Yad Vashem chairman slams settlers for abusing Palestinians

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The head of Israel's central Holocaust memorial on Saturday assailed Jewish settlers who harass Palestinians in a tinderbox West Bank city, saying the abuse recalled the anti-Semitism of pre-World War Two Europe.

Yad Vashem chairman Yosef Lapid's unusually fierce and public attack was prompted by Israeli television footage showing a Hebron settler woman hissing "whore" at her Palestinian neighbour and settler children lobbing rocks at Arab homes.

The spectacle stirred outrage in the Jewish state, where many view the settlers as a movement opposed to coexistence with a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Lapid, a Holocaust survivor who lost his father to the Nazi genocide, said in a weekly commentary on Israel Radio that the acts of some Hebron settlers reminded him of persecution endured by Jews in his native Yugoslavia on the eve of World War Two.

"It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us, but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn," Lapid said.

"I was afraid to go to school, because of the little anti-Semites who used to lay in ambush on the way and beat us up. How is that different from a Palestinian child in Hebron?"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815603.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. wow. and whoa.

I knew deep inside that many Israelis felt the same way as Jimmy Carter and many here, that Israeli government policies were making things worse.
It is so refreshing to see it in print. Israel and the US both have gone off the path of being shining examples for the rest of the world. the US, under Bush, condones torture, murder and invasions based on lies and concocted evidence. And we are about to do it again in Iran.

Israel, once Bush was elected, dropped all pretense of trying to comply with the roadmap to peace, and didn't even give it lip service. Following our lead, and with Cheney as cheerleader, their invasion of Lebanon made them much less safe than safer, much like our invasion of Iraq has done to us.

Of course, the scale is much different. Whereas Israeli policies impact hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, our policies infect the entire region, with many hundreds of millions now at risk. Just how many people live in Pakistan at last count? Add to that the 15 million Sauds, the 16 million surviving Iraqis, and the 60 million Iranians.

[achtung_circus]

2. My recently ex-girlfriend,

daughter of a Holocaust survivor, 17 years is Israel, 5 years combat nurse in the Israeli army, 8 years working in a old age home for Sho'ah survivors, told me this was the biggest reason for her decision to move to Canada.

She said the recently arrived Eastern European Jews were the worst, the most zealous, for this behaviour.

As a Romanian, I guess she's qualified to make that call.

[Tom Joad]

3. Very important statement. Thanks Scurrilous.

Never again!

[oberliner]

4. I'm still not getting your "Never again" reference

Despite what you wrote in another post, I still think that it is widely understood that the phrase "never again" refers to genocide. That we in the world community will never again allow a genocide to take place without taking some kind of action against it.

Specifically that rallying cry of "never again" generally refers back either to the genocide of the Jewish people during the Holocaust or of the genocide of the Armenians.

You will note that in this article, in spite of his criticisms of the incident with the settler, Mr. Lapid said that there was no comparing the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering from Israel's policies.

It seems to me that the use of "never again" is directly suggesting such a comparison.

While I firmly agree that incidents of harrassment by the settlers should not go unpunished, I would respectfully argue that obliquely implying an analogous relationship between Palestinians suffering from Israel's policies and the experience of the Jewish people during the Holocaust does not contribute to constructive dialogue towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

[newyorican]

5. It is crystal clear..

what is meant by using the term "never again" in this way.

You may choose to not agree with it's use in this manner. You have every right to do so and no one (rational) will think the slightest untoward thought about you.

You may also choose to (intentionally) not understand how someone else could use the term in this manner. You have every right to do so, however choosing to not understand the point over semantics gives anyone the right to think less of whatever opinions/positions you may hold.

[oberliner]

6. Well I don't want to accuse someone of drawing an analogy they do not intend

With respect, I am not choosing to intentionally not understand the use of the term. I guess I am just trying to get clarification as to whether those words are deliberately chosen in order to draw a comparison between Israel's policies towards the Palestinian people and Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jewish people or if that phrase is being used in some more general sense (i.e. being silent in the face of injustice). In one post, the user of that phrase suggested that broader definition. I am not certain if there is an awareness of the fact that the phrase is almost universally associated with the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. My confusion, then, comes from not understanding why that particular wording would be used unless a comparison to one of those historical events was implied.

I would have a different reaction to someone deliberately choosing that phrase in order to present the plight of the Palestinians as being akin to that of the genocide victims I cited verus someone using the phrase simply to make a general statement against injustice (perhaps not knowing or unconvinced that "never again" generally references the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide).

[Violet_Crumble]

8. My five-second vent on the use of the term...

When it all boils down, it's such a pointless and empty term. It first came into being when Bill Clinton used it (I'm going off memory so if I'm wrong, someone correct me) speaking of the horrors of the Holocaust and saying that genocide wouldn't happen again. Words that no-one could disagree with, but the thing is that genocide has happened again and again since the end of WWII, so what's the use of the words if they're not followed through on? In my time here at DU, I've seen DUers use the term to try to make out it only applies to any possible future genocide of Jews and I've also seen DUers use it in reference to things that aren't genocide by any stretch of the imagination...

[oberliner]

9. Bill Clinton?

I do not know for certain when the phrase was first used but I can tell you definitively that it substantially pre-dates Bill Clinton.

My guess is sometime shortly after the 1948 Genocide Convention.

I agree with you that, tragically, genocide has taken place since the Holocaust and that those words should absolutely be followed through on. You may note that Jewish groups both in the US and elsewhere are very active in attempting to contribute positively in some way towards halting the continuing horrors in Darfur, referencing the slogan of "Never again".

Here is one example:

Never Again, Again: Jewish Groups and Individuals Fuel Darfur Rallies

By Rachel Silverman and David Silverman

WASHINGTON, April 30 (JTA) -- Some, like Seattle resident Julie Margulies, 50, flew thousands of miles to the nation's capital to attend. Others, like high-school student Adam Zuckerman, 18, from Portland, Maine, raised money to help bring friends -- both Darfuri and Jewish -- to Washington for the big day.

Toting signs of "Never again, again" and "Not on our watch," Jews representing Hillel groups and day schools, synagogues and youth groups, community centers, Hadassah chapters and all denominations came from around the country to the National Mall in Washington for Sunday's Save Darfur rally.

http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=182849

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I checked and it was Jimmy Carter who was the first US president said to use it in a speech...

He was followed by Reagan and Clinton, at least that's what it says in Samantha Power's 'A Problem From Hell', though she's only talking of US presidents...

I'm already aware of Jewish groups who put those words into action when it comes to trying to stop genocide happening anywhere in the world. My cynicism is aimed at those US presidents who utter those words and are using them as a feel-good salve while they turn a blind eye or do very little to intervene in genocides going on. It's also aimed at the folk I talked about who either think 'Never Again' means 'Never again would Germany kill Jews in Europe in the 1940's' (that's a quote from the book), or those who use the words in relation to things that clearly aren't genocide...

[Tom Joad]

10. A photo is worth a thousand words.

http://www.tomjoad.org/neveragain.htm

This is enough on this subject. No need to ask again.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Tom, on the meaning of Never Again...

The term is specifically associated with genocide, not what that sign says which is never again to great injustice....

[Tom Joad]

11. So what actions are you taking to stop the

persecution of the Palestinian residents (men, women, children) in Hebron, besides questioning my use of phrases (which i don't think helps anyone)?

For myself, i am supporting the internationals to go there, heavily armed with:
Video cameras
cell phones
notepads
laptop computers

and most of all, incredible courage (only exceeded by the courage and steadfastness of the Palestinians themselves) who have to face the threat of violence every day.

All this so the Internationals can tell the world what is happening. This has been occuring in Hebron for years and years, and only because of the fact that these internationals are there is now suddenly condemnation and supposed shame on the part of Israeli authorities. Maybe this talk will lead to action? I am not holding my breath. I think the Israeli authorities, for the most part, see a Public Relations problem, and it just can be dealt with in press releases.

Nothing will be done to offend the settlers. At best, there may be some token arrests.

http://www.telrumeidaproject.org

[oberliner]

13. Your actions are certainly courageous

My actions include trying to get the Republicans out of office and trying to get a Democratic candidate elected President. Someone who will devote time, energy, and careful attention to the region in an attempt to get both sides to sit down together and work out a negotiated settlement that both Israelis and Palestinians can accept.

It is my hope that both Israelis and Palestinians will be willing to make difficult compromises that will result in an independent Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel.

I do believe that most of us on this board have the same (or at least similar) goals.

Secondarily, I have the goal of respectfully chiding my fellow progressives when I feel that they use language or make comments that brush up against sentiments presented by people whose interest in this conflict stems not from concern for the Palestinians but from prejudice against Jewish people. (i.e. Israelis are like the Nazis, Jews control America, etc.)

My assumption is that no one posting here would hold those viewpoints and therefore I assume that any comments that may appear to suggest otherwise are inadvertent.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I'd be interested to know why his comments don't reflect the views of Yad Vashem...

From the article: 'A Yad Vashem spokeswoman told Haaretz that Yad Vashem Council Chairman Yosef (Tommy) Lapid's comments do not reflect the memorial center's position.'

It's not like he tried to equate the Holocaust to Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He, speaking as a Holocaust survivor, was very specific about what he was referring to...

[Tom Joad]

12. Let's see if he keeps his job.

[Shaktimaan]

17. I can see why Yad Vashem isn't interested in backing this statement.

Yad Vashem fills a role in Israeli and Jewish culture that is dedicated to a single cause. As the Holocaust is such a watershed event that profoundly affected Jews everywhere and permamently reshaped so many significant aspects of Jewish life I can understand that they may not want to make political judgements that would alienate or anger members of the Jewish community. It's not their role.

But I am sure that if they did decide to comment on settler violence against Palestinians in Hebron, they would refrain from drawing even a shadow of a comparison between the settlers and the anti-semites of pre-war europe. When a place like Yad Vashem makes any kind of allusion to the idea that one could find similarities between Nazis and Jewish settlers it immediately gives that notion an incredible amount of credibility, ensuring it would be repeated on a million blogs, radio shows and articles, many of them simplifying (and distorting) the charge into "Yad Vashem says Zionists are the equivalent of Nazis."

While I personally believe that Yad Vashem's mission is such that it really transcends any immediate political issues to avoid clouding their message, if they did choose to comment on the settlers of Hebron I'm sure they would choose a statement that could not be so easily misunderstood or purposefully misinterpreted by dishonest "reporters."

Besides all that, it's just an innappropriate comparison for anyone other than a Holocaust survivor speaking from personal experience to consider making. It is incredibly offensive regardless and skirts around dangerous territory for someone who would be unable to speak from a position of direct experience.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I think you summed it up in yr third paragraph...

'While I personally believe that Yad Vashem's mission is such that it really transcends any immediate political issues to avoid clouding their message'

I can't recall any political situation where Yad Vashem has voiced an opinion, so that would explain it. The spokesman in the article saying that it doesn't reflect the views of Yad Vashem gave me the impression that Yad Vashem disagrees with those views, though I kind of suspect that the spokesman could have pointed out that Yad Vashem doesn't enter political arguments and it just wasn't included in the article...

[Shaktimaan]

30. don't read too deeply into it.

Yad Vashem is sacred ground. They do dot deserve to be dragged through the muck nor made to explain themselves.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I haven't...

I merely pointed out why the article had it sounding like they held a different view, and I don't see that as dragging them through the muck or making them explain themselves...

[The Magistrate]

14. The Gentleman Has Said Something That Needs Saying, Mr. Scurrilous

There is a hard core within the settlers' movement that is clearly moved by racial and religious hate. The people of Israel would be enthusiastic in support of government effort to quash them.

[pelsar]

18. and "so it came to pass"...

the settlers of gaza were removed.....and it came to pass exactly as the settlers and right wing predicted....kassams on our cities, chaos in gaza.....

kinda takes away the motivation to leave the westbank......but it did show that when "push comes to shove' the settlers dont have too many friends in the army, in the govt nor with the people of israel.

[The Magistrate]

19. If Recollection Serves, Sir, We Have Gone A Round Or Two On This Already

An Israeli departure from the Jordan valley, beyond the present line of the security barrier, or any other line one might reasonably name, probably would be followed sporadic rocket attacks. It would still be an improvement, politically and diplomatically, compared to the present situation, for Israel. The settlers movement contributes nothing to Israel's security, but imposes a strategic drain on its armed forces, and great liabilties on its government.

[pelsar]

20. the problem is our "pecking order "....

i realize that making of list of whos lives are "more important" is usually considered "blasphemous" and politically very incorrect. However the fact is, it exits.

how does it go in israel?

at the top are the reserve soldiers.
regular duty soldiers
citizens in our major cities
citizens in the outlying ones
settlements

the reaction of the establishment and IDF reacts directly to those hurt in that pecking order:

hence two IDF reserve soldiers kidnapped will cause a war

a settler executed with childred in same car, gets a headline.

kassams on sederot are really a "shame" and cause lots of anger....

lets those same kassams hit Tel Aviv or jerusalem....and we'll have a major war with palestinian cities being ruined......

[The Magistrate]

21. If Arab Palestinians Fire Rockets Into Jerusalem Or Tel Aviv, Sir

Than the Israeli state would certainly be within its rights to retaliate, and to undertake major operations aimed at prevent a repetition of the occurance.

But that has nothing to do with the question of whether Israeli settlers should be evacuated from the Jordan valley.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. So one would think.

But the reality of it, one only need to look to the 2nd Lebanon War to see that may not be the whole "truth."

[The Magistrate]

23. Certainly, Sir, Some Would Still Condemn a Vigorous Response

Who would deny Israel has enemies, after all?

But it seems evident to me that a termination of the setlement program, and its rolling back by agency of the Israeli government, would reduce the number who are willing to entertain the criticisms of Israel's enemies, and increase the number who are willing to entertain Israel's criticisms of its enemies. It is the settlement program that provides the credibility for the charge Israel seeks the uprooting entire of the people of Arab Palestine, and while that is not the only cutting edge in the situation, it is one that cuts deeply with a great many people.

[msmcghee]

24. Just to clarify my position . .

. . and not meaning to interject - the question of the settlements is IMO one of Israeli strategy - not one of legality. I too am puzzled - but wait to understand more about the reasoning, which Israel appears not too eager to explain.

Meanwhile, I can see no reason why nationals from one state can not live on land that is not part of any state - if the occupying power permits it.

The Palestinians will not negotiate the borders because that would require recognition of Israel. Perhaps this is the price they will have to pay for that intransigence.

[The Magistrate]

25. It Has Elements Of Both Strategy And Legality, Ma'am

Whatever might have obtained in the past, it is clear that at present, the settlements serve no good purpose from the point of view of Israel's security, but rather reduce it, and so certainly they represent a poor strategic approach.

The Geneva conventions are quite clear that an occupying power cannot settle districts under occupation with its own citizens. It does not matter whether the persons moving there are deported or enticed to the movement by the occupying state. It is illegal. The regulation makes no mention of whether the land belongs to another state or not, so that is immaterial.

[msmcghee]

28. You are right about that. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

26. I agree with much of what you said.

However, I feel (IMHO) that some are so ingrained with anti-Israeli bigotry, the Israelis could jump into the Mediterranean Sea and people would still find Israelis at fault! Whereas I find no reason for the settlers to be setting up shop illegally, I don't understand why that can't be part of the negotiation. Considering what pelsar was saying about Gaza, I have to agree with him that until the PA can get its shit together (this includes reining in the "militant" factions), there can be no relinquishment of the West Bank. The potential for havoc is too high. Gaza is on the brink of civil war and I don't see how adding the West Bank to the mix will bring about any good.

[The Magistrate]

27. Several Points, Sir

Quashing the settlers in the Jordan valley is not the same thing as relenquishing military occupation of the Jordan valley. These are two completely different things. It is true that in my view Israel would be better advised, viewing the matter in the long term, to relenquish its occupation as well, despite the likely immediate difficulties that course would likely entail, but it is quite possible to do the things seperately.

My own taste in negotiation is to do first what is my power to right whatever is wrong with my own situation: this places an onus on the other party to reciprocate in kind, and demonstrates to neutrals that my later insistencies are well grounded. Nor does it seem to me to be wise for any entity to put off doing something that it is clearly in its own best interest to do.

It is certainly true there are people who hate Israel to the degree you state: nothing will satisfy them. But it is best to strip these of all possible cover, so that it becomes clear to all who do not share their hate that hatred is the originating point of their outlook and statements on the matter. This will greatly diminish their influence.

[pelsar]

32. there is not doubt the the extremists are the minority...

the suicide bombers are probably the smallest of all (by definition, they keep reducing their numbers....) No doubt those shooting the kasssams are also small in percentage..just as the settlers in hebron etc are.

the problem however lies in the power of those minorities...or the potential power. Hizballa is an excellent example. Though no doubt a minority in lebanon, it was they who spent 6 years shooting and kidnapping (attempts as well) israelis. With the weak lebanon govt not being able, or willing to do anything about it....the result being a war.

that very same scenario is a very strong possibility once the settlements are evacuated....a weak PA may not be able or willing to stand up to the stronger elements of their society that insists on shooting missiles. (see gaza)

and for those who would congratulate israel for withdrawing...will no doubt be aghast at israels reaction since urban combat (necessary to remove the kassams shooters) by definition uses a lot of force. (whats the word they use without ever really defining it?)