One of the most important reporters on neoconservatism, Jim Lobe of IPS, has an item on Freedom's Watch in which he notes the mainstream press's lazy and fearful shorthand re neoconservatism--"strong supporters of Israel." Why don't those reporters spell out the neocon agenda re Israel, so we can understand the motivations of the greatest foreign policy disaster in a generation? Hear hear.
Lobe goes on to quarrel with the descriptor, "Strong supporters of Israel." The neocons are acting against Israel's best interest, he says, by wishing to annex the West Bank and sticking a wrench in the works of the peace process. To be a strong supporter of Israel would mean encouraging it to give up the settlements, etc. Calling these guys "strong supporters" undermines the public position of IPF and APN, which are pushing for concessions on Jerusalem that will ensure Israel's long-term survival.
I find this thinking too convoluted. It's hard enough to sort out America's best interest, as an American, let alone trying to figure out another country's best interest. Again I say, Let Israel be Israel. Our fates are too mixed up; and part of the peace process, which I endorse, is having the United States firmly separate its own interests from the Jewish state's. I also wonder if Lobe's statement, and IPF's position, too, don't represent some idealistic but essentially romantic view of Zionism. What if, as new historian and son-of-Holocaust-survivors Ilan Pappe says in this forum at Oxford last summer, Israel is essentially an expansionist state that wants to dispossess the Arabs in Palestine? It has consistently conducted policies in this manner for two or three generations. And would that break your Jewish heart to say so, Jim? What if Zionism has worked out this way, just as communism, which was also great on paper, resulted in the gulag--and a chorus of deniers in the leftwing chapel here? Maybe the neocons are strong supporters.
Alas, I think Pappe may be speaking the truth about things he knows a lot better than I do, and again I say the crucial task for Americans post-9/11 and -Iraq is to distinguish their own interests from other countries', whether that's Syria, Russia, Iran or the Jewish state. Pappe also says in that Oxford forum that Israel's greatest achievement has been to utterly divorce its thriving democracy--and it does have a thriving democracy for Jews; Arabs can't serve in the Israeli army; how would you feel if we didn't let blacks serve in our army?--divorce its democracy in the eyes of the world from its policy of relentless dispossession of the Arabs in Palestine. Amazing that it has done so. That has been the achievement of the Israel lobby. At times like this, I want all lobbyists begone...
I see Arab representatives in the knesset number one. And NUMBER TWO, ARABS CAN SERVE IN THE ISRAELI ARMY. SAYING THEY CAN'T IS ABSOLUTE LIE. What they aren't is conscripted.
And doesn't that make all the difference?
What's the deal with your choice of headlines, Phil?
Is this a tabloid site in your mind?
I think you err on the side of complaint, rather than proposal.
Its lazy to end at complaint.
Propose a SOLUTION to the multiple problems, already. Or join those that are pursuing solution.
That takes involvement, rather than comfortable fundamental dissent.
Ilan Pappe is not listened to, and won't be in Israel, nor will Norman Finkelstein, because he ignores and denigrates the real concerns of the Israeli populace.
A skillful critic can assist people to understand that x worry is no longer relevant.
When people are only condemned for a sliver of the reality that they live within, they dismiss even productive comments.
Thats what occurred with Walt and Mearsheimer. The carelessly issued a polemic originally (the London Review article), with a title that described it as a polemic. Then, they and you whined, that others weren't reading their work in detail, and treating it as an attack only.
civility, honor do not count.
phil is dishing out a false and fake picture to the mob.
is there an end in sight?
Lies about Jews, especially those told and retold despite being proven as such, are a bad idea, Phil. Arabs own property, serve in the army, vote, serve on juries in which Jews are convicted of crimes.
And Matzoh isn't made with Chriatian blood either. For the record.
Posted by: Richard Witty
>>>>>>>>
The solution Witty is to get off the Palestine land. If Israel was doing this on American land we would be killing you hand over fist not just shooting off homemade bombs.
Posted by: Protest II
>>>>>>>>>>>
Go sell crazy elsewhere. No one here just fell off the turnip truck yesterday…you are seeing the end in sight in this statement…the end says no more bullshit.
Philip isn't telling the world anything they haven't already seen for themselves. If you idiots want to help Israel commit suicide, fine…keep it up.
Richard, are we supposed to be impressed that you manage to avert your eyes from Israel's fundamentalist, militarist, ethnic nationalist nature, while naively admonishing us critics to wish for a solution?
How brave of you, Richard. Why don't you wish in one hand, and shit in the other, and tell us which fills up first?
The solution is called "the right of return." That's the solution. Palestinians and post-Zionist Jews living in Palestine, in harmony, like they had achieved before crazy nationalism poisoned the Arabs and the Zionists.
Just as Nazism as a form of violent radical ethnic nationalism and supremacism needed to be formally banned in Germany and neighboring countries, Zionism will be prohibited in Palestine, as will violent fundamentalist Islam. Both will need to be rooted out, and it may not be easy.
But since Israeli Zionists paid for about 6% of current day Israel, how about compensating the Palestinians for the land you took, in some form? That might go a long way toward smoothing things over with the people that were dispossessed.
There are indeed "token Arabs" in the IDF, just as token Arabs can be found in the Israeli government and in its public companies. But these "window dressing" Arabs are under-represented in comparison to their percentage of the population, and their promotion prospects are limited. Unlike the U.S., Israel does not have affirmative action, or laws prohibiting the use of religion as a screening factor in employment and housing.
Understandably, Israel likes to emphasize its democracy, in which it resembles western countries. What it seeks to obscure is that its housing, schools and jobs are almost entirely segregated by religion.
Arguably, a democratic country can vote to discriminate against its religious minorities, as Israel has voted to do. But given that the rest of the developed world has decisively rejected such policies, it ought to be beyond the pale for Israeli partisans to reflexively label overseas criticism as anti-Semitic.
Israel gets criticized not because it is Jewish, but because its conduct is offensive to American and European values. After a hard struggle to defeat their own legal segregation in the 1960s, few Americans have any taste for subsidizing it in Israel. The Israel Lobby continues to extort $3 billion a year from America only by suppressing discussion of Israel's ugly rejection of the American values of equality and non-discrimination.
Yah right JIm, you are not critical of Israel because it's Jewish. Not often you hear a crock of shit like that one.
Although Arabs who volunteer for the IDF are tolerated, the official policy of not conscripting them shows that they are not trusted.
Diaspora Jews understandably bristle at the 'dual-loyalty canard.' But the soi-disant Jewish homeland has no hesitancy in tarring its Arab citizens with the dual-loyalty slur.
Makes ya think, don't it?
Unlimited right of return as you describe it, will never occur.
Agitating for it is just idiotic, as it STOPS all more reasonable efforts at reconciliation.
There is no "writing on the wall" for Israel's existence. There are only incidental threats currently, and it is not going to willingly just disappear, as a Jewish state.
Israel gets demonized, rather than criticized, at least partially because it is Jewish. There is a difference.
There is some condemnation of some dissenters as anti-semitic that is an exageration. That is a certainty. On the other hand, there is agitation that pretends to be dissent that is in fact anti-semitic, that intentionally uses anti-Zionism as its new "permitted" form.
One difference between fanaticism (or opportunism) and dissent, is that dissent invites those that agree to a goal to collaborate.
Militancy of the kind, "you are not sufficiently contemptuous", excludes.
As such it will NEVER succeed, whether it is some anarchist, some neo-fascist, some militant Islamicist, or even otherwise kind individuals like Saif or even Phil.
Its old and frankly immature. It is smarter to learn, translate, and convince, rather than browbeat.
Obviously there are a wide range of agendas being played here. Some kind and realistic, others hateful, others negligent.
Hey Jim, I'd call you retarded except that's an insult to people that actually have mental health problems. Any attempt to introduce any sort of national service among the Arabs has met with fierce opposition from THEM!!!!!!!!!. I'd at least respect a little honesty here. You are a anti-semite, its a long tradition. Nothing new, just don't dress it up in your bullshit.
This episode of Blame The Jews has been brought to you through a grant from the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
And now back to our show…
If I hated Jews, Witty, I think I'd find a better forum than some Jewish journalists' blog. You ought to be proud, Richard: the best journalists covering American imperialism in the Middle East are mostly Jewish: Hersh, Lobe, Weiss, Glenn Greenwald. They haven't allowed some convoluted notion of tribal loyalty, or crazy paranoid attitudes toward Muslims and Christians, to interfere with their pursuit of the truth. They make you look like the immoral coward you are.
You actually think your American-born sons have a "birthright" to Palestine, but people who have been there thousands of years, many of those AS JEWS (before being converted to Islam and Christianity), have no human rights at all. They belong in barbed-wire camps and over-crowded ghettos, so that Zionists can stretch their feet.
Have you ever read the universal declaration of human rights, Richard? Is it idiotic, too?
MM,
I don't have a clue what you believe, and I don't presume to.
You also don't have a clue what I believe or pursue, yet you do presume, and rhetorically project and express the worst.
Your presentations are one example of what I choose not to do.
Richard,
"On the other hand, there is agitation that pretends to be dissent that is in fact anti-semitic, that intentionally uses anti-Zionism as its new "permitted" form."
There is certainly truth in that but anti-Zionism shouldn't be tarred with anti-Semitism. Blurring the distinction only serves the purposes of the anti-Semetic at the price of rational discourse.
I don't tar anyone with the name-calling "anti-semitic".
I happily identify characteristics.
For example, in many ways anti-Zionism is the rejection of the right of free association when applied to the Jewish people, among those that desire to live in a distinctly Jewish nation.
Its an entirely DIFFERENT question from how Palestinians are treated currently.
I happily identify characteristics.
For example, in many ways anti-America First is the rejection of the right of free association when applied to the (diminishing by the day since 1965) American people, among those that desire to live in a distinctly principled American nation.
Its an entirely DIFFERENT question from how Palestinians are treated currently.
RE: "…in many ways anti-Zionism is the rejection of the right of free association when applied to the Jewish people, among those that desire to live in a distinctly Jewish nation."
Oh yeah, and if you see no problem there, there is hope at all,
OF course, I mean, no hope at all–extend my comma as u please…
Anti-Zionism is NOT criticism of Zionism, or criticism of specific policies.
The key word is "anti".
It is denial of the right of Jews to associate as a people, to form a nation.
Charles – I believe Richard is saying that just as Germans reserve the right to live in a country that is predominantly German, and Indians reserve the right to live in a country that is predominantly Indian, Jews reserve the right to live in a country that is predominantly Jewish. Palestinians demand the right to live in a country that is predominantly Palestinian, and many Jews support them in this demand, and wish to live as peaceful and ideally loving neighbors.
Israel is a very multicultural place. Far more than many other places on the earth, and most Israelis like this about their country. Like all populaces, they wish to remain in the majority in their country, hence the resistance to resettling the Palestinian refugees in any great number in Israel rather than the Palestinian state.
Philip critiques the Israelis for not conscripting the Israeli-Arabs, but he ignores the reality of the situation. Once there is a negotiated peace agreement with a 2-state solution, and real peace with the two nations those Israeli-Arabs that wish to serve in the IDF will do so. Ideally at that time there will not be a need for mandatory conscription, so it will be more of a volunteer army anyways. Realisitically speaking, genuine noramlization of relations with, and full integration of, the Israeli Arabs will only occur after the negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. I hope that day is tomorrow.
Richard – am I understanding your position correctly?
On November 15 of last year, I wrote this about the controversy over whether anti-jihadists should support the Vlaams Belang party or not:
But there is cultural defense and then there is a white supremacism that is based on some idea of racial superiority and inferiority, and has via Hitler a historical link to genocide. They are not the same thing, and a distinction needs to be made between the two. If VB and SD have really made a clean break with the past, make it a complete one: let them deal with the ties to LePen and Haider, and make a distinction between cultural defense and white supremacism that is completely clear and distinguishes their position from the neo-fascists.
Instead, it seems as if the VB has gone the other way. "Right-wingers gather against 'Islamisation,'" from The Australian (thanks to Tanguy):
SEVERAL European far-right parties announced a new organisation aimed at fighting the "Islamisation" of Europe.
The group dubbed "Cities against Islamisation" was presented to the media in the northern Belgian city of Antwerp by Filip Dewinter, head of the far-right Belgian party Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) along with Austrian FPOE leader Heinz-Christian Strace and Robert Spieler of the regionalist Alsace First group.
Parties from Britain (the British National Party), Denmark, Germany and Italy were also represented at the launch of the group which has a road-sign-style crossed-out mosque as its logo.
The goal — fighting the Islamization of Europe — is laudable. The problem is the BNP. The BNP is an unabashed racial/ethnic party. Its membership statement says:
Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent. While we welcome contact and co-operation with nationalists and patriots of other races, and with the many non-whites who also oppose enforced multi-racialism, we ask them to respect our right to an organisation of our own, for our own, as we respect and applaud their measures to organise themselves in like fashion.
The BNP says it is a party for indigenous Britons, but is not white supremacist or hateful. From a Q&A on the BNP site:
iii. Do you believe that blacks or other races are inferior?
No, we have never claimed any such thing. We simply believe that the different races are different, just as men and women are different, and as such they cannot be directly compared.
iv. If you believe that the races are different then you are racists.
Not at all. The definition of a racist is someone who hates people of other races. We do not hate anybody. Anyone who says the BNP is racist is either misinformed or a liar.
Yet even taking them at their word that they are not race supremacists in the National Socialist mode (although there does seem to be a good deal of contrary evidence), I think that their race-based approach is wrong in a number of ways.
1. It's the wrong way to fight the global jihad. The jihad is not a race, Islam is not a race, Muslims are not all of one race. The issues between the Islamic world and non-Muslims are not racial. They are about religious supremacism. Bringing in race just confuses the issue, and allows jihadists and their de facto allies among the Eurabian elites to claim that this whole thing is about racism.
2. To form one group for indigenous Britons and invite people of other ethnicities to form other similar groups reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization, works against the idea of representative government, and obscures the common values of Judeo-Christian civilization that are shared by people of many races and ethnicities.
3. This approach hamstrings and marginalizes the anti-jihad movement. Many people who oppose the Islamization of Europe will never join with a race-based party to do so. Hugh Fitzgerald and I have often commented here over the years about the tragedy in Europe: the mainstream political parties have completely abdicated any responsibility to deal with the Islamization of Europe, thus leaving the field open to groups like the BNP who obscure the issue with racial politics.
4. Many, many people have written here, and will no doubt write again in response to this post, that the BNP is the only party in Britain that is doing anything to resist Islamization, and thus deserves the support of all those who believe there is something worth defending in Western non-Muslim civilization. I don't think that is any sounder an argument than the claim that we must support Hizballah because it builds schools and runs charities when not lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Also, people I respect have pointed out that European culture is being overwhelmed and transformed by out-of-control Muslim immigration, and there is nothing wrong with defending it from that. I agree. But while culture has a racial component, culture and race are not identical. To reduce culture to race on a continent that has seen six million sacrificed to the idolatry of race and blood is not, in my view, the right way to defend European culture — and there must be articulated a sane and moral alternative that is clearly distinct from that and rejects it utterly. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has managed to mount a strong stance against Islamization while, as far as I know, avoiding dalliance with racial groups. While I am not a European and am conscious that Europeans will probably charge me with naivete and ignorance, I still don't see why it can't be done in Britain, Belgium, and elsewhere. Such dalliances inevitably raise the specter of neo-Nazism and white supremacism, and allow the mainstream parties to pretend that Europe faces a choice between becoming Eurabia and reviving the gas chamber. There are other ways, there have to be other ways, to deal with this.
The anti-jihad movement, if it is to become mainstream in Europe or the U.S., must articulate a positive vision of defense for the human rights of all people against the ways in which those human rights are contravened under Sharia, and avoid being diverted into side issues and non-issues, or formulating the problem incorrectly. Vlaams Belang, for all its talk about abjuring its past and moving into the mainstream, by allying with the BNP has taking a step in the opposite direction. Europe deserves better, and I hope a better choice will emerge.
As I have said before, I completely disavow all racist and neo-Nazi ideas. I also disavow all race-based approaches to the jihad threat, for the reasons explained above, and will not work with the VB or the BNP. I hope other anti-jihadists will find those arguments compelling and follow suit. In the recent bitter controversy between Charles Johnson and a group of counterjihadists over the nature of the VB, it does appear quite clearly from this new alliance, if it wasn't already, that Charles was right. The VB needs to do much more, and much more clearly, if it really wishes to avoid appearing to oppose Islamization solely on racial grounds. This angry, ugly rift between people I love and respect has disheartened me greatly. I hope now that it can be healed, and that out of it will come a more clearly defined sense of who we are and what we are trying to do.
UPDATE: I am told by sources in Europe that the BNP is not part of this anti-Islamization group. The Brussels Journal lists these groups that were actually there:
Yesterday politicians from several Europeans countries convened in Antwerp, the stronghold of the Flemish secessionist Vlaams Belang party, to establish the international organisation “Cities against Islamization” (CaI). Apart from the Vlaams Belang, the following three parties have joined the organisation: the FPÖ (Susanne Winter’s party, Austria), Alsace d’Abord (a regionalist party from Alsace, France) and Pro Köln (Germany).
The BNP's not being part of this new group, however, does not contradict The Australian's report that the BNP was at the meeting. If they were there, it would be good for the VB to explain why the BNP was there, and why the BNP didn't join. It would also be good now for the Vlaams Belang to renounce and distinguish itself clearly from BNP-style racialism, if it indeed hopes to become a broad anti-jihad party. I hope it will do so.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329
This is an absolutely important observation by Jim Lobe, it feels. Sometimes you are a real puzzle Phil Weiss.
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/01/norman-finkelstein-at-oxford-union.html
"On the other hand, there is agitation that pretends to be dissent that is in fact anti-semitic, that intentionally uses anti-Zionism as its new "permitted" form.
Posted by: Richard Witty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hate to be the one to break it to you Witty…but in your case the discrimination you are such a victim of is not because you are jewish but because you are you.
All obnoxious poeple claim others discriminate against them because they jewish or black or white or fat or gay or catholic or whatever.
If you were a white anglo saxon christian other white anglo saxon christians still wouldn't like you because you are an whiney asshole who uses being jewish as an excuse for your victimhood assholeness.
You are a anti-semite, its a long tradition. Nothing new, just don't dress it up in your bullshit.
Posted by: the sword of gideon | January 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM
>>>>>>>>
Well if Jim is an anti-semite I guess that makes you a jewish nazi.
Yep, you are a midget Nazi little gideon…just like the German nazis except smaller.
Israel is a nazi state.
Now my slurs are actually true and can be backed up by a long list of International crimes and violations of the 1848 war conventions by Israel and your kind.
Got anything to back up your slurs midget?
Witty: "Anti-Zionism is NOT criticism of Zionism, or criticism of specific policies.
The key word is "anti".
It is denial of the right of Jews to associate as a people, to form a nation."
Would you also argue that the anti-Nazis of the thirties were denying the right of Ayrans to associate as a people, to form a nation?
"Arabs own property, serve in the army, vote, serve on juries in which Jews are convicted of crimes."
Own property? Where? The only Arabs who own property are those who have lived in their current homes since 1948 & have title to them. Otherwise, Arabs cannot buy or sell property. They also cannot get building permits to build new homes.
As for serving in the army, there are almost no Israeli Arabs (except Druse) in the Israeli army. The IDF doesn't really want them (they're viewed as a Fifth Column by most Israelis) & they don't want to serve. So it's a marriage of convenience.
As for voting, yes they do. But their votes count for much less than a Jewish one because no government has accepted an Arab party within a governing coalition (individual Arabs have been ministers, but that's diff.). This renders the Arab vote of less weight than a Jewish one.
Richard,
Last year there was an Arab in the Labor party list. It was like republicans attempting to attract African-American votes. Somehow, the interests are skewed except for a small minority.
The structure of democracy is signficant though, as is the reality that Israel IS a multi-cultural state, moreso than Palestine currently.
In an Israel in which class or other issues bridge Palestinian and Israeli society, then multicultural parties could emerge, even as it is unlikely that an anti-Zionist Arab party would be accepted into a pro-Zionist coalition.
A multi-cultural real labor party could form a coalition with a Zionist labor party, and a Zionist liberal party, and even a Zionist centrist party, to form a government.
Changes in psychology are cultural. African-Americans weren't regarded as anything but grunts in the American military, until many distinguished themselves by valor, even if some regarded enthusiastically serving in the "colonialist" military as being an Uncle Tom.
At some point, Arab individuals will demonstrate that individual character prevails to defend the community (as it is – multi-cultural) from terrorist murderers (Hezbollah randomly shelling VERY multi-cultural Haifa perhaps).
Or, by some other demonstrated courage affirming that the other is human as well.
Firemen, or relief workers, or doctors (which all DO exist in Israel).
3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination
The General Assemby,
Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous" and its expression of alarm at "the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures",
Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,
Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination",
Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered "that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being",
Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology,
Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
More empty and insubstantial drivel from Witty. The wonders never cease.
Richard refuses to reveal whether he's even familiar with the universal declaration of human rights. Probably not!
Has Richard ever read U.N. resolution 3379? Probably not!
Has Richard ever stopped to contemplate whether the Arab states' expulsion of Zionist Jews in 1948 had anything to do with, you know, Zionism? Probably not!
Is Richard aware that 25,000 Jews in Iran reject Zionism and prefer Iran to Israel, which has repeatedly tried to entice their immigration? Probably not!
Has Richard ever wondered just how fucked up the world would be if every tribe or ethnicity demanded its own state, on top of someone else's homeland? Does Richard support colonialism by anyone other than Zionist Jews? Probably not!
Has Richard ever considered what a boon the Zionist colonialist regime is to the global arms trade? Probably not!
Does Richard consider Palestinian lives equal to Jewish ones, and condemn the disproportionate retaliation regularly visited on Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian popultions? Probably not!
Here, Richard, why don't you remove my doubts by clarifying your oh-so-mysterious positions that I know NOTHING about, despite having read your insignificant rambling here on a daily basis for several months.
Or, I know: respond in your typically cryptic fashion, admonishing my critical tone and insinuating anti-Semitism on my part. That will be an easier attack to make, given your limited mental weaponry.
Freedom of association. Separate but equal. Value of diversity, multi-culturalism. Each ethnic\culture group gets its own land where it is in the majority? Anyone know a Kurd or Roma?
Freedom of association, THEN reform.
Zionism is only racism by prejudicial interpretation. It is just that people that desire to self-associate do so, and that those that prefer to live in multi-cultural societies do so as well.
Thats why we can live in the US, while wahabi Arabs can live in ethnically cleansed Saudi Arabia (although the Wahabi conviction includes securing the waqf, particularly Jerusalem).
I don't know the "universal declaration of human rights" perse. I don't know UN resolution 3379.
With regard to 1948, the key dividing event was not the expulsion but the prohibition from return, enacted in the early 50's in a series of laws that prohibited return, annexed abandoned land, and restricted equal due process from making land and residence claims.
I regard the post-1945 Zionist settlement and formation of Israel as a necessity, and consider that the laws passed in the early 50's to also be necessities for the state to survive.
Currently, I believe that the laws should be revised to permit equal due process of law to Palestinians to assert their individual and even collective claims, but nearly universally in the form of compensation only.
The unlimited right of return as a political right, is off the table, and will remain so.
The forced removal of Jews from the Arab world was stimulated by the presence of Israel, but NOT caused by it. They were enactments of vengeance on the part of the Arab states and peoples.
If you regard vengeance as justice, then we are DIFFERENT.
I regard Jews and Palestinian lives as existentially equal, but I personally will advocate to support Jewish and Israeli lives more prominently as they are family of family (personal) and I am personally invested in Israel's well-being, and I just regard Palestinians as human beings, impersonal.
Same as I would rise to help my personal friend Phil if in need, whereas I might say that I couldn't afford to help you as I don't know you personally.
I challenge you to rise to support the rights of Israeli civilians to be free from assault as well.
That certainly is a violation of their civil rights.
Actions like the current incursion into Gaza is warranted to protect Israeli civilian lives, and IS the responsibility of a civil government.
Your rancor is misplaced. It is possible to love Israel and criticize it.
My sense is that your criticism of me is not for my actions, efforts, positions, so much as that I love Israel, love that it exists and as a haven for Jews.
You've digested the formula "Zionism is racism", rather than the formula "self-determination is liberation".
"Self determination is liberation"–David Duke? No group or tribe is individualistic. What a joke.
"For example, in many ways anti-America First is the rejection of the right of free association when applied to the (diminishing by the day since 1965) American people, among those that desire to live in a distinctly principled American nation."
So is Phil Weiss the House Jew of the America-Firsters? He seems to be the go-to guy whenever the nativists at The American Conservative want to knife (to borrow Weiss's own metaphor from his book review in the current edition) Jewish neocons.
Zionism is not just self-determination, Witty. It is self-determination + colonialism. It's the second part that I have a problem with, only that.
What, besides institutionally-aggravated Jewish paranoia, is keeping the old and the new inhabitants of Palestine from living together?
The Islamic resistance groups have actual grievances, Witty. They are not irrational anti-Semites (not to mention that they themselves are Semitic, and that they themselves draw a distinction between Judaism and Zionism, a distinction you haven't quite mastered yet).
The "two-state solution" is code for further transfer of Israeli Arabs out of the Jewish supremacist state. Not to mention that the guidelines of the Arab League Peace initiative have been sitting on the table getting cold, for years, without so much as an Israeli glance. Why not? "Security" is the pretext–OF COURSE. "We gotta fight 'em over there…", basically. Is it any wonder Hamas wins elections?
I am incredibly disappointed that Phil fails to see the mirage of the "two-state solution" for what it is: disingenuous, untenable, and immoral.
No one (at least no one I've read) is trying to kick the Jews out of Palestine. The resistance organizations, such as Hamas, are trying to get rid of ZIONISM, that is, Jewish supremacy in Palestine. Integrate already, and begin rebuilding those bridges that were in fact ubiquitous prior to the late 19th/early 20th century scurge of ethnic nationalism.
What's any government for except to classify you by race/ethnicity, gender, age, and economic class, the better to do good and protect you from harm?
Aren't the BNP's racially non-inclusive membership policies pretty much the equivalent of those of the Congressional Black caucus? Should the Democratic Party be called on to disassociate iteslf from the CBC?
Someone should ask that question at the next Dem debate.