Tweet
This is a really simple formula. According to ThinkProgress, Barghouti, one of the most prominent Palestinian voices for nonviolent resistance to the Israeli occupation, was called a liar by someone in the crowd during his Daily Show appearance Wednesday after he made the completely uncontroversial observation that Palestinians live under “the longest occupation in modern history and a system of segregation that is totally unjust.” I suppose Northern Ireland has the Palestinians beat, but the unjustness point is Barghouti’s main one.
And I also suppose that you can’t make too much out of a heckler. But it’s worth reminding, as ThinkProgress’s Zaid Jilani does, that Mustafa Barghouti is really committed to peace. He’s also committed to Palestinian dignity, and so he has to speak out for his people. Zionists, surely we understand this, right? Like Hanan Ashrawi said so long ago: you can expect Palestinian partners for peace; you can’t expect Palestinian Zionists. Jews — I presume the heckler was Jewish — who would call Barghouti a liar are simply too ashamed by the fact of the occupation than to face up to the brutality of what it means for millions of Palestinians. Good! The proper response is to work to end the occupation and save Israel and redeem Zionism, not to disrespect a true partner on the Palestinian side.
And another thing. We can go back and forth in the Shtetl forever about each others’ tender sensibilities, but when I read this shit on Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog, from one of his readers, I just want to tell my fellow tribesmen to grow a pair of motherfucking balls:
If J Street supporters want to stop being so alienated from the rest of the Jewish community, a good first step would be to stop self-righteously calling themselves the “pro-peace” lobby. Everyone thinks that their view is the correct path to peace; and those who disagree with J Street think that J Street’s view will only bring endless war. Calling yourself “pro-peace” only serves as an insult to anyone who doesn’t agree with your views, who are, therefore, by default “pro war.”
Yeah, because the other side in this debate never said anything disrespectful of the dovish side in this argument. I have no idea if this guy would agree or disagree with any of the above points, but when one side in this debate presses Israel to make really hard compromises for the end of the occupation and the other side derides and attacks those who press Israel to make really hard compromises for the end of the occupation, then don’t be surprised when that side’s commitments to the end of the occupation are put into question. To Goldberg’s credit — I said it — he runs an email from the other side in the debate as well.
Update: Matthew Yglesias, my go-to adviser on all things Irish, tells me the comparison doesn’t really work, so I’ve scratched it out. The truth is I really don’t know anything about Ireland and I forgot to take the book Yglesias recommended the last time I was over at his house.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Northern Ireland, or Ulster, is an excellent parallel, in that whether or not you call it ’occupation’ is essentially a political choice not informed by dictionary definitions. For example:
Why do you defame our most important European ally? The U.K. has a right to defend its citizens from terrorist threats. It’s not important how Northern Ireland was created, although the Ulster-Scots were fleeing poverty and violence in Scotland and only seeking to return to their Roman-Era homeland anyway; what’s important is that it exists and has a right to exist and isn’t going anywhere. Your rhetoric is a traitorous attempt to increase the importance of Democrat Irish Americans at the expense of the proud conservative Scots-Irish American community.
Yeah, I’m a conservative for Halloween.
Regarding the comment you quote above, it is my understanding that those who oppose J Street’s views believe they will lead to a very very short war, that the only options for Israel are that short war of annihilation or an eternal stand at the Fords of the Jordan.
But as long as not facing up to the brutality of it all is effectively a shibboleth of patriotism, both here and in Israel, we will keep seeing this hatred aired to an audience that (no matter how disapproving we may be or become) will tolerate it in relative silence.
I like the Goldberg headline: “J Street Should Fight the Left as Well as the Right.” Of course, no request for AIPAC to fight its right flank – those advocating a single state solution.
I use to be a professional Jew. Even when I realized that the labor movement was my true calling, I stayed involved through New Jewish Agenda (Agenda was the first Jewish organization to call for recognition of the PLO and a two state solution).
I am beyond furious at the vast majority of Jewish communal organizations that demand blind loyalty to the holy land. This requirement keeps me from any involvement in communal life. We belonged to a temple, the kids were going to Hebrew School and then Ariel Sharon provoked the second intifada. The temple had a ‘rally around Israel’ celebration for the kids. I would not let my kids go. I quit the temple. I could join the Bund, but I’m not a Yiddishist.
I live in NYC so I don’t have to deal with any of this shit. I grew up in a community where only 1% of the population was Jewish and I can never return–the community is monolithic in its neocon Zionist zealotry. There is no room for dissent.
The success of J Street is critical to forcing Congress into supporting Obama’s peace plan.
It’s about time the good guys win a few.