This is from the British Telegraph, on Ze'ev Sternhell, recovering from injuries in a pipebomb attack in Jerusalem from what he believes to be "Jewish terrorists":
But Prof Sternhell said what is new is a younger and more radical seam of Jewish extremists from the West Bank and a sense of their desperation as the government appears to be coming round to accepting the need of withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating the settlements.
"Left wingers like me have been arguing this for thirty years," he said.
"But I think the radicals are more ready to use violence now because they feel that new thinking is developing.
"I think those on the West Bank believe our view have been adopted by the political elite."
What if Phil lived in Israel and wrote this blog from there? Would he be in danger of the Sternhell treatment from Jewish terrorists? His views on the settlements appear similar to those of the good Professor.
People like Richard and Ralph should understand the nature of the beast they implicitly support. It is a group mindset that would happily murder the host of this blog, a person who politely welcomes even those whose views he finds misguided or wrong, surely the mark of the sort of civilised discourse terrorists (Muslim, Jewish or otherwise) are constitutionally incapable of.
If we are at war against an intolerance that doesn't permit dissent in order to protect our freedoms, then we ought to be at war against these extreme Zionist settlers every bit as much as we assail the Islamofascists. Moreso, given the potential we have to affect that component of the problem that resides on our side of the equation.
The threat of a funding cessation is the stick that must be used, given the Zionist lock on most of the carrots.
And the number of Israeli jews who are likely to turn to violence will only increase as it becomes clear that not only will it be necessary to get all the jewish settlers out of East Jerusalem and the West Bank but that Israel itself needs to accommodate large number of new arabs and essentially undo its colonial chauvinist relationship with the native population it has ruined again and again since 1917.
Again, the increasing right-radicalism and terrorism of say the French settlers in Algeria is the appropriate comparison.
There are two precedents that Israel does fear. One is South Africa, with the collapse of its Apatheid regime, and the other is failure of the French settler state in Algeria. In both cases the dominant powers had nuclear weapons. In neither case did it make any difference.
How does Israel deal with that? I have always supported Israel but at the same time believed they should deal fairly with the Palestinian natives. Can they do that? If not, then what?
Phil would be afraid many places in the world that experience both danger and fanaticism.
He should form his own theses of what is important, and as a result (not preceeding) thorough inquiry, then supporting research.
By his own admission, he hasn't done that, either in study of Israeli history, law, politics, and even in fully scholarly US.
He should set his personal goals high, both qualitative and content. He should start by writing and publishing biography. And, maybe simultaneiously, maybe sequentially, writing on policy.
The effort by the left to insist that others conform, and for a negativistic program (not a goal, a complaint), is a similarly vicious limiting factor.
Raging against Ralph and Richard is like raging against Obama because you are disgusted with the Bush Administration. These guys are actually trying to change things, or at least are in support of changing things in the right direction. I guess all jews and zionists are the same, huh?
I liked your link Seuss. Thanks for the support.
My sense is that the right is desperate, not yet dead.
An element of the history of Zionism is perhaps instructive in relation to the right.
That is that many orthodox that originally opposed Zionism while it was still in formation, accepted it once it became a fact.
Perhaps, that is the same dynamic with those settlers that are intolerant of Palestinians' residence and rights. Perhaps, once it is a fact that the sovereignty of the jurisdiction and clarification of title is clear, it will be a fact.
My sense is that the ambiguity is a very very large part of the obstacle to live and and let live.
Richard Witty:
Phil would be afraid many places in the world that experience both danger and fanaticism.
He should form his own theses of what is important, and as a result (not preceeding) thorough inquiry, then supporting research.
By his own admission, he hasn't done that, either in study of Israeli history, law, politics, and even in fully scholarly US.
He should set his personal goals high, both qualitative and content. He should start by writing and publishing biography. And, maybe simultaneiously, maybe sequentially, writing on policy.
The effort by the left to insist that others conform, and for a negativistic program (not a goal, a complaint), is a similarly vicious limiting factor.
…………………………………….
The wonders of the human spirit, or should we call it hypocrisy?
Starting himself with the utter commonplace (…), he proceeds with demanding Phil formulates his own thesis but also lays out the one and only pattern to which Phil has to conform. Ending by blaming the left for insisting that others conform. What has he just been doing?
………………………………………..
Amazed and yes – "fie" – "fuya" Note, only one of these could be listed but isn't.
Mr Witty sez: "That is that many orthodox that originally opposed Zionism while it was still in formation, accepted it once it became a fact."
Funny, that. Many of the German General Staff opposed the rise of the Nazis but then they accepted it once it became fact.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Phil Weiss's commenters are Nazis.
Am I generalizing? Well, that's the rule here, so let it ride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
The only two countries that have laws regulating marriages between Jews and non-Jews are Israel and Nazi Germany.
So were Nazis copying the Zionist Blut und Boden or are Zionists copying the Nazi Blut und Boden?
Again,
The point is that Phil alienates more than he inspires.
"The point is that Phil alienates more than he inspires."
Phil educates. In so doing, he may alienate some Jews that tend to think that the survival of Jews is more important than the well-being of the rest of the world.
From my own side, I enjoy alienating white nationalists that think the survival of the "white" race is more important than the well-being of ALL of us.
Puleeeeze. RC's logic, or rather lack of logic, is painful to follow.
Witty is clearly speaking in regards to the Jewish community.
Korean-Americans can be supportive of the Korean-American community and supportive of the larger American community, yes?
What is the Korean-American equivalent of AIPAC? Is it registered as a foreign agent?
"Korean-Americans can be supportive of the Korean-American community and supportive of the larger American community, yes?"
LMAO!
How Korean-Americans are running the Federal Reserve, Homeland Security and the Justice Dept.? Where's KINSA (Koren Institute for National Security Affairs)?