While much of what Avraham Burg said sounded good, there is still much that he didn’t say. While he talked about Jewish hatred and Jewish xenophobia, he never once acknowledged that the most important cause behind Jewish racism is the Zionist ideology. He totally avoided this subject.
And the fact that he doesn’t think that bringing up the past is important to helping to resolve the conflict leaves me suspicious as to his true intentions. How can he openly admit that the Holocaust is still an important factor in the Jewish psyche, but than deny that what is important to the Palestinian psyche is not important to the go no where “peace process”? When both sides are not in agreement over what actually took place in the past, how can they move forward together to resolve a conflict that clearly has its roots in the past? How can you get a tree to grow and give fruits of peace after you have cut off half of its roots thinking they were not important…?
And than the two things that topped it off for me in lowering my opinion of him were what he said in response to the question about Jimmy Carter’s realistic possibilities:
Burg: “Politics and realistic possibilities are kind of oxymorons, OK, even here and especially over there. But it must be peace. Will it be peace out of hope, or will it be peace out of despair—it’s just a departure point. But eventually, it will be there.
Now, since the archenemy of the region is the Shiite revolution regime in Iran—revolutionary regime in Iran, and all the others are ready to have a different kind of conversation, so all of the sudden the Saudi king—Prince Fahd formula, which is the Arab League policy, saying let’s talk about a comprehensive coalition between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and the PLO and the Occupied Territories, and all of us together, more rationalistic, more Western, rather than the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it—that’s an opportunity. There is an opening there.”
Why would he make so little of Carter’s realistic possibilities and than take the subject to Iran to show a preference for talking with the so-called moderate Sunni Arab dictatorial regimes? Isn’t it these so-called moderate Arab regimes where the Al Qaeda movement came from? And didn’t he previously claim that if Israel refuses to talk to Hamas, which undoubtedly is being influenced and ideologically supported by Iran, will eventually take root in Palestinian society? Yet according to him, Iran is “the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it” for the so-called moderate Arab Sunni regimes! Why because they support resistance to Israeli occupation and hegemony in the region?
Therefore, he is basically claiming that the primary factor that is driving the Sunni Arab regimes to negotiate a so-called two state solution with Israel, is “the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it”?, and somehow “that’s an opportunity. There is an opening there.” for Israel?
So if we are to believe Avraham Burg in his take of the Sunni Arab regimes, it is not about the Palestinian people’s rights, it is about the so-called Shia crescent which they happen to fear more than they fear Israel…
And than his remarks regarding the divestment from the Israeli military question put forth from Amy Goodman:
AMY GOODMAN: “The divestment movement. You just heard in our headlines that Hampshire College in Massachusetts has become the first college to divest from companies that are doing business with the Israeli military.”
AVRAHAM BURG: “It stands against my values system to boycott. OK? If I said earlier in this program and earlier in my life, I’m totally committed to conversation, even with my worst enemy. So boycott is not a tool for me. Boycott is an expression of violence.”
So boycotting the Israeli military is an expression of violence and against his value system?
I am left wondering what kind of peace in the region could ever be built on this kind of opportunity and this kind of value?
What I found most interesting in Gideon Levy’s piece is that it brings attention to and addresses some of what I was criticizing concerning the interview with Avraham Burg on Democracy Now….I am happy to know that we can see eye to eye with at least some Israelis, even if they are presently the marginalized ones, as to what needs to be honestly addressed amongst the Israelis if they are truly serious about a peace based on justice with the Palestinians.
Gideon Levy: Does Zionism legitimize every act of violence?
An excerpt of the conclusion:
“…..On the fringes of this masked ball existed another left, the marginal left – determined and courageous, but minuscule and not legitimate. The gap between it and the left was supposedly Zionism. Hadash, Gush Shalom and others like them are outside the camp. Why? Because they are “not Zionist.”
And what is Zionism nowadays? An archaic and outdated concept born in a different reality, a vague and delusive concept marking the difference between the permitted and the proscribed. Does Zionism mean settlement in the territories? Occupation? The legitimization of every act of violence and injustice? The left stammered. Any statement critical of Zionism, even the Zionism of the occupation, was considered a taboo that the left did not dare break. The right grabbed a monopoly on Zionism, leaving the left with its self-righteousness.
A Jewish and democratic state? The Zionist left said yes automatically, fudging the difference between the two and not daring to give either priority. Legitimization for every war? The Zionist left stammered again – yes to the beginning and no to the continuation, or something like that. Solving the refugee problem and the right of return? Acknowledgment of the wrongdoing of 1948? Unmentionable. This left has now, rightly, reached the end of its road.
Anyone who wants a meaningful left must first air out Zionism in the attic. Until a movement that courageously redefines Zionism arises from the mainstream, there will be no broad left here. It is not possible to be both leftist and Zionist only in accordance with the right’s definition. Who has decided that the settlements are Zionist and legitimate, and the struggle against them is neither?
This taboo must be broken. It is permissible not to be a Zionist, as commonly defined today. It is permissible to believe in the Jews’ right to a state and yet come out against the Zionism that engages in occupation. It is permissible to believe that what happened in 1948 should be put on the agenda, to apologize for the injustice and act to rehabilitate the victims. It is permissible to oppose an unnecessary war from its very first day. It is permissible to think that the Arabs of Israel deserve the same rights – culturally, socially and nationally – as Jews. It is permissible to raise disturbing questions about the image of the Israel Defense Forces as an army of occupation, and it is even permissible to want to talk to Hamas.
If you prefer, this is Zionism, and if you prefer, this is anti-Zionism. In any case, it is legitimate and essential for those who do not want to see Israel fall victim to the insanities of the right for many more years. Anyone who wants an Israeli left must say “enough” to Zionism, the Zionism of which the right has taken complete control.”
While much of what Avraham Burg said sounded good, there is still much that he didn’t say. While he talked about Jewish hatred and Jewish xenophobia, he never once acknowledged that the most important cause behind Jewish racism is the Zionist ideology. He totally avoided this subject.
And the fact that he doesn’t think that bringing up the past is important to helping to resolve the conflict leaves me suspicious as to his true intentions. How can he openly admit that the Holocaust is still an important factor in the Jewish psyche, but than deny that what is important to the Palestinian psyche is not important to the go no where “peace process”? When both sides are not in agreement over what actually took place in the past, how can they move forward together to resolve a conflict that clearly has its roots in the past? How can you get a tree to grow and give fruits of peace after you have cut off half of its roots thinking they were not important…?
And than the two things that topped it off for me in lowering my opinion of him were what he said in response to the question about Jimmy Carter’s realistic possibilities:
Burg: “Politics and realistic possibilities are kind of oxymorons, OK, even here and especially over there. But it must be peace. Will it be peace out of hope, or will it be peace out of despair—it’s just a departure point. But eventually, it will be there.
Now, since the archenemy of the region is the Shiite revolution regime in Iran—revolutionary regime in Iran, and all the others are ready to have a different kind of conversation, so all of the sudden the Saudi king—Prince Fahd formula, which is the Arab League policy, saying let’s talk about a comprehensive coalition between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and the PLO and the Occupied Territories, and all of us together, more rationalistic, more Western, rather than the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it—that’s an opportunity. There is an opening there.”
Why would he make so little of Carter’s realistic possibilities and than take the subject to Iran to show a preference for talking with the so-called moderate Sunni Arab dictatorial regimes? Isn’t it these so-called moderate Arab regimes where the Al Qaeda movement came from? And didn’t he previously claim that if Israel refuses to talk to Hamas, which undoubtedly is being influenced and ideologically supported by Iran, will eventually take root in Palestinian society? Yet according to him, Iran is “the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it” for the so-called moderate Arab Sunni regimes! Why because they support resistance to Israeli occupation and hegemony in the region?
Therefore, he is basically claiming that the primary factor that is driving the Sunni Arab regimes to negotiate a so-called two state solution with Israel, is “the Shiite devil—that’s the way they see it”?, and somehow “that’s an opportunity. There is an opening there.” for Israel?
So if we are to believe Avraham Burg in his take of the Sunni Arab regimes, it is not about the Palestinian people’s rights, it is about the so-called Shia crescent which they happen to fear more than they fear Israel…
And than his remarks regarding the divestment from the Israeli military question put forth from Amy Goodman:
AMY GOODMAN: “The divestment movement. You just heard in our headlines that Hampshire College in Massachusetts has become the first college to divest from companies that are doing business with the Israeli military.”
AVRAHAM BURG: “It stands against my values system to boycott. OK? If I said earlier in this program and earlier in my life, I’m totally committed to conversation, even with my worst enemy. So boycott is not a tool for me. Boycott is an expression of violence.”
So boycotting the Israeli military is an expression of violence and against his value system?
I am left wondering what kind of peace in the region could ever be built on this kind of opportunity and this kind of value?
What I found most interesting in Gideon Levy’s piece is that it brings attention to and addresses some of what I was criticizing concerning the interview with Avraham Burg on Democracy Now….I am happy to know that we can see eye to eye with at least some Israelis, even if they are presently the marginalized ones, as to what needs to be honestly addressed amongst the Israelis if they are truly serious about a peace based on justice with the Palestinians.
Gideon Levy: Does Zionism legitimize every act of violence?
An excerpt of the conclusion:
“…..On the fringes of this masked ball existed another left, the marginal left – determined and courageous, but minuscule and not legitimate. The gap between it and the left was supposedly Zionism. Hadash, Gush Shalom and others like them are outside the camp. Why? Because they are “not Zionist.”
And what is Zionism nowadays? An archaic and outdated concept born in a different reality, a vague and delusive concept marking the difference between the permitted and the proscribed. Does Zionism mean settlement in the territories? Occupation? The legitimization of every act of violence and injustice? The left stammered. Any statement critical of Zionism, even the Zionism of the occupation, was considered a taboo that the left did not dare break. The right grabbed a monopoly on Zionism, leaving the left with its self-righteousness.
A Jewish and democratic state? The Zionist left said yes automatically, fudging the difference between the two and not daring to give either priority. Legitimization for every war? The Zionist left stammered again – yes to the beginning and no to the continuation, or something like that. Solving the refugee problem and the right of return? Acknowledgment of the wrongdoing of 1948? Unmentionable. This left has now, rightly, reached the end of its road.
Anyone who wants a meaningful left must first air out Zionism in the attic. Until a movement that courageously redefines Zionism arises from the mainstream, there will be no broad left here. It is not possible to be both leftist and Zionist only in accordance with the right’s definition. Who has decided that the settlements are Zionist and legitimate, and the struggle against them is neither?
This taboo must be broken. It is permissible not to be a Zionist, as commonly defined today. It is permissible to believe in the Jews’ right to a state and yet come out against the Zionism that engages in occupation. It is permissible to believe that what happened in 1948 should be put on the agenda, to apologize for the injustice and act to rehabilitate the victims. It is permissible to oppose an unnecessary war from its very first day. It is permissible to think that the Arabs of Israel deserve the same rights – culturally, socially and nationally – as Jews. It is permissible to raise disturbing questions about the image of the Israel Defense Forces as an army of occupation, and it is even permissible to want to talk to Hamas.
If you prefer, this is Zionism, and if you prefer, this is anti-Zionism. In any case, it is legitimate and essential for those who do not want to see Israel fall victim to the insanities of the right for many more years. Anyone who wants an Israeli left must say “enough” to Zionism, the Zionism of which the right has taken complete control.”
To read the entire piece go to:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063597.html
酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店領檯,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,酒店兼職,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,酒店兼職,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,酒店傳播,酒店經紀人,酒店,酒店,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,禮服店 , 酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店,酒店,酒店經紀,酒店領檯 ,