it's U Penn, not Penn State. And Waters wasn't the keynote. He was on one of many panels, this one about allyship from non-Palestinians. In the end, he didn't even appear in person. Just look at the lineup--the vast majority of speakers were Palestinian.
Peter, can you please link me to your article condemning and condescendingly talking down to the Berkeley student groups who passed by-laws at the behest of the local SJP stating that they will not invite any speakers to campus who "hold views in support of Zionism"? I'm afraid I must have missed it, but surely you must have written it, since you so clearly believe in academic freedom, dialogue between the two sides, and people listening to each others' perspectives.
You're right, he's not the keynote speaker. My point still stands, claiming this conference is purely an expression of the Palestinian experience and Palestinian voices (let alone art and culture) is deliberately misleading. Waters and Marc Lamont Hill were both speakers chosen not because they're representative of the Palestinian experience but because of their political views. You didn't mention either one of them because you're trying to present an innocent image of Palestinians simply sharing their views instead of what describing the event how it actually was: a hate conference based around politics. I highly doubt there was much art or culture being shared in between all the hate speech.
"describing the event how it actually was: a hate conference based around politics."
That is a strong judgment, especially coming from someone like yourself who has a well-earned reputation for fair-mindedness and sensitivity. Could you share more about how the festival went? Or if you already wrote up your experiences there, could you post a link?
Not all the info about the festival has come in yet, but the festival’s inaugural event includes a screening of the film Farha, which includes a number of toxic antisemitic tropes, including a modern retelling of the blood libel trope that casts Jews as vicious, bloodthirsty, and cruel. The film is a distortive piece of fiction, yet it is often treated as evidence of extreme, unprovoked Israeli cruelty towards innocent Palestinians during Israel’s War of Independence. The film’s prominence in the festival is setting the stage for anti-Israel hate based on non-factual and biased information. Other problematic discourse at the event includes references to Israel as a “settler colonialist” state. The term “settler colonialism” refers to a system of oppression in which a colonizing nation engages in ethnic cleansing by displacing and dispossessing a native or pre-existing population. This phrase is false for many reasons.
There was also an antisemitic attack on the Penn Hillel around the same time:
Peter knows he misrepresented the Penn conference, so he had to respond. Remaining silent would mean being proven wrong on his own Substack. Embarrassing.
Also, it's not trolling to legitimately criticize Peter's arguments.
you may remember that we did a friday conversation on exactly that, which included Berkeley Prof Ethan Katz, who decried the Berkeley law students' decision, alongside a Palestinian legal activist defending it
And which side did you agree with, Peter? I didn't see that conversation. Glad to hear my point was proven, though, what with a Palestinian legal "activist" defending campus restrictions on speech.
The day after Yom Kippur, and Peter's already out on the Internet defending anti-Semites. So much for washing away sins and starting a year on the right foot.
This article is even more insulting to the readers' intelligence than usual. I assume Peter will also encourage Black students to go out and listen to the experiences of white supremacists coming to speak on their campus. After all, how many Black students have really sat down and listened to white supremacist rhetoric? Read their books? Watched their movies? Of course not: once again Jews don't count, and Jews are expected to be the only real Christians. No other minority group would be expected to welcome and attend a conference staffed by people who hate them discussing how to deprive them of their institutions, civil protections, and human rights. The idea is absurd.
And it goes from tragedy to farce when you consider that the campus left and the pro-Palestine movement especially are on the forefront of campus censorship. They're the first ones to declare "Zionists off our campus!," usually punctuating their words with violence. Anyone remember Michael Oren and the "Irvine 11?" The Confrontation at Corcodia? There's too many examples to name going back decades, but the recent "Jew Free Zones" at Berkeley is a good starting point for anyone who tries to claim silencing pro-Israel voices on campus isn't part and parcel of the pro-Palestine movement. It seems to me like what goes around comes around. If Palestine demands anyone who thinks Israel should even exist be banned from universities, certainly individuals with far more radical and hateful views have no place on Penn's campus. By Palestine's standards, no one else's.
When Palestinian students sit down and listen respectfully to the experiences of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists who have been victimized by them and their movement, maybe then Beinart will have a case. Until then, this hypocrisy is beyond parody, and deserves nothing more than scorn.
"When Palestinian students sit down and listen respectfully to the experiences of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists who have been victimized by them and their movement, ..."
Aren't Palestinians, collectively, the victims of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists, collectively? You're making it sound as if it's the other way round.
Are Palestinians collectively the victims of Jews? I don't think so, because I don't conflate Jews, Israelis, and Zionists, but maybe you and Palestinians think so. Let me know.
"the recent "Jew Free Zones" at Berkeley is a good starting point for anyone who tries to claim silencing pro-Israel voices on campus isn't part and parcel of the pro-Palestine movement."
Doesn’t that article effectively clarify and refute the notion that there were “Jew-free zones” established at Cal?
I followed that issue somewhat closely as I did my graduate studies there during the Second Intifada days. I witnessed lots of pro-Palestinian groups saying mean, ugly things about Israel and Zionism from Sproul Plaza back then. Then pro-Israel students—one outspoken student was an IDF reservist and would wear the flag of Israel like a cape—would get right up in their noses and give the mean and ugly back every bit as good as they got it.
Personally I much prefer that commitment to the spirit of free-speech then modern tactics of deplatforming or proposing the banishment of certain speakers, but that’s a digression.
Regardless, there were neither then nor now any “Jew-free zones.”
There are not literal "Jew free zones" and I never said there was. My point was that pro-Palestinian students are actively seeking to silence "Zionist" voices on college campuses, and the by laws passed at Berkeley proves that point. I must have missed Peter Beinart's article decrying those Berkeley by laws. Maybe you can link me to that article.
Unfortunately for you, Beinart, this claim about the conference being all about the Palestinian experience is just another lie, and it's obvious to anyone paying attention. The clearest and most indisputable indication that this is a lie is the fact that Roger Waters was supposed to be the keynote speaker. Roger Waters, in case anyone is not aware, is not a Palestinian. He has just as much authority to speak about "the Palestinian experience" as Beinart does, which is to say, none at all. Of all the Palestinians the organizers could have chosen to keynote their festival, they chose none of them. That speaks volumes, far far more than anything someone like Beinart have to say.
Beinart claims that the opposition to the speakers is because of "what they say about Israel and Zionism". Maybe Beinart isn't aware that another one of the speakers, Refaat Alareer, a professor at Islamic University of Gaza, is on record as tweeting, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are.” And I'm sure I could find more were I so inclined to dig further. Regardless, spewing hate about "Zionists" and then claiming it's not antisemitism isn't fooling anybody, it's just classic dog whistle politics. If the alt-right held a conference where all they did was talk about much they hated "feminists" and wanted to rid the world of "feminism," I don't think anyone would buy it that they have nothing against women.
Beinart might as well just give it up and admit there's antisemitism in his movement, as many Palestinians have, and then proceed to justify it, rather than pretend that all of the speakers have never said anything beyond "legitimate criticisms of Israel."
LOL he wrote this whole diatribe about how Jewish students need to "listen to Palestinians" and learn about "the Palestinian experience". How much of a Palestinian is Roger Waters, Petey?
Taylor Swift is a multi-album, multimillion record selling musical celebrity. She recently wore a Kansas City Chiefs football jersey while attending a home game in Kansas City. Even though she is not herself a professional football player, sales of the jersey she was wearing have gone through the roof—ostensibly by people who would not otherwise be too interested or pay attention to pro American football. This is kind of how celebrity endorsement works.
Now let’s try this exercise again: Roger Waters is a multi album, multimillion record selling musical celebrity…
Beinart doesn’t mention Roger Waters in his article. You’re the one who brought him up. You seem mystified why a celebrity, widely known to be sympathetic to the cause, might be given prominent billing at their event.
Beinart is talking about the Penn State conference, which was supposed to have Roger Waters as the keynote speaker despite (according to Beinart) being about "Palestinian perspectives," which is all about demonstrating "Palestinian art, culture in the public square" and will include "Palestinians talk[ing] about their own experience" He also says it will involve discussions of "the Palestinian experience" and "Palestinian speakers talking about their experience," encouraging Jews to "listen to Palestinians."
So over and over and over again he's saying that this conference is Palestinians talking about the Palestinian experience, while meanwhile the head of it is not a Palestinian and therefore is in no position whatsoever to speak authoritatively on the Palestinian experience. So either Beinart is lying by omission or the conference organizers are. It's fine for Taylor to cheer on a football game, but anyone who thinks she has something profound to say when she talks about football is sadly misguided. Which would explain a lot about this conference and the people who run it, actually.
Peter, in the podcast title, you're asking the wrong question. I would amend it to ask, "Have the People Protesting a Palestinian Literary Festival Heard Any Palestinian Propaganda?" Many Jewish university students have never read any Palestinian literature, but they probably have heard oral Palestinian rants, diatribes of biased propaganda, frequent exaggerations, and occasional outright lies on most campuses. To let those stand without visible criticism is a great disservice to Israel and Jews everywhere and to "racial" justice.
Peter, two weeks ago in this space I criticized the oddly titled "Palestinian Open Letter" that condemned some unquoted and unspecified comments by Mahmoud Abbas without even giving any hint of the time or place where the comments might have been made. You wrote that the letter was "really excellent", and then you had an hour with a signatory of the letter but never asked her why it didn't actually say which of Abbas's comments it was condemning.
So these are your standards?
Here you've provided us with a link to a letter by Penn alumni who say they "are deeply concerned about the many scheduled speakers at the upcoming event who have a history of antisemitic rhetoric, actions, and hostility towards Jewish people."
And they don't name any of these speakers that they profess to be deeply concerned about. With the combined resources of the 2,026 signatories, they were unable or unwilling to come up with a single name, or a single example of antisemitic rhetoric or action or hostility towards Jewish people. This fact doesn't deserve calling out?
The alumni ask the university to "Issue a clear and unequivocal statement specifically denouncing the event’s platforming of known antisemitic speakers."
Right. "KNOWN" to whom? They're essentially telling the university, "WE KNOW that some of the speakers at this event are antisemitic. You should take our word for it and denounce the event for platforming these people that we won't even identify, let alone share any information about what any of them have said or done."
And it gets worse. Penn's president responds with this letter:
She writes, "many have raised deep concerns about several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people."
She's accepting as *fact* that this event will include "several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people."
But she doesn't identify any of these speakers, either, let alone make reference to any of their speech or actions.
When you praise a condemnation that isn't specific about what it's condemning, as you did, then that makes it acceptable for other people like these to make accusations against unspecified individuals for unspecified words and unspecified actions.
I was a speaker at the Festival. I am not Palestinian. I was chosen by the, yes, Palestinians who organized and ran the festival to give a talk because they, as Palestinians, wanted me to, because they felt my topic was relevant to Palestine. (And it was.)
This nonsense about how the Palestinian literary identity is misleading because not everyone was Palestinian is really desperate. The organizers do not have to explain to you who they want, nor need your permission.
You try imposing your critique on any other parallel event and you will see how idiotic it is.
"At that talk, Suarez is quoted as saying “Zionists are so terrified of daylight on their cult, that there are moves afoot to outlaw any derogatory reference of the word,” and “Zionism was a parallel movement to Nazism.”"
I resist replying to such comments, but here need to set the record straight:
1. The author of the article you cite HAD NOT ATTENDED that 2017 talk that he falsely claimed to be reporting on, and refused to modify it even when presented with a complete unedited video of the talk. In contrast, a different (non-UMass) paper completely pulled outright a separate but similar article about that same talk when presented with the complete unedited video. Here in the UK, the Independent Press Standards Organisation forced one of the UK papers to retract two similar articles when it could produce no evidence whatsoever for its report on what I had supposedly said.
2. Your quote, rather, is a distorted and out-of-context version of a comment I made at a talk a year earlier in reply to spicily-worded questions in reference to the then-coming IHRA definition. Colorful language aside, I was unfortunately correct about IHRA.
••• In fact you will surely not like much of what I write or say, but please contest intelligently what I actually say.
Wow, another non-Palestinian at an event that's supposedly all about elevating Palestinian voices, LMAO. You clearly were invited because you had the right politics, i.e. deranged rabid hatred for Israel and (((Zionists))).
Since you're not antisemitic, will you criticize Refaat Alareer, a professor at Islamic University of Gaza, who is on record as tweeting, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are.” Or do you agree with him?
Richard, it has been reported recently that the one issue man Haim Saban, spent 3 hours whispering in Joe Biden's ear. Do you think that he was advocating for the Visa Waver Program?
Your comment mentioned the Visa Waiver Program and provided a link to the announcement. My question to you was, do you think Haim Sabin had an imput into the decision to agree the Visa Waiver for Israel.
Powerfully said. Thanks. Those seeking an intro Palestinian literature would be well advised to start with a guest you had on a while back, Fida Jiryis
I haven’t read Palestinian literature. In my school in Israel the sixties Arabic was a compulsory subject. But my attitude was already too polluted to take it seriously. I understood that an easy way to gain quick popularity among my fellow students was to clown around the teacher’s back.
Many years and a country later I attended a small evening class in Israeli literature in Sydney Eastern Suburbs. It was a joy to get back to reading Hebrew again. One day she read to us to a short story written by young Palestinian woman, translated into Hebrew. It was breath taking, it was true writing, it was blood, sweat and tears.
And then the first comment - « it couldn’t have been written by a Palestinian alone, surely the Israeli translator must have had a part in it too »...
My blood boiling, a fiery exchange, the teacher attempting peace,
and change of subject.
Yes Peter, I’m with you on this - we don’t know the Palestinian literature.
Shifting gears from this current topic, it's worth noting the rapidly evolving news regarding a potential groundbreaking normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. As I've often emphasized before, such agreements could leave the Palestinian people marginalized. If this agreement materializes, it might set a precedent for other Arab nations to follow suit, further isolating the Palestinians. In the long run, Palestinian leaders will need to reevaluate their 75-year-old strategy focused on the destruction of Israel -- and proponents of Palestinian rejectionism, exemplified by individuals like Peter who propose unworkable ideas like a single-state solution for all, may need to confront the harsh realities of this changing landscape.
Richard, Victoria Nuland said, a Saudi normalization deal with Israel will assure Palestinians that the "prospect two-state solution stays vibrant and strong."
Israel and the US have been hoping for a two-state solution for 75 years, but the Palestinians have rejected every opportunity to have one. Today, the best that can be hoped for is giving the Palestinians enough autonomy and financial assistance from the Saudis to see if they can get their house in order. If and when they are ready to accept having their own demilitarized country, recognize Israel as a Jewish state next to them, and stop the nonsense of "right of return" -- as well as solve the problem of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups operating outside of government attacking Israel -- then the prospect for two-states would be vibrant and strong.
"Israel and the US have been hoping for a two-state solution for 75 years"
Please. The current Israeli government is simply not interested in a two-state solution, and has made that lack of interest known. It's part of how they got elected, even.
The current Israeli government is a result of the Palestinian intransigence and murder campaigns. The Israeli electorate has shifted right and focused on the future. The Palestinians are mired in the past. If the Saudi-Israeli normalization occurs, much of the Arab world will follow, yet the Palestinians continue to play their losing hand of rejecting Israel // supported by enablers like you, Peter.
Richard, the two-state solution left the station many years ago.
Thirty years after the Oslo Accords of 1993, the paradigm of partition of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River into two separate nation-states seems less and less relevant and more and more observers and policy-makers openly question the feasibility of the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. Arguably, an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 seems very unlikely if not already impossible. In addition to the ever growing number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, important organizational and administrative changes in Israel's control over the area in the beginning of 2023 indicate that the state of Israel is effectively annexing the West Bank, even though without any formal declaration of annexation.
Admittedly, Israel's presence in the West Bank is not merely a temporary situation of military occupation. Israeli policy of massive investment in building and development of settlements, infrastructure and services over the last few decades is a policy of de facto annexation of large parts of the West Bank. The border between Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, known as the 1949 Armistice Lines or the Green Line, was erased for the Israelis as a result of the Israeli policies: “one cannot separate between 1967 and 1948. This is the reality.” The result today is a “one-state reality” of unequal rights between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, in which the Israeli and the Palestinian populations live on the same territory but do not enjoy equal rights—a situation which is more and more define as a system of apartheid.
I unfortunately agree with much of what you say here, Sean, except for the cause and effect. Instead of embracing peace and their own country, the Palestinians have opted for rejectionism and murder. It has led to an increasingly conservative Israeli electorate which has allowed more settling of the West Bank. So how to reverse this? I’ve said it before: accept Israel; accept their own demilitarized state; stop the nonsense of “right of return”. Ban the teaching of Jew-hatred in schools and mosques; ban terrorist groups and arrest anyone joining; etc. Behave like you want your own country…and good things can happen.
I’m afraid Richard, that I must disagree with your analysis. One only has to look at the numbers murdered in Palestine/Israel over the years to realise that it is the Israeli Jews doing most of the evil deeds. Indeed one only has to read the Haaretz newspaper, to see the reports of atrocities committed by the IOF on a daily basis. If Palestinians resist the occupation and fight back, well who could blame them
Even when the sham peace talks were taking place, the settlements continued to be built.
I could go on and on, but as you well know, we’ve already debated many times all of your claims blaming Palestinians for their present situation.
One could say that if the US hadn’t covered for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity at the UN, by using its veto in the security council, this occupation would have been over long ago.
I hope you are not serious with that simplistic analysis, suggesting that Israel is the bad party just because more Palestinians than Israelis have died. Israel takes great care to root out terrorists hiding among civilians, while Palestinian attackers intentionally target civilians.
The latest sounds like there needs to be tangible progress in establishing a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem for the Saudis to accept a normalization agreement. Somehow I don’t think it will be the Palestinian side that would reject it.
In fact, if Netanyahu assents to anything of the kind, there should be a mass revolt within and disintegration of his government. At this point, the Thomas Friedman take makes sense—that this outcome is the primary object of the exercise.
If Biden were actually interested in laying more groundwork for a 2SS to bring the Saudis onboard, he could unilaterally move for recognization of Palestine as a full-fledged member of the UN with East Jerusalem as its capital. He won’t because he isn’t.
As I have said many times before, the Palestinians have had 75 years to have a state of their own, with three simple steps:
1. Recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
2. Accept living in peace in a non-militarized country next to Israel.
3. Acknowledge that the fictional "right of return" will be only to this new state of Palestine, not to Israel.
I'm guessing that the Palestinians will eventually come around to exactly these three things, and in return, Israel will be willing to formalize realistic borders between the two countries.
You must have missed the latest in Netanyahu’s UN speech, Richard. In it he clarifies where the goalposts have been moved for the Palestinians:
Bibi:
“For Peace to prevail, the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew hatred, finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state, but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland – the land of Israel.”
So Palestinians must accept Jewish sovereignty in the whole land, including the West Bank, which is considered to be the historic heartland of the Jewish people. Netanyahu frames this desired outcome as a matter of Jewish natural rights, for which it is an exercise in Jew-hatred to deny.
Of course, this is entirely incompatible with a viable independent 2SS. But this long-held Likudnik view is the only apparent peace on offer. Yet even that
“generosity” to the Palestinians would destroy his coalition.
No, in a two-state solution, he is referring to Israel. However, to set the stage for this, it is imperative that the Palestinians behave like they will accept Israel as a neighbor. This includes stopping the teaching of children to hate Jews and reject Israel, creating heroes out of terrorist murderers, and making nonsensical demands for a right of return.
"This includes stopping the teaching of children to hate Jews"
This reminds me of a joke that Uri Avnery used to tell, "Kill a Turk and Rest", set in Imperial Russia, where the punchline is the son asking "What if the Turk kills me?" and his mother replying, "You? But why? What have you done to him?”
Isn't the problem that the state of Israel has rejected the Palestinians? Surely you've thought of that.
"creating heroes out of terrorist murderers,"
But no comment on Israelis doing that?
"and making nonsensical demands for a right of return."
How is it nonsensical? No comment on the obvious comparison with the Israeli state's insistence that every Jew in the world have a right of "return" to Israel, but even Palestinians who were born in Israel to families going back many generations there do not have a right to return?
Very weak rebuttal, Peter. Every negotiation has ended with Palestinian rejection. Israel never deliberately targets civilians — but when Palestinians launch missiles from the tops of apartment buildings, there are consequences. Israel can accept anyone they want — it’s their country. And Israel has offered opportunities for refugees (i.e., people who left in 1948) to return — but not their descendants. That is a made-up definition by the Palestinians. They can live in a state of Palestine — if the Palestinians would accept having one.
IMO normalization could be justified if it's conditional on pro-Palestinian concessions from the Israeli side. E.g. if Saudi Arabia demands that Israel allow elections in the W. Bank and Gaza (regardless of result), reduce the blockade on Gaza, and so on, as a condition for normalization, then it's justified. Otherwise it's not.
Why would Israel lower the blockade in Gaza or allow Hamas to be elected in the West Bank when they remain committed to Israel’s destruction? That’s a strange precondition. In fact, it would likely be Israel demanding the demilitarization of Hamas and removal of them from ruling Garza before committing to any peace agreement.
I'm talking about what I think *should* happen, not what I think is likely to happen.
It doesn't matter whether Hamas remains 'committed to Israel's destruction'. They are not in a militarily or otherwise powerful enough position to actually destroy Israel. They could be committed to going to the Moon for all I care. Palestinians have the right to democratic self-governance and I absolutely stand by that. Your fear or hatred of Hamas -- or of Palestinians in general -- does not negate this.
Saudis putting aside Arab Peace Initiative amid Israel normalization talks: “We hope it will reach a place that it will ease the life of the Palestinians…rather than their political sovereignty.”
Beinart's generally deeply insightful analysis being a much appreciated given, I nonetheless need to question the intellectual category of "civilian". An admirable category as an expression of the hope for sparing those not obviously combatants in a given conflict but who determines who is truly a non-combatant and who by giving aid and comfort is de facto a party to armed conflict? Who determines is also relevant to populations not accorded "civilian" status, such as Shoah-era Jews, Zionist-era Indigenous Palestinians, our own western hemisphere Indigenous peoples, Uighurs under CCP control and others. The humanitarian solidarity obligations toward the latter drive us but why do we shy away from the implications of the former? Is it in Beinart's case that he is uncomfortable with Zionist-occupation Jews possibly deserving to be targeted just as I have argued that WWII era German and Japanese civilians "deserved" to be targeted or rather that their victims indeed deserved that we target their would-be genocidaires for death and argue for the regime-compliant populations of the twin Eurasian mega-dictatorships to be targeted now. Zionism for all its crimes does not threaten the world. Putinist, imperialist ethno-supremacist Russia and the comparable CCP do and need to be overthrown and if their urban power centres will not rise up then they too may likely need to be targeted or will we let our overextension of the concept "civilian" lead us to likely suicidal cowardice in the face of these regimes' nuclear blackmail to which we refuse to effectively respond?
it's U Penn, not Penn State. And Waters wasn't the keynote. He was on one of many panels, this one about allyship from non-Palestinians. In the end, he didn't even appear in person. Just look at the lineup--the vast majority of speakers were Palestinian.
Peter, can you please link me to your article condemning and condescendingly talking down to the Berkeley student groups who passed by-laws at the behest of the local SJP stating that they will not invite any speakers to campus who "hold views in support of Zionism"? I'm afraid I must have missed it, but surely you must have written it, since you so clearly believe in academic freedom, dialogue between the two sides, and people listening to each others' perspectives.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
You're right, he's not the keynote speaker. My point still stands, claiming this conference is purely an expression of the Palestinian experience and Palestinian voices (let alone art and culture) is deliberately misleading. Waters and Marc Lamont Hill were both speakers chosen not because they're representative of the Palestinian experience but because of their political views. You didn't mention either one of them because you're trying to present an innocent image of Palestinians simply sharing their views instead of what describing the event how it actually was: a hate conference based around politics. I highly doubt there was much art or culture being shared in between all the hate speech.
"describing the event how it actually was: a hate conference based around politics."
That is a strong judgment, especially coming from someone like yourself who has a well-earned reputation for fair-mindedness and sensitivity. Could you share more about how the festival went? Or if you already wrote up your experiences there, could you post a link?
Not all the info about the festival has come in yet, but the festival’s inaugural event includes a screening of the film Farha, which includes a number of toxic antisemitic tropes, including a modern retelling of the blood libel trope that casts Jews as vicious, bloodthirsty, and cruel. The film is a distortive piece of fiction, yet it is often treated as evidence of extreme, unprovoked Israeli cruelty towards innocent Palestinians during Israel’s War of Independence. The film’s prominence in the festival is setting the stage for anti-Israel hate based on non-factual and biased information. Other problematic discourse at the event includes references to Israel as a “settler colonialist” state. The term “settler colonialism” refers to a system of oppression in which a colonizing nation engages in ethnic cleansing by displacing and dispossessing a native or pre-existing population. This phrase is false for many reasons.
There was also an antisemitic attack on the Penn Hillel around the same time:
https://www.thedp.com/article/2023/09/penn-hillel-vandalism-incident
I know you probably see nothing problematic about either of those things, but the rest of us can see what's going on very clearly.
I'm surprised you're even gracing your trolls with a response.
Peter knows he misrepresented the Penn conference, so he had to respond. Remaining silent would mean being proven wrong on his own Substack. Embarrassing.
Also, it's not trolling to legitimately criticize Peter's arguments.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
you may remember that we did a friday conversation on exactly that, which included Berkeley Prof Ethan Katz, who decried the Berkeley law students' decision, alongside a Palestinian legal activist defending it
And which side did you agree with, Peter? I didn't see that conversation. Glad to hear my point was proven, though, what with a Palestinian legal "activist" defending campus restrictions on speech.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
The day after Yom Kippur, and Peter's already out on the Internet defending anti-Semites. So much for washing away sins and starting a year on the right foot.
This article is even more insulting to the readers' intelligence than usual. I assume Peter will also encourage Black students to go out and listen to the experiences of white supremacists coming to speak on their campus. After all, how many Black students have really sat down and listened to white supremacist rhetoric? Read their books? Watched their movies? Of course not: once again Jews don't count, and Jews are expected to be the only real Christians. No other minority group would be expected to welcome and attend a conference staffed by people who hate them discussing how to deprive them of their institutions, civil protections, and human rights. The idea is absurd.
And it goes from tragedy to farce when you consider that the campus left and the pro-Palestine movement especially are on the forefront of campus censorship. They're the first ones to declare "Zionists off our campus!," usually punctuating their words with violence. Anyone remember Michael Oren and the "Irvine 11?" The Confrontation at Corcodia? There's too many examples to name going back decades, but the recent "Jew Free Zones" at Berkeley is a good starting point for anyone who tries to claim silencing pro-Israel voices on campus isn't part and parcel of the pro-Palestine movement. It seems to me like what goes around comes around. If Palestine demands anyone who thinks Israel should even exist be banned from universities, certainly individuals with far more radical and hateful views have no place on Penn's campus. By Palestine's standards, no one else's.
When Palestinian students sit down and listen respectfully to the experiences of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists who have been victimized by them and their movement, maybe then Beinart will have a case. Until then, this hypocrisy is beyond parody, and deserves nothing more than scorn.
"When Palestinian students sit down and listen respectfully to the experiences of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists who have been victimized by them and their movement, ..."
Aren't Palestinians, collectively, the victims of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists, collectively? You're making it sound as if it's the other way round.
Are Palestinians collectively the victims of Jews? I don't think so, because I don't conflate Jews, Israelis, and Zionists, but maybe you and Palestinians think so. Let me know.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
"the recent "Jew Free Zones" at Berkeley is a good starting point for anyone who tries to claim silencing pro-Israel voices on campus isn't part and parcel of the pro-Palestine movement."
What "Jew Free Zones" at Berkeley?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/does-uc-berkeley-really-have-jew-free-zones/
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
Doesn’t that article effectively clarify and refute the notion that there were “Jew-free zones” established at Cal?
I followed that issue somewhat closely as I did my graduate studies there during the Second Intifada days. I witnessed lots of pro-Palestinian groups saying mean, ugly things about Israel and Zionism from Sproul Plaza back then. Then pro-Israel students—one outspoken student was an IDF reservist and would wear the flag of Israel like a cape—would get right up in their noses and give the mean and ugly back every bit as good as they got it.
Personally I much prefer that commitment to the spirit of free-speech then modern tactics of deplatforming or proposing the banishment of certain speakers, but that’s a digression.
Regardless, there were neither then nor now any “Jew-free zones.”
There are not literal "Jew free zones" and I never said there was. My point was that pro-Palestinian students are actively seeking to silence "Zionist" voices on college campuses, and the by laws passed at Berkeley proves that point. I must have missed Peter Beinart's article decrying those Berkeley by laws. Maybe you can link me to that article.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
Unfortunately for you, Beinart, this claim about the conference being all about the Palestinian experience is just another lie, and it's obvious to anyone paying attention. The clearest and most indisputable indication that this is a lie is the fact that Roger Waters was supposed to be the keynote speaker. Roger Waters, in case anyone is not aware, is not a Palestinian. He has just as much authority to speak about "the Palestinian experience" as Beinart does, which is to say, none at all. Of all the Palestinians the organizers could have chosen to keynote their festival, they chose none of them. That speaks volumes, far far more than anything someone like Beinart have to say.
Beinart claims that the opposition to the speakers is because of "what they say about Israel and Zionism". Maybe Beinart isn't aware that another one of the speakers, Refaat Alareer, a professor at Islamic University of Gaza, is on record as tweeting, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are.” And I'm sure I could find more were I so inclined to dig further. Regardless, spewing hate about "Zionists" and then claiming it's not antisemitism isn't fooling anybody, it's just classic dog whistle politics. If the alt-right held a conference where all they did was talk about much they hated "feminists" and wanted to rid the world of "feminism," I don't think anyone would buy it that they have nothing against women.
Beinart might as well just give it up and admit there's antisemitism in his movement, as many Palestinians have, and then proceed to justify it, rather than pretend that all of the speakers have never said anything beyond "legitimate criticisms of Israel."
LOL he wrote this whole diatribe about how Jewish students need to "listen to Palestinians" and learn about "the Palestinian experience". How much of a Palestinian is Roger Waters, Petey?
Taylor Swift is a multi-album, multimillion record selling musical celebrity. She recently wore a Kansas City Chiefs football jersey while attending a home game in Kansas City. Even though she is not herself a professional football player, sales of the jersey she was wearing have gone through the roof—ostensibly by people who would not otherwise be too interested or pay attention to pro American football. This is kind of how celebrity endorsement works.
Now let’s try this exercise again: Roger Waters is a multi album, multimillion record selling musical celebrity…
Try reading the column again, Paul. A few more times, if necessary.
Beinart doesn’t mention Roger Waters in his article. You’re the one who brought him up. You seem mystified why a celebrity, widely known to be sympathetic to the cause, might be given prominent billing at their event.
Beinart is talking about the Penn State conference, which was supposed to have Roger Waters as the keynote speaker despite (according to Beinart) being about "Palestinian perspectives," which is all about demonstrating "Palestinian art, culture in the public square" and will include "Palestinians talk[ing] about their own experience" He also says it will involve discussions of "the Palestinian experience" and "Palestinian speakers talking about their experience," encouraging Jews to "listen to Palestinians."
So over and over and over again he's saying that this conference is Palestinians talking about the Palestinian experience, while meanwhile the head of it is not a Palestinian and therefore is in no position whatsoever to speak authoritatively on the Palestinian experience. So either Beinart is lying by omission or the conference organizers are. It's fine for Taylor to cheer on a football game, but anyone who thinks she has something profound to say when she talks about football is sadly misguided. Which would explain a lot about this conference and the people who run it, actually.
Peter, in the podcast title, you're asking the wrong question. I would amend it to ask, "Have the People Protesting a Palestinian Literary Festival Heard Any Palestinian Propaganda?" Many Jewish university students have never read any Palestinian literature, but they probably have heard oral Palestinian rants, diatribes of biased propaganda, frequent exaggerations, and occasional outright lies on most campuses. To let those stand without visible criticism is a great disservice to Israel and Jews everywhere and to "racial" justice.
Peter, two weeks ago in this space I criticized the oddly titled "Palestinian Open Letter" that condemned some unquoted and unspecified comments by Mahmoud Abbas without even giving any hint of the time or place where the comments might have been made. You wrote that the letter was "really excellent", and then you had an hour with a signatory of the letter but never asked her why it didn't actually say which of Abbas's comments it was condemning.
So these are your standards?
Here you've provided us with a link to a letter by Penn alumni who say they "are deeply concerned about the many scheduled speakers at the upcoming event who have a history of antisemitic rhetoric, actions, and hostility towards Jewish people."
And they don't name any of these speakers that they profess to be deeply concerned about. With the combined resources of the 2,026 signatories, they were unable or unwilling to come up with a single name, or a single example of antisemitic rhetoric or action or hostility towards Jewish people. This fact doesn't deserve calling out?
The alumni ask the university to "Issue a clear and unequivocal statement specifically denouncing the event’s platforming of known antisemitic speakers."
Right. "KNOWN" to whom? They're essentially telling the university, "WE KNOW that some of the speakers at this event are antisemitic. You should take our word for it and denounce the event for platforming these people that we won't even identify, let alone share any information about what any of them have said or done."
And it gets worse. Penn's president responds with this letter:
https://president.upenn.edu/content/statement-palestine-writes-literature-festival
She writes, "many have raised deep concerns about several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people."
She's accepting as *fact* that this event will include "several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people."
But she doesn't identify any of these speakers, either, let alone make reference to any of their speech or actions.
When you praise a condemnation that isn't specific about what it's condemning, as you did, then that makes it acceptable for other people like these to make accusations against unspecified individuals for unspecified words and unspecified actions.
I was a speaker at the Festival. I am not Palestinian. I was chosen by the, yes, Palestinians who organized and ran the festival to give a talk because they, as Palestinians, wanted me to, because they felt my topic was relevant to Palestine. (And it was.)
This nonsense about how the Palestinian literary identity is misleading because not everyone was Palestinian is really desperate. The organizers do not have to explain to you who they want, nor need your permission.
You try imposing your critique on any other parallel event and you will see how idiotic it is.
"At that talk, Suarez is quoted as saying “Zionists are so terrified of daylight on their cult, that there are moves afoot to outlaw any derogatory reference of the word,” and “Zionism was a parallel movement to Nazism.”"
https://dailycollegian.com/2017/09/the-anti-semitism-of-the-suarez-talk-is-not-the-way-to-discuss-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
Yes, I'm sure your topic was relevant to Palestine. Seething, mindless hatred of (((Zionists))) is a foundational part of any Palestinian event.
Hello Winters,
I resist replying to such comments, but here need to set the record straight:
1. The author of the article you cite HAD NOT ATTENDED that 2017 talk that he falsely claimed to be reporting on, and refused to modify it even when presented with a complete unedited video of the talk. In contrast, a different (non-UMass) paper completely pulled outright a separate but similar article about that same talk when presented with the complete unedited video. Here in the UK, the Independent Press Standards Organisation forced one of the UK papers to retract two similar articles when it could produce no evidence whatsoever for its report on what I had supposedly said.
2. Your quote, rather, is a distorted and out-of-context version of a comment I made at a talk a year earlier in reply to spicily-worded questions in reference to the then-coming IHRA definition. Colorful language aside, I was unfortunately correct about IHRA.
••• In fact you will surely not like much of what I write or say, but please contest intelligently what I actually say.
So you do not think Zionism is a parallel movement to Nazism? And you don't think Zionists are terrified of daylight on their cult?
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
Wow, another non-Palestinian at an event that's supposedly all about elevating Palestinian voices, LMAO. You clearly were invited because you had the right politics, i.e. deranged rabid hatred for Israel and (((Zionists))).
Since you're not antisemitic, will you criticize Refaat Alareer, a professor at Islamic University of Gaza, who is on record as tweeting, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are.” Or do you agree with him?
When will the Palestinians stop their rejectionism as the region and world move on without them?
Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Blinken Announce Designation of Israel into the Visa Waiver Program | Homeland Security.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/27/secretary-mayorkas-and-secretary-blinken-announce-designation-israel-visa-waiver
Richard, it has been reported recently that the one issue man Haim Saban, spent 3 hours whispering in Joe Biden's ear. Do you think that he was advocating for the Visa Waver Program?
Not sure your question. What's your point?
Your comment mentioned the Visa Waiver Program and provided a link to the announcement. My question to you was, do you think Haim Sabin had an imput into the decision to agree the Visa Waiver for Israel.
None. It’s been in the works for a long time.
Powerfully said. Thanks. Those seeking an intro Palestinian literature would be well advised to start with a guest you had on a while back, Fida Jiryis
https://epalestine.blogspot.com/2022/09/Stranger-in-My-Own-Land.html
Who Am I, Without Exile?
By Mahmoud Darwish Palestinian national Poet
Translated by Fady Joudah
A stranger on the riverbank, like the river ... water
binds me to your name. Nothing brings me back from my faraway
to my palm tree: not peace and not war. Nothing
makes me enter the gospels. Not
a thing ... nothing sparkles from the shore of ebb
and flow between the Euphrates and the Nile. Nothing
makes me descend from the pharaoh’s boats. Nothing
carries me or makes me carry an idea: not longing
and not promise. What will I do? What
will I do without exile, and a long night
that stares at the water?
Water
binds me
to your name ...
Nothing takes me from the butterflies of my dreams
to my reality: not dust and not fire. What
will I do without roses from Samarkand? What
will I do in a theatre that burnishes the singers with its lunar
stones? Our weight has become light like our houses
in the faraway winds. We have become two friends of the strange
creatures in the clouds ... and we are now loosened
from the gravity of identity’s land. What will we do … what
will we do without exile, and a long night
that stares at the water?
Water
binds me
to your name ...
There’s nothing left of me but you, and nothing left of you
but me, the stranger massaging his stranger’s thigh: O
stranger! what will we do with what is left to us
of calm ... and of a snooze between two myths?
And nothing carries us: not the road and not the house.
Was this road always like this, from the start,
or did our dreams find a mare on the hill
among the Mongol horses and exchange us for it?
And what will we do?
What
will we do
without
exile?
Mahmoud Darwish, "Who Am I, Without Exile?" from The Butterfly’s Burden. Copyright © 2008 by Mahmoud Darwish, English translation by Fady Joudah. Reprinted by permission of Copper Canyon Press. www.coppercanyonpress.org
Source: The Butterfly’s Burden (Copper Canyon Press, 2007)
I haven’t read Palestinian literature. In my school in Israel the sixties Arabic was a compulsory subject. But my attitude was already too polluted to take it seriously. I understood that an easy way to gain quick popularity among my fellow students was to clown around the teacher’s back.
Many years and a country later I attended a small evening class in Israeli literature in Sydney Eastern Suburbs. It was a joy to get back to reading Hebrew again. One day she read to us to a short story written by young Palestinian woman, translated into Hebrew. It was breath taking, it was true writing, it was blood, sweat and tears.
And then the first comment - « it couldn’t have been written by a Palestinian alone, surely the Israeli translator must have had a part in it too »...
My blood boiling, a fiery exchange, the teacher attempting peace,
and change of subject.
Yes Peter, I’m with you on this - we don’t know the Palestinian literature.
Miriam
Shifting gears from this current topic, it's worth noting the rapidly evolving news regarding a potential groundbreaking normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel. As I've often emphasized before, such agreements could leave the Palestinian people marginalized. If this agreement materializes, it might set a precedent for other Arab nations to follow suit, further isolating the Palestinians. In the long run, Palestinian leaders will need to reevaluate their 75-year-old strategy focused on the destruction of Israel -- and proponents of Palestinian rejectionism, exemplified by individuals like Peter who propose unworkable ideas like a single-state solution for all, may need to confront the harsh realities of this changing landscape.
Richard, Victoria Nuland said, a Saudi normalization deal with Israel will assure Palestinians that the "prospect two-state solution stays vibrant and strong."
I don't believe her. Do you?
Israel and the US have been hoping for a two-state solution for 75 years, but the Palestinians have rejected every opportunity to have one. Today, the best that can be hoped for is giving the Palestinians enough autonomy and financial assistance from the Saudis to see if they can get their house in order. If and when they are ready to accept having their own demilitarized country, recognize Israel as a Jewish state next to them, and stop the nonsense of "right of return" -- as well as solve the problem of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups operating outside of government attacking Israel -- then the prospect for two-states would be vibrant and strong.
"Israel and the US have been hoping for a two-state solution for 75 years"
Please. The current Israeli government is simply not interested in a two-state solution, and has made that lack of interest known. It's part of how they got elected, even.
The current Israeli government is a result of the Palestinian intransigence and murder campaigns. The Israeli electorate has shifted right and focused on the future. The Palestinians are mired in the past. If the Saudi-Israeli normalization occurs, much of the Arab world will follow, yet the Palestinians continue to play their losing hand of rejecting Israel // supported by enablers like you, Peter.
Richard, the two-state solution left the station many years ago.
Thirty years after the Oslo Accords of 1993, the paradigm of partition of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River into two separate nation-states seems less and less relevant and more and more observers and policy-makers openly question the feasibility of the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. Arguably, an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 seems very unlikely if not already impossible. In addition to the ever growing number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, important organizational and administrative changes in Israel's control over the area in the beginning of 2023 indicate that the state of Israel is effectively annexing the West Bank, even though without any formal declaration of annexation.
Admittedly, Israel's presence in the West Bank is not merely a temporary situation of military occupation. Israeli policy of massive investment in building and development of settlements, infrastructure and services over the last few decades is a policy of de facto annexation of large parts of the West Bank. The border between Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, known as the 1949 Armistice Lines or the Green Line, was erased for the Israelis as a result of the Israeli policies: “one cannot separate between 1967 and 1948. This is the reality.” The result today is a “one-state reality” of unequal rights between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, in which the Israeli and the Palestinian populations live on the same territory but do not enjoy equal rights—a situation which is more and more define as a system of apartheid.
I unfortunately agree with much of what you say here, Sean, except for the cause and effect. Instead of embracing peace and their own country, the Palestinians have opted for rejectionism and murder. It has led to an increasingly conservative Israeli electorate which has allowed more settling of the West Bank. So how to reverse this? I’ve said it before: accept Israel; accept their own demilitarized state; stop the nonsense of “right of return”. Ban the teaching of Jew-hatred in schools and mosques; ban terrorist groups and arrest anyone joining; etc. Behave like you want your own country…and good things can happen.
I’m afraid Richard, that I must disagree with your analysis. One only has to look at the numbers murdered in Palestine/Israel over the years to realise that it is the Israeli Jews doing most of the evil deeds. Indeed one only has to read the Haaretz newspaper, to see the reports of atrocities committed by the IOF on a daily basis. If Palestinians resist the occupation and fight back, well who could blame them
Even when the sham peace talks were taking place, the settlements continued to be built.
I could go on and on, but as you well know, we’ve already debated many times all of your claims blaming Palestinians for their present situation.
One could say that if the US hadn’t covered for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity at the UN, by using its veto in the security council, this occupation would have been over long ago.
I hope you are not serious with that simplistic analysis, suggesting that Israel is the bad party just because more Palestinians than Israelis have died. Israel takes great care to root out terrorists hiding among civilians, while Palestinian attackers intentionally target civilians.
The latest sounds like there needs to be tangible progress in establishing a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem for the Saudis to accept a normalization agreement. Somehow I don’t think it will be the Palestinian side that would reject it.
In fact, if Netanyahu assents to anything of the kind, there should be a mass revolt within and disintegration of his government. At this point, the Thomas Friedman take makes sense—that this outcome is the primary object of the exercise.
If Biden were actually interested in laying more groundwork for a 2SS to bring the Saudis onboard, he could unilaterally move for recognization of Palestine as a full-fledged member of the UN with East Jerusalem as its capital. He won’t because he isn’t.
As I have said many times before, the Palestinians have had 75 years to have a state of their own, with three simple steps:
1. Recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
2. Accept living in peace in a non-militarized country next to Israel.
3. Acknowledge that the fictional "right of return" will be only to this new state of Palestine, not to Israel.
I'm guessing that the Palestinians will eventually come around to exactly these three things, and in return, Israel will be willing to formalize realistic borders between the two countries.
You must have missed the latest in Netanyahu’s UN speech, Richard. In it he clarifies where the goalposts have been moved for the Palestinians:
Bibi:
“For Peace to prevail, the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew hatred, finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state, but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland – the land of Israel.”
So Palestinians must accept Jewish sovereignty in the whole land, including the West Bank, which is considered to be the historic heartland of the Jewish people. Netanyahu frames this desired outcome as a matter of Jewish natural rights, for which it is an exercise in Jew-hatred to deny.
Of course, this is entirely incompatible with a viable independent 2SS. But this long-held Likudnik view is the only apparent peace on offer. Yet even that
“generosity” to the Palestinians would destroy his coalition.
Where did Netanyahu say "the whole land"? You're misrepresenting him.
Yes, in fairness, he probably does not mean to include the Sinai or the east bank of the Jordan River.
That would just be awkward to say at the UN.
In fairness, he didn't say the whole land or anything even close to that phrase. Tell the truth, Paul.
No, in a two-state solution, he is referring to Israel. However, to set the stage for this, it is imperative that the Palestinians behave like they will accept Israel as a neighbor. This includes stopping the teaching of children to hate Jews and reject Israel, creating heroes out of terrorist murderers, and making nonsensical demands for a right of return.
"This includes stopping the teaching of children to hate Jews"
This reminds me of a joke that Uri Avnery used to tell, "Kill a Turk and Rest", set in Imperial Russia, where the punchline is the son asking "What if the Turk kills me?" and his mother replying, "You? But why? What have you done to him?”
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1275739480/
"and reject Israel,"
Isn't the problem that the state of Israel has rejected the Palestinians? Surely you've thought of that.
"creating heroes out of terrorist murderers,"
But no comment on Israelis doing that?
"and making nonsensical demands for a right of return."
How is it nonsensical? No comment on the obvious comparison with the Israeli state's insistence that every Jew in the world have a right of "return" to Israel, but even Palestinians who were born in Israel to families going back many generations there do not have a right to return?
Very weak rebuttal, Peter. Every negotiation has ended with Palestinian rejection. Israel never deliberately targets civilians — but when Palestinians launch missiles from the tops of apartment buildings, there are consequences. Israel can accept anyone they want — it’s their country. And Israel has offered opportunities for refugees (i.e., people who left in 1948) to return — but not their descendants. That is a made-up definition by the Palestinians. They can live in a state of Palestine — if the Palestinians would accept having one.
Exclusive: US-Saudi defence pact tied to Israel deal, Palestinian demands put aside | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-saudi-defence-pact-tied-israel-deal-palestinian-demands-put-aside-2023-09-29/
IMO normalization could be justified if it's conditional on pro-Palestinian concessions from the Israeli side. E.g. if Saudi Arabia demands that Israel allow elections in the W. Bank and Gaza (regardless of result), reduce the blockade on Gaza, and so on, as a condition for normalization, then it's justified. Otherwise it's not.
Is Israel forbidding elections in the West Bank and Gaza?
Why would Israel lower the blockade in Gaza or allow Hamas to be elected in the West Bank when they remain committed to Israel’s destruction? That’s a strange precondition. In fact, it would likely be Israel demanding the demilitarization of Hamas and removal of them from ruling Garza before committing to any peace agreement.
I'm talking about what I think *should* happen, not what I think is likely to happen.
It doesn't matter whether Hamas remains 'committed to Israel's destruction'. They are not in a militarily or otherwise powerful enough position to actually destroy Israel. They could be committed to going to the Moon for all I care. Palestinians have the right to democratic self-governance and I absolutely stand by that. Your fear or hatred of Hamas -- or of Palestinians in general -- does not negate this.
Saudis putting aside Arab Peace Initiative amid Israel normalization talks: “We hope it will reach a place that it will ease the life of the Palestinians…rather than their political sovereignty.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-putting-aside-arab-peace-initiative-amid-israel-normalization-talks-officials/
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
After the storm.
The War Against Palestinians on Campus Keeps Getting More Absurd
It’s become so predictable: Palestinians try to gather at a university and all hell breaks loose.
SAREE MAKDISI
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/palestine-writes-festival-u-penn/
Beinart's generally deeply insightful analysis being a much appreciated given, I nonetheless need to question the intellectual category of "civilian". An admirable category as an expression of the hope for sparing those not obviously combatants in a given conflict but who determines who is truly a non-combatant and who by giving aid and comfort is de facto a party to armed conflict? Who determines is also relevant to populations not accorded "civilian" status, such as Shoah-era Jews, Zionist-era Indigenous Palestinians, our own western hemisphere Indigenous peoples, Uighurs under CCP control and others. The humanitarian solidarity obligations toward the latter drive us but why do we shy away from the implications of the former? Is it in Beinart's case that he is uncomfortable with Zionist-occupation Jews possibly deserving to be targeted just as I have argued that WWII era German and Japanese civilians "deserved" to be targeted or rather that their victims indeed deserved that we target their would-be genocidaires for death and argue for the regime-compliant populations of the twin Eurasian mega-dictatorships to be targeted now. Zionism for all its crimes does not threaten the world. Putinist, imperialist ethno-supremacist Russia and the comparable CCP do and need to be overthrown and if their urban power centres will not rise up then they too may likely need to be targeted or will we let our overextension of the concept "civilian" lead us to likely suicidal cowardice in the face of these regimes' nuclear blackmail to which we refuse to effectively respond?
Some context please. Iran !