On Eddie Vedder and Israel/Palestine

Drowned Out said:

continued:
(why oh why did they bring back the fucking character limits?! My pet peeve!)

I happen to disagree with Baker, but the conflict has been freshly envenomed by Israel’s wanton killing of scores of civilians and children; and it is clear that many, many young Palestinians share her belief about the best ways to counter violent enslavement. And who has the right to instruct slaves on the ill-considered nature of their rebellion? Historian David McCullough said on Charlie Rose the other day that more than half the American colonists were against revolution; their sentiments were less important than the determination of idealists who were willing to use violence. Nelson Mandela also endorsed the use of violence at a crucial point in the South African struggle; and the Algerian rebels dedicated themselves to violent revolution after a 1945 massacre. The only argument I’d make to these young violent Palestinians is that help really is on the way: a global nonviolent movement to put pressure on Israel to transform itself is afoot. That’s why I’m for BDS, as actually a conservative outcome here, neither continued ethnic cleansing and periodic massacre, nor violent revolution. BDS has pressured Israel as no other international action before, even actions by the U.N. As Israelis themselves say, it is an existential threat, a threat of delegitimization. Is it possible for Israel to transform itself and grant Palestinian freedom and maintain itself as a Jewish state? I think not; that moment is passed, that was the magic trick of the two-state compromise, and it has patently failed. The ideology of Jewish nationalism won’t pass from the stage without deep grief and violence. Part of the struggle ahead therefore is to convince the adherents of the Jewish state in America, all the Jewish organizations and religious groups who believe that we need a Jewish state even though we are doing fine here, of the historical error in this belief. The record is clear, that the implementation of the Zionist vision has only generated rising violence in Israel and its environs (as the State Department and Franklin Roosevelt predicted in 1940s when plans for such a state were put forward). American Jews can do the greatest service to the future of Israel and Palestine and the broader Middle East by saying they don’t need a Jewish state; they are happy to see the end of Jewish privilege in that land. This is the great work that Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No are doing, preparing the Jewish community for exodus from a false belief.

Kat said:

Aafke said:

Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...

Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.

fuck said:

Kat said:

Aafke said:

Maybe they (and I) are a lot of pacifistic Hippies, but maybe it will be possible one day...

Love this photo. Maybe if we just keep sowing it around the internet like seeds, it will take root and grow.

All due respect, as I appreciate the intentions behind the photo, I actually have much to disagree with it. First, the manner in which each person identifies his religion, as Jewish and Muslim, plays into the incorrect but mistakenly accepted narrative that this is a religious conflict. It's not, and there are others such as Christian Palestinians that often face the brunt of this misunderstanding, with their stories being ignored or forgotten. Second, the way in which they ask a question "Why can't we just get along?" ignores the fact that there exists a power dynamic there. This is not a conflict between two peoples that simply hate each other. This is a conflict in which one party (Zionists) wants to impose its vision of a state at the exclusion and the expense of another. If Zionists simply abandoned their project to establish a majority-Jewish country in which only a certain number of Palestinians are accepted to live within (hence the expulsions, house demolitions, etc.) and in which Palestinians face discriminatory apartheid-like laws and conditions that force them to live like second-class citizens -- if all this was abandoned, and equal rights were given to Palestinians, THEN can we say "let's get along" with a nice smilie face

Mark Twain I believe said History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. It was the same in other cases, such as Apartheid South Africa, and it will play out similarly in this one.

Drowned Out said:

yosi said:

Drowned Out said:

If there was a withdrawal, and an end to the blockade, the Palestinians would have to commit to prosecuting or turning over anyone who attacks israel. And Israel would have to agree to let this happen, possibly even work with the Palestinians from an intelligence standpoint, without retaliating with military force. The end of the bush doctrine of pre emptive strikes, and the policy of collective punishment and strikes against targets sans proof of guilt is the first step post-withdrawal. And there would be a long cooling off period, probably 2 or 3 generations of relative peace, before true peace is achieved. The israeli's, in their position of power, and as a state with a military who follows orders from the state, have much more control over whether this works than the Palestinians who would have to deal with the problems all fledgling sovereign nations deal with - power struggles between factions who have different ideas on how the state should move forward. The israeli's would need to show restraint, and maybe an international peacekeeping force on the border could help in that regard. The first step is always to end the occupation/blockade, and dismantle (or preferably hand over) the settlements.

I agree with this entirely. My only caveat would be that I don't see a good reason for the Palestinians to wait until after the end of the occupation to start policing themselves in the way you suggest. If anything they should start doing so immediately. The likelihood of Israel acting peacefully and with restraint would be much greater if the Palestinians show themselves to be actively policing those that attempt to attack Israel. And in the long term, Israelis will feel much more secure in ending the occupation if the Palestinians have acted to prevent violence and build trust.

Basically, I don't see that the Palestinians gain anything at all from firing missiles at Israel except for a propaganda victory if they are able to goad Israel into retaliating (excessively) and Palestinians die. At this point it's not as if anyone is unaware of how this plays out. Hamas knows that if they fire hundreds of missiles into Israel there will be a forceful response. Violence isn't getting the Palestinians any closer to a state. If anything, I think, it's massively counterproductive to their cause.

In short, I think many people too often think about the Palestinians as if they have zero agency when in fact both sides are responsive to the actions of the other. You only need to look at the relatively prolonged periods of ceasefire between Israel and Gaza to see this. Although there were certainly breaches of the ceasefire by both sides, so long as it was clear that Hamas was cracking down on rocket fire into Israel, Israel didn't (over)react to the sporadic rockets that were fired with the sort of operation that is now underway. Israel is certainly the more powerful party and is capable of doing more to move the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, but the Palestinians can and should act in a manner that is more likely to influence Israel to take the necessary steps.

This is where the disagreement is: Why do the Palestinians, as an occupied people, have to lay down their arms first, and police their resistance movement? As I said, the FIRST step is to end the occupation and blockade, and get Israeli's off of Palestinian land....thus removing any doubt about the validity of violent resistance. Without that first step, there is always an excuse to continue down the current path.

Byrnzie said:

yosi said:

I don't see it as a situation where either side SHOULD act first in the sense that until such action is taken the opposite side has no responsibility to act. I think both sides should act as soon as possible regardless of what the other side is doing. I don't mean to imply in any way that the Palestinians must in some sense "go first." I simply think that there are certain actions that each side can take that would be in their own self-interest and that would help to further a peaceful resolution (and the obverse is true as well -- they can act in ways that are contrary to their shared long-term interest in peace). For the Palestinians I think this means abandoning violence in favor of building institutional capacity and civil society with an eye towards a future state (think along the lines of what the Kurds have been doing for a few decades now in Northern Iraq). Again, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't also act immediately as well, or that somehow Palestinian action should be a condition precedent to Israeli action. I think both sides should act immediately to do what they can to further a peaceful settlement, which is in both sides' best interest.

Hamas has simply asked that Israel abide by the conditions of the 2012 ceasefire. A ceasefire agreement that Israel has systematically violated. Hamas simply asks that Israel be held accontable to international law.
Unfortunately, due to 100% unconditional support from the U.S, Israel is not held accountable under any conditions and is free to reign terror on it's neighbours at will.

200 Palestinian civilians have been killed - approx 90% of them civilians. 1 Israeli has reportedly been killed. And Yosi says the Palestinians need to renounce violence.