Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThe Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood
The Arab-Israeli conflict, is not really a conflict, it is a war – a war of the Arabs against the Jews. In many ways, this conflict has been a conflict between narratives. We who strongly support Israel have done a poor job in formulating a narrative which will combat the story spun by the other side. We can do better.
The Durban conferences, the request for UN recognition of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, and the general animus in the Middle East and elsewhere toward Israel and toward the Jews, what are they really about? Is the Durban conference and the claim that Israel is a racist nation really about reforming the people of Israel and curing them of their racism?
Listen to their language; it is the language of colonial oppression. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas claims that Palestinians have been occupied for 63 years. The word oppressed is constant, exploited. In this, there is a poetic truth; like poetic license, in a poetic truth a writer will bend the rules in order to be more effective.
Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does.
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2586/palestinian-victimhood-narrative
Great piece
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)...Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does."
========
Yep, that about sums it up.
Someone had written an article in the left-wing British magazine New Statesman, which always bashes Israel sometimes in the nastiest terms, defending Israel’s 2008-2009 Gaza operation called “Cast Lead.” In the article, the writer had gone into great detail to set forth the facts of what happened and to rebut the wild allegations of war crimes and the many outright lies told about these events.
But here’s the relevant part for all of us. My colleague explained that there had been about 300 talkbacks to that article, some positive and most negative. And, he recounted, not a single one of the negative responses cited a single fact. They did not say, for example, “Oh, you’ve gotten the numbers wrong” or “Here’s a critical point you missed.”
No, the theme of every attack was that “only a fascist would say this” or “you cannot say such a thing.” What these people were saying is that I don’t have to argue with you or pay attention to what you are saying. I can just close my eyes, put my hands over my ears and scream: “Liar! Evil person! You have no right to disagree with me or else I will destroy you.
....
Recently, I spoke to a group of young Americans who were in Israel on a project. During the question period one young woman said, “I’m a newbie and don’t know very much about these issues, but….” And then she proceeded to bash Israel and make all sorts of ludicrous claims.
The one that set me off was when she said that Israel had done nothing to further peace. I responded that Israel had made lots of concessions, compromises, and taken risks. I continued by saying that I would provide a list and began to go through a large number of specific points. As I spoke, she was looking away, scowling, and muttering, obviously very angry and simply not paying attention.
So I stopped and said: “Obviously, you aren’t interested in my answer.” One of the others came to her defense accusing me of being “patronizing” or something like that. No, I responded, I’m merely saying what I can obviously see.
We are facing something truly remarkable. A system in which those on one side—and obviously this applies to far more than just the Israel issue—can simply wave aside any logical argument and ignore any evidence. All that’s needed is a category of denunciation: racism, hate speech, Islamophobia, etc., along with other catchwords like “fair share,” “one percent,” “global warming deniers,” and down the list.
Where did this come from? How was this remarkable weapon developed?
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/10/how-i-learned-about-courage-from-an-arab-marxist-and-about-cowardice-from-western-phony-“liberals”/
shira
(30,109 posts)The arguments used by many in the West to avoid thinking and talking seriously about the Middle East generally feature a refusal to discuss the substance of issues and usually involve a barrage of insults, characterizations, and nonlogical or nonfactual claims.
1. The right-wing argument. This says: You’re basically a right-wing person who opposes a two-state solution and wants to do mean things to Arabs or Muslims. Therefore, we can ignore anything you say.
cont'd...
The Region: The abandonment of logic
http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=181832
Thanks for sharing. It is so disheartening to see people condemning the just and lawful acts of Israel defending itself against terrorists.
Response to shira (Reply #3)
Post removed
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)I consider that the Right *are* essentially demons, and therefore deserve to be demonized. This is basically because they have a harsh and punitive attitude to poor, weak and ill people. Nothing worse, in my opinion!
The Right divert and demonize just as much as the Left ever do, but often in a slightly different way. The 'diverting' left-winger tends to accuse their opponent of some form of bigotry. Right-wingers may also do so; but they are more likely either to try to whip up outrage at people, especially benefit claimants, immigrants, or 'softly treated' criminals, supposedly 'getting away' with something that they don't deserve; or to take a superior, sneering point of view where they ridicule left-wingers for 'political correctness', 'bleeding hearts'. etc.
To get back to the article: In fact, this article is one of the very few where I can on the one hand see some valid points, and on the other how it is embedded in a generally right-wing philosophy. The author Steele is a right-wing African American who considers that African Americans in general have allowed themselves to develop a culture of 'victimhood' and to accept 'entitlements' instead of taking 'personal responsibility'. I HATE this attitude because, quite apart from any racial or cultural connotations, it's basically saying that poor or vulnerable people don't deserve assistance; that everything is up to the individual; that one should be tough on those who claim to be 'victims'; etc. (Incidentally, I dislike Norman Finkelstein for precisely the same reasons; he may claim to be a progressive, but much of what he says about Jews is very much akin to what Steele says about African-Americans.)
And knowing the background, he seems to be saying about Palestinians pretty much what he does about African Americans, and I dislike this. But at the same time, if one considers the Palestinian *leaders* rather than individual Palestinians, there is some truth in it: like many nationalist leaders of all groups and nationalities, the Palestinian leaders tend to find it easier to focus blame on their enemies, in this case Israel, than to actually offer constructive solutions for their citizens. Palestinian leaders are not the only leaders to use this diversion mechanism; but they frequently do use it.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)To be clear, I did not mean to imply that the Left argues this way merely as a tactic. I think that the ideology does posit that those on the Right are evil, and so there are many who believe as you do. I disagree with the general assessment that the Right are demons. There are demons and decent people on both sides of most issues.
I also disagree with your assessment of Steele, although he is certainly susceptible to being read that way. There is a difference between needing help and feeling the victim. The former is a condition, the latter is an attitude.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)I think that there are decent people on the right; and there are certainly plenty of nasty people on the political left. I was not referring to ordinary voters, but to active campaigners for right-wing views. And by 'right-wing' I do not mean merely traditionalist, suspicious of radical change, or member of nominally conservative party; but am referring to those who look down on poor, weak, or disabled or ill people; and advocate harshness toward them; who consider that 'aspiration' means allowing the vulnerable to suffer in favour of giving a free reign to the strong and tough; or who support a 'might means right' approach to foreign policy. I realize that not all Conservatives have this sort of attitude; that some so-called far-left parties do and did to a very marked degree; and FWIW the person, who in my personal experience was most given to demonstrating such attitudes to those over whom he had power and influence, was in fact fairly left-wing politically.
However, I do think that such a value system as applied to policies in general is likely to lead to a fundamentally evil agenda, and that much of the current Republican party, especially the 'tea party' types, does demonstrate it.
I sometimes express myself on the subject more strongly and sweepingly than I should, basically because I get frustrated by the idea that comes up from time to time that right-wing ideas (not the same thing as 'any idea expressed by a right-winger') are sometimes valid; that 'the left/liberals don't have a monopoly on truth'; and that left-wingers and liberals should be prepared to consider right-wing viewpoints and to collaborate politically with right-wingers. This comes up both from people of the American centre proposing 'bipartisanship' with Republicans, and on a milder but more immediate level, the 'ConDem' coalition supporters in Britain; and also from anti-establishment leftists who consider that the right-left distinction is artificial and that it is desirable to seek common ground with anti-establishment right-wingers. I realize that 'bipartisanship' is sometimes pragmatically necessary, but I still do not think that progressives and liberals should be accepting harshness toward poor people, or aggressive xenophobia, as potentially worth considering, or more generally that right-wing ideas have anything to offer.
As regards Steele: I would probably agree with you if I'd only read this one article; it is mainly the anti-Obama agenda he's expressed in the past that puts me off him.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)The left denies the right of Israel to exist, the right denies global warming. It all depends on the sacred cow in question. The left suffers from colonial guilt and projects onto Israel. The right clings to manifest destiny.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)Well, some left-wing individuals and groups do, I suppose; as do some right-wingers - but it isn't all or most on the left; nor is it restricted to the left.
For that matter, not all right-wingers by any means are global warming deniers.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)The cliches should be demonized.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Wow. Sounds like something Chuck Norris would say.
Again: wow.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Israel can do no right, they are the oppressors. No matter how the facts square, that is the narrative of so many.
shira
(30,109 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)No matter how many scientists you have to refute the evidence, they still find the one lunatic that espouses their shared mistaken belief.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last week, the principal Palestinian Authority religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal. At an event celebrating the 47th anniversary of the founding of Fatah, he cited the Hadith (Islamic tradition attributed to Muhammad) saying that the Hour of Resurrection will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them:
"The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews.
The Jew will hide behind stones or trees.
Then the stones or trees will call:
'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=6098
shira
(30,109 posts)<snip>
Now multiply those two paragraphs by hundreds every day for years. That’s why coverage of issues involving Israel often seem more like a propaganda barrage than actual reporting.
While some stories are distorted or even at times fabricated, others aren’t mentioned at all. For example, at the early January event marking the anniversary of Fatah, the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority (PA), the official imam–the highest-ranking Muslim official in the PA who was appointed by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, Muhammad Hussein, cited the Islamic hadith, attributed to Muhammad, that on the day of resurrection all Jews would be murdered. In the same official Fatah rally, the man who introduced Hussein said: “Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) is a war of religion and faith.”
Yet supposedly we live in an era that is hyper-sensitive to religious slurs. Let the most obscure Protestant minister in America threaten to burn a Koran and it becomes a global headline. But if the highest-ranking Palestinian cleric calls for genocide against the Jews (or the Muslim Brotherhood leader publicly call for the destruction of the United States) it isn’t even reported.
You are probably tired of reading articles about media bias against Israel. But here’s the key point: We are no longer talking about “bias” but about a situation that has reached around 90 percent of all reporting whereas an even higher proportion of reporting leaves out the extremism of the “other side.” Remember, for instance, that the PA is always said to be “moderate” but that conclusion can only be sustained if everything in its textbooks, radio, television, newspapers,mosque sermons, and leaders’ speeches in Arabic are ignored.
If these things are factored in, however, it is clear why there is no peace and isn’t going to be any for a very long time to come. The reader/listener/viewer is deprived of basic information needed to understand the situation. Thus, it is easy to believe claims that peace is at hand or can be easily achieved if some gimmick is used or new Israeli concession is obtained.
The fundamental nature of the conflict is obscured. I have never–and I mean not once–ever seen anyone who disagrees with the points I’m making engage with these arguments and try to answer them. They can only be ignored since, after all, the whole purpose of this exercise is to conceal rather obvious truths.
more...
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/16/the-three-rules-of-western-discourse-and-why-the-media-must-always-blame-israel/
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Arabs have their own amibitions and motivations. Sometimes it does not require another element for them to react.
shira
(30,109 posts)<snip>
So I gave my standard response: “The international issues I deal with have no `left’ or `right’ wing aspect to them. The important question is how one analyzes situations, issues, and events. They should be approached as objectively as possible with an honest attempt to be accurate, to produce evidence proving one’s assertions, and to follow where the facts lead.”
Perhaps because he is a pre-Politically Correct person on the left he completely understood my response, and he correctly added an additional point: “And not to conceal things that don’t coincide with your thesis.” A generation ago this is how people thought. You could hold totally different political views but how you wrote history or taught about works of literature was something else entirely. Not everything people said was predictable because they actually thought about things rather than merely applied a preexisting political standpoint. Instead, academics across the political spectrum respected what some call the “scientific method” and I prefer saying are “Enlightenment values.”
<snip>
Here’s my central point: We should agree on what is real using proper and honest methods of analysis. Then we can discuss what to do about it in a rational fashion. But disagreeing with someone else’s analysis because you don’t like their proposed policy amounts merely leads to lying deliberately or making a fool of yourself by denying what is obviously true and being totally unprepared to deal with the resulting crisis.
<snip>
So in conclusion let me lay down some proposed rules:
1. Forget about your political view or the view of the writer/speaker. Is their description of reality accurate? Does it take the facts into account and provide evidence? Does it ignore or conceal evidence that undermines their thesis? Is the argument persuasive? Does it successfully answer criticisms of the claims being made? If so then that person is right. You may then proceed to draw some conclusion about the proper response.
2. Is the policy response proposed merely a knee-jerk one based on a preexisting ideology or does it make sense? Is it creative? Does it deal with the nuances of the problem? What aspects of the problem wouldn’t it solve? Would it make things worse in some ways, including unintended consequences?
In other words, don’t ignore reality because you don’t like others’ proposed solutions. Even worse, don’t ignore reality because it conflicts with your preexisting ideological assumptions. If necessary, change your assumptions.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/20/are-you-left-wing-or-right-wing-hopefully-i’m-honest-and-accurate-wing/