Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

WATCH: A six-minute primer to the occupation

Jewish Voice for Peace produced this very basic primer to the conflict and the occupation. It’s one of the best I’ve seen.

If the video player doesn’t work, click here.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Mairav Zonszein

      It is well done. But constructive criticism to the folks at JVP – the soundtrack, especially at the end, is no good. It’s banal and doesn’t fit the mood.

      Reply to Comment
      • David

        It’s American can-do optimism.

        And after all, stranger things have happened. If you want permanent gloom, a funeral setting is a better mood. But change is what we need, not condolences.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Shaun

      Cute film, but as always the 19 years between 48 and 67 When Arabs controlled the WB and Gaza are ignored!

      It’s easy to blame the US, but until ‘91 the Palestinians received massive support from the Soviet Union. You cant just ignore the stuff you don’t like and keep blaming Israel (and the US)

      Reply to Comment
    3. Dub

      This is a 6 minute ‘primer’ that in my opinion does a good job covering the basics. A lot is left out, if all the nuances of the situation were covered here, the whole internet would not be big enough to contain it.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Yaakov

      I got to the point at the beginning where it contradicted itself, saying that “small Jewish communities had long existed alongside larger groups of indigenous peoples” and stopped paying attention.

      As a leftist with a great deal of experience working in the peace movement in Israel, I must ask, why is there this refusal to simply admit that the Jews are indigenous to the land just like the Palestinians?

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        Because that would undermine the simplified historical narrative as presented by this video?

        Were Jews presented as being indigenous then it would just be a conflict between two peoples over land, but then all the moral clarity would fade away. Isn’t it so much better to stick to the script according to which the Jews are indigenous to no place?

        Reply to Comment
      • Y-Man

        the fact is that the Jewish communities in the Holy Land before Zionism WERE small. the fact that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion has a lot to do with this. I mean, what does it say about Israel that the most “religious” people in this place in the Middle East dress like Eastern Europeans from the 19th century? How indigenous is that?

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Large at one point, small at another, how does it influence whether they are indigenous or not? Is this where Jews come from? Yes. What else is there to argue about?

          Your argument about dress is strange. Arabs seem to dress like Europeans as well, does that make them not indigenous either?

          Reply to Comment
          • Y-Man

            I tend to think that people “come from” somewhere if their ancestors have obviously been living somewhere for, let’s say, 1000 years. If your recent ancestors took a boat or an airplane to get to where you live now, you do not have the same claim as being “from” somewhere as the people that have been there for centuries longer than you have. And this is coming from someone who is relatively cosmopolitan himself.

            Reply to Comment
      • Yaakov, I think you are hearing what you expect to hear. “Small Jewish communities had long existed alongside LARGER groups of indigenous peoples” (emphasis mine) suggests to me that these communities are being treated as indigenous too, just smaller, although I agree that the wording’s ambiguous.

        Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        Israeli Jews are about as indigenous to the area as the Afrikaners were to South Africa. By the way, Israel and apartheid South Africa – BEST of friends. Coincidence?

        Reply to Comment
      • rauna

        if both jews and arabs were indigenous to this land, why can’t you just share the land and live together peacefully either in one state for all or 2 states alongside each other.

        Reply to Comment
    5. greg nichols

      wonder who is the voice on the video. very powerful and matter-of-fact description. anyone of any education knows Israel must be stopped — the question is when and how.

      Reply to Comment
    6. The Trespasser

      Lies, lies, lies.

      Watching Leftist propaganda only reassures me that there is no partners to peace and Israeli government should push as hard as it could.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Richard Witty

      I was disappointed that they ended on solidarity rather than on peace.

      And, that they ignored that the Israeli people and government have a veto over all deals, inscribed in international law language of “mutually agreed”.

      That means that the Israeli elections are KEY, that if consent for a fair outcome is required it must come from changing hearts and minds among Israelis for the better, and electing a more neighborly government.

      Further, I was horribly disappointed, and have been consistently, with JVP, that they have neglected to comment on Hamas shelling of Israeli civilians, in real time, so that they can have an effect on reality, rather than a vanity on the judgment of reality.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Richard Witty

      The “majority of land” is misrepresentative, in that 50% of the Israeli 50% was close to uninhabitable.

      Israel does not hold Gaza. It might be said to control important elements of Gazan life, but “hold” is misrepresentative.

      The video omits the role of how the history of violent resistance has contributed to the conditions that Palestinian find themselves in.

      The second intifada is entirely omitted, although that is clearly the most profound modern imprint on Israeli consciousness, further confirmed by the 2006 war in Lebanon, Cast Lead, and Pillar.

      In all of those cases there is a prejudicial great divide about how they were perceived, particularly that among those Israelis that were particularly traumatized in the second intifada (speaking in terms of “the holocaust continues”), the Lebanon war and 2 Gaza wars confirmed the intent of Hamas and other “moderate” parties to annihilate Jews and force them from their homes.

      Boycotts are not non-violent.

      The implied advocacy for the single state, is not a path to peace, but to war, unless through positive persuasion of confidence that that format would not result in mass violence.

      But, JVP has not endeavored on that effort of persuasion to form a revised form of consent of the governed.

      In adopting BDS as an external force, they are declaring that Israelis do not have the right to participate in consent of the governed.

      All, when they could seek to persuade, rather than coerce.

      I personally dislike the branding of the JVP perspective as one of peace. If it were called some other phrase, it would be more credible.

      Reply to Comment
      • Y-Man

        the idea that the second intifada was somehow a continuation of the Shoah is completely ridiculous and is indicative of why, as the UN vote recently showed, the vast majority of the world sees Israeli claims to moral rectitude as preposterous and delusional. Victimhood and a 46 year occupation are mutually exclusive.

        Reply to Comment
      • No, Richard, boycotts can well be nonviolent. Nonviolence is not about denying or removing conflict, but channeling it in such a way that life is not lost directly via the action, nor bodily harm employed. Refusing entry of hospital supplies (at least some) is not nonviolent; but boycotting products thereby reducing the tax basis for the purchase of hospital supplies is nonviolent. In the former, the effect cannot be avoided; in the latter, the boycotted can redirect what they have to compensate–and, yes, it will hurt, but that is the point.

        A strike is a boycott and nonviolent; the Boycott Law, as far as I can tell, might be evoked to retaliate against some strikes. The American Civil Rights movement used boycotts, as did blacks in apartheid South Africa. As I have pointed out here before, in both cases WHITE shop owners urged authorities to negotiate, as said shop owners were losing their black clientele. Nonviolence is NOT solely peaceful demonstration, returning home to watch TV. I know it hurts to see Israel directly targeted; but Israel has been a big boy for some time.

        Reply to Comment
        • Richard Witty

          The second intifada was a confirmation, an imprinting of the theme of “they don’t accept us, we are nothing to the rest of the world”.

          It is definitely subjective, but there is significant substantiation for the continuity of that disregard, of which the shoah was just the most extreme.

          It is the same language, “we are disappeared” that is the valid element of the Palestinian solidarity movement. “Never again, we will not be disappeared”.

          BDS is an organized shunning. To those that have the sensitivity of being harrassed over centuries, for being and remaining Jewish, it is a component of continuation of the holocaust.

          I doubt that many JVP members have any desire for ghettoization of Jews, annihilation. I would expect that many have a contempt for adherent Jewish orthodox (and thereby express anti-semitism in a form) and regard Israel as a blot and not as an affirmation.

          Again, I don’t think there is any prospect of peace without intentional validation of the other as human (and in this case Israelis are often seen as an “other”, similar enough to condemn, but not close enough to respect in any substantive way, allowing criticism as distinct from condemnation).

          Reply to Comment
          • Y-Man

            The second intifada was a confirmation, an imprinting of the theme of “they don’t accept us, we are nothing to the rest of the world”. It is definitely subjective, but there is significant substantiation for the continuity of that disregard, of which the shoah was just the most extreme.

            Now that is some prime bullshit. “We are nothing to the rest of the world?” Seriously? Did you notice that when the IDF demolished the homes of the families of suicide bombers that they were using American-supplied Caterpillar bulldozers? Israel is a pretty big fucking thing for millions of very influential Jews and evangelical Christians. Israel has allies galore in the West. Unfortunately, it’s been such an asshole to its neighbors that any and all goodwill toward Israel has been squandered due to their America-and-UK-enabled, spoiled entitlement and patent bloodthirst. The non-Israel-loving world is of course the minority, but that should say something to you about Zionism.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Witty

            And still, the subjective perspective is a relevant one.

            The demand for insensitivity is not a very progressive approach.

            Reply to Comment
          • Y-Man

            Do you think the “subjective perspective” of Palestinian refugees demanding the right of return is relevant? Besides, if you’re gonna have an insane persecution complex, don’t do it with my American tax dollars.

            Reply to Comment
    9. The 47 partition map was uninformed fantasy. The war (already somewhat underway) following was, yes, racial–but also civil: ties among local Jews and Arabs were sundered. Narratives of the past are here used to enforce world view within one’s coalition; attempt to trap the various enemies into contrite or depraved boxes of collective guilt; used to try and recruit the nonaligned; and otherwise silence any crticism of PRESENT action. JVP is at its best when focusing on present harm (on both sides, although this harm is massively disproportionate), not so good when choosing correct narrative; clearly, however, without the Shoah, Middle Eastern history would have been quite different. That is just a counterfactual, not an ethical position.

      I believe Richard Witty, above, correct in saying that the suicide bombings of the second intifata cannot be omitted. The social competitive structure producing bombers cannot be reasonably said to be impossible again; peace will have to face this. Further, it is just insulting not to acknowledge the horrific nature of that time. And I would say the same about Cast Lead, by the way.

      JVP herein tangentally notes structural (legal) discrimination in Israel proper, among its self defined citizens. This is harm of the moment. It also notes deprivation of resources for prior residents (Palestinians) in the Bank; this is harm of the moment as well. Action in the now, harm of the moment, is what exists. That harm is playing out in the Knesset for Israeli citizens, and through the vanguard settlements in the Bank. Tying these settlements to 65 years of history is a way of hiding present harm; that is what must be resisted. Nonviolence’s focus in the present is a tool toward this end (and, frankly, I still cannot fathom how/why Palestinians against the Wall continue their action–it seems a social mircale, so to speak).

      Glad to see you post this, Noam–for several reasons.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Shmuel

      A simplistic two dimensional cartoon with goodies and baddies from the same types of people who used to write in Pravda.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Shmuel

      I quote from the web site of JVP:

      “Jewish Voice for Peace works to achieve lasting peace …”

      Sounds like a eulogy for the Jewish people. The only word that they forgot to add is the word “ever” as in “ever lasting”. These ideas are espoused by foreigners who obviously have no clue about the history of this conflict and who want to impose their own solutions on far away natives without having the first clue about the realities of the Middle East.

      Sounds suspiciously like a colonialist paternalistic enterprise to me.

      Reply to Comment
      • Y-Man

        They didn’t say “everlasting” because that’s a stupid thing to say. Things change over time. No single agreement or group can do any “everlasting” thing.

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          “They didn’t say “everlasting” because that’s a stupid thing to say”

          But that’s what they after they bury somene. Rest in peace. Everlasting peace. Haven’t you ever listened to a eulogy?

          Reply to Comment
      • Y-Man

        And what’s more colonialist than being a state in the Middle East guaranteed and created with the help of the European powers?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          Created by European powers? Now you are pretending that European powers fought Israel’s wars. Let’s see:

          In 1948 Israel stood virtually alone when 7 Arab armies invaded and tried to destroy Israel.

          Guaranteed by European powers. Really?

          In 1967 Israel stood alone while three Arab armies were lining up across Israel’s border trying to destroy it.

          And in 1973, European powers did not even let American supply planes land on their soil while Russian supply planes were re-supplying the Egyptians and Syrians with munitions.

          Is that your idea of guarantees?

          Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            You are fudging history here. Before the 1947, Czechoslovakia literally armed Israel. Not to mention the British mandate had a laissez-affaire to the terrorist organizations such as Irgun and Hanagah. After a series of terrorist activities such as the bombing of King David hotel, kidnapping of British soldiers, the bombing of buses, etc, the British put their hands up and left. After finding out that Plan Dalet was being implement (which included the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages and territory, this was occuring prior to the announcement of the Israeli state), the Arab states intervened because they were receiving an influx of Palestinian refugees and it was an ethnic cleansing (when you have over 70% of the population being expelled or killed, someone HAS to do something).

            And prior to contrary belief, the Arab states actually encouraged Palestinians to stay put in their places and said they will dispatch soldiers to protect them from Irgun and Hanagah forces (let’s not forget they were considered as terrorist organizations then).

            However, let us not kid ourselves, because of the diplomatic pressure Zionists have been building up prior to 1947 and the militias and armed forces they built up with weapons from Czechslovakia and other forces. Zionist forces far outnumbered the Arab coalition.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            Oh boy. I don’t know where to begin to refute your propaganda. About the only correct thing that you stated was Cheslovakia and that was late in the piece.

            As for the rest of it, stop reading Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe. Their Middle name is David Irving.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Ironic, because I never read Ilan Pappe’s Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians (although yes it is on my reading list). My sources came from a wide range of historians and first hand records. As for Avi Shlaim, I prefer to read his stuff on Jordan, and its relationship with the Arab world rather solely on Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            And you obviously did not watch this BBC video either:

            http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D72Ata-hY9WQ

            In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said “this was our biggest mistake”, because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You are fudging history here. Before the 1947, Czechoslovakia literally armed Israel.

            Lie. Two lies actually. No, even three.
            1 – Before 1947 there was no Israel.
            2 – Czechoslovakia did not supplied weapons to Israel until mid-1948
            3 – Weapons were supplied because comrade Stalin ordered so – at the time there were no independent Czechoslovakia.

            >the Arab states intervened because they were receiving an influx of Palestinian refugees and it was an ethnic cleansing (when you have over 70% of the population being expelled or killed, someone HAS to do something).

            Another lie. 70% of population was never expelled.

            >And prior to contrary belief, the Arab states actually encouraged Palestinians to stay put in their places and said they will dispatch soldiers to protect them from Irgun and Hanagah forces

            Another bold lie.

            Keep on lying, fellas – with your help Palestinians will end up with no state at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >You are fudging history here. Before the 1947, Czechoslovakia literally armed Israel.

            Lie. Two lies actually. No, even three.
            1 – Before 1947 there was no Israel.
            2 – Czechoslovakia did not supplied weapons to Israel until mid-1948
            3 – Weapons were supplied (not for free, mind you) because comrade Stalin ordered so – at the time there was no independent Czechoslovakia.

            >the Arab states intervened because they were receiving an influx of Palestinian refugees and it was an ethnic cleansing (when you have over 70% of the population being expelled or killed, someone HAS to do something).

            Few more lies. It’s quite unbelievable how one could lie on so many levels simultaneously…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

            >And prior to contrary belief, the Arab states actually encouraged Palestinians to stay put in their places and said they will dispatch soldiers to protect them from Irgun and Hanagah forces.

            And yet another bold lie.

            I dare you to produce any proof that leaders of Arab states encouraged Palestinian Arabs (another lie, btw – at the time there were no “Palestinians”. To be exact – ALL inhabitants of Palestine – Arabs, Jews, Samaritans and others – were called Palestinians at the time) to stay at their homes.

            “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down”
            Nuri Said
            Prime Minister of Iraq
            (Myron Kaufman, The Coming Destruction of Israel, NY: The American Library Inc., 1970, pp. 26-27).

            Keep on lying, fellas.

            Reply to Comment
    12. Eugene

      Unfortunately I think this video is designed to get new supporters for the left and won’t do much to get more support from those who’re voting for the right – which IMHO is really important for peace..

      For example, it seems to ignore the terrorist acts from some Palestinians. Also, it’d be really helpful to give specific examples of discriminatory laws otherwise people will be inclined to not believe what they don’t want to hear.. Even at 2:00 the existing Jewish communities aren’t depicted as they were at 0:45, etc…

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        The video also pretends that Jews were only persecuted in Europe but not in Arab countries. Or for that matter in Palestine itself. That just is not true.

        If the video would not pretend that, then it would not be able to peddle their kumbaya solution of one state for two peoples.

        In other words, this is a cheap propaganda video with an agenda.

        Reply to Comment
    13. idan

      im so sorry for the people who made this video that they dont know history and facts. too bad guys.. this video means nothing. a banch of lies and.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel