Just what right do you think you have to rate pro-Palestinian groups?

Here's one for pro-Israeli groups:

1. Rejects the use of violence on principle, therefore, rejects ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (accomplished by mass murder) from what is now Israel and supports the right of return under the terms of UN resolution 194.  OOPS, that's ANTI-ISRAEL

2.Mostly rejects armed struggle and terrorism on strategic grounds... HUH?  STRATEGIC GROUNDS?  BUT TERRORISM WORKED in getting rid of all those Palestinians from Israel.  THIS MAKES NO SENSE... OK, lets just take more or less the second clause:  probably not to upset by use of humiliation, making Palestinians wait in the hot sun at checkpoints (or be killed) on a whim or slapping people around for keeping Palestinians in their place.

3. Accepts legitamacy of armed struggle, including actions aimed at civilians (this sounds more like US Army attitudes, but anyway).  Confiscation of Palestinian land to create Israel fully approved, and if the civilians who own it don't like it, they can be killed or exiled at gunpoint, for example, because, after all, it's a Jewish state and the Arabs needed to be gotten rid of.

4. Sort of gung ho about the Israeli army.  Loves movies showing cool and professional Israeli soldiers with their UZIs - like Exodus, or Munich, the careful precision with which they attack militants or threats to Israel such as Ghastan Khafani or  Folke Bernadotte or quadrapelegics in wheelchairs, and shooting Palestinian kids for sport sounds fun. 

5. Rejects all peace with the Arab enemy.  If Hamas offers a truce with the possibility of peace later, attack and kill them anyway.  Claims all of Palestine between the Jordan R. and the sea for Israel, states that Jordan is the Palestinian state and all Palestinians should go there or as third-class humans with virtually no rights.  Fully supports starving the people of Gaza in order to force Hamas to its knees.

Well, since you get your "facts" from pro-Israel sites, I guess I have as much right to rate you.  You certainly get rated at least a 3.

Posted by Kay Swen on 11/17/2008 @ 11:08PM PST

Charles, I think you are setting yourself up with this one, I would love to help, but look at the cynical response you got from Kay. This would be very tough and hard to get an agreement on.

Posted by Michael Ross on 11/17/2008 @ 11:51PM PST

Yes Kay.

How about rating the IDF and how about rating the zionist terrorist groups which established Israel in the first place.

Michael Ross has had a serious go at me, but he is right, Charles, that you are setting yourself up in an indefensible position.

Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/18/2008 @ 12:25AM PST

I wrote:
PPS: We'll be doing this for Israeli and pro-Israeli groups as well.
And, I put this up for readers to comment on. Do you think I'm mis-rating anyone? Do you have a quibble?
Trust me, everyone's ax gets gored this week.

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/18/2008 @ 05:19AM PST

Why extremism is rated regarding your belief about the successes of an armed struggle? What is violence any way? Why not to rate (if at all) by the organization say about human rights, international law, animal rights, social rights, environment and so on?  amiT

Posted by amiT Perelson on 11/18/2008 @ 06:04AM PST

I'm still in draft mode, but the equivelent for the Israeli side would be this:
1. Against violence and security measures to resolve the issue. Would stop all incursions, assassinations and efforts to use force to win concessions from the Palestinians.
2. Against the worst human rights violations, but still supports the use of force to 'fight the terrorists.'
3. Eagerly uses the excuse of security to use force in an effort to make the Palestinians agree to a peace agreement that falls short of what Arafat would have agreed to in 2001.
4. Willing to use force to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. Assumption that violence conflict will remain in place until Palestinians realize that there is no hope.
5. Would like to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank, and bomb the shit out of any neighboring country that allows them to harbor Palestinian fighters.

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/18/2008 @ 06:59AM PST

You should have left it in "draft mode" and not published.

Heck I have published many things myself which I wish that I had not, in hindsight, so I am not having some kind of moral go at you ... but you are doing yourself, nor anyone else, any favours by pushing this "rating thing" of yours.

No one gets it, though Aref has been very kind to you.

Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/19/2008 @ 07:35PM PST

No actual argument with my arguments, Lenchner?  There is no such thing as a pro-Israel peace group, because honest peace requires justice, equal rights, honest and fair means to redress wrongs.  The state of Israel is based on mass murder of innocent people.  Villagers ordered out of their homes, lined up and shot, forced to march outside Israel, or boarded up in their homes and then killed by exploding their homes over them buring them in the rubble.  That's how Israel was founded.  So, Lenchner, you do approve this, you approve ethnic cleansing.  

Your list of pro-Israeli ratings presume that the least Israeli violence is defensive, all objective evidence to the contrary.  You use loaded emotionally laden words e.g. terrorism to describe Palestinian violence.  Standard language indeed, but Orwellian in its distortion of actual violence. You fail to note the real impact Israeli soldiers forcing people to stand for hours merely because the Israeli soldier at a checkpoint is bored, of people being slapped around or tortured because they showed some opposition to Israeli rule, or of Israel requiring permits and a long and complicated application just to farm his own fields.  If he gets to.  Your wording provides, instead, obfuscation, apparently deliberate.  It isn't an honest or objective rating of violence.  I'm sorry, this is disengenous at best, you aren't even a Good German, looking away while people are starved.

Posted by Kay Swen on 11/19/2008 @ 11:30PM PST

Kay, I whole heartedly agree. Official violence perpetrated every second of the day by the IOF (Israeli Ocuupation Forces) is ignored and is condoned as necessary and defensive.
As I have wrote this ranking serves no purpose other than obfuscation and perpetration of perceptions. Those who refuse to accept the zionist-light thesis of Peace Now and similar zionist organizations are extreme and violent those who submit are the "good boys".
All,
This site is called "Peace in the Middle East" yet I have not seen any meaningful debate about how to get there other than a summary dismissal of the one state idea.
I propose to start debating the solutions that are proposed by all parties:
1- Two States one Israeli and one Palestinian
2- One Secular Democratic State in all of historic Palestine for both
3- One Israeli Jewish State
4- One Islamic State in all of historic Palestine
5- One Arab Palestinian State in all of Palestine

Those are what is being proposed by all the parties in Israel/Palestine some represent minority views and some have substantial support. Can we discuss what may constitute a possible just and fair solution and start working for that instead of wasting time on subliminal propaganda and useless and arbitrary labeling?

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/20/2008 @ 04:47AM PST

PS. For truth in advertizing I am Palestinian born in East Jerusalem and grew up there. Been living in exile for the last 28 years. I am an advocate of a single secular and democratic state in historic Palestine where Israelis and Palestinians live as equal citizens.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/20/2008 @ 04:53AM PST

Aref and Kay, it appears that discussing Palestinian violence really bothers you. Don't you think discussing the Palestinian armed struggle is an important and worthy topic? I know that when I visited the West Bank there were posters of armed martyrs all over the place. It's pretty important to a lot of people there.

I should add, this site doesn't just follow the news, and again - we are going to do the same thing with Israel as we did here.

Posted by Charles Lenchner on 11/20/2008 @ 05:28AM PST

No discussing Palestinian violence does not bother me at all. It is the simplistic and naive as well as arbitrary classification that is used here with the subliminal propaganda which underlies it all that bothers me. It is the lack of substance and of any meaningful conclusion other than "big brother is watching you" --oh mama I am really scared now--that bothers me. Why are you doing this? Tell us what is the real reason behind this classification and where is it leading to? How does this mesh with finding a just and fair solution? Why are you not debating the solutions other than the summary dismissal of the One State idea?

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/20/2008 @ 05:41AM PST

Perversions of language bother me, such as titling your blog "Peace in the Middle East."

So do double standards.  And you quite deliberately propose a double standard for rating violence.  It isn't even a new double standard, just the same "poor innocent Israel only uses violence to protect itself from Palestinian violence" kind that we've heard as Israeli hasbera for decades.  Palestinians worship violence?  Oh, but you saw those martyr posters, that proves it.  With this, you dismiss all the movies and TV shows glorifying the Israeli army, the many monuments in Israel to the fallen soldiers of all their wars.  Under #1 for pro-Israel, you don't count as violence when Israel prevents, by lethal force, a Palestinian from freedom to visit his or her village, family, farm, land, home, chosen place of worship, job, medical care, school, or the graveyards of his relatives and ancestors, but you count stone throwing against invading soldiers as violent, rated #2.  This is dishonest, and only serves a pro-Israel agenda.

Nor have you addressed how, considering that Israel was founded on the premise of mass murder of innocent civilians, anyone can in fact be pro-Israel and not support violence. 

Posted by Kay Swen on 11/20/2008 @ 10:44PM PST

You really do not have a leg to stand on Charles, nor any other zionist, whether full-blown, or floundering around in the faux-fair position you are in.

Even the troll has abandoned you.

You are on your own in this.

Kay and Aref write facts.

Until you and other pseudo-tolerant zionists accept those facts, there is NO chance of peace in Palestine, nor the ME generally.

And please explain to me how it is that you sit in New York formulating abstract notions?

I will suggest an answer, which of course you can reject, if you wish:

It is just TOO hairy to live in the actuality of Israel.

TOO many contradictions, e.g. how can Israel be a 'democracy', whilst muslims and even some jews are treated as second-class citizens?

Easier to live in New York and pontificate eh?

It is notable that a lot of judaic Americans who take up their 'right of return' to a completely false 'place of origin' (however many thousands of years ago), get fed up with it and return to the US.

Are you one of them?

Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/20/2008 @ 11:21PM PST

The Troll is back :0) lighten up.

1. Charles, What is the purpose of this exercise of rating organizations, what can come out of this? More discord? How will this bring the sides closer together? I don't see it, bad idea, not thought through enough, I would stop it.

2. We need to get to the root cause of the problem, and in my opinion it is not about how Israel treats Palestinians, its not about territory, its not about the wall or any other local cause for friction in Israel.

The cause is Iran, Iran is funding and funneling money and weapons to the extreme groups in the area. These groups make more money being terrorists than productive citizens. Prior to Iran we had Iraq, and prior to that Egypt. All for the same reasons. Dictatorships need someone to blame for their mistreating of their population, so as long as it serves the interests of Iran, money will flow to the extremists in the area.

So until we stop the flow of money to the extremists in the area, including the money to the Israeli religious zealots coming from the US, it will be almost impossible to stem the violence that disrupt the peace discussions.

I recommend focusing on that vs bickering on who is to blame for the latest mischief.

Anyway, that's the Troll's perspective. Shalom and good night.

Posted by Michael Ross on 11/21/2008 @ 12:07AM PST

Can we quit the personal attacks on Charles?

Do you guys really think that taking your completely justified anger about the occupation out on him is in any way productive? Do you really think that its worth your time and energy vilifying him for his attempt to tackle this issue?  Sure, it's a touchy subject and his method of classifying groups might be a bit troublesome but at least he attempted to discuss the issue.

Aref, you brought up the "one-state solution." I have no problem having a sober unemotional discussion about anything, including that, but while I might disagree with you, I'm not going to attack you for it.

Gerry, how about your "easier to live in New York and pontificate eh?"  Is it easier to live in Australia and pontificate from there? You are entitled to your experienced opinion. And so is Charles.  Comments like that don't help.  You know nothing about him and should it not be noted that you yourself live in a country that suppressed its indigenous population? I'm American, and we know all about that.  It was wrong and it still is and I'm not afraid to admit that.  But you have to agree that none of these issues are purely black and white and trying to view them as such is disingenuous.

And Kay - accusing Charles of ethnic cleansing was a bit much, don't you think? You are rightfully infuriated by the occupation and the situation in Gaza and I'm with you completely that both must come to an end.  But what troubles me the most about these comments, is that no where in these attacks on Charles have you even attempted to address the narrative of the other side.

You all have legitimate opinions and I'm not going to tell you otherwise. I understand why you have those opinions and I share many of them. 

But I suspect that you neither respect, nor attempt to understand my side's perspective on this conflict.  I somehow gather that you think that the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century is somehow not important or related to this issue. Now that gives the Israelis no right to continue the occupation but you are promoting a wholly one-sided perspective on this conflict, making no attempt to understand the competing narrative.

Look, we all need to stop seeing this whole conflict as black and white, because its anything but. Yes, the occupation is wrong.  The siege of Gaza is wrong. But do you really think that attacking Charles and claiming that he supports these ideas is in any way productive or accurate?

Let's talk about the one-state solution, let's talk about the Palestinians being driven from their lands, let's talk about the corruption in the PA, let's talk about the Holocaust, let's talk about Sabra and Shatila, let's talk about the settlers and the coming civil war in Israel, let's talk about the Jewish exodus from Arab countries, let's talk about Iran, etc. I have no problem with any of that for nothing should be Taboo.  Open, honest debate never hurt anyone.

But folks, stop attacking Charles, he's not the enemy.

Peace,
Andrew Meyerson
Associate Director, Union of Progressive Zionists
www.upzshalom.org

Posted by Andrew Meyerson on 11/21/2008 @ 11:43PM PST

I pretty much agree with everything you say Andrew and I agree with you that, especially, I should not have taken a swipe at Charles about living in New York.

In partial defence, without retracting my apology, I am not a jew and so there is no reason whatsoever for me to go and live where the heat is, whereas any follower of judaism has far more invested interest in Israel than I or anyone else does so, though my language was unreasonable, I think that I had a point; though expressed very badly and I accept your censure.

As regards the history of Australia?

It is disgusting, relative to the native inhabitants, and I have tried, in the small ways open to me, to protest ... just as you might have done regarding the treatment of indigenous, Americans which I suppose you have done, considering that you have assumed that I have made no protests, whereas I have.

I am led to assume that you have stood up for Indian rights in N America, like I have tried to stand up for Aboriginal rights in Australia ... which is my home turf and where I live, withal the incipient conflicts.

I am not seeking to live anywhere else other than where this particular heat is.

I am not trying to obscure the fact that Tasmanian Abigines were mad extinct - like many tribes in N America, which I suppose you regret as much as jews being persecuted and erdicated during European pograms.

I assume that you give equal weight to the genocide of any peoples.

You seem to be fair minded and I agree that Charles is not "the enemy", so I should be more moderate in my language.

No!  The conflict is NOT black or white.

Terribly oppressed people were transported to Australia - the convict era - and took out their frustrations on the indigenous population, who had nothing to do with the injustice happening in Britain during the 19th Century.

And Palestinians - including indigenous jews - had nothing to do with the the persecution of jews in Europe for centuries, leading up to the Nazi persecution.

Why should Palestinians be made to suffer?

Let's debate that.

Let's accept that you and Charles are both honest seekers after some resolution.

Yes you rightly criticize me for using too-strong language and you have identified areas of discussion.

Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/22/2008 @ 12:59AM PST

Andrew, my apologies to Charles if my writings here were construed as an attack on him. I say if because I did not intend for personal attack. Yes I attacked his method and his simplistic and naive classification scheme and I have no apology to offer for that. As seen from this side of the fence, this system of classification is construed as a system of dividing the Palestinian groups and their supporters into "good" and "bad". Did Charles intend to do that? I am not a mind reader so I cannot tell. I questioned and asked and waited. Instead of the nuanced and revealing classification which he said this would be it became a superficial, adjective laden and to a large extent a judgemental classification. At least this is my perception and for this I have no apologies to offer.
Again as I repeatedly asked what purpose does this serve? I have yet to hear a convincing and rational argument. I understand your intentions and agree with your invitation to discuss matters that are actually relevant, after all that is what I have been saying all along. What dismays me is that there does not seem to be any realization or concern to what the implications of this classification or, more appropriately pigeon-holing, might be on the perceptions and understanding of the conflict and the complexity of any particular group or organization to the newcomer to the issues. As I have said repeatedly the problem that I see in the US media in general and in many other places is the reductionist approach which strips events and ideas from any context leading to a superficial and distorted understanding. This site is about change so let's at least try to change that. Is it too much to ask?
To be honest with you, you may think that I have plenty of time to sit around and argue about seemingly trivial things. Well I don't and I am sick and tired of everyone telling the Palestinians what to do and how they should behave. I am sick and tired of the Orientalist mentality and attitude where we are seen as some exotic animal to admire and to be gentle with but an animal nontheless in need of a master to take care of it because we are incapable of thinking proprely and making "good" decisions. I am sick and tired of the patronizing, bigotry and plain old racism toward everything Arab and Muslim being spewed everywhere on the pages of newspapers, magazines, books, TV and movie screens. So excuse me for being hyper-sensitive to issues of pigeon holing and uncritical examination of ideas. I don't have the time for this crap and so maybe Charles and you and possibly everybody else will be happy if I just sit on the lines and watch. Have a wonderful weekend.

Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/22/2008 @ 05:26AM PST

The comparison of Palestinians to Aboriginals and American Indians does not hold water, and is not valid, and will lead no where. The history of Palestine is entirely different and will not help in solving the problem. The argument that Americans wronged the Indians, therefore the Israelis wrong the Palestinians is devoid of any logic. We should discuss the Israeli Palestinian problem on its own seperate facts. Accusing one side or the other and comparing this situation to America or Australia will get us no were fast.

If any one is willing to have a discussion on the historical facts of Palestine and its inhabitants, please I am open, early history or modern history. The question is, do we use history to detirmine the rights of the people living in a certain area, or do we use the rule of international law, or both?

Posted by Michael Ross on 11/22/2008 @ 08:36AM PST

Andrew, I suggest we start talking about the Gaza strip, I think it lends itself more to a consensus than the other issues.

First question: Why not demand of Egypt to have an open border with Gaza, and stop the flow of weapons into Gaza? Gaza does have two borders, one with Israel and one with Egypt. This would eliminate the blockade, Gaza is not sending rockets into Egypt, Gaza does not want to destroy Egypt, this should be a relative simple request.

Posted by Michael Ross on 11/22/2008 @ 11:18AM PST

I agree, I apologize to Charles for personal attacks.

That being said, you cannot be pro-Israel as it's presently configured without being pro-ethnic cleansing, because Israel was founded by deliberate ethnic cleansing without which Jews would be a minority.  I don't know if Charles is knowledgeably whitewashing this or not, I suppose one can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's so indoctrinated by the Israeli "narrative" he can't separate fact from fiction.  However, he seems to be entirely pro-Israel and looking for ways to expound on Palestinian violence while implicitly excusing Israeli violence (e.g. calling Israeli violence "security measures," attributing Palestinian's violence to "mythic" worship of martyrs or something, as if that's the problem).  My accusation that Charles "supports" mass murder, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations may be a strong, however, he appears to support whitewashing them and for the life of me I don't think there's a lot of difference.

As for complaints about not understanding the Israeli "narrative," well, again, this is just a code for another pro-Israel whitewash, whenever confronted with actual history they come up with this theory of separate (I guess) but equally valid "narrative".  I've heard the Israeli "narrative" my whole life, it goes something like "Israel is fruition of the Jewish national movement, the solution to persecution of Jews everywhere, the single shining example of democracy and human rights in the Middle East, an innocent but brave and plucky nation under attack from it's neighbors since it's inception because those nations couldn't stand the idea of a Jewish nation."   There are a few specks of fact in the narrative, but on the whole it's a vast distortion, a myth deliberately promoted by the Zionist propaganda department. 

Andrew, if you say I don't respect "your side's'" perspective on this conflict, you're right, but I understand it.  Nor do I dismiss the role anti-semitism in the 20th century played in the conflict.  To start with, it was Zionist founder Theodor Herzl, the well-off son of a highly successful businessman, who said, "The antisemites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies."  He was looking at anti-semitism as a way to support an exclusive Jewish state.

Perhaps in my next comment I'll discuss Palestinian violence.

Posted by Kay Swen on 11/22/2008 @ 01:05PM PST