Baltzer and Barghouti on Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart this week showed his usual stone cold courage in having on to his show Palestinian activist Moustafa Barghouti and Jewish-American peace worker Ann Baltzer for a frank discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. A hard line Likudnik audience member heckled them and ultimately had to be escorted from the studio. Here is an eye witness account at MondoWeiss.
Part 1 of the interview:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Here is part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
As usual, the Likudnik Dirty Tricks squad has been pressuring Stewart and Comedy Central over this outbreak of frank talk about Israel.
Rawstory has more on the controversy.
Please support Stewart: at http://www.comedycentral.com/
help/questionsCC.jhtml, selecting The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in the menu. If you prefer to call, the number is 212 468 1700. If you liked what you saw, give it support. Numbers matter in these things and actually the Likudniks aren't all that numerous, it is just that so few in the mainstream bother to speak out.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/31/2009 12:27:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
The interview showed the human and rational face of the Palestinian resistance not widely known to the general American viewers. It moved beyond the usual morality tale of 'poor Israelis facing genocidal-minded Arabs/Muslims' . It showed that Palestinians, like Israelis, may also have legit concerns and need to be heard too.
My concern with that interview and with many others out there chanting 'peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence' is that they are sometimes used to de-legitimize militant resistance (as 'irrational' and 'unjustifiably violent') and take attention away from the whole history of Israeli atrocities by focusing too much on - and even blaming at times - the victims for responding with violence in defense. (Same goes for the case of Lebanon.) The 'peace, peace' slogans sometimes neglect the fact that the international community has failed to deliver any positive results in the last sixty years. So far the only thing that has been directly effective against the Israeli expansionism is militant resistance.
That said I don't think Anna believes that militant resistance is wrong in principle. I was in one of her presentations last year where she emphasized the role of historical atrocities which led Palestinians to adopt violent tactics. From what I understand, she would not want to de-legitimize the militant resistance, although she might believe that non-violence is a preferable and more effective tactic. (I don't know the position and politics of Mustafa Barghouti.)
Given the imposed limitations in the mainstream media over this issue, I think the interview was a step forward in pushing the limits of the debate. Though it would have been nicer if the two had somehow questioned the framework in which the debate was framed. Joseph Levine's excellent article in Boston Review comes to mind: http://bostonreview.net/BR33.5/levine.php The debate needs to be re-framed from that of ‘Israeli security vs. terrorism’ to ‘Israeli occupation vs. Palestinian resistance’. That is critical.
Thanks for link. Contacted Daily Show with support.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Jon's FOX-style assertion that Iran was trying to develop a nuke to "wipe Israel off the map".
Kudos to commedy central. This one act has given hope and encouragement to many Palestinians.
There may be those who wish to delay the election because a vote for the removal of American troops
would hasten their departure and upend the timetable. The Kurds having had the longest relationship with Americans must feel it in their interest to prolong the process.Given the public attitude and the overwhelming desire of the Iraqi people to see the removal of foreign forces, it is almost like looking a gift horse in the mouth given the scope of problems facing the Obama administration. Could it be that the Obama administration fears major problems with a hasty withdrawal and does not want to be blamed for a violent uprising and continued civil war and so are consequently pulling the strings of the Kurds behind the scene?
I guess the interview is really an attempt to reach out to Faux viewers, since Jon Stewart felt obliged to bring up the nonsense about wiping off the map, whereas using "Goldstone" and "report" in the same sentence was taboo.
Yes, Jon Stewart is truly courageous. (Though in 95 percent of the world he probably wouldn't need to be.)
Post a Comment
<< Home