Maybe I was wrong about all actors being shallow idiots....

Here is Faisal's article:

****************************************

<a href="http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=204991" target="_blank">http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=204991</a>

An Ideology of Oppression
By Faisal Chaudhry
FAISAL CHAUDHRY


As the cruel Israeli invasion of the occupied territories continues, atrocities emerge daily. White Israeli soldiers destroy refugee camps of the brown people they have dispossessed for decades. The army rounds up civilians by the hundreds with new evidence of point blank executions. Troops invade hospitals, preventing staff from treating their own patients. Journalists are intimidated to prevent them from bearing witness to these crimes, and an entire population continues to be suffocated and assaulted. Never before has the veil concealing the true nature of the prevailing relationship between Israel and the Palestinians seemed thinner.
Once again, as during the first intifada, the racist colonial occupation stands naked, paid for with U.S. aid and purchased over decades at the expense of Palestinian life, land, and identity and Israeli security and life. As the violence escalates, the profound disparity between the occupier and the occupied becomes ever clearer. Nearly three times more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the last 19 months. Now more than ever, decent people must question the talk of violence “on both sides” that is increasingly ill-equipped for concealing that Israel is a state occupying a dispossessed and defenseless people.

As this relationship grows unbearably vivid, it is not surprising that some of the educated classes in the U.S. grow more desperate to reconstruct the ideological framework needed to justify the country’s determining role in maintaining this disparity, much to the misery of Palestinians and Israelis. Overall, this ideological task is transparent. First comes the staid narration of the fall of Oslo because the Palestinians inexplicably refused the magnanimous “Barak Plan” giving the Palenstinians “90 percent of the West Bank.” Obscured are the actual terms of the plan “inexplicably rejected.” A more accurate picture comes from Barak’s chief negotiator at Camp David, Shlomo Ben-Ami. Just before he joined the government he noted that “in practice, the Oslo agreements were founded on a peace resulting in “almost total dependence on Israel,” creating “an extended colonial situation” that was anticipated to be the “permanent basis” for “a situation of dependence.” When the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a vaguely specified, geographically trifurcated state split into several West Bank bantustans isolated from the Gaza strip, it is hardly surprising that it could not be accepted by the Palestinians or likely anyone who would not be content with what Ben-Ami describes.

The second ideological task of U.S. policy makers is to appropriately narrate unfolding events, beginning with the “motivation” for the invasion: the grotesque Palestinian terrorist atrocity on Passover. Thus, early on in the Israeli assault the New York Times reminded us that “[t]here is no moral equivalence between the indefensible evil of suicide bombings and Israel’s military actions to defeat terror,” somehow forgetting to ask how proportionality and institutional capacity for oppression bear on such considerations. More crucially, it forgot to ask whether the ongoing siege is simply an “action to defeat terrorism.” The systematic nature of the savage assault suggest other explanations, as the prominent Israeli scholar Ze’ev Sternhell observes, writing that the government “is no longer ashamed to speak of war when what they are really engaged in is colonial policing, which recalls the takeover by the white police of the poor neighborhoods of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era.”

In keeping with this second task, we can also expect a certain trajectory for the diplomatic narrative, as America’s long-awaited intervention begins today when Secretary of State Colin Powell arrives in Jerusalem. As an example of the one-sided, disingenuous role America has played, take retired Marine General Anthony Zinni’s cease-fire plan that was presented on March 25 and recently leaked. The plan put off negotiations on a political settlement and allowed Israel to continue to attack the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. This plan was unacceptable because if another suicide bombing were to occur, the Israeli assault would escalate as a response to terrorism and intransigence. The Israelis would continue their calls for “Arafat to do more” despite his eroding power as the siege progresses.

With the situation in the occupied territories likely to grow even more intolerable for the Palestinian population, observers in the U.S. not so invested in the task of ideological reconstruction need to question the policies of our own country. Therefore, before we put the “discourse of parity” to rest, we should realize that Israel carries far too much of the blame in these matters. As we look in the mirror, especially as tax day approaches, it should be obvious that more than enough of it might better be laid at our own doorstep, should we continue to let Washington persist in its support of Israel’s racist colonial occupation.

Faisal Chaudhry is a second-year student at Harvard Law School.

************************************

And here is Natalie Hershlag's (or Portman as we all know here by) article.

*******************************************

<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143" target="_blank">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143</a>

Israeli Diversity Shown Even Among Leaders
By NATALIE HERSHLAG

To the editors:

Faisal Chaudhry writes of the American and Israeli desire to “reconstruct the ideological framework” of the Middle East situation, while creatively framing the same article with a conversion into a “white” vs. “brown” struggle (Op-Ed, “An Ideology of Oppression,” April 11). At one point, Chaudhry even compares the situation to apartheid. This is a distortion of the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians are indistinguishable physically.

The Israeli government itself is comprised of a great number Sephardic Jews, many of whom originate from Arab countries. The chief of staff of the army, the minister of defense, the minister of finance (who is the new leader of the labor party) and the president of Israel are all “brown.” One might have an idea of the physical likeness between Arabs and Israelis by examining this week’s Newsweek cover on which an 18-year-old female Palestinian suicide bomber and her 17-year-old female Israeli victim could pass for twins.

Israelis and Arabs are historically cousins. Until we accept the fact that we are constituents of the same family, we will blunder in believing that a loss for one “side”—or, as Chaudhry names it, a “color”—is not a loss for all human kind.

Outrageous and untrue finger-pointing is a childish tactic that disregards the responsibility of all parties involved, including Europe, the Arab nations and the United States, along with Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

We must be ashamed of every act of violence and mourn every child as if they were our own. I pray for the safety of all those in the region and hope that we may someday use our unique human assets of language and empathy rather than military technology or propaganda to resolve this conflict.

Natalie Hershlag ’03

April 12, 2002

I coudn't help but notice how this reflects what most Arabs think about Jewish people. In the grand scheme of things, Arab conspiracy theories say that Israel is nothing without the US, in other words, that the Jewish people have no true worth of their own. Arabs can't get over the fact that their "cousin" have done more and contributed more to society than they have. That thier "cousins" have become more succesful that they will ever dream of.

Some how Chaudhry thinks their is no "real" meaning or truth to Portman's comments, therefor he comes up with the lame excuse of 'cause "she's a movie star." Nevermind that what Portman said is so right.

Nice generalization, nelson. Chaudry wouldn't have it any other way.

If Portman wrote that herself, I'm impressed. Her first paragraph had a thesis statement in it. As for Chaudry, well, it seems they'll let anyone into Harvard these days. Her article looks like something one would see in my campus arts paper, written by some thick sociology professor or the like.

Apparently you didn't read the word *most*. I didn't say all.

If you ever meet Chaudry, ask him if he will let e Jew step into his home. If you ever meet Portman, ask her if she will let an Arab step into her home.

Their answers will differt.

Perhaps, I should have included an elipse, or posted the entire paragraph. Appearantly the word 'most' entails a "certain number." The latter part of the paragraph clarifies your sentiment; Arabs[read: Palestinians] are jealous of the successfull Jews. While this 'jealousy' may exist, it hardly constitutes a valid concept—one which may be used to summarize Arab/Palestinian attitude.

Furthermore, reducing Arab or Palestinian rage to jealousy only perpetuates the divisiveness, which is exactly what Chaudry wishes to do. Bring the argument to an sentimental field, where crack-pot ideas are valid; where charlatans like Faisal Chaudry and Ann Coulter can hurl their inane brands of bull-shit at each other.

The devisiveness is already perpetuated by suicide/homicide bombers.

Amongst other things.

Or going into homes in an Israeli Settlement and shooting every living thing you see, including one five year old girl. Yep, what hereos those guys are. They must be very brave.

Attacking places where civilians meet for dinner, blowing up shopping malls and shooting little girls in their beds, after looking directly into her eyes as she woke up. Yep! Those brave, brave, Arab freedom fighters are really something to look up to and admire. BTW, those incidents are quite specific, they DID happen and are not generalities at all.

Kronos, you are such an unreasonable guy for daring to question the tactics of such brave men, Not just any old guy can murder little, innocent, five year old girls in their bedrooms and then justify such acts as the work of "freedom fighters."

Aren't you feeling a little ashamed of yourself for feeling sorry for the mean, nasty, represive five year old girl? I mean it should be fairly obvious that only that little girl could have been to blame. She obviously provoked those wonderful men, who were only going house to house killing everybody they came into contact with.

What's wrong with your thinking, Kronos? Why don't you feel pity for the wonderful, brave, freedom fighters, instead of feeling that for that viscious, nasty, repressive, imperialistic, little Jewish girl?

You really are sooooooo biased. I can't discuss this with you anymore until you go away and get a little more maturity or in other words, until you agree to agree with my views, because its obvious you are defective in your thinking machine, simply by virture of the fact that you dare to disagree with me.

Shame on you, kronos You obviously are just a robot and a tool. You bad poo poo, you!

I know...I should hate myself.

Yet...can't.

Palestinians wearing Isreali uniforms shooting Isrealis in their homes should make me joyous...yet doesn't.

German Government telling Jews to wear different clothing so as to not be easy targets should make me writhe with glee...yet I find this disgusting.

People in our own Washington DC at a rally recently called for the "globalization of the Intefada" and I suppose I should cheer...yet I find I get sick to my stomach over it.

Krystal Nacht in France.
Synagogues right here in my home town burned down.
Murderous cafe bombs in Isreal.

According to some I should be glad these are happening...yet am not.

Does anyone see what's happening?

Perhaps, I should have included an elipse, or posted the entire paragraph. Appearantly the word 'most' entails a "certain number." The latter part of the paragraph clarifies your sentiment; Arabs[read: Palestinians] are jealous of the successfull Jews. While this 'jealousy' may exist, it hardly constitutes a valid concept—one which may be used to summarize Arab/Palestinian attitude.

Furthermore, reducing Arab or Palestinian rage to jealousy only perpetuates the divisiveness, which is exactly what Chaudry wishes to do. Bring the argument to an sentimental field, where crack-pot ideas are valid; where charlatans like Faisal Chaudry and Ann Coulter can hurl their inane brands of bull-shit at each other.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Damn you, Adam! Will is right: how dare you justify suicide bombers, and delight in their success at undermining the peace process. Why, just reading your post, I could feel a palpable heat emanating from my monitor, so evil and black are your words. For shame!

Yet you're so clever! You don't say it outright! By Nipsey Russell, you obfuscate your intent by appearing to be *reasonable*, but let me tell you, bucko, you ain't foolin' me. Oh, no..... you betray your true colors by....... by...... oh, it's so hard to see, I had to bring Native American codebreakers in to decipher the inherent darkness of your thoughts.

Seriously, I read Natalie's rebuttal to this letter earlier this week, and, now, having read the foolishness that drew her ire, I'm less surprised at her eloquence than I am shocked that the Harvard Crimson would actually run Chaudry's foolish, inflammatory missive.

These oversimplifications by both sides only make it impossible to see the flame-engulfed forest for the smoldering trees. Whereas the growing number of extremists on both sides seek only to justify a Middle East where the other does not exist, more and more it's beginning to fall to those of us outside of the fray to keep the discourse elevated above one of simple good v. evil.

(edited because it's early and I'm only on my first cup of coffee.)