laura.fo

Juan Cole on Gaza: What to do about it?

I think people should be careful about talking about "the Israeli lobby" (or worse, "the Jewish lobby") as the sole cause of America's Middle East policy being what it is (see "Anti-semitism and U.S. Middle East policy" by Stephen Zunes, a Palestinian supporter, for more on that). Not that Cole is doing this — he writes on all sorts of aspects of this conflict — but I want to note it here because I don't want this link to be read in isolation and then perpetuate that line of thinking.

However, it is undeniable that the pro-Israel side of this issue is much more organized than the pro-Palestinian side, especially when it comes to doing sustained lobbying of U.S. Congress members. And I think Cole is right when he says this is more effective than street activism. Here, he lays out a model for organizational strategies that anti-occupation activists could apply to counter the weight of AIPAC. They are surprisingly… doable.

The American International School in Gaza is now rubble. This is what it used to look like.

I've seen some gruesome pictures in the past few days. Bodies of children contorted in a fashion I didn't know was possible, even in death. I could post them, but you've seen them, too.

So instead I'll post some links questioning the way we in the U.S. traditionally talk about the Palestinian conflict. I don't know of any other country, including Israel itself, where the language used to talk about this issue is so consistently used to squash debate and cover Palestinian reality.

+ + +

Abu Aardvark asks "whether to define the current Israeli attack as against 'Gaza' or 'Hamas'":

The stakes are clear. If the attack is defined as against "Gaza", then what follows is solidarity with the Palestinians and demands to stop the killing. If the attack is defined as against "Hamas", then what follows is the division of Arab opinion along sharply polarized lines defined by their views towards the Islamist movement.

Juan Cole writes that we are entering the age of micro-wars. This is a long post that successfully backgrounds the current conflict. It also questions the assumption (really a rhetorical tool more than an actual assumption, even among those who deploy it) that Israel always acts defensively:

Israel's political tradition seeks expansion if possible; if not possible, it seeks a balance of power with its enemies. If that is not possible, it seeks to be held harmless from its avowed foes. If that is not possible, it is willing to wage total war to punish the enemy population until it accepts at least a cold peace. Where necessary, Israel is willing to give up territorial expansion to get the cold peace.

Adrian at OpenLeft talks about "the 'Arab rejectionist' dodge":

Defenders of Israel's policies often short-circuit any meaningful dialogue on the Arab-Israeli conflict by reducing the problem to the Arabs and their alleged "rejectionism," i.e. their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. This argument conveniently removes Israel's actions from the realm of moral consideration because it implies that changes in Israeli policy will ultimately have no impact one way or another on the ongoing conflict.

In his Salon blog, Glenn Greenwald writes about the killing of civilians as a political objective (as opposed to unfortunate consequence) for both sides in this conflict, and how, in the U.S. particularly, this objective is treated as smart policy when the Israeli military engages in it but an act of insanity when "terrorists" do the same.

He also differentiates between American Jews whose cultural identification with Israel impacts their views on this conflict and neocons whose motives are far less noble. He is critical of both groups, but makes what I think is an important distinction between the two:

Still, there is a substantial difference between, on the one hand, basically well-intentioned people who are guilty of excessive emotional and cultural identification with one side of the dispute and, on the other, those who adopt the Goldfarb/Peretz psychopathic derangement of belittling rage over widespread civilian deaths as mere "whining" or even something to view as a strategic asset. The latter group is a subset of war supporters and evinces every defining attribute of the Terrorist.

Those who giddily support not just civilian deaths in Gaza but every actual and proposed attack on Arab/Muslim countries — from the war in Iraq to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to the proposed attacks on Iran and Syria and even continued escalation in Afghanistan — are able to do so because they don't really see the Muslims they want to kill as being fully human.

In Haaretz, Yossi Sarid asks "If you (or I) were Palestinian."

Laila at Raising Yousuf and Noor writes about the Alternative Tourism Group, an agency committed to social justice tourism in Palestine:

The group is a Palestinian NGO that specializes in Fair Trade and "justice tourism", focusing in tours and pilgrimages that include critical examinations of the history, culture, and politics of the Holy Land. In so doing, they try to support the local community through the creation of economic opportunities and positive cultural exchange between guest and host, the protection of the environment, and political/historical education.

I've never been to Palestine, and the politics of tourism are part of the reason why. In college in Cairo I had a Palestinian friend whose girlfriend was American. I remember her going to Jerusalem for a week or two during one of the school breaks. My friend could not go with her. In fact he'd never been there, and probably still hasn't. He couldn't go to visit his grandfather's grave, while she, with her American passport, could come and go without incident. Even my Egyptian friends, who were less likely to be blocked outright at checkpoints, said the surveillance they'd be under wasn't worth whatever they'd get out of the trip. It just didn't occur to them to see Palestine as a tourist destination.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I have several American friends who've gone to the West Bank, and somewhat fewer to Gaza, on social justice trips. They usually went by invitation of Palestinian activist groups or individual Palestinian friends. They stayed in Palestinian homes, came back with notebooks packed full of information, and used the experience to educate Americans about the occupation. In some cases they'd set up exchanges with Palestinian schools and NGOs and had helped fund those organizations. These are all good things, things I support. But the politics of going in the first place rarely came up for debate, and that does bother me.

On the other hand, I say this as someone who has been to Germany many times, and never thought twice about it until two friends told me their mothers would not step foot in the country that had killed one's parents and tortured the other's father. It was a matter of principle.

But Germany is different, one could argue; it's taken active steps to come to grip with its past. Israel: not so much. It hasn't even come to grips with its present. Yet I also remember one friend criticizing a musician with progressive politics for touring in Israel. "There are some places you just don't play," he said. "Yes," another friend said, "but if you're going to make that argument, the first place you'd boycott would be the U.S." Touche.

So, I'm conflicted.

A couple weeks ago I sent Bee Lavender a link that someone had posted, Raising Yousuf: a diary of a mother under occupation. The Hip Mama people contacted the author, and her piece about breastfeeding under occupation is now up on their web site. Go read!

Family of American Woman Killed by Military Bulldozer Files Suit Against Catepillar, Inc.
Family of Rachel Corrie Charges Bulldozer Manufacturer Knowingly Sold Machines Used to Violate Human Rights

NEW YORK, NY — March 15 — The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and partnering law firms today filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois-based Caterpillar, Inc. on behalf of the parents of Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American peace activist and student who was run over and killed by a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer on March 16, 2003.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western Federal District of Washington, alleges that Caterpillar, Inc. violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger civilians. The Corries daughter Rachel, a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, was there as a volunteer peace activist protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes when she was brutally killed. Much of the world community, including international human rights organizations and the United Nations, has consistently condemned these demolitions as a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

The Corries also filed a tort claim today in Israel against the State of Israel, the Israeli Defense Ministry and the IDF for their role in the death of their daughter. They are represented by Advocate Hussein Abu Hussein.

Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie, stated, “As we approach the two-year anniversary of Rachel’s killing, my family and I are still searching for justice. The brutal death of my daughter should never have happened. We believe Caterpillar and the IDF must be held accountable for their role in the attack on my daughter Rachel.”

Jennie Green, Senior Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, stated, “International law clearly provides that corporations can be held accountable for violations of international human rights. Rachel Corrie, a young American killed abroad because Caterpillar purposefully turns a blind eye as to how their products are used, must have access to justice.”

Over the past four years, the IDF has used Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy more than 4,000 Palestinian homes, injuring, killing, or leaving homeless scores of individuals in the process. Rights groups have sent over 50,000 letters to Caterpillar, Inc. executives and CEO Jim Owens, decrying the use of Caterpillar bulldozers to carry out human rights abuses.

Plaintiffs Craig and Cindy Corrie are represented by lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Ronald J. Peterson Law Clinic at Seattle University Law School, and the Public Interest Law Group PLLC in Seattle, Washington.

http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

My friend Dave posted this entry about Rachel Corrie on a BBS I used to be on. I thought the responses were interesting, especially Bob's argument that there can be no such thing as using privilege strategically (I don't agree, but I'm willing to discuss it) and Kali's bit re: "a Leftist life is not as highly valued by the U.S. Administration as, say, a Christian evangelical's."

Reposting:

Aug 6, 2003 21:13 from Bob
I really reject this idea that Corrie "gave her life" or even risked it. The
reaction from her companions was utter shock. I don't think that leftists went
to Spain and were shocked when Franco's troops tried to kill them. The whole
point of the privilege, and asserting it, was that it was supposed to
innoculate them against any actual mortal danger. The whole mission was to
stand there between the IDF and Palestinians because they were sure that the
IDF would not harm Western foreigners.

I also think that this is a very significant difference between what the left
was and what the left is. There is a narcissism about, and an idealism (in the
philosophical sense, not the moral sense), and they are corrosive.

"Truth has given way to credibility, facts to statements that sound
authoritative without conveying any authoritative information." (Christopher
Lasch) What is important is appearance, because appearance is what is regarded
as reality. As a metaphysical speculation this is good fun. As a basis for
political acts it is reckless.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2841 (15 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 6, 2003 23:35 from Fleep
I don't know that I agree with that, Bob. Beyond the sense of invulnerability
that most young people have (what? I can't be killed! I'm only 21!), I don't
doubt for a minute that the people you're talking about felt mortal danger.
How could you not, with bullets whizzing and death all around you?

Perhaps there was shock at a blatant act against them, but I can't believe that
the risk was unreal to them.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2842 (14 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 0:49 from Thufir
Even green soldiers get shocked the first time a platoon buddy of theirs gets
it in the chest. I'm not buying this argument that being shocked implies they
hadn't evaluated their odds.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2843 (13 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 6:53 from Dawdle
One of the links in the original was this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html

Those are Rachel Corrie's letters home from between 2/7 and 2/28/03. I think
she pretty clearly realized the danger she was in. You can see a very apparent
shift in the way she sees that danger coming closer in just the course of those
3 weeks.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2844 (12 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 10:58 from Bob
Dawdle> I don't see anything to tell me that she feared for her life in those
letters – quite the opposite.

"You just can't imagine it unless you see it – and even then you are always
well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the
difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen,
and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells,
and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving."

Her recognition of her "white privilege" is also explicit.

"We could probably make it through [an IDF checkpoint] if we made serious use
of our international white person privilege, but that would also mean some risk
of arrest and deportation, even though none of us has done anything illegal."

Fleep> The whole point of their being there was to be invulnerable. Their
whole mission to Palestine was based on their inviolability. If they were
there to be shot and get run over, what is the point? That (Thufir) is why the
ISM people who spoke just after the incident were so shocked, not out of some
sudden realization that the danger is real. One member put it in very clear
terms:

"[IDF soldiers] "have shot over our heads, and shot near our feet–they have
fired tear gas at us. But we thought we had an understanding. We didn.t think
they would kill us." (Michael Shaik of the ISM)

(Her letters also show the frustration with the situation that leads to
flirtation with not-so-nonviolent reactions.)

I also think that the dynamic changed in March, both in the ISM and the IDF.
Tom Hurndall, who was shot in the head, seems to have recognized the danger,
and wrote that "it is on the decision of any one Israeli soldier or settler
that my life depends." He was shot in clearly dangerous circumstances – heroic
circumstances. His killing is also a far clearer case of IDF misbehaviour (the
total absence of his name from pro-Israel sources is telling evidence). Of
course, he was not the first one killed, so he is not as famous.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2845 (11 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 11:31 from Doktor Nil
I think Laura addressed all of Bob's interesting points in the original essay
that started this conversation, better than I could. So I won't try. I think
they are already answered by the original essay, and I don't see anything in
Bob's posts explaining why Laura's points are incorrect or mistaken, frankly.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2846 (10 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 11:57 from Dawdle
And Bob did exactly what I feared he would do. It was easy enough to recognize
a couple of choice quotes that I figured might be posted here. I think anyone
who reads the full thing should have a clear sense that her life was in danger
and that she was well aware of that fact. She pretty well stated that fact. The
fact that she was also aware of her privilege doesn't negate that. She didn't
call it "international white immunity from danger".
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2847 (9 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 16:31 from Thufir
Sounds to me more like they were trying to talk themselves into bravery, as
opposed to thinking that their White Privilege would be their stalwart shield.
When you are a stranger in a strange land with a war going on, I think it
natural to try and convince yourselves that the combatants aren't shooting at
you specifically. Doing this convincing and rationalizing is not the same as
believing yourself invincible or not in danger.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2848 (8 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 17:57 from Kali
Partially agreeing with Laura's essay, I really like her point about
privilege as "a series of dynamic, lived experiences, ones that result from
social relations specific to time and culture."

However, I wonder if, in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian horror, national
identity occupies as crucial a role as race – Or that race and nation are
entwined in such a way that another read of the ISM/Rachel Corrie is as
probable, one that focuses as much on the naturalizing of "citizenship" as on
the making immutable of white privilege.

I know she addressed nationality briefly, but the whole goyim concept is such
a nicely rabidly nationalist one that I was moved to gush a little…

Perhaps until recently, there was enough fear/respect/trepidation in the
Israeli government about the harming of foreign nationals that they avoided
it. Of course that it was white people from Northern nations wouldn't hurt…

But I want to put the argument out there that it's as much an issue of how
the United States government feels its nationals should act in other
countries, and/or the American public's perception of Americans in other
places, and that there has been a shift in attitude about what the fate of
especially leftist Americans should be outside the country – And perhaps that
is another thing Israel is responding to.

Yes, I believe a Leftist life is not as highly valued by the U.S.
Administration as, say, a Christian evangelical's life is. Please try to
prove me wrong. I don't have the background or expertise to pinpoint when it
seemed to have gotten worse, but I can illustrate my perceptions briefly.

For example, for Gulf War II, the folks of "Voices in the Wilderness" who
went over as human shields, were savagely vilified on the radio, on network
TV, etc. because we were supposed to perceive them as aides to Saddam (for
some reason). Unless I'm misremembering, the level of outcry against
American human shields in Iraq was a lot less loud (or less visible) for the
first Gulf War.

We (in the collective "we") don't seem to care as much about protecting the
rights of U.S. citizens protesting on U.S. soil. Perhaps that goes double for
people trying to lend their support, in a more internationalist way, to
conflicts around the world.

What does Laura think??
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2849 (7 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 20:29 from Cpk
No, you're not off base at all. In Gulf War I, most protestors were simply
ignored–with perhaps the occasional grumble at their temerity. Attacks
against leftist have taken on a whole new level of shrill demonization. And
it's not been a gradual thing, either–it's really ramped up since 9/11, as if
the right-wing suddenly realized that this was its big chance to rid itself of
the Left forever. A|\||\| <0u1173rr has explicitly said as much.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2850 (6 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 7, 2003 20:31 from Cpk
[and, by the way, I don't think Ann Coulter is loonier than the rest of the
right. Sadly, she is solidly within the mainstream of right-wing politics,
though other right-wingers have had to move some distance to catch up with
her.]
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2851 (5 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 8, 2003 4:20 from Dawdle
I think Coulter is slightly loonier than the rest of the right, but that's more
based on the fact that I think she's actually insane rather than on her
politics. Politically, I don't think she's that much further to the right than
your average neo-con. I think 80% of the outrageous stuff she says (liberals
are traitors, McCarthy was unnecessarily demonized, etc) are things that most
conservatives believe, but won't say.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2852 (4 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 8, 2003 10:15 from Bob
Dawdle> I can only read what is actually there on the page. I am assuming that
these letters (which were never intended for publication) are frank and honest
and don't need much interpretation.

Thufir> (broken record time) The ISM's entire mission was predicated on their
firm belief that the combattants would not – could not – shoot at them.This is
what makes it a "human _shield_" thing, and not a "human target" thing.

DN> I agree with most of the essay, but I think it does not go far enough.

If Corrie is a hero to you, so be it. A rehash of the incident is not
interesting. We can all read the various accounts.

What I was actually hoping to get at was the "air of authenticity" as ascendant
over "authenticity" (that is, appearances over truth), and how that has
affected the left (which I try to remember is supposed to be about dismantling
arbitrary power in favour of something more rational).

Using the ISM as an example, you can see that the program that they use depends
upon not only the belief in the immutability and universality of one's own
hierarchies, but the maintenance of those beliefs. I do not think that there
is "a place for recognizing unmerited advantages in order to … use them
strategically on behalf of those without such advantages". Doing that cannot
but reinforce those unfair advantages.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2853 (3 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 8, 2003 14:06 from Doktor Nil
I'm not sure the ISM ever used the phrase 'human shield.' If they did, I think
it's a stupid phrase too (although maybe you don't). I think the mission of
the ISM is, at its base, simply predicated on the idea that sympathetic foreign
nationals willing to take a risk can be of help _somehow_ to the struggle for
Palestinian rights, by being in Israel/Palestine. Their _strategy_, at least
for a while, was indeed predicated on the idea that these foreign nationals
would be _less_ likely to be shot at by Israeli troops, and that if they were
shot (at) it would get significant publicity, of a helpful sort.

Less likely does not mean impossible. Now that it's obvious that ISM folks are
in fact _quite_ likely to be shot at (and sometimes shot), if perhaps still not
as likely as a Palestinian (especially one doing similar work), perhaps the ISM
strategy ought to change. That's something for the ISM to decide, succesfully
or not. That doesn't mean that their _mission_ needs to change. The fact that
the ISM still exists, and still has no trouble getting members/volunteers (it
does have trouble getting htese people into Israel or Palestine), seems to
indicate that their mission is _not_ predicated upon some kind of
invulnerability. Becuase it is now quite obvious that they enjoy no such
invulnerability. Yet they continue.

We've had the discussion before about "recognizing unmerited advantages in
order to use them strategically (for godo)." I know we disagree. I don't
entirely understand your position. Do I understand correctly taht you suggest
the only ethical behavior is in fact to ignore something that you really know
to exist, to pretend it does not exist, or to refuse to take account of it in
planning your strategy? I think that if you want to struggle to win, you need
to take a cold hard look at what _actually is_ and plan strategies accordingly.
You don't do anyone any favors by intentionally deceiving yourself or
pretending the world is other than it is. Now, true, some strategies are to be
judged unethical, and avoided. You apparently believe the ISM's strategy(ies)
to be unethical, although I honestly still do not understand why. What I hear
you saying is not that their strategies are unethical because of the actions
undertaken, but that they are unethical if they were formed with an awareness
of the the way the world actually is; that no strategy is ethical unless it
completley ignores real world 'unmerited advantages.'
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2854 (2 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 9, 2003 12:53 from Bob
Let's get away from the ISM for a minute.

Using a corrupt system to produce good results can be admirable. But that is
not to say that doing so does not perpetuate a context in which a broader
justice cannot result.

The film "Blaze" has an excellent scene (fictionalized, possibly apocryphal)
where Huey Long recieves a visit from a black civil rights organization that
tells him that there are qualified physicians and nurses who go without work
because they are black. So, Long decides pay a surprise visit a state hospital
with this gaggle of lawyers in tow. The administrator of the hospital gives a
tour, but Long demands to see the colored wards. Upon visiting the colored
wards he feigns shock – "Do you mean to tell me that we have these fine white
doctors and nurses waiting hand and foot on colored folk?" And he orders the
administrator to hire some black doctors and nurses to replace them.

He's used segregation and gutter racism to achieve a noble goal – he, in 1950′s
Louisiana, has put black physicians to work, and for the state. But he didn't
do a hell of a lot to get rid of segregation – he actually reinfoced it by the
appeal to its principles.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2856 (1 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

Aug 10, 2003 9:07 from Slit
That's an excellent analogy and I agree with your larger point. Where it breaks
down for me is that I can't equate the employment of physicians with teh
emergency situation that is Gaza.

I realize this is a slippery slope and everyone has to decide for themselves
where they're willing to draw the line. Personally I hate sorority girl charity
and Save the Children because they do nothing to undermine structural problems.
But I don't put Rachel Corrie in that category. The fact that Palestinians
_requested_ Americans perform that role, in their capacity as citizens from the
country funding the occuaption, goes a long way with me, as does the fact that
this was a quote-unquote policy that worked for more than a dozen years. It
was one of the better examples of _coalition_ activism I've seen, actually, its
miscalculations notwithstanding.
[Godless Pinko Commie Leftists> msg #2857 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->

I very much liked this entry about Rachel Corrie. Almost immediately after her murder people were saying her case was "only getting attention because she was American," which would have bordered on a useful analysis if 1) her case really did get a lot of attention (it didn't), 2) the Palestinian conflict had been some secret unheard-of issue until SHE was killed in it (it wasn't), 3) Palestinian activists had by and large been annoyed that she was hogging the spotlight (they most emphatically were not), and/or 4) she'd been some random tourist gunned down by accident (in which case her citizenship really would serve as the ONLY newsworthy aspect of the story).

It's #3 that interests me most, because I've been thinking about cultural appropriation lately, and wondering when, exactly, "solidarity" crosses the line into "co-opting someone else's movement," and, alternatively, when the fear of co-opting someone else's movement becomes a convenient excuse for NIMBY politicking and a general lack of engagement with systems of oppression that don't impact one personally. The more I try to look at this from an outsider's perspective (European & Arab, because that's what I know best) the more the fact that this is even the concern (obsession?) that it is in the United States is — I want to say "cool" but I'll leave it with "interesting." Because in Europe I have found this xenophobic thing going on wherein "oh dear, am I overly interested in the Zapatistas?" probably just doesn't arise as a pressing issue, and Arabs, in my experience, have been far more likely to interpret a lacklustre commitment to, say, the Palestinian cause as evidence of lack of interest at best and complicity with The Man at worst, rather than as "respectful distance." I've tried to explain the cultural appropriation fear to Middle Eastern friends who haven't lived in the U.S. and I swear, they think I'm making it up and ask me if I'm Jewish. Of course this doesn't apply to everybody everywhere and that view certainly has problems of its own, but it's at least indicative of the the fact that "I'm afraid of speaking for you" is not a dominant concern with everyone on the globe.

But this has emerged as big issue within American leftish groups, and I've been thinking about why that is. For one thing there's the problem of cheap and crude materialism, e.g. Elvis, or people who think Madonna invented 'vogue' as a verb. (I'd argue that Eminem doesn't fall into that category, but that's a diatribe for a different day.) Then there's the irritation that you feel when you waste time and energy defending something only to have it go mainstream in 10 years, e.g. someone gets fired for wearing dreadlocks but later they show up in Cosmo on white girls – how trendy! – or you're a lesbian who lost your kids over being out, and now that they're grown up and you missed out on raising them you see that it's hip to be queer, especially temporarily, rockthefuckon, you-go-grrrl etc. Even if you intellectually know that the problem isn't, technically, with the people who are embracing whatever it is you suffered for, but rather with those who made you suffer in the first place, it's hard to be gracious about someone else's superficial commitment to something you were totally dicked over for Back In The Day. And then there's also — and I think this is the crux of it — the fact that embracing the aesthetics of queer/black/Hopi is not the same thing as fighting the oppression of those communities, and can in fact go hand in hand with oppressing them. It's why the phrase "I have lots of black friends!" is so irritating — because no one ever says that unless they're arguing something racist and claiming to do it ON BEHALF OF African-Americans. In the specific case of the Middle East, "learning" about "the Arabs" was often done with the explicit intent of collecting information for the British.

But even Edward Said, who literally wrote the book on this, has argued like a broken record for the need to solidify connections with the Western (specifically American) Left. Reading his stuff in the Egyptian press is almost funny because he's constantly introducing the idea that there really is a non-imperialist contingent of Americans who are receptive to the idea of Palestinian autonomy, to the notion that Muslims != terrorists, to the idea that the U.S. military is overbloated and does more harm than good — presumably to an audience who doesn't hear much of this. He's as aware as anyone of the fact that American aid to Israel is the great enabler of the occupation, and when he's not writing for the Egyptian press he's writing for the Americans in an attempt to convince them of such. All that effort does not sit well with the notion that he believes members of Group X are inherently, by virtue of their citizenship or ethnicity incapable of studying or advancing the cause of Group Y, and in fact he's criticized those who've read him that way.

Which brings me back to Rachel Corrie, and the attack on her motives. First there was the "why would someone be so naive?" argument. I can almost dismiss that because it comes from those who were never invested in the Palestinian cause in the first place; when they say "why would she be so naive?" what they usually mean is "why would a perfectly good WHITE AMERICAN (i.e. a person who matters) give her life for some dumb shit overseas (i.e. for people who don't matter)? She deserved what she got." Calling her naive allows her detractors to retain some air of authenticity, i.e. "no, really, I would do that, if I thought it would help" without actually engaging the issue or investing any personal commitment to its outcome. This is not to say that anyone with a sufficient commitment to Palestine should and would have gone off and joined the International Solidarity Movement specifically, but rather that people who have a longstanding interest in human rights and who can understand her motives are not, by and large, the same people spewing the "dumb bitch" argument.

But I take more seriously the charge of a sort of racism in her actions, that she was "relying" on her "white privilege" to "save her" and that this is some kind of zero-sum game where mourning her necessitates not-mourning Palestinians who've died under similar (or harsher) circumstances.

My problem with this is that Rachel Corrie was an activist who by her own admission was well aware that she could be killed for actions, that if she wasn't it would be because the Israelis were too afraid of media attention in the West and not because they Loved Her Personally, that this was a racist policy, and, most importantly, that, under the circumstances, Palestinians were using Israeli racism strategically by aligning themselves with her organization. That last bit is where I think there's no great honor in dismissing her murder because of her nationality. Her death got more attention in the West than that of most individual Palestinians' did, but it didn't get a lot, and obviously Israel guaged that reaction and realized that mowing over American and European activists would save more trouble than it created; this has been a blow to the Palestinian movement. I remember back in the late 80′s and early 90′s the presence of even one non-Arab American or European with a video camera was enough to stop the bulldozers. Does that make their presence the be-all and end-all of the movement, i.e. "thank god! you saved us!"? Of course not, but a collective movement is by definition collective and there was definitely a role here for so-called outsiders. Palestinians knew this and to some extent relied on it. Rachel Corrie's death and the corresponding lack of outrage surrounding it eroded that role, which is where, in strictly concrete terms, the battle cry that "we only know her name because she's an American, *eyeroll*" has done absolutely nothing to help the Palestinian cause.

There is, however, the need to divorce concrete privilege from psychological privilege. I'm struggling for language on this one, but I've become increasingly bothered by the 'existential snobbery' (term coined by my husband when I was going on about this ) that comes with declarations of 'white privilege.' It's one thing to acknowledge the ways privilege, racial or otherwise, permeates one's existence; to recognize that the fact that you don't burn crosses on people's lawns doesn't mean you weren't raised with racist stereotypes, that you didn't absorb these messages subconsciously, and that you didn't benefit from other people's racism (or sexism, or homophobia, or imperialistic conquests) even if you didn't actively solicit such benefits.

But there comes a point when recognizing this privilege leads to its own form of racism (or sexism, or heterosexism, or imperialism); when one believes one's "privilege" is so entrenched as to be immutable, and, most arrogantly, the corresponding belief that one's own hierarchies are shared by everyone on the planet.

That first link above addresses this with regard to Zionism. "In the eyes of Zionists, you are not Americans or Britons or Australians. In the last analysis, you are goyim." Whether Zionists believe they are "above" or "below" goyim is almost beside the point. What matters is that it's a great example of a group operating under a different system of categorization, and it sheds light on the myriad limitations of wow-am-I-ever-privileged as an organizing principle, much less as a psychological framework. While there is a place for recognizing unmerited advantages in order to renounce them or use them strategically on behalf of those without such advantages, there's also the danger of repeating the "I'm privileged!" mantra enough in hopes of making it true. (And here I have a vision of a Sensitive New Age Guy putting down a book of Freud's and apologizing to his wife for his oh-so-powerful-penis, to which she answers, uh, don't worry about it, you ain't all that.)

It's the immutable part that bothers me. This idea that privilege is a 'state of being' rather than a series of dynamic, lived experiences, ones that result from social relations specific to time and culture. The problem with announcing one's privilege as a static state — together with a fear of appropriation — is that it fixes a system of categorization that leaves no space for oppressed/non-privileged groups to be seen as authentically talented, objectively powerful, "winners" with or without a level playing field. I remember being told as a child that I was a good artist "for my age" and being so offended by the qualifier — I'm good period, dammit! You're the one who can't draw a stick figure without screwing it up.

It's within this framework that, when the overt racist argues against "dwelling" on slavery, the multiculturalist argues in favor of studying it "so that African-Americans will feel included in the curriculum" rather than arguing that the study of slavery and those who defied it is integral to the macro-study of war, economics, and power relations, topics that are at the heart of, say, the study of the Roman Empire. Making "African-Americans feel included in the curriculum" is a nice goal, I guess, but not when it comes with the implicit assumption that the history of people of color is only useful as a niche subject for people who swing that way when in fact it is a fundamental part of American history.

On a global scale, Islamic civilization was the center of the world for hundreds of years, and I can't get past the role this fact played on September 11. On the one hand I'm opposed to any world view that gives primacy to whoever was on top at any given period, as though those with the power did and therefore should control the universe, but on the other hand I can see where Muslims, particularly those in the Middle East, take particular offense to the view that a country like the U.S. — which has only achieved global dominance in the last 60 years — has the audacity to go flitting around the world doling out advice. And in that context it really doesn't matter if it's someone from USAID telling you you need to initiate a structural adjustment program in order to qualify for a loan or if it's a lefty college student saying "I apologize for all my privilege! Man, am I ever a dick!": it's still some asshole who thinks they're all that giving YOU, the civilization who invented agriculture, who translated the Greeks for the Chinese and vice versa, who initiated the Renaissance in Europe and essentially saved civilization as we know it, advice on how to live.

So while I like and agree with the strategic use of concrete privilege initiated by Rachel Corrie and her cohorts — it was a policy that worked for over a decade, after all — the way the left speaks about privilege generally makes me uncomfortable.

Conservatives like Dinesh D'Souza are capturing this sentiment and selling it in an ahistorical framework, ala "There! We've got Oprah! Racism's over! Everybody go home now!" This is appealing to rich white guys for all the obvious reasons, but there's also a contingent of historically oppressed groups who are the political equivalent of me back in elementary school saying my drawings were good period, sick of white people (or men, or the American War Machine, whatever) approaching them as though they are quaint museum artifacts rather than communities with expertise to be shared. As one friend told me recently, "In order not to be a steoretypical, consumerist New Ager, I didn't proactively try to learn about other cultures." I went through the same thing with all things Native American, to the point where what I'm left with veered way past "respect" and straight into "ignorance." After all, if I'm not going to the source looking for information about this part of American history (and, for that matter, this part of American present), then what I'm left with is whatever I crap I get from FOX News. Yet it shouldn't be either/or.

Several of the (male) authors in this book I keep talking about, _Progressive Muslims_, say that their ideology was informed by feminist scholarship, to the extent that it turned them around on seemingly unrelated-to-women issues in Qur'anic interpretation. This is 2003. When I was in school my male professors were "sensitive to" feminist critiques. And that was nice; it was better than the only alternative back then (early 90s), which was to make jokes about Hairy-Legged Bra-Burners (and here I'd use one of those little 'TM' symbols if I knew how to make them), but "informed by" and "influenced by" are so much better than "sensitive to." Trouble is, you can't be authentically "influenced by" if you're not willing to admit that the tradition you've inherited — the one you label your "privilege" — might not be all it's cracked up to be.

Quoting lorigami, because I think she speaks for a lot of people:

But then I certainly get tired of being called a dirty hippie and being verbally abused or laughed at by people who believe in the whitewashed vision of the American Way. I'd like to just live in peace and quiet with my husband and my cats and my art, and how much of the world's problems are my responsibility anyway? Those women with their SUV's filled with shopping bags aren't going to listen, they don't want to know, what good does it do to tell them? But somebody said something to me once that made me stop and think, even if it was when I was in high school, can't the same thing happen to someone else, isn't that how changes happen? She tells two friends, and so on and so on…?

Certainly that was true for me. I didn't know anything about the Middle East until I was in college and met three brothers from Palestine. Iraq, Iran, Arabs, Muslims, terrorists, PLO, it was all the same, backdrop on the news as you pass through the room — depressing and too full of details to ever be able to sort out — until I got to know them. They got me interested in the Middle East, partly through the horrible tales (what it's like to be beaten while blindfolded — "you never know where the next blow is coming from" — or the street in their neighborhood named after a 9-year-old boy who'd been shot in the head by a settler), but just as much through the food and music and dabke dancing and all the other aspects of Palestinian culture that kept me coming back to this issue even though I didn't yet know why 1948 or 1967 were important dates or that "Islam" was the noun and "Muslim" the adjective or who Menachem Begin was and why he mattered. You just hear these drums and then you're sucked in and pretty soon you're driving home from Chicago with a professor of comparative literature who's telling you about the time she interviewed George Habas in Damascus and by that time you do know who he is and you do know why he matters and all the time there's Marcel Khalife playing in the background and one of these brothers is telling you why the ADC protested The Cure's "Killing an Arab" regardless of the Camus rationale. When he meets up with you again in a cafe he introduces your mother to his friends as "Umm Laura" and she'll remember it forever. She'd never followed Palestinian politics, either. Now she donates to charitable organizations in Gaza and helps organize Islam seminars at her church. This is how it happens, one person to another to another.

In October their 60-year-old mother was shot and killed while knitting on her porch in Nablus. The Christian Science Monitor wrote about it here:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cuts lives short everyday, but Shaden abu Hijleh's death on Oct. 11 resonated beyond family and friends. A United Nations official highlighted her killing in a Security Council briefing on Israeli-Palestinian violence; President George Bush raised her case with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to an Israeli newspaper.

Ms. Abu Hijleh's story has drawn attention that eludes hundreds of others killed here, in part because she was a well-known peace activist, but also because her four children – all Iowa State graduates [sic: it's the University of Iowa] – have campaigned for her case.

An initial army inquiry blamed a stray bullet from a shoot-out. Later, army investigators would acknowledge that the neighborhood had been quiet. An examination of evidence at the scene and eyewitness accounts suggest that this was no accident.

Shaden's death has sharpened questions about the army's investigations into and punishments for civilian casualties. It has given added ballast to those who charge that the army operates with impunity in the Palestinian territories.

"This should be a turning point," says Akiva Eldar, a prominent Israeli journalist who is following the case closely. "Sometimes people become symbols after their death to make sure it doesn't happen to others."

More:

• Her eulogy and an account of her murder.

• The e-mail I received from her daughter:
  

  Appeal for Action Justice for All

  More than fifty days have passed since the senseless murder of our mother, Shaden Saleh Abu-Hijleh, by the Israeli Army (IDF) acting in the city of Nablus on 11 October 2002. Israeli soldiers deliberately shot her while she was sitting inside our home working on a piece of embroidery. Our father Dr. Jamal Abu-Hijleh and brother Saed were injured and miraculously escaped death. Our mother was a peace activist and philanthropist. She dedicated her life to helping the poor, and was a member of several local organizations that extend support to needy families.

  The inconceivable circumstances of our mother’s murder brought about international and local condemnation of the IDF actions against Palestinian innocent civilians in general and her case in particular. The Israeli Government had promised whoever approached them about the case, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, human rights organizations, journalists and even the United States Government, to conduct a serious investigation. To this date no one received any information about the investigation, and we are not sure if one is actually underway.

  We, the family and friends of Shaden Abu-Hijleh, vowed to pursue the case of her murder to try to bring the ones responsible to justice. Many concerned people around the world expressed willingness to help and support our endeavor. Lawyer Hussein Abu-Hussein who represents us on the case addressed a letter to the State of Israel Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Attorney General, the Military Commander, the Military Police, and the Judge Advocate General requesting an official investigation to be carried out and expressing the readiness of a number of witnesses to provide sworn affidavits of what actually happened (a translation of the letter is attached for your information and use).

  We believe that the IDF and the state of Israel should not be allowed to avoid their obligations of conducting the investigation, making its results public and bringing promptly to justice all the ones responsible for the atrocity committed against our mother, father and brother.

  We believe soldiers who commit war crimes should not be immune and should be brought to justice like other criminals.

  We call upon you to help us by:

  o Contacting directly the persons mentioned at the end of the appeal and supporting the family's request for an independent, impartial and transparent investigation and requesting that the ones responsible be promptly brought to justice;

  o Requesting your Congress/Parliament representatives, local pressure groups to contact the Israeli Ambassadors to your country and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to condemn the Israeli Army actions against Palestinian innocent civilians, like Shaden Abu-Hijleh and her family and requesting the Israeli Government to respect its own obligations under international laws;

  o Getting in touch with your local media representatives encouraging them to fairly and objectively cover the stories of Palestinian victims of Israeli violence and to investigate and follow up on the unsubstantiated explanations and unmet promises provided by the Israeli Government Official Spokespersons, particularly in the case of Shaden Abu-Hijleh’s murder.

  Help us ensure our mother does not become just another number in the long list of Palestinian victims of the Israeli Occupation.

  Let us together make the next Israeli soldier on such a mission hesitate before pulling the trigger and killing another Innocent Palestinian Civilian.

  We kindly ask you to spread our appeal by all means possible to you.

  Thank you for your support and for standing up for justice.

  Lana, Saed, Raed and Rami Abu-Hijleh
  Daughter and Sons of Martyr Shaden

  Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: Fax: 972-2-670-5475: pm_eng @pmo.gov.il
  Prime Minister Spokesman, Mr. Arnon Pearlman-Tzadok: dover@pmo.gov.il
  Prime Minister Public Relations, Ms Rutti Bait: pniot@pmo.gov.il

  Minister of Foreign Affairs, Benjamin Netanyahu: sar@mofa.gov.il
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Ron Prosher: dover@pmo.gov.il
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs Public Relations: pniot@pmo.gov.il

  Minister of Defense, Shaol Mofaz: fax: 972-3-6916940: sar@mod.gov.il
  Ministry of Defense Spokesperson Mrs. Rachel Naidek-Ashkenazi, dover@mod.gov.il
  Ministry of Defense Public Relations, Mrs. Hadasa Klepfish: pniot@mod.gov.il

  Minister of Police, Uzi Landau: sar@mops.gov.il
  Ministry of Police Spokesperson Ms. Ofra Matityahu: dover@mop.gov.il
  Ministry of Police Public Relations, Mr. Kobi Shiber: pniot@mops.gov.il

  IDF Commands: (Fax 972-3-6080339):

  To:

  IDF Chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya’alon
  IDF Spokesperson, Brig. Gen Ruth Yarun
  IDF GOC Central Command, Moshe Kaplinski

  IDF Military Advocate General, Maj. Gen. Dr. Menahem Finkelstein

  IDF Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad

  Minister of Justice Meir Seetrit: sar@justice.gov.il
  Ministry of Justice spokesman, Mr. Ido Baum: dover@justice.gov.il
  Ministry of Justice Public Relations, Ms. Yehudit Begun: pniot@justice.gov.il

  Attorney General, Mr. Eliakim Rubinstein, Ministry of Justice: Fax: 972-2-62886180 and 6274481

  All above

• Their lawyer's complaint to the state of Israel:
  

  אבו חוסיין , משרד עורכי – דין ונוטריונים

  ABU HUSSEIN – LAW OFFICE

  H. ABU HUSSEIN ADV. & NOTARY
  S. ABU HUSSEIN ADV. & NOTARY
  טל' 6312647, 6313640 – 04
  Tel: פאקס: 6312915 – 04
  Jafa St. , P.O.Box 290- Um El Fahem 30010

  Date: 28.11.02

  To: Prime Minister Arial Sharon
  Prime Minister’s Office
  Hakeria
  Jerusalem

  To: Minister of Defense Shaol Mofaz
  Security Office
  Hakeria
  Jerusalem

  To: Judge Advocate General
  The Judge Advocacy Office
  Hakeria
  Tel-Aviv

  To: The Commander of the District Area
  District Commander Chamber
  Hakeria
  Tel-Aviv

  To: The Military Police Unit
  Jerusalem

  To: Eliakim Robenshtein
  The Attorney General
  The Head Office
  Salah Al-deen St.
  Jerusalem

  Subject: The causes of death of the late Shaden Abu Hijleh and the injury of Dr. Jamal Abu Hijleh and Mr. Saed Abu Hijleh in Rafidia, Nablus

  Ms. Lana Abu Hijleh, the daughter of the late Shaden Abu Hijleh, Dr. Jamal Abu Hijleh, Mr. Saed Abu Hijleh, have empowered me to apply to you as follows:

  On Oct the 11th, 2002, at around 17:40, the late Shaden Abu Hijleh sat together with her Husband Dr. Jamal and their Son Saed on the porch of their Villa located in Rafidia neighborhood in Nablus.

  Two I.D.F. jeeps stopped in front of the villa for a few seconds then the soldiers in one of the two jeeps pointed their machine guns toward Shaden and her family and opened fire continuously.

  As a result, Shaden was shot and murdered at once and both her husband and her son were injured in different parts of their bodies.

  Dr. Jamal was injured in the skull and the left arm, while Saed was injured and cut in the neck and several other places due to flying glass shrapnel.

  Immediately after the two I.D.F. jeeps left the scene, the body of the late Shaden was taken by the neighbors to the nearest Hospital. Saed was taken by a local car for further medical treatment, however and while he was on his way to the hospital the same two jeeps stopped the car and delayed its passage of the despite the fact Saed was bleeding.

  When the residents of the neighborhood started to gather, the soldiers left the place immediately.

  It is important to mention that on the same day Nablus was under curfew as it was for the three months before and there were no tribulations or problems in the neighborhood of the family.

  The shooting that was directed towards my client’s family is a harsh breach of the opening fire orders and constitute a crime in all its intents and purposes.

  Every person with any appreciation for human values gets shocked of hearing about the murder of the late Shaden Abu Hijleh and the injury of her husband and son. The shooting should be considered a very serious issue due to the fact it was consecutive, deliberate and with no provocation at the part of the family.

  A state law should not permit any criminal behavior that carries signs of murder for its target.

  On behalf of my client I hereby apply to you in order to open an immediate investigation of the causes of the above-mentioned crime.

  My clients are ready to appear in front of anyone that will be nominated to investigate the circumstances of the incident and are ready to deliver all the evidences that have been gathered by them.

  Sincerely,
  Hussein abu Hussein, adv.

• A sampling of the lives she touched — a link to the guest book set up after her death, page 1 of 20. There's nothing that can justify her death, but I look at the number of people from all over the world, including me, who were affected by one woman and the four children she raised and I can't believe those who say the work of any one person is inconsequential.

This is a superb article about Palestine – "Anti-Semitism in U.S. Middle East Policy" by Stephen Zunes. You can get the whole thing at http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/mar95zunes.htm, but it's long, so I'm going to summarize it here. (Plus I just want to talk about it.) It was posted to the Progressive Islam list by an anti-Zionist Jewish man in the context of a discussion about AIPAC.

The article's basic contention is that the anti-Semitic demonization of AIPAC as The Evil Jewish Lobby serves the interests of American elites, who have altogether different reasons for supporting Israel but would prefer you not pay any attention to The Man behind the curtain.

There is something very easy — and all-too familiar — about Gentiles in powerful positions maintaining that it is not they who are responsible for their actions, but a cabal of rich and influential Jews manipulating events behind the scenes. Indeed, such claims constitute classic anti-Semitism: scape-goating Jews for unpopular actions by exaggerating Jewish economic and political power.

Those who've followed this issue at all know that the power of AIPAC is consistently raised as the *singular* reason for American support of Israel (I heard an anti-Zionist Jewish activist from Somerville mention this on NPR just yesterday — "it's so hard to get our message out, because the Israeli lobby is so much stronger than we are"). Granted, the U.S. wants a friend in the Middle East, but why choose Israel to be that friend – and the recipient of more American aid than any other country in the world – when, frankly, Israel doesn't have that much to offer? At least the Saudis have oil. Other states are much larger both geographically and demographically, and have better access to waterways. So why do the Americans keep courting Israel, the most hated country in the Middle East? "Obviously" because AIPAC is rich, and has American politicians under their armpit. Right?

But Zunes breaks down that argument:

Foreign policy decisions in the United States, as in most countries, are made by elites based on a broad consensus over strategic interests. Certain policies can be altered if challenged by mass popular movements — such as the opposition to the Vietnam War — but there has been no comparable movement in support of the Israeli government. The strong tilt in U.S. foreign policy in the past 20 years in support of the Israeli government has taken place primarily because of broader strategic concerns. Certainly there have been some specific Congressional votes where the outcome was certainly affected by the pro-Israel lobby, yet most of these were of a largely symbolic nature or were successful primarily because they paralleled already existing priorities by foreign policy elites.

Bush's success at blocking the loan guarantee is an example of the lobby's impotence when actually faced with resistance from those who really hold power in foreign policy implementation.

It is noteworthy that the major upturn in U.S. aid to Israel between 1967 and 1974 took place prior to the reorganization of AIPAC, when it greatly increased its power and influence on Capitol Hill. It also primarily took place under Richard Nixon, who was not only an anti-Semite, but also the least dependent on Jewish votes or financing of any recent president."

It's also worth noting that the U.S. recognized the state of Israel within minutes after its creation, at a time when AIPAC didn't even exist. There's usually a casual assumption here that this was because Americans were/are just so very enlightened about anti-Semitism and the rights of Zionists to have a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the aftermath of the Holocaust (as opposed to the racists in Europe and the Arab world). Zunes breaks that down, too:

The U.S. “supports” Israel for what that country has done for U.S. interests.

Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon, Jordan, and Yemen, as well as in Palestine. They have kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in check. Their air force is predominant throughout the region. Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms, often against Soviet weapons. They have been a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as South Africa, Iran, Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisors have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara. Their secret service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence gathering and covert operations. Israel has missiles capable of reaching the former Soviet Union and has cooperated with the U.S. military industrial complex with research and development for new jet fighters, anti-missile defense systems, and even the Strategic Defense Initiative.

As a result, the United States has been encouraging some of the more chauvinistic and militaristic elements in the Israeli government, undermining the last vestiges of Labor Zionism's commitment to socialism, non-alignment, and cooperation with the Third World. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger put it, “Israel's obstinacy. . . serves the purposes of both our countries best.” As Israeli military strength and repression of the Palestinians has increased, so has U.S. aid, contradicting the widespread belief that U.S. aid is to defend a threatened and democratic Israel.

The rise of the Likud Bloc in Israel and the rightward drift in the Labor Party since independence is in large part due to this large-scale American support. Israeli politicians such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Ariel Sharon would certainly exist without U.S. support, but they would have likely been part of a small right-wing minority in the Knesset. No one with those kinds of policies could last very long in office, given the self-defeating effect of such militarization on economic grounds or in terms of international isolation, were they not supported to such a degree that they did not have to worry about the consequences of their policies on their own population.

For reasons outlined above, it was in U.S. interests to maintain a militarily-powerful belligerent Israel dependent on the United States. Real peace could undermine such a relationship. The United States, therefore, pursued a policy of Pax Americana, one which might bring greater stability to the region while falling short of real peace."

He goes on to talk about the manner in which most foreign "aid" to Israel gets funneled back into the U.S. (this is true of all countries, not just Israel, but Israel gets one-third of American aid, so they're fucked harder by the phenomenon) and goes into some detail about the way American aid and American politics have supported not only Israel-the-country but specific politicians and political parties within Israel.

More:

One of the more unsettling aspects of U.S. policy is how closely it corresponds with historic anti-Semitism. Throughout Europe in past centuries, the ruling class of a given country would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, set up certain individuals in the Jewish community to become the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and money lenders. When the population would threaten to rise up against the ruling class, the rulers could then blame the Jews, sending the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scape-goats, resulting in the pogroms and other notorious waves of repression which have taken place throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

The idea behind Zionism was to break this cycle through the creation of a Jewish nation-state, where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling class of a given country. The tragic irony is that, as a result of Israel's inability or unwillingness to make peace with its Arab neighbors, the creation of Israel has perpetuated this cycle on a global scale, with Israel being used by Western imperialist powers — initially Great Britain and France and more recently the United States — to maintain their interests in the Middle East. Therefore, one finds autocratic Arab governments and other Third World regimes blaming “Zionism” for their problems rather than the broader exploitative global economic system and their own elites who benefit from and help perpetuate such a system.

*Thank you*. Not that Israel could be described as a nation of innocents or lacking in agency, but _in this context_ the scapegoating of Israel serves American interests long before it serves the Arabs'.

One last word here, and then I'll shut up with apologies for the length of this entry:

The combination of Israeli technology, Palestinian industriousness, and Arabian oil wealth could result in an economic, political, and social transformation of the Middle East which would be highly beneficial to the region's inhabitants, but not necessarily to certain elites in the United States and other Western nations who profit enormously from the continued divisions between these Semitic peoples."

This should never have become a war between Arabs and Jews. It's yet another case of the West pitting one oppressed group against another in order to fuel its own hegemony, and the only way to stop it is to recognize it and form alliances between those who are truly interested in both peace AND justice. Instead we have a situation in which the White House, the suicide bombers, and the right-wing fanatics in the Knesset are all at the very forefront of a discussion from which they should have been marginalized from the get-go.

The end.

Emergency Delegations to Palestine are being organized by Americans willing to act as human shields in the present conflict. They are particularly in need of medical professionals. Arabic and Hebrew skills appreciated but not necessary.

Voices in the Wilderness is still sending similar delegations to Iraq. (One of their members was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago.)

Edward Said on the current crisis