Her son's death has made Joyce Hurndall a crusader for a beautiful cause, trying to ensure education for Palestinian children:
As happens after such life-changing moments, a line was drawn. The span of my life was abruptly dislocated and past, present and future no longer seemed to bear any relation to each other. In the months that followed our small family was to take on Israel’s most powerful institution, the Israeli Defence Forces, in a search for the facts about the shooting of our son.
Although I have since been re-stringing my life the feeling of disorientation lasted until I at last found a way of piecing the fragments together in a job. A particular job. In April 2008 I became Development Director of Friends of Birzeit University, which has been supporting education in the West Bank since 1978. As a former teacher and Head of Learning Support, I am acutely aware of the right of young Palestinians to education, which is being severely jeopardised at a time when the creation of future leaders has never been more vital.
Notice that it has taken Joyce Hurndall 5 years to restring her life. I can only imagine. Yom Kippur, and our prayers are with her…
Something else. I just used the word "ensure." It is the word you hear more than any other at AIPAC. It is repeated countless times, and printed endlessly in AIPAC's literature. Ensure the continuing and strong relationship of the two countries. Everyone says it. I have a thick AIPAC book called Commitment Matters, and I am tempted to count the number of times that donors use the ensure-word in there. A very positive word. Well, imagine for one second that American Jews, who are so wealthy and powerful, took on Joyce Hurndall's task! I believe this can happen, I really do. For the truth is that this is the only way to ensure the happiness of Jews in the Middle East. And if we did take on that task, just imagine the result: the image of that country, call it I or P I don't care, would change again, to a very positive one. And what is the challenge in that imagining: It is that American Jews will overcome our ethnocentrism.
Related posts:
- Berman once laughed at settlements, now says he has always opposed them
- ‘Financial Times’ Warns U.S. Must Choose Peace or Settlements. Our Candidates Are Mum
- Remember, the Times won a Pulitzer for being on the right side (unh– our side) of Hiroshima radiation sickness
- Harman can’t remember any phone call. And then she can…
- An Israeli Reporter Prods Condoleezza Rice to Do Something About Illegal Settlements
{ 40 comments }
I believe that Israel lost the public relations battle in Europe because so many young Europeans worked on kibbutzim, and endured the shoddy and bigoted treatment they received from the Israelis, in addition to seeing how the Palestinians and other neighbors of Israel are treated. If only more Gentile Americans could see Israel up close as it really is, instead of on prearranged shake-down tours.
Phil,
Do you have successful model of power in mind?
I hear your earlier point about Jews historically holding a social justice perspective when they were not in prominence, and the contrast (or difficulty) of manifesting justice when not excluded from power.
What do you think is an example of someone executing power justly?
ANYONE that you know?
"And what is the challenge in that imagining: It is that American Jews will overcome our ethnocentrism."
In order for American Jews to overcome their ethnocentrisn, America has to become a multicultural nation with no regard for its past, culture or traditional population, and the Middle East has to be remade in the image of the Jewish faction that emerges victorious in the Jewish internal battle. What a deal!
The world is paying a hefty price for American Jews to overcome their ethnocentrism. If Phil doesn't see where this will lead, I know that some others don't–and they call the Gentiles stupid!
Hey, Witty why don't you ask Phil's WASP wife? What ethnic group in history relinquished more of their power freely than the American WASPs?
Witty:
There are plenty of regimes and people's with a bad human rights record. One doesn't have to argue that Israel is the worst — only that the US has no business supporting and paying for its crimes.
Three Billion Dollars a year in direct aid, the warplanes and cluster bombs as well as police and riot control gear (the tear gas grenades thrown at nonviolent anti-Wall protesters are also made in the USA). Plus veto protection in the UN.
That's what makes us — and especially US pro-Israel lobbyists — complicit in a criminal enterprise.
The USA eventually gave the native Americans full citizenship plus
some advantages the rest of Americans do not have. Ask any Palestinian about the USA's sense of fairness. The days of the Conestoga wagons is long gone, and we declared international
consensus on the limits of state power when we hung the Germans, so what's the moral compass now? Should we give the Gypsies part of Israel and support Gypsy spread for Gypsy security protection?
My question wasn't rhetorical.
What do you or others recommend of a model of a powerful society or influence?
The reality and paradigm shift isn't so much kibbutzim to settlements, as much as kibbutzim to commercialism.
Same as everywhere else in the world.
What do you or others recommend of a model of a powerful society or influence?
read my publications.
Witty has complained that he states his arguments unambiguously and that people are ignoring them. I will therefore engage him specifically. He wrote:
"Do you have successful model of power in mind?
I hear your earlier point about Jews historically holding a social justice perspective when they were not in prominence, and the contrast (or difficulty) of manifesting justice when not excluded from power.
What do you think is an example of someone executing power justly?
ANYONE that you know?"
I will have to guess at the point that is being made here. But he seems to be saying something here or is implying something but has done so in such a way that it can be denied if fleshed out. However, I will kick the football and try to articulate the lesson he seems to be drawing here. That is, can we name a someone who has ever executed power fairly. See ball in our court. Name one. I think every government that ever existed has exerted power unfairly to one degree or another. This is a very complex question. If you are unwilling to engage Witty in this debate about any government, except Israel, then Israel cannot be criticized.
That seems to be his argument. No one is ever in a position to criticize Israel. Today there was a Yom Kipper riot in Accre that began when Israeli youth stoned Arabs for driving their cars in violation of some kine of Jewish observance. The police responded by tear gassing and firing stun grenades at the Arabs! Rational people might consider that unfair. But Witty requires that we must first examine riot control methods in other countries before engaging in such criticism. See, anything that happens in Israel requires us to look away at some other country. That is where we should spend our time. Never look at Israel at times like these.
Am I close Witty? Or was your insinuation above a little unambiguous and you really meant something else.
That was beautiful, syvanen. An excellent illustration of how to deconstruct Zionist obfuscation. Thank you.
It is ironic to see that Witty is now defending the thrust of status-quo in Israel, and actually demanding that critics hold up some perfect model of governance before they are justified in critiquing it. Has the absence of a perfect model ever prevented diaspora Jewish ideologues from ruthlessly critiquing non-Jewish governance? Things look a little different when you’re no longer in the peanut gallery, and are being coerced into an accounting to those who are demanding to know why your governance isn’t perfect, and shouting that their own governance and policies would be if only they were put into positions of power.
Yet look at Jews like Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who was an ardent apologist for and defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, has taken thousands in campaign contributions from both over the years, and was even involved in a homosexual relationship with an executive at Fannie Mae through the 90’s . How did he respond to the housing meltdown, which was partially the result of his own failed oversight? Whine, blame and deny all responsibility and accountability. It’s always the other guy’s fault. The classic victim mentality.
Those with an acculturated victim mentality simply cannot and should not be allowed to govern.
Whenever Phil tells one of his wonderful human stories, up pops squeaky belfry bats flying off on a tangent, unrelated to the story at hand, spinning hysterically protectively around his paragon of virtue, his straight heart's delight, desperately using smart ass distractive techniques trying to numb onlookers perception.
In spite of that: Yes, Israel lost the PR war. As shaping-the-reality-people-are-too-perceive (machiavellian PR technique) won't be enough in the long run. There are already too many smart Palestinians around to keep up PR business as usual. No image restoration without real change.
"My question wasn't rhetorical. "
What do you or others recommend of a model of a powerful society or influence?"
My answer was less rhetorical than you question, Witty. It answered your question. Quit your talmudic nonsense.
Witty is saying all humans are weak and corruptable.
Therefore religion is the only salvation and no one can be entrusted to execute power justly.
And there is a vast army of Wittys ready to prove how weak and corruptable anyone is.
At all costs.
You know the story of the thief that only sees pockets?
The question wasn't rhetorical. It was for Phil.
Definitely, there is my consistent objection to "dissent", that it only complains, but never articulates its goal, or its pragmatic prospects.
I am advocate of reform in Israel. I believe strongly that within Israel itself there is inconsistent application of otherwise mostly very good law.
And, certainly, in the occupied territories, I am advocate for Palestinian sovereignty.
I also see though, that if Palestine achieves real sovereignty and then terror is initiated from within its borders, and not held accountable by Palestine, that Palestine devolves to a condition of war with Israel.
So, I propose pragmatic peace. NOT cover for oppression, not rationalization of wrongs.
I urge Phil to hold himself to the same standard of intent, to just peace (in contrast to anti-Zionist "justice", or fantasy.)
Do you all seek actual peace, for the 9 million that are now there?
Without some form of justice there is no peace.
Zionism is a criminal and thelogical enterprise. To pretend it's a rational force to be compromised with belies the history and the reality of what Zionism represents.
You don't seek a just peace if you believe Zionism has any role in bringing peace to that region. You are an antagonist simply playing a quite typical public relations exercise, Witty.
Two choices for peace:
End the jews-only state, and have one democratic state.
A zionist military defeat.
All the rest is fantasy
There is no "Jews-only" state. Israel has a 21% non-Jewish minority, with full civil rights (but requiring reform as the rights on paper are not fully enforced).
Israel certainly is a rational state, and can be appealed on the basis of reason.
Again, there is a minority that regards the West Bank as an entitlement, and a smaller minority of them that regards by any means necessary as appropriate way to realize it.
The majority regards "consent of the governed" as preeminent, and desires for a Jewish cultural state, selected from the regions of Jewish majority, while recognizing minority rights within that region.
R. Witty, If you are to be taken at your word for what you want for Israel, then I think the most powerful voices for Zionism, both there and in the diaspora, who ardently want and demand expansionism, are opposed to your vision under the PRETEXT of security.
The best way for Americans to achieve security is for Washington to stop poking Muslims in the eye at every opportunity on behalf of imperialism and Empire expansion. The best way for the Israelis to attain security is to stop doing the same to the Palestinians on behalf of expansionism.
But the wealthiest, most powerful and well-connected in each country demand otherwise, because they value ambition, power and wealth over security. To them, anything less than bullying is retreat, decay and demise. In short, they are megalomaniacs (a term Olmert used only after leaving office to describe their mentality).
Samuel Huntington basically conveyed in the Clash of Civilizations that these non-Westerners they are trying to take advantage of aren’t the primitive, backward, unsophisticated children who can be blatantly exploited that many Western minds imagine them to be (his thesis was totally misconstrued by the Neocons as saying a clash of civilizations was inevitable). But my point is, it is the greed, megalomania and single-mindedness of our “leaders” and elites in each situation, not the irrational behavior of Muslims, that is driving the clash, and making “security” impossible.
That's a very sizable minority you refer too.
I've seen stats indicating about half believe that Israel should clear the occupied territories of it's Arab citizens. I also personally believe that there is alot of dishonest claims coming from the Israeli side regarding what they are willing to give up – this flies in the face of the claims that Israel in 1967 borders is simply too small and would spell the 'death' of the jewish state.
Apart from that you have a majority of diaspora jews who believe Israel's capital should be in Jerusalem – Israel has unilaterally declared sovereignty over it.
In short – your claims about exchanging land for peace have a quite significant history of being false – settlement activity increases when there is talk of peace.
Whoever is in the Israel government.
Why should we believe you Witty?
"Despite the fact that there are many palestinians with israeli citizenship, the zionist state is a jews-only state because only jews have full rights. Firstly, palestinian israelis have only limited political rights in comparison to jews. They have the right to vote in zionist elections, form political parties, hold political meetings, contest for seats in the knesset, and even become members of the jewish parliament But they are not allowed to form political parties which advocate a multi-cultural state in which palestinians and jews share power, "in this "outpost of democracy," no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define "Christian" not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a "gag law" prohibiting public discussion of the issue." (Noel Ignatiev ‘Toward a Single State Solution: Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People of Palestine’ counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.html 17.06.2004).
Secondly, despite the fact that palestinian israelis seem to have many political rights, they do not have the same legal rights as jews – which surely indicates the insignificance of their political rights and the relative insignificance of democracy to jews. "The tours (of Palestinian and Bedouin areas inside Israel) proved to be a dramatic illustration of the discrimination and racism inherent in a system designed specifically to maintain a Jewish majority – a system based on the superiority of Jews over anyone else. Palestinians, including Bedouin, living inside Israel are citizens of the state. They can vote in Israeli elections; Bedouin, although not other Palestinians, serve in the Israeli military. As a matter of law and of the institutional arrangements inherent in Israel's status as a Jewish-majority state, however, Palestinians and Bedouin, because they are non-Jews, do not receive anything like equal rights or services from the state. Not only do they face the kind of de facto discrimination that blacks have faced in the U.S. – their schools are inadequate, their municipal services are inadequate, they face job discrimination, their towns often sit next to toxic waste dumps and other environmentally hazardous sites – but because Israel is explicitly a Jewish state, Palestinians are unable by law to enjoy the benefits of the state provided to Jews or in any way to live in the state as Jews do." (Kathleen & Bill Christison ‘"Finally It Broke My Heart": Random Impressions from Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09242004.html September 24, 2004)."
"Despite the fact that there are many palestinians with israeli citizenship, the zionist state is a jews-only state because only jews have full rights. Firstly, palestinian israelis have only limited political rights in comparison to jews. They have the right to vote in zionist elections, form political parties, hold political meetings, contest for seats in the knesset, and even become members of the jewish parliament But they are not allowed to form political parties which advocate a multi-cultural state in which palestinians and jews share power, "in this "outpost of democracy," no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define "Christian" not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a "gag law" prohibiting public discussion of the issue." (Noel Ignatiev ‘Toward a Single State Solution: Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People of Palestine’ counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.html 17.06.2004).
Secondly, despite the fact that palestinian israelis seem to have many political rights, they do not have the same legal rights as jews – which surely indicates the insignificance of their political rights and the relative insignificance of democracy to jews. "The tours (of Palestinian and Bedouin areas inside Israel) proved to be a dramatic illustration of the discrimination and racism inherent in a system designed specifically to maintain a Jewish majority – a system based on the superiority of Jews over anyone else. Palestinians, including Bedouin, living inside Israel are citizens of the state. They can vote in Israeli elections; Bedouin, although not other Palestinians, serve in the Israeli military. As a matter of law and of the institutional arrangements inherent in Israel's status as a Jewish-majority state, however, Palestinians and Bedouin, because they are non-Jews, do not receive anything like equal rights or services from the state. Not only do they face the kind of de facto discrimination that blacks have faced in the U.S. – their schools are inadequate, their municipal services are inadequate, they face job discrimination, their towns often sit next to toxic waste dumps and other environmentally hazardous sites – but because Israel is explicitly a Jewish state, Palestinians are unable by law to enjoy the benefits of the state provided to Jews or in any way to live in the state as Jews do." (Kathleen & Bill Christison ‘"Finally It Broke My Heart": Random Impressions from Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09242004.html September 24, 2004)."
"Despite the fact that there are many palestinians with israeli citizenship, the zionist state is a jews-only state because only jews have full rights. Firstly, palestinian israelis have only limited political rights in comparison to jews. They have the right to vote in zionist elections, form political parties, hold political meetings, contest for seats in the knesset, and even become members of the jewish parliament But they are not allowed to form political parties which advocate a multi-cultural state in which palestinians and jews share power, "in this "outpost of democracy," no party that opposes the existence of the Jewish state is permitted to take part in elections. It is as if the United States were to declare itself a Christian state, define "Christian" not by religious belief but by descent, and then pass a "gag law" prohibiting public discussion of the issue." (Noel Ignatiev ‘Toward a Single State Solution: Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People of Palestine’ counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.html 17.06.2004).
Secondly, despite the fact that palestinian israelis seem to have many political rights, they do not have the same legal rights as jews – which surely indicates the insignificance of their political rights and the relative insignificance of democracy to jews. "The tours (of Palestinian and Bedouin areas inside Israel) proved to be a dramatic illustration of the discrimination and racism inherent in a system designed specifically to maintain a Jewish majority – a system based on the superiority of Jews over anyone else. Palestinians, including Bedouin, living inside Israel are citizens of the state. They can vote in Israeli elections; Bedouin, although not other Palestinians, serve in the Israeli military. As a matter of law and of the institutional arrangements inherent in Israel's status as a Jewish-majority state, however, Palestinians and Bedouin, because they are non-Jews, do not receive anything like equal rights or services from the state. Not only do they face the kind of de facto discrimination that blacks have faced in the U.S. – their schools are inadequate, their municipal services are inadequate, they face job discrimination, their towns often sit next to toxic waste dumps and other environmentally hazardous sites – but because Israel is explicitly a Jewish state, Palestinians are unable by law to enjoy the benefits of the state provided to Jews or in any way to live in the state as Jews do." (Kathleen & Bill Christison ‘"Finally It Broke My Heart": Random Impressions from Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison09242004.html September 24, 2004)."
Sorry…
"The majority regards "consent of the governed" as preeminent, and desires for a Jewish cultural state, selected from the regions of Jewish majority, while recognizing minority rights within that region."
But why do we even have to talk about a "Jewish cultural state?" Why not just one Democratic state, within which one finds Jewish culture, Arab culture, Palestinian culture, Christian culture, Muslim culture, whatever. Why must there always be an insistence on a "Jewish state" (even if you're inserting the descriptive word "cultural" into the equation). And yes, I would say the same thing to Palestinians, or Arabs, or Muslims. All can live together in one Democratic state where their respective cultures will not only coexist, but will thrive.
Witty has requested that we deal with his specific and unambiguous points. I tried to do that above. It seems that he is ignoring the issues he first raised. But comes back with:
"I believe strongly that within Israel itself there is inconsistent application of otherwise mostly very good law.
And, certainly, in the occupied territories, I am advocate for Palestinian sovereignty."
Yes you have said that before. But any criticisms of Israel's policies that are inconsistent with what you claim to support, results in you in attacking those of us who make the criticism. In fact, you raise the double standard argument, which means that we have to go back and consider every national policy in every country in the world, not Israel of course, to make sure that Israel is not being held to higher standards. Again, this means we must spend our time time discussing the rest of the world, exempting Israel.
But, in a second response, Witty is willing to acknowledge some problems with:
"There is no "Jews-only" state. Israel has a 21% non-Jewish minority, with full civil rights (but requiring reform as the rights on paper are not fully enforced)."
OK, this sounds like an unambiguous claim (continuing with his request to address his direct claims).
I would say that the non-Jewish minority do not have anywhere close to full civil rights.
To list a few:
Arabs can vote for members of the keneset as can Jews. However, if the latters candidate wins, then there is about a 40% that his party will be represented in government. For an Arab, his party has a 0% percent chance of being part of the government.
If angry Jews go to the streets, they will be treated without fear of being killed. When the Arabs demonstrate, it is always called rioting, they can be killed on the spot (the riot police are always agents of the Jewish state who see the Arabs as The Enemy).
Jews are free to buy and sell (to other Jews) real estate in the greater Tel Aviv area (the properous heart of Israel). Arabs are not allowed to live in this area (see the convenants attached to land controlled by the JNF)
These are just the differences inside the green line. For those Arabs and Christians that live in the West Bank, they cannot even vote, though the Jews who live there can.
Considering this how can you even begin to say that this is an inconsistant application of mostly good law. It is so egregiously discrimantory it is hard to see anything good about it.
'An idealistic Brit, Hurndall went to Israel in 1971 when she was 21 to volunteer at a kibbutz in the Golan, picking peaches. Exactly one generation on and her son Tom went to Gaza in 2003, to try and protect Palestinians from occupation soldiers.'
It would be difficult to find a more apt contrast as a symbol for, and a measure of, Israel's descent.
"Arabs can vote for members of the keneset as can Jews. However, if the latters candidate wins, then there is about a 40% that his party will be represented in government. For an Arab, his party has a 0% percent chance of being part of the government.
If angry Jews go to the streets, they will be treated without fear of being killed. When the Arabs demonstrate, it is always called rioting, they can be killed on the spot (the riot police are always agents of the Jewish state who see the Arabs as The Enemy).
Jews are free to buy and sell (to other Jews) real estate in the greater Tel Aviv area (the properous heart of Israel). Arabs are not allowed to live in this area (see the convenants attached to land controlled by the JNF)
These are just the differences inside the green line. For those Arabs and Christians that live in the West Bank, they cannot even vote, though the Jews who live there can."
There are Arab MK's in the Labor party. One was appointed to a cabinet level post last year. Granted, not all that significant a post. And, I agree with you that the coalitions always have excluded the Arab parties. That is an example of the need for reform, not for the irrelevance or demise of Zionism itself.
On angry Jews vs angry Palestinians. I don't know the double standard you are referring. ALL non-peacable assemblies are broken up. When Kahanists are violent, they are confronted. When Palestinians are violent, they are confronted. Similarly.
I don't know what percentage of land in Tel Aviv is owned by the Jewish National Fund. I think a small percentage, as Tel Aviv is a very commercial city, dominated by the same libertarian admiration for private property as Wyoming or Chicago.
There is NO prohibition against Arab citizens owning land in Tel Aviv, or running businesses, or participating in ANY profession, or voting, or publishing, or peaceable demonstrating.
The West Bank is an entirely different question. The Palestinians in the West Bank do vote in Palestinian elections. The Israelis in the West Bank vote in Israeli elections.
With clarity as to sovereignty and boundaries, that will change inevitably.
Why not one democratic state?
To repeat ad nauseum. There is NONE currently. They truly are two peoples, and EACH desire to self-govern. The expansionists in each group seek for the other nationality to not self-govern.
The two-state prospect, affords optimal democracy, in that it result in the largest numbers regarding themselves as self-governing. The single-state results in a slim majority, but each taking oil and water positions.
Maybe at some time in the future, the choice of a civil government would dominate Israeli and Palestinian parties (in contrast to the current nationalist and religious party groupings).
Maybe never.
The question is one of jurisdiction.
The distinction is between ANTI-Zionism and reform OF Zionism.
I stand for reform. The anti-orientation strikes me as adolescent.
"What are your committed to accomplishing?" is a more relevant political stand than "What are you committed to objecting?"
"And, I agree with you that the coalitions always have excluded the Arab parties. That is an example of the need for reform, not for the irrelevance or demise of Zionism itself."
Am I missing something? Zionism IS exclusion. How can you reform that? Make it LESS exclusive? That would seem to be like the proverbial woman who is "a little pregnant."
And this idea that anti-Zionists don't stand for anything tangible is patently absurd and you know it. Oh, the "anti" crowd doesn't have anything constructive to say, but I'm a reformer, and I put forth reasonable goals. Nonsense. People are "anti-Zionist" because Zionism is a racist ideology. I don't want to "reshape" the ideas behind the Ku Klux Klan, I want to expose them and dismantle them. Ditto Zionism.
Witty does respond with:
"On angry Jews vs angry Palestinians. I don't know the double standard you are referring. ALL non-peacable assemblies are broken up. When Kahanists are violent, they are confronted. When Palestinians are violent, they are confronted. Similarly."
Are you blind. Israeli Arabs are shot down in the streets when their demonstrations become unruly. Name one Israeli Jew who has been killed by the Israeli police in any demonstration. It does not happen. But the Israeli police do not hesitate to kill Arabs. You are in total denial if you do not accept this.
It also might be noted that until 1966, Arab citizens of Israel were under martial law.
I count 5 postings that Phil
weiss did during yom kippur. The holiest day of the Jewish year. So here you have a guy that observes nothing Jewish. Who inhabits mosques and churches but wouldn't be caught dead in a synagogue. He married out.
And is an advocate of the destrustion of Israel. So I ask again, whatexactly makes this guy Jewish?
I also posted on Yom Kippur.
I fasted, went to shul, came home was bored, read and posted.
I agree that there are things to criticize about Israel. That is why I suggest reforms.
That is a different beast than "anti-Zionism". Anti-Zionism asserts that Jewish self-governance is wrong.
But, that conflicts with my far more democratic sentiment of governance by consent of the governed.
If Israeli's came to feel that one-state was "we", then that might be their self-governing nation.
And, if that is your goal, then the next important question would be how to get there.
And, by my math, that requires developing the relationships of mutual acceptance, as hard as that is. (That is also the path to success for the two-state solution.)
ANY anti-orientation is support of the separation of the peoples, as perplexing as that may sound.
You cannot say that it is the "nature" of Zionism to oppress, because there are large examples of multi-culturalism successfully accepted in Israel. Haifa is my best example. There definitely are separation of neighborhoods, but the orthodox are as separated as the Arab neighborhoods.
Its NOT really different than American cities.
stevieb:
I thought you were simply following the old instructional mantra of "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them!"
God's love—to all.
KC
"I count 5 postings that Phil
weiss did during yom kippur. The holiest day of the Jewish year. So here you have a guy that observes nothing Jewish. Who inhabits mosques and churches but wouldn't be caught dead in a synagogue. He married out.
And is an advocate of the destrustion of Israel. So I ask again, whatexactly makes this guy Jewish?"
SOG, you always question Phil's Jewishness, and the way that you do so makes me think that you don't believe that Jewishness is genetic. If so, how is Palestine anything more than a spritual homeland for observant Jews?
"Anti-Zionism asserts that Jewish self-governance is wrong."
What is "Jewish self-governance?" Why must everything begin and end with Jewish. Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. How about a Democratic arrangement, where some Jews and Arabs and Palestinians and Muslims and Christians and whoever else all govern alongside each other?
Where Jews have congregated to self-govern, it is reality.
Accept it in the jurisdiction where they constitute a majority.
The single-state solution is anti-democratic in the current situation.
lol @ "Where Jews have congregated to self-govern." What a nice way of putting it, Richard. The Palestinians are so happy that "the Jews" have chosen their homeland to congregate. And "the Jews" have been so obviously appreciative of their hosts' hospitality.
Stop the BS. And stop encompassing all people who may choose to describe themselves as Jewish as "the Jews" and including them in your bloody Zionist project. Zionism does not speak for all Jewish people, as much as you and other Zionists want it to – hell, NEED it to, for Zionism's own survival.
Where whites have congregated to self-govern, it is reality.
Accept it in the jurisdiction where they constitute a majority.
The single-state solution is anti-democratic in the current situation.
And in the current USA?
Comments on this entry are closed.