dinsdag 16 december 2008

De Pro Israel Lobby 83

Het joods-Amerikaanse tijdschrift Tikkun analyseert de zionistische mythen die de pro-Israel journalistiek telkens weer gebruikt. Tikkun olam (Hebrew: תיקון עולם‎) is a Hebrew phrase that means "repairing the world" or "perfecting the world." In Judaism, the concept of tikkun olam originated in the early rabbinic period. The concept was given new meanings in the kabbalah of the medieval period and further connotations in modern Judaism.
'Jerome Slater’s critique of Thomas Friedman raises important questions about the role of journalists in mis-shaping public understanding of the Israel/Palestine struggle. As we have repeatedly argued in Tikkun, the mistakes made in the creation and perpetuation of that struggle come from both sides, and any historical reading must acknowledge the continued propensity on both sides to engage in acts of violence. Palestinian extremists and terrorists are culpable too—not just Israelis. Because this magazine emerges from the West, where Israel’s side of the story is well known and largely accepted blindly, while the Palestinian side is systematically kept from public consideration, we have often tried to re-balance the story by presenting the facts that the American media and the cheerleaders for the right wing in Israel have kept out of public view. Slater’s critique of Thomas Friedman is part of that effort. In 2003 Tikkun published the book Healing Israel/Palestine in which we try to give a more fully balanced account of the struggle, recognizing that both sides have full culpability for the origin and continuation of the struggle, and we are proud to say that the book is as relevant today as it was when we first published it. Saying that does not diminish the importance of Slater’s challenging of the deep misunderstandings of the situation perpetrated in Western media—misunderstandings which continue to constrain the possibilities of rational pro-peace intervention by the United States.]
As close observers of the century-old conflict between the Zionist movement and the Arab residents of Palestine increasingly understand, the Zionist narrative is riddled with historical mythologies that do not stand up under close and dispassionate examination. But these myths have had the devastating consequence of blinding Israelis—and their unthinking American supporters—to their own role in the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as in the wider Arab-Israeli conflict.
To be sure, the Palestinians and the Arabs as a whole have their own historical mythologies, and it is obvious that Israel does not bear all the blame for the ongoing conflict. Still, it is the Israeli mythologies, largely accepted by most Americans, which have been the greater obstacle to a peace settlement, especially in recent years.
Before 2000, three major mythologies were refuted by serious historians and journalists—most of them Israeli. First, there was the myth that in 1948 a weak Israeli army (David) heroically overcame a strong Arab army (Goliath) that intended to destroy the new Jewish state; in fact, the Israeli armies outnumbered and outgunned a small coalition of half-hearted Arab armies, whose primary purpose was to prevent each other from grabbing off pieces of Palestine, rather than to “drive the Jews into the sea.” Second, there was the myth that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees voluntarily fled their homes and villages in 1947-48; the evidence is overwhelming that the main reason the Palestinians fled was either out of the justified fear they might be massacred, as had happened at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, or because the Zionist armed forces rounded them up and forced them across the borders into Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. Third, there was the myth that both the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity” to reach peaceful political settlements with Israel; in fact it is Israel that has repeatedly turned down real opportunities for peaceful settlements—with Egypt until the 1970s, with Jordan until the 1980s, and with the Palestinians, Syria, and the Arab world as a whole today.
In all these cases, Israel’s leading enemies, as well as the Arab League, representing most Arab countries, were and still are ready not only to end their conflict with the Jewish state but to normalize diplomatic and economic relations with it, in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem, followed by the creation of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. Consequently, the main reason for the continuation of Israel’s conflict with the Arab world (other than with Egypt) is that Israel has refused to withdraw from the expanded territory it conquered in 1967.
Since 2000 there has been a new myth, one that may be even more factually wrong and pernicious in terms of its consequences in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to this myth, the last serious peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, at Camp David in July 2000, broke down because Yasir Arafat and the Palestinians rejected a generous settlement offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak. This myth says the Palestinians made no counteroffers of their own, and turned instead to terrorist violence against the Israeli population.
One of the most important purveyors of this myth has been Thomas Friedman, the lead foreign policy columnist of the New York Times. In part because of the position he holds as a writer for the world’s most influential newspaper, in part because he often appears to be moderate and balanced in his analyses and commentaries, and perhaps even because of the glibness of his writing style, it is reasonable to assume that Friedman has had an important influence on U.S. understanding of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.* *Dennis Ross, the head of the U.S. delegation at Camp David and a close adviser to Bill Clinton, has been equally influential, and equally misleading, in placing most of the blame for the breakdown of the peace process on the Palestinians in general and Yasir Arafat in particular. It is unlikely, however, that Ross had much influence on Friedman’s thinking, because Ross’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Missing Peace, appeared in the spring of 2004, whereas most of Friedman’s columns on Camp David and the intifada appeared in the 2001-03 period. I have criticized Ross’s arguments in “The Missing Pieces in The Missing Peace,” Tikkun, May-June 2005.
The Camp David mythology underlies the policies of the Bush administration, as well as the dominant attitudes in Congress, the general American public, and the American Jewish community. Within a few months of Camp David, however, a number of important works began appearing, all of them challenging various aspects of the mythology. Within the next three years, the literature became extensive, and today no part of this mythology has survived serious examination by numerous Israeli, American, Palestinian, and European scholars and journalists, and—especially—by Israeli diplomats and academic advisors who were directly involved in the events of 2000, as well as former military, intelligence, and government officials (see box on p. 49). '


1 opmerking:

Sonja zei

Onze parlementaire zionist trekt de anti-semitisme kaart:

Verhagen overweegt boycot VN-top

Nederland neemt mogelijk niet deel aan de VN-conferentie over racisme die in april in Genève wordt gehouden. Minister Verhagen van Buitenlandse Zaken zei voor de EO-radio dat sommige landen de conferentie willen misbruiken voor een antisemitische hetze.

Verhagen zei dat Nederland zich voor de conferentie terugtrekt als een ontwerp- resolutie niet wordt veranderd. Volgens Verhagen lijkt de conferentie alleen bedoeld om het Westen te veroordelen voor het koloniale verleden en Israël te brandmerken.

De conferentie heeft zo veel weg van een propaganda-circus, zei Verhagen.


En wie trekt er aan Verhagen's touwtjes?

Verhagen laat Israël niet beschuldigen van racisme

AMSTERDAM - Nederland zal niet accepteren dat volgend jaar tijdens een VN-conferentie opnieuw pogingen worden ondernomen om Israël te brandmerken als een racistische staat.

Minister Maxime Verhagen van Buitenlandse Zaken heeft dat zondag gezegd tijdens een bijeenkomst van het Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israel (CIDI) ter gelegenheid van het zestigjarig bestaan van de staat Israël.
...
"Ik wil u graag verzekeren dat we niet zullen toestaan dat dit [Durban] opnieuw gebeurt", zei Verhagen zondag. Nederland is betrokken bij de voorbereiding van de nieuwe VN-conferentie in 2009, zodat het volgens de minister invloed kan uitoefenen op de ontwikkelingen, samen met de rest van de Europese Unie en andere gelijkgestemde landen.

Maar als de zaken een negatieve wending dreigen te nemen, zal Verhagen niet aarzelen zich terug te trekken. "Het is onaanvaardbaar voor Israël om aangeklaagd te worden door landen die nog zo'n lange weg te gaan hebben in termen van democratie en respect voor mensenrechten."


Ons buitenlandbeleid wordt dus gedeeltelijk door de Israëlische regering (middels het CIDI) bepaald.
Op het symposium, dat werd ingeleid met beweringen als:
"Vandaag de dag worden opnieuw bedreigingen en anti-Joodse uitspraken gehoord die misschien nog wel kwalijker zijn dan uit de periode van en na 1933." en "Israel heeft zich ook ontwikkeld tot een democratie, waarin alle inwoners gelijke rechten hebben."

De spreker Maxime Verhagen bevond zich in het illustere gezelschap van Ami Ayalon, verdachte van marteling, die in Nederland gearresteerd had kunnen worden, maar volgens Israël, na een telefoontje naar Den Haag, fluitend het land kon verlaten. Verhagen wist daar voorspelbaar allemaal niets van. Kamervragen worden niet beantwoord.

We Fought Apartheid; We See No Reason To Celebrate It In Israel Now!
Statement from South Africa, 17 May 2008


De man zou het dan weigeren namens Nederland. Zou het om Iran, Birma of Tibet gaan, dan was het natuurlijk een heel ander verhaal...