Talk on occupation at British high school gets Jerusalem Post headline!
Posted on March 9 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Educational Institutions , Faith-based.In a classic case of shoot the messenger, the Jerusalem Post reports:
A high school in southwest England has come under fire for agreeing to host an anti-Israel event for students on Monday.
Sherbourne High School in Dorset is hosting an event entitled “The Occupation: Up Close and Personal, Living in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.
Scheduled to speak is Sharen Green, a reporter with a local newspaper who has spent time in the Palestinian Territories with the World Council of Churches Ecumenical Accompaniment Program.
Has it occurred to anyone that if Israel actually ended its occupation, they’d stop supplying such rich material for “anti-Israel” presentations like this?
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 9th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Doubtful that it would, because even when Israel withdraws from territories or makes concessions, it faces even more hostilities and more criticism.
It’s not the occupation, stupid.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
youre right, it isnt the occupation. it is the way that israel has treated the palestinians. It is the total disregard for international law, it is the way that britain, australia, and the u.s. is starting to see israel for the oppressive state that it is, the rest of the world has a more free press which doesn’t obfuscate the truth, they have known for years and we here in the west cound’t understand why they were so cynical towards israel. now we know.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I often feel that I’ve stepped through the looking glass when I read this stuff.
“Scheduled to speak is Sharen Green, a reporter with a local newspaper who has spent time in the Palestinian Territories with the World Council of Churches Ecumenical Accompaniment Program.”
How would her presentation be “anti-Israel” a priori? Am I missing the forest here? Do these muzzlers have no regard for the truth?Does no one matter but themselves? Are they desperate? Are they just evil?
March 9th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Do you mean that Israel has treated the Palestinians as if they are hostile? Perhaps because of the terrorism, kidnappings, hijackings, rocket attacks, suicide bombings etc? Perhaps when the Palestinians express their feeling that its all of Israel that they see as “occupied” and desire for their own, not just the West Bank (Gaza is now”Jew Free”)we should listen instead of pretending otherwise. It seems that they envision a “Piece process” not a “Peace proces”.”
March 9th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
if someone came into your home and occupied it, would you be called a terrorist if you tried to reclaim a part of your house back, would you be upset if the new squatters tell you that you cant bring back some of your family members that used to live with you… one area of this debate that falls on deaf zionist ears is that the initial claim on the land was by gangsterism…so now were some fifty five years later and we all agree that the squatters have a right to stay on what used to be your land…no problem there i guess, but will you at least stop the violence and acknowledge that you have stolen enough land and oppressed enough of the indigenous population.
unless we’re going to go christian zionism, with the argument and claim that israel has the deed to all the land of what used to be israel down to the euphrates river. If you are to believe that israel is the people of GOD, then you have to agree that they didnt lose the land in the first place for being so obedient to the law, the law has been usurped and replaced by the wise counsel of the priestly caste, a VERY different group than the prophets, whom GOD sent to proclaim judgement, judgement that came to pass, by the way, incontestably a part of history for those who choose to read the prophets..jeremiah, ezekiel and others, but mainly those two proclaimed they would be cast out of the land for turning their backs on GODs ways.
the christian zionist part of my post isnt my opinion, it is the opinion of the old testament, in any case it’s in your own religious writings.
if this is anti semitic then these prophets were also, and so was hashem because its straight from the writings.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Why is this news? We ALL know that anyone that is critical of Israel or portrays Israel’s Palestinian victims as human beings is a rabid anti-Semite - so obviously telling the truth about Israel is anti-Jewish race hate. Just to cite a few more incidents over the last couple of days…
[UN, EU, & ICJ are anti-Semites, as each has had the audacity to consider the Palestinian victims of Israel human on occasion]
“This means invoking institutions like the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Court of Justice that have proved incompetent and frequently antisemitic and anti-Israel.”
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/ix/080320072
[Of course the German bishops are anti-Semites]
“The Central Council of Jews in Germany said the statements had anti-Semitic overtones. Avi Primor, the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, made it clear in an interview that he knew the German bishops well enough to know that there was no anti-Semitism whatsoever on their part. I believe the statements that were made cannot be put into an anti-Semitic context.”
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2378718,00.html
[The leader of the Hungarian Jewish community is obviously a Jew-hating monster for joking about anti-Semitism - how can you take it seriously when faced by raving neo-Nazis like Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu if you joke about it?]
“The original piece in the Ujelet’s newspaper’s Purim edition quoted Hungarian Jewish community president Peter Feldmejer as saying that Hungarian Jews should flee the country before March 15, for fear of anti-Semitic violence. That article led to Ma’ariv running a story on the matter, stressing the threat and warning to Hungarian Jews, which stirred concern here for their safety. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, reacting to the Ma’ariv piece, then ran its own story, under the headline: “Hungarian Jews urged to leave for Passover.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173968653&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[Of course the news media is inherently anti-Semitic, you know, no one has ever heard of some evil group “controlling the media”]
“The news media are not merely liberal; most are also radically left and vociferously atheist, if not anti-Christian and anti-Semitic.”
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54610
[Needless to say, Noam Chomsky, the Tikkun community, and the anti-war movement is by definition anti-Semitic - as all have been less than utterly fawning over Israel]
“Lerner’s magazine provides a forum for those opposing Israel’s existence, such as self-hating Jew, linguist Noam Chomsky. At any given anti-war demonstration, you will often find members of Lerner’s organization, the Tikkun Movement, marching alongside openly anti-Semitic groups.”
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/03/08/community/letters_opinion/moses0309.txt
On the upside, at least there was one place that was apparently untouched by the mythical wave of anti-Semitism sweeping the world in pro-Israel imaginations…
“There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts during the year. There was no identified Mongolian Jewish population, and the number of resident Jews was very small.”
http://www.mongolia-web.com/content/view/935/2/
March 10th, 2007 at 12:10 am
So there are Palestinians who claim the whole land, and there are Israelis who claim the whole land. Why exactly should our sympathies lie with the side that is in actual control?
March 10th, 2007 at 12:56 am
The problem is that anything that is not 100%, absolutely supportive of all Israel’s policies,-anything that could be the slightest bit suggestive that Israel is not 100% perfect-is perceived as “anti-Israel.” So that an event about the lives of Palestinians-which HAS to be about life under occupation because they ARE under occupation-is perceived by Israelis as “anti-Israel.” So the entire world is supposed to live a lie and pretend the occupation doesn’t exist, even refrain from ever printing any news-or even speaking at all-about Palestinians, just to avoid offending Israelis!
My definition of “anti-Israel?” Opposition to Israel’s existence itself could accurately be defined as anti-Israel. Being in favor of Israel’s existence would be a pro-Israel position. Most people are probably pro-Israel or neutral as to Israel’s existence, even if they do not agree with all Israel’s policies. All governments are fair game for criticism. Why should Israel be an exception?
March 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“Jill Friedman Says:
March 10th, 2007 at 12:56 am
The problem is that anything that is not 100%, absolutely supportive of all Israel’s policies,-anything that could be the slightest bit suggestive that Israel is not 100% perfect-is perceived as “anti-Israel.”
Jill, with all due respect, your statement is completely absurd. There is relentless criticism of Israeli policies that is not perceived as “anti-Israel”.
Do you honestly not know that?
Your overstatement, the hysteria, the hatred, what are we to make of that?
Also contrary to your statement, an event about the Palestinians could be about many things, not just “occupation”. And the producers of an event about “occupation” could go out of their way to have someone there to present the Israeli point of view.
There are groups that go out of their way to filter information for the purpose of demonizing Israel. This is the type of event that is often considered “anti-Israel”. Rather than being honestly critical, blaming Israel when that’s called for, blaming Hamas when that’s called for, they filter, twist, distort, lie, and of course, never offer an opposing viewpoint.
Sometimes, if they don’t get the speaking or written venue that they think they deserve, they claim to be “muzzled”.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:55 am
The contribution from Martin puzzles me. This was an event about an occupation. A person with some experience was to speak to students about her experience of living under occupation and tell about what occupation means to those who are occupied. Probably she would also talk about the effect on the occupier and the corruption of their humanity through the process of domination.
Now Martin suggests that an Israeli point of view should be included. What exactly does that mean? Some rationale about occupation? Some defence of the theft of land, water and future from the Palestinians? I am not quite clear here. In fact the one word seldom heard in debates around Israel is the word occupation and it is a reality, not something to be placed in quotation marks as Martin does, as if it is contested.
No in the same way that we do not provide a speaker to defend slavery or to defend apartheid, there should not be a speaker to defend occupation, because in my view occupation is indefensible.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Now Martin suggests that an Israeli point of view should be included. What exactly does that mean? Some rationale about occupation?”
Sure. A pro-Israel, or simply a rational and informed view regardless of preference, would note that the occupation was only the result of a defensive war that Israel was forced into in order to protect itself from annihilation. It would note that, shortly after its victory, Israel offered peace but was met with the “three nos” of the Khartoum conference. It would note that Israel, when it agreed to recognize the PLO and give it authority in the territories, found itself facing significantly more terror from within the territories than before. It would note that Israel, when it met with Yasser Arafat in final status talks to end the occupation once and for all, wound up with an intifada even more violent than before. It would note that Israel left all of Gaza over a year ago, and in response was given a Hamas government and even more violence. It would note that American Jewish philanthropists, the same who are mocked and derided as part of the “Jewish lobby” (or “Israel lobby” in more polite terms), raised tens of millions of dollars to purchase the Israeli settler’s greenhouses for the Palestinians, only to find that the greenhouses were destroyed and instead tunneled under to create smuggling routes. It would note that when Israel elected a political party which explicitly called for more withdrawals from territory, that both Hamas and Hezbollah chose to kidnap Israeli soldiers (and in Hamas’s case, using those smuggling tunnels) and launch attacks on sovereign Israeli territory. It would note that, prior to the intifadas, the occupation actually led to a sharp INCREASE in the standard of living for Palestinians on most development indices. It would note that, despite some abuses along the way, Israel has acted in a way to minimize civilian casualties and acted with admirable restraint, despite the fact that it’s enemies have shown no restraint. It would note that the “1967 borders” were actually armistice lines, and in some areas are narrower than the range of Katyusha rockets that can be fired from the territories. It would note that the Palestinian leadership is currently a party that directly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and has a charter more explicitly racist and genocidal than any other leading political party in any country, anywhere.
In short, a different perspective could point to an abundance of facts which would demonstrate that Israel does not deserve even a fraction of the demonization and villification it faces daily.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Palistinians want a home and are just great. Israelis want a home and are just great. All children of Abraham.
We are all now grown up and over who did what to whom. Can we get on with our lives and grow up. Like the great minds we are, can we move beyond the past as great and not petty minds are able?
Can we stop defining ourselves and lives by perceived or real injustices done to us yesterday, last month, last year, in the last century and maybe even in the previous millennium?
The past, which by definition is a distortion of reality. Festering resentment or hate is a life in poverty without future.
Can’t we be above it all and seek, mechila, the empathy of selicha and ultimately reconciliation or kappara. That is a life worth living.
Rhetorical questions only.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Martin A: I am shocked that you would accuse me-or anyone- of “hatred” based on my post. Exasperation, obviously, with an ongoing situation, but clearly not hatred. “Hatred”, “hysteria”, “absurd”-are very strong, and potentially destructive words to throw around so carelessly. Such words tend to discourage dialogue rather than enhance it. It is clear that almost everyone,if not everyone, posting on this forum cares about Israel or we would not be spending time and energy here. You risk alienating people who are actually on your side-or at least share some of your goals- with the misuse of such words. Keep in mind that this website is sponsored by Jewish Voice for PEACE. How can we have peace if we attack each other and call eachother names?
March 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Jill: Despite some of the rhetoric on this forum, when you wrote: “The problem is that anything that is not 100%, absolutely supportive of all Israel’s policies,-anything that could be the slightest bit suggestive that Israel is not 100% perfect-is perceived as “anti-Israel.” You know, I know, and most of the people here know (despite blantantly false arguments to the contrary), that you were absolutely correct. Quite simply you’ll always be a Jew-hating anti-Semite if you question Israel outside of Israel and not in Hebrew.
Your detractor was correct that there is a lively debate in Israel proper, and anyone following the Israeli press knows this. However, it is not acceptable outside of Israel or in English (our “dirty laundry”) - if you do that you’re deemed a neo-Nazi like Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, and Adam Shapiro.
As for “‘hatred’, ‘hysteria’, ‘absurd’ and other “strong” terms, the Hasbaranik (Israeli propagandist) crowd relishes this because they know it really strikes hard against decent people speaking up on behalf of the Palestinians. The net result is the same, to simply “shut you up”.
Don’t fall for it. As Jews we’ve fought for poor and oppressed of all societies, whether we were in good positions or not; it is why the Right has always hated us, because no human being is degraded enough to prevent Jewish people of conscience from speaking up in their favor (being in practice a light among nations, not just in theory). From ending slavery to ending debt bondage, our people have always been one of the many groups recognizing wrong and speaking out against it. Now, of course, its a portion of our tribe committing every offense against humanity that we always spoke out against, and the true person of principle, the person willing to put right and justice before tribe and “particularism” have the obligation to do the same. Tukkum Olam does not exclude excesses by our our own; Zionism is an insult to two thousand years of Jewish struggle and love for freedom and justice. Until every Palestinian is allowed to live the words of Herzl, “We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes” - Zionism is a betrayal of the ideals it set for itself, a twisted ideology of ethnic hate deserving no regard by decent people of any background.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:45 am
what do you want us to do, john, roll over and die? israel would be happy to live in peace, it’s neighbors would not, it’s as simple as that. israel has treated the palestinians far better than the arabs have, far better than their leaders have, but as long as hamas and fatah call for the destruction of israel, israel will defend herself. would you have her do less?
March 12th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Lets fact it. JVP is a front for Arabs who want Israel destroyed, not real Jews concerned with a just peace. The JVP routinely meets with organizations through events put on by the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs that is a front for Saudi Arabia. JVP has no problem attending anti-Israel events with Al Awda that unconditionally advocates for the eradication of Israel. This blog is designed to convince people that American Jewry is opposed to the existence of Israel and will stop at no end to demonize the Jewish state. And, yes, working with those who want to murder, deport, dispossess or harm Jews living in the land of Israel is anti-Semitism.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:08 am
The Palestinians claim they want to go back to the very spot their dead ancestors lived on in Israel and that a Palestinian state in teh West Bank and Gaza wont be enough. The fact is this is a Catch 22 to make peace impossible. Most of these people are living jsut 60-75 miles from where their dead ancestors lived. The term occupation to a Palestinian means all of Israel. 98% of Plaestinians are governed by the PA and Israel’s forces are necessary to protect Jews whom the PA refuses to protect by arresting or prosecuting terrorists. All this garbage about JVP promoting only peace and an end to “occupation” are a screen for
demonizing Israel and hastening her dismantlement. Rational real Jews will never fall for this propaganda movement masquerading as a peace movement. Hitler said he only wanted peace and jsutice also as he set the world on fire.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Can you believe that this was really posted on a “muzzlewatch” blog:
“Now Martin suggests that an Israeli point of view should be included. What exactly does that mean? Some rationale about occupation? Some defence of the theft of land, water and future from the Palestinians? …”
The writer presupposes the conclusion and denies any possible alternative view.
Muzzle away!!!!
March 12th, 2007 at 11:11 am
“John S. Says:
March 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Jill: Despite some of the rhetoric on this forum, when you wrote: “The problem is that anything that is not 100%, absolutely supportive of all Israel’s policies,-anything that could be the slightest bit suggestive that Israel is not 100% perfect-is perceived as “anti-Israel.” You know, I know, and most of the people here know (despite blantantly false arguments to the contrary), that you were absolutely correct. Quite simply you’ll always be a Jew-hating anti-Semite if you question Israel outside of Israel and not in Hebrew.”
John and Jill, there is daily relentless discussion and criticism of Israel’s policies outside of Israel. If you can’t find it, you are not looking very hard.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
On the other hand ,while it is common to hear mainstream Jewish and Israeli leadership talk about peace and what Israel could do, I don’t hear those voices as the mainstream Palestinian voice. The election of Hamas was really a Palestinian referendum on the “peace process.” Where’s the “Palestinian Voice for Peace” or “Salaam Acshav”? The answer is, there are only a very few Palestinians with that orientation and they are not the mainstream. Maybe they’re the ones that are really “muzzled.”
March 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
My point was not to deny that there is discussion or criticism of Israel outside of Israel. My point is that such discussion tends to be labeled anti-Israel and often even anti-semitic, and this labeling and expression of outrage is often out of proportion to the actual criticism. In many cases the offending communication is not even criticism, but simple reporting of facts that might not reflect well on Israel.
The insistence that any communication or information that might be perceived as critical or uncomplimentary toward Israel be accompanied by the simultaneous presence of the opposite view-or immediately followed by a rebuttal- is impractical and is not the way things are normally done. It presumes that on every issue there are two opposing positions of equal merit when in fact there may be many perspectives or possible solutions to a problem. And some positions have no merit whatsoever.
The “balanced” or “immediate rebuttal” format works well in certain situations by providing a brief look at a situation, but is not conducive to exploring various situations in depth. The event that triggered this discussion was a presentation about Palestinian life under occupation delivered by a reporter who actually spent time in the occupied territories. That’s it. Another time, another day, there will be other educational presentations about other things. Education is an ongoing process, and the brain can only handle so much information at one time. A person can accumulate enough information over time to understand and draw conclusions about an issue.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
A lecture soley on conditions in the West Bank NOW might not provide any accurate information as to WHY those conditions exist. Theres is thus a strong possibility of misinformation or certainly misleading inferences. Part of the reason that JVP set up this blog was because they felt they wanted to present their side (reality based or not apparently). Am I now to understand that presentations that aren’t anti-Israel should be “balanced” by an anti-Israel PRESENTATION, but presentations that are Pro-Palestinian, critical of Israel or not, are fine with out “balance.” Thats not “BALANCED.”
March 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
i’d like to question the whole idea of occupation.
what exactly is being occupied? anyone who knows the history knows that the west bank was part of jordan and gaza was part of egypt. both countries used those territories as staging grounds for wars against israel, both countries lost those territories in the war. after the war, both countries said they didn’t want the land back, they gave up all claim to the land.
so if the former owners don’t want it, it’s not occupied. and of course there was never an independent arab state on that land, so how can you all invent a history that ends with israel stealing someone else’s land? that’s absurd.
there’s no occupation. there is a land and people abandoned by its arab brothers and sisters, used as pawns in their never-ending war against israel. there is a territory with very little leadership and social structure; what is there teaches violence and hatred against its neighbors.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
This item from #6 above is touted as a claim of being “muzzled” or being accused of anti-Semitism. Interestingly enough, not only does the quote NOT accuse Lerner or Tikkun of anti-Semitism (but rather of ASSOCIATING with anti-Semites), but everything in that quote is correct. Lerner does allow anti-Israel hate speech by others to appear in Tikkun magazine(his rationale being that readers can then evaluate it on their own) and Tikkun HAS marched alongside anti-Semites at rallies sponsored by International ANSWER. Tikkun no longer marches in ANSWER ralleis exactly because of this anti-Semitism, and I am glad that they realize that they needed to take that step. Obviously, that hasn’t stopped JVP.
[Needless to say, Noam Chomsky, the Tikkun community, and the anti-war movement is by definition anti-Semitic - as all have been less than utterly fawning over Israel]
“Lerner’s magazine provides a forum for those opposing Israel’s existence, such as self-hating Jew, linguist Noam Chomsky. At any given anti-war demonstration, you will often find members of Lerner’s organization, the Tikkun Movement, marching alongside openly anti-Semitic groups.”
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/03/08/community/letters_opinion/moses0309.txt
And as to Ellen’s comment above in #12, it’s a very fair question. Israel has expressed many times its willingness to live alongside a Palestinian state that will live in peace with Israel. Hamas wants to kill all Jews everywhere (read their charter if you have any questions). Despite that, Israel has shown incredible restraint in its dealings with the Palestinians (compare the situation to say, Tibet; and how many Chinese civilians have been killed by Tibetan suicide bombings this decade? That’s right– none. And have the Tibetans sworn to fight until and beyond death to kill every Chinese? Nope).Is that enough of an answer for you?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Jill Friedman astutely writes: “…this labeling and expression of outrage is often out of proportion to the actual criticism. In many cases the offending communication is not even criticism, but simple reporting of facts that might not reflect well on Israel.”
I would amend your observation to: “this labeling and expression of outrage is *almost always* out of proportion to the actual criticism.”
In physiology we talk of the all-or-none principle, that the strength by which a nerve or muscle fiber responds to a stimulus is not dependent on the strength of the stimulus. If the stimulus is any strength above threshold, the nerve or muscle fiber will either give a complete response or no response at all. All…or none. No in-between.
Even a casual reading of the zionist responses here and elsewhere demonstrate this principle beautifully. ‘History will remember Carter as a jew-hater’? Yep. Overreaction to and attempt to muzzle a local newsperson from speaking about her experiences in the West Bank to a group of schoolchildren? Affirmative. Calling anyone who criticizes any aspect of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians ‘anti-Israel’ or worse? Right-o. Examples go on and on and unfortunately only a fraction of them will show up on this website.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
alan, you’re being disingenuous on purpose. this isn’t physiology. plenty of people criticize israel all the time. obviously. within israel itself there is a free press and daily debates about policy, as there is in the US about american policies.
the only comments that are called anti semitic are the ones that call for the destruction of the state of israel.
now, are you criticizing israel’s policies, or are you calling for the destruction of the state, to be replaced by an arab state? be clear so we can be clear.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Why is it OK for Arabs to live with Jews, but Jews cannot live in Arab countries. I think the world has lost it’s mind, and up is down and down is up. No more concessions. Giving more land up is like giving the fat buuy more candy to keep him off your back, but then he only wants more and more. And then, when he becomes obese, he blaims you for being fat and not being asked to the Prom. NO MORE LAND, it is not occupation, it is the fact they hate Jews, an do not want Israel to exist, just like the writers of this blog.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Notice how the constant refrain is that it is anti-Semitic to suggest the “destruction of Israel” with the utterly false implication that those of us who reject the notion of an ethnocentric, i.e. racist, state are calling for some form of physical destruction. As far as I know, no one here has once called for the physical destruction of Israel or Israelis and I know I never have, but there are those of us who call for the end of the racist ideology of Israel in favor of one democratic secular state for all its people - http://www.onestate.org This is very much akin to those who called for the end of Apartheid (characterized by Apartheid supporters as the “destruction of South Africa”) and never said or suggested that the state or Afrikaners should be physically hurt, but did demand that that state drop its racist ideology. The Afrikaners did so and despite the worst predictions, this did not result in the Afrikaners being “driven into the sea” or the physical destruction of the state, simply it converted from a state that existed solely for the benefit of one segment of the population to one that represented its entire population, and this is what I strongly support. So, is it “anti-Semitic” to suggest or imply that Israel be held to the same standard as all other first world countries and become a state for all its people? … Considering how knee-jerk the libel of “anti-Semitism” is thrown at anyone that questions the underlying premise of Zionist ideology (ethnocentric supremacy at the expense of the native population - the Palestinians), I’m sure it does.
I think this is where the line is drawn by the Israeli propagandists - you can question some Israeli policies and practices, but you’re not allowed to question the blantantly ethnocentric ideology that underlies and justifies ALL such policies and practices. So, you’re allowed to question the symptoms, but if you question the illness you are suddenly labelled - “anti-Semite” “Kapo” “self-hating” and so on. I find it interesting that when the underlying ideology is challenged, the only defense is name calling.