Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
“Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland,” says President Obama, “Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.” Standing ovation, the crowd goes crazy. Who is that audience so passionately endorsing Obama’s vision of peace? The Norwegian Parliament? Democratic convention-goers? Perhaps an Arab crowd in Egypt or Ramallah? Non of the above; Those were in fact Israeli students in Jerusalem.
This was another powerful speech, masterfully delivered. But for me the enthusiastic applause the President received multiple times on the Palestinian issue were the main story of the night.
Marco Werman, host of “The World” on PRI, didn’t get as excited on Thursday’s show, saying that “The President’s speech was interrupted several times by applause, but he was heckled too” (The heckler was an Arab-Israeli student who thought the speech was “extremist and Zionistic”). NPR commentator E.J. Dionne spoke Friday of Obama’s message to Palestinians that “Israelis in their heart of hearts think that peace is a good thing.” hold on - Heart of hearts? Israelis, that in 65 years of statehood yield a gazillion peace songs? Whose Oscar-nominated films are statements for peace, every single time? Israelis, who never seize to talk about peace -- This cheering crowd?!
Call me sensitive, but reports like these - redundant and single-minded, make me uneasy. Judging from such and similar examples, it seems - this week more than ever, that reality and perception are growing more and more removed.
11.15.13 at 1:48 pm | One interpreter was struck with a moment of. . .
10.30.13 at 10:08 pm | The moral problematics in releasing these men are. . .
10.16.13 at 10:24 pm | Good morning Europeans. Today the European Court. . .
10.8.13 at 9:00 pm | Another glorification of terrorism; Swift,. . .
9.28.13 at 11:26 pm | This past Tuesday Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. . .
8.26.13 at 12:46 pm | On August 15th a powerful car bomb exploded in. . .
11.15.13 at 1:48 pm | One interpreter was struck with a moment of. . . (6)
10.8.13 at 9:00 pm | Another glorification of terrorism; Swift,. . . (4)
10.16.13 at 10:24 pm | Good morning Europeans. Today the European Court. . . (4)
March 20, 2013 | 1:50 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
“I hope that he [President Obama - A.B.] will see our life here, and will want to do something about it,” said an anonymous Jerusalem teenager to Israeli radio in anticipation to President Obama’s visit to the country. There’s no doubt that the President had seen and heard a lot during his short visit. In his press conference with Netanyahu, Obama spoke unusually about that complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli issue; Hopefully he’d left the region with some new, first-hand insights into why this conflict is so damn unsolvable.
On the eve of the historic visit NPR chose to bring us more of the same: Sheera Frenkel’s redundant account about Israeli settlers and Palestinian drivers. Listening to Frenkel’s report one may think that if only Israel had stopped building a house, a road - something, all will be well.
But the fact of the matter is that generations of international peacemakers, who had largely adopted that very narrow and historically implausible vantage point, failed - the conflict still rages. And when the such a large portion of the discourse is occupied by Palestinian victimhood - a symptom, not a cause - you know that something is amiss.
Something is amiss. Peace is made with sanity. It works pretty well with the sane nation of Jordan: King Abdullah told Jeffrey Goldberg on Monday’s Atlantic that his relationship with Netanyahu, at the center of Israel and Jordan’s joint action to keep the Syrian conflict from spilling over, is “very strong”. King Abdullah clearly understands where stability is maintained in this neighborhood. He sees Israel as an ally in contrasting the “Iranian-led Shia crescent” to his East as well as the “Muslim Brotherhood crescent developing in Egypt and Turkey”. As his father Hussein before him, King Abdullah chooses progress over destruction for sectarian, religious or nationalistic reasons.
Remember this: Over 50% of Jordanians are of Palestinian origins; Jordan occupied the West Bank prior to 1967, and was part of that same British Mandate that controlled today’s Israel and West Bank. Save the Israelis and Palestinians themselves, no other country is as immersed in the conflict as Jordan. All odds are for Jordan being yet another scene of violence and chaos, but --
Sanity. It works.
The Palestinians are far from having made a similar choice. To get there they will have to divorce Hamas as an ideology and a choice - not only an organization. And there’s more:
In the past 2 months Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch brought his piles of evidence of Palestinian attitude-problem to shocked British and Norwegian Parliaments. On a March 17th session of the British Parliament, MP Gordon Henderson described the findings: “It is clear that a culture of hate has wormed its way into the very fibre of Palestinian society. Incitement to hate is pervasive in Palestinian school textbooks, on television programs and at cultural and sporting events.” He concluded: “No peace agreement will be able to guarantee ... peace, if a generation of Palestinians is growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel, Jews and the West."
Norwegian MPs were disturbed by their aid Euros being used towards salaries for convicted terrorists. “It almost seems to be an aid program to terror-convicted prisoners” said MP Peter Gitmark on February 28th, and Morten Høglund, Foreign policy spokesman for the Progress Party said “You have to send a clear political signal that we, as a donor country, also want to reinforce the peace process. I think anyone who sees this realizes that this contributes to the opposite ... We must fight fire with fire and say that we will stop the aid unless the PA takes immediate action to stop this type of hate message."
A paradigm shift strong enough to replace failure with success and peace has to include the replacement of Palestinian victimization and hate with clear decision and dramatic shift into the language of peace. It seems to me that Obama understands it, I just hope he doesn’t pay too much attention to Sheera Frenkel’s reports.
Follow me on Twitter:
March 11, 2013 | 12:48 am
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
Every so often the symbolism of an event would be multiplied by great timing. Such was the Dutch government recommendation to label goods from Israeli settlements in the midst of the kidnapped UN soldiers crisis in Syria. The connection? The inclusion of the Golan Heights in the recommendation.
Equating the territory that was taken from Syria in 1967 to the West Bank makes a clear statement: just like the Dutch government would like to see the West Bank under Palestinian control, so it would like to see the Golan back under Syrian sovereignty.
When the recommendation was issued on Thursday, as Golan settlers were working on their soon-to-be-labeled juices, apples and wines, the UN was handling the kidnapping of 21of its UNDOF soldiers by fighters across the border, in a country with no government, no law and no compassion.
There’s no problem of self-determination in the Golan. The non-Jewish population is Druze, and the Druze views on issues of nationality allow for relationship with the state of Israel that is entirely different than the Palestinians’. The Druze serve in the Israeli army - the ultimate symbol of shared fate, and are not opposed to Israeli rather than Syrian control (in light of the past two years - who can blame them?)
Syria has been under decades of Assad family tyranny that crushed human rights, killed 30,000 in the Hama 1982 uprising and tens of thousands in the current one. Externally, the regime attacked Israel 3 times in 25 years, had de-facto occupied Lebanon for 30 years assassinating local leaders at will, and made Syria a poster boy for the ideology that tilts this region towards violence rather than peace, by aligning and supporting Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and many others over the years. Now, there’s not even a Syrian state to speak of or with - still the Dutch government saw it appropriate and just to make the call on the Golan Heights.
When a burglar robs someone’s house, or kills or rapes, justice is very clear. But in the non-mundane reality of international relations the idea of justice is a complex one. Just three weeks ago 7 fighters injured battling Assad’s forces fled to the border to seek care in Israel. Is it just, in light of that, to call on the Druze of the Golan to become Syrians? What values are manifested in the removal of population from a reality of freedom and prosperity to a much worse life?
With many arguments for justice weighing against it, the Dutch government had decided to focus on a single angle of justice: the need to revert back to Syrian sovereignty that lasted 23 years (1944-1967) and ended 46 years ago. It would be unsurprising if an entirely different view of justice emerges in other instances, when Israel is not concerned.
February 1, 2013 | 1:27 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was put on the spot in Germany Wednesday. Georg Mascolo from Der Spiegel asked the President about a 4:42 min video surfacing on the web of him making a case against Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, at the height of which he calls the Jews “the descendants of apes and pigs”. Morsi, clearly irritated by the question, clarified that he’s “not against the Jewish faith” and that "the quotes were taken out of context”, the real context being “the continuing Israeli attacks on Palestinians, the bloodshed of Palestinians.” (Watch the event here @~29:00)
The Jews as apes and pigs tradition has an interesting background worthwhile to look into:
The source is a recount of God turning some (not all) Jews into apes and pigs as a punishment for not observing the Shabbat. The story is mentioned 3 times in the Qur’an (Suras 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166), for example:
5:60 “...They [Jews] are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been
under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine...”
The story has sparked a division among Muslim scholars as to whether today’s pigs are descendants of the Jews who were turned into pigs, or whether those Jewish pigs eventually died out. (A more complete explanation from AnsweringIslam.org); I couldn’t find a similar discussion about today’s apes.
The apes and pigs reference stemming from these Qur’anic recounts is used as an expression of religious hatred towards the Jews, a particular choice of wording mostly paired with violent speech of the explicit kind. The reference was used on Hamas TV (Al Aqsa) (and here), in an introduction to a speech by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in a suicide bomber’s farewell video, in sermons on Palestinian Authority TV (and here, here), on Al Rahma TV (Egypt), on Kuwait TV, by deputy speaker of Hamas parliament, by deputy rector of Egyptian Al Azhar University on Iranian TV, and also by Mohamed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood affiliation makes this choice of rhetoric entirely unsurprising.
The apes and pigs reference is an Islamic adjective; A religious curse - like you’d imagine a fanatic Christians speaker cursing gays. And that’s something an Islamist President might do every once in a while: curse.
Spinning it to the context of the “bloodshed of the Palestinians” is based on Morsi’s belief that mentioning Palestinian victimhood automatically dissipates any previous suspicions of anti-Jewish air. A variation on the theme: You hear a lot of Antisemitic statements that are being laundered as referring not to “the Jews” but to “the Zionists”, or not to “The Israeli people” but to the “Israeli occupation” or the “Israeli regime”. So how do you get a blank license to hate speech? Speak about Palestinian suffering or refer your statement to the ultimate villain and you're in the clear. This is the essence of the efforts to delegitimize Israel.
In fact, the dogmatic anti-Jews ideology behind the apes and pigs reference is substantive and broadly promoted by Islamists worldwide, it cannot be hidden. The current video is not the first or last time Morsi is ever to express the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology towards the Jews; He has to make this one go away, and be careful not to get busted in the future.
I’m thankful that Georg Mascolo raised the important issue of the apes and pigs. Equally consequential in the video is the occasion for which Morsi had summoned the apes and pigs reference: In his video speech he said that peace talks with the Zionists are “a waste of time and opportunities” and that you either accept “everything they want, or else it is war". All or nothing, war until victory, no compromise. Peacemakers in Germany and around the world should take note of the Muslim Brotherhood’s idea of conflict resolution as expressed by Morsi in this video. Making his rejection of compromise and peace louder, firmer and more committed is the real context in which the apes and pigs were mentioned.
Follow me on Twitter:
January 26, 2013 | 11:26 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
Remember Wael Ghonim? He’s the Egyptian (ex) Google executive that rose as a leader during the Tahrir Square days. After his release from 12 days in jail, he broke into tears during an interview, and became one of the symbols of the revolution.
A symbol - yes, political force - not so much. Secular liberals such as Ghonim, loved in the West for good reasons, can be credited with igniting the revolution, but not for being the triumphant power - The real showdown in Arab Spring countries is between dictators (such as Mubarak) and Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood). This is an epic battle decades in the making: Mubarak and his predecessors had suppressed and crushed the Brotherhood in Egypt (just like Assad the father killed 30,000 when Syrian Islamists rebelled in 1982.)
Being a religious movement of god-fearing devotees It’s not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood managed to emerge from years of persecution and repression organized, disciplined and numerous. Come election day, the Brotherhood won 37.5% of the vote and the Salafists another 27.8%, while 3 liberal parties won 20.3% combined. Elections being a numbers game, the liberals did not stand a chance, there’s simply too little of them.
There’s nothing springy about former dictatorships turning into Islamist countries. One of the most important distinctions of Islam is its political aspect: Muslims, as early as the days of Mohammed himself, formed not only a religious community, but a political entity as well - the Caliphate - an inspiration and destiny for today’s Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood included. The Caliphate, among other strictly non-progressive characteristics, will be ruled by the unchangeable divine law, the Sharia - a clearly un-democratic idea.
This is not the first time an un-democratic ideology rises to power democratically. One doesn’t need to go all the way to Hitler - though one definitely may. Being a numbers game, Democracy has no solution to this problem. And indeed, since assuming office on June 30th 2012, Morsi had pulled a few aggressive move asserting himself, and pushed an Islamic-dominated constitution down seculars’ throats.
That’s why it’s so exciting to witness the liberals take the streets this past week. “Back to the squares without the Muslim Brothers and the Salafists” read Al-Ahram’s front page Friday. The Arab Spring is finally here. Two years into the revolution and coinciding with enormous anger in Port Said over last year’s soccer disaster verdicts, they got scared. The list of demands presented by the united opposition clearly reflects their fear of becoming citizens of an Islamist state. Google executives don’t live under Sharia.
It’s unclear what their chances are at resisting the Islamists. Regardless, this is where the battle against radical Islam and political Islam will be won: by Muslims rejecting Islamist ideologies and choosing progressive lives instead. Islamists thrive on grievances and the idea of “Resistance”, it’ll be interesting to see how the Brotherhood handles the crisis from a position of power. It’s not over in Egypt.
Follow me on Twitter @lostroadtopeace
January 17, 2013 | 3:03 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
On April 11th, 1945 the US army liberated the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald. After forcing the German residents of nearby Weimer to witness the fresh Nazi atrocities in person, General Eisenhower withdrew his forces from the camp: In accordance with the Yalta agreement, the area was designated part of the Soviet occupation. Stalin immediately put the camp back to work, this time as Special Camp No. 2 of the NKVD. Death continued to reign there: over 7,000 prisoners perished in the Soviet Special Camp between 1945-1950.
There’s a clear thread between the militaristic insanity of WWI, the Fascism and Nazism of WWII, Stalin’s murderous Bolshevism, and the likes of Mokhtar Belmokhtar, yet another Islamist fanatic, popping up this time at a gas field in Eastern Algiers.
Is there any hope for human kind? The 20th century was dominated by hallucinatory ideologies that in the eyes of their believers were above the law, above moralities, and even above basic civilized human behavior. There were enough followers every time; Enough weapons every time, and tens of millions of dead - every single time. All in vain. A human defect.
History aside - what have we got today? Sharia-crazed Islamists who show no respect and would grant no rights to anything and anyone but Allah; A Chinese empire that shows no regret or mercy as it systematically annihilates the Tibetan culture for the sake of territory, and subdues over a billion people to tyranical rule; A degenerate, corrupt Russian leadership with clear preference of narrow interests over basic moralities (see: Syria); And of course Syria itself, where sectarian Shia-Sunni violence goes medieval right in front of the digital media readers’ eyes. And I can go on and on.
Anti-American Americans, this is for you: Look around us and tell me what had fundamentally changed with this sad species? Who’s a better alternative to American dominance? Even Bush+Cheney were better than what this humanity produces on a regular basis, if not for anything else, for the fact that the system they operated within is built to allow for any leader's eventual replacement. Don’t let the 5 minutes of relative peace and human dignity we’ve been experiencing since the 90’s to mislead you: On an historical scale, this is nothing but an abnormality.
Cultural relativism, ladies and gentlemen, will not bring us to a better world. Between the massacres in Syria, the Islamist coockoos lining up for paradise, the occasional Shia-Sunni / Muslim-Hindu out of control violence, and the outrageous hypocrisy or outright insanity of people with too much power and/or weapon in North Korea, Iran, Western Africa, Russia, China etc - this is, unfortunately, pretty clear. It should have been clear on September 1st, 1939, when Hitler’s Blitz Krieg made a fool of Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister and representative of the Democratic world. And Hitler is clearly not the last bully.
Western-style Democracy is where civilization began learning that war is a ridiculous prospect, Where human dignity, freedom and justice had finally stemmed after centuries of abuse. Where Germany and Japan, two nations that brought endless destruction, bloodshed and misery upon human kind; The poster-boys of human idiocy, wondrously became two leading, productive members of the international community, (while the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe ammounted to nothing but a great big Gulag.) Yes, it’s the ideology, stupid. There’s nothing better than Western Democracy at the moment, and if you find something that is - please call me right away, day or night.
There should be a clear, uneroded distinction between good and bad, one that keeps a proportional, contextual look at current reality as well as at history, all the more so within the civilization that had managed to reach moral peaks. This pioneering civilization ending up hating itself and losing, as a result, all of its achievements to cultures that are not there yet, would be so ironic, that there should be a new word invented just for that.
The answer, therfore, to the delusional brutes the likes of Belmokhtar, should be as clear and decisive as the one handed out to Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito post the Chamberlain farce: No made-up grievances will be accommodated, there’s nothing to talk about. Grow up and learn what civilized humanity should be. Until than - you’re OUT.
Follow me on Twitter:
December 3, 2012 | 3:51 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
Perhaps it’ll turn out to be a positive step on the way to peace. Who knows? There was something relatively pleasing in seeing Mahmoud Abbas - a man who can’t be accused of religious zeal and insanity - on the UN podium.
But the Palestinian celebration at the UN was not a historical victory for the spirit of freedom and peace, neither was it a poetic moment of justice.
“There was no need for another devastating war” Abbas told the General Assembly, relating to the last violence around Gaza. Indeed, there was no need for any of the wars in the past 65 years: In 1947 the UN accepted resolution 181, which divided the British Mandate over what’s now Israel, the West-Bank and Gaza into the 2-states everybody’s talking about. It could’ve ended there: The Zionists agreed and established Israel, but the Arabs refused to compromise; Jordan annexed the West Bank; Egypt took over Gaza, and that’s where the roots of the “State that is lacking”, as Abbas put it, are laid.
Anticipating the UN vote in 1947, Palestinian leader of the time, Haj-Amin Al-Husseini, said that “Blood will spill like water in the Middle East” if the partition is accepted, and the Lebanese PM clarified that “No Arab government would accept the proposition”. Lobbying trends at the UN were clearly recognizeable: the Zionist diplomats were aggressively promoting the acceptance of the compromise, while an inter-Arab campaign lobbied for its dismissal. Meanwhile, on the ground, Arab political and military leaders were “...Each trying to demonstrate a more radical stance than their peers”, as reported by Dr. Paul Mohn, a member in UNSCOP, the UN committee that led to the partition resolution. (Quote from "1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War" by Benny Morris).
Sorry to bring such a decisive conclusion after 1:17 minutes of reading, but trust me - this goes back 65 years and change back: The refusal of the Palestinians and Arabs in general to see a Jewish state in the Middle East - even at the corner of their eyes - is at the root of this conflict.
The UN itself woke up the next morning with a horrible feeling of having had a drunk moment, and is since, it seems, trying to undo it. As Abbas noted, the day of the partition vote itself (29-November), was later designated by the UN (the body which carried out the vote) as “A day of international solidarity with the Palestinian people” (The people who rejected to compromise even after the vote). Sym....bolic...?
So when Abbas calls voting in favor of his bid “A most valuable voice for courage”, he forgets that the delegates - who must have had a subtle sense of déja-vu -had already cast their courageous votes 65 years ago.
When he calls for “A birth certificate for the state of Palestine”, he omits that the certificate had been given 65 years ago by the very body he addresses, but refused delivery.
And when he calls the General Assembly’s attention to a “Moral duty which it must not hesitate to undertake”, he should at least feel a tad uncomfortable, since it was him - symbolically of course - who refused his moral duty to compromise, back when this conflict was still just a little ugly.
Indeed, Abbas shows a total lack of understanding of symbolism. What was resolution 181, the resolution he’s making a symbolic statement about by showing up 65 years later, on the day? Did 181 grant sovereignty and statehood to the Jews only, and ripped off the Arabs? If it had - Abbas would have been right to proudly appear at the UN and demand to correct history. But 181 didn't do that, it granted sovereignty and statehood to both, it was a peaceful compromise, but that was too much: As put by Azzam Pasha, head of the Arab League in 1947, “The Arabs will never accept a Jewish state”.
The cause-and-effect aspect of the real history has always been omitted from the Palestinian narrative, and is now banned internationally. A truth-lover prohibition. At this point I should totally save this blog entry from appearing to be nothing but a whining session, and clarify that this is not just an issue of patty accusations (or historical injustice - depending who you ask). No, the issue at hand is whether the rejection at the root of the death, destruction, suffering, violence and war of the past 65 years is changed, or does it persist.
It could have been different last week at the UN, with just a bit of humility. Recognize your historic refusal as a means to correct it, and finally accept the partition - for real. If Abbas had done that, the Israeli Prime Minister Office would have taken no longer than 1 day to get over the shock (I hope) and issue a statement showing compassion for the Palestinian suffering, or even apology for the suffering Israel caused throughout the conflict.
But the Palestinians always restart from the same drive - maybe it’s a Windows thing. Abbas did check all the required expressions: “2-states”, “Peace”, “Justice” - so how come his speech still had that UN-inspired air of Israel delegitimization (aka: undoing that drunk moment):
“Racism” - 3 times.
“Apartheid” - check.
“Colonialism” - a staple in delegitimizing - multiple checks.
“War Crimes” - totally.
“Ethnic cleansing” - you betcha.
A smart song once suggested that “You can't jump head-on to the pool if it’s empty, and you can’t cook your spaghetti if the stove is off.” You also can’t achieve peace through the language of hate and delegitimization; Ask the Irish, ask Aung San Suu Kyi, ask the Dalai-Lama. These are, in fact, the very elements of conflict, not of resolution - as seen 65 years ago.
Will the UN resolution lead to positive results? In the long run - maybe yes, I hope so. I want to believe that today’s Palestinian leader has more to show for in the way of peaceful attitudes than his predecessors 65 years ago. Whatever ends up happening, the selective, unfounded history the world has so easily accepted last week, the one that disregards intent, cause-and-effect, proportion and context, is no step forward to any decent person.
And than there’s the International Court issue. And Hamas. But that’s next time.
Follow me on Twitter: @LostRoadToPeace
November 17, 2012 | 2:26 pm
Posted by Ariel Blumenthal
Hold your fire!! fb has some great suggestions and insights about Gaza, such as:
"...1 thing I have learnt in life is that fighting and war solves nothing. Dialogue, peace and respect have to prevail. SO GET ON WITH IT. Both of you."
"...Peace through people, one by one. All the wars, missiles, targeted executions etc have got us where exactly? Mere pyrrhic victories that sustain the cycle of cycle of hatred, division and violence. It's time we all opened our eyes to a different solution and way forward."
I found myself exaplaining quite a few times in the past 48 why such well-intended posts give me the blues, so eventually I posted this:
"Hi fb! Meet Hamas. Can you please just tell them that war is not the answer and to give peace a chance? Thanks. There's cookies and coffee on the table, I'll wait outside. And in case they're not convinced, please advise how to proceed."
I don’t mean to mock my friends, I really don’t. I love my friends. I’m blessed to be surrounded by creative, smart, worldly people, immersed in the most pluralistic, diverse community on the globe: Los Angeles.
But when it comes to the never ending situation with Israel and its neighbors, ** breaking news! ** The information age did not create a very informed generation - but omg are they new-agey!
Judy (not her real time) asks:
"Would it make any difference if we all (lots of us) took a few days of annual leave and just sat there, like a human shields?"
It’s unclear whether she wants to be a human shield against Hamas’ missiles (that definitely never deterred any Jihadist from launching - quite the oppossite), or perhaps she wants to become a shield in Gaza? Ok. Let’s say Judy mobilizes her friends to do that. And let’s say they force an end to the fighting. Awesome! And than what? SInce Judy and the shields, by this point, would be back home and totally tuned out, I’ll fill her in with what happens next: Hamas proceeds to indiscriminately fire rockets at civilians, unchallenged. That’s it. Where’s the peaceful achievement?
Cause that's how they roll. It’s not like Islamist ideology is only Hamas’ thing. Islamist violence a global hit, marking a path of death in Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Amsterdam, Little-Rock... Place such recklessly violent ideology in a volatile place like Gaza, and what do you get? Precisely what we see now. And it’ll inevitably happen again, as long as Gaza continues to overdose on Hamas’ holy testosterone. Anyone who believes that peace is the only way to justice and prosperity should be concerned with Hamas’ destructive presence, not protect it when it’s challenged.
Saying Give Peace a Chance without digging 2 millimeters deeper to understand how, is condescending, and more importantly - worthless. It can only be said by observers who have no commitment or responsibility towards solving this conflict.
The problem is that for many of the smart people around me the disdain for war - in itself a progressive value I enthusiastically share, had been replaced by a disdain to Israel launching war - an ironic flaw that turns my well intended friends into indirect supporters of anti-peace ideology. So much good intention wasted, It’s tragic.
fb, Israel does not wage war for the love of war. So "Stop loving war" is not a relevant advise - however it is phrased. It's even a tad silly. Rest assured that the “radical” idea of wanting peace has been thought through before you brought it up on fb.
So other than getting some great Instagrams from Gaza, how precisely was Judy productive here? How did she promote peace?
Poor Judy - had she known...