Comments on: On anti-normalization: Joint Israeli-Palestinian activism must continue

By: Yani

Yani — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:50:28 +0000

What an utter load of crap! Do you intend to keep finding some excuse to prolong this conflict until the shit totally hits the fan and Israel-Palestine is reduced to dust by Iran? Are you going to continue to rely on political leaders on both side that are completely ego driven fools or get off your butts and do something?

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:43:15 +0000

“The myth of the Israeli leader fallen from grace in the past but now returning redeemed and clean to lead you all to peace is a pathological feature of your country’s politics.”

Most of political system have a “high cost of entry” to use the language of economists, so political leaders either do not change at all or are heavily recycled. Palestinians do not change their leaders much, even though they are far from perfect.

Finding former leaders to retract their former positions or at least contradicting current government positions seems to be a good idea, given unusually high degree of trust Israeli seem to have in their officials. This of course has some limitations.

I read too many commentaries to the effect that “We should make a peace with Palestinians because this is the only way to make an effective war on Iran, and this is what we truly need”. This is bullshit, the current policy of making verbal war on Iran and actual on Palestinians is far more effective, and it definitely can last longer. I mean, at least several years longer.

By: Charles

Charles — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:14:20 +0000

This makes me sad. There’s a room for boycotting groups that exploit Palestinians. But IPCRI isn’t a good candidate, in comparison to say, the Peres Center. I think it made the list because of having a high profile.
The PACBI litmus test isn’t a good one, and it isn’t fairly applied in my opinion. The anti-normalization campaign is two things at once: a radical political project against two staters and a way to isolate/condemn exploitative I/P institutional relationships. I wish it was only the latter.

By: Sinjim

Sinjim — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:52:42 +0000

@SH: The fantastical scenario of your last paragraph would be something else if it ever actually happened in real life. It never has, and there’s no indication that it ever will. All of these Israeli officials do their soul-searching after they leave their posts, seeking to be redeemed only when they have no capacity to change the situation. That’s cowardice, pure and simple.
.
The myth of the Israeli leader fallen from grace in the past but now returning redeemed and clean to lead you all to peace is a pathological feature of your country’s politics. Ben Gurion, Netanyahu, Sharon, Rabin, Peres, Deri, Barak, and many others have all been the focus of this fantasy at one time or another. It’s exceptionally cruel to demand that Palestinians involve themselves in this charade, which is what organizations like IPCRI do.

By: sh

sh — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:48:03 +0000

Sinjim says: “you treat them the way you never would treat members of Hamas and other militant resistance groups.”
.
I went to part of the IPCRI event at which Gershon Baskin was interviewed by someone about his part in getting Gilad Shalit freed. I was disappointed and disturbed by the fact that he felt it necessary to stress that he was anti-Hamas (and against the kind of prisoner exchange that resulted) despite having been a go-between between them and the Israeli Government. I think that maybe he meant to show that a ferocious enemy can be successfully negotiated with even if you don’t agree with their politics, which is true, but it came over as a confirmation of the present government’s stance on Hamas, i.e. that they are terrorists, thus in some way separable from Palestinians in general, whose natural negotiators can only be Abbas and Fayyad. Add to that Alyssa Goldstein’s remarks about IPCRI’s work with women and Dan will get an idea of where to start.
.
Sinjim’s remarks about generals and officials are that two-edged sword again. If generals and officials who might even be considered war criminals have changed their stance, is explaining why good or bad? It could be very useful in pulling in support from the general Israeli public for an urgent end to the occupation. Granted that says nothing of immediate relevance to Palestinians, nor does it really require them to be present at their soul-searchings. But it could be instrumental in bringing in the kind of Israeli leadership that would herald change.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:24:04 +0000

I think pro-Palestinian activism would be more effective with an intentionally normalizing approach. I recommend normalizing on steroids.

It would be useful for every Palestinian to have a means to communicate to Israelis, their neighbors, and the world.

The selection of IPCRI as an organization to boycott, illustrates the absurdity of the PACBI approach, of the cult-like absurdity that Norman Finkelstein referred.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:40:12 +0000

ALYSSA GOLDSTEIN: No thanks, not looking to read electronic intifada, mondoweiss, stormfront, Press TV and the other cesspools of dishonest, exaggerated, anti-Israel hate.

By: Alyssa Goldstein

Alyssa Goldstein — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:34:23 +0000

“This project gives participating women on both sides the opportunity to see and acknowledge the hardships that the occupation causes, and the reality in which they live but generally fail to acknowledge. To get to know each other personally and connect, woman to woman, human to human, does not entrench the occupation. Even if only a portion of the participants goes home feeling that the situation must change, this changes the status quo. Bringing people together is not something that maintains business as usual of the Israeli occupation.”

Dan, if you are genuinely confused why your organization is considered a normalizer, the quote above is a perfect example. You say that women on “both sides” need the opportunity to “see and acknowledge the hardships that the occupation causes,” because generally this is something they “fail to acknowledge.” If I were a Palestinian woman reading this, I would probably find this vastly and unbelievably insulting. Palestinian women do not need to be made to “acknowledge the hardships of the occupation,” they live these hardships every day. You imply that Palestinian women are somehow ignorant of the horrors of the occupation and that it’s your organization’s job to teach them. You also use the rhetoric of “both sides,” which is such a cliche at this point that it’s basically a giant joke–but it’s also really harmful. By using it, you’re implying that this is a conflict between two “sides” that are more or less equal, and more or less equally to blame. If you used “both sides” rhetoric about, say, apartheid South Africa or segregation in the United States, it would be very clear that this is racist. However, even though Israel’s policies match the criteria of the UN’s 1973 definition of apartheid on a number of points, you and many others still find it extremely difficult to move out of this “both sides” frame of mind.

Also, just read this. http://electronicintifada.net/content/can-we-talk-middle-east-peace-industry/8402

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:26:13 +0000

Because I am not an activist, the issue is a bit arcane to me. It is little bit like what I learned that pius Muslim should not mention the Prophet (PBUH) without a blessing. There is even a consensus what blessings are appropriate. There seems to be a disagreement what form is appropriate — can one abbreviate? Some authorities condemn that slothful practice. However, the early authorities could not address the problem of programmable keyboards that can expand abbreviations: one can give appearance of typing “peace be upon him” by typing simply PBUH or even program “Proph” to expand to “Prophet (peace be upon him)”. Is that OK?

This can be bewildering to an outsider who may think that he reads web pages posted perfectly pius Muslim, while in fact they detest each other on the account of insufficient piety, especially if they make their case using abbreviations.

By: Laila

Laila — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:59:30 +0000

Its totally weird that this piece is posted by the head of IPCRI that is considered #1 or #2 normalization organizations in the country.. Totally weird… I think those people have something wrong in the way they think.. they contradict themselves all the time.. Just like liberal Zionists LOL