The New York Times takes a look at some Palestinian boys in Hebron who earn a living by digging through the local Jewish settlers' trash to find salvageable objects.
« Obama and Iran | Main | We're In »
How Cute
02 Sep 2007 10:16 am
Comments (43)
The bottom line here is the following paragraph quote mined from the article referenced.
"Many of the adults working the site have been unable to get jobs in Israel since 2000 and the second intifada, when Israel instituted stronger security measures to try to prevent suicide bombings."
Apparently, the Israel bashers on this blog, including Mr. Yglesias, think that Israel should allow more Palestinians into Israel to find work. Of course, let's make it easier for the homicide bombers to get through and blow up pizza parlors.
Incidentally, the same thing goes on in these Uniter States. Go to a dump site in poor rural areas and one will find people sorting through the refuse looking for the crumbs from the tables of the rich. At least the Israelis have a legitimate excuse. What's our excuse.
I don't think this article is particularly critical of Israel.
In a few small spots, sure - like this:
The scene is reminiscent of the third world, of places like Manila’s notorious garbage mountain, but this desperate place is next door to a country with the highest per capita income in the Middle East: Israel.
Yes, Israel has a high per capita income and there are some desperately poor people living next door.
Meanwhile, here in the wealthiest country in the world, are there not people in, say, Manhattan who are forced to dig through other people's garbage, or worse, to eek out an existence?
I just walked my dog through a fairly wealthy section of Washington D.C. - I saw about 10 homeless people begging for money and scraps.
This is hardly something specific to Israel. The "income gap" - such that it is, is much worse in other places, including right here at home.
Additionally, if you read the article, you'll see points like this:
The dump, formally run by the Hebron municipality, is set in the rocky, dusty hills near the village of Ad Deirat; it is used both by Palestinian cities like Hebron and Yatta and by the Israeli settlements that mark the area, from Kiryat Arba to Karmel and Maon.
It shows how things were before the intifada:
Muhammad al-Ammour, 42, used to work in Israel as a painter, making $35 to $50 a day. Working here with two of his children, he brings home around $12. Most of the income is from scrap metal, sold for 2.2 cents a pound.
Maybe the intifada was a bad idea for a lot of the Palestinian population.
And, you'll find that the people profiled in this story are not at all representative of the local community, and treated atrociously by their own community:
“Even people close to me, my relatives, mock and humiliate my family,” Mr. Ammour said. “Whoever works in the garbage is garbage himself, that’s what they think. But some of those people work as spies, collaborators and thieves, but they consider us — the honest workers — less than them.”
Nice, huh?
I think the article - for the most part - displays some perspective that this "cute" post does not.
Everyone should read the whole thing.
And then everyone, to the extent they can, should start thinking about workable solutions towards peace.
Shorter SLC: Everything Israel does to Palestinians is justified; nothing Palestinians do to Israel is justified.
Re William Burns
Shorter Williams Burns: Kassems are OK, homicide bombings are OK, kidnappings are OK, but Israel taking precautions against such incidents is not OK.
William Burns, you don't have to be particularly pro-Israeli and/or anti-Palestinian to think that the second intifada was a massively stupid idea that did the Palestinians more harm than good.
SLC, thank you for providing additional evidence for the accuracy of my summation.
Michael Farris,
While on balance I believe the second intifada was a bad idea and attacks on Israeli civilians are morally unjustified, the one post-Oslo example of Israeli retreat from its creeping annexation of the occupied territories, the Gaza withdrawal, was a response to the violence of the second intifada. I'm not really sure what more effective strategies were available to Palestinians at the time.
"the Gaza withdrawal, was a response to the violence of the second intifada."
And that's worked out pretty well?
"I'm not really sure what more effective strategies were available to Palestinians at the time"
There are lots more effective strategies available to them but they don't want to avail themselves of them (or can't given the particular level of socio-political development they're at).
Re William Burns
Re michael farris
It doesn't take much intelligence to determine a better strategy for the Palestinians. Drop the demand that Palestinians living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. Had the Palestinians dropped this demand at Taba in 2000 and agreed to resettle the Palestinian refugees in the PA, there would now be a Palestinian State on 100% of the Gaza strip and 95% of the West Bank. Until this demand is dropped, there is no possibility of an agreement so that the current talks between the walking corpses, Olmert and Abbas and the scheduled meeting with the other walking corpse, Bush, is a total waste of time. None of these three clowns have a smidgen of credibility left.
Re William Burns
"While on balance I believe the second intifada was a bad idea and attacks on Israeli civilians are morally unjustified,"
Gee, isn't that big hearted of Mr. Burns. He doesn't approve of attacks on civilians. Unfortunately for Mr. Burns, the Palestinians are totally uninterested in his approval or lack thereof.
I really hate the term "homicide bomber." For one thing, it's redundant. People who bomb things generally kill people, so you don't need to specify the homicide part. The term "Suicide bomber" is more descriptive of the act itself, because it references a specific type of bombing, one in which the perpetrator is killed because he strapped the bomb to himself.
The speed with which the usual suspects show up on these Israel-Palestine posts is both amusing and disturbing.
Re Thunderlips
What does Mr. Thunderlips mean? We haven't heard yet from Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack, Mr. Reality Man, Mr. argiebargie, or the other inveterate Israel bashers yet.
*rolls eyes*
And how do you feel about attacks on civilians, SLC, when Israel is carrying them out? (Yes, I realize Israel doesn't care about your opinions.)
Shorter SLC:
Sometimes ethnic cleansing is good.
Re Thunderlips
What does Mr. Thunderlips mean? We haven't heard yet from Mr. Williams, Mr. Hack, Mr. Reality Man, Mr. argiebargie, or the other inveterate Israel bashers yet.
Thanks for demonstrating the difference between getting the punchline and being the punchline.
The ironic thing about people like SLC is that by so narrowly defining what it means to be "pro-Israel," they end up cutting themselves off from a lot of potential allies. When legitimate criticism is not allowed of the policies of foreign nations, one ends up only being able to have allies within that foreign nation and thus cannot hope to have a depth of allies internationally. As such, Christianist anti-Semites who want Russia to nuke Israel but don't question any aggressive Israeli action thus become "pro-Israel" but liberals and progressives in the US who fight against all forms of bigotry, including anti-Semitism, become defined as anti-Israel.
Re William Burns
The fact of the matter is that, unlike the Palestinians, the IDF does not specifically target civilians. Unfortunately, the terrorists usually hide behind civilian shields, making it rather difficult to avoid collateral damage. For instance, the other day, the IAF attacked a Kassem launching site which had just fired missiles into Israel. Unfortunately, 3 children who were in the neighborhood of the launching site were killed. Despite this incident, the collateral damage caused by IDF actions pales in comparison to that caused by US actions in Iraq. In 7 years of the intifada, the number of Palestinians killed is still less then 4000. Estimates of Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion range upwards of 200,000, not to mention some 2 million refugees in Syria and Jordan. It, of course, also pales in comparison with the collateral damage in the City of Hama, Syria in 1982 when some 20,000 people were killed in 2 days by the regime.
Mr. Guy in Jersey
As I have stated previously, I do not favor ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, inside or outside of Israel. This sets me apart from the late and unlamented Meir Kahane who favored ethnic cleansing by expulsion or Eichmann treatment if the former failed to achieve its objectives in a timely manner.
SLC, It's too bad that you buy the IDF "no targeting of civilians" line, but I'll agree with you the situation is much worse for Iraquis.
"As I have stated previously, I do not favor ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, inside or outside of Israel. This sets me apart from the late and unlamented Meir Kahane who favored ethnic cleansing by expulsion or Eichmann treatment if the former failed to achieve its objectives in a timely manner."
You've said that you want the Palestinians sent to Jordan. I would call that ethnic cleansing.
Instead of beating on Israel every week why don't you mix up your topics: next week beat up on Canada for treating Quebec like a harp seal. That will really show how trendy and leftist you can be.
Re Reality Man
"You've said that you want the Palestinians sent to Jordan. I would call that ethnic cleansing."
I never made such a statement. What I have said that the Palestinian state is in Amman, meaning that the West Bank should be returned, at least in part, to Jordan with the Israeli and Jordanian governments negotiating the official boundary line. This was the situation prior to June, 1967, although the border at that time was not a boundary but a cease fire line. In no way, shape, form or regard does that position amount to ethnic cleansing.
Re William Burns
It's too bad that Mr. Burns buys the Palestinian line that the IDF specifically targets civilian areas for the purpose of killing civilians. If that were the case, the death toll of Palestinians over the last 7 years would be far higher then 4000. If the Syrian army could kill 20,000 people in the City of Hama in 2 days, the IDF could easily kill 4000 people every day in Gaza and the West Bank if that were their purpose.
Wayne s.,
It's Matthew's blog--why doesn't he post about whatever the hell he feels like?
SLC,
Three points and then I'm done here.
1. One can intentionally kill civilians without killing the maximum number of civilians possible.
2. Governments lie. This includes the government of Israel.
3. Your constant invocation of Hama is actually making me nostalgic for the days when you had to drag Munich into every thread.
...that the second intifada was a massively stupid idea...
Intifada is not an idea, it's a spontaneous popular uprising. It's no more smart of stupid than, say, a hurricane.
Now, crushing an intifada is an idea; it can be characterized as smart or stupid, beautiful or vile or whatever.
"Intifada is not an idea, it's a spontaneous popular uprising."
Okay, a spontaneous popular uprising was a massively stupid thing to do and hasn't helped the Palestinians (unless you think the Gaza uni-party model is something to be encouraged).
Spontaneous popular uprising is not a "thing to do". It's a thing that happens.
abb1, 'a thing that happens' doesn't last for years. They chose to do it (or at the very least prolong it once it started). That was a bad choice and Palestinians have suffered consequences of it. In realpolitik, results matter, not being carried away by things that 'happen'.
I would really like Matt to explain why he posted this article? Does he make posts about poor children in every country?
Matt, you are an anti-Semite. Anybody who disagrees with me is an anti-Semite. I get to decide who is an anti-Semite and who is not an anti-Semite because I am Marty Peretz, la la la la la la.
"I never made such a statement. What I have said that the Palestinian state is in Amman, meaning that the West Bank should be returned, at least in part, to Jordan with the Israeli and Jordanian governments negotiating the official boundary line. This was the situation prior to June, 1967, although the border at that time was not a boundary but a cease fire line. In no way, shape, form or regard does that position amount to ethnic cleansing."
What it does amount to is robbing a people of their identity and nationhood, which are the primary motives behind ethnic cleansing. Jordan doesn't want to have the West Bank. It's too full of problems. You've also avoided saying what would happen to the Gaza Strip. In your plan, the wishes of the Palestinian people are not taken into account. The Palestinians haven't been trying to become part of Jordan, but to have their own sovereign nation-state. The complete lack of connection between your plan and the wishes of the two relevant Arab peoples - Jordanians and Palestinians - thus make your motives and beliefs suspect.
Re Reality Man
"What it does amount to is robbing a people of their identity and nationhood, which are the primary motives behind ethnic cleansing."
If this is the case, then before 1967 it was the Jordanians who were denying the Palestinians of their identity and nationhood. Somehow I never heard this issue raised in that time period.
"You've also avoided saying what would happen to the Gaza Strip."
Mr. Reality Man raises a good point. The Gaza strip would be returned to Egypt who ran the place before June, 1967.
"The Palestinians haven't been trying to become part of Jordan, but to have their own sovereign nation-state."
The Palestinian notion of their own sovereign state consists of all of Palestine with the Government of Israel going out of business. The Palestinians could have had their own sovereign state in 2000 and turned it down because it consisted of less then all of Palestine.
The trouble with Mr. Reality Man, and William Burns and the other Israel bashers on this blog is that they insist on ignoring the Palestinian demand that Palestinians living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. This is the issue that brought the collapse of Camp David and Taba and it will continue to obstruct any kind of peaceful settlement until the Palestinians drop it. Period, end of story.
Dave: "I would really like Matt to explain why he posted this article? Does he make posts about poor children in every country?"
Nice ad hominem: Do you regularly comment about the internal and geopolitical affairs of every country?
That's not an ad hominem attack.
I am curious as to why anyone should think that Matt is a deep thinker or informed on this issue when he posts Glenn Reynolds style commentary on it.
Meanwhile, here in the wealthiest country in the world, are there not people in, say, Manhattan who are forced to dig through other people's garbage, or worse, to eek out an existence?
You are comparing the apples & oranges of "dumpster diving," you have no idea. Forced to? LOL. Anyone who has ever lived uptown in Manhattan who does not at least do a cursory check of what is out on the curb of your block on the night before trash pick-up is a fool. People leave great stuff for others to use! It's a long tradition in New York! Ekeing out an existence is far from what is going on. I know, I've done it, proudly and with great glee, it's like a treasure hunt. Some just start a used book business that way, others furnish entire apartments (and then get an article on their design prowess in the Home Section,) others have gotten lucky and made quite a bundle on one item. Even the can/bottle deposit routes are quite lucrative, because no one has the time or desire to return empties, there is great density, and the stuff is already sorted. Don't you realize why there is so much litter in Manhattan? It's because the bags and bundles are all torn open before the garbage trucks can get there and those who don't know correct dumpster diving etiquette don't retie/rebundle and the wind blows all the small pieces onto the street.
P.S. It's quite a lucrative hobby in the wealthy neighborhoods of cities like London and Paris as well.
Clearly not what I was talking about, artappraiser, or is it your experience that there are no desperately poor people in New York?
Honestly, your post is just odd given the context. Especially this, You are comparing the apples & oranges of "dumpster diving," you have no idea. Forced to? LOL.
Unless you're joking, that comes off as awfully callous.
According to the New York City Department of Homeless Services, there are about 3,800 unsheltered homeless people living in New York.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/downloads/pdf/success_strategies.pdf
Doubtful many of them are in the similar circumstances as yourself, but on the off chance you have a point, I'm glad to know they're all living so well.
Load off the conscience for everyone.
Jerry: Thanks for not addressing my comment. But of course you couldn't, you're not Dave.
"I am curious as to why anyone should think that Matt is a deep thinker or informed on this issue when he posts Glenn Reynolds style commentary on it."
FYI, that is an ad hominem attack as well.
SoCalJustice,
just forget it, because you obviously do not understand Manhattan (vs. the other 4 boroughs of New York City) and the homeless problem in New York City as a whole and how that problem manifests itself. Suffice it to say that Manhattan, along with its garbage, and its poor (the few that are still allowed to exist in the borough of Manhattan) is very different from Ad Dierat in the West Bank. It's more like Beverly Hills, understand?
If there was a Marie Antoinette award, you'd get it.
It's more like Beverly Hills, understand?
There are so many homeless people living in and around very wealthy parts of L.A., including Beverly Hills but famously in Santa Monica, and it is not at all close to what you describe as the high life of treasure hunting that the lucky few Manhattan homeless have.
I think you're confusing homeless people with people like you. Unless every night you sleep in rotten blankets in store fronts and all your worldy possessions are in a shopping cart.
just forget it,
Sure thing.
According to the coalition for the homeless, the NYC Department of Homeless services released statistics that in 2004 that almost 1500 people sleep on the streets of Manhattan.
http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/top/CFTH/advocacy/Undercounting_the_Homeless.html
Last month the New York City Department of Homeless Services issued a report claiming that, on February 24th of this year, there were only 2,694 homeless people estimated to be sleeping outdoors in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. This figure included an estimated 1,482 people sleeping on Manhattan streets.
And they say that's a gross underestimation.
But that's not a problem, since apparently it's awesome that life is so grand for them anyway.
They're probably all going to open bookstores any minute now.
'a thing that happens' doesn't last for years
Sure it does, under the circumstances. Contradictions are not resolved and there's no hope for a resolution. It may last for a hundred years, until something happens: either Israel (as a state for the Jews, whatever it means) disappears from the neighborhood or most of the indigenous population disappear from the neighborhood.
Hard to believe we're talking about a Palestinian Sanford & Son business on a day when . Oh wait -- they weren't killed by Israel, so no one cares. Go back to the junk heap story.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was one of the foremost anti-apartheid campaigners in South Africa, has stated alongside many others that Israel is operating a defacto system of apartheid and persecution against the Palestinian people, who were driven from their land as a result of white European anti-semitism. There are hundreds of orthodox and secular Jews, both inside and outside Israel, particularly Naturei Karta, who passionately condemn the existance of the state of Israel and the Zionism it is founded on, because of its inherently racist values which have nothing to do with Judaism. It is worth remembering that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. Incidentally, even the Israeli government has made ’settler’ sites illegal, but they are happy to carry on dumping their rubbish on Palestinian land, where Palestinians, so impoverished by sanctions and trade restrictions, are forced to make some kind of horrendous living. Israel is so wealthy because it receives more ‘aid’ and investment from the US than the whole of Africa, despite its apartheid policies, which are illegal under international law.
Comments closed September 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Beep! Beep! Beep!
Anti-semitism alert! To criticise the settlers is to criticise Israel. To criticise Israel is to criticise Jews. To criticise Jews is to be like Hitler.
Danger! Danger! Danger!
Posted by HH | September 2, 2007 10:52 AM