No doubt Bobby Fischer was an anti-semite, but the clip that "All Things Considered" used tonight to demonstrate it was from his rant to Philippines radio after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said that the U.S. was getting payback for its support for Israel. In the audio clip, Fischer says, "The U.S. and Israel have been slaughtering Palestinians for years. No one gave a shit." This is not evidence of his anti-semitism, though god knows he exposed it in other parts of the same interview. It is evidence of the tendency of American media to merge all criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews. And why did NPR fail to point out that Fischer’s mother was Jewish?
-
-
- Live tweeting from the Penn BDS conference 15
- Praying while Shi’a: the NYPD’s latest religious profiling scandal 1
- Should Alan Dershowitz refuse to take himself seriously? 8
- Israeli police shoot international activist in the neck during weekly … 1
- Occupy Oakland’s landslide BDS endorsement 2
- Armenians protest as Israel creates Jewish-only parking lot in the … 0
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate 51
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference 12
-
- Israeli soldiers drive tractor over worker’s legs to stop Palestinians … 309
- Halper vows to rebuild Palestinian home destroyed five times by … 101
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 92
- ‘Invented’ Palestinian confronts Gingrich at GOP debate 88
- ‘Center for American Progress’ censors references to Israel from piece … 83
- Three things to consider before mourning for Sheikh Emad Effat 80
- The great book robbery 76
- Israel demolishes homes in Hebron, Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley 75
-
- New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy 333
- ‘NYT’ gives Israelis its magazine to make an attack on … 144
- Chris Hayes stunning ‘Story of the Week’ featuring Sheldon Adelson 102
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 100
- ‘Tablet’ says writers who talk about Israel Firsters are channeling … 90
- Iran sanctions backlash– oil buyers ditch dollar 78
- Abunimah and Woolsey debate BDS in the ‘Philadelphia Inquirer’ 78
- So the U.S. military doesn’t want to attack Iran and … 78
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (51)
- American: “It seems more and more people are getting tired of this constant hystery about the state of Israel...
- worker bee: My main response to this is that I just don’t see American attitudes towards Jews changing in the...
- Live tweeting from the Penn BDS conference (15)
- bintbiba: Phil, Adam, Annie, Kathleen, Alex Thank you. I’m loving every minute I spend with you mondos! What a...
- Kathleen: Really like this statement at the BDS conference website “We believe the conference will be an...
- Justice Please: I come fresh from protesting 4 hours in the freezing cold against NATO war and warcrimes. Go all...
- So the U.S. military doesn’t want to attack Iran and neither does Israel. Who does? (82)
- seanmcbride: Dan Crowther, I am still looking for an answer to this question: How has the prime minister of Israel...
- Occupy Oakland’s landslide BDS endorsement (2)
- Justice Please: Thanks for the report, Allison! “in front of Oakland’s city hall, occupiers endorsed Boycotts,...
- Barghouti: Attacks on the Penn BDS conference reveal panic that Israel is losing hearts and minds (14)
- Citizen: FYI: Thank you for writing to the Diane Rehm Show. We appreciate your thoughts and comments. We created this...
- Israeli police shoot international activist in the neck during weekly Nabi Saleh protest (1)
- Justice Please: The French government should investigate and demand the extradition of the guilty soldier, also...
- Should Alan Dershowitz refuse to take himself seriously? (8)
- atime forpeace: Dersh is an irritant and his intent is to irritate those whom he is trying to bully. The Dersh...
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (51)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Kate
- Annie Robbins
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Matthew Taylor
- Alex Kane
- Max Blumenthal
Blogroll
Not everybody who hates Jews also hates Israel, but it's the usual pattern. That goes for vice versa, too.
I don't hate Jews.
I don't hate Israel.
I didn't hate Afrikaners.
I didn't hate South Africa.
I deplored the actions of Apartheid South Africa; I deplore the actions of Apartheid Israel.
I deplore the affect of the Israeli lobby on the foreign policy of my country, including its role in the Iraq war and the death and casualties incurred thereby.
That should be "Israel" lobby, as much of it is not Israeli.
NPR is anything but public radio; it's certainly not interested in reporting certain vital facts of dire public interest. Any business that relies on federal funding is, by virtue, owned by the state.
Paul Craig Roberts was dead-on when he said:
"MoveOn, an organization that, unlike the Bush Regime, has redeeming virtues, is making a terrible mistake in trying to collect half a million signatures in behalf of saving federal funding for NPR and PBS.
"I cannot imagine a surer way of adding NPR and PBS to the Bush Regime’s ministry of propaganda.
"NPR and PBS desperately need to be totally independent of government and dependent only on their listeners. Any organization dependent on government money belongs to the government. Such an organization has no independence. Just ask the many physicists who cannot express doubts about the 9/11 Commission Report because their careers depend entirely on federal government grants.
"We have witnessed a decline in the integrity of NPR reporting over the past six years. The Bush Regime put an ideological commissar in charge of NPR and the result is that NPR sounds increasingly like Fox 'news.' The few people with integrity that America has left in the news business desperately need their independence.
"On February 13, I listened for two hours to NPR and did not hear a single report of General Pace’s contradiction of Bush/Cheney propaganda about Iran’s leaders. But I did hear a neoconservative from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a propaganda institution in Washington D.C., push the buttons for war with Iran.
"The Clinton Administration permitted the destruction of independent news in the US when it allowed the extraordinary concentration of the media. The American media is no longer run by journalists with a commitment to truth but by advertising executives who seek to protect profits by avoiding 'controversy' and who seek to protect the value of the conglomerates, a value that depends on government-granted broadcast licenses, by accommodating the government’s line, whatever it might be.
"The only free and independent media in the US is online. The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR is to lose all federal funding and to become totally independent of Washington. Then we could trust it again."
[
It's complicated, because antisemites often do hate Israel (though that's not a given, btw. I know someone who is antisemitic and is very supportive of Israel.)
But then there all those good little "liberals" who think it's antisemitic to point out that Israel's crimes against the Palestinians are underreported. In their eyes, you're an antisemite if you think Palestinians have human rights that are worth defending.
Some of the most outspoken critics of Israeli policy that I know are Israelis and American Jews. They support Israel the idea, but they detest the occupation, chauvinism, and right wingers in the Israeli government.
The fact that the genuine article anti-semitic bigots attack Israel using the arguments from non-anti-semites does make it hard for some Jews to not act defensively to those very legitimate arguments.
The smartest of the Jews, Bobby Fischer being merely one (now deceased) example, have all begun the long process of extracting themselves from a kind of Judaism that has basically been taken over by Judeofascists and, on a larger scale, the Zionist/Neocon movement, which Scott McConnel in the American Conservative described as a full blown ideological system and "the highest stage of the Israel lobby."
The question is not whether anti-Ziocons are anti-Semitic, the question is whether most Jews are now Judeofascists and part of the Zionist/Neocon movement. Most American Jews would deny being Neocons, yet not deny being Zionists, which is a crucial leg of the Neocon movement. When a person is a strong supporter of an ideology that itself is a crucial support for a larger ideology, isn't that person implicated in the latter?
To argue otherwise is like saying "I support Bush but I don't support the Iraq war" or "I support Israel but I don't support the Jewish Zionist program that was decisive in putting America into the Iraq war." One is part and parcel of the other.
The same standard should be applied to Christianity: at what point does Christian support for Zionism completely discredit organized Christianity? Because of the massive backlash against pseudo-Christian Bush all across America by key segments of the Christian community, I believe Christianity has somewhat redeemed itself and is still a long way off from being taken over by Christian Zionists like Bush.
But I have yet to see a similar backlash among organized Judaism against Zionism. Only with such a backlash will Judaism ever be able to redeem itself. If it never comes, Judaism is lost forever.
"Not everybody who hates Jews also hates Israel, but it's the usual pattern. That goes for vice versa, too."
……………………………………
"The claim has been made by many commentators that there is a 'new antisemitism' that instead of attacking Jews on an economic, political, cultural, or racial basis within the various societies, now has transferred its hostility to the plane of international society, so that the enemy has become one big 'Jew', the state of Israel, and its Zionist supporters. Anti-Zionism, it is claimed, is the new antisemitism.
There is undoubted overlap between hostility to the Zionist movement and the state of Israel, and the tradition of antisemitism outlined in the pages above.[obviously] To equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, far too simplistic, theoretically crass, and demeans the memory of those who suffered the horrendous consequences of real antisemitism"
Steven Beller, Antisemitism. A Very Short Introduction., p. 111, Oxford University Press 2007.
I highly recommend his book. I have no doubt at all, that some may enjoy his book for the wrong reasons, so what.
http://www.amazon.com/Antisemitism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192892770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200789669&sr=8-1
The day after 9/11, Bobby said:
This is wonderful news. It's time for the US to get their heads kicked in. Finish off the US once and for all. Fuck the US. Fuck the Jews. They're murderous, criminal, thieving, lying bastards. They made up the Holocaust. They are the worst liars.
The day of 9/11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the attack:
“It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]."
I am with you kameeaden Ed. The verminous Jew-kikes must be exterminated and removed from the United States. You should learn from us my brother.
What is the word for anti-Semites that support Israel as a Jewish homeland so that Jews won't be living in the homelands of other ethnic groups? Antisemitezionist?
Ed. – You are wrong in your analysis of American Jews. Most Jews understand Zionism to mean that the Jews have a right to an autonomous independent homeland, just like practically every other ethnic group on the planet. Most of us American Jews will say that we support Israel's right to exist. While we are Americans first and don't want to move to Israel, since America is our home, we support the "jews" right to a homeland, just as we support the Palestinians right to an independent state/homeland, the Kurd's right to an autonomous homeland, and the Tibetan's right to an independent homeland. There is a WIDE range of attitudes and opinions amongst American Jews on Israeli policies — Some American Jews support the Right Wing in Israel and some support the more dovish, Left Wing. They seem to be as split as Americans are in supporting the right and the left in this country. Gee, imagine that. I guess some of jews didn't get their AIPAC marching orders and don't know which play the Cabal is running.
If you were to ask Jews if they believed in Zionism, it would be equivalent to asking people if they 'believed in America'. The actually relevant question is WHICH AMERICA? Obama America? Huckabee America? David Duke America? Brittany Spears America?
There is quite a bit of disagreement withing the American Jewish community about what are the right policies for Israel. Polls show that most American Jews, like most Israelis, support a two state agreement with the Palestinians that gives both peoples an autonomous homeland in which they are not ruled over by another. Most Christian Evangelicals take a much harder line in opposing such a two-state solution. American Jewry is no closer to being taken over by anti-peace, anti-Palestinian forces than American Christianity is to being taken over by Hagee and his crowd, or American Muslims are from being taken over by al-Qaeda.
Any American Jew who reads the comments on Philip's blog will have a hard time arguing against the need for a Jewish homeland. What that homeland should look like and what the policies of it should be is a very open question in the American Jewish community.
The fact that there are strong forces that are actively trying to literally and figuratively destroy Israel (i.e. Iran and compadres) makes some American Jews less inclined to air their distaste and anger with Israeli policies, but those conversations are happening.
Your weak and distorted analysis is more harmful than helpful.
"Zionism to mean that the Jews have a right to an autonomous independent homeland …"
STOP THIS! It is not about "a" homeland, it's about a very specific homeland: the homeland of the PALESTINIAN people! The fact that somebody was living there makes all the difference. (Which is why you left it out of your formulation.) What Zionism really means is that Jews have a right to Palestine that takes precedence over the rights of the inhabitants.
That's racial supremacism in most people's book.
"Polls show that most American Jews, like most Israelis, support a two state agreement with the Palestinians."
What's your evidence for this, Gerald? It flys in the face of the latest AJC survey results (to say nothing of 60 years of evidence).
"toGerld" – Given the way history has played out, my personal belief is that both people have a right to share this land and at this point neither has a right to deny the other access to it. Since a one state solution does not seem to work for one or more of the parties, a two-state arrangement seems to be the best solution.
The Palestinians did not deserve to have their land usurped from them. The Jews, contrary to what some believe in these comments section, did not deserve to be relegated to second-class citizenship, subjected to multiple pogroms, and denied a homeland. An independent Israel living in peace with an independent Palestine is the best (non-perfect) attempt at a just solution to the predicament. It's not surprising that this is what the UN came up with in 1947 and which fair minded people around the world still believe today.
"have a right to share this land"
You're claiming that the European Zionists came down with the intention of SHARING Palestine with the Palestinians?!
"Polls show that most American Jews, like most Israelis, support a two state agreement with the Palestinians."
What's your evidence for this, Gerald? It flys in the face of the latest AJC survey results (to say nothing of 60 years of evidence).
Posted by: toGerald | January 20, 2008 at 06:56 AM
toGerald – Why not go ask as many American Jews and Israelis as you can the following question:
"If the Palestinians genuinely agreed to live in peace with Israel on the condition that the 1967 border be reinstated, Jerusalem split so that it is the capital of both states, and a small percentage of the refugees be returned to Israel (with the remainder returning to the new Palestinian state), would you support a two-state solution?
Ask and let me know what you find out. I can tell you that 8 of 10 American Jews I would ask would say they supported such a deal. Some may be skeptical that the Palestinians ever really go for such a deal, but they themselves would be willing. My guess is similar number of Israelis would respond similarly. Given the latest comments from the Saudi Foreign Minister perhaps we will see even more Israelis leaning this direction.
"have a right to share this land"
You're claiming that the European Zionists came down with the intention of SHARING Palestine with the Palestinians?!
Posted by: toGerald | January 20, 2008 at 07:14 AM
Some did. Some didn't. Some do. Some don't.
Zionism is more diverse and complicated than you think "toGerald".
Any chance of you choosing a different moniker?
Well, give us some evidence of these early Zionists who you claim intended to live side by side with the Arabs. Everything I've read indicates a desire for racial purity that would make a Nazi blush.
By bringing up the subject of American Jewry's majority opinions, Gerald, I'm afraid you're not doing the hasbara effort much good–
According to the 2007 AJC survey, only 46% of American Jews claim to favor the establishment of any kind of Palestinian state. (BTW, this is down from 2006.)
58% reject any kind of compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a purely Israeli city. (And, as you know, without Jerusalem as a capital, there can be no economically viable Palestinian state.)
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.2818289/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id={EBA4B120-D7BC-4161-9DB1-7E3279275529}¬oc=1
“>link to philipweiss.org
And we haven't even begun to explore the racist ideas within Israel itself.
ToGerald:
You have hit the nail on the head my friend. The Jew is the Jew, eternally, where ever they are. And must be exterminated where they stand. We understood that and I see that you see it too kamerad. I know from your writings that you see how they must be killed, all of them
You have that comment assigned to a macro on your keyboard, Rudolph?
Gerard, we use the bloody pigeonhole principle here, meaning two or more zionists are not allowed to occupy the same hole at the same time. Righ now the "Zionism is more diverse and complicated than you think" is permanently occupied by Witty.
The mathematical version here (no bloody pigeons allowed, though)
Er…Gerald
Do you think the Palestines had a right to their homeland and self determination in 1948?
How about Germany?..did they have a right to an "ethnic" homeland,…" just like practically every other ethnic group" ..as you said? ..which in their case happened to be Aryan?
Since Israel is set up for one specific "ethnic",which is jews..what would be wrong with setting up America and Europe for specifically Anglo Saxon ethnics and sending the jews to their ethnic homeland in Israel? Would you like that?
Or if ethnics can "reclaim" their land 10 centuries after they lost it why not have the UN give the US back to the Indians?
When I look at "zionism" in Israel I see this:
Master Race = Chosen People..Same thing. Same mentality. No difference.
As an unhyphened-one country-American I can tell you people are fed with "hypen-americans" living here and championing a foreign country as their "homeland". If a vote was taken among the public you might find yourself voted out and sent to your "ethnic" homeland.
I use to find it amazing how hypocritical the zionist are and couldn't understand how they didn't see what they were doing. But now I understand it for what it is, a sickness of self delusion brought on by a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism just like the old nazis.
The more I have thought about Israel the more I think it reveals the inate problem of the zionist…after WWII they could have set up a country that actually was a shinging light unto the nations…by creating a country that was the world's example of tolerance and justice and cooperation among different people, the exact opposite of Germany…instead they made it about Jewish exclusiveness and revenge and greed and religous insanity. For the jews or zinoist the world is about them only, no one else. And they use victimhood and encourage victimhood and promote anti-semitism and milk the holocuast as tools to support their own nazi view of race and ethnics.
It's transparent. It's sick. Anyone who supports it is sick.
togerald:
no, I just recognize one of us when I see him. You hate the kikes, so do we. Sieg Heil my friend.
Rudolph Hoess is obviously a Christian Zionist or a Jewish Zionist. To decode his true psychology, simply substitute “Palestinians” for what he calls “kikes” and you will understand his agenda.
Calypso wrote:
“I use to find it amazing how hypocritical the zionist are and couldn't understand how they didn't see what they were doing. But now I understand it for what it is, a sickness of self delusion brought on by a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism just like the old nazis.”
No question there is some mental illness at play here. But then again, the prisons are filled with those suffering from “self delusion brought on by a sense of entitlement and exceptionalism.” The difference is, the average imprisoned criminal doesn’t have any money, and many Jewish Zionists are quite wealthy, which in a thoroughly corrupted America allows them to get away with murder. In fact, it seems in narcissitic Neocon America, the particular illness that Jewish Zionists suffer from, in conjunction with their nepotism, rather than being a liability, actually helps them to thrive and quickly rise to the top.
What happens in any country when the inmates take over the asylum? I think America is today only starting to pay for the sin of allowing Judeofascists to gain a foothold. Wall Street scheming and theft, Hollywood smut and degeneracy broadcast 24/7, a bought-off Congress and corrupt Executive branch lying America into the Iraq war, a co-opted media actually cheerleading for the bully, a marginalized WASP Establishment constantly wrenching its neck to look the other way, thoroughly dumbed-down “Christian” Zionist noahides: all are symptoms of a country co-opted by the Judeofascist mentality and well on its way into the sewer.
Like an alcoholic, America is obviously going to have to hit rock bottom before it confronts the Foxman guarding the henhouse. If the Soviet Unions is any indication, this could take decades. Or maybe not, given our current rate of decline.
It's also interesting how the Neocons and Straussians beleive the liberalism and decadence of Weimar Germany gave birth to Nazism and so posture as opposed to liberalism in America, and yet when you look at many of the domestic policies they support (ie open borders, money-worship, crass capitalism, the deliberate undermining of the Christian ethos, repression of legitimate political and religious discourse and dissent) all of them lead to a hedonistic America with few moral restraints other than those mandated by civil law, the authority of which is quickly collapsing.
Maybe the Nazism that came out of Weimar Germany was a stage in the suicide of Anglo-Saxon racist hedonism; maybe the Neoconservatism that has come out of decadent Bush-Cheney-Clinton America is a stage in the suicide of racist, hedonistic Judeofascism.
I do like that Bobby Fischer defied the US Treasury Department by playing that lucrative chess match in Serbia.
The US government has some nerve dictating to its citizens where they can and cannot travel and make money, given its own appalling amorality and even immorality in these areas.
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Ed., toGerald, Calypso, Blaine et al,
You have clearly made up your minds and I don't believe there is anything I can say to you that would change your minds that Jews are human just like you and there is a great diversity of perspectives amongst us. Like Poles, Kenyans, and Egyptians, Jews and Palestinians both have a right to self-determination.
I used to think that some jews made too much of a big deal about anti-semitism. I seem to owe them an apology. There really are some disgusting minds out there.
I'll be spending the remainder of the day with family and friends so I bid you adieu.
You have me wrong Ed, I'm on your side, against the eternal Jew. They are evil and must be expunged from the earth. I read what you write, surely you agree with that Ed
Per Gerald's comments:
Aside from the fact that they didn't have one for 2000 years and there were already people living there, how does the Jews wanting to have a homeland differ from Italians or Irish wanting to have a homeland?
Would the Italians or Irish be willing to give up living in Italy and Ireland and be solely a diaspora population? If not, why not? Would they be willing to live in Ireland and Italy as minorities to immigrants from other countries with very different customs and mores?
If Ireland were under threat of attack and possible annhilation would Irish Americans take an interest in it? Would it be considered a dual loyalty issue if they lobbied the US Government to support the defense of Ireland?
I live in Brooklyn, NY. In my neighborhood there are too many Irish and Italian flags for me to count. Should I question Brian McMurray's and Tony Lombardo's loyalty to the USA? What about all the Irish bars and Italian restaurants in my neighborhood that have pictures of the old country and show soccer games on the tv that bring in a crowd of recent and old Irish immigrants who cheer on their footballers from the old country? Is that a reason to question their loyalty? These folks often vote for one of their own in local elections. Should I be worried. I haven't been. But the folks here have me wondering if I've just been naive.
Joshua, you sound like a yid to me, what's the story
I am Rudolph.
Different Joshua. Can't speak for the other.
btw – How old are you? 12?
"Ed., toGerald, Calypso, Blaine et al,
You have clearly made up your minds and I don't believe there is anything I can say to you that would change your minds that Jews are human just like you and there is a great diversity of perspectives amongst us.
I used to think that some jews made too much of a big deal about anti-semitism. I seem to owe them an apology. There really are some disgusting minds out there.
Posted by: Gerald | January 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM"
Gerald:
Wow!
I can't keep track of everyone else's comments, but I myself have never made an anti-semitic remark in the few days I have posted on this blog.
Do I think Israel deserves special treatment by the US government? No.
Do I think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was the biggest bit of lunacy committed by the US government in my lifetime? Yes.
Do I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be lead to domestic political asphyxiation? Yes.
Do I think that the "economic stimulus package" forthcoming from Washington is infantile? Yes.
Do I like the fact that Bobby Fischer defied arbitrary US Treasury policy by playing a chess match in Serbia? Yes.
As I remember it, that's really everything of substance I have posted this week (in other words, ever) on Mondoweiss.
And now I am charged with anti-semitism? Interesting, and sad. Anyone who knows me in real life would find the assertion laughable.
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Michael,
I've read your comments and totally agree with you. My guess is you just got caught up in the mix. The guy sounded like he was a bit miffed and getting ready to go out, so he may have confused your posts with others.
Someone earlier posted a comment on the need for American Jews to denounce their fellow Jews when they make certain comments. I actually appreciated this person's point. If you don't denounce the comments that others make then others may believe you agree. More than once I've had to publicly disassociate myself from some Likudniks and make it clear to all where I sharply diverge with their positions. You have done the same here, so I don't think anyone will confuse you with Ed or Calypso.
I looked at your blog and will check it out again in the future.
Cheers.
Thanks, Joshua.
I'd also like to say that normally I spend my time reading and posting on blogs based in my home state of Minnesota.
There are a few good – mostly progressive -thinkers on those sites, but the majority are ill-informed and inarticulate. I hate to reinforce a stereotype, but even the good-hearted and open-minded among Minnesotans tend not to be very cosmopolitan. The frame of reference is very basic, and the energy level relatively low.
So I like the hard edge, passion and preciseness of the discussions on Mondoweiss, although I don't know exactly from where the traffic here comes.
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Who are the "Palestinians" of Ireland and Italy?
And while you're at it Charles,
where are the AIPACs of the Irish- and Italian-Americans?
Your an italian american aren't you Paul. Or what is know has a wop, maybe a greaseball. Shouldn't you know.
The only way for you to regard the Arab/Israeli conflict as being about "rights" of "Palestinians" is for you to have a total aberration of reality picture that can only be explained by having an antisemitic perception prizm firmly installed deep inside your mind. So yes, anti-Israelism IS antisemitism, because it is predicated on the destruction of the State of Jewish People and thus extermination of 6 millions of its Jewish inhabitants and their family members. Talking about SA solution is demented, as PLO/Hamas demands are nothing of the sort of the ANC demands re the "other" population.
Being anti-"zionist" is to demand destruction of Israel. Is to demand mass murder of Jews there. Is to deny historic rights (YES) of the Jewish people, as any other people on the face of this Earth, to their Homeland (YES, Arabs have rights to their Arabian Homeland too). IS to be held up by anti-Jewish bigotry. Or to be a patsy for clever and multitudial Arab propaganda devices, which is a shame.
You're either a villain, or a fool. For the idiot American simpletons here, do understand that you country being a multi-national continent-wide empire is not the only mode of existence for a state. There's also the European model of French, German etc. nation-state, a state for its people – all minorities' rights included, of course. That's exactly the Israel's model.
All the rest is just idiocy par exellance.
Rudolph,
passive voice – use the past participle
what is known as a wop
Aargh -
People who criticize the actions of Israel are not "Anti-Israelis" as you define them.
I criticize the actions of Israel, as well as a host of other nations including my own, and that doesn't mean that I
"have a total aberration of reality picture that can only be explained by having an antisemitic perception prizm firmly installed deep inside your mind"
nor does it mean that I
"demand destruction of Israel. Is to demand mass murder of Jews there. Is to deny historic rights (YES) of the Jewish people, as any other people on the face of this Earth, to their Homeland"
I favor a resolution of the conflict, somewhat in the ballpark of what became known as the "Clinton Parameters". Please read the following quotes from Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli Foreign Minister and self-avowed "Zionist". The point is, a solution must be found that takes into account the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis, including future security. Your name-calling makes little progress in that direction. Although I disagree with Richard Witty on many issues, at least he seems to want to move in the direction of a settlement that will be acceptable to both sides.
Shlomo Ben-Ami:
"Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border.
About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Palestinian is — sorry, and what is Arab is Palestinian. It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews, that these things mean to them a lot. And then, with the question of refugees, it says that the refugees will return to historic Palestine, to historical Palestine, and that Israel will maintain its sovereign right of admission. That is, it will have to absorb a number of refugees but with restrictions that need to be negotiated between the parties. But the bulk of the refugees will be allowed to return to the state of Palestine. This is the essence of the Clinton parameters."
"And our role, the role of this generation — this is why I came into politics and why I try to make my very modest contribution to the peace process — is that we need to bring an end to this injustice that has been done to the Palestinians. We need to draw a line between an Israeli state, a sovereign Palestinian state, and solve the best way we can the problem, by giving the necessary compensation to the refugees, by bringing back the refugees to the Palestinian state, no way to the state of Israel, not because it is immoral, but because it is not feasible, it is not possible. We need to act in a realistic way and see what are the conditions for a final peace deal. I believe that we came very, very close to that final peace deal. Unfortunately, we didn't make it. But we came very close in the year 2001."
"I am trying to be as fair as possible when I read the past, but it's a very interesting point, the one that you make here, about us trying to obliterate the memory of our war against the Palestinians, and the whole Israeli 1948 mythology is based on our war against the invading Arab armies, less so against the Palestinians, who were the weaker side in that confrontation, because it didn't serve the myth of the creation of the state and of the nation. So we need to correct that. There is no way — there is no way we can fully compensate the refugees and the Palestinians, but we need to do our very, very best to find a way to minimize the harm that was done to this nation."
Paul – Great citation. That is exactly where I am coming from, and I can assure arggh that I am no anti-semite. Do I detest Jewish bigots? Yes. As much as I detest Irish, Italian, and Arab bigots.
Are there real genuine anti-semites out there? Yes. Some are even reading this right now. But one can be critical of the Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and still not be an anti-semite. My bubbes and zaides would not take kindly to anyone calling me an anti-semite.
Now someone who wants to see the end of Israel as a homeland for the Jews is genuinely anti-Israel. They literally want to see Israel cease to exist in its present form. Based on your comments I'm guessing you think that a one-state solution would lead to the destruction of the Jewish population in that state. You may be right, but you're probably wrong. My guess is that a one-state solution would ultimately end up in civil war and we would arrive at a 2-state solution, albeit with different borders.
From what I've read of Richard Witty he would be supportive of the Clinton Parameters you propose here. What is it you disagree with him on?
Oh – here is an interesting piece about ethnic lobbies:
paul malfara — Shlomo Ben-Ami is an idiot. Clinton parameters mean SURELY the WAR of destruction of Israel because these borders are INDEFENCIBLE by definition. I give 90% for Arabs to wipe Jews off in this war. This doesn't mean peaceful extradition. This means mass murder, streets flowing with blood kind of thing. You think it's an exaggeration? Think Rwanda.
There are only two real peaceful choices.
One – repatriation of Arabs – those who won't accept the permanently Jewish character of Israel – to their Arabian Homeland. Seems pretty decent to me. They can even get relocation assistance to boot, paid by the whole world which (says to) so much desire PEACE in the "ME".
Another – the relocation of Jews. Seems less fair, since they will be forced to join some foreign culture. No such problem for Arabs joining other Arabs in the lands occupied by Arabs, speaking Arab language, espousing same cultural, moral and religious traits.
That's it. All the rest is BS leading surely to bloodshed – either Jewish or Arab. Both is regrettable.
If the world is so sure the first option will be opposed by the bigoted Arabs fiercely, having an immense power of 350 million people and the enormous pile of oil money – well, the West can choose the second option and at least offer it to the Jews of Israel —— instead of covertly working for their destruction in the hands of maniacs, pushing the black propaganda of "PEACE" i.e. MURDER-OF-THE-JEWS, because it seems to them, I don't know – more cost efficient?
paul: "to move in the direction of a settlement that will be acceptable to both sides"
That's the thing. THERE IS NO SUCH SETTLEMENT. Because Arabs want the WHOLE of Western Palestine region to themselves. That's just the reality on the ground at this juncture.
You either change Arab attitudes – which you can't – or you take them into account AS THEY ARE IN REALITY, not in your imagination of HOW THINGS OUTTA BE IN THIS NICE WARM FUZZY WORLD WE LIVE IN.
Right.
Michael Blaine,
My apologies for lumping you in earlier with Ed and Calypso. In my haste I associated your name with the wrong post.
arrgh – you seem to tbe the flip side of Ed, telling everyone what the Palestinians think and will do, just as Ed does with Jews. Neither of you really knows what you are talking about.
Gerald (which Gerald?) – what, you don't believe THEM in THEIR words? Don't take MY word on it, just listen to THEM. Or maybe YOU know better than them "what they think and will do"?
The HAMAS charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It quotes the Protocols as the "Joos"' holy book. The PLO charter calls for "liberation" of land "occupied" by Israel – that is, the original 1964 charter, which specifically states it has no demands for the territories occupied by Jordan on the "west bank" and Egypt in Gaza – only to the "palestine" land occupied by Israel. As of 1964 that is.
Lastly, the Saudi peace initiative specifically demands Israel to let 4,000,000 foreign born Arabs under the guise of being "Palestinians". Which are defined, by the resolution 194, as those who lived in Palestine Mandate for at least TWO years before the 1948 war —- TWO YEARS —- for a GOOD reason. Because there were MASSES of recent migrants from Egypt, and Libya, and the likes. More than HALF of them. Until this day there are whole villagies in Israel of Arabs with surname Al-Masri. Which means – you know it – the Egyptian.
Wise up, man. The Arab supremacists won't accept the right of Jews to rule over their own destiny because they see in them the rebellious dhimmi people who won't submit anymore. They just won't admit to themselves that it is they, Arabs, who are the INVADERS all throughout the Arab occupied Middle East and North Africa, having expunged countless diverse peoples and civilizations, of which fact Israel is a sore reminder for them, calling their bluff.
And, if you didn't know this, Pelishtinim means INVADERS in Hebrew. Just like that. The original Greek ones were such, and these Arab impostors are too.
Gerald (which Gerald?) – listen to them — in ARABIC, that is. They LIE to you in English, man. Don't you know a liar? That's when you're lied to once, and twice, and countless times more, that you know you're dealing with a liar.
Re: the Jenin "massacre". 500 dead, right? The funeral processions of walking bodies. The intentional black-out of Gaza with 70% electricity available to them (that's TODAY).
The running-about "wounded", "shot" in one leg and holding the other?
The dead child picking out from under his arm?
www.seconddraft.org
I agree with Calypso. Please look closely at what your say, and what it means beyond your own loins.
Bernard where is the loot? Tellme or Tel-Aviv!
Did the jew invent the game of chess? If not: What did the jew invent independently? — host cultures aside. The Roman historians said very little of their intellectual/sophisticated prowess at the time; for they were but primitive, murdering, thieving, desert tribesman. In civilized Europe, the Asiatic jew ; like their fellow parasitic, nomadic gypsey relation, created nothing but stole much. The primeval jewish shoffar; parenthetically, Einsteinian lightyears away from the more advanced aboriginal didgeridoo; had nothing on the ingenuity of gippo pickpockets. The Chinese invented paper money, the Egptians papyrus, but how did Houdini like Bernard Madoff, make 50 billion plus dollars of stolen loot vanish into thin air? And all by himself!