This is a translation of an excerpt of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's recent speech from Qifa Nabki's blog:
[Today, and tomorrow, and after one year, and one hundred years, and one thousand years, until the Hour of Judgment, we and our children and our grandchildren and our people... as long as we are Hizbullah, we will not recognize "Israel". What is "Israel"? "Israel" is a plundering entity, an illegal and illegitimate state, a racist, belligerent, terrorist state. By what standard can a human being, Muslim or Arab, recognize an entity of this kind, and come and say, simply: "Yes, this is "Israel"," while three quarters of it or more has been given to foreigners brought from all corners of the world, and while the people who are in the right, who are the legitimate ones, the people of the land and the holy places, the Palestinians - Muslims and Christians - have to let go, and leave, and surrender, and submit! Show me that standard! What is the religious standard? What is the moral standard? What is the humanitarian standard? What is the nationalist standard? What standard is it?!]
Blogger's response: It is the standard of the likes of Jeffrey Goldberg: The standard of theft, of supramacy, of contempt for people of color, of bestiality, of arrogance, of evil, of wickedness, of treachery, of lust for the resources of people of color, of conspiracy, of corruption, of collusion.
Ashkenazi Goldberg continues: I get the sense that this guy doesn't like "Israel". But maybe I'm just filtering Nasrallah's words through the prism of my Jewish paranoia. And speaking of Roger Cohen, James Taranto had this to say (third item) after reading what he called Cohen's "jaw-dropping" dialogue with Rabbi David Wolpe: "If we wish really, really hard, maybe peace will break out. Then again, maybe not. But remember, Roger Cohen wants you to think positive!"
What Makes Hamas Different Than the PLO
17 Mar 2009 01:30 pm
Perceptive Goldblog reader Joe Kanter asks:
By claiming Hamas is not now, nor will ever practically be, a partner for peace, one makes the implied argument that there is something inherently different from Hamas now and the PLO of years past. From my reading of history, I see many similarities in both the rhetoric of Hamas-now and PLO-then, as well as in the arguments made against engaging/trusting Hamas-now and PLO-then. Do you draw some distinction here between the two groups which I'm not seeing? It seems that, while a great deal is left to be desired, the transformation of the PLO from resistance fighters to negotiating partners has, at the very least, proven much of the critics-then wrong.
A good question. Here's a provisional answer; I reserve the right to change my mind, or add thoughts later. It's true that many people look fondly back on the PLO days as a time when the Middle East conflict was mainly about real estate, rather than about Allah's demands, and HaShem's competing demands. I do, too. I remember Akram Haniyeh, then one of Arafat's top aides, telling me in 2001 or so that Israel should make the best deal it could with Fatah, because with Hamas there could be no compromise, and Hamas is most certainly coming.
But Kanter has a somewhat gauzy memory of the "transformation" of the PLO from resistance fighters to negotiating partners. For one thing, the "negotiating partners" failed to negotiate successfully. This was largely Arafat's fault, and Arafat's limitations were a byproduct of his mystical, Islamist side. Arafat was actually quite influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology, and I think this is a key reason why he would not allow himself to become the Muslim leader who acceded to Jewish control of even part of Jerusalem.
Today, the situation is somewhat different. The most important moderate Palestinian player, Salam Fayad, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, is an unusual character -- he is the first Palestinian leader, I think, who genuinely worries after the quotidian concerns of his people. He seems especially moderate and pragmatic when compared to the men who run Gaza, of course. I'm not suggesting that the PLO didn't contain elements of pragmatism all along (though I tend to think that even in the pragmatic circles there flourished the never-ending dream of "stages," taking Israel apart slowly, piece by piece).
I would never predict that certain leaders of Hamas couldn't evolve and leave the organization to form new, more pragmatic organizations. And I would not say that there are no differences among Hamas leaders; much of the Gaza leadership is tactically more pragmatic than the Damascus leaders. But I believe that jihadist organizations are jihadist at their core, and that it is theologically impossible for Hamas to change. The PLO was never bound by these strictures. I think the more relevant question might be: Will Israel wind up negotiating with Hamas, as it once negotiated with the PLO? This, of course, is a possibility. By the nature of Hamas, of course, I don't see much success for that route, either.
"Iran is Killing Americans in Iraq"
17 Mar 2009 09:50 am
Michael Knights on some hard truths Roger Cohen can't seem to face:As the new administration moves forward, it must realize that U.S.-Iranian negotiations will take place while Iran is killing Americans in Iraq and increasing its support for armed Iraqi factions. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration must prepare for the challenge of negotiating under fire.
Jeffrey Goldberg sounds like his Ashkenazi cousins at AIPAC. All that AIPAC post on their blog is almost exclusively about wanting America to strike Iraq ...oops, that had already been take care of ... Iran on behalf of world Jewry.
The Lieberman Disaster
17 Mar 2009 09:55 am
Not this Lieberman, this Lieberman. It's not a disaster for the reasons some people think; I know Avigdor Lieberman a little bit, and he's actually a person interested in a cold compromise with the Palestinians. It's a disaster because he's made himself into a racist. The language he uses to describe Israeli Arabs is despicable, and self-destructive, because the key to Israel's future (well, one key at least) is the total enfranchisement of Israel's Arab minority, not its disenfranchisement. Maybe it's just a dream, but an Arab population that has the same rights, freedoms, opportunities -- and responsibilities (i.e. national service of some sort) as the Jewish population is an Arab population that is too busy and successful to hate. (Yes, I know Israeli Arabs have the same legal rights as Israeli Jews, but what I'm talking more about opportunities here).
Another rather important reason Lieberman's appointment is so reckless: This is the man who is going to be Israel's public face. The appointment is a gift to those who believe that Israel is nothing more than South Africa on the Med. Especially at a time when Israel's international reputation has never been lower, how could this come to pass? The answer, of course, is no secret: Israel's dysfunctional politics are largely to blame. In the American system, a person like Lieberman would be marginalized. In the Israeli system, the Liebermans rise to the inner cabinet. This is also, I must say, Tzipi Livni's fault. She could have joined a unity government and kept her job as foreign minister. But that would have been in the best interests of the State of Israel, rather than the Kadima Party, so her decision is, in retrospect, obvious.
Israel is serious about a great many things, but governance isn't one of them.
Blogger's response:"The appointment is a gift to those who believe that Israel is nothing more than South Africa on the Med"The Chosen Ashkernazi Jew GOLDberg perhaps would like the people of the wolrd to see no evil and hear no evil when it comes to his stolen maligant tumor stuck in the heart of the Arab world.
Judea Pearl on Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
17 Mar 2009 08:44 amFrom an Op-Ed in the LA Times:
[T]he vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives -- the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.
Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.
Blogger's response: They could haul back their 'Jewish identity', their 'scientific achievements' to where they came from and the Arabs would miss none of it! But I post below what the GOLDman is referring to.
Opinion
Is anti-Zionism hate?
Yes. It is more dangerous than anti-Semitism, threatening lives and peace in the Middle East.
By Judea Pearl
March 15, 2009
In January, at a symposium at UCLA (choreographed by the Center for Near East Studies), four longtime Israel bashers were invited to analyze the human rights conditions in Gaza, and used the stage to attack the legitimacy of Zionism and its vision of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.
They criminalized Israel's existence, distorted its motives and maligned its character, its birth, even its conception. At one point, the excited audience reportedly chanted "Zionism is Nazism" and worse.
* Zionism is the problem
Opinion: Zionism is the problem
Ads by Google
Middle Eastern Studies
Pursue a degree with middle eastern studies education from APU. Apply!
www.APUS.edu
Bible/World History Chart
Timeline of our Entire History Bible Figures and World Leaders
www.visquar.com
Jewish leaders condemned this hate-fest as a dangerous invitation to anti-Semitic hysteria, and pointed to the chilling effect it had on UCLA students and faculty on a campus known for its open and civil atmosphere. The organizers, some of them Jewish, took refuge in "academic freedom" and the argument that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
I fully support this mantra, not because it exonerates anti-Zionists from charges of anti-Semitism but because the distinction helps us focus attention on the discriminatory, immoral and more dangerous character of anti-Zionism.
Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation -- a collective bonded by a common history -- and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.
Anti-Zionism earns its discriminatory character by denying the Jewish people what it grants to other historically bonded collectives (e.g. French, Spanish, Palestinians), namely, the right to nationhood, self-determination and legitimate coexistence with other indigenous claimants.
Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations.
Are Jews a nation? Some philosophers would argue Jews are a nation first and religion second. Indeed, the narrative of Exodus and the vision of the impending journey to the land of Canaan were etched in the minds of the Jewish people before they received the Torah at Mt. Sinai. But, philosophy aside, the unshaken conviction in their eventual repatriation to the birthplace of their history has been the engine behind Jewish endurance and hopes throughout their turbulent journey that started with the Roman expulsion in AD 70.
More important, shared history, not religion, is today the primary uniting force behind the secular, multiethnic society of Israel. The majority of its members do not practice religious laws and do not believe in divine supervision or the afterlife. The same applies to American Jewry, which is likewise largely secular. Identification with a common historical ethos, culminating in the reestablishment of the state of Israel, is the central bond of Jewish collectivity in America.
There are of course Jews who are non-Zionists and even anti-Zionists. The ultra-Orthodox cult of Neturei Karta and the leftist cult of Noam Chomsky are notable examples. The former rejects any earthly attempt to interfere with God's messianic plan, while the latter abhors all forms of nationalism, especially successful ones.
There are also Jews who find it difficult to defend their identity against the growing viciousness of anti-Israel propaganda, and eventually hide, disown or denounce their historical roots in favor of social acceptance and other expediencies.
But these are marginal minorities at best; the vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives -- the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.
Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.
First, anti-Zionism targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish population of Israel, whose physical safety and personal dignity depend crucially on maintaining Israel's sovereignty. Put bluntly, the anti-Zionist plan to do away with Israel condemns 5 1/2 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.
Secondly, modern society has developed antibodies against anti-Semitism but not against anti-Zionism. Today, anti-Semitic stereotypes evoke revulsion in most people of conscience, while anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in certain extreme yet vocal circles of U.S. academia and media elite. Anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern inter-religious discourse, to attack the most cherished symbol of Jewish identity.
Finally, anti-Zionist rhetoric is a stab in the back to the Israeli peace camp, which overwhelmingly stands for a two-state solution. It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian.
It is anti-Zionism, then, not anti-Semitism that poses a more dangerous threat to lives, historical justice and the prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and the president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation.
Blogger's response:
"It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian."Why should it be hidden? Did the Kenyans keep their desire to rid their land of their European colonizers? Did the Indians, the Egyptians?
Why is any allowed to pretend that those who stampeded from Europe cloacked with 'Jew' and arrived in Palestine are any different from any prior European colonizers of people of color?