47 years a slave: A new perspective on the occupation.

[Israeli]

Very few struggles in history have centered on how a nation should treat a third group of people, but there are strong parallels between black slavery and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

By Eva Illouz

Open Haaretz on any given day. Half or three quarters of its news items will invariably revolve around the same two topics: people struggling to protect the good name of Israel, and people struggling against its violence and injustices.

An almost random example: On December 17, 2013, one could read, on a single Haaretz page, Chemi Shalev reporting on the decision of the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli academic institutions in order to “honor the call of Palestinian civil society.” In response, former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers dubbed the decision “anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.”

On the same page, MK Naftali Bennett called the bill to prevent outside funding of left-wing NGOs in Israel “too soft.” The proposed law was meant to protect Israel and Israeli soldiers from “foreign forces” which, in his view, work against the national interest of Israel through those left-wing nonprofits (for Bennett and many others in Israel, to defend human rights is to be left-wing).The Haaretz editorial, backed by an article by regular columnist Sefi Rachlevsky, referred to the treatment of illegal immigrants by the Israeli government as shameful, with Rachlevsky calling the current political regime “radical rightist-racist-capitalist,” because “it tramples democracy and replaces it with fascism.” The day after, it was the turn of Alan Dershowitz to call the American Studies Association vote to boycott Israel shameful, “for singling out the Jew among nations. Shame on them for applying a double standard to Jewish universities” (December 18).

This mudslinging has become a normal spectacle to the bemused eyes of ordinary Israelis and Jews around the world. But what’s astonishing is that this mud is being thrown by Jews at Jews. Indeed, the valiant combatants for the good name of Israel miss an important point: the critiques of Israel in the United States are increasingly waged by Jews, not anti-Semites. The initiators and leaders of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement are such respected academics as Judith Butler, Jacqueline Rose, Noam Chomsky, Hilary Rose and Larry Gross, all Jews.

Continue reading @
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.572880


This is a very long article but well worth the read for those who can access it .

[azurnoir]

1. Thanks for posting interesting analogy

but not one I'm sure I agree with entirely, IMO the post slavery struggle against Jim Crow and for civil rights would be my first choice and one I have used here as Palestinians are not literally owned by Israeli's - they maybe mistreated or killed on a whim, but that situation too existed after slavery especially in the former Confederate states

[bemildred]

2. I concur, Jim Crow is a better match. "Separate but equal" was the claim.

Although if you investigate any particular person's attitudes, you will find all sorts of things.

[Israeli]

6. I get your point ...

...but she does say :

" In using this example as a soundboard to think about the moral debate that is dividing the Jewish people, I do not claim that slavery and the occupation are equivalent. They differ significantly. But there are some analogies, in that the Jewish world has become splintered around two intractable moral claims about the treatment of Palestinians. An analogy is nothing more than a tool to probe thinking. Suppose someone didn’t know what a tiger was. If I had to explain what a tiger is, I’d say: “It is like a lion, only with stripes.” In giving this answer, I remain fully aware that a tiger is not a lion, but only like a “lion,” and this is because a tiger is closer to a lion than it is to a fish, a bird or a horse. An analogy helps us imagine and think about something we do not fully grasp, even when that analogy is an imperfect one. The debate about the occupation is not equivalent to the debate about slavery, but it bears, here and there, some resemblance to it. And it is for this reason that I use it as a strategy for thinking. "

What about this ???

"..The idea that Jews are inherently superior to Arabs is so widespread, deep and unquestioned, that it is hardly worth my time dwelling on it here. The idea of Jewish superiority exists everywhere in Israel, but is most blatant in the territories. Like the whites in the American South, Jews view themselves as obviously more moral, superior, civilized, technologically and economically far more accomplished than the inferior Arabs (Arab nations are indeed politically and economically backward, but this in no way makes Arabs inferior). In the same way that it was entirely obvious to proslavers that Africans were primitive and animal-like, Arabs are viewed as unreliable, liars, stupid and dangerous. These views dictate official policy. And in the same way that the whites in the South claimed to be civilizing the primitive Africans, one can frequently hear that Arabs have benefited from the technological and political enlightenment of Israel..."

[Ken Burch]

7. I think Haaretz chose that headline and the author made the analogy

to tie in to the movie title '12 Years A Slave".

And also, perhaps, to suggest the idea that perpetuating the Occupation is a kind of mental slavery for Israel and Israelis.

[Israeli]

8. Yup ....you got it . n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. Will read in full and comment later. TY.

[Mosby]

4. I can't read the article

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you really not understand what you and the far left are doing re the conflict?

You're cherry picking comments from the far right and using that to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you.

The right wing talking heads in the US like Hannity, Rush and Beck do EXACTLY the same thing to LIberals and Progressives.

Great company you keep.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. For someone who can't read the article, how did you come to that conclusion?

I'd be interested in knowing what from that article set off yr claim of cherry picking comments from the far right. Y'know, this may come as a shock, but liberals and progressives don't support the occupation or condone what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. Right wing talking heads like Hannity, Rush and Beck on the other hand do.

[Israeli]

9. my apologies that you cannot read the article ...

..... try here Mosby

http://forward.com/articles/192394/what-to-call-occupation-after--years/?p=1

different title .... same article

happy now

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. ^^^This.

[Jefferson23]

11. Good article, but remember, these are the wrong kind of Jews:

Judith Butler, Jacqueline Rose, Noam Chomsky,etc.....

Don't say, Fuck Israel, but you can say, Fuck Chomsky...it's a funny perspective.

A teeny tiny minority, so they say, that have no clue. So clueless are these Jews, a few are not allowed into
Israel. One would think their political views were to undermine Israel's existence, when in fact
their voices speak to a fair settlement that would allow for a viable state for the Palestinians.
But that would mean Israel would have to cede land and precious resources, so why should they
invite such a voice?