Gaza: Silence is not an option
Israel, with Western backing, continues to maintain its blockade on the Gaza Strip, imposed in 2006 when the Palestinians committed the crime of voting the wrong way in an election. Here, and reproduced in full below, is the statement issued yesterday by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories, Richard Falk.
***
Gaza: Silence is not an option
9 December 2008
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, issued the following statement:
GENEVA -- In recent days the desperate plight of the civilian population of Gaza has been acknowledged by such respected international figures as the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of the General Assembly, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Last week, Karen AbyZayd, who heads the UN relief effort in Gaza, offered first-hand confirmation of the desperate urgency and unacceptable conditions facing the civilian population of Gaza. Although many leaders have commented on the cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel, such a flurry of denunciations by normally cautious UN officials has not occurred on a global level since the heyday of South African apartheid.
And still Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is long past the time when talk suffices. As AbuZayd has written, "the chasm between word and deed" with respect to upholding human rights in occupied Palestine creates a situation where "radicalism and extremism easily take root." The UN is obligated to respond under these conditions. Some governments of the world are complicit by continuing their support politically and economically for Israel's punitive approach.
Protective action must be taken immediately to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life, and in view of the emergency situation that is producing a humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding day by day. However difficult politically, it is time to act. At the very least, an urgent effort should be made at the United Nations to implement the agreed norm of a 'responsibility to protect' a civilian population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a Crime Against Humanity.
In a similar vein, it would seem mandatory for the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law. As AbuZayd has declared, "This is a humanitarian crisis deliberately imposed by political actors."
It should be noted that the situation worsened in recent days due to the breakdown of a truce between Hamas and Israel that had been observed for several months by both sides. The truce was maintained by Hamas despite the failure of Israel to fulfill its obligation under the agreement to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza.
The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza. It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation, but such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the UN or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people.
ENDS
For further information on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and work and mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, visit this website.
***
Please write to or email your MP/Congressional representative, attaching the statement from the Special Rapporteur and ask them what they, personally, are doing to end this blockade. As individuals we can't just point the finger at Israel when our own governments are supporting its actions. That support places a responsibility on us to do something about this.
Yesterday, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, had this article published in the Guardian in response to the current renewed efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative for a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The letter I sent to the Guardian in response is below. It didn't get published, but here's the letter they did publish instead.
***
One could almost pity the Israeli ambassador ("A gulf worth bridging", December 9, 2008). The Arab states plus the Palestinian authority are offering his country full peace and recognition, and demand only in return that Israel comply with international law by returning stolen land and negotiating a fair settlement for the thousands of Palestinians it has ethnically cleansed from their homes. Even Hamas, in May 2006, joined with the other Palestinian factions in signing up to a “National Conciliation Document” calling for a Palestinian state on the legal, 1967 borders, in accordance with the repeated statements of leading Hamas officials in recent years. Yet poor Mr Prosor has to maintain the fiction that the failure to negotiate an end to the conflict is the fault of everyone else. The results are predictable.
Prosor insists that any peace deal must recognise the “demographic realities” of Israeli colonisation, as though these were ordained by God, not imposed by illegal force. Prosor demands the end to popular Arab hostility towards his government, as though rejectionism and anti-Arab racism was not endemic in his own country’s political culture. And Prosor demands to know why the Arab states do not do more to fund Palestinian economic development, even as his government forces Gazan children into malnutrition to punish their parents for voting the wrong way in a free election. The excuses are increasingly absurd, but they are all the ambassador has left.
Last month the UN General Assembly voted 164-7 in favour of a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on compliance with international law. In the rejectionist camp were Israel, the United States, Australia, and four South Pacific island nations. Iran was one of the 164 who voted in favour. The way is open for Israel and its dwindling number of allies to accept international law, give back what has been stolen and choose the path of peace; if not for the sake of the Palestinians, then at least for the sake of the Israeli ambassador's dignity.
David Wearing
London
***
Gaza: Silence is not an option
9 December 2008
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, issued the following statement:
GENEVA -- In recent days the desperate plight of the civilian population of Gaza has been acknowledged by such respected international figures as the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of the General Assembly, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Last week, Karen AbyZayd, who heads the UN relief effort in Gaza, offered first-hand confirmation of the desperate urgency and unacceptable conditions facing the civilian population of Gaza. Although many leaders have commented on the cruelty and unlawfulness of the Gaza blockade imposed by Israel, such a flurry of denunciations by normally cautious UN officials has not occurred on a global level since the heyday of South African apartheid.
And still Israel maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and disease. Such a policy of collective punishment, initiated by Israel to punish Gazans for political developments within the Gaza strip, constitutes a continuing flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is long past the time when talk suffices. As AbuZayd has written, "the chasm between word and deed" with respect to upholding human rights in occupied Palestine creates a situation where "radicalism and extremism easily take root." The UN is obligated to respond under these conditions. Some governments of the world are complicit by continuing their support politically and economically for Israel's punitive approach.
Protective action must be taken immediately to offset the persisting and wide-ranging violations of the fundamental human right to life, and in view of the emergency situation that is producing a humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding day by day. However difficult politically, it is time to act. At the very least, an urgent effort should be made at the United Nations to implement the agreed norm of a 'responsibility to protect' a civilian population being collectively punished by policies that amount to a Crime Against Humanity.
In a similar vein, it would seem mandatory for the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law. As AbuZayd has declared, "This is a humanitarian crisis deliberately imposed by political actors."
It should be noted that the situation worsened in recent days due to the breakdown of a truce between Hamas and Israel that had been observed for several months by both sides. The truce was maintained by Hamas despite the failure of Israel to fulfill its obligation under the agreement to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza.
The recent upsurge of violence occurred after an Israeli incursion that killed several alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza. It is a criminal violation of international law for elements of Hamas or anyone else to fire rockets at Israeli towns regardless of provocation, but such Palestinian behavior does not legalize Israel's imposition of a collective punishment of a life- and health-threatening character on the people of Gaza, and should not distract the UN or international society from discharging their fundamental moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people.
ENDS
For further information on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and work and mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, visit this website.
***
Please write to or email your MP/Congressional representative, attaching the statement from the Special Rapporteur and ask them what they, personally, are doing to end this blockade. As individuals we can't just point the finger at Israel when our own governments are supporting its actions. That support places a responsibility on us to do something about this.
Yesterday, the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, had this article published in the Guardian in response to the current renewed efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative for a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The letter I sent to the Guardian in response is below. It didn't get published, but here's the letter they did publish instead.
***
One could almost pity the Israeli ambassador ("A gulf worth bridging", December 9, 2008). The Arab states plus the Palestinian authority are offering his country full peace and recognition, and demand only in return that Israel comply with international law by returning stolen land and negotiating a fair settlement for the thousands of Palestinians it has ethnically cleansed from their homes. Even Hamas, in May 2006, joined with the other Palestinian factions in signing up to a “National Conciliation Document” calling for a Palestinian state on the legal, 1967 borders, in accordance with the repeated statements of leading Hamas officials in recent years. Yet poor Mr Prosor has to maintain the fiction that the failure to negotiate an end to the conflict is the fault of everyone else. The results are predictable.
Prosor insists that any peace deal must recognise the “demographic realities” of Israeli colonisation, as though these were ordained by God, not imposed by illegal force. Prosor demands the end to popular Arab hostility towards his government, as though rejectionism and anti-Arab racism was not endemic in his own country’s political culture. And Prosor demands to know why the Arab states do not do more to fund Palestinian economic development, even as his government forces Gazan children into malnutrition to punish their parents for voting the wrong way in a free election. The excuses are increasingly absurd, but they are all the ambassador has left.
Last month the UN General Assembly voted 164-7 in favour of a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on compliance with international law. In the rejectionist camp were Israel, the United States, Australia, and four South Pacific island nations. Iran was one of the 164 who voted in favour. The way is open for Israel and its dwindling number of allies to accept international law, give back what has been stolen and choose the path of peace; if not for the sake of the Palestinians, then at least for the sake of the Israeli ambassador's dignity.
David Wearing
London
posted by David Wearing at 6:51 AM
11 Comments:
Mr. Wearing,
According to your esteemed Mr. Falk:
But there are troubling forces at work that block our access to the truth about 9/11. Ever since 9/11 the mainstream media has worked hand-in-glove with the government in orchestrating a mood of patriotic fervor making any expressions of doubts about the official leadership of the country appear to be conclusive evidence of disloyalty. Media personalities, such as Bill Maher, who questioned, even casually, the official narrative were given pink slips, sidelined, and silenced, sending a chilling message of intimidation to anyone tempted to voice dissident opinions. Waving the American flag became a substitute for critical and independent thought, and slogans such as "United We Stand" were used as blankets to obscure whatever critical impulses existed. It is here that the Pearl Harbor antecedent becomes so relevant, an earlier occasion on which a dramatic, surprise attack galvanized the country for war, shut down robust pre-attack anti-war dissent once and for all, and ended meaningful policy debate.
In other words, Falk is a conspiracy believing type. That says it all about him.
As for what he says, it is simply not so. The issue for Israel, Egypt and the rest of the world, other than Antisemites, is what Hamas advocates. Consider what the "leaders" of Hamas told The New York Times (as set forth in an April 4, 2002 article). In particular, I draw your attention to the following which related to the attack that occurred in Israel on the first night of Passover:
"But now," he added, "everybody knows, and Israel will never be stable again."
On the night of the Passover attack, Dr. Zahar released a statement saying it was intended in part to shut down the cease-fire negotiations then under way, directed by Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the American special envoy.
In the interview today, Dr. Zahar explained, "the Zinni mission was bad for us" because, under the proposed terms of the cease-fire, groups like Hamas would be disarmed and their leaders arrested.
"Besides," Dr. Rantisi said, "we in Hamas believe peace talks will do no good. We do not believe we can live with the enemy."
Moreover, according to the article:
The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, "our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation." By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine.
Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living "in an Islamic state with Islamic law," Dr. Zahar said. "From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine."
Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, "There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews."
(The article is entitled "Bombers Gloating in Gaza as They See Goal Within Reach: No More Israel" and it appeared in The New York Times on April 4, 2002. The article was written by Joel Brinkley. I added emphasis.)
Nothing has changed in substance since that time, except, of course, that Hamas is now the main political party among Palestinian Arabs and has created, in effect, its own country in Gaza.
Of course, since Israel no longer, as a legal matter, occupies Gaza, it is legal to deny access to Gaza. One might read the ICJ opinion regarding the barrier since it sets out the definition of occupation and that definition is not met by Israel with reference to Gaza. In any event, the leaders of Gaza say they are at war with Israel so the reasonable thing for those in wars is to make things difficult for the enemy. Your Winston Churchill thought that a good strategy for dealing with Britain's enemies during WWI and WWII.
According to the Hamas version of reality, Jews are responsible for all that is wrong in the world for the last several centuries. According to the Hamas Covenant:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
Moreover, this Covenant calls for genocide, re-characterizing an end of days Hadith into a call for genocide. According to the Covenant:
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
People who find bigotry appalling, think ill of the Hamas. They think that Hamas in power is akin to placing Nazis in power. And, note: it is not just the past. The very same things as noted above continue to be said, to this very day, by Hamas.
So, trying to force Gaza to throw off a government ruled by Antisemitic hatemongers is the moral thing to do.
Neal
In September 2006, The Independent reported that Palestinian mothers had been reduced to scouring rubbish dumps to find enough food to feed their children once a day. The blockade of Gaza has continued for a further two years since then, to the horror of international aid agencies .
Interesting that you have nothing to say about this. That you can't even manage a "its regrettable but...".
Well, lets be accurate. Its not that you have nothing to say about it. Its the fact that you support it. You support the deliberately imposed malnutrition of children.
Not a word of what you have written here would be relevant unless you took the view that to starve children was expedient in certain circumstances. That is to say that you believe it is possible to do deliberate and serious physical harm to children, including infants, in self defence.
And you clearly imagine yourself to be taking this stance - advocating physical attacks on children - from the moral high ground.
Its quite a performance.
But seriously Neal, I've put up with these bizarre, ugly rants from you on every other blogpost here for several weeks now. I'm not going to embark on yet another interminable thread with you while you aggressively argue increasingly bizarre, ignorant and/or morally repugnant positions. Its become boring, and now, really rather unpleasant.
So as of now you will be treated as a troll and your comments deleted.
....and relax....
Now then, for people interested in a more serious view of these topics, here's a couple of recommendations.
First, Conflicts Forum is a project run by two eminent security and international affairs experts which aims to facilitate dialogue between the West and political Islam in the Middle East, especially over Israel-Palestine, and thereby hopefully promote the chances of peace. They give some first-rate analysis on the nature of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and the wider political context they operate in. Have a browse round the website, there's some high quality reading material there.
Second, on the situation in the Occupied Territories, well if you were to read only one thing then it would have to be this , the report published in January this year by the outgoing UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard. Dugard is a South African professor of international law and former judge on the International Court of Justice. He's an expert on Apartheid and as such he brings a unique perspective and body of knowledge to bear on the situation. His report is very readable, filled with a real intelligence and warmth, and above all sets out the factual record in a scrupulously clear and fair way.
Generally there's lots of good stuff on this subject available from the usual NGOs. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the normal third world aid agencies.
the exchange above raises an interesting question: when does a viewpoint become beyond the pale?
i ask this because israel/palestine has been one of those issues where people can get away with--there is no point dressing it up--the most fascistic statements.
my feeling is that the tide is turning, and it is now more difficult to get away with saying such things than it was.
but it is still very much alive. the extent to which it is is demonstrated by this disgusting panel discussion at the frontline club starring Ian Black (the Guardian's middle east editor) Alistair Harris, and Johnathan Spyer.
http://www.fromthefrontline.co.uk/blogs/index.php?blog=5&title=lebanon_civil_war_or_ceasefire&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
jonathan spyer (who has written several articles in the guardian arguing non-chomsky position virtually verbatim) spent the evening railing against hizbollah for endangering the security of israel and destroying lebanon (yes it was hizbollah that carpet bombed southern lebanon with cluster bombs). on the few occasions that gaza came up he claimed
a) israel had no choice, as they were fighting for their right to exist
and on the issue of collective punishment
b)palestinians love the attention of playing victims
no one on the panel stood up to him (prob too worried about being accused of antisemitism) and his remarks were treated as being well within the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
i don't think nazis should be banned from discussion panels and forums, but they should be treated for what they are, and that means contesting their lies and depravity.
i haven't been back to the frontline since
Hi Samuel
Depends what you mean by 'beyond the pale', and then how you deal with an instance of that line being crossed.
Neal is the only person I've excluded from the comment facility on this blog in the past four years. I've done so with regret, after several weeks of his dominating these threads, because he's detracted much and contributed little from productive discussion here. A review of the recent threads he's been involved in will show what I'm talking about in pretty clear terms.
But lets talk about this more generally.
I think the default position is that people should be able to say whatever they like, and the onus is squarely on the person who proposes to prevent them speaking to show that this is the right course of action.
That's for a couple of reasons. First because the greater variety of points of view that are brought to a discussion the more informed and productive that discussion will be. That's the positive reason. The negative reason is that verbal debate is, even at its most violent, a non-violent form of conflict, and such forms of conflict, as alternatives to actual conflict, need to be promoted whereever possible.
In legal terms, I don't think the law should be used to prevent people saying anything, including the most disgusting things you can think of, unless there's a clear intent/danger of that speech inciting, say, violence. At that point obviously the right to free speech is overruled by the right to physical safety of the people who might be the victims of that violence.
Within that legal context, people are free to set up individual discussions and organise those however they see fit. So if you're involved in an academic seminar its probably because you're qualified by a certain level of knowledge in the subject at hand. An undergraduate student of Media Studies wouldn't be allowed to walk into and participate in a PhD seminar on microbiology because it would detract from the discussion far more than it would add to it.
If its not a question of qualification it might be a quesiton of conduct. That same media studies student would be expected to contribute rather than detract from seminar discussion on their own course. So if they didn't do the reading, if they made ad hominem attacks on the writers of the set readings rather than engage with their arguments, if they repeatedly adopted an unnecessarily confrontational approach to discussion, their inclusion would begin to have a detrimental effect on their fellow students' ability to conduct the discussion productively.
If things got so bad that the person chairing the seminar finally removed the troublesome student from the room they would not be violating their right to free speech, simply taking and acting on the view that this free speech was best offered elsewhere in society.
However, while people are free to set up these discussions however they see fit, the value of that discussion will obviously diminish if people are simply excluded for saying things that other participants do not agree with. The result will be groupthink, where, without excessess and errors being challenged to justify themselvs, discussion becomes insular and self-reinforcing. Call it the intellectual equivalent of inbreeding.
How you strike the balance, and how you decide whether a person is a dissenter or merely a wrecker is, ultimately, a matter of judgement. There's no short cut past that, unfortunately.
Without having listened to the specific discussion you mention I can't say where Spyer exactly falls in terms of these criteria. In the first instance, I think that when someone takes a position that is morally repugnant then it should be identified and described as such. That should be sufficient 99 times out of 100. Whether the chair of the panel begins to consider whether it was wise to invite Spyer on at all depends on whether Spyer's involvement meets, for example, any of the criteria mentioned above.
btw, I don't think calling advocates of Israeli state actions "Nazis" is either right or productive.
i didn't/don't have a problem with people like jonathan spyer being given a forum. it was the response from the rest of the panel who were cowed by his aggression and let him dominate the proceedings that sickened me.
i agree the term Nazi shouldn't be used as a throw away remark. however someone who describes palestinians mourning the slaughter of their children and wanton destruction of their homes as "reveling in the attention it brings them" (paraphrase)--i don't think the word is unfair. would we see it as unfair if it was used to describe someone justifying the Sharpeville massacre for example?
i don't think Israel is a Nazi state (not at all). but it has powerful pockets of real extremism--of which Jonathan Spyer is an example--and i don't think we should be afraid to say so.
You're right to identify Spyer's stunning callousness. And its not unfair to call it what it is. Just saying - the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews in Europe as an ethnic group by piling them into gas chambers, which is qualititively different from anything contemplated for the Palestinians by even the most racist of the hard-right in Israel.
And introducing the Nazi analogy into any discussion about Israel is only going to raise the temperature to the point where reasoned debate is impossible, for obvious reasons. And that doesn't aid the cause of peace. So the reference is best avoided even if you ignore the fact that its inaccurate. You can recognise the hideous racism evident in Israeli politics while still reaching for more proportionate and productive analogies.
i largely (almost entirely) agree with what you said.
However the phrase "qualitatively different" is an interesting point of ambiguity.
By that you must mean that the Nazi policy to the Jews changed qualitatively with the "final solution". I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
However by what standard do we measure, or what is the significance then of the 8 or so years that preceded the final solution? It is here that the word qualitative (in this respect referring to a distinct break) becomes unhelpful. I think most people would agree that the various ways in which the jews were treated leading up to the final solution was a prelude or a progression to it. Chrystalnacht, forced deportations, repossessions, indiscriminate violence, vanquishing of their rights etc served the purpose of normalising repression (both in the victims, the oppressors and the bystanders) which over a period of time increased in intensity.
It would then be more accurate to suggest that the policies leading up to the final solution were on the thinner end of the wedge; or if you like--the final solution was state terror directed at an ethnic group (and homosexuals/disabled people/gypsies) taken to its logical conclusion.
its kind of like the analogy of the boiling frog that doesn't jump out of the water. Obviously at some point the temperature rises to a specific point (and there is indeed a qualitative change in terms of the frogs chances of survival) however the change was only ever one of degree.
In this respect I think it can be productive to raise the alarm before the fire gets out of control.
It is true that something in the order of gas chambers are not on the horizon for Palestinians. However could this change? Remember the holocaust happened in the context of a world war. what would happen say if some catastrophic disaster such as a nuclear attack, environmental catastrophe, massive terrorist attack, or even world war was to break out again. People, like Jonathan Spyer, who are in positions of power and authority to make big decisions are suddenly a lot more threatening.
I think personally this is something people find very difficult to deal with on a personal level. treating the holocaust as a unique aberration (i am thinking of the legion of post-structuralist philosophers that queued up to argue this point) may help us live with ourselves--but i think it is self delusion. in the context of radical upheaval, desperation and societal meltdown humanity can turn very ugly very quickly. And who is to say that cannot happen in the middle east?
at any rate i was really referring to Spyer's humanity (and not to Israeli state policies). I mean for me personally claiming that palestinians enoy mourning the death of their children because of the attention it brings--that to me, is where someone has lost all humanity.
i essentially agree with what you have said however and maybe i should be more careful that I don't resort to hyperbole.
to be honest, my opinions are mixed on the matter :)
Well, to be honest I wouldn't compare pre-holocaust Nazi Germany to present day Israel either. Yes, there's callous racism facilitating the serious repression of an ethnic group, but Nazi Germany is hardly the only example of that to be found in history, let alone a typical example. The same dynamic was prevalent across imperial Europe, from Spain in the time of the conquistadors to Britain during the Raj.
In fact, racism is practically the pre-condition for ethnic repression, and all instances of ethnic repression are not the same as Nazism.
I'm not of the view that the holocaust was utterly unique and set apart from other genocides, or that the preceding repression of the Jews was utterly unique and set apart from other instances of ethnic repression. Clearly these abuses belong to a large family of racial crimes that have shamed humanity throughout the ages.
But, while avoiding getting into the ugly and largely pointless business of actually ranking these tragedies against each other, we can still recognise Nazism to be a highly extreme example of the dynamic. I don't think I need to go too far into that. The history makes the point very well for itself.
The underlying dynamic that produced the Nazi assault on the Jews may be one that could almost be described as common in historical terms, but the particular manifestation, I think it is fair to stay, rather stands out from the crowd.
Now I think you make a very important point when you say that attitudes like Spyer's can be the thin end of the wedge. They can create the conditions and set the framework within which yet more serious crimes are committed. And its also true that, as an extreme and stark example of that dynamic, Nazism certainly has something to teach us. The most dangerous thing about calling the Holocaust unique is that we seal it off from historical inquiry and so fail to learn its lessons.
But this does not make it helpful, productive or objectively accurate to call someone like Spyer a Nazi, or to reach for the Nazi analogy when we see these dynamics at work. Apart from cheapening the holocaust (which I know isn't your intention), its a short-cut that doesn't get us to where we need to go.
I don't intend to sound to critical here. You're making some important points, I think.
i don't know whether all of what you have argued or disputed was necessarily implicit in what was a remark born of anger more than anything. i accept the thrust of your criticism however. maybe i should be a little more careful and less informal with my comments
I can well understand your anger. And on the day your words cease to be affected by your feelings in any way, I'm sure your sainthood be will straight in the post.
Mine, I fear, is a long way off.
Post a Comment
<< Home