Al Jazeera: Jaffa: The Orange’s Clockwork
The story of stolen land, a stolen brand, all in the ‘Holy Land’:
Or watch it here.
The exercise of power is determined by thousands of interactions between the world of the powerful and that of the powerless, all the more so because these worlds are never divided by a sharp line: everyone has a small part of himself in both - Vaclav Havel
The story of stolen land, a stolen brand, all in the ‘Holy Land’:
At the lowest rungs of Interwebs Zionism, the Syrian ongoing uprising and the brutal suppression of it by the Assad ‘regime’ is gefundenes fressen for their ongoing project of diminishing/denying Zionism’s past and present crimes, colonialism and disregard for international law, human rights and UN resolutions. It’s a rather transparent ‘we’re bad but look at them and why pick on us?’ kind of ploy.
It is estimated that around 17,825 Lebanese were killed during the first year of the war, with differing estimates of the proportion of civilians killed. This number of civilian casualties is not the total number of civilian casualties from 1982-2000. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, both military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area alone during the conflict, while 9,797 Syrian soldiers, PLO fighters, and other forces aligned with the PLO, as well as 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area. Approximately 675 Israeli soldiers were killed.
Samuel Katz and Lee E Russell in their book Armies in Lebanon 1982-84 puts the casualties as follows:
• Israel - 368 dead and 2,383 wounded
• PLO - 1,500 dead and an unknown amount wounded plus around 8,000 captured
• Syria - 1,200 dead and around 3,000 wounded plus 296 captured
• Lebanon - civilians 17,825 dead and around 30,000 wounded.
• Foreigners - 1800 foreigners from 26 countries on five continents, allegedly training in the Ein el Hilweh refugee camp near Sidon, were captured.
They also state that the extensive PLO political and military infrastructure in Lebanon, which had taken 15 years to build, had been destroyed.
Lebanese estimates, compiled from International Red Cross sources and police and hospital surveys, calculated that 17,825 Lebanese had died and over 30,000 had been wounded. [all emph. is mine]
Stop the presses! A pro-Israel Interwebs publication runs a story about possibly more moderate stances by Hamas (I wouldn’t want to be the JTA’s inbox or editor-in-chief, right now!) Never a dull moment with Zionism…
I remember seeing this schmuck on a BBC panel show once, on a matter unrelated to the ME and he struck me as oozing Empire from every pore.
The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion.
War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.
It feels like the eve of some creative destruction.
By: Asa Winstanley (here reprinted without any of the many corroborating links).
As before, these comments have been plucked unadulterated from HP’s comment section threads and no or minimal opining from my side is added: we dreg the sewer webs, you decide! Part 1 can be found here.
Evan @ 29 January 2012, 3:36 pm
It doesn’t matter whether Assad stays or goes.
The mental bonds responsable for this region’s political culture remain no matter what happens or no matter who takes power next.
Two groups of fascists, all of whom are motivated by the same basic fascism, battling it out to be top fascist.
Joseph K. 30 January 2012, 12:57 am
More bleeding heart nonsence from SarahAB about the poor, discriminated-against, downtrodden Roma. Should come to East London, Sarah. We’ve got thousands here, and none of them are starving and downtrodden. They all do very well out of benefits topped up with whatever they can thieve.
I once mentioned on here the case of Walthamstow’s most famous Roma, Lavinia Olmazu, an “inclusivity outreach worker” with Waltham Forest Council [you can always trust left-wing councils to dole out non-jobs as outreachers and co-ordinators to scheming grievance mongers.]
She campaigned against “racism” and “negative stereotyping” of the downtrodden Roma community, all the while running a gang of fraudsters that stole £2.9m in benefits.
If the ROMEA Association is so short of money, why don’t their thieving compatriots cough up some dough? They’ve got away with millions from this country alone.
I honestly think Sarah lives in la-la land regarding the Roma. Thinks its all wafting camp fires and violin music, when in reality its about stealing whatever you can get away with, from the easiest targets possible. Another Walthamstow story for you;
Romanian pickpockets jailed for stealing 88-year-old woman’s life savings
Warms the cockles of your hearts, don’t it? Those poor oppressed people… they’re victims, dontchaknow.
tokyo nambu @ 30 January 2012, 7:56 am
Watching said film is an exercise in the film-maker completely missing the point. Quote from the subtitles (@2:13) as the children walk around their grandparents’ house: “Look how they build the walls and then graffiti all over it. We don’t understand how they can live like this….Everything in this place is dirty and smelly, even the walls…They even go and make the ceiling dirty by throwing their garbage up there”
That’s me convinced. Is that the nasty white men breaking in at night in order to vandalise the innocent Roma? What is that magic force that stops the Roma from cleaning their house and avoiding throwing garbage at the ceiling? Ah, I know: Racism. Victims of racism are forced to throw garbage at the ceiling, because white men don’t pay them to stop doing it. Style of thing.
David Watts @ 30 January 2012, 3:04 pm
It i sa pathetic lie that oppsition to Islam is akin to racism. Islam has adherents from every race on earth. What’s more, even if some racial groups are more numerous among adherents of Islam, there are many more people of that same race group in other religions which are looked upon more favourably.
Islam is opposed because of what it stands for: because of the cruelties it practices and the bigotries it preaches. Because every Islamic-country on earth is a horrible place to live – even for most Muslims.
Peter @ 30 January 2012, 3:15 pm
I can’t figure if these are students with IQs lower than is supposed by having a student status or whether they think they are being ultra-smart and my IQ is so low I don’t get it.
Both, in part. They have low IQs, and they think they are ultra-smart but aren’t.
Islam isn’t a race but a religion-cum-totalitarian-political-dogma, however many time Humpty Dumpty says otherwise.
And anything said by LSE types is suspect for a start, especially if they start with “Union” instead of “The Union”.
Nick (in South Africa) @ 30 January 2012, 4:25 pm
Also pretty much any speech should be protected, short of actual incitement to violence. Even if it’s wrong, even if it’s bigoted.
‘I cannot stand Maggie Thatcher’, should be kosher.
‘Someone would shoot Maggie Thatcher’, shouldn’t.
‘I hate the bloody Frogs’, should be protected speech.
‘All bloody Frogs deserve a good punch in the nose’, shouldn’t. [see also below, my edit]
‘Eskimos are short arsed, stumpy, slanty eyed, fish smelling simpletons’, should be allowed.
‘Eskimos should be drowned in Walrus piss and fed to polar bears’, shouldn’t.
Is this THAT difficult to grasp? Is the reason this is important not entirely obvious?
Please note: These examples were used to make a point, I have nothing against Maggie Thatcher, Eskimos or the French as individuals. Though truth be know the Frogs are something of a pain collectively.
Matzoball @ 30 January 2012, 4:25 pm
Why do so many millions of Muslims choose to live in non-Muslim countries whose values, religion, and culture they purport to detest, and, in some cases, seek to destroy?
Please help me to understand …
Nick (in South Africa) @ 30 January 2012, 4:55 pm
But they produce good cider and wine.
Certainly they do with wine, can’t speak for their cider. Many of their women are stunning and the countryside and much of the lifestyle is sublime. I’ve found the food overrated though.
[on ‘the Frogs’, my edit]
Mickey @ 30 January 2012, 6:46 pm
The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
It was the Muslim Brotherhood who 1st coined the phrase “islamophobia” in order to stifle any debate on islam.
The LSE are useful idiots.
Mickey @ 31 January 2012, 2:50 pm
Yoni wants to study medicine to save people’s lives, whist the Pali studies terrorism to destroy lives. Just about sums it all up.
Think of England @ 31 January 2012, 6:24 pm
Yoni Jesner’s family sums up the difference between Israelis (and Jews) and Muslims. The PA, as an example, names plazas and streets after their terrorists and they contribute nothing to the world but terror and whinning; while Jews strive for positive accomplishments and succeed hugely.
tokyo nambu @ 1 February 2012, 7:33 am
The reason the shadow justice minister associates with anti-semitic fascists is that the Labour party is either an anti-semitic organisation, or is deeply relaxed about anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is a successful policy for Labour because it gives it access to a Muslim block vote, aided by Labour’s cynical policy of disenfranchising women by removing the right to the secret vote.
People who court anti-semites are anti-semites. People who join organisations that court anti-semites are themselves aiding anti-semitism. People who are members of the Labour party and yet claim to be anti-fascists should pop down to IKEA and buy themselves a mirror. Labour openly supports fascism, and by remaining members you are yourself members of an organisation that supports fascism.
That’s the victory of the PSC. Anti-semitism is now normalised, accepted and encouraged by shadow ministers. The Tories have distanced themselves from the MCB, for example, while Labour are close associates of significantly more extreme organisations.
Fabian ben Israel @ 2 February 2012, 8:02 am
Though you might find it difficult to find just one Syrian who doesn’t hate Jews, I think that things cannot be worse than they are now with Assad gone. Assad was already supporting war by proxy (Hezbollah) with Israel. Can the Syrian Free Army top this?
An Obvious Point @ 3 February 2012, 3:21 pm
Funny that Arabs and Muslims so rarely seem to ask themselves what they are doing wrong.
Perhaps that’s why they’re unable to correct their mistakes.
Ethan @ 3 February 2012, 3:26 pm
@ An Obvious Point
Careful – you may just be an islamophobe.
In that case, welcome to the club. We have bacon and beer on tap.
Cipriano @ 3 February 2012, 3:55 pm
Besides, what sort of arsehole thinks that saying Israel has “all sorts of affinities with nineteenth century settler colonialism?” automatically wins the argument?
Of course “colonialism” was the worst thing in the world. No it fucking wasn’t, “Professor” Chalcraft, as most African tribes (except of course the ubiquitous WaBenzi) could tell you. Fifteen years ago the Sierra Leoneans were begging us to come back.
Josh Scholar @ 4 February 2012, 6:23 am
And the innocent Palestinians caught in the middle are not innocent because of this: God didn’t make them helpless. If they can not improve their society, their situation it is because they choose not to.
Fabian ben Israel 4 February 2012, 6:50 am
Your ideals are very noble Marc. There is no doubt about it.
The question is reality. And this is where it gets complicated.
Give the Palestinians the West Bank. They will ask for Jerusalem.
Give the Palestinians enough to sign a peace treaty (though I know this is almost utopian). The next day the Palestinian state will start it disintegration process, like Egypt, like Syria. It will be a failed state. There are no resources nor human capital, no modern knowledge and no modern culture to be a succesful state in our age. Services will start declining, people will start complaining, and then suddenly you will have a war with Israel again.
Fabian ben Israel @ 4 February 2012, 8:26 am
Sarah, I think this must be because Nakhba Day is celebrated the day the Jews declared their own state and not the day the Arabs of Palestine lost theirs (that should be the 29th of November 1947 when the Arab countries rejected Partition, or the last day of the war of independence, when Judea, Samaria and Gaza became occupied by Trans-Jordanians and Egyptians instead of becoming part of the Arab state of Palestine.
I am happy on Nakhba Day. Why should I be sad?
Plus ça change… Here’s an ‘older’ text on I/P (reproduced here without hyperlinks, emphasis or images) which would barely need a few names changed to be as pertinent and accurate as ever. H/T to an older Jews sans Frontieres post.
Most Israelis still find it hard to acknowledge that they bear historical responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. The Zionist vision is based, among other things, on the assumption that its fulfillment need not cause injustice to anyone: If only the Arabs would relinquish their nationalist yearnings and agree to the fulfillment of our dream, it would be good for everyone, including them.
This historical fiction is very harmful because as long as we convince ourselves that we have no part in the responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian tragedy, we have no real reason to try to correct the injustice. This is the importance of acknowledging our responsibility.
The principle of Israel as 'a Jewish state' was supremely important to Israeli politicians from the inception of the state and was inculcated into the Jewish population by all conceivable ways. When, in the early 1980s, a tiny minority of Israeli Jews emerged which opposed this concept, a Constitutional Law (that is, a law overriding provisions of other laws, which cannot be revoked except by a special procedure) was passed in 1985 by an enormous majority of the Knesset.
By this law no party whose programme openly opposes the principle of 'a Jewish state' or proposes to change it by democratic means, is allowed to participate in the elections to the Knesset. I myself strongly oppose this constitutional principle. The legal consequence for me is that I cannot belong, in the state of which I am a citizen, to a party having principles with which I would agree and which is allowed to participate in Knesset elections. Even this example shows that the State of Israel is not a democracy due to the application of a Jewish ideology directed against all non-Jews and those Jews who oppose this ideology.
We asked [at Taba] for the principle of the right of return, but the implementation of it, should be discussed in a very practical and even pragmatic way, without affecting or without -- yes, without affecting -- the Jewish nature of the state of Israel...
You want, as a Palestinian who was born in Jaffa, to forget my personal thing, my attachment as a person to the place of my birth? I will not do that. But you want me, as a serious politician responsible for the future of my people, and as a person who wants, really, to put an end to these agonies, to take a position which hurts me -- I should take it. I will do that. This is the difference.
-- cited by Akiva Eldar, in You're holding the baby, Colin, try not to drop it; Ha'aretz, 22 Nov 2001.
"The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to confront the significance of the term 'a Jewish State' for non-Jews. (...)
By this official definition, Israel 'belongs' to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as 'Jewish', irrespective of where they live and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn't officially belong to its non-Jewish citizen, whose status is considered even officially as inferior.
This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70% of the West Bank land (and the 92% of the area of Israel proper), officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews (not only all Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.)"
I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain would regard it as anti-Semitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a 'Christian State', belonging only to citizens officially defined as 'Christians'."(That last sentence is no academic scenario either, as there is currently no shortage of prominent voices in this country who argue that the Founding Fathers didn't really intend for the separation of Church and state, and that the U.S. is in fact a "Christian country". Not "a country where the majority religion is Christianity" but a "Christian country". Usually, we hear that kind of talk from politicians pandering to the evangelical vote, but from time to time we get the same message from widely-syndicated opinion makers in cable TV and talk radio. Three months ago, Anne Coulter argued on CNBC that ideally, everyone in the United States would be Christian, and that Jewish Americans would be "perfected" [Jewishness apparently being some kind of a personal defect?] by converting to Christianity. In a similar vein, Bill O'Reilly explained to a Jewish-American listener, who called in to express how sick he was of people trying to convert him to Christianity, that if he didn't like it then he should leave the U.S. and "go to Israel". In both those cases Jewish Americans, who understood straightaway the negative implications for their own equal citizenship, were among the first to (rightly) complain at the suggestion that the U.S. is a Christian country.
In fact, the ADL sent a letter to Bill O'Reilly, spelling out for him exactly why it is offensive to suggest to Jewish Americans that their failure to be Christian means they don't really belong in the country of which they are citizens. (Read the letter here). The ironic thing is, with a few simple changes in wording - "Muslim" instead of "Jew"; "Israeli declaration of independence" instead of "tradition of religious freedom"; "Jewish Israel" instead of "Christian America" etc., etc. - that letter would articulate quite well how objectionable a religious definition of citizenship is for Palestinians in Israel. It is ironic that some of those Americans who have no difficulty understanding the undesirability of a religious state when the dominant religion is Christianity and Jewish people are in the minority, would probably be among the first to be affronted by Palestinian Arabs expressing the same reservations about being the non-Jewish minority in a "Jewish state". I guess it's just easier to argue for a sectarian state when you belong to the dominant sect, than when you belong to the minority that is being told to get out of your own country because you're the "wrong" religion.)
Turning the Holocaust into a political asset serves Israel primarily in its fight against the Palestinians. When the Holocaust is on one side of the scale, along with the guilty (and rightly so) conscience of the West, the dispossession of the Palestinian people from their homeland in 1948 is minimized and blurred.
The phrase "security for the Jews" has been consecrated as an exclusive synonym for "the lessons of the Holocaust." It is what allows Israel to systematically discriminate against its Arab citizens. For 40 years, "security" has been justifying control of the West Bank and Gaza and of subjects who have been dispossessed of their rights living alongside Jewish residents, Israeli citizens laden with privileges.
Security serves the creation of a regime of separation and discrimination on an ethnic basis, Israeli style, under the auspices of "peace talks" that go on forever. Turning the Holocaust into an asset allows Israel to present all the methods of the Palestinian struggle (even the unarmed ones) as another link in the anti-Semitic chain whose culmination is Auschwitz. Israel provides itself with the license to come up with more kinds of fences, walls and military guard towers around Palestinian enclaves.