The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The PR campaign about Israel's victimhood has not only distorted thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the West, especially in America, but in Israel as well.
In Israel above all, I suspect. In Europe at least, the theme is pretty frayed and threadbare. People seem more broadly aware of Palestinian victimhood than they used to be, while the psychodrama of the threat to Israel doesn't go over as it did, twenty years ago, say, with the schoolchildren in gas masks at the time of the first Gulf War.
It is the core strategy of the French Front National, who tells the old white people they are victims of anti-white racism. It is also at the core of Sarkozy's strategy.
When we look at the map in your diary, one is lead to wonder if there is any chance for a two-states solution to succeed even with a different Israeli government. "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
Part I
Part II
What I think most of us are looking for is not denunciation of things we already know or condemnation of policies many of us find criminal, but information on what people on the ground or elsewhere are doing to bring change about (like your flotilla diaries) or analysis which could help us understand what are the possible ways out of the current situation and what scenarios are likely to happen. "Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
For me, those events are important and keep reminding us about where this conflict is. You may know these things, but others might not. Silent we cannot be, and that applies to all human rights injustices around the world.
Israeli mayors' visit runs aground in Spain, Netherlands Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 1 October 2010 By permission.
The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) canceled a 19 September visit by Israeli mayors because the delegation included leaders of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, igniting a firestorm in the Dutch parliament centered at foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen. The visit of thirty Israeli mayors to the Netherlands was organized by the Israeli branch of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC). The aim of the trip was to learn more about public policies and the Dutch system of local, regional and national authorities. While preparing for the visit, the JDC contacted the embassy of the Netherlands in Tel Aviv which requested that the JDC submit a list of participants. On the list appeared the names of mayors of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank: Beit Aryeh, Har Adar, Kiryat Arba, Oranit, Beit El, Efrat and Elkana. The Israeli news site Ynet reported that when the Union of Local Authorities in Israel requested that VNG assist in organizing the tour, it did not mention that mayors from settlements would be participating ("Holland calls off settlement heads' visit," 19 September 2010). According to Ynet, the head of the Council of Efrat, Oded Revivi, said that the mayors' visit was originally planned for Spain. However, the tour was called off following the deadly raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla at end of May. "The Spanish said we were not welcome there, so we moved to Holland and asked to meet with Holland's ambassador to Israel. When they asked for the list we realized we had run aground," said Revivi. The JDC has facilitated similar trips to Denmark, France and China. VNG clarified its position in a press release, stating that it held strong ties with both the Israeli and the Palestinian Associations of Municipalities. However, the VNG did not want to contribute to the organization of the visit, stressing its neutrality: "The trip is politically sensitive," explained VNG's spokesman Arjen Konijnenberg to Dutch magazine Binnenlands Bestuur ("VNG weigert Israëli uit neutraliteit," 20 September 2010). The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) warmly saluted the decision taken by VNG. The BNC emphasized that there are more than 150 settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, housing 475,000 settlers who occupy more than forty percent of the West Bank ("BNC welcomes cancellation of visit by settlement mayors to Netherlands," 23 September 2010). After VNG's decision to call off the visit of the Israeli mayors of settlements, foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen came under fire from right-wing parliamentarians. The largest party in the Netherlands, the right-wing Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) pressed Verhagen on how he would restore friendly relations with Israel. The right-wing Christian Democrats (CDA) also exerted pressure while Geert Wilders, the leader of the second-largest party, the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), asked Verhagen to do everything that lies within his power to make sure the planned visit could take place as soon as possible. However, Verhagen reiterated that Israeli settlements are in violation of international law. The VNG is standing firm in support of human rights and international law, much as it did during the South Africa anti-apartheid movement when the Dutch government was unwilling to hold the apartheid regime to account. Municipalities responded to the call of solidarity organizations, social movements and concerned citizens to take a stand against apartheid and the activities of municipalities were especially directed towards consumer boycott campaigns. Amsterdam declared itself to be an "anti-apartheid city," supporting the ANC representative for the Netherlands. In 1993, VNG became the host of the national platform of the Dutch municipalities against apartheid. The VNG's principled position today is once again paving the way for politicians like Verhagen, known for his sympathies to Israel, to follow. Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11550.shtml
The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) canceled a 19 September visit by Israeli mayors because the delegation included leaders of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, igniting a firestorm in the Dutch parliament centered at foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen.
The visit of thirty Israeli mayors to the Netherlands was organized by the Israeli branch of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC). The aim of the trip was to learn more about public policies and the Dutch system of local, regional and national authorities.
While preparing for the visit, the JDC contacted the embassy of the Netherlands in Tel Aviv which requested that the JDC submit a list of participants. On the list appeared the names of mayors of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank: Beit Aryeh, Har Adar, Kiryat Arba, Oranit, Beit El, Efrat and Elkana. The Israeli news site Ynet reported that when the Union of Local Authorities in Israel requested that VNG assist in organizing the tour, it did not mention that mayors from settlements would be participating ("Holland calls off settlement heads' visit," 19 September 2010).
According to Ynet, the head of the Council of Efrat, Oded Revivi, said that the mayors' visit was originally planned for Spain. However, the tour was called off following the deadly raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla at end of May. "The Spanish said we were not welcome there, so we moved to Holland and asked to meet with Holland's ambassador to Israel. When they asked for the list we realized we had run aground," said Revivi. The JDC has facilitated similar trips to Denmark, France and China.
VNG clarified its position in a press release, stating that it held strong ties with both the Israeli and the Palestinian Associations of Municipalities. However, the VNG did not want to contribute to the organization of the visit, stressing its neutrality: "The trip is politically sensitive," explained VNG's spokesman Arjen Konijnenberg to Dutch magazine Binnenlands Bestuur ("VNG weigert Israëli uit neutraliteit," 20 September 2010).
The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) warmly saluted the decision taken by VNG. The BNC emphasized that there are more than 150 settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, housing 475,000 settlers who occupy more than forty percent of the West Bank ("BNC welcomes cancellation of visit by settlement mayors to Netherlands," 23 September 2010).
After VNG's decision to call off the visit of the Israeli mayors of settlements, foreign affairs minister Maxime Verhagen came under fire from right-wing parliamentarians.
The largest party in the Netherlands, the right-wing Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) pressed Verhagen on how he would restore friendly relations with Israel. The right-wing Christian Democrats (CDA) also exerted pressure while Geert Wilders, the leader of the second-largest party, the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), asked Verhagen to do everything that lies within his power to make sure the planned visit could take place as soon as possible. However, Verhagen reiterated that Israeli settlements are in violation of international law.
The VNG is standing firm in support of human rights and international law, much as it did during the South Africa anti-apartheid movement when the Dutch government was unwilling to hold the apartheid regime to account. Municipalities responded to the call of solidarity organizations, social movements and concerned citizens to take a stand against apartheid and the activities of municipalities were especially directed towards consumer boycott campaigns. Amsterdam declared itself to be an "anti-apartheid city," supporting the ANC representative for the Netherlands. In 1993, VNG became the host of the national platform of the Dutch municipalities against apartheid.
The VNG's principled position today is once again paving the way for politicians like Verhagen, known for his sympathies to Israel, to follow.
Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11550.shtml
It is like not a big point that people live without any freedom and rights on their own land. How much difference is here from those WWII ghettos?
Did you say fascism? That is being talked about too.
I won't be surprised if this model would be copied. Wait, isn't Iraq something similar already?
Now we know who constitutes the real Israel lobby: the American public. Especially the Republican-leaning part of it. Consider the results of a new poll, a survey of 1000 likely voters done October 3 to 5 by McLaughlin and Associates for the Emergency Committee for Israel .... [with links] ... What the survey shows is this: The American people strongly support the state of Israel, and want their elected representatives to do so as well. An astounding 93 percent of those polled say the United States should be concerned about the security of the state of Israel. A majority--54 percent--say the U.S. should be "very concerned" about Israel's security. Virtually the same number care that their elected representatives be pro-Israel. When asked, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel?," 53 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate they saw as pro-Israel, 24 percent less likely. Even more striking, the same number--53 percent--say they could not vote for a candidate if he were anti-Israel, even if that candidate agreed with them on most other issues. So it's not only that the American public is pro-Israel by more than two to one. It's also that being anti-Israel is an actual disqualifier for a majority of American voters. This is a pro-Israel nation. Which parts of it are most reliably pro-Israel? Consider the results to the already-quoted Question 30 in the poll: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel?" Among those intending to vote Republican this fall, 69 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate who was pro-Israel, 15 percent would be less likely--a margin of 54 percent. On the other hand, among Democratic voters, the pro-Israel margin is only 7 percent--40 percent of Democratic voters are more likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate, 33 percent are less likely. Conservatives (and Tea Party sympathizers) mirror Republicans; their pro-Israel margins are also over 50 percent. The margin among self-described liberals is only 5 percent. And while Fox News fans are very pro-Israel, by 73 percent to 16 percent, devotees of the New York Times are actually negative on Israel, by 30 percent to 35 percent. The bottom line: The public is strongly pro-Israel. But the public consists basically of two groups. The GOP/conservative/Fox News-viewing part of the public is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Democratic/liberal/New York Times-reading part of America is... comme-ci, comme-ca...
Consider the results of a new poll, a survey of 1000 likely voters done October 3 to 5 by McLaughlin and Associates for the Emergency Committee for Israel .... [with links] ...
What the survey shows is this: The American people strongly support the state of Israel, and want their elected representatives to do so as well. An astounding 93 percent of those polled say the United States should be concerned about the security of the state of Israel. A majority--54 percent--say the U.S. should be "very concerned" about Israel's security. Virtually the same number care that their elected representatives be pro-Israel. When asked, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel?," 53 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate they saw as pro-Israel, 24 percent less likely. Even more striking, the same number--53 percent--say they could not vote for a candidate if he were anti-Israel, even if that candidate agreed with them on most other issues.
So it's not only that the American public is pro-Israel by more than two to one. It's also that being anti-Israel is an actual disqualifier for a majority of American voters.
This is a pro-Israel nation. Which parts of it are most reliably pro-Israel?
Consider the results to the already-quoted Question 30 in the poll: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel?" Among those intending to vote Republican this fall, 69 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate who was pro-Israel, 15 percent would be less likely--a margin of 54 percent. On the other hand, among Democratic voters, the pro-Israel margin is only 7 percent--40 percent of Democratic voters are more likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate, 33 percent are less likely. Conservatives (and Tea Party sympathizers) mirror Republicans; their pro-Israel margins are also over 50 percent. The margin among self-described liberals is only 5 percent. And while Fox News fans are very pro-Israel, by 73 percent to 16 percent, devotees of the New York Times are actually negative on Israel, by 30 percent to 35 percent.
The bottom line: The public is strongly pro-Israel. But the public consists basically of two groups. The GOP/conservative/Fox News-viewing part of the public is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. The Democratic/liberal/New York Times-reading part of America is... comme-ci, comme-ca...
Back in the days when people in general considered Israel the victim of the bully neighbours (until 1973+ basically), Israelis saw themselves less as victims than they do today, when the situation is the reverse. Irony indeed. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
U don't know of another propaganda effort that has been more successful in twisting the truth, reversing it, than the Israeli one.
And on our side of the Pond, we have nitwits like Tory Bliar saying that he's proud of the British Empire. The Belgians seem to be in flat denial of their empire too.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
The trouble is that neither of those facts are actually true. The industrial corporations of the North were great employers of indentured labour some way into the 20th century. Mostly convict labour rather than chattel slavery, but under Jim Crow that came almost to the same thing.
I don't believe that there was any propaganda effort to support or coverup these ideas. But most people accept that slavery was outlawed in nonslave states, when it was being perpetuated in the south, and that slavery did end after the Civil War, replaced eventually by Jim Crow segregation laws in the south and de facto (social) segregation in the north, something we still have everywhere. Still I don't know of any propaganda efforts by the federal or state governments to cover any of this up. And that was the point.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 274 comments
by Oui - Sep 2616 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 126 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1195 comments