LIVNI LA VIDA LOCA: Spitfire-side Chat

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, seen here raising a finger during her April visit to Qatar, may have used her visit to stick up for Shimon Peres' hurt feelings. (What kind of a weird flicking-off that is, and more significantly why the AFP posted this as their main closeup of Livni is beyond me.)


There are other possibilities though. Livni may also have been aiming the sentiment at Hamas, which is "controlling Gaza by weapons, training and money," apparently from Iran. (Of course not because they won the last election fair and square-- democracy anyone?) Or she was giving it to all the Gulf people who would rather excuse themselves to go barf than see formal ties, or worse, sit in a room with Israeli government officials.

The following is an internal discussion on the significance of the Qatari and Omani reception of Livni. As Chaim protested, "Why do you D-bags host these conversations on this listserv, take it to the blog!"

MHMD: Hey what do you guys make of this? Well, there really isn't much to make of it, I'm not surprised-but is there anything left to say about the Qataris and Omanis meeting so openly with Livni?

Emily: I had an argument with a friend recently. He's from Bahrain and was thinking of coming to Jordan, and I suggested that we meet there. I also said oh maybe I'll bring my friend along from Shefa Amr! She's never been to Jordan!

At which point he seriously took the conversation off the record and was like "wait... she's... israeli?" He didn't want to hang out with her in Jordan (a Muslim Arab Palestinian citizen of Israel) because of her Israeli passport. He was like, there's a boycott. I have to stick to my principles.

I think I spent a half an hour typing like a madwoman about all of the violations against Palestinians in Israel even though they are "Israeli." And furthermore pulled up the call for boycott and sanctions and sent him the actual text of it- 'institutional boycott' etc etc.

Anyway I'd like to post about this and the context of Livni's visit. I thought Qatar was like the rest of the Gulf states in that people with Israeli passports can't travel there? Or is it the one exception or something?

MHMD: Well, Qatar's always been the most openly friendly Gulf state with Israel-if I recall correctly they were the first to allow an Israeli Trade Office to open there. As far as I know, the ban on Israeli passport holders in the gulf is one bigass myth-Israelis travel freely to the UAE and Qatar, and I'm sure they do to Bahrain and Oman too. The Omani FM said one of the purposes of his meeting with Livni was to discuss the reopening of the Israeli Trade Office in Muscat.

Furthermore, I recently saw a news report on MBC quoting several Israeli and US studies that reveal there are up to 220 Israeli companies active in Iraq now. The Arab boycott is just one big joke.

Chaim: Why do you D-bags host these conversations on this listserv, take it to the blog! And use my title: LIVNI LAVIDA LOCA... I just wanna see it in print cause I'm so proud of it :) Or do a round-table burn... KABOBfest hasn't done one of those in a great long while.

Emily: Maybe it can be on what constitutes a violation of the boycott: Qatar and the gulf countries giving Israeli businessmen free reign when there's a boycott going on, or me working for a Palestinian org that is actually an Israeli org inside of Israel, or just talking to Palestinian citizens of Israel (as many regular gulfi people seem to think- I have more examples)

Is my working in Israel a violation of the boycott of Israel for all people of conscience?

Does the boycott include the exclusion of Palestinian people with Israeli passports otherwise known as Arab ISRAELIS?

I'm pretty sure we all agree that Qatar talking to Livni is hypocrisy... or do we?

MHMD: Livni accuses MP Tibi of trying to sabotage two-state solution That should be useful too.

Nimr: I strongly disagree, actually. I hate it when US pundits blast Obama for saying he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Hammas, Venezuela, N. Korea or whoever (well, I actually think there should be "high level" conversations first. Meeting the pres. should be the carrot for substantive talks). I feel I would be the hypocrite to criticize Qatar for talking with Livni.

I see no harm with welcoming and meeting with Livni. It's not like they are going to let Israel bury nuclear waste there (see: Mauritania). For the record, I think the academic boycott is dumb and counterproductive too. Heck, I think the travel restrictions in general are silly as well. If any Americans are going to boycott Israel, you better be ready to get your ass boycotted 300x over by the rest of the world too.

Also, let's be clear. As Mohammed pointed out, the rules about travel prohibitions are not universally followed. UAE "unofficially" lets all kinds of people who visit Israel and/or are Israeli citizens come there for business (lots of diamond, tech and finance). That might be open for criticism. Alternately, Yemen allows their own Jewish citizens to visit Israel for family and/or religious reasons, they just do it super on the DL. I applaud that. Syria might not have suffered the loss of its Jewish population if they could have come and gone as they pleased.

Lastly, to put the visit in context, Qatar is very much trying to position themselves as players on the international stage. This kinda thing is probably more about them posturing as players than caring so much about Israel, Palestine or the peace process.

The boycotts and restrictions ultimately do much more to hurt "us", financially, culturally, symbolically and politically than them.

My 2 cents

Emily: So are you against boycott, academic institutional etc? What about monetary divestment campaigns? I really don't think any boycott, academic or institutional, would cause much actual harm to the boycotting organization itself unless it depends on funds from Zionist orgs or people.

That's a really good point about Syria and Yemen. It's stupid to not let people travel. It's just dumb.

I think that boycott is in fact a decent tool to get Israeli organizations and institutions to take notice of what is happening. I'm here and I don't see people really having to notice much in their everyday lives. Life goes on as usual while 10 minutes away people are under occupation. I think that for many educated people who want to be part of the global community (Tel Aviv University, for example), if they got responses when they tried to make a conference saying people won't participate because of the occupation, it would make them have to notice. I've heard Pappe stand on a podium, spread his arms, and say "please! boycott me!"

But the way it happens, it is carried out all wrong. people are not allowed to travel. That is stupid. Businessmen instead make a ton of valuable connections over everyone else's heads, and don't feel a thing even though there's a 'boycott'.

Fadi: I think isolation will work. I think boycott, whether academic, cultural, or economic, advances such isolation. Whether doing away with a certain type of boycott (such as academic) will harm the mission of isolating Israel, I don't know. Maybe the academic boycott is not necessary. Maybe it is. I think the reward (saving Palestinian - and Israeli - lives) is worth the risk. I think isolation will work. I understand the arguments against its practicality, or that it harms civilian infrastructure. I'm fairly certain that refusing to publish papers by Israeli academics, or cutting off grants or joint research (much of it on military and arms research) is not going to starve Israelis to death. I think isolation will work, this has been empirically established (for example, South
Africa). Those willing to argue against boycott of Israel, I think, must also argue against the boycott of Apartheid South Africa. If you're not willing to do that, then there's a double standard being applied.

Nimr: I would be interested to see any empirical data on isolation working as a strategy. Most of the data I have seen shows, 1) isolating other countries rarely works and 2) the connection between isolating S. Africa and the end of apartheid is anecdotal, and most probably part of a matrix of many other factors (which may or may not exist in Palestine).

Andrew Mack and Asif Khan have analyzed UN sanctions and their conclusion is that results have been mixed at best. They point out that sanctions work well as a tool of policy, but not as a policy. Look at the disaster of isolating Iraq under sanctions, Cuba, Hammas, Burma, Iran etc. Attempts to isolate them failed, and tended to strengthen the targeted elements, not weaken them. Also, it is almost impossible to isolate any country, this didn't even work with S. Africa (otherwise DeBeers would not be facing anti-trust issues in the USA). Israel and others kept strong relations with apartheid S. Africa.

This is further complicated by the particular governmental structure of Israel where small fanatical parties have disproportionate influence (domestically and in the USA). Attempts to isolate Israel will only strengthen their power and influence, as it will prove their narrative. (which would lead to more death and land appropriation)

I think the more apt analogy for Israel is the United States, not S. Africa. Like I said if we expect people to start boycotting Israel, culturally, politically, economically and/or academically, we must be prepared to suffer the same treatment in spades. As an American, I feel that the actions of my gov't do not represent my values. In spite of that lots of people die directly and indirectly from my gov't's actions. The same could be said of countless Israelis.

It gets complicated really quickly too. The US allowed black S. Africans to come to the US to attend college for instance. Should we not allow Arab-Palestinians? If we do, should we not allow progressive Israelis? If we do....

I think the divestment campaign makes sense, but only so long as this is on an org by org, individual by individual basis and not gov't policy. I am all for not collaborating with Israel on any research that has military focus and/or biased scholarship (i.e. propaganda), but a sweeping boycott is counterproductive. Some of the best most critical scholarship of Israeli policy comes from Israel.

Specific targeted sanctions (high tech, weapons, etc) are vital parts of foreign policy, but isolating countries/groups seems to have a fairly dismal track record.

Will: I saw this research a long time ago... I think they also argued that if it does not work at the stage of threats, it won't work. Also, democracies are much more responsive to the threats of isolation, theoretically. Hard empirical analysis would be hard to do because the sample size is probably pretty damn small.

We can assume sanctions against Israel would work if the whole world stood behind them. So we should ask, how realistic is this, on what basis, and would do the prospects of good relations with the Arab world mean?

I would not say Qatar is hypocritical, since they have not exactly been touting anything but a soft position, anyways. I do not think the Arab boycott has truly existed since Egypt got off board in the late 1970s. So asking if it is legitimate is hypothetical. If it existed, it would be, though.

In principle, I am against normalizing Israel until it has clearly defined borders, a clear demarcation of its polity, and lives up to its obligations under international law -- in the context of a just and viable solution with the Palestinians. Until then, recognizing Israel without its recognition of the Palestinians is one-sided and
legitimizing criminality.

I do not see how accomodationism could bring about peace. Eretz Yisrael is a non-negotiable ideological strain, first, and the settlements are internalized in the Israeli public's worldview. Accommodation means accepting these fundamentals, which strike at the heart of Palestinian rights.

Emily: What about the fact that Palestinian civil society has called for boycott/divestment/sanctions? I for one think that we should be listening to what they are saying, and doing our best to implement where we can, for the mere fact that they are the ones calling for it. This probably does not translate to the govenrnmental level, at least not at this juncture. However there are many areas where resolutions can be passed and where choices not to participate/invite/invest can be made and publicized.

That said, I am working in Israel. Does this violate what I'm saying above?

Fadi: That's right, I think sanctioning dictatorships (eg. Iraq, Cuba) or populations that were never in a position of prosperity to revert to (HAMAS) is clearly different from boycotting governments that are accountable to a people that are benefactors of a system that oppresses others. The Apartheid regime in South Africa, like that in Israel, does have a population that it is accountable to. I'm not sure why you would bring up Iraq or Cuba, I think we can agree that their dictators don't care about their constituents and are not accountable to their constituents - so there's a good chance isolation will not work there. Despite your opposition to boycotting Apartheid South Africa, you can't dismiss the isolation of South Africa that led whites there to realize that "ok, we can no longer benefit from Apartheid, let's choose a new path." If we can agree on isolating Israel as a means to liberate Palestinians, then we can discuss the
details (such as travel restrictions on Palestinian citizens of Israel).

But i do think that Qatar and other Arab states are hypocritical. If there are no official policies on boycott in a certain Arab state, I do think these dictators do frequently evoke the Palestinian cause, and express support for Palestinians, to their people. They do not support the Palestinian people, they exploit the Palestinian people. The regimes care about filling their pockets and insulating themselves (e.g.., by strengthening themselves politically in the global arena);
engaging in economic deals with Israel is not something done out of necessity - or at least a morally pure necessity (maybe they think they need to do it in order to retain their authoritarian rule). I would not see them as hypocrites if they normalized relations with Israel while not pretending to be strong supporters of the Palestinian struggle.

Maybe some disagree, but I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. policy of sanctioning HAMAS and punishing the civilian population will lead to some shift in the next election, if there ever is one. That is, I wouldn't be surprised if that policy works. It's a disgusting policy, and it's a much different situation, and certainly isolating Israel will not lead to a humanitarian crisis such as that which exists in Gaza (and existed in Gaza before Hamas, before Fatah, before the PLO) or that which existed under Iraq's dictatorship during the sanctions.

CLICK HERE FOR:

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel

Palestine BDS Campaign

Divestment Support Committee

Read More...

Collapse Post...

Ceasefire? Fuck No.

A couple days ago, world-renowned blood-thirsty illogically hating anti-Semitic terrorists Hamas offered poor defenseless Israel a six-month ceasefire. It wasn’t the first ceasefire offer by Hamas-indeed it isn’t even the first over the past year. The terms of the truce, as set out by sexy grand-terrorist mullah Mahmoud Zahar are as follows:

In return for a stop to the launching of home-made projectiles at Sderot, Israel would lift its crippling blockade on Gaza and stop incursions and attacks on Palestinians in the Strip. The ceasefire would be mutual and reciprocal, and would initially include Gaza only, with the ceasefire spreading to the West Bank eventually.

Egypt has been mediating between Hamas and Israel for the better part of a month now, ever since the Jabalya massacre (or, just to piss off the Zionuts around here, the Shoah). A major sticking point has been Hamas’ insistence that any ceasefire would include both the West Bank and Gaza, but they’ve agreed to start with Gaza alone instead. Seems sensible, considering that Abbasshole is holding down the fort without any trouble over there. Coincidentally, Abbasshole spent the first couple weeks after the massacre announcing that he is willing to mediate between the Israelis and his own people. So presidential. So desperate for relevance.



Anyway. Israel, which has been whoring out Sderot to the world as its excuse to murder, kill, pillage, bomb, invade and destroy, had this response to Hamas’ offer to give Sderot queit for six whole months.

“There would be no need for Israel’s defensive actions if Hamas would cease and desist from committing terrorist attacks on Israelis,” said David Baker, an Olmert spokesman, referring to Israeli air strikes and commando raids in Gaza. “Israel will continue to act to protect its citizens.”

Sure Mr Baker. Didn’t Hamas just say that they are offering to cease and desist from attacks? Dumbass.

If I recall correctly, Mark Regev, who sounds so convincing because of his exotic Australian accent, continuously insisted that all Hamas had to do was stop firing at Sderot for Israel to lift its siege. Again, that is exactly what Hamas has offered to do, but the Israeli government doesn’t want to listen. In fact, the blockade keeps getting tightened. Over 90% of cars in Gaza are now idle due to a lack of fuel, including 70% of Gaza’s 225 ambulances. Last night, during one of the Israeli Occupation Forces ‘routine operations’ (copyright Regev) in northern Gaza, an ambulance ran out of fuel as it was transferring a wounded civilian to hospital. For the record, the incursion really was a routine operation. One 14 year old girl was killed and three of her family members wounded when the Israeli army shelled and destroyed their home. Five other civilians, stupidly thinking that they have a right to live in peace in their homes and neighborhoods, were also injured.
But I digress. I can do that without even knowing what digress means. Israel says it won’t accept the ceasefire because Hamas is not ‘serious’ and can’t control other factions anyway, plus like, duh, it just wants a ceasefire because we’re totally kicking its ass and it wants to take a breather and shit.

I’ll tackle those three points individually. First, how can Israel say Hamas is not serious? They’ve given the occupation two long term unilateral ceasefires in the past. Israel continued to bomb and kill and steal land during those two periods. They’ve been offering another ceasefire, a reciprocal one this time, for months. Israel has dismissed every offer, saying it must protect its citizens. Eh?

Second, the accusation that were Hamas to actually be serious, attacks would continue from the other factions, leaving Israel sitting on its hands. This sorta goes against everything Israel and Condoleeza Rice have been saying for years, which is that no Palestinian can launch an attack from Gaza without Hamas’ approval. Nevertheless, the PFLP and Islamic Jihad have said that they will be announcing their position in the next few days, and are expected to support the ceasefire.

Third, Israel is all proud of its army for managing to kill hundreds of Palestinians over the last few months. This is seen as a clear indication that they’re damaging Hamas. Of course, this contradicts an Israeli intelligence report published recently that says Hamas’ military wing is getting stronger than ever. But that’s okay, that report came out when Israel was about to launch another major offensive on Gaza and needed an excuse.

The fact is, unless Israel changes its stance soon we will be further than ever from the chance for calm in Gaza (and southern Israel). Yes, Hamas probably would use the ceasefire to its military advantage, but so would Israel. The point of a ceasefire, however, is to give diplomatic channels a chance. Without people starving in Gaza, sewage flowing in the streets, hospitals running out of medicines, schools and universities empty because there isn’t any fuel for cars or ambulances, there is a much greater chance of working out some sort of long term truce and securing a prisoner exchange. But when you’re the stronger party and are used to bullying the people you occupy, it is always hard to see sense.

Read More...

Collapse Post...

Carter Gives Lobby/Bush the Metaphorical Finger

Ex-President Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with Hamas is upsetting the spoiled imperialists in DC. Carter and Hamas officials are going to meet in Cairo, and send a little, badly needed FU to Israel's BFF's in Washington, DC.

His trip undermines the American/Israeli policy of negating the Palestinian elections after years of demanding them. It causes ripples in their brilliant peace-forwarding vision of ignoring half the Palestinians, the same half in charge of Gaza.

Hamas official Ayman Taha explained the purpose of the trip:

Mr Carter asked for the meeting. He wanted to hear the Hamas vision regarding the situation, and we are interested in clarifying our position and emphasizing the rights of our people.

Carter said that to have Hamas "completely excluded even from conversations or consultations, I think, is counterproductive." What a crazy idea!

What will this nutty ex-Nobel prize winner suggest next? We include Syria and Iran in regional peace talks? Ha!

Read More...

Collapse Post...

Israel’s Biological Clock

Born from the ashes of Palestine, Israel was recognized by Western countries in that fateful day of May 18, 1948. Since, Israel has fought several wars against its neighboring countries and non-state actors such as the PFLP, Fatah, HAMAS and Hizbullah but to no avail. Unfortunately for the entire region, neither Israel nor the Palestinians are any more secure or at peace since the establishment of Israel. Sixty years later, Israel has little precious to celebrate this spring. Its 5.5 million Jewish citizens occupy 4 million Arabs in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and a further 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel are relegated to second-class citizen status as admitted by the US State Department in 2004. The no longer nascent state still struggles with fundamental questions of its essence: is it a democratic and Jewish state, which is inherently contradictory, or a state of all its citizens?

In the international community, Israel is viewed suspiciously and its belligerent attitude towards the Palestinians and, indeed, all its neighbors is strongly criticized. Outside of the United States, it is difficult to find broad support of Israel’s tactics or even its raison-d’etre, as a Jewish state. A 2003 poll of EU countries found that Europeans view Israel to be the most dangerous nation on planet earth. Few Arab and Muslim countries have relations with Israel and for those that do, it is a glacial, cold peace imposed from the top. It has long lost its vital friends, Shah’s Iran and Apartheid South Africa, and its relationship with Turkey is in utter disrepair. It is hard to find an African country that is supportive of Israel’s apartheid policies in the territories and even China and India handle their Israel relations with care.

Closer to home, Israel is increasingly finding itself surrounded by hostile groups that have no addresses. Already HAMAS from the south and Hizbullah from the north are shrinking Israel’s rocket-fire-free zones. Moreover, it finds itself so thoroughly entangled with the Palestinians of the West Bank, an entrapment only exacerbated by the Gaza withdrawal since many Gaza settlers moved to West Bank settlements.

Within Israel, the nation no longer recognizes its early secular and socialist roots. Although a relatively rich country, its rabid capitalism has confined a quarter of its citizens to living below the poverty line. It has become increasingly religious, discriminating against non Jews and even liberal Jewish citizens. Its large orthodox population complicates life for Jewish liberals who have been consigned to Tel Aviv and its suburbs. Israel’s supposedly fringe population of settlers, accused by all of ruining the chance of a Palestinian state, can no longer be termed a fringe: the settler population in the West Bank exceeds 450,000 Jews which is almost 10% of Israel’s entire Jewish population. At its 60th birthday, Israel has become a state within a state: a democratic, secular state within a theocratic, fanatical one.

However, all is not lost for Israel, yet. It has a strong economy and a thriving democracy for its Jewish citizens and it can still count on the support of the world’s only superpower. Yet, it will not be enough. This is the moment of truth for Israel, as important a moment as its inception. Israel will have to decide the course it is wishing and willing to take. Either negotiate an end to the occupation with the Palestinians, starting with a freeze of all settlements and culminating in a secure and independent Palestinian state or live in Eretz Israel with an Arab majority. Is Israel going to give birth to a Palestinian state or is it going to vanish into the pages of history? The choice is clear. The alternatives are ethnic cleansing through genocide and more expulsions, a state of affairs even its tentative democracy, its stable economy and its relations with West cannot sustain.

The good news for Israel is that the Arabs have already committed themselves to a two-state solution in the Beirut and Riyadh summits. Even Iran has vowed to accept whatever resolution is accepted by the Palestinians. Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians without preconditions including HAMAS, a prospect that 67% of Israelis supported as early as July 2006. The Palestinian Authority, including HAMAS, has already agreed in principle to a two-state solution. Israel’s rhetoric of a dearth of peace partners serves only to perpetuate its self-inflicted wound. As Shimon Peres once warned his compatriots, “He, who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

Read More...

Collapse Post...