Article to follow was extracted from the important new book by Norman Finkelstein on aggression in Gaza, "This Time We Went Too Far - This time we went too far, "published this month by O Books. To purchase a copy of the book please visit OR Books. This volume is not available in bookstores or at other online retailers.
(Translated by Curzio Bettio Relief Popolare di Padova )
The public outrage caused by the invasion of Gaza did not come unexpected, rather marked the nadir, the lowest point of a curve that represents the steady decline of support for Israel. As suggested by the data of investigations conducted by the U.S. and Europe, both Gentiles and Jews, over the past decade, public opinion has become increasingly critical of Israeli policy. The horrific images of death and destruction spread all over the world during and after the invasion have accelerated this development of criticality.
A year later, the British Financial Times in an ...
its editorial read: "The repetition increasingly heavy and brutality of war in this volatile region has moved the international public opinion, pointing out that Israel is not above the law. Israel can no longer dictate the terms of debate and discussion. "
A survey in the United States, which recorded the reactions after the attack in Gaza, highlighted how USAmericani is expressed by declaring that Israel's supporters rushed from 69% to 49% before the attack in June 2009, while those who believed that the U.S. should support Israel plummeted from 69% to 44%.
Consumed by hate, driven by self-justifications and confident of being able to control or intimidate the public by Israel in Gaza proceeded as if he could get away with mass murder in broad daylight. But while the Journal of the West support Israel remained faithful to compact the carnage unleashed a wave of popular outrage across the world. What
this result from the fact that the attack had occurred in the wake of the devastation procured by Israel in Lebanon, or the ruthless persecution of Israel against the people of Gaza, or the pure cowardice of the attack, the invasion of Gaza seemed to mark a turning point in public opinion, immediately calling to mind the international reaction to the massacre of 1960 in Sharpeville in South Africa of apartheid.
was expected that official organizations of the Diaspora Jewish community, with long-standing links with Israel, gives support in blindly. But at the same time, Jewish organizations of progressive new Constitution to distance themselves in a more or less relevant.
While in the past the Jews had traditionally supported the wars of Israel, during this invasion, the majority expressed concerns, except for a minority ever smaller older who took side taking up the defense of Israel and a growing minority of young people who caustically denounced him.
Among the younger Jews dissociate themselves from the growing bellicosity of Israel and the increase of the general concerns of the Jews in providing support to Israel, the Gaza massacre recorded the collapse of the hitherto unconditional support to Israel's wars. For
Moreover, while the anti-war demonstrations in many Western countries were ethnically diverse (including a significant presence of Jews!) Demonstrations "pro" Israel had made almost exclusively by Jews.
For example, on college campuses, the fact that active opposition to Israeli policy, the first reserved for private Arab-Muslims, has spread to the generality of opinion, while the strong support for Israel was restricted only to a fraction of the ethnic Jewish community, this is a clear indicator of what direction things have taken.
time has passed the "splendor" of Israel, seems irrevocably el'Israele defaced, that in recent years has gone to the place of employment in the public consciousness, is a growing embarrassment. It is not that Israel's behavior is become much worse than before, but rather is the documentation of this behavior that finally came to light and is spreading outward.
The truth can no longer be denied or be rejected. The documentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict exposed by talented historians is in stark contrast to the popularized version of the likes of Exodus by Leon Uris.
The evidence of human rights violations by Israel gathered by relevant organizations worthy of trust can not be reconciled with its vaunted commitment to "purity of arms."
The deliberations of political and judicial institutions of absolute importance raise doubts about heavy blown by Israel for a peaceful resolution of conflict.
For so long the "supporter" of Israel wriggling from the impact of this collection of documentary evidence, wielding the twin swords of the Holocaust and the "new anti-Semitism." The objective sought was that the Jews should not be bound conventional standards moral / legal, after suffering only one who had endured during the Second World War, and stated that criticism against the Israeli policy was motivated by a more virulent hatred against the Jews.
However, apart from the inevitable weakening derived from overdose of exploitation, these weapons have proved far less effective once all the criticism of Israel burst into the flow of information with the target public.
Unable to soften the criticism against Israel, now the apologists like magic they appear bizarre theories to justify this ostracism.
George Gilder, guru of Reaganomics, postulates that a free market system is uniquely human potential and freedom in such a system, then the Jews are and should be "portrayed in elite higher in the hierarchy, since they are provided the most talented. For
Conversely, if Jews do not exert dominance, this is what happens in an economic system imposed on less-than-ideal.
The anti-Semitism stems from resentment procured by the "Jewish superiority and excellence" and "obvious superiority of Jews over all other ethnic groups," while the hatred of Israel is dictated by the fact that Israel has evolved ( under the tutelage inspired by Benjamin Netanyahu) in a perfect free market system in which "condenses the genius of the Jews," making it "one of the driving capitalist powers" and the object of envy in the world: "Israel is hated especially for his virtues." If listed in Hebrews leading position even some critics of Israel, this is due to the fact that "excel without difficulty in all areas of intellectual, as to overtake all rivals also in the arena of anti-Semitism."
Instead, the ' West must preserve and protect Israel from the "world of illusions and fantasies of revenge zero-sum jihad and death" and "masses of barbarians" because the Jewish genius has allowed humanity to "grow and prosper" means Jews are "essential to the human race."
"If Israel were destroyed, would meet the capitalist Europe same fate and America, as the epitome of capitalism productively, and creatively stimulated by the Jews, would be in danger "" Israel is at the forefront of technology generation in the near future and on the front lines of a new race war against capitalism el 'individuality and Jewish genius, "" Just as the liberal economies are necessary for the survival of mankind on the planet, so the survival of the Jews is vital for the triumph of liberal economies. If Israel were to be crushed or destroyed, we will succumb to the forces everywhere take aim capitalism and freedom. "
On the other hand Atlantic, Robin Shepherd, Director for International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society, based in London, says that Israel has also faced strong criticism in the West not so much for his attitude to human rights but because it is a state democratic, capitalist, who is fighting on the front line alongside the United States against the threat posed to "civilization" from 'radical Islam:
" Israel has become an enemy not because of anything he has done" but "because it is located on the side opposite side of the fence. "The" main platform that generates tension in the West "for this" overwhelming wave of hysteria, deception and bias against the Jewish state "is made up of totalitarian Marxist and left-liberal supporters who are disillusioned and dissatisfied by the Western proletariat for liberation struggles in the Third World, have made common cause with the 'militant Islam' to destroy ' liberal-capitalist world order. Although these critics of Israel are not anti-Semitic remarks in the traditional sense "subjective" to despise the Jews as such, they are guilty of anti-Semitism "objective," given that Israel is absolutely central to Jewish identity in the contemporary world. But opposition to Israel will most likely also come from blue blood of the ancien regime who want to restore the hierarchies of the old world, before the Jews arrived to upset. This conspiracy "neo-anti-Semitic" widely includes "most" of those who accuse Israel of committing war crimes and other violations of international law. So, it is well understood that behind the condemnation of Israel by Amnesty International and the International Court of Justice, the Nobel Peace Prize Jimmy Carter and Mairead Corrigan Maguire, the Financial Times and the BBC is hiding the hand of the evil coven between radicals Left, Islamic fanatics and aristocratic landowners.
For those who want to learn more, Shepherd "strongly" recommend the film The Case for Israel - The Case for Israel by Alan M. Dershowitz.
Although these explanations of the isolation of Israel are lacking in credibility, there is no doubt that Israel's actions continue to fall precipitously. While Israel had won many supporters in the West after his victories in June 1967, in recent years Israel has been relegated to an almost pariah status, especially in Europe.
A search of the 2003 European Union has defined Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. An opinion poll in 2008 pointed to Israel as the biggest obstacle to achieving peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a survey Created by the BBC World Service on the eve of the invasion of Gaza, no less than 19 out of 21 countries considered expressing a dominant negative point of view on Israel.
Meanwhile, in an article entitled "Second Thoughts about the Promised Land - second thoughts about the Promised Land," the Economist reported in 2007 that while "many Jews of the diaspora still give a strong support for Israel ... their level of uncertainty is increasing. "
Voices of dissent Jews began to coalesce in Great Britain, Germany and throughout the world, challenging the hegemony of the official Jewish organizations that parrot the propaganda of Israel.
In the United States in what appears complex and trends are perhaps not so pronounced, but are no less noteworthy.
Based on data from surveys may well be argued that USAmericani had favorable views on Israel in a consistent manner and much more sympathetic to Israel for the Palestinians. Now the Americans also overwhelmingly support an impartial approach in the U.S. Israeli-Palestinian conflict and more recently expressed "impartial levels of sympathy for both sides, while a substantial minority believes that U.S. policy is prone ( or fluctuate too much) in favor of Israel, a strong majority of Americans "think that Israel is not doing its part well in bring into being made to resolve the conflict, "and on some occasions the Americans have supported the use of sanctions to stop Israel.
Significantly, a majority of Americans also are favorable to the establishment of two states on the borders of June 1967, that involves total Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the war of June.
"Yes, polls find strong support for Israel," noted in 2007, MJ Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, in connection with the recent trends, however, "this support for Israel, which clearly exists , is large but not too ingrained. "
This phenomenon can be found almost every day under the headings" Letters to the Editor. " Every time you see an editorial on Israel, especially if it contains criticism, are many letters addressed to the Director. Many support the positions of Israel. And almost without exception, these letters are written by Jews. That vast majority of [non-Jews USAmericani] which is presumably supporter of Israel in fact never intervenes.
According to a 2007 survey of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the favorable opinion of Americans toward Israel in particular is at a lower level than their favorable opinion toward the United Britain and Japan, while at the same level as that relating to India and Mexico. Almost half of respondents to the survey believes that the U.S. should cooperate with the Arab states "moderate", "even at the expense of Israel."
Half or more of the respondents felt that they condemn Israel and Hezbollah in the same way for summer 2006 war in Lebanon and supported a (more) neutral stance of the United States.
Moreover, in recent years, influential religious congregations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the World Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ and United Methodist Church, all have supported initiatives, including divestments and disposals of equity firm, to force Israel to end the occupation.
survey of 2005 conducted by pollster Steven M. jew Cohen noted that "the attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened significantly over the last two years ..., giving continuity to a trend that has lasted a long time."
Respondents from the survey that reiterated their concerns about Israel were fewer than others from earlier surveys of a similar nature.
Surprisingly, there is a parallel decline in the other dimensions of Jewish identity, including religious observance and affiliation Community.
The research found that it was only 26% claim to be "very" emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31% who had held the same sentiment in a similar survey in 2002.
About two-thirds, 65%, he pointed to carefully follow the news about Israel, down from 74% in 2002, while 39% said frequently to discuss the issue with Israel's Jewish friends, down from 53% in 2002.
Moreover, Israel was not as part of the Jewish identity of those staff who were involved in the investigation. When they were offered a selection of factors such as religion, community and social justice, as well as "generous attitude towards Israel," and demanded, "For you personally, being a jew means of any consequence?" 48% stated that Israel had "some" importance compared to 58% in 2002.
Still, 57% stated that the "generous attitude toward Israel is a very important part of my being a jew," compared with 73% of an investigation SIMILAR 1989.
A 2007 survey of American Jewish Council found that 30% of Jews felt "far enough" or "very distant" from Israel.
Cohen predicts: "In the long run, I expect a bias in the Jewish community in the U.S., first a few more pious and attached to Israel, on the other hand, a larger group that drifts away."
A 2006 survey put shows that, among American Jews under 40 years, at least one third felt "far enough" or "very distant" from Israel, while a 2007 survey found that among the Jews under the age of 35 years a good 40% recorded a "lack of attachment" to Israel (only 20% had a high "attachment").
And, amazing, less than half responded statement that "the destruction of Israel would be a personal tragedy."
The former president of the Jewish Agency recently sounded the alarm over the fact that "less than 24% of young Jews in North America belong to Jewish organizations. Less than 50% of North American Jews under 35 feel a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Less than 25% of Jews in North America under 35 call themselves Zionists. "
campus in national support for Israel is limited to those students loyal to the Zionist Jews who met in Hillel. A study commissioned by Jewish organizations to support reports: "The Jewish students of the college are unquestionably less attached to Israel than previous generations. Israel is losing the battle in the hearts and minds of this group. "In fact, nearly half a million Jewish students who attend institutions of higher learning," only about five percent have some acquaintance with the Jewish community. "
Concerns against Israel, that borders on indifference, can be found in influential sectors of American society, the reading public, and always in the leading figures of intellectual life in the United States.
A recent survey found that the majority of opinion leaders in the U.S. sees the support for Israel as the "most important reason of conflict that the United States are facing around the world."
In an essay of 2003 on the New York Review of Books, the historian Tony Judt jew said that "Israel today is bad for the Jews" and called into question both the viability of the desirability of a Jewish state.
John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard Kennedy School, was the co-authors of an authoritative document in 2006 which reported the story to the right proportions idealized image of Israel and which claimed that Israel had become a "strategic liability" for the United States. A book
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, provocatively titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid - Peace in Palestine, not Apartheid, deplored Israel's policy in the occupied territories of Palestine and Israel assigned the direct responsibility of having dragged the peace process in a impasse.
Although the Jewish lobby against these measures has sparked vitriolic counter, his usual slander presumptive anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are not breached.
When, in 2006, pressure from the lobby led to the cancellation of a conference as scheduled by Tony Judt, he took immediate celebrity in the intellectual circles of the United States. His Critics, like the Abraham H. Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, were derided for "hurling accusations of appalling anti-Semitism" and to be an "anachronism."
Carter, however, was accused of being a plagiarist, is charged in the Arab sheiks, an anti-Semite, an apologist for terrorism, a Nazi sympathizer and Holocaust denier on the edge of the permissible.
However, Carter's book is finished in the best-seller list of The New York Times and remained there for months, sold some 300,000 copies in paperback. Although snubbed by the president of Brandeis University, on the contrary, Carter received a standing ovation from the student body when he went to speak at the Jewish institution in history. (Half of the auditorium left the room when the Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz had risen to reply to Carter).
Mearsheimer and Walt have to press for the kinds of publishing house Farrar, Straus and Giroux, their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - The Israel Lobby and U.S. foreign policy, which has become too Times bestseller. [Ndtr.: Surprisingly, published in Italian by Mondadori]
This is further evidence of the declining fortunes of Israel, during the term of office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, also Foxman and the eternal supporter of Israel, Elie Wiesel have data to condemn Israel for failing to pursue peace.
public discontent that began to bubble against the Israeli policy in recent years, has reached the boiling point of indignation over the invasion of Gaza.
Despite the propaganda blitz orchestrated by Israel with extreme caution, despite the tendency in overwhelmingly pro Israeli intelligence services of the media, especially during the first day of the attack, and despite the support of the assault said in an official capacity in West - despite all this, large popular demonstrations in all of Western Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Britain) have disappear in size the demonstrations in favor of Israel.
wave of student occupations has spread rapidly throughout Britain, including Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, London School of Economics, School of Oriental and Asian Studies, Warwick, King's, Sussex and Cardiff.
Even in traditional bastions of support for Israel, like Canada, where the propensity of pro-Israel far-right political system and media is particularly intense, several members of the public disapproved of the attack Canadian Union of Public Use approved a motion which proposed an academic boycott of Israel.
After declaring a cease-fire that "the events in Gaza have affected us deeply," a group of 16 judges and prosecutors from around the world with extensive experience - including Antonio Cassese (First President and Judge of the International Tribunal for Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia and President of the UN Commission of Inquiry for Darfur) and Richard Goldstone (Attorney General of the International Tribunal for Crimes in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and President of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Kosovo) appealed for an 'international investigation on the serious violations of the laws of war committed by all parties to the conflict in Gaza. "
not surprising the fact that Israel's apologists attribute the widespread outrage at the invasion of Gaza to anti-Semitism. It can be postulated that the general rule, the deeper it sinks into the abyss where the criminal conduct of Israel, the higher the decibel level of the screams of anti-Semitism. Abraham H.
Foxman declared that "Jews are facing an epidemic, a pandemic of anti-Semitism. This is one of the most intense anti-Semitism, the most common, the worst I can remember in recent times. "This stirring fears by Foxman was not new, since he had predicted long ago in 2003 that anti Anti-Semitism was raising "a serious threat to the security of the Jewish people, like the one he had faced in the thirties. "
Just as in the past, the results of surveys used to substantiate these exaggerations recorded" indicators "of" the views of the most pernicious anti-Semitism , "likely to conclude that" large sections of public opinion in Europe continue to believe that Jews still talk too much about what happened to them during the Holocaust. "
For the" philosopher "Bernard-Henri Lévy communication of Paris, who doubts that the Nazi Holocaust constituted a "moral watershed in human history" should be considered an anti-Semite. Some episodes
certainly unpleasant, the alleged anti-Semitism in Europe occurred in e-mail and graffiti, however, the European anti-Semitism, despite the mounting propaganda, pales in comparison to prejudice against Muslims. (An increase of animosity towards Jews and Muslims in recent years tended to relate the two curves, it is partly due to a resurgence of ethnocentrism among Europeans older, less educated and politically conservative.)
However, it is closer to true that the performance of a state, self-proclaimed Jewish unbridled murderous actions, repeated in Lebanon and Gaza, and the open support for these violent behaviors conferred by official Jewish organizations around the world, have been the cause of deplorable, even if completely predictable, "outside", according to which all Jews in general should be held accountable.
If, as claimed the Israeli Forum for Co-ordination of the Opposition to anti-Semitism, there was "a rapid surge in number and intensity of cases of anti-Semitism" during the massacre in Gaza: if "with the cease -fire there was a marked decrease in number and intensity of cases of anti-Semitism, "and if" another blaze in the region, similar to the operation launched against Gaza, probably would cause a more severe outbreak of anti-Semite against Jewish communities throughout the world, "then an effective method to combat anti-Semitism might be for Israel to stop with the massacres.
is also true that the widening gap between the official support for Israel warmongering and popular revulsion against this can fuel anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
For example, in Germany the political leadership and the whole of the media can not stand any critical stance toward Israel, because of the "special relationship" that sees its origin in the "historic responsibility" of Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has overtaken the other European leaders to embrace the cause of Israel during the invasion of Gaza.
However, recent surveys have shown that 60% of Germans reject the notion of special obligations of Germany to Israel, (young people reject this for 70%), 50% believe that Israel is an aggressive country and 60% think that Israel pursues its interests in a ruthless manner.
More generally, Gideon Levy recalled to mind the surreal scene at the climax of the brutal assault on Gaza, when the EU leaders had traveled to Israel and had lunch with the Prime Minister making a beautiful show of support unilateral cha part was causing death and destruction. "And although Israel was to break the truce, and led to the invasion, European leaders held talks with the United States (and Canada) on how to prevent access to weapons not the aggressors but the victims!
is only a matter of time before the Europeans begin to wonder if they have not already done so, in order of who their foreign policy moves in this way.
ascribe the popular distaste for the massacre of the Gentiles in Gaza to anti-Semitism has proven to be completely irrational in the face of widespread and blatant Jewish dissent. While Jewish organizations
official communities spread declarations in favor of Israel, Jewish organizations proliferated ad hoc bodies that had to deplore the invasion.
More significantly, the Jews of considerable importance in the life of Jewish communities in condemning Israel's actions, though generally muted tones. When Israel was ready to launch the ground offensive after a week of air strikes, a group of Jews among the largest in Britain, though declaring himself "deep and passionate supporters" of Israel, expressed "horror" increase "of casualties on both sides "and recommended that Israel immediately cease its military operations against Gaza.
In a harsher note, Gerald Kaufman, a member of the British Parliament and former Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated during a debate on the issue of Gaza at the House of Commons: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis burst into the his hometown of Staszow. A German soldier hit her to death in his bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for the soldiers to go to Israel to kill Palestinians in Gaza grandmother. "Kaufman
came to accuse the government of Israel to be" cruelly and cynically exploited the constant sense of guilt for the massacre of the Gentiles Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murders of Palestinians. "
Meanwhile, in France, the popular writer Jean-Moïse jew Braitberg requested the President of Israel to remove the name from his grandfather's monument at Yad Vashem dedicated to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust, "so that it can not be used for the horror giutificare that is passed on to the Palestinians. "
In Germany, Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, daughter of former President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote:" Not the elected Hamas government regularly, but the brutal occupier should be placed on the bench ... of the defendants at the Hague, "while the Germanic section of the European Jews for a Just Peace issued a statement stressed that" the German Jews say no to killings committed by the Israeli army. "
In Canada, eight Jewish women who occupied the Consulate of Israel called on" all Jews to speak out against this massacre, "and the celebrated Canadian pianist Anton Kuerti stated:
" The amazing war crimes that Israel is committing in Gaza. . . Make me ashamed to be jew. "
In Australia, two famous novelists and a former minister of the federal government signed an appeal to Jews who condemn Israel for its aggression seriously disproportionate.
The Bush administration and the Congress of the United States supported Israel so unspeakable throughout the invasion. A resolution, which gave Hamas the total innocence of the death and destruction, passed unanimously in the Senate and the House with 390 votes in favor and 5 against.
Much of the flow of information in the media in the United States, just as brash, was in line with the party in the Israeli cause.
journalist Max Blumenthal noted: "From the New Year, a cheering squad Israel has turned the pages of major newspapers usamericani review of a personal space of the most violent and noisy. Of all the contributions editorial published in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times, since Israel started the war against Gaza. . . only one has offered a skeptical point of view on aggression. "
The design of the New York Times editorial ... balance was achieved through the fantasies of giustappunto Jeffrey Goldberg does not redeem the evil of Hamas and the recommendations of Thomas Friedman for Israel to inflict" heavy suffering on the people of Gaza. "
His rivals, the New York Daily News, published a lead editorial of Rabbi Marvin Hier who urged world leaders not to". . . reconstruct more Gaza "even though" many civilians will suffer "because" terrorists and those who support them are not entitled to receive aid are important for their cruelty, for their misdeeds and their code of silence. " And this is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance!
In the midst of this atmosphere of lynching even human rights organizations as Human Rights Watch, to reserve their strongest condemnation of Hamas. Despite this elite
streams may pour poison public opinion polls showed that, even with harsh criticism of Hamas, only about 40% of Americans approved of Israel's attack, while among those who voted Democratic (the party affiliation many Jews) the agreement collapsed to 30%.
In a theatrical display of independence, reminiscent of Jimmy Carter as the author of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, the icon liberal Bill Moyers stigmatized Israel on its popular public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, although in a very critical of Hamas' indiscriminate killing old men, children, entire families, destroying schools and hospitals, Israel has done exactly what they do terrorists. "
Like Carter, Moyers also ended immediately under the fire of Abraham H. Foxman, who accused him of "racism, historical revisionism and indifference to terrorism," and a Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz, only discredit Moyers for his "false moralistic equidistance" between the terrorism of Hamas and the army of Israel, which "inadvertently Palestinian civilian was killed a few, however, used by Hamas as a human shield. "
But even as Carter, Moyers was able to gain ground, because other liberals have risen to his defense, and to get out unharmed after the barrage of defamation.
when it unleashed the invasion of Gaza and the shocking images of carnage broadcast live on Al-Jazeera could not be further ignored, cracks began to appear in the flow of information media moderates. Under the heading
disturbing "You are running out of time for a two-state solution?" The most watched television news in the U.S. 60 Minutes aired a program segment devastating effect on Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which included harrowing scenes of "Arabs, who were under the occupation of their homes" by Israeli soldiers.
The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal published an article by law professor George E. Bisharat the headline "Israel is committing war crimes."
The New York Times journalist Roger Cohen, usually so stiff, he confessed in a couple of columns "ashamed for the actions of Israel." In a second article, Cohen considered that "the continued expansion of settlements by Israel, the siege on Gaza, the West Bank enclosed by walls and the unbridled use of force in high technology" was "Specifically designed to hit with clubs, to weaken and humiliate the Palestinian people, to erase the dignity and the dream of a Palestinian state."
The former editor of the conservative New Republic and author Andrew Sullivan found that the attack Israel was "anything but a morally compelling need ... This is a decidedly one-sided war," and labeled as "thugs" [Ndtr. : The thugs were members of a religious sect Indian stranglers] associates with the Jewish right to "the terrible massacre of the men who was now being inflicted by Israel (and funded in part by USAmericani)."
Philip Slater, author of sociological study, The Pursuit of Loneliness, stated: "The Gaza Strip is little more than a large Israeli concentration camp, where Palestinians are attacked at will, deprived of food, fuel, energy, and even private hospitals would become difficult ... prove some estimates for the Palestinians, if not some rocket being fired in response, "
Meanwhile, the City Council of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a liberal enclave and home to Harvard University, adopted a resolution" condemning the attacks and the invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces and rocket attacks against the people of Israel, "and a group of university professors U.S. launched a national campaign that appealed to the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
A survey of American Jews found that 47% approved strongly the Israeli aggression, but, in sharp contrast to the usual solidarity always, or equidistant was 53% (44% approved of "just a little ' or disapproved of "just a little '") or strongly disagreed (9%).
Observers of experience on the U.S. Jewish community stressed a "change of tide after Gaza."
Apart from the "most conservative sectors of the pro-Israel community," MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum noted that "it made little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where you were in the past marches of 'solidarity', which saw the participation of 250,000 people, only 8,000 people had traveled to Manhattan for a demonstration of the community in a sunny Sunday. "
In public contrast to the traditional Jewish leadership, Jewish organizations recently established as J Street [Ndtr. A group of political pressure with the aim to represent the Jews left usamericani] delimit an area of \u200b\u200bmediation which "recognized that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians had the monopoly of being in right or in error, "and recommended" to rid the Middle East rather limited dall'approccio of us-against-them. "
Established in 2008, J Street is proposed as the liberal counterpart of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) .
is still too early to predict whether J Street, which now conforms to a vaguely progressive political agenda, although there is also "very close" to Kadima, Israeli political party led by Tzipi Livni, calcificherà in a "loyal opposition" or accentuate his criticism against the Israeli policy, when the rift that divides Jews from Israel U.S. will widen.
The organization "American Jews for a Just Peace" put into circulation a petition addressed to the "Israeli soldiers to Stop War Crimes," and "Jews Say No" demonstrated outside the World Zionist Organization and the offices of the Agency Jewish, and "Jews Against the Occupation" banner came down a highway on the West Side of New York City who said that "Jews Say: End Israel's War on Gaza NOW! - The Jews say: the war of Israel against Gaza must end now! "
In liberal Jewish intellectual circles, only a few perennial supporters of Israel, most of whom had embarked right after June 1967, have ventured to sail in defense of the invasion.
It was quite obvious to the moral philosopher Michael Walzer that Israel had run out of non-violent options before the attack and that Hamas bore responsibility for the death of civilians. For Walzer the only "difficult issue" was that if Israel had made every effort in order to reduce the number of these victims.
It was quite obvious to Alan M. Dershowitz that Israel had made "every effort possible to prevent the killing of civilians" and that this was not successful because Hamas had sought a strategy such as "dead child", namely to force Israel to kill Palestinian children in order to gather international sympathy.
It was quite obvious to the New Republic editor Martin Peretz that the siege of Gaza is not so much ruthless, by his careful examination of the shoes of the Palestinians: "We must look carefully at their shoes 'sneakers', and obviously new, no doubt, expensive. "
It was quite obvious to the writer Paul Berman, while a" possibility "exists for Hamas to threaten Israel with genocide in a future day," if Hamas and its allies and those who think in same way as Hezbollah is allowed to flourish without any obstacle, and if it is in the same way granted to the government of Iran and its nuclear program to move forward, "then Israel had the right to immediately trigger an attack.
After such a cluster of hypothetical conditional bundled with it is difficult to imagine the country in the world could be said to be safe from a treacherous attack and which country could not receive justification to launch an attack arbitrarily. If
, regardless of this coterie of defenders of Israel, liberal Jews acknowledged that Israel's attack was a moral issue, it nevertheless could not bear that their dirty clothes were put in place at the sight of the Gentiles. So
, magazines and journals of opinion intended for an audience of Jews high middle class, like the New Yorker and The New York Review of Books, flew over the massacre in Gaza.
However, a large group of influential Jewish intellectuals, liberal result, have not been silent: the new generation of liberal Jewish bloggers and regular contributors to Web sites Liberal Democrats, such as Salon.com and Huffington Post, less dependent by the ruling class, Jewish publishers, advertisers, sponsors and social networks, and spoke to a generation that came of age when a large extent the Zionist mythology has been expelled and replaced by balanced historical research.
The political establishment in Israel has evolved in ways reactionary and squalid. The documentation on human rights in Israel has been subjected to investigation by the divisive social organizations for human rights.
The Holocaust-induced paranoia and smuggling of anti-Semitism accusations palpably at odds with the daily reality of Jewish assimilation everywhere triumphant, from the Ivy League [Ndtr.: League of Eight leading universities in the Northeast United States] on Wall Street, from Hollywood to Washington, from the elite circles of the altar of marriage.
Professionally, emotionally and mentally emancipated from the shackles of the past, these Jews are regulars of the Internet took the offensive, denouncing the invasion of Gaza since its inception.
The symbolism could hardly be avoided. While supporters of Israel, which does not damage ever won, as Walzer, Dershowitz and Peretz have been clinging to the boat since their Zionist youth, the generation of young Jewish intellectuals known only now coming to the Internet are blown out. "We sympathize for their hatred of their heritage," he hissed Peretz. "They're just annoying cries."
Here are the annoying cries in their words!
Ezra Klein (age 25 years; blogger for American Prospect) in the second day of the invasion spread it: "The launch of rockets is without doubt 'deeply disturbing' to the Israelis. But did the camel's back so many checkpoints, roads closed or restricted, the restriction of movement, terrible unemployment, oppression inflexible, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlements - ah, sorry! 'Outposts' - constructions 'deeply disturbing' for the Palestinians, and much much more offensive and outrageous. And the 300 dead Palestinians should create a disturbance to us all! "
Adam Horowitz (age 35 years; Mondoweiss bloggers) on the fourth day of the invasion, in response to an editorial by Benny Morris on the front page of The New York Times spread: "Obviously, you see only the reactions and not the causes. She lists the reactions to Israel and the Jewish colonization of historic Palestine carried out by Israel without mentioning the elephant in the room, the walls that envelop Israel are entirely self-produced. "
Matthew Yglesias (age 28 years; bloggers to Think Progress) in the sixth day of the invasion spread: "While Israel claimed the desire to abandon the Palestinians of Gaza enclave in their tiny, overcrowded, economically viable, the 'disengagement' from Gaza in 2005 has never resulted in permission for Palestinians to control the borders or to exercise full sovereignty over them this area. The project envisaged that basically, if the Palestinians stop the violence against Israel, then the Gaza Strip would have had a treatment similar to that of an Indian reservation. "
Dana Goldstein (aged 24 years old blogger for American Prospect) in the twelfth day of the invasion spread," I want to believe that the experience historical, collective, Judaism and Zionism produce something better, something more human than that for which we have witnessed in the Middle East in recent weeks. "
Glenn Greenwald (age 42 years; blogger for Salon.com) in thirteenth day of the invasion spread, "This can not be called a war, this is a one-sided massacre without parallel," and the January 30
2009, "Just can not make real progress in our intention to reinvigorate the domestic constitution and to withdraw our military expansion and intelligence, though at the same time we are powerless and blindly supporting Israel in its various wars (and therefore drag ourselves themselves in this war). "On February 20, 2009
Greenwald responded to a suggestion leveled at him by Jeffrey Goldberg of being a" thug Israel-hating Jews ":" people like Jeffrey Goldberg. . . has so abused, manipulated and exploited the accusations of 'anti-Semitism' and 'anti-Israel' unfair and blatantly political purposes for which these terms have been emptied of meaning, have lost almost their entire stimulus and in fact have become so commonplace to assume a character from caricature ... In fact, people like Goldberg has become extra rank and contemptuous in his rhetoric, precisely because he knows that these rhetorical devices have ceased to function. "" There is a decided change of tide when the policy usamericana discusses Israel, "Greenwald concluded," These people no longer have the ability to stifle dissent by criminal intimidation tactics and they know that is why now, not can do is turn up the volume of their insulting attacks. The devastation of Gaza by Israel, using bombs, arms, money and diplomatic cover U.S. el'intrappolamento the civilian population of Gaza without defenses are so brutal and horrible to look at a change was inevitable that the views of people on the conflict in the Middle East. "
soon the end of the invasion of Gaza, the phalanx of liberal Jewish bloggers once again made it tit for tat to the Israel lobby when it tried to block the appointment by the Obama Chas Freeman, a critic of the official policy Israel.
Another clue was a very striking sketch titled "Strip Maul - hammer blow on the Strip" Warrant aired on the Daily Show on Comedy Channel, January 5, 2009.
The host of the television comedian Jon Stewart, you jew and has a huge following among young people. He ridiculed the unanimous support, dumbed down and dominated by stereotypes, politicians towards Israel, and received roars of approval from the studio audience ("This is like the Möbius strip of the issues at stake - there is only one side!" ) [Ndtr.: the Möbius strip, named after the German mathematician August Ferdinand Möbius, is an example of non-orientable surface. The surface normal, defined as areas which in everyday life we \u200b\u200bare accustomed to observe, always have two "sides" (Or faces), so ideally you can always take one side without ever reaching the second, except through a line of demarcation can be formed by an edge (called the "edge"). For these surfaces can be established by agreement first "superior" or "lower" or "internal" or "external." In the case of the Möbius strip, however, this principle is lacking: there is only one side and one edge.] Was paying attention to "the segmentation and the siege of Gaza that crushed the people" and compared the situation of a Palestinian to that of someone forced "to live in my corridor and forced to go through checkpoints whenever it needs to take a s ** t. (Any thing somewhere else in the house) "The
generational metamorphosis that involved Israel has become much more evident on college campuses.
Inside Higher Ed reported in an article: "On many campuses there was a decided shift towards a clearer sense pro Palestinian and anti-Israel, caused in part by the aggression war in Gaza this winter."
Spacious rooms conference of colleges were full participants in meetings condemning the massacre in Gaza. While the groups "thread" Israelis, who were usually uses protest inside and outside the conferences, now practically did not see.
Students at Cornell University outlining paths with 1,300 black flags in commemoration of the dead in Gaza. (Later, the exhibition was destroyed by an act of vandalism).
Students of the University of Rochester, University of Massachusetts, the New York University, Columbia University, Haverford College, of Bryn Mawr College, and Hampshire College launches organized petitions, protests and sit-ins to collect financial contributions in support of Palestinian students and to support divestment from companies and arms companies from doing business with illegal settlements Israel.
Hampshire College Students successfully exercised pressure on the administrators of the college to divest from U.S. corporations that directly benefits derived from the occupation.
Although the pro-Israel organizations declared that "the campuses of colleges and universities ... had become a new outbreak of virulent anti-Semitism of pressure," in many campus to play a leading role were Jewish students through the local committees of "Students for Justice in Palestine" and creative young Jewish activists and engaged in "Birthright Unplugged" and "Anarchists Against the Wall", alongside individual figures such as Anna Baltzer, author of the essay Witness in Palestine, which had left school to school giving his personal testimony about the horrors he had witnessed daily in Palestine.
The ties of solidarity that have gone about between young Jews and young Muslims in opposition to the occupation - the leaders in many campus groups were formed by radical secular Jews and observant young Muslim women - give reason to hope that a just lasting peace can now be acquired.
After speaking of the massacre in Gaza at a university in Canada, the organizers have given me a badge which bore the inscription "I ♥ GAZA." I pinned the badge on my backpack and I headed to the airport. When I was in the queue for boarding the plane, a passenger behind me whispered, "I like his badge." Yeah, I thought, the times they are just changing. A few hours later asking for a glass of water, the flight attendant. Handing me the glass is bent toward me and he whispered to me "I like his badge." Yeah, I thought, something is really going on here!
Norman Finkelstein is the author of five books, including Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Beyond Chutzpah and The Holocaust Industry, which have been translated into over 40 foreign editions. This article is a chapter of His new book "This Time We Went Too Far - Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion."
