compromise. Good and bad are not a dual between light and darkness. They are the basic biological binary code. The most elemental life forms distinguish between beneficial and detrimental. What is good for the fox is bad for the chicken, even though the chicken has more at stake. Life is a bootstrapping process that creates and consumes itself to lift each generation up a little more. We, the living generation, look down from our vantage point and ascribe the top down view to some ultimate deity, but it is just one more stage of the bottom up process. Occasionally that top down order gets too rigid and crusty for the process to keep growing and it must be shed. Monotheism has been useful in creating larger societies out of smaller tribes, but it is seriously bumping up against its conceptual limitations.
Between light and dark are not just shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum.
I wish to thank you for the courage you bluntly exhibited at the discussion panel held at Georgetown University; especially while the traditional media was still persistent to pursue it’s invalid propaganda, until it realized that they were loosing their accountability even among the most stupid and ignorant. As we all know they only started cutting out on their bullshit – denial of the humanitarian perspective as well as their betrayal of those norms associated with journalism. That’s when their rotten propaganda started stinking as the corpses of the innocent children. I can imagine the hardship you are inflicted with as a result of proclaiming “the word of truth” and challenging the “politically correct” but totally “inhumane” journalistic practices. This has been obvious to all of us when the young Jewish female student accused you of claiming that “all the Jewish people are stupid”. She, being at her prime, did not feel hesitant to put words into your mouth in order to embarrass you; while the truth you clearly stated that “the people in Israel must be stupid to think that the genocide of the Palestinian people is a victory for them”. I can imagine the challenges you are faced with on the upper level of that hierarchy!