I guess it never occurred to me that there might be a sizable and vocal minority of Israelis who go around booing moments of silence for Yitzhak Rabin, urging lenient treatment of Yigal Amir by the Israeli prison system, but I guess it makes sense when you think about it. It's hardly an original-to-me observation, but Amir really does seem like the rare assassin who actually managed to be quite effective at advancing his agenda.
« Last Time Around | Main | Abu Abed »
Propaganda of the Deed
11 Nov 2007 09:17 am
Comments (35)
This is the sort of question I ask my students all the time. Why? Why hasn't this sort of observation occurred to you before now, MY?
Did it ever occur to you that there is a sizable yet vocal minority in London that cheers the work of the Nazis? http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2200772,00.html
Sorry, I'm being more than a little glib, but the primary data point in the TPM Cafe post (other than quotes from Rabin's son and Olmert, neither of whom can be called particularly unbiased on this score) is the reaction at a soccer match. The Guardian story depicts the history of vocal anti-Semitism (the real kind, like making gas hissing noises when playing against the self-identified Jewish team Tottenham; not the b.s. kind, like academic writings about the Israel lobby) tied with actual anti-Jewish actions. Do we think that this Guardian article is proof of a large anti-semitic faction in England?
Matt, if you don't do so already, I suggest you have a daily check in on a variety of English-language foreign news sources, among them English-language Israeli newspapers.
If you were a regular reader of, say, the somewhat 'liberal' Haaretz, none of this would surprise you. (Apparently the English section of YNet News is being phased out. The right wing Jerusalem Post is still going. Etc.)
By reading the Israeli press, of whatever background, you encounter perspectives which are almost never raised in the US press.
On occasions the Haaretz website acts quite hinky, though, going offline for a while, like right now.
By the way, I'm not saying that there isn't a sizable and vocal minority that hero worships Yigal Amir (or that it is a horrible fact, if true), just that the TPM Cafe post was awfully weak with the evidence it presented.
Also, my understanding is that Israeli law provides certain basic rights to all prisoners, and the right to marry is one of them. I'm not sure whether prisoners are routinely allowed to have conjugal visits.
Re Joe
Actually, it is my understanding that there was no conjugal visit between Mr. Amir and his wife. My information is that he contributed sperm and his wife was artificially inseminated.
Joe, a question.
Why is the primary data point the crowd at the soccer game? I'll posit that a portion of the British public, or the American public if you like, is anti-Semetic. I'll also posit that this anti-Semetism is a serious matter worthy of attention.
Here is another way of asking the same question. Why isn't the primary data point the occupation--by definition (see the relevant portions of the Geneva Conventions) aimed at civilians--as corrosive of civil society amongst both Israelis and Palestinians? Why doesn't the primary data point concern religious claims, and the political consequences of those claims, to an extensive territory which was and is already inhabited?
Note, there is a real and serious parallel set of question which can be, should be and is asked of Palestinians.
Note also, I ask because I would like to understand.
Beitar Jerusalem is known as the soccer team for right-wing fans, so you're talking about a subset of an already right-wing group. Still, that faction exists, and there are conspiracy theories which see Amir as the fall guy for some deeper government plot which have currency in Israeli rightest circles.
When I was in Israel three years ago, I saw a fair number of bumper stickers sympathetic to Yigal Amir. They were not quite as common as the Jesus fish or "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers are in the US -- more like NRA stickers or "Question Authority". That is to say, a minority opinion, but a large minority.
In general, the Israeli right gets ignored in the United States, even though they are a real force in Israel. Not also how few articles they are about Avigdor Lieberman.
One of my fears is that if there is ever a real crisis in Israel, the Amir-ites and the Lieberman people will come to the fore. Then all hell will break lose and what is happening now will be remembered as the good old days.
Why would that surprise you? Killers often breed supporters in political movements. Vocal minorities support the likes of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier. No different here than in Israel.
Why is the primary data point the crowd at the soccer game? I'll posit that a portion of the British public, or the American public if you like, is anti-Semetic. I'll also posit that this anti-Semetism is a serious matter worthy of attention.
Absolutely, and it should be fought (with argument, not censorship) at every turn by thinking, enlightened people. Anti-semitism remains an active and powerful force, and underestimating real anti-semitism is dangerous and wrong.
That said, two caveats.
One, the kind of vague or unsupported accusations of anti-semitism that are de rigeur in American debate are absurd and counterproductive to the goa of ending real anti-semitism. When people are called anti-semitic for, say, advocating abolishing the electoral college, questioning routine circumcision, or criticizing orthodox Judaism's reprehensible attitudes towards women, the charge of anti-semitism is undermined by misuse and overuse. When such ridiculous accusations are made, two things happen, both bad. People are tarred with the brush of bigotry, the most damning accusation in American discourse; and the very serious accusation of anti-semitism is rendered less serious and more inclined to be disregarded.
Secondly, the fact that anti-semitism exists is no more relevant to a discussion of Israeli-American foreign policy than the fact that anti-Chinese racism is to our policy towards China. The threat of accusations of anti-semitism has paralyzed American discourse concerning Israel, to the extent that Israel is protected in the American dialog in a manner unlike any other country. Rational adults in a democracy must be able to criticize other country's governments, and our own government's policy towards those governments, when appropriate. That basic principal has been undermined with regards to Israel because of frivolous accusations of anti-semitism, and it has to stop.
djeri,
I thought I was clear in my posts that I was discussing the primary data point in the article to which MY linked, not the primary data point in general. I was not making general claims about the occupation, as neither MY's post or the TPM Cafe post was about that and I didn't not think that the world of blogs needed a quasi-thread hijack to start another 50 comment thread with everyone rehashing their strongly held thoughts and feelings on the subject. If you care, and were not concern trolling, I can say that my general view can be summed up as (a) occupation = very bad, (b) two-state solution = good, if both states are meaningfully sovereign entities and (c) the sooner the occupation ends the better. If you were concern trolling, well, I'm not certain of the appropriate way to respond.
Why is the primary data point the crowd at the soccer game? I'll posit that a portion of the British public, or the American public if you like, is anti-Semetic. I'll also posit that this anti-Semetism is a serious matter worthy of attention.
This is completely wrong.
The reason that the crowd at the soccer game was the "primary data point" was that the crowd behavior at the game created huge amounts of news & media attention and commentary in Israel. Now, this is not to say that there was anything justifiable or not justifiable about the type and extent of coverage -- but it is clear that the US exposure followed the Israeli media exposure, rather than creating it.
Not to mention that the crowd behavior was publicly condemned by the current Israeli Prime Minister, who presumably has a sort of personal political interest in condemning public appreciation for prime ministerial assassins.
Now, if you want to call the entire Israeli Jewish media as well as the Israeli Prime Minister anti-Semitic, well, go ahead.
But at least try to have some degree of an argument before you start stupidly throwing around charges of anti-Semitism.
To see the most recent articles on the soccer-crowd behavior on the Jewish Israeli English language right wing newspaper the Jerusalem Post, just enter these search terms into Google's news section:
+site:jpost.com +betar +rabin
Here's an (excerpted) example from a few days ago:
Betar punished for unruly fans
By ALLON SINAI
Jerusalem Post SportsBetar Jerusalem was sentenced Thursday to play two home games in front of empty stands for its fans' behavior during an away match against Maccabi Haifa on Sunday. Jerusalem's supporters booed and jeered throughout a minute of silence in memory of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that was held before the game.
An Israel Football Association tribunal found the club guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct. It also handed Betar a suspended sentence of playing two home matches at empty stadiums away from Jerusalem should a similar incident occur again.
"It's important to stress that the day in which a prime minister was murdered in Israel unifies anybody who values democracy," the verdict read. "We must condemn such behavior, not only with words, but with actions."
Betar vowed to fight the IFA's ruling.
"We condemn the behavior of those fans who booed, but we disagree with the tribunal's verdict and we plan to appeal the decision," Betar said in a statement.
Jerusalem also stressed in its statement that the tribunal's verdict wasn't unanimous. Attorney Israel Shimoni acquitted Betar, claiming that an educational effort would be the best way to deal with the fans behavior.
Al:
Killers often breed supporters in political movements. Vocal minorities support the likes of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier. No different here than in Israel.
Precisely right! The supporters of Amir, for instance, are exactly like those fuckers at Amnesty International.
Freddie, I'm not sure if your comment was partially directed at me. If not, feel free to ignore the rest.
If it was, well I thought I drew a distinction in my post about real anti-Semitism and the bullshit anti-Semitism that you describe in more detail in your first caveat (and with which I agree entirely). The reason I brought up the existence of real anti-Semitism was that the TPM Cafe post posited the existence of a real and strong hatred from a soccer game and two quotes, which is ridiculous and not particularly useful to the clarification or understanding of the actual issues. It is in some ways similar to claiming that the English (or Dutch, if you want to take the actions of the Feyenoord fans when Ajax comes to town) are all anti-Semitic because of the actions of the few and, therefore, their positions vis a vis the Israeli occupation are tainted).
Lastly, while I agree with most of your second caveat, I'd like to note, regarding your first sentence, that the existence of real, violent anti-Semitism played a role in the establishment of Israel, and is therefore at least relevant (though not dispositive) in discussions of whether there should be a Jewish state at all.
grh: what you call "supporters of Abu-Jamal and Peltier" are people who doubt if they are killers (or if they do not have a valid self-defence cases).
By the way of contrast, people who support Amir support him BECAUSE he is an intentional killer.
El Cid,
Who was your post directed at? I don't think anyone here claimed that anything having to do with the discussion of the Israeli soccer game was anti-Semitic (especially not djeri), nor do I think anyone claimed that the actions of those at the Israeli soccer game was anything but awful.
My original post stated that the actions of a few at a soccer game should not be enough to tar an entire nation with the beliefs of those few (with an attempt to use the examples of soccer fans in England to show why this is ridiculous). Apparently, I did a poor job with that post as it has been misunderstood, or else overcoming the historical virulence on display in most of the Israel/Palestine discussions on this site requires much more linguistic dexterity than I possess this morning.
The fact that there is a significant minority in Israel that is sympathetic to Amir's murder of Rabin is indeed troubling and deserves more attention particularly as it influences the reluctance by moderate Israelis and American supporters to take on the occupation and settlements issue rather than let them fester.
I find this much more surprising actually than if there had been a fairly substantial James Earl Ray cult in the U.S. in the years after the King assassination. One might have expected that given our racial history. However, the failure of a significant minority in Israel to respond with revulsion to the assassination of a prime minister and war hero is an education in how polarized and extreme portions of the Israeli polity have become.
Building settlements on the West Bank appears to have been the worst thing that has happened to Israel since its founding (and it was a self-inflicted wound).
I meant to add that it is bad enough that people accuse others of being anti-Semitic to shutdown debate and score rhetorical points. Do we now need to accuse others of accusing others of being anti-Semitic to shutdown debate and score rhetorical points? Or, now that I think of it, do we need me accusing others of accusing others of accusing others of being anti-Semitic to shutdown debate and score rhetorical points. Shit, it's turtles all the way down.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
On that note, I've enjoyed being completely incapable of expressing myself adequately this morning, and will now go off to further frustrate myself by watching the Philadelphia Eagles continue to self-destruct.
"and will now go off to further frustrate myself by watching the Philadelphia Eagles continue to self-destruct."
I wish you success in your afternoon endeavors.
Or, now that I think of it, do we need me accusing others of accusing others of accusing others of being anti-Semitic to shutdown debate and score rhetorical points.
Are you accusing us of needing to accuse you of accusing others of accusing others of accusing others of being anti-Semitic, or are you accusing us of not accusing you of this?
Good one.
About the blog of Yigal Amir's wife: the most recent entry is taken up with thanking supporters who held rallies in support of Amir, talking about a proposed counter-rally (apparantly in opposition to a rally in remembrance of Rabin), and complaints about hostile newspaper articles. She's mad that there are efforts being made to get amnesty to various Israeli Jews who have killed Arabs, but not to her husband. It's all really quite sick.
I have to say, I do support the right of Amir and his wife to have kids. (I think all prisoners should have the right to conjugal visits). My understanding is that the Israeli prison system was working towards a process to allow this to happen but the couple was too impatient and so smuggled out sperm. (It's a very cloudy issue as to what happened). The behaviour of Amir in this case is in keeping with his general lawlessness and contempt for democratic norms and procedures.
And I have to say, echoing a point made above, that AI's reference to Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier is a quite obscene example of a "tu quoque" and also an attempt to change the subject (typical rhetorical procedures for AI). Those who support Abu-Jamal and Peltier think they are innocent or that the case against them is murky (and are quite justified the latter point). There is no question that Amir is guility. If there were a large number of Americans who thought that John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray were great heroes, that would be a problem. What's amazing is not only the pathology of the Israeli extreme right but also the fact that the Israel extreme right has many American fellow-travellers who are willing to make excuses for their behavior.
Joe,
Thank you. The question is and was serious. I appreciate that you took the question seriously.
I'm not sure I'm convinced, given that the TPM thread does refer to the occupation and to the Israeli religious right as a force for that occupation. The soccer crowd, seems to me but I wasn't there, more a symptom that the main point of the original TPM thread.
But I do agree with you: occupation=bad...real two state solution=good.
Rabin's son and Olmert, neither of whom can be called particularly unbiased on this score)
Noted without comment.
grh: what you call "supporters of Abu-Jamal and Peltier" are people who doubt if they are killers (or if they do not have a valid self-defence cases).
I can't comment about Peltier, because I know little about that case. But my impression has always been that the reason Mumia gets so much support from the Left is that he was/is part of the movement and is very charismatic and media-savvy, and he has been able to use his megaphone to point out procedural defects in his trial. There is probably also an outgrowth of the Left's entirely justifiable frustration with racist cops involved here.
I don't precisely know how his supporters feel about his guilt or innocence. But I do know that if you look at the facts of the case, there appears no way he isn't guilty, though, again, I am open to the claim that he nonetheless didn't get a fair trial.
It's my understanding that the soccer crowd in Britain is known for "hooliganism" and has been so for decades. It's apparently the sport and social cohesion point for skinheads and other neo-Nazi types. So it wouldn't be surprising to see anti-Semitic actions from that lot.
This strikes me as entirely different from a right wing political movement of so-called "normal citizens" that encouraged and believed in an assassination of a national leader and who regularly engage in armed and violent attacks on Palestinians and even Israel police and military.
It's like comparing the Hell's Angels with the KKK. It's not the same thing at all.
I don't know about Amir having such a big effect on history -- I imagine Arafat would have ended up spitting in Rabin's eye exactly the way he eventually spat in Barak's eye.
Well, Dilan, there are two separate issues with the Mumia verdict. The first is his innocence or guilt. There is, in fact, some conflicting evidence that would indicate he isn't guilty. (For example, the police officer who shot Abu-Jamal testified that Mumia was standing over him when he fired the shot. But the bullet wound came into Abu-Jamal's chest traveling downward.) I don't have a strong enough opinion about it either way to want to get into an argument about it.
However, there is another question, and that's about due process. And here, there's no question Abu-Jamal got a fair deal. The judge presiding over the case was a long time member of the Fraternal Order of Police and should never have been on the bench in a cop shooting in the first place. There are many procedural and legal problems with the trial, the presentation of evidence, etc. that have been highlighted in detail. Most disturbingly from my perspective, when sentencing Abu-Jamal to death, the judge explicitly and on the record cited Abu-Jamal's membership in the Black Panther party as a compelling factor for putting him to death. Which is nuts and un-American, among other things.
I don't know about Amir having such a big effect on history -- I imagine Arafat would have ended up spitting in Rabin's eye exactly the way he eventually spat in Barak's eye.
If by "spitting in his eye" you mean "rejecting a ridiculously unfair agreement for the Palestinians", I agree completely.
*got a bad deal, sorry stupid mistake.
Americans are largely unaware of the radical Zionist movement whose actions have fueled the actions of the radical Islamists with whom we are instructed to fight a multigenerational war. "Lords of the Land," a book by two Israeli scholars, Zertal and Eldar, documents the settlers' murderous ways, which evoke minimal reaction from the Israeli government.
If there were a large number of Americans who thought that John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray were great heroes, that would be a problem.
I reckon you could find a few pro-Booth and pro-Ray voices. Not so much pro-Oswald; the ones who might otherwise like the killer of Kennedy would detest him for being a Communist.
"I don't know about Amir having such a big effect on history -- I imagine Arafat would have ended up spitting in Rabin's eye exactly the way he eventually spat in Barak's eye."
Thanks, Bruce. You're very influential here.
laparohepatotomy fluviolacustrine overtime thickety terminational ber clotty proterothesis
http://www.discoverycable.com/ >Discovery Cable
http://www.spastuff.com
laparohepatotomy fluviolacustrine overtime thickety terminational ber clotty proterothesis
http://www.qualityinnnortherngrand.com/ >Quality Inn Northern Grand Hotel
http://www.guildmusic.com/composer/barbers.htm
Comments closed November 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
And yet, if a Palestinian had assassinated Rabin, those same people would have declared holy war in his name.
But, hey, it's the Palestinians who are the enemies of peace! Every Israeli just wants to live in peace with the peoples of the earth.
Posted by Freddie | November 11, 2007 9:39 AM