Antony Loewenstein

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald on the inherent delusions of the American corporate media and posits: the world looks at us with contempt and slams the exceptionalist mindset:

I’m asking this sincerely, not rhetorically:  is there anything other than extreme self-delusion, grounded in blinding self-regard (i.e., self-decreed exceptionalism), that can explain this?  The Washington Post Editorial Page today is demanding that the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran include not only efforts to curb their nuclear program but also:   “at least one other item should be on the agenda: the government’s recent repression of domestic opposition, and in particular its prosecution of Western citizens.”  Here’s what they specifically have in mind:

“One way to avoid this pitfall is for the United States to insist on discussing the human rights issues raised by the show trials. The obvious lack of due process for leading regime opponents contravenes international human rights standards that Iran claims to respect.”

So we’re supposed to roll into these negotiations righteously complaining about Iran’s “obvious lack of due process.”  For the last eight years and counting, we’ve been imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims around the world with no charges of any kind.  Keeping people who have never been charged with any crime shackled in orange jumpsuits and locked in cages for years on a Cuban island has become our national symbol.  Just yesterday, the Obama administration demanded that a court rule it has the power to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to Afghanistan, and keep them indefinitely imprisoned there with no trial of any kind — which is exactly what we’ve been doing for years and still are (in a dank and nasty prison which happens to be right over Iran’s Eastern border).  Our current President just recently advocated and is currently devising a scheme of so-called “preventive detention” whereby he’d be empowered to lock up people indefinitely for crimes they might commit in the future.  We continue to abduct people from all over the world and ship them to third-party countries for interrogation and detention (“renditions”) without any pretense of due process.  And right over Iran’s own Western border, we not only continue to occupy Iraq, but maintain prisons in which thousands of people are imprisoned by our military without any charges of any kind — including an Iraqi journalist who works for Reuters who was ordered released by an Iraqi court yet continues to languish in an American prison in Iraq, merely one of numerous foreign journalists we imprisoned for years, in Iraq and elsewhere, with no charges at all.

The correspondence in Crikey continues after days of discussion over Israel, Palestine, apartheid and free speech. Today:

Sam Kennedy writes: Re. Les Heimann (yesterday, comments) who wrote: “It makes me very angry that Crikey allows a stage to peddle their hatred.” I actually don’t see much hatred, more concern, and I’m curious on what acceptable platform does he think people can discuss/debate Israel and its actions.

I haven’t seen one yet where people aren’t attacked by “Israel lovers”. The one thing I like about the debate/articles in Crikey and on The Guardian website is that I have stopped feeling that all Jews are to blame for Israel’s actions which, if I think about it, is a very good thing.

When a picture speaks a thousand words (via Sabbah):

A settler tosses wine at a Palestinian woman on Shuhada Street in Hebron. The approach of some settlers towards neighboring Palestinians, especially around Nablus in the north and Hebron in the south, has often been one of contempt and violence.

I certainly didn’t see this in Gaza, but it’s oddly comforting that so-called normality can continue in the face of chaos:

High above the pot-holed streets, donkey carts and militant graffiti that have come to define the besieged Gaza Strip sits Rosy, the territory’s only spa and a refuge for its unlikely upper crust.

The spa’s luxurious setting and its upscale clientele stand in stark contrast to the poverty gripping the war-battered Palestinian territory of 1.5 million people, the vast majority of whom rely on foreign aid.

“We have the highest quality services in the region,” says Mohammed Faris, who launched the spa with his British wife in 1999.

“We had one customer, a woman who worked as an EU (European Union) advisor. She went to New York and called me from there and said she missed Rosy,” he says as he smokes in casual defiance of the daytime abstinence practised by the observant during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

The spa is a sign of how, despite a two-year blockade maintained by Israel and Egypt, a reasonably well-off minority has found a way to endure amid Gaza’s bleak landscape of toxic politics and economic paralysis.

After much soul searching and gnashing of teeth, this decision is significant and timely:

The TUC today backed a targeted boycott of Israeli goods originating from illegal settlements and an end to arms sales to IsraelPalestinian territories“. to ramp up the pressure “for an end to the occupation of

The decision to step up its position was triggered by widespread dismay by unions at the Israeli offensive in Gaza in January.

Reiterating the union’s condemnation of the offensive, Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, told union delegates that they “have a part to play” in seeing an end to the occupation, a dismantling of the separation wall and the removal of the illegal settlements.

In the most controversial motion to be debated at the four-day conference in Liverpool, Barber told delegates: “We believe that targeted action – aimed at goods from the illegal settlements and at companies involved in the occupation and the wall – is the right way forward.

“This is not a call for a general boycott of Israeli goods and services, which would hit ordinary Palestinian and Israeli workers but targeted, consumer-led sanctions directed at businesses based in, and sustaining, the illegal settlements.”

There is so much fascinating analysis over the UN Gaza report. A choice collection below:

Amira Hass in Haaretz:

Like the Serbs of yore, we Israelis continue thinking it’s the world that is wrong, and only we who are right.

Israel struck a civilian population that remains under its control, it didn’t fulfill its obligation to distinguish between civilians and militants and used military force disproportionate with the tangible threat to its own civilians. Air Force drones and helicopters fired deadly missiles at civilians, many of them children; the Tank Corps and Navy shelled civilian neighborhoods with weapons not designed for precision strikes; soldiers received orders to fire on rescue crews; others fired on civilians carrying white flags; and others killed people in or near their homes. Troops used Gazans as human shields, soldiers detained civilians in abusive conditions, the army used white phosphorus shells in dense civilian areas and, on the eve of withdrawing, destroyed wide residential, industrial and agricultural areas.

There is only thing worse than denial – the admission that the IDF indeed acted as has been described, but that these actions are both normal and appropriate.

Gideon Levy in Haaretz:

Perhaps next time we set out to wage another vain and miserable war, we will take into account not only the number of fatalities we are likely to sustain, but also the heavy political damage such wars cause.

On the eve of the Jewish New Year, Israel, deservedly, is becoming an outcast and detested country. We must not forget it for a minute.

Haaretz editorial:

The report by the commission headed by Judge Richard Goldstone on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza is one of the most serious indictments ever made against the government and the military in Israel. The report states that during the operation Israel committed war crimes and significant violations of international law.

The commission went so far as to accuse Israel of crimes against humanity. According to the report, the operation was intended to punish the civilian Palestinian population with the intentional use of disproportional force. As a result, they wrote, 1,400 people were killed in Gaza and thousands were left without a roof over their heads or a livelihood.

The Magnes Zionist blog:

Because Israel – at least its government –simply doesn’t get human rights or just war doctrine. It assumes that it discharges its duty to minimize civilian casualties by dropping leaflets and telling civilians to leave areas. By that reasoning, Hamas could blow up civilians legitimately if they simply warned them (like the IRA) to leave areas where they have planted bombs.

UN chief investigator Richard Goldstone in the New York Times:

Unfortunately, both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. I am unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective.

Absent credible local investigations, the international community has a role to play. If justice for civilian victims cannot be obtained through local authorities, then foreign governments must act. There are various mechanisms through which to pursue international justice. The International Criminal Court and the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other countries against violators of the Geneva Conventions are among them. But they all share one overarching aim: to hold accountable those who violate the laws of war. They are built on the premise that abusive fighters and their commanders can face justice, even if their government or ruling authority is not willing to take that step.

Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state.

Ari Shavit in Haaretz:

Over the course of the military offensive in Gaza, Israel used excessive firepower and this must not recur. Severe incidents took place during the operation which must be investigated. But the inquiry must be carried out by us, and among ourselves. As long as Judge Richard Goldstone doesn’t probe the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka or Turkey, just as he probed Israel, he is not a moral figure. A law is a law only when it applies to everyone and does not discriminate, as Goldstone did.

The Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent reports on the reverberations of the UN Gaza report:

International criminal justice would be “immensely damaged” by a failure to implement any of the recommendations of the UN report, experts said, as Israel and armed groups in Gaza announced their refusal to implement independent investigations.

The report, which was described yesterday as a milestone by lawyers, states that a failure to conduct investigations should result in a referral to the international criminal court after six months.

“This is an authoritative UN mission of inquiry that says there should be accountability for the actions of both sides for what occurred,” said Daniel Machover, a partner at Hickman and Rose solicitors in London.

“It’s very difficult to ignore an authoritative report like this. It’s realistic to think that the security council will act, and I would like to see the Obama administration passing a resolution that requires Israel to bring prosecutions where there is sufficient evidence,” Machover added. “In my view hopefully there will be some kind of resolution, but my fear is that it won’t be strong enough.”

Al-Jazeera reports:

A group of female former Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails have accused prison guards of carrying out “humiliating” internal body searches in violation of Israel’s prison code.

In an exclusive report, former detainee Sabreen Abu Amara told Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh that she spent six years living in fear of intrusive and degrading treatment at the hands of Israeli guards.

Abu Amara said the guards strip-searched female prisoners, sometimes forcing them to squat and undergo a thorough internal examination.

One lawyer is now collecting evidence from 10 female prisoners who say they were strip-searched in an effort to lodge an official complaint.

Yet more letters in today’s Crikey following the ongoing debates about Israel, Zionism, human rights abuses and anti-Semitism:

Guy Rundle writes: If Michael Danby (yesterday, comments) thinks that all he was commenting on in his parliamentary speech was Crikey and New Matilda’s comments policy he should, well, read his speech. Here are two excerpts:

“Of course people can be fairly critical of any state in the world and critical of particular actions of any state, but … Scant attention is given in the same publications to Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea, Chechnya, Eastern Turkistan or any other place witnessing gross abuse of human rights. That is a double standard.

…

“In examining the evidence of lopsided coverage of these two internet publications, our toughest critique must be of their unadulterated racism: the perverse nature of their criticisms and the vitriol that is not present in the appraisal of other conflicts; the use of terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “Nazi”; and the dropping of all pretence of anti-Zionism by openly discussing Jews and so-called Jewish proclivities.””

It was these accusations I was replying to. Quite aside from the fact that Crikey has provided excellent and unmatched coverage of oppression in Burma and East Turkestan/Xinjiang among other places, I simply reiterate the point that Israel’s governments repeatedly draw on the notion of a unified West, to legitimise their actions  — and since that legitimation has become, post Gaza, increasingly shaky (about to become a lot more so, as the recent UN report circulates) the whining that we are not playing fair will become louder.

In that context discussion of ethnic cleansing now and before, and of the fascist strains within right-wing Zionism, remain legitimate. If Michael Reich thinks that Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism had simply a few incidental links pre-WW2 he should read some history.

Les Heimann writes: What a lot of silly little boys and girls are you. Zionist, Nazi, anti-Semitic, not anti Semitic — claim and counter claim — truth or rumour — baiters and the baited. With the single exception of Michael Danby, the absolute twaddle written by so many concerning the actions of the Israeli government must now come to a halt.

Frankly I am much disturbed by so many pieces of hysterical garbage spewed out that those authors. It makes me very angry that Crikey allows a stage to peddle their hatred. Now it is enough, lest Crikey becomes equally branded and trashed.

It’s like printing the racist Muslim trash expression “not every Muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Muslim”. Clearly the so called “anti Zionists” do protest too much. Pick on someone else for a change, and when you do get it right just for a change. Better still Crikey would be well served by adopting a policy of accuracy coupled with constructive criticism. In the real world — where things get done — the committees and boards do not allow criticism per se.

In the real world you have to prove your point and in the real world you ultimately get trashed yourself if you mislead or demonstrate bad character traits such as racism. Grow up you silly little people.

Following my article in last week’s Canberra Times, I’m informed by reliable sources at the paper that Jewish academic Dvir Abramovich demanded a right of reply because I had “unfairly libeled Israelis as extremists.” Yesterday his piece was published and it’s a masterful piece of saying nothing in 800 words. Empty words and slogans, two equal sides blah blah blah. The word “occupation” is entirely absent:

After the conflict in Gaza, the prospects of peace between Israelis and Palestinians look grim. But as AbrahamLincoln once said, ‘‘The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.’’

Along with the tears shed for lives lost on both sides, we must refuse to give in to the short-sighted despair that says that force is the only language Israelis and Palestinians speak. War only produces broken hearts, no winners.

A just peace between the two peoples can be achieved but the business-as-usual of blaming and demonising the other cannot continue. Real security for Israelis and Palestinians is ‘‘shared security’’. No ceasefire will last without a new collaborative path that involves all stakeholders.

Violence breeds violence, prolongs suffering and holds back the vital work of building a resolution based on sustained dialogue and painful but honourable compromises.

Primarily, the benefits of peace need to be inculcated among those who have only known guns firing and bombs exploding. The silent majorities on both sides, who are ready to make concessions, need to be engaged for any formal treaties to succeed. Inaction and foot-dragging is not an option.

The two peoples will be neighbours forever and must choose mutually secure ways to share this sliver of land. The lie that Israelis and Palestinians cannot reconcile will not last. How many more mothers must bury their children before the bravado of radicals gives way to new solutions without killing? As John F. Kennedy said, ‘‘Man will put an end to war, or war will put an end to man.’’

Israelis and Palestinians, traumatised by war and death, have no choice but to work collectively and purposefully to try to forge a feasible deal of a two-state solution. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr, ‘‘We have in our hearts a power more powerful than bullets.’’

Yes, there is no quick fix. Previous disappointments have produced many cynics and doubters. Yet, any misgivings about the lip service paid to a slew of formulas must take a backseat to the possibility of resolution, denying madness another victory.

Sanity must prevail because if anything, the implications of failure to find peace should prod Israeli and Palestinian parents into action. Otherwise, their children will inherit their conflict.

The global community must invest in people-to-people diplomacy to break down the emotional and psychological barriers. It must stand behind moderate leaders in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians must strive for democracy, settle the costly infighting between Hamas and Fatah which divides them and elect a moderate leadership that is ready to consider a future of coexistence with Israel.

Scholar Mark Mathabane urges Israelis and Palestinians to look to South Africa as a model. Mathabane cites Lincoln’s second inaugural address which was imbued with pleas of charity for all and malice towards none, and which helped restore a frayed nation.

Recall how Nelson Mandela spoke of the Afrikaners’ anguished memories of their own agony at the hands of the British during the Boer War. His appeal was embraced by the resentful black majority largely because he was uttering those words as a human being. Imagine the Palestinians empathising with the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust and Israelis acknowledging the Palestinians’ grief.

True peace includes forgiveness and a willingness to put the past behind, as well as an understanding that both sides have been responsible for the injustice and pain. Palestinians and Israelis must set aside decades of atavistic aggression to find the courage to absolve each other of past transgressions and to admit that there has been tremendous hurt.

Only then will they bear witness to an astonishing milestone that will permit the two nations to live side by side, free from terror, in a relationship dedicated to peace and prosperity.

In 1998, Bill Clinton urged Israelis and Palestinians to leave behind 50 years of cynicism and to unearth within themselves the strength to forgive. ‘‘I think the beginning of mutual respect after so much pain is to recognise not only the positive characteristics of people on both sides, but the fact that there has been a lot – a lot – of hurt and harm,’’ he said. ‘‘The time has come to sanctify your holy ground with real forgiveness and reconciliation.’’

Today, the following letter was published in response:

Dvir Abramovich’s call for a collective solution to the Palesine-Israel conflict has much that makes good sense – war’s futility, the need for a ‘shared security’ based on a ‘sustained dialogue’, the need to engage ‘the silent majorities on both sides’ and to avoid ‘foot-dragging’.

Regrettably, however, he shows a marked lack of balance in his analysis.

He calls, not unreasonably, for the global community to support ‘moderate leaders in Gaza and the West Bank’ but fails to make a parallel call for Israeli leadership or to mention the longstanding immoderation of Israel’s leaders, from Ben Gurion, via Golda Meir to Netanyahu, whose governments were and remain the primary drivers of the suppression of any semblance of peaceful coexistence.

Moreover, his drawing parallels between the Holocaust and the present suffering of Palestinians is at best an inappropriate and unhelpful slip, or at worst yet another attempt to foster international sympathy for ‘victim Israel’, no longer because of Nazi Germany’s ‘final solution’ more than 60 years ago, but now as an excuse for Israel’s current behaviour.

The collective peace Abramovich seeks can only be based on an honest and balanced assessment of the past and on an outcome that places social, political and economic decency within the grasp of all the peoples of both sides.

Israel’s acceptance of the key findings of the UN-commissioned (Goldstone) report on its incursion into Gaza last December-January would be a good starting point.

Kevin Bray

I wrote in December last year about the Shministim, Israeli high school students who have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in an army that occupies the Palestinian Territories. I met some of these brave men and women during my recent visit to Israel.

Now, they’re taking this message to key ground, the US:

Two Israeli women who are refusing mandatory army duty have kicked off a North American speaking tour and plan to take their story to more than a dozen college campuses in the next month.

Hoping to highlight their opposition to Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, Maya Wind and Netta Mishly, both 19, will appeal to their American counterparts during their “Why We Refuse” tour from September 12 to October 10. Both women describe themselves as Shministim, a group of high school seniors who refuse to serve in the IDF.

“We believe it is important to spread information about the Israeli occupation and about the movements that work against it,” stated Wind, who said that she was detained for 40 days because of her refusal to serve in the IDF. She was released in March. “We hope to empower people our age to take responsibility by taking a more active role in the resistance movements,” she said.

Amusingly, Zionists are not pleased and wish that dissent wasn’t expressed anywhere:

“I definitely do not agree with what they’re trying to do because I think they’re misguided,” said Dani Klein, the North America campus director for StandWithUs, which advocates for Israel on campuses. Klein said if the campaign gains traction, it could backfire by further empowering anti-Israel students.

“When they see Israelis come out against their own country or their own army, in this instance, it gives those who want to be anti-Israel the fodder to do it,” he said.

The two young women, he said, could inadvertently educate people to hate Israel.

He compared their campaign to Breaking the Silence, a group of former Israeli soldiers who openly criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. “I definitely understand that Israelis have the right not to agree with their government. That’s fine,” Klein said. “Every citizen in a democracy has that right. But you take that up in your country. Once you take that abroad, what does that gain you?”

Honesty?

The fallout from the UN report on Gaza continues.

Two pieces have particularly caught my eye.

Here’s Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now!:

Well, the report is the last in a large number of reports that have been issued on the Gaza massacre. There were two significant reports issued by Amnesty International, five reports issued by Human Rights Watch, and a whole slew of Israeli-based human rights organizations have issued reports. But this was the most awaited report of all of them. It was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. And Richard Goldstone, as you mentioned in your own introductory remarks, is a significant international figure, legal figure.

So the report basically is consistent with the findings of the other human rights organizations, that Israel targeted civilians, Israel targeted civilians who were carrying white flags, Israel systematically targeted the Palestinian infrastructure. The findings were consistent with those of the other human rights organizations: Israel is guilty of a very significant number of war crimes. And also, the findings which were—other reports, the same conclusions, that the Palestinians were not using hospitals to hide Hamas officials. There’s no evidence that the ambulances Israel targeted were carrying Hamas militants or ammunition. And most significantly, in terms of the coverage during the Gaza massacre, the report found, as did Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, there’s no evidence whatsoever—and I would want to underline that—there’s no evidence whatsoever that Hamas was guilty of human shielding. But on the other hand, there is significant evidence, actually copious evidence, that Israel was guilty of human shielding.

…

What’s significant about the report, in my opinion, and what’s significant about what happened in Gaza, I think it marks a major turning point. It’s like the Sharpville massacre in South Africa. Now, Sharpville is not Soweto, but Sharpville was a turning point. Richard Goldstone is a liberal. Richard Goldstone is very supportive of Israel. And it’s now marking the breakup of liberal Jewish support for Israel. And as we both know and as all of your listeners know, Jews are overwhelmingly liberal in their sentiment. Seventy-nine percent of Jews in the last election voted for Obama. And what you’re seeing now is the breakup of Jewish support for Israel.

You saw during the Gaza massacre you had some of the old-timers like Alan Dershowitz, Michael Walzer, characters—Martin Peretz, characters like that, you know, kind of comical figures coming out supporting Israel. But if you looked at the younger Jewish—the younger Jewish constituency—bloggers like Matt Yglesias, Glenn Greenwald and so forth—they all opposed the Gaza massacre from almost like day one or day two. And then you had significant defections, like Andrew Sullivan, who—not Jewish, but still a significant figure, who also came out against the Gaza massacre.

So I think now what you’re seeing, especially with the Goldstone report, especially with his stature, especially because he’s Jewish, especially because he’s a liberal, what it’s signaling now, is the breakup of Jewish support and liberal support—and those are basically the same thing—the breakup of liberal Jewish support for Israel.

Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post:

Maybe this will do it. Maybe the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead will be the thing that finally puts the fear of God into Israeli society, that shocks this country into deciding once and for all that the occupation must come to an end – for our sake if no one else’s.

I don’t want to see Israeli political and military leaders brought to The Hague; I don’t want them to be unable to get off a plane in a foreign capital. It wouldn’t be fair, not if fairness entails equity: There are countless foreign politicians and military men who’ve done much, much worse things than we did in Gaza who roam the world freely.

But if Israelis have a sense of foreboding since Tuesday’s release of the Goldstone report, a fear that the world may really be fed up with our treatment of the Palestinians, then I’m glad. Then I’m hopeful. Because fear is the only thing that might get us to finally set free the 4 million people of Gaza and the West Bank. Of our own accord, of our own moral reckoning, we won’t do it. Four years of intifada bus bombings hardened us for a generation, maybe longer. When it comes to Arabs, we’ve been morally numb for too long to change on our own.

WE JUST don’t get it about Gaza. Why, we wonder, doesn’t the world understand that we fought a just war, that we were defending ourselves?

We’re unable to see that if anybody did to Israel what we did to Gaza in Operation Cast Lead, we wouldn’t be talking about war crimes. We wouldn’t be talking about crimes against humanity. We would be saying, in one voice, that the end of Israel was upon us, and we would be out to obliterate whoever did that to us.

But, we exclaim, what about the context? What about those thousands and thousands of rockets they fired at Sderot? No country would stand for that. We had to go to war.

We’ve become so numb, so brainwashed, that we really believe that that’s all that happened before we started the war, that that’s the entire context. We don’t see what the rest of the world saw – that those thousands and thousands of rockets on Sderot caused a tiny fraction of the death and destruction we caused in Gaza at the same time.