Namir Wahid
Active member
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 4
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
A must-read for those wanting a deeper understanding of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is Perfect Victims by Mohammed el-Kurd. The author makes some interesting points that I’d like to share here.
One is that Israel emphatically calls itself the “Jewish state”. Its flag bears the Star of David. Its “nation-state law” states that national self-determination is “unique to the Jewish people”. Israeli soldiers are the ones killing, starving, and imprisoning Palestinians. Israeli policies are causing the destruction of Palestinian homes and impeding Palestinians’ freedom of movement. Jewish settlers are daily terrorizing Palestinian civilians. Yet if Palestinians call this out, they are somehow anti-Semitic and bigoted. It doesn’t matter who or what the oppressors are; Palestinians would object either way. But Israelis get a pass in oppressing others simply by virtue of being Jewish?
When a Palestinian child is killed for throwing a rock, the script is flipped to paint the Palestinian child as a terrorist and the Israeli response as legitimate self-defense. But do we ever stop to ask if a child should ever be shot? Why was he throwing a rock in the first place? Should the West Bank be perpetually under Israeli military occupation?
Another point is that Israeli propagandists deflect from the actual issue by spouting absurd lies. For example, most hospitals in Gaza have been bombed, most schools and universities in Gaza have been destroyed (effectively dismantling the educational system, a human right), and more than 170 journalists have been assassinated in Gaza in under two years. All of these are deplorable war crimes and well beyond what we’ve seen in other conflicts. Yet Israeli spokespeople utter the same old talking points about “Hamas command centers” and “Hamas operatives”, trying to whitewash their war crimes. And the mainstream media plays along.
“Beyond the microaggressions, censure, and editing us while we sleep, if the opportunity arises, they will even give cover to the villains in our stories. And they have. When Israeli forces killed Issam Abdallah, who was reporting in South Lebanon, the media behaved as it usually does, parroting official Israeli state narratives and obfuscating what eyewitnesses and local journalists reported. Even Reuters, Abdallah's employer, refused to name the Israeli military as the culprit until weeks after his killing.” (p.174)
Then we get busy trying to prove that there was no command center, or that such-and-such person had no affiliation with any armed militia. We get tied up with countering absurdities. We get embroiled in debates trying to prove that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, that we don’t hate Jewish people. We reiterate that we weren’t responsible for the Holocaust nor for widespread anti-Semitism in Europe.
“Such details are not minor. In situating the Holocaust outside of history, in placing it not just in the past but in an eternal future, Zionism today has created a status quo in which the possibility of a second holocaust is given primacy over a holocaust happening in the present.” (p.121)
We try to debunk ridiculous myths, such as “40 beheaded babies” or “human shields”. We try to argue that “From the river to the sea” is not a call for genocide of the Jews, all while an actual genocide of Palestinians is taking place. It’s all a distraction to obscure facts on the ground, such as people being burned alive while sleeping in tents. And in that fog, the actual crime is overlooked and forgotten.
Additionally, those of us who are advocating for Palestinian rights and equality often reference non-Palestinian sources, perhaps subconsciously thinking that they have more weight. Years of propaganda have painted Palestinians as anti-Semitic terrorists who want to drive Jews into the sea. But surely references like Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, B’Tselem, and Breaking the Silence couldn’t be anti-Semitic, for they are Jewish.
While there’s nothing wrong with referencing the aforementioned sources and while they may very well lend greater credibility to our advocacy, it does a disservice by ignoring or giving a back seat to Palestinian voices. Instead of talking about Palestinians, why not talk to Palestinians? Why are they not considered reliable sources of information? After all, they are the ones who are experiencing everything that comes with being Palestinian, be it displacement, apartheid, false imprisonment (i.e. administrative detention), or genocide.
It’s not too different from two parties negotiating a peace treaty in regards to Palestinians, yet neither delegation includes Palestinians. It’s ridiculous if you think about it. Unfortunately Palestinians are held to an impossibly high standard. At best, they are guilty until proven innocent, although they often don’t even receive the courtesy of being able to prove their innocence.
And when Palestinians do receive the privilege of holding the mic and speaking, why is it that they must first denounce Hamas, violence, and anti-Semitism, while also recognizing Israel’s right to exist? What if said Palestinian is not a member of Hamas, has never held a weapon, and has no problem with Jewish people?
More importantly, why is the inverse never implemented? Why do Israeli spokespeople get free rein to speak to the media without ever having to disavow violent or racist policies of the Israeli regime against Palestinians? Why are they never asked to acknowledge Palestine’s right to exist? We’re forced to be more concerned with the Israeli settlers from Europe and elsewhere than the native Palestinians who are now refugees and may never be able to return to their ancestral homes.
“The Israeli regime's architecture of displacement uses many different methods, but all have a single goal: to control as much land as possible while keeping as few Palestinians as possible, without triggering international alarm bells-be it through manufacturing ‘real-estate disputes’; demolishing homes built ‘without authorization’; stealing lands by declaring them ‘military zones,’ ‘archaeological sites,’ ‘environmentally protected,’ or ‘state-owned’; or simply by stunting the growth of Palestinian communities by isolating them and severing their social and economic ties with neighboring towns. The Zionist project has always created narratives to legalize and justify replacing the native with the settler.” (p.181)
It seems that Israel has perfected colonialism. We, the colonized -- whether physically or psychologically -- are always on the defensive. We’re always two steps back. I have to admit, the Zionist movement has done a fantastic job with framing and controlling the narrative. The Jewish people are victims of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism; anything Israelis do supposedly for self-defense is understandable and justifiable, while those who oppose it are anti-Semitic terrorists who support Hamas.
I’ll finish with these haunting thoughts from el-Kurd:
“Gaza has the right to forsake us, to never forgive us, to spit in our faces. How many wars has it confronted? How many martyrs has it given? How many bodies were stolen from it, snatched from their fathers' embrace? And how many of us stutter when asked about resistance, or disavow our right to resist entirely, our need to resist? How many of us choose our careers over our kin? How many of us could have done something, anything, and did not?” (p.184)
One is that Israel emphatically calls itself the “Jewish state”. Its flag bears the Star of David. Its “nation-state law” states that national self-determination is “unique to the Jewish people”. Israeli soldiers are the ones killing, starving, and imprisoning Palestinians. Israeli policies are causing the destruction of Palestinian homes and impeding Palestinians’ freedom of movement. Jewish settlers are daily terrorizing Palestinian civilians. Yet if Palestinians call this out, they are somehow anti-Semitic and bigoted. It doesn’t matter who or what the oppressors are; Palestinians would object either way. But Israelis get a pass in oppressing others simply by virtue of being Jewish?
When a Palestinian child is killed for throwing a rock, the script is flipped to paint the Palestinian child as a terrorist and the Israeli response as legitimate self-defense. But do we ever stop to ask if a child should ever be shot? Why was he throwing a rock in the first place? Should the West Bank be perpetually under Israeli military occupation?
Another point is that Israeli propagandists deflect from the actual issue by spouting absurd lies. For example, most hospitals in Gaza have been bombed, most schools and universities in Gaza have been destroyed (effectively dismantling the educational system, a human right), and more than 170 journalists have been assassinated in Gaza in under two years. All of these are deplorable war crimes and well beyond what we’ve seen in other conflicts. Yet Israeli spokespeople utter the same old talking points about “Hamas command centers” and “Hamas operatives”, trying to whitewash their war crimes. And the mainstream media plays along.
“Beyond the microaggressions, censure, and editing us while we sleep, if the opportunity arises, they will even give cover to the villains in our stories. And they have. When Israeli forces killed Issam Abdallah, who was reporting in South Lebanon, the media behaved as it usually does, parroting official Israeli state narratives and obfuscating what eyewitnesses and local journalists reported. Even Reuters, Abdallah's employer, refused to name the Israeli military as the culprit until weeks after his killing.” (p.174)
Then we get busy trying to prove that there was no command center, or that such-and-such person had no affiliation with any armed militia. We get tied up with countering absurdities. We get embroiled in debates trying to prove that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, that we don’t hate Jewish people. We reiterate that we weren’t responsible for the Holocaust nor for widespread anti-Semitism in Europe.
“Such details are not minor. In situating the Holocaust outside of history, in placing it not just in the past but in an eternal future, Zionism today has created a status quo in which the possibility of a second holocaust is given primacy over a holocaust happening in the present.” (p.121)
We try to debunk ridiculous myths, such as “40 beheaded babies” or “human shields”. We try to argue that “From the river to the sea” is not a call for genocide of the Jews, all while an actual genocide of Palestinians is taking place. It’s all a distraction to obscure facts on the ground, such as people being burned alive while sleeping in tents. And in that fog, the actual crime is overlooked and forgotten.
Additionally, those of us who are advocating for Palestinian rights and equality often reference non-Palestinian sources, perhaps subconsciously thinking that they have more weight. Years of propaganda have painted Palestinians as anti-Semitic terrorists who want to drive Jews into the sea. But surely references like Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, B’Tselem, and Breaking the Silence couldn’t be anti-Semitic, for they are Jewish.
While there’s nothing wrong with referencing the aforementioned sources and while they may very well lend greater credibility to our advocacy, it does a disservice by ignoring or giving a back seat to Palestinian voices. Instead of talking about Palestinians, why not talk to Palestinians? Why are they not considered reliable sources of information? After all, they are the ones who are experiencing everything that comes with being Palestinian, be it displacement, apartheid, false imprisonment (i.e. administrative detention), or genocide.
It’s not too different from two parties negotiating a peace treaty in regards to Palestinians, yet neither delegation includes Palestinians. It’s ridiculous if you think about it. Unfortunately Palestinians are held to an impossibly high standard. At best, they are guilty until proven innocent, although they often don’t even receive the courtesy of being able to prove their innocence.
And when Palestinians do receive the privilege of holding the mic and speaking, why is it that they must first denounce Hamas, violence, and anti-Semitism, while also recognizing Israel’s right to exist? What if said Palestinian is not a member of Hamas, has never held a weapon, and has no problem with Jewish people?
More importantly, why is the inverse never implemented? Why do Israeli spokespeople get free rein to speak to the media without ever having to disavow violent or racist policies of the Israeli regime against Palestinians? Why are they never asked to acknowledge Palestine’s right to exist? We’re forced to be more concerned with the Israeli settlers from Europe and elsewhere than the native Palestinians who are now refugees and may never be able to return to their ancestral homes.
“The Israeli regime's architecture of displacement uses many different methods, but all have a single goal: to control as much land as possible while keeping as few Palestinians as possible, without triggering international alarm bells-be it through manufacturing ‘real-estate disputes’; demolishing homes built ‘without authorization’; stealing lands by declaring them ‘military zones,’ ‘archaeological sites,’ ‘environmentally protected,’ or ‘state-owned’; or simply by stunting the growth of Palestinian communities by isolating them and severing their social and economic ties with neighboring towns. The Zionist project has always created narratives to legalize and justify replacing the native with the settler.” (p.181)
It seems that Israel has perfected colonialism. We, the colonized -- whether physically or psychologically -- are always on the defensive. We’re always two steps back. I have to admit, the Zionist movement has done a fantastic job with framing and controlling the narrative. The Jewish people are victims of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism; anything Israelis do supposedly for self-defense is understandable and justifiable, while those who oppose it are anti-Semitic terrorists who support Hamas.
I’ll finish with these haunting thoughts from el-Kurd:
“Gaza has the right to forsake us, to never forgive us, to spit in our faces. How many wars has it confronted? How many martyrs has it given? How many bodies were stolen from it, snatched from their fathers' embrace? And how many of us stutter when asked about resistance, or disavow our right to resist entirely, our need to resist? How many of us choose our careers over our kin? How many of us could have done something, anything, and did not?” (p.184)