Plunder Blog! bad news wherever you look...
Avigdor Lieberman has started a tour in Europe. he will be received like a statesman from most chanceries. It started in Italy today. He should be arrested for istigating ratial hate. Hosni Mubarak hase seized the opportunity of the "flue epidemic" to kill 300.000 pigs belonging to the copts, his political opponents and an impoverished group in Egypt. The flue is of course serving as a weapon of mass distruction. Italian sldiers have murdered a 12 years old girl in Afghanistan claiming that her dad would not respect a stop sign. A girl taht was 17 when allegedly killing her aunt has been executed in Iran despite a stay from the court. All of this when the US public oplinion is busy discussing how much Michelle Obama's snikers cost while the Italian one is discussing the fact that Berlusconi is in trouble with his wife.
Where should we look for some good political news? maybe next time. For the time being please read Nimer Sultani's article down her. It is not fun to read but it is very interesting.
OpinionU.S. Lessons for Israel’s Jim CrowPublished On 5/3/2009 9:21:22 PMBy NIMER SULTANYNone
Israel’s David Duke, Avigdor Lieberman, took center stage last month as foreign minister. Americans—on the whole—rejected Duke’s rank racism. But Lieberman was frighteningly successful in February’s national election, indicating a bigoted viewpoint in Israeli society that chooses Jewish supremacy rather than equal rights for all citizens.U.S. special envoy George Mitchell was apt to come face to face with the recalcitrance and bigotry of the new Israeli government during his trip to the region. But will he denounce the headlong plunge into extremism and rejectionism pursued by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his foreign minister? Unfortunately, this is unlikely, though the day may be drawing nearer.
Lieberman has long espoused the notion that Israel’s Palestinian citizens are a demographic and strategic threat. We are the ones who remained on our land when roughly 700,000 Palestinians were expelled by the new state of Israel in 1948. We comprise nearly 20 percent of Israel’s population. Yet Lieberman—an immigrant from Moldova—would have us stripped of our second-class citizenship in a land swap with a future Palestinian state—a state whose very existence Netanyahu has yet to accept.
Imagine the uproar if an American politician called for loyalty tests and the expelling of the country’s remaining indigenous population. This is precisely what Lieberman has proposed. Will he really be welcomed in Washington at the White House or State Department?
However, Lieberman’s views are not controversial among the major parties and political elites in Israel. The Obama administration will make a crucial error in judgment if it thinks of the rise of Lieberman and his party, Yisrael Beiteinu, as a new development. Focusing on Lieberman distracts attention from the real issues to one disagreeable politician. Such logic wrongly suggests that, without Lieberman, peace between Palestinians and Israelis would be easier to achieve.
Lieberman only exacerbates an already existing problem, and he cannot be easily dismissed as a marginal case of excess or as an abnormality of the Israeli political system. Among Yisrael Beiteinu’s elected members of the Knesset are a former ambassador to the U.S. and a former senior commander in the police force. Theirs is not simply a right-wing political insurgency, but an outlook deeply rooted in Israeli politics.
Dismayingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, Labor’s Ehud Barak rejected calls from some of his senior party members not to join a coalition that included Lieberman. Worse, prior to the vote, he sought to outflank Lieberman in belligerence by claiming that Lieberman talks the talk but does not walk the walk. “Lieberman,” he said, “is strong in words and not in deeds. I do not know how many times, if ever, he held a rifle and shot anyone.” Barak believes that he—and not Lieberman—is the tough leader able to make life miserable for Palestinians.
The question of Palestinian citizenship in a Jewish state started long before Lieberman used incitement against Palestinian citizens to gain votes. Many prominent Israeli academics and politicians have expressed support for ideas repugnant to Americans. Barak claimed in June 2002 that Arab citizens will serve as the “spear point” of the Palestinian struggle and that this would require changes in the rules of the “democratic game” to guarantee the “Jewishness” of the state. He also expressed support for a land swap that would strip Palestinians inside Israel of their citizenship because it makes “demographic sense.”
Tzipi Livni, another so-called centrist, holds similar discriminatory views. On January 23, 2002, she urged members of the Knesset to reject an equal-protection clause according to which equality is the right of every citizen in the state regardless of his or her nationality, religion, or views. The proposed bill was rejected, and formal equality remains outside the Israeli book of laws. Livni also supported bills in the Knesset that would grant settlement and allocation of land for Jews only, such as the one submitted by MK Rabbi Haim Druckman on February 18, 2002. Finally, she repeatedly argued that Israel will never be the national home for its Palestinian citizens and averred that, if they have a collective aspiration, they should look for it elsewhere.
MK Effie Eitam of the National Religious Party is another proponent of expulsion. He derided Palestinian citizens of Israel as a “fifth column,” “ticking bomb,” and “cancer.” Nevertheless, these views did not prevent the former general from being appointed as a minister of national infrastructure in 2002 and of housing from 2003 to 2004.
Such bigoted vitriol typically ends political careers in the U.S. George Allen’s bid for the U.S. Senate derailed when he referred to one of his opponent’s campaign workers, an American of Indian descent, as a “macaca,” or monkey. In the 2006 and 2008 U.S. congressional and presidential elections, American voters signaled a desire to transcend a history of Jim Crow discrimination. In Israel, however, the country is on an opposite track with careers buoyed by bigotry directed at the country’s Palestinian minority.
Nimer Sultany is an SJD candidate at Harvard Law School. He is a Palestinian citizen of Israel. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528102 Bottom of Form
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend




John Haskell says:
I read a lot of literature
I read a lot of literature about Palestine as the 'Other' to Israel's political identity. As the 'Other', the Palestinian looks at Israel, but for Israel this has to be something that is imagined, they have to imagine the Palestinian looking at them, and constructing how the Palestinians view them. What they find, I think, is then projected onto the Palestinians themselves, that thing which is unspoke, always pushed beyond the borders, the void that exists in the failures within their society. In other words, the Palestinian becomes the subject of the suppressed systemic pathologies and conflict within Israel.
It makes sense in some way to me then that the Palestinians are often equated with being terrorists. Terrorism is pure destruction, an enunciation of the void / the thing that is always unspoken and ascribed on the other now revisited. The war on terrorism is the attempt to paint a clear, ever-present enemy to disguise the fact that these are merely symptoms of the current mainstream - to decry some forms of violence as illegitimate, but with the simultaneous push to legitimize one's own techniques of violence. In Israel today, the only difference between it and America and Western Europe, is that it is simply more open that 'politics is war by other means', or we could equally say, that 'law is war by other means'. This is a dangerous progession of thought, I think, because it allows a cynical politics to become almost a priori, and gives law only superficial value. But more dangerously, it twists our alternative, because any appeal to the law to reign in politics will ultimately end up merely reinforcing the current global order. We do not provide any systemic reform, in other words, we merely ask liberalism to live up to its promises.
The spectre of religion, however, especially in non-Western forms, however, seems like it may be too great a challenge for Western liberalism to engage and subsume. It may be that the current Palestine-Israel conflict is not exceptional, but something very endemic to the current global crisis, and that we need to think about how our support can seize the opportunities that are available in a possible new framework of thought.
I am trying to just work through some ideas here, and interested in anyone's thoughts. jdh
Vicki Nikolaidis says:
Israel as success story of occupation
Lieberman may incite the racists within the European countries he is visiting because they will feel they have a credible stance. This could cause a lot of problems and violence.
I think you are onto something John when you write about the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinians as being only a reflection of their own assumptions or needs. If the original people had been moved to Ethiopia or Wyoming probably the same extremism would have manifest itself.
I don't see that religion is part of this particular equation. Jerusalem is still plays a vibrant part in the Greek Orthodox religion as the Holy Spirit comes to us from the flame there on Eastern. All religions have a vested interest in keeping, at least Jerusalem, safe.
It's a political situation. If Israel can not stay in control over the Palestinians than the whole concept of occupying a foreign land will lose political force. The largest supporter of Israel, the U.S.A. has a lot invested in Occupation of foreign lands being a respected part of super power entitlement. Well, just look around the world today and perhaps their investment in the success of the occupation of Palestinian lands is obvious.
The world no longer needs oil to work. Many other alternatives are available and should be turned to sooner rather than later. So the original purpose of England and ally U.S.A. wanting a prescence in the Middle East is hard to justify.
just some thoughts. v.