Circlejerk journalism

Professional anti-semitism accusers Just Journalism want you to read their report on how the London Review of Books has covered Israel in all its tl;dr glory and come away convinced of how prejudiced the LRB is towards poor old Israel. Yet if this was their goal, the presentation of the report lets them down. The long, long text is enlivened by quotes from various LRB articles and photos of various Israeli and Palestinian outrages. All of which, with chapter headings like “The Second Lebanon War: 2006” gives the impression to a casual reader that this is some sort of lefty analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation, rather than a critique of the LRB’s supposed anti-Israel attitude.

You do wonder why they extract quotes like this 2003 Edward Said one: Almost a decade after the end of South African apartheid, this ghastly racist wall is going up with scarcely a peep from the majority of Israelis, rather than quote from their own report. As if they believe the quotes themselve are so horrifying as to make their case for them, that any neutral reader will immediately see how outrageous they are. It’s something you also see in socalled “Decent left” sites like Harry’s Place where the bloggers and their readers have disappeared so far up their own assholes that just mentioning the enemy du jour is reason enough for a two minute hate, without having to explain that they’re wrong and evil or why they are. That’s the danger of the circlejerk: you spent so much time talking to people who always agree with you that you’re no longer able to convince others.

What lies behind the Israeli attack?

The core problem in resolving the Israeli Apartheid is that this is the liberal option:

I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state.”

There may be Israeli’s who genuinely want to end Apartheid, just like there were White South Africans who wanted to end theirs, but they’re too few and too powerless to count, unless Israel starts to suffer for its policies the way South Africa suffered. Hence the importance of the boycott and disinvestment campaign as well as the aid offered to the Palestinian population.

Which is part of the reason why the relief flottila was attacked the way it was, as Jim Henley explains:

Simply, the Jewish people have historically been weak. The Israeli state is currently strong. It’s the only military power of significance in its region and it has the apparently unswerving support of the only global military power that matters. Israel attacked the relief convoy because Israel did not want the relief convoy reaching Gaza, and the convoy offered an opportunity to demonstrate that it meant what it said. In particular that it wasn’t going to stand on ceremony about technicalities like “international waters” or “attacking civilians.” It’s not more complcated than that.

As I said before, Israel wanted to make it clear that they and only they would decide when the population of Gaza had suffered enough and was allowed help.

Meanwhile, here’s what happens if you attempt to protest this attack in the Occupied Westbank:

A 21-year old American student at Cooper Union lost an eye after getting hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired by an Israeli soldier during a demonstration at a crowded checkpoint between Israel and the West Bank yesterday. Emily Henochowicz (here’s her blog) was part of a group protesting the deaths of at least nine pro-Palestinian activists aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. According to her fellow activists, Henochowicz is undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, and one protester, Sören Johanssen, says Israeli soldiers intentionally fired at her face:

“They clearly saw us,” says Johanssen. “They clearly saw that we were internationals and it really looked as though they were trying to hit us. They fired many canisters at us in rapid succession. One landed on either side of Emily, then the third one hit her in the face.” Israeli soldiers have previously killed and injured demonstrators with tear gas canisters.

QotD: If Israeli PR went freelance

Mark Steel:

It’s time the Israeli government’s PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world’s press “The gunman
regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence.” Then various governments would issue statements saying “All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there’s a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can’t pass judgement on what took place.”

QotD: how is Israel like North Korea

From Jamie:

Is it extreme to raise parallels between Israel and North Korea? I don’t think so. Both countries are highly militarized and intensely nationalistic, quite a lot of the time to the point of messianism . Both regard themselves as lights unto the nations, as the saying goes. Neither consider themselves bound by treaty arrangements, and are indeed generally suspicious of them. Both believe themselves to be under existential threat and neither acknowledges that their own behaviour may have anything to do with whatever hostility they face. Both pursue a strategy of active deterrence, based on a philosophy of applying disproportionate force. Both countries enjoy active, committed support from within a diaspora population. Both have nuclear weapons and neither subscribe to the anti-proliferation regime. Both economies depend heavily on arms sales abroad. While both countries consider themselves to be friendless, and use this perception to mobilise support among their respective populations, each enjoys close relations with a major sponsor.

Bastards



This attack found place in international waters, against an unarmed humanitarian mission to feed the people Israel wanted to put on a diet. As per usual, supposed concerns for Israeli security are meant to trump anything else and also as per usual the victims are accussed of having forced the poor, heavily armed Israeli special forces to kill them, as they may have had slingshots and marbles. This will of course turn out to be nonsense, as it always does when the IDF complains about the supposed crimes of its victims. The real motivation is much simpler: to show Gaza and the world that Israel and Israel alone will decide whether or not the people of Gaza will recieve any help. It also shows how little Israel cares about public opinion and that it won’t be moved by it. A very dangerous game to play, as Israel leaves itself very little room for anything other than increasingly brutal oppression.