An example of why honesty and trust are
critically important for a democracy
The American mainstream media is gushing with dozens of reports that the House voted 234 to 188 to censure Michigan representative Rashida Talib. 22 Dems joined all but 4 Repubs in whacking her. The reports all say that she was censored for repeatedly saying in public at a political rally "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" According to Talib the slogan was "an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate." According to the Antidefamation League, that slogan is antisemitic and a call for the destruction of Israel.
One of her defenders at least implicitly believes the slogan was antisemitic and/or a call for the destruction of Israel. Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland defended Talib's right to free speech saying the vote is anti-free-speech, but speech that some people hate (because it calls for violence against Israel). He framed the censure as coming from people who "want to impose a new political straitjacket of cancel culture" on the country.
Of the several reports on the censure I've read, none even consider Talib's honesty -- that is simply not mentioned. The MSM tends to see it the way the antidefamation league sees it, at least implicitly calling Talib a liar. ABC News captures the unspoken Talib is a liar allegation succinctly: This was the second time Tlaib faced a censure resolution over her criticism of Israel.
Al Jazeera writes about the origin and meaning of the slogan from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. As is usual with just about everything related to the endless horror and propaganda lollapalooza (something that is extraordinarily impressive; an outstanding example) called Israel-Palestine, it's complicated:
To the crowds waving Palestinian flags, the chant reverberating across the globe expresses the desire for freedom from oppression across the historical land of Palestine. But for Israel and its backers, who label the phrase as pro-Hamas, it is a veiled call to violence that bears an anti-Semitic charge.
The United Kingdom’s Labor Party on Monday suspended Member of Parliament Andy McDonald for using the phrase “between the river and the sea” in a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally. (the same thing that got Talib censured)The debate over partition predates the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. A plan put forward a year earlier by the United Nations to divide the territory into a Jewish state – occupying 62 percent of the former British mandate – and a separate Palestinian state was rejected by Arab leaders at the time. [See, I told 'ya that even the Arabs don't want or like the Palestinians -- everyone hates 'em]More than 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in what became known as the Nakba, or “catastrophe”. [Note: This bit of history seems to be accurate to me, but it is bitterly contested and rejected as a lie by many or most pro-Israel partisans. This is why I keep pointing to the census data from 1947 and 1948 -- something happened in those two years and it was not trivial:]
To Palestinian and Israeli observers alike, different interpretations over the meaning of the slogan hang on the term “free”.
Nimer Sultany, a lecturer in law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, said the adjective expresses “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine”.
“Those who support apartheid and Jewish supremacy will find the egalitarian chant objectionable,” Sultany, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, told Al Jazeera.“It’s important to remember this chant is in English and it doesn’t rhyme in Arabic, it is used in demonstrations in Western countries,” he said. “The controversy has been fabricated to prevent solidarity in the West with the Palestinians.”
Pro-Israel observers, however, argue the slogan has a chilling effect. “To Jewish Israelis what this phrase says is that between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, there will be one entity, it will be called Palestine – there will be no Jewish state – and the status of Jews in whatever entity arises will be very unclear,” Yehudah Mirsky, a Jerusalem-based rabbi and professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University.
“It sounds much more like a threat than a promise of liberation. It doesn’t betoken a future in which Jews can have full lives and be themselves,” he said, adding that the slogan made it more difficult for left-wing Israelis to advocate for dialogue.Mirsky argued that those who chant the slogan are “supporters of Hamas”, while Sultany claimed that pro-Palestinian protesters should not be equated to supporters of the armed group, who were the exception at the thousands-strong protests.
Israel’s use of ‘from the river to the sea’
Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, which describes itself as conservative and nationalist, has been a staunch promoter of the concept of “Eretz Israel”, or the Bible-given right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the party’s original party manifesto in 1977 stated that “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. It also argued that the establishment of a Palestinian state “jeopardises the security of the Jewish population” and “endangers the existence of the state of Israel”.
Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, has been among the promoters of international recognition of the Jewish historic claim to lands from the river to the sea.
So with that little bit of context, did Talib utter an antisemitic call for the destruction of Israel? She says no, her critics say yes. Is Talib a liar? Or, are her critics arrogant jackasses who believe what they want to believe, despite the inconvenient underlying reality that she may be telling the truth about what she actually meant by what she said? Are her critics just unhinged crackpots? Are they bigots, or even worse, racists? Can they read Talib's mind, or do they just not care what her intent was and look only at the overt behavior?
My guess is that some of all of that is in play to varying degrees among varying people. Maybe she is telling the truth about what the slogan means to her.
For me, the analysis comes down to how honest Talib has shown herself to be. What is her public track record for honesty and dishonesty? If she has a good track record of honesty, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Or, is that just Germaine engaging in nutty self-delusion?
_____________________________________________________________
For the wonks
One can and arguably should analyze this on an even deeper level, or two.
The quoted Al Jazeera content includes this statement: “The controversy has been fabricated to prevent solidarity in the West with the Palestinians.”
Who fabricated the controversy? Israel, arguably with the complicity of the US and its MSM.
My understanding of Israeli propaganda and deceit tactics, which are second to none in the world, is that Israel is adept and aggressive at co-opting inconvenient narratives about the history and aspirations of the Palestinian people and history at least since the 1940s. The Israelis are expert at taking an innocent, aspirational slogan like what is at issue here and twisting it into vicious hate speech. That could very well be the situation here. Just as I look to Talib's track record of honesty, I also look to Israel's track record for the same thing. Israel is and has been a chronic liar. It gets no credibility from me. I have to rely on facts that appear to be real and not spun, e.g., the population data for Palestine, especially from 1947 to 1948.
That's an another level of analysis for consideration.
The same analysis about the Israel-Palestine horror can be applied to the (i) US government, (ii) the American mainstream media, and (iii) people or special interests with skin in the game such as an ideology, set of dogmas or financial interest. For example, both the Dem and Repub parties are suspect because of the corrupting power of Jewish money in politics. Much or most of the Christian nationalist movement has aligned with Israel and it wants to foment a final Armageddon war so the rapture can come and all the good Christians can go to heaven and the rest of us, satisfyingly to the Christians, burn forever in screaming agony in a lake of eternal fire.
An anecdote: I recall watching an unscripted and deeply revealing moment on a C-Span TV broadcast call-in segment years ago. Brian Lamb was the host and moderator, while the guest answering caller questions was a journalist who was clearly advocating for Israel and denigrating the Palestinians and their cause. On C-Span TV, the calls and questions from callers are pre-screened to limit cranks and crackpots from hijacking the program. One caller diverted from his stated and approved question and instead asked the journalist if he was Jewish. The look of horror and shock on the faces of both Lamb and the journalist was precious and telling. They hated that question.
After recovering his composure, Lamb jumped in and scolded the caller for asking such an inappropriate and insulting question. I thought the question was on point, reasonable and refreshing. Lamb refused to let the journalist answer the question. He just cut the caller off and went on to the next call.
The next caller did the same thing and asked the same question, saying that it was proper to know if a journalist might have some reason for bias. The look on the faces of Lamb and the journalist was beyond precious. They looked like they were in a small room where someone had just unleashed a gigantic, noisy fart of unprecedented intensity and sulfuric fragrance. Lamb was beside himself with shock and anger. He just cut the mofo caller off.
That anecdote is how I see the US MSM dealing with the endless Israel-Palestine horror. Lamb, who was the supreme Poobah and epitome of C-Span, twice refused to even answer a reasonable, on-point question. It was beneath his majestic dignity and the unquestionable dignity of the infallible journalist. I was significantly less trusting of the MSM after that, and still am today.
In my opinion, honesty and trust are necessary for a viable democracy. I see this as an example of why that is the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment