'Israel bad, Palestine good' is killing us

[Violet_Crumble]

Those shocked by Israeli army T-shirts should be equally upset by a Palestinian T-shirt that suggests firing rockets is acceptable

Seth Freedman guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 10.00 BST

The back cover of the latest issue of Red Pepper magazine is devoted to a full-page advert selling T-shirts to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The slogan on the politicised garment may be less flagrant than the notorious "sniper-wear" that caused such a furore last month, yet it does just as much damage in terms of failing to convince one side that the other has any interest in peace.

Emblazoned in black, green, white and red lettering, forming the Palestinian flag, the T-shirt's wording is apparently based on "hundreds of anonymous hand-written placards" carried at the London demonstrations against the Gaza offensive in January:

They stole my land, burnt my olive trees, destroyed my house, took my water, bombed my country, imprisoned my father, killed my mother, took my job, starved us all, humiliated us all. But I am to blame: I shot a rocket back. So they stole more of my land, burnt my olive trees, destroyed my house, took my water, bombed my country.

The message is crystal clear: sole responsibility for the conflict lies with Israel, thanks to its rulers' never-ending wave of oppression against the Palestinian people. A simple, binary approach to the situation; Israel = bad, Palestine = good. Nuance doesn't get a look in, thanks to the sneering sarcasm of the shirt's design, which reduces the homicidal barrage of rockets against a terrified civilian populace to a throwaway one-liner in a litany of Israeli injustice.

But – and this the hook upon which the imbroglio is doomed to hang until the knee-jerk supporters realise the folly of blindly cheering on either side – to dismiss the Qassams and Grads as though they are nought but inevitable, natural reactions to persecution is to play straight into the hands of their antagonists. The second half of the T-shirt's tale spells it out perfectly: Israel's reaction to terror attacks has been, is, and always will be to use the insurgency as cover to mete out ever-more severe reprisals against the Palestinians, thus giving their cheerleaders ample evidence that the Palestinians are an implacable foe with whom there can never be any reasoning around the negotiating table.

<snip>

Those up in arms over the IDF T-shirts, which for all their offensive, bloodthirsty slogans, were for private use only, ought to be just as incensed by the fact that a magazine carries a full-page advert brazenly advocating the reduction of rocket fire aimed at civilians to a simplistic "sorry, but what choice did we have?" equation.

This imperative is not to "balance" the criticism of either side, since that is not what the situation requires, nor would it be fair to seek to do so. But rather to drive out the apologists in both camps, whose tacit approval of, and support for, indiscriminate killing is what is keeping the fires burning under a cauldron which has been bubbling over for 61 long years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/13/israel-palestinian-territories

------------------------------------------------

I agree with the general gist of what he's trying to say, but think he's contradicted himself trying to do it (I bolded the bits I found to be contradictory)

[cali]

1. Not that he isn't making a valid point, but I think the tee shirts

aren't comparable. The Israeli tee shirts were worn by combatants who really do hold the power of life and death. The tee shirts being sold from the magazine, are presumably worn or will be worn by activists who don't have that power. Not excusing it, but it is a difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Yeah, that's what I thought too...

His overall point was that attitudes that condone or minimise the killing of civilians on either side is wrong was a very valid point. I think he could have argued that point much better than he did, as he made a point of saying that the Israeli tshirts and the ones being sold to pro-Palestinian activists were equal (which I didn't think were equal for the same reasons as you stated), but then went on to say that the imperative isn't to balance the criticism of either side, and that's where he contradicted himself.

[azurnoir]

18. Yeah I seriously doubt you'll see many Palestinians

tooling around the West Bank wearing one of those

[qazplm]

3. a pox on both their houses

from my point of view.

No real leaders or seekers of peace on either side right now.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I agree - both sides need to be criticized for their violence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. The real problem is "Israel good, Palestinians bad".

Not to say that believing that Israel is entirely bad and the Palestinians are entirely good isn't wrong, but the reverse belief is a) far more widespread and influential, and b) far more innaccurate.

We hear a very great deal about anti-semitism, but acknowledgements than in the West anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian prejudice are far more widespread and far more influential and "acceptable" are few and far between.

Blind support for Israel, not blind support for the Palestinians, is the big problem with Western policy towards the Middle East.

[oberliner]

7. Not true at all on the left

There is almost no one on the left who espouses this viewpoint.

The opposite is much more widespread in the progressive community and just as inaccurate.

The author is not talking about the problems with Western policy towards the Middle East but the problems with leftist/progressive perceptions of the conflict itself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Depends what you define as "the left".

The Labour party here in the UK probably has more anti-Israeli than anti-Palestinian sentiment, but not by much; in the US my impression is that you have to go really quite a long way left for that to be the case.

[oberliner]

9. I am thinking more about progressive websites such as this one

And other like-minded progressive sites.

If you are talking about Democrats in Congress generally, then I would agree that is an entirely different story.

[Howardx]

12. real progressives dont support occupation

again i ask you to explain to me how supporting israels occupation (which you do daily by defending her here) is progressive?

[oberliner]

14. You must be confusing me with another poster

I have always expressed that I support an end to the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel.

I have the same position on this topic as Barack Obama.

[Howardx]

15. why is it then

that you breathlessly rush to post any story that paints the palestinians in a bad light? why is it that you never post anything critical of israel? if you oppose the occupation youre doing a fantastic job of hiding it.

[azurnoir]

16. What kind of state ? n/t

[oberliner]

19. A peaceful and prosperous one

The same sort of state that Obama is envisioning.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Nonsense...

Almost no-one on the left (and yr talking about sites like DU) is a proponent of the *Israel Good/Palestinians Bad* mindset? You have to be joking! Whatever you've been reading over the past few months, it's definately not been DU, coz there's quite a few folk who do think everything is always the fault of the Palestinians, just like I've seen quite a few folk who think the exact opposite. Trying to claim that almost no-one does it when it comes to *Israel Good/Palestinians Bad* just needs a quick cruise through this forum's archives to see that what you said isn't the case at all...

[cali]

10. not even close.

go take a look at any left of center U.S. website. go take a look at kos and the polls they run. go to any college campus.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Do you class the Democratic party as left of centre?

If so, then http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html is one obvious example of a pro-Israel left of centre website.

Not doing so is fair enough, but at that point "the left" in America is fairly small and fairly powerless.

[cali]

17. nope. it's a big tent party.

[shaayecanaan]

20. The left didnt criticise the Mau Mau in Kenya...

the rebels in Algeria, the ANC in South Africa.

The question is not why some on the left support Palestine, as generally speaking if you have an indigenous population trying to fight off Western imperialists, the left has been broadly sympathetic.

The question is, why does the left not broadly support Palestine, given that the Palestinians have been no more violent than many independence movements around the world.

[Howardx]

6. the difference is

the shirts arent being worn by the people firing the rockets. "i shot a rocket back" is hardly in the same outrage area as "one shot two kills".

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varelse]

21. First I've heard of these

it seems to me that the people in charge of procuring and shooting rockets at Israel want all of us to believe they're one and the same as the thousands of peacefully resisting Palestinian farmers, merchants, housewives, professionals and schoolchildren victimized by the violence perpetrated and supported by BOTH sides.

That's sickening, and it angers me greatly.

They stole my land, burnt my olive trees, destroyed my house, took my water, bombed my country, imprisoned my father, killed my mother, took my job, starved us all, humiliated us all. But I am to blame: I shot a rocket back. So they stole more of my land, burnt my olive trees, destroyed my house, took my water, bombed my country.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. That T-shirt doesn't say that firing rockets is acceptable.

What is says - quite rightly, in my view - is that the two closely-linked, oft-repeated Israeli claims that the rockets cause the occupation and that the occupation does not cause the rockets are both absurd.

It's doesn't condemn the firing of rockets at civilians, which I would like it to do, and the identification of the speaker with the rocket-firer is closer to condonation that can be justified, but that's not the same as "suggesting they're acceptable".