A friend has passed along an email evidently sent out by the "Israeli Student Life" group at Columbia University to organize opposition to the Arab Student Association's week of Nakba recognition. "Dear Israelis," the email says, "You are probably aware by now of the Palestinian campaign...We need your help to respond by posting fliers around the campus." It advises students to pick up fliers at the Hillel or download them online. "Please take 20 minutes of your time to do so- It is really important for the image of Israel and for our well being at the campus."
Here's the flier, created by Lionpac, the school's Israel lobby, which says, "From 1947-1951, 800,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries just because they were Jewish. Enough. We can go on arguing like this forever..." The flier invites the Arab organizers of Nakba week to put an end to rancor between the two sides and sit down and talk about the Nakba rather than have forums.
What catches my eye is that phrase from the email, "for our well being at the campus." I take the Israelis at their word: Some Israeli students evidently feel physically afraid because of the Arab students' efforts to publicize the Nakba. I think this is irrational, that the Arab students are merely trying to use the first amendment to put out the history of unending Palestinian dispossession since 1948, but it is a significant irrationality. Israel came to life out of the Holocaust. The Zionists brought a European experience of antisemitism and genocide to the Middle East. Menachem Begin had been imprisoned in Poland, later he was joined by the survivors of the D.P. camps who emigrated during the "Exodus." As John Mearsheimer indicates in the post below, many Zionists projected the image of genocidal Nazis on to Palestinian Arabs--who were only resisting colonization, as you and I would.
It cannot be said often enough that the Holocaust left lingering psychic wounds in my people. I'm sure Richard Witty would agree with that statement, if not the following: that those injuries continue to distort the Jewish understanding of our place in American life (we are not outsiders, but principals in the establishment) and the Israelis' understanding of what they face in Israel/Palestine. A sense of victimization, after all, is the only thing that might rationalize Israeli atrocities against Palestinian innocents in Gaza as a legitimate campaign against "terror" and the utter separation of Jews and Arabs that you see in Israel.
I don't mean to suggest that it is easy to get past the Holocaust memories, even 60 years later. But that they shouldn't crowd out awareness of other people's sufferings.
"From 1947-1951, 800,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries just because they were Jewish. Enough. We can go on arguing like this forever…"
Israelis never seem to get tired of their propagandalies. The migration from Arab countries was much more a matter of Israeli than Arab 'encouragement'- 'encouragement' that in Iraq even took the form of a Zionist-inspired bombing campaign AGAINST Jewish and American targets.
I have written about this, and the situation in Morocco, in detail elsewhere on this blog and I agree with the authors of that pamphlet "Enough. We can go on arguing like this forever…"
I reiterate my statement that this whole situation has been more widely, vigorously and consistently lied about than any other similar situation elsewhere.
And what about the psychic wound of the holocaust? We are, after all,in these young people dealing with about the third or fourth generation after these terrible events. Does this psychic wound in some cases have the nature of the 'beggar's wound' – that has to be kept open for ulterior purposes?
Source: Jewish News of Greater Phoenix Online, dateline October 5, 2007:
"Jewish institutions will receive the majority of U.S. federal funds designated this year to help secure nonprofit organizations.
Of $24 million in grants nationwide, Jewish groups have been awarded $19.6 million."
"Secure Community Network director Paul Goldenberg said he believes the potential for future attacks against Jews in America cannot be underrated."
I sense a pattern…
"The research bears out Goldenberg's concerns.
"DHS conducted a two-phase assessment based on investment justifications and state, local and national law enforcement review," United Jewish Communities, the umbrella body for Jewish federations, said in a news release. "The result underscores a troubling fact: The Jewish community is at risk in a way and at a level not shared by other groups.""
Ahhh, Jews as victims, who REALLY need the money.
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/05/always-follow-money.html
or
Again, the dispossession does not start with 1948, but with British occupation guided by the policy of Jewish colonialism.
Phil you are falling into the zionist trap: "antisemitism equals genocide".
This is the Goldhagen line, and has been questioned by the most prominent Holocaust resarcher Raul Hilberg.
Palestinians certainly have a right to be angry at those jews whose actions and inactions made the Nakba possible.(No doubt they would be angry with the British government for the Balfour Declaration)
From this it does not follow that they would blame it all on some racial Jewish trait.(antisemitism) And even thinking like an antisemite doesn't translate necessarily into genocide.Note that Hilberg does connect antisemitism with pogroms against Jews in Russia,but pogroms are not genocide.
I reprint the significant comment from Hilberg's criticism of Goldhagen.
"Anti-Semitism was widespread in Europe during the late nineteenth century and in the years before the outbreak of World War I. The anti-Semites proclaimed their beliefs in speeches, pamphlets, and political programs. In some countries, this movement resulted in discrimination against the Jews, and in Russia it was dangerous enough to bring about pogroms, which the Tsarist Minister of the Interior, Count Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatyev, likened to the verdict of a "people's court."
German anti-Semitism, on the other hand, was not only weaker than the eastern European variety, but by 1914 it began to decline. Although the Nazis revived it in their propagandistic literature, it never became altogether respectable or truly prevalent. In his heavy book, Goldhagen does not discuss the many organizations that made up the Gestalt known as Nazi Germany. The bureaucratic apparatus was led by lawyers, engineers, accountants, and other professionals. These functionaries were modern men with clear eyesight and a necessary understanding of cornplexlty. The railways, which transported the Jews to their deaths, or the finance offices, which confiscated their property, or the nearly two hundred private firms that were involved in the construction of Auschwitz, were not staffed by pure anti-Semites, and neither were the urban police forces. For his insistence that virtually all of Germany was virulently anti-Semitic, Goldhagen marshals such evidence as graffiti with rhymed words and a lecture by a leader of the German Christian Church. He also cites Mein Kampf, but not the paragraph in which Hitler writes that his own father had regarded anti-Semitism as a sign of backwardness. Nor does Goldhagen note that the young Heinrich Himmler once described a German novel as "polemical" and "full of anti-Semitic lectures."
Goldhagen overstates the extent and depth of German anti-Semitism. At the same time he underplays two factors that greatly weaken his basic thesis. One is that not all the shooters were Germans, the other, that not all the victims
link to vho.org
Jews
'… our well being at the campus' has nothing to do with fear of physical harm.
These precious darlings are concerned about the effect that the truth will have on their pampered psyches.
And, G-d forbid, a university campus is the last place one should look for intellectual honesty.
I think Lionpac's posters were laudable.
There was NOT an urging to silence, but an urging to consideration and reconciliation, quietly rather than conspicuously.
Phil,
When you interview, do you convey that EVERY word that anyone says to you is "on the record" and in public, or do you ever imply confidentiality (in any way), quiet candid conversation?
For what is worth, my son is attending one of the more "politically correct" universities in the country.
He says that he doesn't feel harrassed, even though he wears a kipa (yarmulke) in public all the time. He stays away from demonstrations. He lies low in the face of danger or potential harrassment.
He does state that there is a state of play-war between the conspicuously over-zealous republican clubs and the conspicuously over-zealous radicals.
Hateful rhetoric makes an impression.
If the goal of political life is to make the other live in fear, then hatespeech is free speech. If the goal of political life is to form good decisions and policies then the information of suffering and exploitation is NEEDED, but the portion that is any threat is worse than static.
Shouldn't American Jews be harassed for supporting a murderous genocidal state founded on theft, mass murder and ethnic cleansing?
Does your son take a clear stance against the ethnic Ashkenazi racism and murderousness which is the core of Zionism and in which American Jews have enmeshed all Americans?
Are not Jews completely dishonest about Jewish suffering vis-a-vis non-Jewish suffering?
Take a look at link to members.aol.com
.
Richard Witless remains staunchly oblivious to the agenda.
These brain-washed yobbos do not want reality intruding into their cloistered lives.
'Talk' must be on our terms. Meanwhile, more Palestinians die, more Palestinians have their property appropriated. More Palestinians grind out their lives under jack-booted occupation while these little shits want to throw a screen around it all that projects a phantasmagorical 'image of Israel'.
happy independence day…
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/impact/tehranchildren.cfm
The Children of Tehran
Early Crimes of the Zionists Against Jews
The Story of the Polish Refugee Children (1939-1942)
excerpt from Genocide in the Holy Land by Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld
There were a number of groups of Jewish refugee children who were brought to Iran on their way to Palestine during World War II, where they were placed in a town called Atlit. These children came from authentic religious homes, and were subject to every technique their Zionist overseers could think of in order to tear them away from their religion. This activity, of course, was perpetrated on many occasions after World War II, including against pure Jewish communities who were fooled into leaving their homes in Yemen and other Arab countries and depart for the Zionist state.
Genocide in the Holy Land
Available for purchase in our online book store.
The Zionist body known as the Jewish Agency established a camp for refugees in Tehran, Iran, in the summer of 1942 where several hundred children were under the supervision of members of the notoriously anti-religious organization known as Hashomer Hatsa’ir [The Young Guard]. Beginning with the holy days of the new Jewish year, the children were denied the opportunity to attend religious services at synagogues in Tehran, and on the fast day of Yom Kippur, their Zionist overseers mocked the religion by eating in the presence of the children. In addition, the kitchen at the refugee camp was not kosher, and children were punished for refusing to eat non-kosher food.
happy independence day…what is truth?
link to jewsagainstzionism.com
/>
The Children of Tehran
Early Crimes of the Zionists Against Jews
The Story of the Yemenite Jewish Community 1948-1952
excerpt from Genocide in the Holy Land by Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld
From 1948 to 1952 more than 50,000 Yemenite Jews were fooled by the Zionist Jewish Agency into abandoning their ancient home and way of life and instead moving to the Zionist State, where they were summarily uprooted from their dedication to Judaism. Indeed, a boy testified later to the religious Peiylim organization that he was taken to an orchard during the Sabbath on an orange-picking trip. When he protested that this violated the Sabbath, he was told: “Only in Yemen is there a Sabbath; here, in Israel there is no Sabbath.” A former teacher at the Ein Shemer immigrant camp testified that at a meeting of teachers a camp official announced that the side curls of all the boys were to be cut and that, should a protest rise over it, the parents should be told that it was being done for “hygienic” reasons. (They found no hygienic reasons, however, to cut the hair of the girls). Yemenite boys were told, “there is no need for side curls in Israel.”
Genocide in the Holy Land
Available for purchase in our online book store.
These events were even born out by the report of the Commission appointed by the Zionist government to investigate the conditions in the camps after protests by religious elements. After visiting all the camps and listening to 181 witnesses, this Commission officially reported that:
Anti-religious prejudices and acts were openly initiated by camp officials and counselors.
“Soul-snatching” was not unusual.
Peyos (sidelocks) of religious Yemenite children were systematically cut off, and were clearly untended as an anti- religious act.
Some camps allowed a systematic abuse of religion. Religious children were weaned away from their religion, and parents were intimidated into accepting a non-religious education for their children.
Children in UJA supported camps were told that in Israel there was no Sabbath as in the Diaspora, that there is no G-d, and that all religious observances are rubbish.
I also got a copy of the e-mail and would like to note that you misquoted and misrepresented it on your website here as you have the entire week by my reading. Have you even tried to hear what the lionpac students think?
Since the invention of the Holocaust in the 60's,this detail of WWII has been shoved down the throats of the goyim just about every other day;in the same time, WWII has been scaled down to an unpleasant and unwelcome noise evaporating in the background of the countless Survivors' Tales.
Dear Jewish Associations,
ENOUGH.
We can go on arguing like this forever.
Let's recognize that each side has suffered,that each side has legitimate claims.
It's time to look forward.
Thank You!
HELLO?! should tell me what I have misquoted and misrepresented. It's true that I did not quote the email in full. I apologize if I left out something vital, but I'm not convinced by your note that I have…
Richard, I never interview people with the understanding that everything is public. I am confused by your question. I interviewed no one for this post, and my statement about lingering psychic wounds being one you'd agree with is based on statements you've made here. I think so, anyway; are you saying I've violated confidences you've made to me? Phil
Phil,
My comment was relative to the condemnation of Lionpac for requesting confidential discussion rather than public.
I don't regard you as violating confidential conversations. I hope that I have not similarly. But the implication that all discussion necessarily be in public does make me worry that you might.
I don't find the statements by Lionpac to be offensive in the slightest.
I wasn't there, so I don't know if they are acting to suppress discussion. From your comments, it didn't seem that the Palestinian speakers were heckled or harrassed in really any way, even as Lionpac supporters probably differed greatly from the tone and content of what was presented.
The book and articles that I read by Pappe did NOT give me enough supporting detail to agree or disagree with his conclusions (especially regarding the degree of intent to dispossess Palestinians, and sequence of events).
Did you find that he provided sufficient information to base a conclusion on?
I was more impressed by both Morris and Kimmerling, who described the same source materials (I'm sure different in details), but concluded to remain Zionists.
I like Morris' reasoning in the 2005-6 interviews in which he described (from my reading) that the sin that he ascribes to Israel has been indecisiveness.
Particularly on the question of intentional dispossession, he describes that Israel did not either assertively dispossess, particularly in 67, nor did they assertively reconcile.
In business, or war, a quick and decisive action gets adjusted to, whereas an ambiguity festers. So, his stated preference for dispossession over ambiguity. The left implied that that amounted to an advocacy of dispossession, whereas my sense is that he would have preferred, and still prefers, decisive reconciliation to either ambiguity or dispossession. Maybe I'm wrong.
Its not clear if its possible, given the very varying agendas within the Palestinian community.
Phil,
My comment was relative to the condemnation of Lionpac for requesting confidential discussion rather than public.
I don't regard you as violating confidential conversations. I hope that I have not similarly. But the implication that all discussion necessarily be in public does make me worry that you might.
I don't find the statements by Lionpac to be offensive in the slightest.
I wasn't there, so I don't know if they are acting to suppress discussion. From your comments, it didn't seem that the Palestinian speakers were heckled or harrassed in really any way, even as Lionpac supporters probably differed greatly from the tone and content of what was presented.
The book and articles that I read by Pappe did NOT give me enough supporting detail to agree or disagree with his conclusions (especially regarding the degree of intent to dispossess Palestinians, and sequence of events).
Did you find that he provided sufficient information to base a conclusion on?
I was more impressed by both Morris and Kimmerling, who described the same source materials (I'm sure different in details), but concluded to remain Zionists.
I like Morris' reasoning in the 2005-6 interviews in which he described (from my reading) that the sin that he ascribes to Israel has been indecisiveness.
Particularly on the question of intentional dispossession, he describes that Israel did not either assertively dispossess, particularly in 67, nor did they assertively reconcile.
In business, or war, a quick and decisive action gets adjusted to, whereas an ambiguity festers. So, his stated preference for dispossession over ambiguity. The left implied that that amounted to an advocacy of dispossession, whereas my sense is that he would have preferred, and still prefers, decisive reconciliation to either ambiguity or dispossession. Maybe I'm wrong.
Its not clear if its possible, given the very varying agendas within the Palestinian community.
Traumas.
The holocaust collective trauma is undeniable, and effects the community for multiple generations. It is obvious how my wife's generation has been affected by their parents' residual traumas. My own sons' attitudes are very much affected by knowing of his grandparents' struggles.
Similarly for Palestinians. I expect it is more difficult for Palestinians as although the objective traumas are far far different and less extreme than the holocaust, the subjective experience of it is still in the scale of trauma.
Israelis thankfully had the liberty to get FAR AWAY from their former murderers. Palestinians have the ambiguity of living next to their harrasser, not unlike a battered wife that cannot move to another town, or even leave the batterer's household.
(That is a statement of my speculation of Palestinians' subjective experience, not necessarily objective.)
Another common pattern is that among the most vehement anti-Zionists are those that are not currently directly affected by it, but are in sympathy, solidarity. Aside from the hilltop youth, the most vehement supporters of Zionism may be in the US, expressing backbone by sympathy.
Richard i condemn the private discussion only because this is a tactic the conservatives have used on campus before, to talk about the shape of the table privately and then do nothing publicly. when I feel and so does Bradley Burston of Haaretz, that the treatment of peopple in Gaza right now requires Jews in our spiritual tradition to BEAR WITNESS to ATROCITY. all else is a kind of moral prevarication and immaturity. of course i shuld be sensitive to young people's apprehensions, immaturity, but i think the Arab students are more developed here.
i agree with you that pappe can be argumentative, he is not cool. his analysis of data tends to be argumentative. the thing is, i agree with his argument and not morris's. i think morris comes out of a zionist tradition, and my general feeling on this blog is Zionism has worn out its usefulness, the west accepts Jews by and large, and here lifts them up, thereby vioating a principle of zionism, and in Palestine Zionism has turned into a racialist credo of separation, which I abjure. Morris embraces these values, but is a cooler scholar than Pappe. Pappe is a hotter scholar, but his values are beautiful ones to me, loving diversity. I actually think Mearsheimer is tops on this: he is moved by moral issues, he is even a little angry, in just the ways I am (Iraq, occupation, ethnic cleansins) but he struggles to be cold when he is assembling data. I trust him. I know you dont. I am trying to get American Jews to hear Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer. And Mike Desch on the Holocaust must be engaged. Yivo should have these guys in tomorrow. Tomorrow. Instead they assemble a panel of bashers.
I am moved by everything you say about trauma. More later… Phil
Witty wrote concerning the notorious interview with Morris by Ari Shavit in Haaretz: "The left implied that that amounted to an advocacy of dispossession, whereas my sense is that he would have preferred, and still prefers, decisive reconciliation to either ambiguity or dispossession. Maybe I'm wrong."
Here is the relevant bit of that interview.
Obviously Morris, objectionable as he is, doesn't have Witty's penchant for status quo protecting "humanitarian" vagueness.
Shavit: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."
That seems to me clear enough.
I think my point about the sin of ambiguity was more accurate. His first words were "maybe", not "I think this is right".
"Bradley Burston of Haaretz, that the treatment of peopple in Gaza right now requires Jews in our spiritual tradition to BEAR WITNESS to ATROCITY. "
Then bear witness to atrocity, and don't distract by questions of 1948. They are related but DIFFERENT questions.
What was this particular discussion about? The Morris book, 1948, and the Columbia presentation on the nakba. Please don't shift issues.
To the extent that static is presented, your truth and goodness will fall on relatively deaf ears.
Please don't take the position of 'I don't give a shit who I alienate.'
"and my general feeling on this blog is Zionism has worn out its usefulness"
Hence my previous questions to you about post-Zionism. Not insignificant questions.
1. Was Zionism necessary? I say YES, even if it inevitably caused harms to those displaced. The big rock-creating wave was naziism, that displaced a hundred million.
2. Is Zionism necessary. I say yes, as the period of confidence against persecution is still thin. In the areas that you and others assert that is had been confident, turns out to be false. (The Muslim world).
Is Israel negligent in not pursuing peace in earnest?
Yes.
On Pappe, Its not that he's argumentative that I find lacking. (I haven't read the "Ethnic Cleansing Book"). Its that in CRITICAL points in argument in other related works, he just drops a conclusion, without making the case. I have the same criticism of Chomsky. So many adopt his conclusions without ANY research on their own, even to bother to read from published materials that he references.
As far as Pappe's bias, reaction against the direction of one's own community is as large a factor creating bias as is loyalty.
What values, what intellectual practices cut through bias? Good question. A necessary question to avoid the accusation of gullibility and prejudice.
Richard, maybe im collapsing the historicaland the present, they're not the same discussion. but i guess my overarching purpose here is to decry what I saw in Hebron and I read about in gaza. This is Jewish policy now, in our communities here, and in Israel. Something has gone terribly wrong with the JEwish community that a moral alarm like Burston's is so isolated. Cluster bombs in Lebanon were also licensed by American attitudes. This is terribly wrong and requires my active engagement. If decrying these activities means I'm not Jewish, and 100 percent of Jews said that, I wouldn't care. Any belief system that regards this as explainable or trivial is one i want no part of. If anything like the cluster bombs were happening in Israel now, in rural areas, there would be daily outrage in the Times, calls for war crime trials…
Was Zionism necessary? It strikes me as a legitimate nationalist response to the horrors of Europe in the late 19th century, and had a healthy component in changing Jewish identity, to be less bookish. I dont think Zionism is necessary now, in fact I think it is screwing things up bigtime, though yes to be a two-state solution advocate, as I am, is to be a Zionist at some level.
Zionism was only a necessity in the sense that Friedmanism and Pinochet were a necessary response to Allende — in other words it wasn't at all necessary even though Friedman and friends certainly believed it was.
Modern American Jews simply have false memories with regard to Czarist Russia.
Conditions for Jews in the last two decades of Czarist Russia simply were not much worse than those for other groups, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jews were better off than most while ethnic Poles were a good deal worse off.
Not only Jews experienced pogroms, and pogroms against Jews result from many reasons including competing organized crime groups.
Russian Jews experienced growing hostility in Czarist Russia as a result of increasing Jewish involvement in violent radicalism.
It simply is not possible to ignore the targeted assassination of Czar Nicholas II by a Jewish (female) led terror group.
Zionism was never a legitimate national movement.
It was a scam by a tiny segment of the Russian Jewish intelligentsia that wanted access to Western Jewish wealth.
It was never really about Palestine.
It was about power, status, and wealth, as has become much clearer as the Neocons tried to take direct control of the World Bank and as the people that fund the Israel Lobby have managed to get themselves ever increasing Neocolonial revenue streams by forcing the sell-off of state-owned corporations in the developing world.
I go into these issues in more detail than probably anyone really wants to know in:
http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/05/fight-judonia-now-or-never.html .
The vast majority of American Jews have no interests in common
* either with the Zionist intelligentsia, which as managed to perpetuate itself,
* or with the hyper-wealthy Zionists that fund the Israel Lobby at the behest of the intelligentsia.
"but i guess my overarching purpose here is to decry what I saw in Hebron and I read about in gaza. "
I condemn cruelty to civilians in Hebron by settlers. I DOUBT that you would get any more than a very small minority of Jews to say otherwise.
Its NOT Jewish policy. I doubt its even AIPAC policy. I doubt its even AIPAC governing board policy.
Gaza is FAR more ambiguous. The result for them is suppression and suffering for Gazan civilians. The means that that occurs includes significantly Hamas actions (in continued shelling of Israeli civilians, in attacking the single
BORDER crossing that minimum necessities are transported, and in deferred civil war with the PA), as well as Israeli.
It definitely is a tragedy.
What options do you see that Israel has relative to Gaza?
What option would you suggest that they take?
Sincere questions. Not rhetorical.
Please don't shrink from answering them.
Also Phil,
What is the point of using the term "condemnation" frequently recently.
Don't allow it to become a dismissed word for overuse.
Pick your fights.
Cruelty toward Palestinians has been Judonian imperialist and colonialist policy since before Asher Ginzburg complained about it in the 1890s — he was complaining about an already entrenched behavior.
Denying Jewish racism is in fact a form of racism, for it posits Jewish ethical superiority to all other humans beings.
(BTW, I believe that Ginzburg's complaint was purely tactical because he was worried that if Jews abused non-Jews in Palestinc, non-Jews would become hostile to Zionism. Ginzburg's position evolves over time, and the later Ginzburg does not complain about abuse of Palestinians, or I have yet to find complaints from a later period.)
Re Richard Witless' cri de coeur
'What options do you see that Israel has relative to Gaza?'
Simple. Israel can relinquish all control over Gaza – land, sea and air, and return the excise stolen from the Palestinian people.
It can then get the fuck out of all the occupied territories, and release all political prisoners from its gaols.
AFter that, Israel might start considering the really essential moral issues, centred on the recognition of the ethnic cleansing by which the state was erected, and appropriate restitution for that crime and associated crimes since.
Focusing on Israel misses the big picture.
The crime against Palestinians and many other peoples in the developing world results from the racist Jewish imperialism and colonialism that materialized from the combination of Jewish wealth, Zionist intelligentsia, the organized Jewish community, Israel advocacy organizations, and numerous individuals and organizations that serve the Zionist program.
I discuss the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland or Judonia in link to eaazi.blogspot.com
.
Judonia has rendered the USA a dependent and intimidated client state led by a president that combines the worst characteristics of Vidkun Quisling and Marshal Petain.
We Americans need to free ourselves and put criminals like Richard Witty (along with political leaders that have betrayed their oaths to the Constitution) before tribunals where they can be tried under American, Nuremberg, and International Law for giving material aid to Zionist terrorism and for numerous violations of international law.
Obviously Witty is not a criminal on the order of Otto Dietrich, who received seven years imprisonment as Third Reich Press Chief, but as a probably irredeemable unrepentant Jewish Nazi, he probably merits about 2-3 years of imprisonment with labor to restore Palestine property and villages to the pre-Nakba state.
All his assets should be seized to cover damages that Judonia has caused to the USA, to the peoples of the Middle East, to the developing world, to Eastern Europe, and to the states of the former Soviet Union.
Of course it's Jewish policy (the cruelty to Palestinians in Hebron.) Otherwise, you wouldn't see the Israeli soldiers just standing around doing nothing while Palestinian children are beaten by Jewish settlers, or women in their homes are harassed and called "whores" by settler women. And you too can see it, you know. Just go on you-tube and you can see state-sponsored ethnic cleansing in progress.
And Gaza is not as ambiguous as you claim. The overwhelming number of civilians killed have been killed by the Israeli military, not as a result of fratricide. And to describe the primitive rockets that militants launch across the border as "shelling" is ludicrous.
It's always been Jewish policy to rid Eretz Israel of its indigenous population. That's why they've been killing civilians since before '48 and they're still killing civilians today.
Still no recommendation. Only contempt.
When action is needed.
Indeed, action is what is needed, NOW.
But not just any action; the RIGHT action.
Phil, are you certain, beyond any doubt, of your righteousness?
I know that you have claimed to be "bearing witness."
I am going to pretend to care about that, while subtly undermining you with guilt for your pangs of conscience.
I will do it in short, cryptic statements: Wittorical questions, Zen Wittles.
Is Pappe really the authority for you? Pick your sources. Pick your fights.
Who's your dog in this fight? Do you want a dog? Or a dove? Or a duck?
Even if it is a duck. Is a duck REALLY a duck AT ALL TIMES irrespective of quacking, Phil?
Isn't the duck at one point, just an egg? I see Zionism as a tiny, golden egg, Phil. Who will sit on that egg so that it can hatch?
Hebron is not a part of that egg. Hebron is a whole 'nother omelette, made from REGULAR OLD EGGS. Not golden ones.
If the goal is to make a golden omelette, won't we need at least one, small, golden egg?
Those are not rhetorical questions, Phil.
I see that Joachim Martillo is here justice-mongering again.
Just like him to avenge injustices with graver injustices against the world's Righteous Victims.
Speaking of Righteous Victims, I read Benny Morris' titles and agree with nearly all of them. His arguments make a lot more sense, not just in my head, but in my soul.
Joachim are you really so full of hate?
Because normal people get by just fine with injustice. It does not cause them to speak out so strongly and viciously.
The American people are just fine with Palestinian genocide. One confirms this reading the New York Times', Washington Post's, and other trusted newspapers' editorials.
Imagine a peaceful lake. And on it, a solitary mallard.
If one desires that peaceful lake to persist, in perpetuity, one must train the mind. Otherwise the duck will fly away.
This means not accepting a raging fountain of anger and violent criticism, like Joachim. Joachim does not care about ducks and eggs.
Judging from his website title, he probably doesn't even believe in golden eggs.
That is not a hopeful vision.
My Vision
I am barely addressing Palestine.
I am concerned about the damage that the Israel Lobby, the ZPC, Judonia, the New Jewish Elite, etc. — whatever you want to call it — is doing to American Society.
The USA simply will not survive as a free democratic society as long as there is one law for Jews (or more accurately Jewish Zionists) and one law for everyone else.
Solving the problem means finding a way to deal with Jewish government officials and their collaborators that are obstructing justice.
Once the government enforces the tax code, FEC regulations, SEC regulations and anti-terrorism law equally for all Americans, the problem of the Israel Lobby will disappear, and the government should have some money to fix the damage that Neoconservatives have done while acting as a special interest.
Then the US government could provide relief to peoples that have been harmed by the USA as a result of Jewish Zionist conspiracy against rights, seditious conspiracy and criminal manipulation of the US government.
Only this approach has the possibility of fixing how the US government functions in matters related to Jews and Israel, and it should leave the basic democratic system intact.
I agree with Joachim Martillo. Otherwise, as is the case articulated here by various rabid posters above , there is no concern for the usual pc ideological expendables, i.e., the goys. Martillo is an actual human individal. I admire him.