My friend TFK translated to me the article "Why are we being excommunicated" by Professor Binyamin Noiberger. In this post I will try to put this into components, and answer them one by one. This would not work via IRC, as it causes me to shorten my texts, which gives way to interprations that I did not mean.
In the first paragraph, boycott of Israel is talked about. The writer points out that while Israeli products are boycotted, this is not done to other countries that have bigger and more recent track records in impolite actions against neighbors. Professor Noiberger lists Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China. Without researching these countries in any big detail for this text, I would like to point out that these countries are not, in any way, democratic, and even their capitalistic nature can be questioned. Israel, on the other hand, has a working democracy and healthy private sector. While in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China the stateship is guided by one person or group of persons, Israel, at least on the paper, is a governed by its people. And this is how boycott works. By not buying Israeli products, you cause problems to local companies, who in turn pressure the goverment to do your bidding.
Also, unlike the other named countries, the products of Israel are easily identified, and alternatives for Israeli products found, this is not the case with the other countries. Sudan and Saudi-Arabia sell oil as their main export product. The oil goes directly to the world market, and private customer has no way of finding out is the gasoline he buys producted from Venezuelan, Russian or Saudi-Arabian oil. China, on the other hand, has a huge export trade and it would be childish to think that any manner of boycott by private organisation could ever cause even smallest impact on the sales of the product. As China mainly produces consumer electronics and clothes to Western markets by western companies, there isin't really an alternative in the product group and pricerange that you can choose to boycott chinese economy.
Israel, on the other hand, exports relatively cheap consumer goods and competes with several other countries with similar products and prices. This follows that boycott in this case is easy and working strategy. Strategy, that would and would not work on Sudan, Saudi-Arabia or China.
It should also be pointed that unlike Israel, Saudi-Arabia and Sudan are seldom in the news. Before reading this article (and checking the summary of Sudan's present situation), I was infact completly ignorant that there was anything to boycott in the country. While the countries are undoubtedly well covered in Israeli media because of the countries proximity, from British - or Finnish, as it were - perspective these countries seem very far away indeed. Israel, because of its historical and political background and news coverage given, seems far more closer and easier to influence.
This is not to say that Sudan, Saudi-Arabia or China were better or as good countries. It is just to say that these countries can not be affected via boycott, and other matters, not relevant to this text, should considered.
Next professor talks of anti-zionism, and of equalizing it in british academic circles with colonization, racism and imperialism. Noiberger himself points out the most common reasons for this belief; refusal of peace and the settlements condemned by United Nations. There is also other reason that Noiberger didn't mention or wasn't able to identify. In today's news coverage, only people with strong religious bias identify themselves abroad or in foreign news-interviews as zionists. These views are almost always connected with dreams of greater Israeli territory. People with more down-to-earth religious believes or political views seldom see it important of mentioning zionism. As the word is something not encountered in everyday life, the interpretation of the word has changed, in Western world, to mirror these sentiments. To this writer as well, "zionist" was synonymous with "person who was for restoring historical borders of Israel". Not until few months ago were I aware that the orginal, standard meaning of the word was closer to "nationalistic", as related to Israeli nation.
Of the talks of Israel leaving Palestinian territories as miracle-answer to solving the whole dispute; I would not agree to it, but the answer does seem very attractive in its simplicity. Particulary younger people with more black-and-white view of the world would find this satisfying conclusion. It is only as we grow older as we are more adept in finding the gray in the black-and-white world. Professor, having lived decades in middle of the dispute, would of course see all the shades of gray, while his students, young and far-away from the land in question, would only see few, if any, shades of gray.
Next the article handles the views and relationships of the people of Israel and Palestine, as seen by Oxford students - and british people in general. It should be noted that while Israeli view of the situation is, without doubt, the fact that this land belonged to us from time immemorial, the Palestinian view of the matter is undoubtedly the same. The Jewish race was away for a long time. They might not see Jews as one people who have returned, but as Brits, Americans, Germans - in short, Western people - come to claim land that is not theirs. Land that they have defended over millenium. Without having studied the matter in no great detail (and I admid I might be wrong), they might see this as fitting sequel to Crusades of the Middle Ages.
Thusly, even the orginal UN Partition Plan might have been seen as unjust, as it came from Western organisation.
As the problem is very complex indeed, there are no easy answers, no simple solutions. Because of the decades of violence, there is no trust to be had and plenty of bad blood. From outsiders point of view, which Professor is sketching in his text, simple solutions seem to have very good changes in working. But they come outside the culture of Israel; the culture of Palestine, and what looks good in in paper is not so good on action, as proved by several unsuccesful peaceplans from West.
When private persons talk like world would be black-and-white, and act based on these views, the end results are, at best, amusing, and at worst, catastrophic. In this case Professor's students have undoubtedly convinced that Israel is the bad guy (because, heaven forbid, they might all be equally of blame, or blameless) to justify and make world fit into their mental projection. Professor undoubtedly noticed this himself, as did the reader of his text. I can only completly agree.
I will not talk in lenght about conspiracies; we all know that they are by nature easily identified if created. I will simply note that there are jews in America who have formed lobby groups, and who try to pressure and affect decisions thru political donations. Human mind is very adept in seeing mountains there where are hills, and creating the most magnificent shapes out of formless shadow. Undoubtedly, there are jews bribing Congressmen at Capitol Hill, just as there are NRA, Nut-Christians, big corporations and what-have-you doing the same. That's the American Way.
I can't say anything about the meeting. Professor is undoubtedly correct, and that sounds like very morally bankrupt method of acting. Maybe the people who should have said something, were thinking of diplomatic ties? That would be very Machiavellian way of operating, which, I understand, is very prominient in European politics.
Again, in the last chapter, I completly agree. but point again that the word "Zionist" causes some bad thoughts in my head. If the word would have been "patriot" or "supporter of Jewish state", I would have instantly risen and clapped my hands. As it is, it took me a moment to understand how he had seemingly competing ideas in the same sentence, under the same definition.
I have last studied Israel and its history five years ago. My view on the subject is that of a very much outsider, but I congratulate myself in thinking that at least I dont fall into the usual traps of simplifying things too much. However, my information and ideas may be false, and I am willing to listen those rebukes that I will most probaply hear for this text I have written. Please note that it is not my aim to be disrespectful toward jews or Israel, nor do I think it is ok how those people acted in Britain, as descripted by Professor Noiberger. It is however important to understand that he is mostly talking of young people. Their fathers walked and talked for communism in the seventies. Exellent and good intentions don't always produce nice results. While they undoubtedly acted harshly, that didn't come out of hate, but of ignorance, which I think is very important. There is a distinct difference between lynching black people because one hates them and lynching people one sees standing for evil.
I got the idea that not one of these problems the Professor mentioned were aimed towards him, but towards Israel, towards it government. As such, the students did important distinction between Israeli people (and jewish people in general) and Israeli goverment, which should be noted. As such, question falls mostly under PR - how can Israeli government help form an image of itself, that dosent revolve solely around illegal settlements and violence, as it has during the last few years?
The direction Israel has taken lately, of dismantling the outer settlements and refusin to make more, as well as walking away from Gaza, will probaply be marked as "positive" in the eyes of people with little "deep" information of the situation, no matter how the situation developes on daily basis. If Professor would return today, he might see that the situation has improved from the days he spent at Europe, which, I believe, took place just after the parlamental elections of 2003, and during the "harsh" politics of Ariel Sharon at that time.
MySpace. The name itself conjures ideas of freedom, about liberty to customize, change and design your own place in the Internet. The freedom does not always work; many youths and even companies have badly designed pages.
After brief Google-search the answer dawned to me; the reason MySpace-pages look so bad is not because the customization tools are hard to use; it's because there are no customization tools. The pages code has to be set --by hand-- to the ABOUT ME-box. The attached image should make things clear.
ered at Angelfire around early -98 (at least that's when my oldest file in the space was dated). It gave 15 megabytes of space, url and all it wanted was a banner on top. It had some limited custom tools; you could set the colours of the background and the text without knowing html. When I was 14, that was a really great thing. If you did know html, you could use that as well.
