Juan Cole… Definitely Uninformed and Often Wrong

Juan Cole of “Ahmadinejhad really didn’t say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map” fame is at it once again. When it comes to Israel, Cole spends so much time twisting himself and distorting positions that it seems that the man would have to screw his pants on (h/t to Hunter S. Thompson) to get dressed in the morning. On his page “Informed Comment” (a misnomer if there ever was one) Cole writes: John Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid; and 5 Ways he is Understating It. In this article Cole gives us an fact free screed as to how Israel is an “Apartheid State” beginning with his inaccurate headline.

Where to start? Well let’s look at the Headline “Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid”. First of all that is NOT what Secretary Kerry did. What Kerry did do was say that were there to be a “One State Solution” there COULD be Apartheid (by the way, a term / position that runs directly contrary to terminology used by President Obama).
Here is Kerry’s statement:

“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative,”…. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state. Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.”

Unless one has the reading comprehension of a small child, it is clear that Secretary Kerry is saying that should there be One State solution (which there is not); Israel would run the risk of becoming an Apartheid type state. What he did not say was “Israel is an Apartheid State”. So, from the very headline this article fails.

From here it simply gets more ridiculous. The entire premise of the article states that there is already a One State solution in place and that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are in fact Israeli Citizens who are treated as “second class citizens”. NOW, if Israel did annex the West Bank and Gaza and did not offer the right of franchise amongst other civil rights to all of its citizens one could make that argument but the Israelis have not done this. AND even if they wanted to ignore all of the security concerns and everything else exactly to whom would they be handing this land over too (but never mind that I guess)? So with that the entire analogy of conflating Israel to South Africa fails miserably.

Cole’s first argument is that Israel is creating “Bantustans” in the West Bank and Gaza (just like South Africa):

“South Africa created Bantustans as a way of denaturalizing Blacks, ensuring that they could not vote for the national government and were assigned citizenship only in their weak Bantustan.”

So, while on the surface there is a similarity to say the Bennett plan for this kind of solution, the Bennett plan is a plan created by a coalition member and not an official negotiating position of the Israelis at this point in time. But even so, this is only a surface similarity to the Bantustans created by the South Africans.  Why is that?

First of all Gaza is and always has been a separate district from the founding of Israel forward. It has been occupied by the Egyptians and by the Israelis and both nations no longer occupy it. It was not part of the original State of Israel but it has always been a hostile territory to Israel.  Moreover, Gaza is not under military rule of Israel. It is under military blockade (and rightfully so considering the regular attacks that are continually launched from Gaza) but, the streets there are not patrolled by Israeli troops and the Haniyeh Government does not answer to the Israelis. It was not a piece of land that was carved out of Israel by the Israelis and handed to the Gazans in the same way the Whites in South Africa carved out states for Blacks.

Second of all, The West Bank is the same situation. It is not and was not originally part of Israel or at least the Partition Plan that the U.N. used to establish Palestinian and Jewish homelands. The Israelis have installed a series of checkpoints in the West Bank and Israeli soldiers do patrol the area but given the security climate, that is understandable. I know in Cole’s world that Jews and Israelis are not allowed to defend themselves but here in reality we are and we do. Still, as mentioned above, the “Bantustans” (which don’t in reality – there’s that word again, exist) are not land carved out of a national territory that had already existed. The checkpoints exist due to security concerns. Last I or any checked a nation is certainly not obligated to allow people to attack it.

Cole’s second argument like his first once again falls flat when he argues:

South Africa instituted a “pass” system to control the movement of Blacks.

“Israel instituted a “permit” system to control the movement of Palestinians.”

Now wait… I didn’t realize that Palestinians who were citizens of Israel needed permits to move around inside of Israel. They don’t? Well golly…. Of course the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are not citizens of Israel, they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, and there have been a number of terror strikes against Israel originating from the Territories, is it any wonder why the Israelis would want security in these areas. Now in order to be analogous to South Africa, Israel would have to have those same checkpoints in place throughout its territory and only Israeli – Arabs would have to be subject to that as Blacks were in South Africa. However, that is simply not the case. So yet again Cole’s fact free article remains true to form.

Cole’s next argument again relies on fiction to try to make a comparison:

“In Apartheid South Africa, 80% of the land was set aside for white settlers.

Israel itself was ethnically cleansed of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, and was designated “Jewish,” such that the expelled Palestinians (now millions strong) were denied the right to return to their homes.”

Now… for a second let’s remember that history actually exists and it is not some made up story as Cole wishes it was.

First of all, according to the U.N. Partition plan Israel was to be 17.5% of the Original Partition. Of that land:

“Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.”

Not even of the 17.5% of the original Mandate was there any land set aside for “Jews only”. But the weak comparison to South Africa is not the most egregious part of this statement.  The most egregious part of this is the claim that 750,000 (and now millions of) Palestinians were “ethnically cleansed”. First of all the “millions” claim is based on a unique count that the U.N. assigns only to Palestinian refugees. No other refugees in the world can share this status. Not the almost 900,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab countries that came to Israel or any other refugees that exist in the world. Just the Palestinians get to do this.

Second of all, even according to Benny Morris’ book 1948 (considered one of the foremost works on this issue); many refugees were not actually “cleansed”. There were instances of that and in cases where the villagers had peace treaties with Haganah forces but were still driven out; I do believe that those people should have a right to compensation for their losses. But in most cases, the civilian populations either left in flight of the war or left as a result of hostile action against the IDF. I understand why someone would leave a war zone but if one leaves a war that one’s side started, and one is either an active or sympathetic participant on the losing side then one pretty much loses their “right” to return. The Israelis of the Yishuv had no obligation to allow hostile forces who were sniping convoys from villages or actively working against them to return to those villages. Again, suicide is not something that Israel is obligated to do.

And again we see Cole really stretching the “Apartheid” comparison when he says:

“In Apartheid South Africa, Blacks from the Bantustans could not attend universities designated for whites”

But in Israel, Israeli citizens whether they are Arab or Jewish can attend Israeli Universities. Again, to attend Israeli Universities, one must be an Israeli citizen in most cases (with exceptions for foreign exchange students). Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so really Israel has no obligation to allow them to attend Israeli Universities. No nation’s educational system has an obligation to allow people that are not citizens attend their colleges. Israeli Universities are also not “designated for Whites” (or Jews as Cole means), all Israelis are allowed to attend.
Now none of this is meant to “whitewash” problems that Arab Students face when attending school in Israel. There certainly are problems with the system. But to compare it Apartheid South Africa is to diminish just how horrible real Apartheid was.
Finally Cole, ends up his embarrassingly fact free column with this:

“South African Apartheid forbade marriages between people of different ethnicities.

Israelis of Jewish and Palestinian heritage cannot intermarry in Israel. Two Israeli citizens of different ethnic heritage can marry abroad and return to Israel. But Israeli-Palestinians who marry Palestinians from the Occupied West Bank are not allowed to bring their spouse to Israel. The same problem is not faced by Israeli Jews who marry squatters on the Palestinian West Bank.”

Unlike South Africa where this was a system designed to keep Black and White South Africans from marrying this is not the case in Israel. The system (one, I think is awful) was designed so that only Orthodox Jews can have State licensed / performed marriages. It is a stupid law for the year 2014 but it is not designed to discriminate against Palestinians. For instance, I cannot get married in Israel because my wife is not Jewish. I would have had to go to Cyprus or Europe or the U.S. for a civil marriage. The system sucks (pardon my language) but it is not a “racist” system, it is just very much behind the times.

As for Palestinians marrying someone from the Territories, the Israeli position while sad is understandable given the fact that again Israel is under no obligation to grant citizenship or residency to anyone that is not a citizen. Can Israelis marry someone from the territories and bring them to Israel? Nope. Is that objectively fair? No. Is it Apartheid? Not by a long shot.

In the end, Cole’s farce of an article should be satire. Sadly it is not. To compare Israel to South Africa is a joke. In South Africa Whites were 12% of that nation’s population. In Israel Jews are 77% of the population. Blacks as a population were completely disenfranchised. Arab-Israelis are not. Blacks were segregated in every sector of society. Israeli-Arabs are not. Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. I am pretty sure that South Africa is NOT the ancestral homeland of the Dutch or British White people.

One can agree with the point being made by John Kerry or not. I happen to think Kerry chose an unfortunate word “Apartheid” to make his point. I think his concern is valid but even with a One State solution; one would still be fairly far away from accurately using the term Apartheid and having that term mean anything.

PM NETANYAHU IS RIGHT - AN OPEN LETTER TO AMOS SCHOCKEN

It really is simple. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is absolutely right in his insistence that Israel be recognized as  the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People.

Now I certainly cannot lecture you and any other Israeli on your feelings in this matter. I am not Israeli. I lived in Israel for a time when I was younger, but I didn’t stay and make Aliyah. I never served in Tzahal. I never really sacrificed for Israel. I give money to the Magen David, and I have spent over the last 38 years or so thousands of hours as part of the Zionist Movement. But, I do consider myself a strong supporter of the Zionist dream, and I would ask that you and others that share your opinion please consider my words here. 

I think you are mistaken in your piece in Haaretz when you argue here against Ari Shavit’s (and by extension the Prime Ministers position) piece in the same newspaper.

In that piece you rightly recognize that those of us who support the fact that Israel needs to be recognized as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people cite this as the core the principle of Zionism itself.  After all what is Zionism in it’s most essential form if not the philosophical underpinning that the Nation of Israel indeed be the National Homeland of the Jewish People.  Isn’t that the root definition of the term “Zionism”?

It is after this that your argument goes awry.  You state:

“Contrary to what Shavit says, having the State of Israel alongside a Palestinian state, with the two living in peace with one another, is the aspiration of many good people. They will be satisfied if peace will be merely with the Palestinian state, and not with the nation-state of the Palestinian people.

In order to create an artificial balance and justify his position, Shavit invents a Palestinian nationality. If there is a Palestinian nationality (if there is such a thing as a nationality altogether), then in Jordan there are apparently two nationalities – the Palestinian one and the Bedouin one.”

First of all… While that may be the aspiration of many good people in the Peace Camp, and I know that there are many good people in the Peace Camp, that is not the aspiration of the majority of the Palestinian people. Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Israeli Palestinian conflict is certainly no exception to that rule. Whether or not you (or the interestingly enough the Hard Right that denies that there even is a “Palestinian People”) recognize Palestinian nationalism, it exists and the Palestinians recognize it. So de facto (if not de juer) does the U.N. who has recognized a Palestinian State from 1948 and forward.

And so yes in Jordan, there are two nationalities and they have been at odds whether we like to recognize that or not. Of course why else did Jordan declare that people in the West Bank were not citizens of Jordan? The ruling Hashemites recognize a difference and so do those in the opposition to that regime. Are you really arguing that the Palestinians in Jordan do not recognize themselves as Palestinian?

But being Palestinian doesn’t mean that one cannot be Jordanian as well. If a person feels that their nationality is Palestinian but wants to live or supports the political system in Jordan then I see no reason that someone cannot be Palestinian-Jordanian. Just as people can be part of the “Jewish Nation” (meaning being bound to the ethnic traditions and culture of the Jewish people) and live in America, or Europe, or any other part of the diaspora. Certainly I can still be a committed Zionist and not live in Israel (though some may certainly disagree).

Ok, anti-nationalist feelings aside. You then go on to say:

“When Israel recognized the fact that there are Palestinians deserving of self-determination, the Palestinians recognized Israel – that same Israel that was founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism. What’s missing is an agreement on substance – borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem.”

No… the Palestinians DID NOT recognize “that same Israel”. They recognized that there would be a State called Israel and that was it. Why do I say that? Because had they recognized an Israel founded on the constitutive principles of Zionism they would have renounced the so-called “Palestinian Right of Return”. Borders, security and the status of a City (even as important as Jerusalem) are all up for discussion, even if they are breaking points in themselves. The refugee situation and insistence on “Right of Return” (not to confused with the Hoq’ HaShvut) goes right to the heart of the situation.

The Palestinian polity has never given up on that and still doesn’t to this day. 

The insistence on that “Right” has publicly been stated by P.A. President Abbas and is certainly supported Palestinian Public Opinion (which also by the way rejects a Democratic Palestine where Jews and Arabs enjoy equal rights). Of course everyone understands that this would cause a demographic shift in Israel which would cause Israel to cease to exist in the terms that the nation was founded upon.

What is proof of this? Well, look at the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) Movement. It proposes a boycott of only Jewish businesses in Israel. Of course it doesn’t say that (because credit to them, they are media savvy enough to understand just how destructive that would be) but ask any member of said movement if they also advocate boycotts of Palestinian/Arab Israeli businesses, sports teams, cultural groups or academics. Every time I have run into BDS people, I ask that question and every time the answer is the same “No”. Of course they couch their terminology in just saying it’s about Israel but if you don’t boycott the Arabs in Israel exactly who is left to boycott? Either the Jews or the small percentage of immigrant non-Jews.

You then go on to say:

“…Will he (Shavit) accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish nation-state that is built on the ruins of 400 Palestinian villages and hundreds of thousands of refugees, who have since become millions, and where 20 percent of the citizenry are Palestinians, who are just as nationalist as he is?

Those who present themselves as supporters of the two-state solution, but who insist on demanding recognition of a nation-state, are acting to perpetuate the occupation and settlement.”

I cannot speak for Ari Shavit but I think I can safe safely say that (at least according to the polls) most Israelis WOULD accept a Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State that is “built on the ruins” of villages and creation of war-time refugees. I live in the U.S. and I accept that my nation was built in part by war, and conquest. It happens, in the world. It has happened since the dawn of time and it will continue to happen into the future. No matter how much we wish it would not, it is simply unrealistic to think it will not. Oh and by the way, you can bet that the Palestinians would ALSO accept a nation built on the smoking ruin of Israel and the creation of millions of Jewish refugees.

Supporting a “Two State Solution” and recognition that the only real way to a lasting peace (something that I very much do support) is in understanding BOTH peoples legitimate aspirations for self governance. To recognize this fact does nothing to delegitimize the history of Palestinians who lived in the Mandate.

Personally, I believe Shavit is absolutely correct when he says:

“…..because it is actually impossible to demand from the Palestinians that they change their spots and convert their identity, it is required to demand they recognize this: that the Jewish people is a people of this land, and it did not arrive here from Mars (my emphasis). It is necessary to demand of them to admit that the Jewish people has a history of its own and a tragedy of its own and its own justification. The Palestinians must concede that the Jews are not colonialists but legal neighbors. There will not be peace if the children growing up in the Deheisheh refugee camp will not know that the country across the border is a legitimate Jewish state of a true Jewish people, whom they are decreed to live with. It is those who give up on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state who are actually giving up on peace.”

This is important and I think this is where you and others in the Peace Camp go awry. I do not doubt the intentions of many there. I am not a raging Right Winger, in fact I come from a Center-Left perspective. I follow Israeli politics closely and where I there, I would probably vote for either Avodah or HaTnuah. I understand that people want peace and want to find a way to find a “just peace” for this conflict. So I am not demeaning anyone on the Left.

That said, I have to say that the PM’s argument in this case is correct. His demand cuts to the heart of the matter and it is one that needs to be addressed whether one likes it or not. Shavit is correct in identifying that this conflict does not take place in a vacuum and that the Palestinians and their supporters do need to take responsibility for their part / actions in this conflict. That is not some racist or harsh demand. It is a demand that necessitates a real peace treaty.

Of course, there is a certain amount of hopelessness to resolving this conflict peacefully and who really wants let their optimism for a resolution drain down a “sinkhole of despair”? I don’t think anyone outside of extremists in either camp wants that. But we also cannot be blind to what is happening beyond the Green Line in the fractured Palestinian Polity or to their supporters throughout the world. Just wishing for an end to Nationalism, or supporting solutions like a proposed creation of the United States of Isratine (or other ridiculous names), might be fine in a fictional 24^th Century Earth (Star-Trek reference here), but this is not that place and not that time. AND given the history of the Jewish people is that really something that we can “bank on” right now.

So Mr. Schocken (and those who agree with him), unless you are willing to simply come out and declare the Zionist dream D.O.A. or renounce that, then you should very much re-consider your arguments here. Zionism defined is the National movement of the Jewish People. Israel was created by Zionism and it is something that must be recognized or there cannot be lasting peace.

Goodbye J Street

Dear J Street , 

It’s time I said “Goodbye”.  

Why? Because I am not sure that you represent my values anymore. 

Over the years, I have been to various events, went to see such speakers as Jeremy Ben-Ami, and Bradley Burston (both very good discussions), blogged my support at Daily Kos and at my own website The Progressive Zionist, and supported J Street with donations. I no longer feel that I can do that and furthermore don’t really understand how anyone who would consider themselves both “Pro-Israel”, and  ”Pro-Peace” could stay in the organization given what is about to happen.

  

While I agree with most of J-Street’s policy statements (support for reasonable Two State solution, Anti-BDS, Pro-Civil Rights) regarding Israel, giving activists who support BDS, and spread messages of hatred toward Israel an active platform is a step too far. When did this happen? Well here it is. 

J Street is hosting a discussion with author David Harris Gershon regarding a book that he wrote wherein he talks about his path to dealing with having his wife being harmed in a Terror attack and how he has tried to reconcile that to his life. Harris-Gershon took the unique step of actually meeting with the family of the terrorist in order to understand just what made that person plant a bomb in a school cafeteria and then to forge some kind of closure to the incident. 

All that would be fine and good except for the fact that Harris-Gershon trades heavily in anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic memes.  Now these are pretty serious allegations and I don’t make these lightly nor do I make them without proof.  But here are some of the quotes from a man that J Street says:

“J Street DC Metro, the DC Public Library and Americans for Peace Now are proud to sponsor Harris-Gershon's discussion, which will be followed by a Q&A and book signing. “

“Proud” to sponsor a discussion from a person who regularly uses his twitter account to “re-tweet” messages from Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, Stephan Walt and Max Blumenthal amongst others? I mean nothing says that someone “loves” Israel like “re-tweeting” known anti-Semites and anti-Zionists. Right? 

Or how about this gem that Harris-Gershon “tweeted”:

David Harris-Gershon ‏@David_EHG Mar 3

If you think the world should boycott Russia over occupation, but Palestinians should not via-a-vis Israel, you have some explaining to do.

Now this is a particularly interesting tweet because Harris Gershon has been turned away from speaking in a few Jewish organizations because of his support for the anti-Semitic BDS Movement something that Mr. Harris-Gershon denies that he supports. Interestingly enough this denial came when he began his book / speaking tours to Jewish organizations. But that said, aside from his constant support for those who do favor BDS here are David’s exact words with regards to BDS:

“And I think about Israel's inability to stop the occupation on its own, about how the only way to stop it may be for outside pressures (emphasis mine) to bear down upon the country I love.

Sanctions. Boycotts. Divestments. (BDS)….

…. And so we come to the confession, to the coming out: as an American Jew invested deeply in Israel's success and survival -- which in turn drives my investment in stopping one of the greatest moral challenges of my generation: the occupation -- I have no choice but to formally endorse and embrace BDS…. (emphasis mine)

…. However, I know this for a fact: those who claim in Israel that there is no occupation have only one goal in mind: a single-state solution, a Jewishly-controlled Israel stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
And it's an unworkable, unsustainable goal that will be realized -- one state -- unless outside forces are brought to bear.”

Now… if this is not bad enough.. Harris-Gershon also engages in rhetoric that is reminiscent of the horrible Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here is his commentary in an article at Daily Kos February 4^th, 2013 where Harris Gershon unleashes the old anti-Semitic canard of dual loyalty with these two comments: 

“The reason for this disproportionate, obsessive focus on Israel with no regard for U.S. troops in Afghanistan? Simple: AIPAC and the "pro-Israel" lobby's ill-founded concern about the Hagel nomination coupled by the lobby's disproportionate influence on our representatives to echo that concern.”(emphasis mine)

And

“But when the hawkish, "pro-Israel" lobby in America can influence our representatives to sound as if they – well – are representing Israel's citizens more than our own? (emphasis mine)

          We have a problem. A problem that must be discussed openly and honestly.”

Straight out conspiracy theory saying that America’s representatives are controlled by “Zionist Interests”… Where have we heard charges like that before and from whom?

SO… with that, I say “goodbye”, “so long”, “Shalom”, to J Street. Why would I support an organization that gives a platform (and is proud of that) to a person who espouses both anti-Zionism and in my opinion borderline anti-Semitic memes? Just as I would not belong to an organization that gave a platform to Gilad_Atzmon nor can I see my money or support going to an organization that would support and be “proud of” and having David Harris Gershon.

I cannot in good conscience support J Street IF this is the type of programming or this is the kind of speaker that they will sponsor. I wish things were different because I do support J Street’s general principles. However, when you give a platform to people like Harris Gershon. What are you really supporting?

Shalom,

A former friend.

Republican Casts Sole Anti-Israel Vote

It has been a subject of vicious debate whether anti-Zionism in America can be seen as a liberal phenomenon - one that in the US is aligned with elements of the Democratic party - or whether it is solely on the extremes.


Today the House of Representatives voted on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, a bill that declares Israel to be a “major strategic partner” of the United States, enables further US-Israel economic, scientific, and cultural exhange, and contains some perks for Israeli citizens regarding travel to the US.  The bill is sufficiently substantive that it has the antisemites anti-Zionists at Mondoweiss freaking out.  What can todays roll call vote tell us about where anti-Zionism lies?

The bill passed the House 410-1 (yes, you read that right) with 19 abstentions.  The 19 abstentions seem to be a random mix of Republicans and Democrats who were simply out of town.  

So, you may ask, which of the far-left whacked-out Democrats was the one "no" vote?  Was it Barbara Lee of Oakland / Berkeley, who has flirted with Trutherism?  Was it Keith Ellison, the only Muslim on Congress, who has in the past said some stupid things regarding Gaza?  Was it Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, who defeated a Jewish opponent in a primary and who we were told was a secret anti-Zionist.  
Actually, Lee, Elliison, and Pascrell all voted yes.

It turns out the sole "no" vote came from a Republican - Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

"But I thought that anti-Zionism had infected the Democratic party, while the Republican party is full of people who understand the moral and historical case for Israel."

Well, if you thought that, on this one you thought wrong.  Massie is a Rand Paul devotee from the "libertarian" wing of the Republican party.  ("libertarian" is in quotes because I'm sure, like all Republican-aligned "libertarians" he doesn't support true personal liberty like drug legalization or abortion rights).  Massie even goes so far as to supposedly live "off the grid" in a log cabin, which is hilarious considering his district consists of the Northern Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati, truly one of the most anonymously suburban wastelands in the world.  The closest his constituents ever get to being "off the grid" is when the credit card reader breaks at Applebees and they have to go to TGI Fridays instead.

But I digress.  The point here is that a Republican, and a conservative one at that, was the sole no vote on this important piece of pro-Israel legislation, because he is from the emerging Paulite wing of the Republican party that basically lives by the motto "F the world, including Israel".  Does this represent an emerging trend in the Republican party?  Does it mean that "Republicans have let antisemitic anti-Zionism in to their tent"?  We shall see...

Why Facebook Is Bad For People

Yep, I'm going to be that guy.  I'm going to complain about how Facebook is ruining society.

However, this isn't going to be the standard rant about it being a waste of time.  Don't get me wrong, it IS a waste of time - but most humans will always waste time with pointless diversions and Facebook is just the latest.  Before people pissed away hours updating their Facebook status and flipping through 500 selfies, they spent hours watching reality TV shows following knuckleheads around a pawn shop or doing some other absolutely mundane activity, and before that they wasted hours with pointless sitcoms, and before that... well I guess before that there was painting stick figure animals on the walls of the cave.  The point is that Facebook didn't create the pointless time suck, so I'm not going to charge it with that.

The problem with Facebook is much deeper and much worse than merely allowing people to waste time instead of climbing mountains or learning how to play the lute.

------

To start with, let's note that the internet is rightly criticized for herding people into political echo chambers.  Instead of the old days of newspapers and network news, where flipping on Dan Rather or picking up the local paper meant confronting a more or less objective external reality, nowadays people can read hundreds of blogs, listen to countless podcasts, and read thousands of comments without ever encountering a different opinion or a challenging fact.  In today's internet, people almost never encounter a challenge to their political opinions, they only receive more and more validation.

What does this have to do with Facebook?

Well, just like much of the rest of the internet gives people a political echo chamber, Facebook gives people a personal life echo chamber.

Anything anyone ever posts to Facebook is noting but unanimously "liked".  There is no "dislike" button.  There is not even an "I don't care" button. There are only positive comments, and positive feedback.

If someone doesn't think something that has been posted is actually that great, they just ignore it and move on.  In the exceedingly rare event of a negative comment, it can just be deleted and the offending party unfriended, leaving 500 more friends to unanimously "like" or silently ignore everything else.

So no matter what someone posts to Facebook - perhaps the 5000th selfie of the day, perhaps the 200th picture of their kid, perhaps a status update about brushing their teeth, whatever it is - is never reacted to in a negative way.  Everything that everyone does is great.  Just great.  All the time great.

Facebook is erasing the social distinction between mundane activities and actual achievements.  It is giving people a greatly inflated sense of their self-worth.  You went to a bar and took a selfie with your friends?  Like!  You played softball today?  Like!  You microwaved a hot pocket and it is oh so gooey?  Like!  Your dental checkup went well?  Like!  You won a Nobel Prize?  Like!  You completed Army Ranger training?  Like!

The profound and the mundane all blend into an undifferentiated haze of constant assured positive reinforcement.

I am convinced that, as a consequence, people are becoming less and less interesting.  Less intellectual, less athletic, less achieving, less caring, less healthy, and less of pretty much anything positive.  Granted, these are all trends that predate Facebook, but Facebook is greatly accelerating them.

When someone can post that they are brushing their teeth or just successfully defrosted a hot pocket and receive numerous likes and affirming comments from friends and family, it gives them a greatly inflated sense of self-worth that was simply not available in the pre-Facebook days.  In those olden days seven years ago, someone in the course of brushing their teeth would not receive positive reinforcement and might just have to give a moment's thought to what they could do that day to better themselves - perhaps hit the gym, or read a book, or call their grandmother.

Life used to have some negative reinforcement, and while it could certainly be abusive, it also crucially anchored peoples' personal lives in some external reality.  On Facebook there is no critical external reality - just a personal life echo chamber.  There is no dislike button, no ignore button, and no "boring!" button.

Today someone can post a selife or ten to Facebook and nobody is going to register dislike.  There will be no authentic human reactions to it.  Nobody is going to tell the poster with their words or their body language that they are losing the tight gym body they had a while back.  Nobody is going to tell them with their words or body language that the significant other smirking in the background of the photo is a total douchebag.  They will not have the experience of being ignored and learning that what they are doing is uninteresting, since ignoring people doesn't register on Facebook.  It will only be like like like like like.

Today someone can post a status update that they have dropped out of engineering and switched their major to queer basket weaving theory, and nobody will communicate with words or body language that they think it was a bad idea.  Someone can post a naked picture of their three year old for all their friends and all of posterity to see and nobody will communicate with words or body language that it might be a bad idea.  Someone can spin their version of a personal conflict and nobody will communicate with words or body language that they might just be wrong.

Facebook enables constant positive social reinforcement leading to erasure of the distinction between the mundane and sublime.  It may just be the worst thing to happen to culture in the 21st century.

Defeating the Lies of BDS (On their own terms) – Part I

As the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement becomes more popular with both the Hard Left and Hard Right in America (spurred on by both rabid anti-Semites as well as anti-Zionist Jews who somehow are fine to be in alliance) it is important that we who support the Zionist dream of Israel have the right answers and tools necessary to argue our cause in a rational and easily understood manner. Before we start however it is important to recognize that the goal of BDS is the elimination of the State of Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. They want Israel as it was conceived gone. Even Dr. Norman Finkelstein a noted anti-Zionist and supporter of BDS (by his own words), recognizes this and discusses this here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iggdO7C70P8

To that end, here are some ways to combat BDS using facts as well as illustrating the true goals of BDS supporters. Let’s identify the arguments made by supporters of BDS and then debunk them one at a time:

Deception #1: “BDS is a “human rights” based movement focused on the Palestinians.”

To be more accurate it should be termed as a Palestinian Rights Movement that is ONLY about Palestinian Rights and Privileges. The goal of course is for Palestinians to achieve Statehood where they are the majority and rule in any way they see fit. It has nothing to do with overall “human rights” since it ignores the legitimate rights of the Jews for self determination in any part of their ancestral homeland. Really it is only about Palestinian Rights and no one else.

Deception #2: “BUT BDS supports the principle of Total Equality”.

Well interestingly enough apparently the folks who support BDS didn’t ask the Palestinians themselves what they think. Why do I say that? I say that due to the fact that the Palestinian Polity according to polls does not support that concept.  Here from a poll from Dec. 2013 taken by Palestinian Center for POLICY and SURVEY in question 38 it states: “Talk has recently increased about the inevitable failure of the two state solution and the need to demand the formulation of a solution based on the establishment of one state in all Palestinian areas and Israel, one in which Arabs and Jews enjoy equality. Do you support or oppose this view?”

Only 31.4% of respondents support that principle. Now that is up from polls past by 2-3% but still it is a pretty large majority of the Palestinian polity that is AGAINST equal rights. NOW, if BDS is pushing for a purely Democratic solution how does that work when the Palestinians themselves don’t support equal rights for all citizens?

But more than this, BDS is seen as a tool to use by those who have no interest in Democracy or Equal Rights. For instance, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PRC, and other groups are more than happy to sign on to the BDS Movement (and the BDS Movement is happy to have them as supporters) despite their very much anti-Democratic tendencies. 

IF BDS were truly about Equal Rights, it would take into account the various authoritarian strains that run throughout the Palestinian Polity and would fix those BEFORE even trying to create a state which would immediately veer against equality (given the Polity AND Leaderships wishes).

Deception #3 “BDS is only about ending the Occupation”

Well, this is a two part deception. The first deception is that the movement never defines what it means by the word “Occupation”. I mean most Westerners consider “Occupation” to mean the lands gained by Israel during the Six Day War. But that is not necessarily what the Palestinians consider Occupation. For instance, according to Hamas, the “Occupation” is ALL of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan that Israel controls. So how does BDS founder Omar Barghouti feel about the word “Occupation”:

“During a visit to Lebanon in 2000, I asked Amal, a Palestinian child in the Ain Al Hilweh refugee camp, “What do you wish the most?”

Without hesitation, she said: “To slip into your suitcase when you head back to Palestine, to go home.”

Her sense of deep nostalgia for a place she’d never visited except in her dreams and her grandparents’ tales was quite pervasive among her peers. But Amal’s fertile imagination about how to overcome barriers to go home was a piercing reminder that the 1948 Nakba, the planned and systematic ethnic cleansing of the majority of the indigenous Palestinians to create a Jewish majority state in Palestine, is not forgotten. Nor will it be forgiven until the Palestinian people can exercise their inalienable right to self determination, with the refugees’ right to return at its core.”

And

“Since convincing a colonial power to heed moral pleas for justice is, at best, delusional, many around the world now understand the need to “besiege” Israel’s occupation and apartheid through BDS, raising the price of its oppression and paving the way for freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

Only thus can Amal in Ain Al Hilweh and all Palestinian children cling on to the hope of finally realising their rights, after which they can commemorate the Nakba as a distant memory of an injustice that once was.”

Look at the Terminology used… “colonial power”, “return to Palestine to go home” NOT “return to my home in Israel”

This is important. Until the movement defines what it means by the term “Occupation”, how can people of good will really know what BDS stands for?

Also, of course the phrase “BDS is about the Occupation” is deceptive for those in the West where the Movement clearly states that its goals are the Return of ALL of the UN designated Refugees to Pre-1967 Israel. Something that would in effect (as Norman Finkelstein points out) would absolutely mean the end of Israel.

Deception #4: BDS is “ambivalent” about One State or Two States. 

Well that is only true in a very literal sense. The BDS movement claims that they don’t care if there are Two States, BUT what they leave out is that those “Two States” would be Palestine and an Israel that featured a Palestinian majority ruled by Palestinians. Of course as everyone who has more brains than a sack of hammers knows, that means that Israel would cease to exist.

Can anyone seriously see a Palestinian majority in Israel retaining the Magen David as its flag, or keeping Hebrew as its official language, or celebrating Jewish holidays as its national holidays or maintaining the ever so important Law of Return for those that might suffer in the diaspora or being a State that supports and encourages Jewish Cultural Institutions. It would be nonsensical to believe that, but worse it’s an outright lie to maintain that this would indeed be the case.

Deception # 5: Israel is a Jewish SUPREMICIST State and doesn’t allow for true democracy for all. 

First of all, Israel is NOT based on the concept of Jewish superiority. Certainly there are a few crackpots that believe this within our own community but, the founding of the State was NOT based on the premise of the superiority of the Jewish people. Israel and Zionism were founded on the premise that after 2000 + plus years of suffering and wandering, that the Jewish people of the world had a legitimate right to self determination in their ancestral homelands.

However, Israel was also not created as “United States of Israel”. It has a specific ethnic and national orientation. It was not created under the same principles as the U.S. and therefore should not and cannot be viewed through the same lens. They are two very different nations with two very different reasons for creation. Of course, Israel’s Declaration of Establishment is a fairly egalitarian document. But it is worth reading and getting others to read it just so that they understand what Israel is about.

The fact that the Palestinians do not have a “Right of Return” to Israel does NOT make Israel any less of a Democracy than anywhere else. Israel was founded as the National Homeland and State of the Jewish People. That is what it is. Most Palestinians do not want to live in a State based on that principle. They want to live in a State that has their own heritage and cultural institutions at its core. A favorable immigration policy for Jewish people does not mean that Arabs are “second class citizens”, and to claim otherwise is simply ridiculous given the context of the creation of Israel as a nation.

Deception # 6: Israel is an Apartheid State. 

This is a straight out lie. The term Apartheid is a specific term with a specific use. It is an attempt to tie Israel to the former racist South African regime which treated and believed that Blacks were inferior to Whites. To that end a White Minority (12% of the population) which had minimal historic roots in South Africa (beyond what they created) subjugated a vast majority of the population and kept them politically disenfranchised and publicly discriminated against.

This is an analogy that completely FAILS when applied to Israel. First of all, Israel’s population is mostly Jewish (about 77%). Second of all, Israeli Arabs have full rights to vote and do hold offices in both the Parliament and in Social Institutions throughout the nation. There are no separate public swimming pools or beaches, or drinking fountains, or hospitals or anything.

Of course when pressed Palestinian supporters will say “Ummm well it’s not exactly like South Africa but what about the people in the West Bank… They don’t have equal rights”. But that is also a foolish analogy since those people are not Israeli citizens and most of them don’t want to be Israeli citizens, so the analogy breaks down. For more on that please see my article: Why the “A” word is simply inappropriate.

Deception #7 – BDS is not anti-Semitic

Nope… that is another outright lie. BDS is a cornerstone of anti-Semitic action against Israel. Why? Because BDS stands for a State for Palestinians but not for Jews. All the things that they insist on as “rights” for Palestinians they deny to Jews. They will support “liberation” movements around the world but when it comes to the “liberation” of Jews (and only Jews), nope… nothing there. There is nothing in BDS or amongst its supporters regarding any other religion or ethnicity – there is just a boycott to end the existence of the Jewish State. Its followers don’t boycott the religious tyranny of Hamas. They don’t boycott products from horrible regions of Africa or Asia. No boycott of goods or aid from Human Rights disasters that are Russia or China. Nope. Just Israel. That’s it. What would you call that?

What is interesting regarding this is that supporters of the Palestinian Polity absolutely refuse to discuss anything concerning opinions of either the Palestinian Polity or stated positions of its leadership. They simply don’t care what anyone has to say. They claim to stand for Democracy, but where are the democratic traditions in this polity? Where is the leadership practicing human rights due to free, and equal citizens? There is nothing there, but, for some reason supporters of the Palestinians want to tell us all that somehow, someway, a Palestinian State will be one based on total equality and when you try to discuss that or actual Palestinian civil rights with them, they mostly just ignore those questions. Or worse, these activists simply don’t care.

Anyway, this is just part I. Please stay tuned for more in Part II

Shalom….

More Authentic Indigenousness from the Non-Western Indigenous Brown People of the Middle East

We all know how Israel is a country full of boring patriarchal white Europeans, while the Arabs of the Middle East are exciting indigenous brown people who have a beautiful civilization.  Of course any negative aspects of Arab culture, such as occasionally treating women as less than equals, here and there celebrating people who strap on bombs and blow up children, and maybe once in a while flogging or killing someone suspected of being gay, must be due to Western colonialism and the indignity of having to live with Jews in their midst.

Nothing highlights this more than the recent controversy regarding Lebanese Winter Olympic Athlete Jacky Chamoun.  The ruckus erupted because Chamoun simply wanted to express her Indigenous liberated womanhood with some tasteful swimsuit photos.  Unfortunately, the orientalist men that run Lebanon are misinterpreting Islam, Christianity, and Arab culture as something that would frown on this.

First, some pictures of the lovely Ms. Chamoun:

First of all, let's marvel at how brown (tm) and totally non-white (tm) she totally is!!  I mean look at that red hair, light eyes, and pale skin!  No wonder those white Khazar Jews engage in apartheid (tm).

More importantly though, an adult woman doing something that is totally within her right and unrelated to her Olympic performance would only trigger an investigation in a country if that country had been the victim of Western colonialism and had to suffer the indignity of having Israel next door.  I mean how can a country be expected to treat its women and gays nicely when just over the border lousy Jews have transformed a desert and built a remarkable society at the forefront of science and technology?

If it wasn't for Israel and Jews, Jacky Chamoun, the brown indigenous brown person, would live in a country full of feminist indigenous brown people and be able to ski and pose for photographs in peace.  Alas, Israel ruins everything.