9. Hasbara


Supporters of the Israeli denial of equality
of rights for non-Jews, and the Israeli ethnic
cleansing of non-Jews, engage in “public
relations” (hasbara― Hebrew: הסברה)
in an attempt to veil Israel’s horrific violations
of human rights. 


The poet Gwendolyn Brooks wrote that poetry
is “life distilled.” Gabriel Ash explores the poetry
of hasbara in his ironically titled essay: “How
to Make the Case for Israel and Win.”   ML



The Truth, Not Hasbara


How to make the case for
Israel and win

by
Gabriel Ash


To the benefit of the many not-very-bright
Zionist wannabe apologists who read this 
blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear
and simple method of arguing the case for
Israel. This clear and simple method has been
distilled from a life spent listening to and
reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow
and results are guaranteed or your money back.


So don't hesitate! Take advantage NOW of
this revolutionary rhetorical system that will
make YOU a great apologist for Israel […].


Ready? 1..2..3..GO!


You need to understand just one principle:

The case for Israel is made of four propositions
that should always be presented in the correct
escalating order.


  1. We rock
  2. They suck
  3. You suck
  4. Everything sucks


That's it. Now you know everything that it took
me a lifetime to learn. The rest is details; filling
in the dotted lines.


You begin by saying how great Israel is. Israel
wants peace; Israel is the only democracy in the
Middle East; the desert blooms; kibutz; Israelis
invented antibiotics, the wheel, the E minor scale;
thanks to the occupation Palestinians no longer
live in caves; Israel liberates Arab women; Israel
has the most moral army in the world, etc.


This will win over 50% of your listeners immediately.
Don't worry about the factual content. This is about
brand identity, not writing a PhD. Do you really
think BP is 'beyond petroleum'?


Then you go into the second point: They suck.
Here you talk about the legal system of Saudi
Arabia, gay rights in Iran, slave trade in the Sudan,
Mohammad Atta, the burqa, Palestinians dancing
after 9/11, Arafat's facial hair, etc.


There is only one additional principle you need
to understand here. It will separate you from the
amateurs. You need to know your audience.
If you've got a crowd already disposed to racist
logic, go for it with everything you have. But if
you get a liberal crowd, you need to sugar coat
the racism a bit. Focus on women rights, human
rights, religious tolerance, "clash of civilizations,"
terrorism, they teach their children to hate, etc.
Deep down your audience WANTS to enjoy racism
and feel superior. They just need the proper
encouragement so they can keep their 
sophisticated self-image. Give them what they
crave and they'll adore you! But be careful not to
'mix n match,' because it will cost you credibility.


When you're done, there will always be
dead-enders insisting that abuse of gays in Iran
does not justify ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Take
a deep breath, and pull the doomsday weapon:

You suck!


You're a Jew-hater, Arab-lover, anti-Semite, you're
a pinko, a commie, a dreamer, a naive, a self-hater,
you have issues, your mother worked for the Nazis,
Prince Bandar buys you cookies, you forgot you were
responsible for the Holocaust, etc. The more the
merrier. By the time you end this barrage, only a
handful would be left standing. For mopping them up,
you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom:

Everything sucks.


War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere.
From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in
the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on
Israel? It's the way of the world. Look! Right is only
in question between equals in power; the strong do
what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink!
Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the
sea if they could. Ha ha!


Trust me, that's as far as words can go. If you
followed this method faithfully, you've done your
work. You should leave the few who are still
unconvinced to the forces of order.


Congratulations!
You are now ready to

apologize for Israel like a pro.


Gabriel Ash
Jews sans frontiers
July 18, 2008


[Text highlighted and edited by ML; "Stop
Hasbara" image created and added by ML]


Poster: You've Got To Be Carefully Taught

As the Jewish National Fund geared up for its
National Conference in September of 
2011, it
was hustling teens to attend a "Teen Leadership
Seminar" to be held as part of the conference.
The publicity for the Seminar seemed to cry out
for a bit of a rewrite; this is my [Michael Levin]
version of their poster, with thanks to 
South
Pacific's 
"You've Got to Be Carefully Taught."
Both this poster, and the original poster upon
which it was based, can be viewed on
Mondoweiss.




The Truth, Not Hasbara


How today's liberal Zionists echo 
apartheid South Africa's defenders
by
Rania Khalek


"While the majority of black South African leaders are
against disinvestment and boycotts, there are tiny factions
that support disinvestment — namely terrorist groups such
as the African National Congress,” libertarian economics
professor Walter Williams wrote in a 1983 New York
Times op-ed.


Williams’ claim was as absurd then as it appears in
hindsight, but his sentiment was far from rare on
the American and British right in the 1980s.


Yet today’s so-called progressive and liberal Zionists
employ precisely the same kinds of claims to counter
the growing movement, initiated by Palestinians
themselves, for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)
on Israel.


Indeed, looking back, it is clear that Israel’s liberal
apologists are recycling nearly every argument once
used by conservatives against the BDS movement
that helped dismantle South Africa’s apartheid regime.


“Singling out”


In a 1989 op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor,
University 
of South Africa lecturer Anne-Marie Kriek
scolded the divestment movement for singling out
her country’s racist government because, she wrote,
“the violation of human rights is the norm rather
than the exception in most of Africa’s 42
black-ruled states” (“South Africa Shouldn’t be
Singled Out,” 12 October 1989).


Kriek continued, “South Africa is the only country in
Sub-Saharan Africa that can feed itself. Blacks possess
one of the highest living standards in all of Africa,”
adding that nowhere on the continent did black Africans
have it so good. So, “Why is South Africa so harshly
condemned while completely different standards apply to
black Africa?” she asked.


Divestment opponents in the US provided similar
justifications. In 1986, for instance, Gregory Dohi, the
former editor-in-chief of the Salient, Harvard University’s
conservative campus publication, protested that those
calling for the university to divest from companies
doing business in South Africa were “selective in their
morality” (“I am full of joy to realize that I never had
anything to do with any divestment campaign …,”
Harvard Crimson, 4 April 1986).


Divestment was wrong not only because it would “harm”
black workers, Dohi claimed, but because it singled out
South Africa.


Déjà vu


Where have we heard these kinds of arguments before?


Arguing against BDS, The Nation’s Eric Alterman writes,
“The near-complete lack of democratic practices within
Israel’s neighbors in the Arab and Islamic world,
coupled with their lack of respect for the rights of
women, of gays, indeed, of dissidents of any kind —
make their protestations of Israel’s own democratic
shortcomings difficult to credit” (“A Forum on Boycott,
Divestment, Sanctions (BDS),” 3 May 2012).


Alterman’s only update to Kriek’s logic is his mention of
women’s and gay rights, a nod to The Nation readers’
liberal sensitivities.


Alterman’s sometime Nation colleague, reporter Ben Adler,
has also reprised Kriek’s and Dohi’s 1980s-style
arguments: “If you want to boycott Israel itself then you
need to explain why you’re not calling for a boycott of
other countries in the Middle East that oppress their own
citizens worse than Israel does anyone living within the
Green Line” (“The Problems With BDS,” 31 March 2012).


A scary brown majority


The late neoconservative war hawk, and long-time New
York Times columnist William Safire — who in 2002
insisted, “Iraqis, cheering their liberators, will lead the
Arab world toward 
democracy” — also sympathized
with white supremacist anxieties about the implications
of a single democratic South Africa.


One person, one vote “means majority rule, and
nonwhites are the overwhelming majority in South Africa,”
Safire wrote in a 1986 column. “That means an end to
white government as the Afrikaners have known it for
three centuries; that means the same kind of black
rule that exists elsewhere in Africa, and most white
South Africans would rather remain the oppressors
than become the oppressed” (“The Suzman Plan,”
7 August 1986).


Almost thirty years later, liberal Zionists exhibit the
same empathy with racists in their own hostility toward
the Palestinian right of return, which BDS unapologetically
champions.


Such a scenario would spell the end of Israel’s Jewish
majority, a horrifying prospect for ethno-religious
supremacists who, like whites in South Africa did,
fear the native population they rule.


Cary Nelson, a professor of English at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, well-known in academic
circles for his left-liberal activism, conveyed the same fears
in a recent anti-BDS tirade. He argued that “nothing in
decades of Middle East history suggests Jews would be
equal citizens in a state dominated by Arabs or
Palestinians” (“Why the ASA boycott is both disingenuous
and futile,” Al Jazeera America, 23 December 2013).


Nelson’s racism-induced panic is further distilled in a Wall
Street Journal op-ed, where he argues that the BDS
movement seeks “the elimination of Israel,” after which,
“those Jews not exiled or killed in the transition to an
Arab-dominated nation would live as second-class citizens
without fundamental rights” (“Another Anti-Israel Vote
Comes to Academia,” 8 January 2014).


Of course he wouldn’t put it this way, but Nelson fears, in
effect, that Palestinians might do to Jews what the Israeli
settler-colonial regime has done to Palestinians since
its inception.


Relying on puppets


Last December, Mahmoud Abbas, the autocratic puppet
leader of the Palestinian Authority, and chairman of the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), declared his
opposition to BDS, leaving Israel and its apologists
predictably overjoyed.


In The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier chides pro-BDS
academics for speaking on behalf of Palestinians. “Who
is Abu Mazen [Abbas] to speak for the Palestinians,
compared with an associate professor of ethnic studies
at the University of California, San Diego?” he quipped
(“The Academic Boycott of Israel Is a Travesty,” 17
December 2013).


Jeffrey Goldberg is just as derisive, writing in his
Bloomberg column that the American Studies Association
— which voted to boycott Israeli institutions — “is more
Palestinian … than the chairman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization” (“Some Lessons in Effective Scapegoating,”
16 December 2013).


These and other liberal Zionists insist that the Israeli
- and US-approved Abbas is the only authentic
representative 
of Palestinian sentiment. They ignore
the overwhelming support for boycotting Israel
among the Palestinian people.


But for many Palestinians, an apt comparison for Abbas is
with 
Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the black leader of the
Inkatha Freedom Party.


Buthelezi was often denounced by black South Africans as
a collaborator with the white apartheid regime and lauded
by British and American conservative opponents of
sanctions as the true voice of black South Africa.


In a 1985 address to representatives from US companies
operating in South Africa, Buthelezi insisted that the
majority of South African blacks firmly opposed
sanctions because they would “condemn a great
many millions and a whole new generation to
continue living in appalling slum conditions.”


In 1990, Buthelezi came out against an ANC-led campaign
of 
mass civil disobedience — marches, boycotts and
strikes — throwing his weight instead behind
“cooperation” and“negotiation” with the white regime.


This offers a striking parallel to the present-day Palestinian
Authority which continues to give legitimacy to the endless
“peace process” while suppressing direct action against
the occupation.


Buthelezi was only the most prominent of a handful of
black apologists and collaborators with the apartheid
regime. Others included Lucas Mangope, puppet
leader of the Bophuthatswana 
bantustan who also
fiercely opposed sanctions that would isolate his
white supremacist paymasters.


Mangope cringed at the idea of a one-person, one-vote
system in South Africa and spent the last days of apartheid
desperately clinging to power over his “independent” island
of repression.


Yet it wasn’t uncommon for US media outlets — including
The New York Times — to label Mangope, and others like
him, “moderate” black leaders.


Israel, it seems, has taken its cues directly from the
apartheid 
playbook, cultivating a small circle of
Palestinian elites willing to maintain the occupation
in exchange for power and comfort.


And liberal Zionists are more than happy to bolster the
ruse by 
using these comprised figures’ words against
Palestinians who still insist on their rights.


Think of the workers


When Mobil Corporation was forced to shut down its
operations in South Africa in 1989 due to what it
called “very foolish” US sanctions laws, its chief
executive, Allen Murray, feigned concern 
for the
impact on black workers.


“We continue to believe that our presence and our
actions have 
contributed greatly to economic and
social progress for nonwhites in South Africa,” the
oil executive declared (“Mobil Is Quitting South
Africa, Blaming ‘Foolish’ Laws in US,” The New York
Times, 29 April 1989).


Before finally giving in to boycott pressures, Citibank
also justified its refusal to divest by citing its obligation
to the South Africans 
it employed.


Last month, SodaStream chief executive Daniel Birnbaum
echoed 
this transparent posturing when he defended the
location of his company’s main production facility in the
illegal Israeli settlement of Maaleh Adumim.


The only thing keeping him from moving the factory,
Birnbaum claims, is his loyalty to some 500
Palestinian SodaStream employees. “We will not
throw our employees under the bus to promote
anyone’s political agenda,” he told The Jewish Daily
Forward (“SodaStream Boss Admits West Bank Plant
Is ‘a Pain’ — Praises Scarlett Johansson,” 28
January 2014).


“Constructive engagement” again?


Scarlett Johansson, the Hollywood actress who resigned
from 
her humanitarian ambassador role with the
anti-poverty organization Oxfam in order to pursue her
role as global brand ambassador for SodaStream,
applauded the company for “supporting neighbors
working alongside each other, receiving equal pay,
equal benefits and equal rights.”


Such appeals for cooperation with an oppressive status
quo in the face of growing support for BDS mirror
President Ronald Reagan’s insistence on “constructive
engagement” with apartheid South Africa.


While asserting in 1986 that “time is running out for
the moderates of all races in South Africa,” Reagan
opposed sanctions that could foster change. Today,
supporters of the endless Israeli-Palestinian “peace
process” also regularly insist that “time is running out,”
while fiercely opposing BDS.


Reagan praised his British counterpart Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher for having “denounced punitive
sanctions as immoral and utterly repugnant.” Why?
Because “the primary victims of an economic boycott
of South Africa would be the very people we seek to
help,” the president argued (“Transcript of Talk by
Reagan on South Africa and Apartheid,” The New York
Times, 23 July 1986).


The Reagan administration even funded a survey of
black South African workers to prove they loved working
for benevolent American corporations and adamantly
opposed divestment, never mind the fact that advocating
for sanctions under apartheid was a severely
punishable offense.


Fast forward to 2014 and Jane Eisner, editor of the
liberal Jewish Daily Forward publicly hails SodaStream
as the solution to the conflict, using her newspaper to
portray Palestinian workers as grateful to be employed
by the settlement profiteer, sentiments they expressed
while being interviewed under the watchful eyes of their
supervisors.


Taking racism a step further


Today, twenty-first century liberals and progressives who
are ideologically invested in Zionism have embraced the
rationales of racist right-wingers from a bygone era.


What’s more, liberal Zionists have taken the racism a step
further than Reagan and Thatcher ever dared to go with
South Africa.


Although they opposed sanctions, Reagan and Thatcher
regularly denounced apartheid as an unjust system that
needed to be dismantled.


Israel’s apologists, by contrast, firmly support the
maintenance of Israel’s discrimination against Palestinians
with their insistence that the country remain a “Jewish state”
and their continued denial of the Palestinian right of return.


Rania Khalek
Electronic Intifada
February 13, 2014





The Truth, Not Hasbara


How to fight the Israel-Apartheid
analogy in four easy steps – a guide
for useful Hasbara idiots

by

Ran Greenstein


Step one: But they have the vote


Start with fragmentation. When talking about Israel refer to
a mythical state that existed between November 1966 and
June 1967, the only period during which the majority of
Palestinians living under Israeli control were NOT subject
to military rule. Focus on the fact that Palestinians who
became Israeli citizens have the right to vote. Not quite a
right to vote for any party of their choice (various radical
lists were disqualified over the years) but still, a right to
participate in the elections.


In the process, ignore the 80% of the original inhabitants
of the territories that became part of Israel in 1948, who
have been physically excluded from exercising any civil
and political rights in their homeland. Ignore all those who
live under military occupation in the 1967 territories, with
no right to vote in Israel and no say in the way their
territories are governed by Israel (their own government
has no power over land, water, roads, housing,
development, population registration, and virtually
everything else that is relevant to their lives).


Go back to those citizens (about 15% of all Palestinians)
and assert how fortunate they are. Do not bother to read,
convey, and consider their own feelings, words,
analyses, politics. They 
have a very different opinion on
the applicability of the notion of apartheid to their own
situation, but why listen? Who is better qualified to
speak on their behalf than you?


Step two: But they started it


If you really have to, talk about the refugees (remember
those 80% mentioned above, who have been excluded
from any presence in Israel?). They have themselves
to blame for their situation. They started the war in
1948 and suffered the consequences, so what do
they want from you now?


In the process avoid paying attention to inconvenient facts:
that long before the 1948 war, all Palestinians residing on
land bought by 
official Jewish agencies had to leave their
homes. That no tenants living on land owned by official
Zionist agencies were allowed to stay (not even on a small
part of their land) once the land transaction was
completed. That well before 1948, dozens of towns and
hundreds of rural settlements were established by and for
Jewish immigrants, and that not a single one of them
allowed Palestinians to reside within their boundaries,
or even find employment within them, let alone become
full members of the community.


In other words, ignore the ever-expanding zone of
exclusion that was created by the Zionist movement
and its settlement agencies since the beginning of
the 20th century, from which all Palestinians were
barred. Pretend the whole thing started in 1948,
and they were 
responsible for it. Ignore the
Palestinian refugees, all of whom, regardless
of their personal involvement in military affairs
and political intentions, were equally barred
from returning to Israel after 1948. If you also
manage to ‘forget’ the massive evidence of
ethnic cleansing that took place during that
war, so much the better.


And remember: there are two important tasks to
be performed here: erase all traces of the
exclusion of the majority of Palestinians
from their land (if they are not there, by
definition they cannot be subject to apartheid),
and pre-emptively deny any subsequent claims
(if they lost their citizenship they cannot make
any claim to voting and other rights).


Step three: But we are not alone


As a fallback option, admit that the situation is
not perfect, but you are not the only one
practicing some form of discrimination
or exclusion. If everyone practices apartheid,
then the specific accusation against Israel is no
longer meaningful. Use whatever examples can
bolster your case: Kurds in Turkey, Basques in
Spain, 
Tibetans in China (and for the more
advanced, Saharawis in Morocco), allow you to
turn the tables against critics: why do they not
protest first against all these other oppressive
regimes? The answer may be that these are
indeed situations in which minority groups are
denied their right to independence. Yet, they
are granted equality and the possibility of full
assimilation if they so desire. Palestinians, in
contrast, have neither independence nor the
option of assimilation and equality, but why
worry about such petty nuances?


Try another tack: what about the
African/Muslim/Caribbean 
immigrants in
Europe, subject to various restrictions on
immigration, jobs, residence and political
rights? Of course, they are immigrants
rejected by the indigenous majority in
foreign countries, while Palestinians are
indigenous people denied rights in their own
homeland by recently-arrived immigrants,
but so what?


Or, take the legal precedent route: invoke the
right of states to give preferential treatment
to their ‘ethnic kin’ in the diaspora, recognised
by many European countries. But, do not stop to
consider that the very definition of Israel as a
state of the Jewish people (but not of its
indigenous Palestinians) is the source of the
conflict. And that in no European country do
the rights of ethnic kin come at the expense of
the indigenous ethnic groups that do not form
part of the ‘kin’.


Invoke other cases where ethnic and religious
symbols are employed by European states, in
their flag, anthem, crest and so on. That these
states (UK, Greece, Sweden and others) offer
all their citizens equal rights, regardless of
their ethnic or religious origins, and that none
of them allows differential access to resources
based on ethnic or religious identity is best left
out of the discussion. Rather, raise the problem
that Jews and Muslims cannot become UK
monarchs, never mind that 99.9% of Anglicans,
who are not of royal stock, are equally deprived
of that privilege.


Brutal honesty is another useful strategy,
especially when you can go back to the classics:
the Turks did it to the Greeks, and the Greeks
did it to the Turks. The Indians did it to the
Muslims, 
and the Pakistanis to the Hindus, the
Czechs and the Poles to the Germans, and the
Germans, before them, to everybody else. And
keep up to date: the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians
have done it to each other. And, you have not
even mentioned yet the great massacres and
millions of deaths from enslavement, forced
labour, dislocation, and diseases, which
afflicted colonized populations in Africa and
the Americas. Why single Israel out, then? Why
are Israelis the only ones who have to meet
the charges of apartheid?


In those cases above (Turkey-Greece,
India-Pakistan, and so on), only a few percent
of the respective populations were affected,
while in 1948 Palestine 60% of the original
indigenous population (of the entire country)
became refugees; in those cases above, the 
bulk
of the respective population remained rooted in
their own territories, and retained their
independence, while in the case of 1948
Palestine the entire society was dislocated and
lost its ability to rule itself. But these are mere
technicalities, so avoid them at will.


More importantly, in all those cases, the acts of
dispossession, 
eviction, expulsion, dislocation,
confiscation, were once-off events, even if their
impact was of a long duration. Historical tragedies
and great injustices they were indeed, no doubt,
but life gradually returned to normal after that.
Not so in Israel/Palestine: the government,
parliament, political parties, military authorities,
construction companies, various religious and
social movements, and media organisations,
continue relentlessly to re-enact the historical
dispossession on a regular basis. It is not just the
Nakba of 1948 that matters: an ongoing
onslaught on Palestinians’ land, rights and
demographic presence is the central issue in
Israeli politics today (and has been for decades
though not always with the same intensity).
Literally, not a day passes without a new initiative,
bill, law, regulation, and campaign to restrict,
marginalise, exclude, silence and oppress
Palestinians and any others (including Jews)
who try to defend them and what remains of
Israeli democracy.


But we digress. All this can be easily
explained away by the ultimate 
weapon:
security!


Step four: But we need security


And if all else fails, invoke the magic word,
security. You are only 
in it for security. All
you care about is survival. You build a security
fence (on and through other people’s land),
you have security settlements (on other
people’s property), you strive to secure your
existence, your boundaries, your
demographic balance, your power, your rights.


You maintain the occupation because of
security fears (even if you were far more secure
before it), you neither annex the 
occupied
territories (because their residents would
endanger your security) nor do you leave them
(because to do so would constitute a threat to
your security), you establish settlements because
of security reasons (even if most settlers openly
deny that), you let Jews move freely in and out
of the country and burden Palestinians with
dozens of laws, hundreds of road blocks,
thousands of military regulations, all because
of security. You maintain a dual legal system
(due to security), different roads (for security
reasons), differential access to land and water
(needless to say why), and different education
systems (the s-word is responsible again).
What does all that have to do with apartheid?


Ran Greenstein
[Associate Professor in the Department
of Sociology at the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa]
Israeli Occupation Archive
November 20, 2011






Pink Washing Exposed: 
Seattle Fights Back


“Pinkwashing" is a term activists have coined
for when countries engaged in terrible human
rights violations promote themselves as
"gay friendly" to improve their public image.
Israel is the country most famous for this
strategy, having initiated it as part of a
rebranding campaign has been engaged
in for the last decade. In 2012, activists in
the Pacific Northwestern region of the US
responded to an Israeli Consulate-funded
pinkwashing tour featuring Israeli gay and
lesbian activists that was coming to the
region. Local queer Palestine solidarity
activists exposed the "Rainbow Generations" tour as
pro-Israel propaganda and got some of the
events, including the tour's centerpiece event
hosted by the City of Seattle's LGBT Commission,
cancelled. A significant backlash ensued involving
the Seattle City Council and Seattle's leading LGBT
and HIV organizations. Through the inspiring
story of these activists' victory, Pinkwashing
Exposed explores how pinkwashing works and
what local activists are doing to fight back.”



Barrows-Friedman, Nora. Israel’s first trans officer helps with ethnic
cleansing
,” Electronic Intifada, April 12, 2017. [Excerpt: “Queer
and transgender activists protested an event featuring an Israeli
soldier in Seattle on 5 April. The event was supported by the
LGBTQ Commission, a body that advises city leaders on lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Two commissioners
resigned in protest just days earlier, criticizing the group’s
participation as an act of pinkwashing. Pinkwashing is a
public relations strategy that deploys Israel’s supposed
enlightenment toward LGBTQ issues to deflect criticism
from its human rights abuses and war crimes and as a
means to build up support for Israel among Western
liberals and progressives.
”]

Marom, Yael. LGBTQ Israelis come out against occupation
and homophobia
: In response to online homophobic
attacks, over 50 LGBTQ left-wing activists and NGO workers
in Israel-Palestine release a statement condemning the
occupation, racism and pinkwashing,” +972, June 5, 2017.

Wise, Rabbi Alissa. JVP: Reactions To Our Parade Protest
Were ‘Cruel,’ ‘Homophobic,’ and ‘Hyperbolic
,’ The Forward
[Scribe], June 7, 2017. [Excerpt: "To be absolutely clear:
JVPers did not target vulnerable youth; they targeted a
jingoistic, nationalist parade to defend and celebrate a
state that denies equal rights for all its citizens, brutally
controls Palestinian life and land and fits the international
definition of an apartheid state. / Yesterday, the 50th year
to the day of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza,
and East Jerusalem, the JVP staff began our weekly staff
meeting by asking each other to answer a simple yet
difficult question: “Why is the Israeli occupation still
ongoing?” The discussion that followed was profound,
particularly in the wake of the backlash from our actions.
Reflecting on the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., the answer that emerged for me was not Donald
Trump or Netanyahu. It was the moderates in the
Jewish community.”]

Maikey, Haneen. “Why We Should Boycott Gay Pride
in Tel Aviv
,” Newsweek, June 9, 2017.

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural
Boycott of Israel (PACBI). 
Surge in Support for Boycott
of Israeli LGBT Film Festival Shows Growing Respect for
Palestinian Picket Line: Fourteen filmmakers and other
artists declared their support for boycotting Israeli
government sponsored TLVFest
,”  BDSmovement.net,
June 9, 2017.

Fox, Anna. "I’m a queer Jewish student. Is my acceptance
in organized Jewish communities conditional?
” Jewschool,
June 14, 2017. [Excerpt: “Jewish institutional support for
queer Jews is conditional on their adherence to the
partyline on Israel-Palestine.”]

rad fag. “Happening Now: Trans-led Coalition Shuts
Down Chicago Pride Parade
," radfag.com, June 25, 2017.



Extreme(ly Queer) Muslims Episode 3: Izzaddine talks Islam, Palestine, and Pinkwashing [6/19/17]



________________________

Also see: 

Hammond, Jeremy R. "10 Zionist Arguments You’ve Encountered,
But Didn’t Have Answers To
,” Foreign Policy Journal, November
28, 2016.

White, Ben. "Answering five common objections to Israeli
Apartheid Week
,” Medium.com, February 28, 2017.


And, on the hasbara of left Zionism … 

Deane, Raymond. "The Anatomy of a Beautiful Soul,” Electronic
Intifada, November 9, 2006. [Excerpt: "Undoubtedly Lieberman
is a villainous demagogue, but at least he fearlessly spells out
the racist and supremacist implications of Zionist ideology.
With Lieberman you know where you stand, and self-styled
democrats and peaceniks can polish their humanistic
credentials by flinging mud at him. With David Grossman,
however, the same premises lead to a discourse in which
everything has become muddied and inverted, the occupier
has become the victim, the victim has become a twisted
fanatic, and only the humanistic man of letters has retained
any kind of wistful integrity.”]

Levine, Mark. "Peter Beinart's liberal Zionist fantasy,”
Al Jazeera, March, 2012. [Excerpt: "Beinart and “liberal”
groups such as J Street … can only get a seat at the table
of power to the extent they refrain from offering the
kind of systematic, historically grounded and ruthlessly
honest critique of policies that would show the flaws in the
system to be fundamental and irreparable - precisely what
those in power work so hard to ensure no-one understands.”]








⇧ Back to top 

MichaelLevin11@mac.com  I  © Michael Levin 2012