Antony Loewenstein and Joseph Dana write:
With all the current rhetoric out of Washington regarding an Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, we wanted to gauge public opinion on the streets of Jerusalem on a sunny, Sunday afternoon last weekend. What we found was shocking but unsurprising. The ease with which most Americans and Israelis, young and old, spouted racist and uncompromising comments about Arabs, settlements and Israeli conduct was a raw manifestation of the barriers to the peace process.
We chose the most central and trafficked area of West Jerusalem to conduct random interviews with passers-by on the street. Most people were willing to express their views, unafraid to display Zionist chauvinism in its most blatant form. Palestinians aren’t real human beings in this world. Engagement with Arabs is treasonous. Barack Obama should butt out of Israeli affairs. Illegal, West Bank settlements are necessary to secure the Jewish state.
The aim of this video isn’t to mindlessly demonise Israel but to reveal the side of a country, and its frequent visitors, that is too rarely discussed in the West. It’s a place that is all-too-often, conveniently ignored in the Jewish Diaspora. These bigoted attitudes are only growing in Israel, as American Jews increasingly support Obama to pressure Israel to change its self-destructive course.
The American-Israeli relationship is in serious need of re-assessment.
Related posts:
- Is this ‘natural growth’? American immigrants flood Israeli settlements, backed by the Israeli government
- Mondo Exclusive: Google map of Israeli settlements from leaked database
- Obama may be looking to abandon ’secret’ deal between the US and Israel on settlements
- Walt says Obama could start by calling occupation ‘cruel’ and ‘contrary to democracy’
- Berman once laughed at settlements, now says he has always opposed them
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 228 comments }
Bunch of ingrates. I am starting to find myself in agreement with Todd and others that American ultra-Zionist Jews should actually be encouraged to move to Israel. These people are beyond any redemption– they don’t want to live with the rest of humanity, they don’t care for the rest of humanity, they hate the rest of us, so let them move there and stay there. Rescind their citizenship in the US, France, whereever. Don’t allow Israelis to emigrate to the US. Pay the Palestinians a lot in recompense– try to manage the situation as much as possible, but keep these people over there. The Americans who have moved there are a disgrace to this country, and they should stay there, come Hell or highwater. Good riddance.
Compare what these Israelis say with what Goebbels said to the Czech people, justifying to them the German Occupation of their land, which of course, Nazi Germany viewed as its domain by historical fate–it’s no wonder the young Arab girl at the table did not want to talk about it:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb31.htm
Don’t allow Israelis to emigrate to the US.
Those who want to escape Israel’s slide into fascism should be welcomed. Jews have gotten a raw deal for a long time, and now they are being led down the garden path by their own. I am not saying we owe them admittance to America (for those not already U.S. citizens), or anything else. We should do it because it’s the right thing to do.
Pay the Palestinians a lot in recompense…
Uh, no. Why should we pay reparation for Israeli crimes? We already paid a lot unwillingly and unwittingly subsidizing those crimes. I’d vastly rather see an ‘international tax’ on Israeli exports, akin to how Iraqi oil exports were handled.
Not sure about that. Have we not paid reparations for German war crimes to Israel for scores of years? We have a famous museum on precious patriotic public land in Washington, DC dedicated to an event involving European Jews and Germany. The USA, due to its very direct support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people maybe should pay Palestinians in reparations, right along with the Israelis’ reparations? The Palestinians should be by rights swimming in both American and
Israeli reparations. And please keep the two totally separate.
“We already paid a lot unwillingly and unwittingly subsidizing those crimes….”
Colin, you must be talking about the American public at large, certainly not those intimately involved in the process.
Americans should pay Palestinians reparations because Americans bear a large part of the responsibility for the Palestinians’ oppression by Israel. $Billions a year for forty years in arms is a gigantic sum America has given to Israel, and the still shepherd Palestinians should receive at least that much to grieve for their dead.
Madrid, man! it is not just “ultra-zionist Jews”, this uber racism pregnant with hate and righteousness, and arrogance is to be found among everyday———’s, everywhere.
“so let them move there and stay there”.
Think of the poor Palestinians, they have had to endure wannabe Nazis, Cossacks, and you want send over the the Kosher version of the KKK.
You know, there is not a huge amount of Palestinians. For the US to contribute towards reparations would be a very useful gesture, and would hardly (as these things go,) cost anything. It’s a good idea.
rambling re: Mooser July 24, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You know, there is not a huge amount of Palestinians. For the US to contribute towards reparations would be a very useful gesture, and would hardly (as these things go,) cost anything. It’s a good idea.
I don’t disagree. It’s not the money that bothers me. It’s the desire to finally, at long last, quit cleaning up messes made by foreign colonists. Let those who have supported them take responsibility. I realize that this is hopeless idealism. We’ll end up throwing to the Israelis good money, moral credibility, and lives after bad until the end. They can and do scotch our efforts to help Palestinians. There is no way we will be able to offer genuine reparative assistance to Palestinians until the extremist old-guard leadership in the Lobby is replaced with people willing to try a new path. I do not this is going to happen anytime soon.
I hypothesize that even unified opposition by rank and file Democrats will not change their party’s leadership’s Middle East policies. They have no where else to turn, and the Democratic Party’s informal vetting system will make ‘revolution from below’ slow and difficult. I am not nearly so confident in my assessment of the internal political dynamics in the Lobby. However, I suspect that its old guard has enough like-minded proteges and control over political and financial resources to continue domination of leadership despite an unlikely majority opposition.
Is it likely that enough of AIPAC’s constituents will make a break with it in time to change American policy before Israel becomes an irretrievable pariah apartheid state? The ‘circling the wagons’ dynamic I have observed thus far leads me to think otherwise. Most their ‘opposition’ leadership acquiesced to, and some supported, neocon betrayal of our country. I have little faith in their judgment, even with respect to what is best for Israel.
* additional comments
Racist Israelis will never voluntarily help Palestinians get back on their feet. (I realize that there is a tiny minority of heroes trying to turn the tide. Unfortunately, they have failed.) Israelis agreed to leave greenhouses and other agricultural infrastructure intact when they withdrew their colonies from Gaza. They made a commitment to allow Gazan produce into Israeli for sale, ostensibly to facilitate peaceful Palestinian development. I knew as soon as my eyes reached the end of the announcing sentence that after the withdrawal Israelis would renege on the agreement, and sure enough they did. PSYCHE! Gazan produce rotted at the crossings, ruining those foolish or stoic enough to invest in a peaceful Palestinian venture that relied on Israeli goodwill.
The desperately unspoken truth is that their institutional word is worthless and its honor is shit, and they have absolutely no intention of ever making a just peace with their neighbors. Needless to say, if Israel weren’t blockading Gaza’s seaward border onto international waters, Palestinian farmers could have avoided relying upon Israeli goodwill altogether and traded with the outside world. Israeli will never voluntarily allow that.
Israelis have pissed their Mentschlekhkeyt away in the occupied territories, and there is no realistic way they are getting it back before Israeli is an international pariah. Even the (suitably) guilty and deferential European political class is losing patience. When Israel American subsidies and duty-free status in Europe are deflated, and both will eventually happen even if it takes decades, they will be economically inviable and we will have another North Korea to deal with. More correctly, the Europeans will, and they will rue the day they helped Israel develop nuclear weapons and second strike delivery systems.
Historically, Israelites have always chosen self-destructive course, everytime they were given some time and space to prosper. We are now witnessing history repeat itself.
The Israelites will continue their cruel legacy until it trips, once again. And then, predictably, they’ll be driven out from the land they snatched from others, by none other than their mentors and protectors.
Persuade them.
How is this too short a comment? (per the error message that I received)
Jews need to come up to the bar of Humanism. Americans have been paying for BS guilt over the Shoah, which was actually a tiny part of the WW2 Holocaust which the Western World fought at great expense. Similarly the German nation, innocent post WW2 generations, have been funding the Israeli fascist state. Jews need to get some
perspective beyond their tribal loyalty. A la Kant, imagine if every group of people
acted like World Jewry.
Americans have been paying for BS guilt over the Shoah, which was actually a tiny part of the WW2 Holocaust which the Western World fought at great expense.
I like that distinction between Shoah and Holocaust, and I wish more historians would make it. It’s one I use myself when discussing the events. I feel it’s a gross injustice to the rest of the 12 to 18 million victims of the Nazi death machine to have no unique term to describe the entire extermination campaign (including Jews, Poles, political opponents, resistance fighters, persons with physical disabilities, et cetera), yet have two terms to describe the unique extermination campaign perpetrated against the Jews. By contrast, “Shoah” has special significance and meaning in reference to the Nazi campaign to exterminate the Jews. Aside from modern political reasons to stifle dissent, I can’t understand why more historians haven’t got on board with this, so to speak, unless I’m overlooking something.
How would you have persuaded James W. von Brunn? Haven’t you seen any of
those YouTube video clips of settlers in action? And review the clip that is the
subject of this thread. Do most of those random people somehow appear rational to you on the subject of the settlements?
tho somewhat tempted to agree with Madrid’s comments above…the idea that the US allow ANY more dual citizenships is absurd/obscene….furthermore, when will this disgusting “manifest destiny drive” CEASE? what of Palestinians continually besieged by more and more fanatical racist illegal settlers? enough! ya basta! they need to make a choice and no more welfare or tax breaks etc. that in itself might stop some from moving to Palestine…so that one day if and when there is SANITY? prevailing..then those settlers living on Palestinian lands can either accept to become Palestinian citizens or they can apply to move elsewhere..but NOT back to the US. You leave then you are OUT….dual citizenship is NOT an option, Loyalty to America or leave..
Screw them and their Rothschild fantasy of Israel. It’s good enough to be in America, then focus on America. Not this half-baked religious state concept. They think they have a right to land, well that is pure fantasy of the Zionist narrative. Those poor saints should have a home to call home since they’ve been wandering the land of the goyim. Please, enough of the trajedy. When is this nightmare going to end for not just the Palestinians, but all rational people?
It’s not so much that the US “allows” dual citizenship. In fact, the US does not recognize dual citizenship. It only recognizes American citizenship.
But the reality is that the US cannot revoke a foreign citizen’s citzenship. The French government does, for example, consider a US –born individual (born of a French citizen mother) to be a French citizen. The US considers that person to be solely a US citizen.
But the US recognizes also that it has no standing to determine who is a French citizen under French law.
Sorry, the SCOTUS change the rules negating dual citizenship when it came to a Jew.
Look it up. The USA has been in that diseased strait jacket ever since. Look all over the USA legal landscape. From dual citizenship to international trade bias, Jews always made a first exception for themselves.
Do you have some legal authority for that?
While I’m a lawyer, I’m perfectly willing to admit my ignorance on such things, though I have never heard of such special dual citizenship arrangement vis a vis Israel-USA and the US SCt.
Pinewood, there has been a change in recognizing dual citizenship in the US. Forty years ago when someone became a naturalized US citizen, they had to revoke their previous citizenship. I have a good friend who did so in 1968. But this rule has changed. So today he has two passports, one from the US and the other from Canada. (After 911 he felt safer travelling on the Candadian passport). This was not the result of any supreme court ruling, I think it might have been an administrative change, more than a court mandated one.
Israel had something to do with this I believe. Too many Americans served in the IDF and thereby established Israeli citizenship but people from other countries began to object to the double standard. The change in rules was done quietly. I became aware of this issue through my father’s experience. He served in the Canadian brigade that fought in Spain in 1936. When he returned in 1938, immigration threatened his citizenship because he served in the armed forces of another nation. This was dropped after 1939 when large numbers of Americans volunteered for service in the Canadian and British forces. In any case, there was a change in our policy beginning in WWII. My account is completely anecdotal, perhaps this is a subject that some historian could document.
syvanen–
Again, the fact that the US may require a reunciation of foreign citizenship upon naturalization does not mean at all that the foreign power simultaneously disclaims the citizenship of the person involved or in any way recognizes that renunciation.
No nation–the US or any other–allows another nation to determine citizenship of its “citizens”.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) set an important legal precedent that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of American citizenship involuntarily.Originally the United States Constitution did not address the issue. Afroyim had automatic Israeli citizenship under Israel’s Law Of Return and the lower court had decided on 1958 SCOTUS precedent (involving a Mexican American, if memory serves) that Afroyim
had given up his American citizenship by voting in an Israeli election. Since Afroyim
the US has become even more lenient. Basically you need to officially declare you
do not want your US citizenship to cancel it. Dual citizenship is seen by a growing number of Americans as a way to take advantage of the new global economy, a definite plus on the job resume; also as the US gets harder to live in, and the quality of life goes down, say compared to countries in the EU, a safety valve
to escape to greener pastures is handy to have–not to mention dual citizenship
makes gold confiscation more difficult than back in the day when dual citizenship
was viewed as lack of patriotism.
Most people interviewed indicated inflexible attitudes that support Israel’s take-over of Palestinain property, with no regard for their rights, and want dual citizenship as well? That goes beyond wanting to have it both ways, to wanting to have it THREE ways. Does their self-interest have any boundaries?
I could say many things about the film, but one thing that struck me negatively–I think on many levels–was the use of American music, blues specifically, by the interviewees.
Something about that was alienating in the sense that I felt they had no right to appropriate that art form.
Music should be in the public domain. “no right to appropriate”?
I liked in the previous films, the presence of reggae playing often, and drum circles (the best of progressive culture).
Don’t you find it ironic, that culturally, young Israelis are so worldly and anarchic, while their politics is not?
Do you really think that is due entirely to Israelis’ “racism”? Or, are there other contributing influences?
Yes, I find it ironic that Israeli youth in the film appear culturally “worldly”, yet rightwing politically.
Is that due to Israeli racism? Certainly I would say that their rightwing politics is a result of that.
Their cultural “worldliness”? That unfortunately has become a packaged youth commodity like crest toothpaste, irrespective of its cultural and political roots.
In the case at hand, the film is an indication of the use of American blues alienated from its origins as a musical expression of oppressed peoples. That is what I found offensive, and ultimately empty and alienating.
The youth take a “cafeteria humanism” approach, partaking of the richness of western culture while denying certain of its principal tenets.
Many young Nazis were hip too. You probably don’t even know that German militant youth
in the Nazi era, those called “Doves,” habitually attacked Hitler Jugend. The intellectual upper class White Rose were not the only ones to rebel against Nazi
policy. Can the American Jews even come close to such courage? I think not.
“Do you really think that is due entirely to Israelis’ “racism”? Or, are there other contributing influences? ”
I think it’s one more manifestation of an attitude I was stunned to encounter in a coffeehouse in Virginia a few years ago. I asked two Jewish women why Israel was so aggressive toward Iran.
The women told me, “Unfortunately, Iran is sitting on real estate that someone else wants.”
I was stunned, but as I’ve tried to validate that incredibly arrogant statement, I’ve discovered that many, many Jews feel entitled to take whatever they want: a couple weeks ago EI had a piece about Jews having taken Arab humus are now appropriating Arab sayings; Jews have stolen Persian history and are intent on stealing more — the clays at UChicago; not even the Jewish bible is wholly the product of Jews, but appropriated from Zoroaster and other eastern ethical systems.
No. I don’t find it ironic that young Israelis (or the old ones in the video) are worldly yet racist. Many Nazi Germans were very attuned to all forms of music also, and they could replicate it very well. Music evokes the stirring of the soul, racist soul as well as a humanistic soul.
it sounds like the music is in the film like on the street. You can see the one guy playing the guitar. So I am not sure it was a decision as it was in the film already.
who knows?
Why should that surprise you? The filth of israel owe EVERYTHING to Jews of the diaspora. They have created NOTHING, save their Nazi garbage dump, a disgrace to all humankind.
Pinewood, I think you miss the significance of that music. It was being played by an American expatriot zionist. Playing music that entered mainstream American culture through black musicians. It was part of our civil rights movement. Definitely incongruous. But also a very telling, seeing Israeli racist trying to incorporate symbols of the antiracist movement that came from the US. I would call that a creative contrast. It should be a painful reminder to all of those American Jews who were prominent in the struggle against Jim Crow how their support for Israel is so contrary to what they believe in. A signal that it is the Palestinians that are now leading a struggle for human dignity.
Yes, I agree with you.
And that was the point of my post.
Exodus 3:22
Upon leaving the Egipt, Jews helped themselves to their neighbours property, and then made themselves victims for being chased by Egyptian army:
“But every woman shall ask of her neighbor and the woman who lives in her house, articles of silver and articles of gold, and clothing; and you will put them on your sons and daughters. Thus you will plunder the Egyptians.”
It’s funny to hear middle aged Americans (with American accents) telling others to get out of “our country.”
However, the best comment was by the American who explained that American Jews visiting Israel are bound to be more jingoistic.
Hmm…. The new system won’t allow me to reply to a reply, so I’m making a new post. RE: v… July 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Colin, you must be talking about the American public at large, certainly not those intimately involved in the process.
Yes, I am talking about the general public.
***
Jim Lobe has an excellent article by Daniel Luban on his blog: title=”Bibi’s Blindness”.
One thing this roving interview proves, whether it is boisterous (and perhaps drunken) students in Jerusalem, or a more docile atmosphere with old men etc., it is the same view. In other words, it is pervasive in Israeli society. It is the arrogance of power, and the refusal to be reasonable – and that translates into a policy of murderous occupation, not in contradistinction to the outcry of the people but with their tacit blessing. Showing that any remedy applied is going to have to be universal and tough.
I notice the most despicable and obnoxious on this video sounded and acted like New York Jews, the core of the Democratic Party. It’s easy to see how gullible American liberals have been taken in by this type. They look so hip and progressive, laid back, a little eccentric, but confident, well-spoken, firm in their beliefs. Yet just underneath the surface lie these drooling fascists as revealed in the video. They just don’t bother to mask it so much when they’re in their natural environment.
In America, they do their knife work less conspicuously, and often through government agencies and lobbying or their jobs in media that provide a veneer of respectability. Yet they are equally sick puppies with equally squirming minds as those on the video. ALL Zionists and their collaborators are very sick people who should be quarantined, or at the least removed from any position of authority over non-Jews. They simply can’t be trusted.
sure ed. Unlike the GOP functionaries…far right anti-communist psychotics like Elliot Abrahms, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, etc etc etc etc
It’s not about the democrats.
It’s not about republicans.
It’s not about capitalism or communism.
it’s not about the Jews.
It’s about Israel.
It’s about the filth of Israel.
It;s a bout the human garbage who call themselves Israeli.
The enemy is israel.
The thing to be wiped out is Israel.
Have I ever said the GOP hasn’t been corrupted, too? Most people on here don’t seem to understand the concept of triangulation, which the Lobby has mastered.
But it is the Democratic Party through which political Judaism made entry to the American power structure, and that maintains the highest concentration of Jewish Zionist lawmakers, contributors, and operatives. The left-liberals on this site don’t want to acknowledge that because they want the goodies that political Judaism agrees with them on (socially engineered mass multi-culturalism, Big Government spoils) but they don’t want to pay a political price when their left-wing master plans go awry by ushering in groups like political Judaism that refuse to assimilate into the American ethic that made the country great, and end up leveraging the neo-American Leviathan on their own behalf. If political Islam is ever allowed a strong foothold in this country, it will do the same thing.
Left-liberalism and its adherents are as stubborn, controlling, authoritarian, dogmatic and delusional as was the medieval Church. Their politics — proven-unworkable Marxist fantasies — really are part of the problem, as is their perpetual welfare entitlement mindset, which is comparable to that of the Zionist mooches.
Wow, a carefully selected sample of interviews out of God knows how many you conducted shows what you wanted to show. I’m shocked, because it isn’t like you could do exactly the same thing with any viewpoint held by any percentage of the population, as long as you are willing to conduct enough interviews.
Anti-Semitism 101, tactic 2. Take aberrant attitudes or behaviors of a tiny fraction of the Jewish population and pretend that the actions are representative of all Jews. If 1 out of 100,000 Jews is a murderer, compared to 1 out of 10,000 people in the general population, play up every murder by a Jew as though that is what all Jews are like. If you succeed, you can get people to think that Jews are more murderous than average rather than much less.
You sound exactly like the people in the video Thom.
The sad trality is that there is nothing aberrant about the attitudes being expressed and this belief is not held by a tiny fraction. After all, these are precisely the argument you have been defending on this blog for some time now.
LOL– that last bit was pretty funny.
That’s what I get for believing the text posted by Adam and Phil. I didn’t watch the video. I just assumed that Adam and Phil wouldn’t bother to lie about the contents of a video they posted. I have not made any racist comments. So are you saying that the video has no racist comments and Adam was lying about them? I’ll watch the video later.
You’ve made plenty of racist comments, Thom, you just don’t realize it. I seem to recall that you claim to be a liberal, which I’m you believe, yet your views when it comes to Israel are far rightwing.
Yes, the video does have racist comments, but they won’t sound racist to you.
Cut the antisemitism nonsense. There has been a pretty good cross-section of people interviewed, in what seems to be a series coming out of many areas in Israel. What do they all show? The same sentiments, that is because Zionism is a pervasive ideology of the general population. This same population, through many different polls during the Gaza massacre showed 90% approval rating of the carnage (both from Tel Aviv Univ. and CBS, NBC, etc.), and 80 plus percent said it was not harsh enough! You have a vote which sweeps in a fascist government, which represents the electoral process. Need I go on? Go do the antisemitism dance somewhere else, I am not antisemitic for obvious reasons.
Maybe we should try Tel Aviv again? LOL
Got a cite for the 90% approval rating? I want to see the questions that were asked since I doubt they say “do you approve of the carnage”.
The current government of Israel is not fascist. They don’t seek a single party state, they don’t forbid dissent, nor do they have any of the other hallmarks of a fascist government. This is another instance of the typical Palestinian propagandist tactic. If you honestly described what Israel is doing, keeping control of its borders with a terrorist nation that is at war with Israel, then people yawn at you. So you falsely claim that Israel is “fascist” and hope that people who don’t know what the word means will believe you and go “fascism is bad” without realizing that you are lying about Israel being fascist.
If you aren’t anti-Semitic for obvious reasons, what non-obvious reasons are the cause of you being anti-Semitic?
The current government of Israel is made up of fascists. Leading up to the elections and shortly after, Liberman was considered a facist even in Israel.
The best definition of fascism I’ve seen was poasted here recently and came from ‘the Nature of Fascism’. It decribes facism as the belief in an organic community which must achieve a certain state of being it previously held. That’s Israel to a T.
Sonmeone else posted that:
“The fundamental ideological components shared by Zionism and German Nazism are: politicized ethnic fundamentalism, extremist organic nationalism, social Darwinism, biological determinism, essentialism, primordialism, perverted eugenic theory, opposition to race mixing for causing ethnic degeneration, and the corresponding belief in national revival through racial purity. ”
All the hallmarks of a fascist state and Israel in a nutshell.
Israel does forbid dissent, and routinely kills proptesters. nor do they have any of the other hallmarks of a fascist government. Isrel regards the seizure of land as legitimate and then claims is a gfovernment land.
It boggles the mind that you could argue that Israel is keeping control of its borders, when it has refused to even delare them.
So the claim that Israel is “fascist” is right on the money.
well Tom, why is it that we goy are so often subjected to lists of all the brilliant Jews who have won Nobel prizes, with the (fallacious) implication that THESE Jews are smart, therefore ALL Jews are smart?
Can’t have it both ways.
That’s a cultural thing, not a racial thing. Jews as a culture tend to revere education. Surprise, a lot of us end up educated. Nobels are given out for accomplishments, not for brains.
The lists are to show the disproportionate contribution of Jews to the collective knowledge of mankind, not to show that all Jews are smart.
Like any other group, Jews have a range of intelligence, there are brilliant Jews and stupid ones (e.g., the Jewish supporters of Hamas).
By the way, only European Jews ever win nobel prizes, with the exception of one from Algeria (Claude Cohen-Tannoudji) and one with parents from n. Africa. (Baruj Benacerraf) Those stupid lists don’t get how Eurocentric and white-supremacist they are and the dudes who take them seriously need to grow off the Arab v. Jew trip.
Thom – I know lots of really stupid Jews who say really stupid things. Most of them are found in Israel. Some are in Florida. Once I met a stupid jew from California. But he had a reason – divorce or something bent him a bit. A large number of RSJs (Really-Stupid-Jews) are found on talkbacks, such as jerusalem post and haaretz.
All I can say is – if that’s what 3000+ years of civilization leads to, perhaps we should revisit what civilization means.
OTOH, that’s why I refer to most israeli citizens as so-called jews. Most people in that country are not really jewish – whether halachically (Jewish mother?), culturally (value education), spiritually (what values? go shopping/ that’s an American value!) or religiousely (most are [still] secular). As a whole, israeli society worships the same kind of golden calf that got poor old moses to break his first tablets. Who knows what was written on them? perhaps a warning that it may come to this?
No wonder israel needs to appeal to real jews (palestinians) to help them define their country as jewish. Funny that it’s up to the palestinians now to put the kosher stamp on Israel.
That was priceless Dana, thanks.
I concur with Shingo. Priceless, Dana!
Danni Gillerman’s quote says nothing of the kind.
He states that Israel is using disproportionately large force. All he is suggesting is that in his view, others would do the same or worse.
Of course this is only a matter of opinion and hyperbole on his part, to excuse Israel’s excesses.
Israel and Israel’s defenders will always dismiss a report that they have not authored as being biased, or anti Israel. For example, every UN report is dismissed as untrustworthy because Israel claims it is subject to Arab propaganda. The same goes for B’Tselem and Amnesty International.
The evidence was not hearsay, but the testimony by 2 or more IDF soldiers which verify what took place.
If the U.N. says something about Israel it can’t be trusted simply because the U.N. is the universal forum for the Arabs and Muslims to express hatred of Israel and the rest of the world to suck up to the Arabs and Muslims by going along.
Israel does not have the best human rights record in the Middle East, in fact, it has one of the worst, which is why it gets scrutinized so often.
What other state in the Middle east killed close to 2000 people last year?
Haha, I knew one of the ZioBots would be upset. No matter how many of these interviews come up, they will find a reason to dismiss them. Kind of like the studies and report that prove Israel either intentionally used disproportionate force and killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure in it’s most recent massacre or did so all on purpose.
If a report had come out that say Israel used disproportionate force and killed civilians based on evidence, rather than rumor and hearsay, you would have a cause for complaint. As it is, the “reports” that have come out are all either based on rumor, or on uncorroborated Palestinian statements, and the Palestinians and their supporters commonly lie about these things.
If you have a specific allegation, let’s hear it. Try reading the “Breaking the Silence” report. See if you can find any firsthand account (witnessed rather than just repeating a rumor) of anything worse than vandalism.
When has Israel evern issued a report that has admitted culpability? Do you seriosly expect us to believe that Israel invstigating Israel would come up with a damning conclusion?
For Christs sake Thom, Israel didn’t even bother denying that is was using disproportionate force in Gaza. In fact, Israel’s denfenders all argued that the disproportionate force arguement was irrelvant.
In 2006, when asked if Israel was using disproportionate force, Danny Gillerman’s reponse was “your damned right we’re using disproportionate force”.
Sitll, you will always ignore the elephant in the room. When Palestrinians claim that Israel uses disproportionate force, they cannot be trusted. When the UN argues that Israel uses disproportionate force, it’s becasue the UN is anti Israel. And lastly, when IDF troops slaim Israel uses disproportionate force, it’s dismissed as heresay.
And you wonder why no one believes you Thom?
The Amnesty International report presented uncorroborated evidence?
You can’t definitively prove intent in this case, because you’ll employ any number of verbal acrobatics to squirm away.
This behavior is a trend. It happened in Lebanon 2006 as well. What’s that, Israel always says about the Palestinian resistance? That they use human shields, right?
I have no doubt that they have and may do so in the future. But Israel uses human shields as well.
Now, let’s be clear – when Zionists use this allegation it’s to either:
A) insult the Palestinian people/their struggle/their representatives/etc.
B) mitigate or deflect the criticism against Israel regarding civilian deaths on the other side
Overall despite the intellectual dishonesty of this point of contention – it is a valid thing to be pissed off about. Using human shields is despicable.
However, both sides have done so. SO you gotta apply another filter. It’s a superficial truth to say both sides have done so. You have to talk about context and extent. That’s what Israel does – ‘explanation’. So Israelis say they use Palestinians to open doors housing hostile entities. That’s still human shields and blah blah, but Israel will mention the tactical component to the decision to at least dispel the notion that they are doing it JUST to do it.
They explain themselves, but they do not give the Palestinians the same leniency of understand. They do not consider that Gaza is a very densely populated area. They do not consider that they themselves would be fighting an urban war if the tables were turned.
The image that you and other Zionists concoct is that Palestinians use human shields just to use human shields. It’s not so simple. Still bad – but not comic book bad.
Now, the other issue is extent. This relates to the wars. Did Israel kill civilians inadvertently due to said usage of human shields? It would be convenient.
But there’s no proof that the Palestinians used human shields. I believe this is based on testimonies from Palestinians themselves.
To put this in context – the US Army War College conducted a study on the 2006 Lebanon War.
Israel ALSO stated back then that the civilian deaths were caused by Hezbollah’s usage of human shields.
SO let’s define that they mean that it’s not SIMPLY that Hezbollah used human shields once during the war, but that Hezbollah used human shields to SUCH AND EXTENT that such casualties resulted.
So we’re always talking about EXTENT here. Often as I said, Israel’s supporters will give the impression that the resistance does so just to be ‘evil’. This does not imply that the tactic is acceptable even if the intentions are not arbitrarily evil – but we all know that this conflict is full of sensationalism and ‘point-scoring’ emotional rhetoric that is employed to dumb down the debate and turn it into a ‘YO MOMMA’S SO FAT SHE BLAH BLAH’ type of shit-flinging contest.
Back to my point.
The 2006 Study confirmed that Hezbollah did not use human shields – at the least, to any, quote, “meaningful” extent. I do believe the report specifies that they did fire rockets from homes that people had already had fled from though. That’s clearly not the same notion Israel’s supporters are implying.
So this rhetorical game is easy to understand:
-Zionist accuses Palestinian/Lebanese of human shields.
-The only logical conclusion is ‘extent’ of human shields and not simply 1 occurrence because 1 occurrence is not pertinent – unless the accusation is simply to insult because the type of Zionist that brings these arguments up does not give a damn about the Palestinian life in a humanist sense (perhaps political sense though).
-Study published. Refutes the Zionist line.
Afterthought:
If even once instance of human shield usage was found – Zionists will slippery slope this to imply that the entire study was false. However, that’s transparent. We know the point of the allegations was insincere in the first place.
So the point is whether or not the human shield usage (if it exists in the war in question) led to the civilian deaths.
That’s the context. And the answer is ‘no’, because the usage was not meaningful (in the case of Lebanon 2006).
So Thom, you’re rhetorical tactic is to say ‘well, we don’t know what the IDF soldier was thinking so nothing is definitive’.
None of your deflection would hold up in a just court of Law.
The settlements are Israel’s way of using its civilians as human shields. The populating of territory seized by arms with families, especially immigrants from the US, was used a strategy that purposely put civilians in a zone with deadly potential.
You’re dead wrong, Thom. Dont you read the news?
Israeli report: Army used reckless force in Gaza
Updated Wed. Jul. 15 2009 2:54 PM ET
The Associated Press
JERUSALEM — Israeli soldiers who fought in last winter’s Gaza War say the military used Palestinians as human shields, improperly fired incendiary white phosphorous shells over civilian areas and used overwhelming firepower that caused needless deaths and destruction, according to a report released Wednesday.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090715/reckless_force_090715/20090715?hub=TopStories
You’re dead wrong, Thom. A report did come out.
Israeli report: Army used reckless force in Gaza
Updated Wed. Jul. 15 2009 2:54 PM ET
The Associated Press
JERUSALEM — Israeli soldiers who fought in last winter’s Gaza War say the military used Palestinians as human shields, improperly fired incendiary white phosphorous shells over civilian areas and used overwhelming firepower that caused needless deaths and destruction, according to a report released Wednesday.
http://tr.im/tMhX
Oh, goody, are you going to start making up fake quotes from me now?
My comments are on here, feel free to quote me and link to one. Difficulty, no faking one.
Democracies can (and should) be judged by the actions of their elected leaders.
In the case of this interview, we know it’s not a “carefully selected sample” of Israeli Jews because what they have to say is what Israeli cabinet ministers also say. See, for instance, here.
Also, opinion surveys confirm that Israelis are deeply and unabashedly racist. See here.
In short, this video doesn’t show anything that we didn’t already know. But it’s anyway welcome, since, as they say, an image is worth one-thousand words.
Yeah, you have described how very influential American jews continually depict “redneck” America. All the Jewish Americans take that academic course Redneck 101.
It’s also obligatory for any goy American who is career-minded.
Thom,
Those were exactly my thoughts. Without information as to what portion this was of those “randomly interviewed” and how they were selected from the whole it is quite impossible to assess. Otherwise it is just preaching to the converted.
HEBRON
sadly, this should be seen.. utterly disturbing, not just what the settlers do, but that the soldiers allow it.
I think the statements about Israeli attitude are likely representative of much of the population. There are certainly more liberal communities than others. Haifa for example, is genuinely multi-cultural, and the distrust of Arabs is far far less.
Still, the question remains on how those people get persuaded. Their attitude is a construction of both entitlement and reaction to hatred and violence against Israelis.
How do attitudes change? At least to a point that there is a critical mass for support for something resembling the Geneva accords?
There is no magic transition with Israel to a democratic state, certainly not with the current leadership of that movement.
“Its wrong” is barely a first conclusion. What is proposed?
what is proposed:
1. Burn all the Hasbara manuals
2. US — stop sending money to Israel
3. US Jews must be required to either swear an oath as every naturalized citizen does or be deported to Russia or Israel or wherever he/she came from:
“”I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.” “
4. Close the Holocaust museum on the Washington DC mall.
Very lame responses. Those aren’t proposals. Those are reactions.
Do you know the difference? One fixes. The other runs away.
So, you like the Lieberman model. That was Lieberman’s campaign slogan, “swear allegiance, or lose citizenship”.
witty wrote: “So, you like the Lieberman model. That was Lieberman’s campaign slogan, “swear allegiance, or lose citizenship”. ”
goose. gander. cook. that’s my “reaction” to your nitpicking.
But here’s how my proposal is different from Lieberman’s: every naturalized American already swears the quoted oath of allegiance to the US. Jews, of course, demand exceptional treatment — they should be allowed to bear allegiance to two states (in the case of Dennis Ross, to function as an advocate for Israel while being paid by US taxpayers to putatively work for the interests of the US).
The Lieberman proposal ignores the concept of the two-state solution: he would demand that Palestinians foreswear the possibility that they would have their own state, to which they would bear allegiance.
See the difference?
great, another Holocaust denier
Some other groups who suffered and perished in the Nazi holocaust tried to have representation at the holocaust museum and were rebuffed. This is only about jewish suffering.
Every 2 horse town has to have a “holocaust museum or memorial. Can you just imagine if Germany had museums every 2o steps commemorating the Indians (or Vietnamese) victims of the United states”?
How do attitudes change?
I don’t think Israeli attitudes are going to be changed. I have at least a dozen ancestors who died fighting for the Union during the Civil War, and even after that staggering bloodletting it has taken many decades to reduce prejudice against African Americans to a level such that their participation in most of society and employment in non-menial jobs is considered unremarkable. And there is still a long way to go.
Everything I have seen since I started paying attention to this issue has led me to conclude that Israel is a viciously racist nation whose leadership has never had the slightest interest in living in peace with their neighbors. I think they are as bad as 1860 Southerners. There is no way they are going to change in time to save Israel from losing its status as an accepted civilized nation. Frankly, it will be quite an accomplishment if enough American Jews’ attitudes are changed to avoid the inevitable social backlash that is coming with the rest of America figuring out what the hell has been going on with Zionism and the Lobby. My hope is that enough vocal Jewish opposition to the pro-colonization Israel-first bunch will shape public opinion to squarely label extremist Zionists as the culprits, even though we both know many moderates have knowingly acquiesced to extremists in the Lobby, and for Jews as a larger community to avoid general social opprobrium. If that happens, it will be in large part because of the heroic efforts of people like Phil and Adam.
There are some battles that just can’t be won, and I think that Israel is a lost cause. Success would require decisive external intervention, and the ugly reality is that no one has the stomach for it. America will be lucky if our leaders can merely undertake the minimal effort necessary to look out for our own security, e.g. a freeze on colonization. What are the chances we can change hearts of minds of millions of hardcore racists before their behavior turns Israel into an international pariah? The extremist leadership Jews have allowed to speak politically for their community in America, i.e. the Lobby, has for decades shielded Israelis from the consequences of the actions of their radical colonists. Nothing gentiles do is going to change Israeli hearts and minds. Substantives measures like a complete severance of relations or even a more unlikely full embargo will only cause them to stick their heads into the sand and dig in their heels. (We should take the former measure anyway, to protect ourselves.) Only American Jews have a chance of convincing Israelis to examine their attitudes, and that would require a veritable coup against old guard leadership within Jewish political and social institutions. Is that likely? Like undisciplined children, Israelis have grown thoroughly accustomed to doing whatever they damn well please and not only getting away with it, but getting accolades and support from American Zionists. I sincerely wish you the best in trying. Time is running out.
I could not agree more. Imagine if Obama got on the bully pulpit over the heads of
congress, directly to the American people, and said something like, “…and for these reasons I announce today that I will not support any foreign aid to Israel, our largest single outlay, until the Israeli government demonstrates it’s willingness, as the power in the region enabled by my government, it’s willingness to freeze settlements in the
areas it occupies–that is absolutely the first step towards any hope of peace.”
My proposal is that average Americans finally get to see Jews in power in action.
BTW, I believe you about one thing: “The aim of this video isn’t to mindlessly demonise Israel”.
The aim of this video is to very mindfully, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, demonize Israel.
I thought the people interviewed were more intelligent than the other two.
Any video that exposes Israeli racism, apparently demonizes Israel.
The point is that any video presentation of an entire population should not be seen as definitive anything.
However, these videos are not meant to imply that – they came AFTER the numerous wars and human rights abuses and studies on attitudes of ‘the other’ conducted by Israelis themselves.
They are simply confirming the racism that has already been studied and documented in Israeli society.
I don’t know how you can type your nonsense over and over when there are plenty of superficially credible sources that CORROBORATE the videos findings (implications).
Israeli Jews are far more racist and bigoted in comparison to Palestinian Arabs.
And by the way – not all racism is the same and the origins are important to understand.
There is a lack of honesty when it comes to the debate on race and religion. We always get a stupid Hollywood version of it – but racism often arises out of legitimate grievances.
Like I can’t say I do not understand the hatred of the Israelis. It came from somewhere – it’s not alien.
However, in that same sense of understand ‘them’ – I have to praise the Palestinians for being less hateful (as per the studies, which I quoted for you awhile back when you used this same dishonest argument, Thom).
The relationship between Jew and Palestinian (not Israeli Jew, all Jews in that superficial sense – which is all that matters since Jews with no ties to Historic Palestine can come and steal it from the rightful owners) is that of master and slave.
The racism of the master is repugnant (a result of greed and power and immorality) and despicable. Less understandable. Not true for the slave. The slave hates the master because the master controls him and dominates him. However, that hate is still despicable (I’m assuming the slave hates all of the ethnic/religious/etc. makeup of the master – even if they themselves are not like the master).
The aim of this video is to shatter an image of Jews and Israelis that has been created and promoted in the West.
It is a form of propaganda – yes – but it is also BUILT ON TRUTH. And it exists as corroborating evidence.
Oh, but yea, it will make people hate ‘the Jews’. You’re right Thom, we shouldn’t watch this video. Remember the Holocaust! Nazis! Hitler! Bagels!
OK, now that I have actually watched the video (no speakers on my other computer), instead of basing my comments on the lies about the contents that the authors wrote above such as “Palestinians aren’t real human beings in this world. Engagement with Arabs is treasonous. ”
If the purpose of the video was to demonize Israel. It failed. There is nothing in there about the Palestinians not being real human beings. There is nothing about “engagement with Arabs is treasonous”.
Frankly, given that the Palestinians are at war with Israel, the attitudes of the people in the video are pretty reasonable. I personally think the Israelis should cut back on the settlements, and give them up for peace if that ever becomes an option (which it won’t). However, under the present circumstances, the settlements are legitimate. If the Palestinians don’t like them they can agree to a peace treaty that lets Israel continue to exist, which so far, they have rejected.
The Palestinians are not at war with Israel, they are occupied by Israel and resisting occupation. That is a big difference.
The settlements have NEVER been legitimate because they are built on occupied land and as Teodor Meron, teh Israeli Supreme Court and The International Court of Justice concluded, they vilate the 4th Geneva Convention.
Shingo, read the Hamas charter, they are at war with Israel. All they have to do is recognize Israel and ask for peace, problem solved. The settler issue will be taken care of like it was in the Sinai and in Gaza. The Palestinians can have peace and prosperity. It all makes sense, why don’t they accept it.
Yoni, don’t you mean read the English translation of the Hamas charter.
Apologist for the slaughter of innocents waves the Hamas charter around like a red flag.
Apart from the fact that the translation is highly dubious, the charter has never been adopted by the Political wing of Hamas according to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British Ambassador to the U.N.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7823000/78 23746.stm
I take it you were joking when you said that all “they” have to do is recognize Israel and ask for peace, problem solved. Well. as it turns out, Israel is not interested in being recognized, so you’re wrong.
You see, 22 Arab States have singed a peace initiaive which offer to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders. In fact, the initiatiev even offers to normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world. Israel has rejected the offer, so apprently being recognized is not that importnat to Israel.
Arafat recognized Israel and not only did it not being peace, Israel then killed him to show their appreciation.
Last but not least, if you want to talk abotu charters, what do the chareters of Israel’s political parties say:
Likud:
The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continues: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”
Kadima:
“The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel.”
Shas.
The founder and spiritual leader of Shas stated:
“It is forbidden to be merciful to them(Arabs). You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable,” he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1270038.stm
So, you say you are a fan or member of the USA office of special plans dedicated to
ferret out “anti-semitism” around the world even though jews are 2% of the USA population? Now there’s a good use of US taxpayer dollars in our time of economic
trial to the extreme.
So, you say you are a fan or member of the USA office of special plans dedicated to
ferret out “anti-semitism” around the world even though jews are 2% of the USA population? Now there’s a good use of US taxpayer dollars in our time of economic
trial to the extreme.
Oh and yea, no drunk Jews. None of the usual idiots. This is not in the same vein as the Max B. videos, although the second half of the ‘Hate in Tel Aviv’ video was fine and along the lines of this video.
Thom is just salty because the basic concept of ‘bad for the Jews’ is written all over this video. It has nothing to do with journalism or objective blah blah.
While the extermination of Europe’s Jews was one of the worst incidents in recorded history, the extermination of Israel’s Jews would be welcomed by most of the world as a singularly wonderful event.
Their political correctness will not permit them to tell you that, but in their hearts, they will be euphoric.
You’re a plant, right? Everyone following this blog is supposed to read you and go, wow, this guy says what they all think, doesn’t he. Nevermind that we’re not living in goddamned 1915. Anything that could exterminate Israel’s Jews would have to be a nuclear explosion, which would make the liberation of Palestine academic.
Stop talking like a caveman. We don’t need more any more exterminations; we are working on rehabilitation.
I want Phil to check lovelyisraelis IP. The guy is an ass-clown. He’s like Ahmedinejad. No tact whatsoever (not counting the Holocaust denying, which isn’t rhetorical in his case – right?).
He might be Rykart aka Ryan Dawson from anti-neocons.com. I don’t want to besmirch Dawson’s name because judging from his videos on YouTube and his commentary on his website – he’s a reasonable and intelligent guy.
lovelyisraelis is like our Jake in Jerusalem except that the same intellectually dishonest people like Jake are also the ones who set the tone and parameters for this on-going debate.
So even if there are monsters on the Israeli side – we barely if ever hear about them. It takes citizen journalism from the Blumenthal’s and Lowenstein’s to get that other side of crazy.
So, fuck you lovelyisraelis. I don’t even care if you’re sincere underneath all that noise. You’re the gift that keeps on giving. This conflict doesn’t stop over there. It’s on-going and the debate is constantly hijacked by insincere douchebags whining about anti-Jew this and that (they don’t really care, anti-Jewish attitudes give them their sense of identity = victimized Jews ~which in-turn justifies~> super-ZioSoldier killing Arabs and Muslims in defense of ~going back again to the beginning~> victimized Jews; this inanely idiotic cycle of sanctimony is what you help perpetuate, douchebag).
Criminy, lovelyisraelis! Show a shred of empathy. You said in an earlier post that you are Jewish. Surely you can understand how Israelis got into their current mess without approving of it. Talk of extermination is frakking madness. If that’s how your really feel, I don’t want you as an ally, and think that you should be banned.
If you are indeed Jewish, you are letting your anguish over Israel twist your judgment into handcuffs. However, I think that ‘andrew r’s suggestion that you are a plant who has taken the time to establish a track record on this blog, some bona fides, is possible. If you aren’t a plant, you’ve got some serious soul-searching to do.
Actually I was salty because I hadn’t watched it yet an believed the lies about its contents posted with the video.
Hi Colin
i’m sure anger and disgust gets the better of me from time to time.
That said, i see the prospects for either one state or two states as increasingly remote. The program of destroying the Palestinian people, now well advanced, is most likely going to be successful. The Israelis will further perfect the means of crushing all resistance and the remaining, caged inhabitants of the WB and Gaza will gradually disappear from public view. Unless the palestinians, with the aid of Arab neighbors, can successfully destroy israel, I don’t think they have a chance of a real life there. i know that’s grim, but I fail to see how—even in principle–a 1 state or 2 state settlement is any longer possible with the deranged (there is no other word) Israelis.
“Got a cite for the 90% approval rating?” From big mouth few facts Thom
Here ya go Thom
ABC NEWS
“Some 95 per cent of Jews among those questioned for the poll support the offensive – one of Israel’s deadliest in Gaza in decades – with 80 per cent backing the bombardment without reserve. ”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/02/2458401.htm
For further research
[1] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 10 on Sunday, December 28, 2008.
[2] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 2, 2009.
[3] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 6, 2009.
[4] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on December 30, 2008.
[5] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 9, 2009.
[6] War and Peace Index, Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies, January 11, 2009.
[7] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 13, 2009.
[8] “Dialogue Poll,” published in Haaretz, January 16, 2009.
[9] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 16, 2009.
[10] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 18, 2009.
[11] Poll taken by Mina Tzemah, published in Yediot Ahronot, January 23, 2009.
[12] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 23, 2009.
[13] See notes 11 and 12.
[14] See note 1.
[15] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2008.
[16] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 18, 2009.
[17] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 28, 2009, and published in the newspaper Makor Rishon, January 29, 2009.
Evidence overwhelming, no escaping the conclusions –
“As for support for the operation, the data is unequivocal. In a poll from the fifth day of the war (December 31, 2008), in a statistically representative sample of the Jewish population,[2] 79 percent the population “strongly supported” the operation and 14 percent “largely supported” it. A poll held on the third day of the ground offensive (January 6, 2009)[3] showed that 70 percent of the Israeli population felt it was necessary to continue the operation, compared to 20 percent that said it was time for a ceasefire. Here too, one may assume that some 80 percent of the Jewish population supported the continuation of the operation. These results are fairly similar to those collected before the ground offensive. In a poll taken on December 30, 2008,[4] 81 percent of the total population (equivalent to about 90 percent of the Jewish population) supported the continuation of the operation, compared to 10 percent that favored a ceasefire. A poll taken at the end of the second week of the operation (January 8, 2009)[5] showed that 91 percent of the Jewish population expressed support for the operation and only 4 percent opposed it.
This picture of absolute support within the Jewish population for the operation was repeated almost exactly in the data collected by the War and Peace Index of the Tami Steinmetz Center. In a poll taken January 4-6, 2009,[6] 94 percent of the Jewish population responded that they strongly supported the operation; 92 percent thought it had security benefits for Israel; 92 percent justified the air force strikes on Gaza; and 70 percent felt that sending ground troops into Gaza was “a necessary step.” The poll charted a reverse picture among Israeli Arabs: 85 percent opposed the operation.
The more the operation progressed, the more some segments of the population started to feel that the operation had realized its potential. Still, the large majority supported its continuation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[7] showed that 62 percent of the Israeli public (equivalent to some 70 percent of the Jewish population) responded that the operation ought to be continued, compared with 26 percent of the public that supported the ceasefire.
There was also a consensus in the Israeli public regarding the outcome of the operation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[8] – just four days before the ceasefire – showed that 78 percent of the Israeli public felt that “the operation in Gaza was a success,” compared to only 9 percent that defined it “a failure” (13 percent responded “don’t know”). Eighty-two percent responded negatively to the question “Did Israel exert unnecessary force?” compared with 13 percent that responded in the affirmative. Presumably within the Jewish population only a small percentage answered yes. In a poll taken around the same time,[9] 82 percent of respondents graded the military activity “very good” and another 12 percent graded it “good”; 25 percent graded the political activity as “very good” with another 35 percent grading it “good”; and performance on the home front received grades of “very good” (58 percent) or “good” (28 percent). Clearly the Israeli public saw Operation Cast Lead as both a just and a successful war.”
and not one of those quotes said anything about Israelis supporting carnage, they support military action to stop the rocket attacks.
Well Yoni, you will notice something rather peculiar if you look at the dates and the support. When the facts started coming out about the carnage the support did not abate – it increased! That is rather peculiar in contradistinction to your reply…
How about this one Yoni?
“The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz. )
“Clearly the Israeli public saw Operation Cast Lead as both a just and a successful war.”
How can that be, unelss the purpose of th ewar was simply to massacre Palestinians? After all, the same number of rockets are landing in Israel after the war as were landing before it.
I was defining Nazism not Fascism when Shingo quoted me.
Jabotinskian Zionism has always had an ethnic monist current which is rather more extreme than the ethnic fundamentalism of German Nazism. I could make a case that the ethnic monism is now dominant.
Anyway, here is a discussion of Fascism from Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society:
Where Sternhell’s analysis does not apply to Labor Zionism is hard to discern. In any case, the Labor Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson plagiarized the Belgain fascist Henri de Man while another Zionist leader Vitaly Viktor Haim Arlosoroff openly renounced democratic principles if they were to apply to the native population of Palestine. In New history, old ideas[321] Edward Said discusses the intellectual contortions through which Zionists put themselves to defend Zionism.
Thanks for the link to Said’s essay Joachim,
It was superb.
sheesh.
take out all the European Marxist faux intellectual buzz words and this selection reads:
High falutin gobble de gook, like a secret language; intended to put us peasants in our place. truly Straussian.
LBLD
No idea where you crawled out of. I’ve been posting here for ages. You have zero idea what you’re talking about.
“Israeli Jews are far more racist and bigoted in comparison to Palestinian Arabs.”
Boy—that’s really earth-shattering news at this point.
oh–and thanks for the reflex demonization of Iran, because they (quite sensibly0 want to see an israeli-free world, just as every person of conscience the world over longs for this.
You’re on the wrong side. period.
No…Hezbollah has NOT used human shields.
Stop spreading Judeo-nazi lies.
WHAT “holocaust denial”?? What are you talking about?
You’re a fool.
lovelyisraelis,
You have not been here ‘for ages’. Unless you were under a different ID – you’ve only been around since after the Gaza massacre.
I’d be surprised if you were here longer than (at the latest possible) – Christmas 08′.
And I mentioned the comparison of racism between Israeli Jews to Palestinian Arabs in response to Thom. Thom was saying the video in question was a hit-piece, designed to ‘demonize Israel’.
My comments were in the context that there has been many studies on attitudes of ‘the other’ – which prove the line you quoted. It wasn’t a revelatory statement. You don’t seem incompetent so I know you understood.
Furthermore, I went on to talk about the nature of racism in both groups. How it’s not the same. It’s about the relationship between Israeli Jew and Palestinian Arab.
My point is that this is colonial racism. It’s institutionalized. Tribal Jews and Zionists are empowered by their domination over the Arabs and the Palestinians especially.
They also dehumanize the Palestinians at every opportunity. They have the platform to do so – because of their power and privilege. Again – this is about the relationship between the two groups.
Blah blah blah. I don’t think I need to explain further.
And I didn’t say anything about Iran (another of your straw mans). I was talking about Ahmedinejad. I asked Witless to clarify his statement.
And Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust – right? If I’m wrong here I will obviously admit it. I could care less – the guy doesn’t realize half this battle is the PR game. People in our country are so fucking stupid and shallow and hypocritical that stuff like that matters to them (although they think it’s meaningful and wouldn’t trivialize it as a ‘PR game’).
That’s my point.
And regardless of our personal agreements, don’t you think you’re doing the Zionists on this blog a service? You say the stupidest shit. Israel’s supporters bark at far less – minuscule tepid commentary on the crimes of Zionism (Jimmy Carter’s book, although the act itself of someone like Jimmy Carter going public with such a book was probably the reason for the Zionist tribe’s hysteria).
You go overboard. You either have no tact and are a moron. Or, you’re a Zionist plant. Maybe both (like Scum in Jerusalem).
Douche ~
you are so predictable:
Line # 1 compare Jews to Nazis
Line # 2 link to your shitty website
LBLD
Fair enough…I lost my cool. The main point I guess I disagree with you about, is your concern about how pro-Israel people will react to the accurate characterization of them as vermin. I really think it’s entirely irrelevant how they react. You’re not going to change their minds. Nor is any normal human being apt to be swayed by their Nazism. The only people swayed by it at this late date are other Nazis. i don’t write to please them and I don’t write with their sensitivities in mind.
I think people understand much more of what is going on then we give them credit for. Granted, the news here is distorted. Still, either people have an interest in the facts, which have never in history been easier to obtain, given the internet, or they don’t care at all what the facts are—a frame of mind that is extremely popular and widespread and certainly not limited to the I-P conflict. That’s one reason religious psychosis is still so popular here and indeed, is on the upswing. Facts don’t matter. If facts mattered, we’d be dealing with climate change in an intelligent fashion, we’d be dealing with Israel in an intelligent fashion. That can’t happen because of the low status of factual information here.
Joachim,
My apologies for miquoting you.
BTW, here is the link to the description of Nazism, which is an ideology for the most part distinct from fascism although the ideas expressed by Strasser faction of German Nazism and by Labor Zionist leader Arlosoroff in Der Juedische Volkssozialismus can be considered a hybrid of Nazism and fascism.
Documenting anti-Arab racism in Israel seems to have hit a nerve with the Ministry of Information folks in Jerusalem (or should that be al quds?). I noticed over at TPM Cafe in a thread following Helena Coban’s post on the Israeli wing nut right, some spirited hasbara are vigorously protesting this charge as well as attacking Max and Phil in some really angry terms.
Keep up the good work Mondoweiss, this is one issue that most American Jews will not accept if they were fully aware of the problem.
“War of Ideas”? That is just plain disgusting. Please tell me how the Israelis are fighting a “war of ideas”? Or do the Israelis run the Occupation and the Settlements on rhetoric alone?
Phil, if you miss your ziocaine, just go out and get a shot. There’s no need to pretend.
“War of ideas” ? You are right, Phil, it’s the superior ideas of the Zionists which got them where they are today.
You are back!!!
An international bounty on Israelis is the correct approach.
I think an adopt an Israeli program would be a good idea. I’ve put up with them screaming it’s their land so much might as well do it the rest of my life if it can save Palestine.
At my university, major strides are being made in converting toxins and waste into byproducts useful to humankind.
The Israelis are a rich source of biomass and could help us through the worst of our energy crunch.
They should be ground into mulch.
You know, your humorless nuttery makes more work for us. It increases the level of reactionary stupidity we have to put up with. Opposing Israel isn’t about turning people into mulch and it’s not your lot to judge them. Israelis aren’t particularly unique anyway; we just get to see how bratty they are via digital cam. Americans aren’t much better regarding Indians, but it’s not an issue to most of us so we either don’t care or a few freely express contempt (for me a local example is a certain columnist, Bill McClellan, who wrote off the Indian genocide as spilled milk).
andrew
I’ve never been accused of being humorless. That’s a new one. Anyway, I agree with much of what you say, as far as the nazism shown by the Israelis not being unique. The US was unquestionable guilty of MUCH worse in indochina. What’s the upshot? The upshot is that the riff raff and vermin who supported our abominations in Indochina STILL support them today. The republican candidate for the last presidential election ran EXCLUSIVELY on a platform of killing gooks (his word for the Vietnamese). Which I think proves my point. People with that predisposition don’t change their views. They have to be identified, exposed and frontally attacked, not pandered to or “reasoned” with.
Does threatening them with mulching seem likely to further the effort to identify or expose them? It seems to me the opposite is true. What prevents the publication of facts about what occurred behind the scenes in the last administration is fear that sentiments such as you express will result in mob violence. You and those you despise operate on the same level, and it results in death and destruction, usually to others, not to those who revel in such feelings.
Obama stated quite clearly that (for example) the photos of torture by the American forces vermin in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be released, because it would cause normal people to want to kill American GIs…a rather unremarkable conclusion.
The israelis are going to be destroyed or they are going to complete the destruction of the Palestinians. All the rest is a side show. It’s not serious.
It’s like a whole new meme, Ziocrazy videos from Israel.
What a pity !
No racism, no genocide, Yes for Palestinian country !
Please let me know if you intend to hold my comment from “July 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm” for the purposes of “awaiting moderation” forever. There is nothing but facts involved and it is an answer to the quip made for sources regarding polls of Israeli support for the Gaza war – it is unassailable. There are plenty of comments here which go well beyond what I have said, but they have not been placed in “awaiting moderation” limbo. Let me know if I am wasting my time trying to post here, and the purpose of the blog is not what it claims to be.
I would advice people to not get paranoid. But if you do not want to waste too much of your time with checking posts, you have to use some kind of filters. At least that’s what it feels to me.
If you have a copy, try it again. I once did simply post it again. And mysteriously the second time it worked. If it was important simply try again.
As the software tries to handle issues on a more general level such more technical matters must occur it feels. Also the software gets more and more complex with may result in bugs.
What caused me troubles lately were the Google-Analytics.com files. I had to disallow them to be able to post. Lately my troubles to post something are much higher on Patrick Lang’s blog and I think it is a software issue too. Initially it only happened on Firefox, IE worked fine, then IE reported a mistake on the site and suddenly it didn’t work anymore on IE either. If I disallowed the JavaScript files of Google-Analytics (via NoScript add-on) the preview and send button was available again. But then I got the message that my post was denied when I tried to send it. But oddly enough, if I tried it twice or three times suddenly it worked.
Before Phil and Adam changed the design here, I always had to disallow the Google Analytic files to post. Sometimes I got the message too, that my post had to be approved. But in one case I remember well, I had copied the message, and the second attempt worked fine. I simply hate to trouble them with having to read my posts. So strictly I liked the delete option. If something had to be approved I decided to delete it.
Now if you don’t have the time to monitor all mail, who obviously have to use something like filters. I have no idea, how well they function, and basically I don’t bother too much if one or the other of my posts doesn’t show up.
Give Phil and Adam a break. If your message was really important, simply try again.
sorry written too fast. Thus many mistakes, like, I have no idea what made me use “who” instead of “you” below, to pick out just the last one:
Now if you don’t have the time to monitor all mail, who obviously have to use something like filters.
nitwit de Cologne
I make a translation of this article.
http://allainjulesblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/linquietant-racisme-lauto-destruction.html
ABC NEWS
“Some 95 per cent of Jews among those questioned for the poll support the offensive – one of Israel’s deadliest in Gaza in decades – with 80 per cent backing the bombardment without reserve. ”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/02/2458401.htm
For further research
[1] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 10 on Sunday, December 28, 2008.
[2] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 2, 2009.
[3] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 6, 2009.
[4] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on December 30, 2008.
[5] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 9, 2009.
[6] War and Peace Index, Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Studies, January 11, 2009.
[7] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 13, 2009.
[8] “Dialogue Poll,” published in Haaretz, January 16, 2009.
[9] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 16, 2009
[10] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 18, 2009.
[11] Poll taken by Mina Tzemah, published in Yediot Ahronot, January 23, 2009.
[12] “TeleSeker,” published in Maariv, January 23, 2009.
[13] See notes 11 and 12.
[14] See note 1.
[15] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2008.
[16] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 18, 2009.
[17] “Maagar Mohot,” broadcast during the “Mishal Ham Show” on Israel TV’s Channel 2 on January 28, 2009, and published in the newspaper Makor Rishon, January 29, 2009.
Evidence overwhelming, no escaping the conclusions –
“As for support for the operation, the data is unequivocal. In a poll from the fifth day of the war (December 31, 2008), in a statistically representative sample of the Jewish population,[2] 79 percent the population “strongly supported” the operation and 14 percent “largely supported” it. A poll held on the third day of the ground offensive (January 6, 2009)[3] showed that 70 percent of the Israeli population felt it was necessary to continue the operation, compared to 20 percent that said it was time for a ceasefire. Here too, one may assume that some 80 percent of the Jewish population supported the continuation of the operation. These results are fairly similar to those collected before the ground offensive. In a poll taken on December 30, 2008,[4] 81 percent of the total population (equivalent to about 90 percent of the Jewish population) supported the continuation of the operation, compared to 10 percent that favored a ceasefire. A poll taken at the end of the second week of the operation (January 8, 2009)[5] showed that 91 percent of the Jewish population expressed support for the operation and only 4 percent opposed it.
This picture of absolute support within the Jewish population for the operation was repeated almost exactly in the data collected by the War and Peace Index of the Tami Steinmetz Center. In a poll taken January 4-6, 2009,[6] 94 percent of the Jewish population responded that they strongly supported the operation; 92 percent thought it had security benefits for Israel; 92 percent justified the air force strikes on Gaza; and 70 percent felt that sending ground troops into Gaza was “a necessary step.” The poll charted a reverse picture among Israeli Arabs: 85 percent opposed the operation.
The more the operation progressed, the more some segments of the population started to feel that the operation had realized its potential. Still, the large majority supported its continuation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[7] showed that 62 percent of the Israeli public (equivalent to some 70 percent of the Jewish population) responded that the operation ought to be continued, compared with 26 percent of the public that supported the ceasefire.
There was also a consensus in the Israeli public regarding the outcome of the operation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[8] – just four days before the ceasefire – showed that 78 percent of the Israeli public felt that “the operation in Gaza was a success,” compared to only 9 percent that defined it “a failure” (13 percent responded “don’t know”). Eighty-two percent responded negatively to the question “Did Israel exert unnecessary force?” compared with 13 percent that responded in the affirmative. Presumably within the Jewish population only a small percentage answered yes. In a poll taken around the same time,[9] 82 percent of respondents graded the military activity “very good” and another 12 percent graded it “good”; 25 percent graded the political activity as “very good” with another 35 percent grading it “good”; and performance on the home front received grades of “very good” (58 percent) or “good” (28 percent). Clearly the Israeli public saw Operation Cast Lead as both a just and a successful war.”
V…
Don’t take it personally. I’ve had comments “awaiting moderation” too, comments that
more than conformed to Phil’s comment policy. I’m pretty sure you and I are not alone.
I doubt if Phil or Adam even know why some comments are being witheld by the system
the blog is using.
OK citizen, lets change the format – perhaps it is the technical nature of the post.
Once again, in regard to the quip made by Thom on Israeli support for the brutal attack on Gaza, and the uniform thumbs up here is an analysis of the nations internal polls, done by one of the premier “Middle East Experts” recognized. Note the source -
“As for support for the operation, the data is unequivocal. In a poll from the fifth day of the war (December 31, 2008), in a statistically representative sample of the Jewish population,[2] 79 percent the population “strongly supported” the operation and 14 percent “largely supported” it. A poll held on the third day of the ground offensive (January 6, 2009)[3] showed that 70 percent of the Israeli population felt it was necessary to continue the operation, compared to 20 percent that said it was time for a ceasefire. Here too, one may assume that some 80 percent of the Jewish population supported the continuation of the operation. These results are fairly similar to those collected before the ground offensive. In a poll taken on December 30, 2008,[4] 81 percent of the total population (equivalent to about 90 percent of the Jewish population) supported the continuation of the operation, compared to 10 percent that favored a ceasefire. A poll taken at the end of the second week of the operation (January 8, 2009)[5] showed that 91 percent of the Jewish population expressed support for the operation and only 4 percent opposed it.
This picture of absolute support within the Jewish population for the operation was repeated almost exactly in the data collected by the War and Peace Index of the Tami Steinmetz Center. In a poll taken January 4-6, 2009,[6] 94 percent of the Jewish population responded that they strongly supported the operation; 92 percent thought it had security benefits for Israel; 92 percent justified the air force strikes on Gaza; and 70 percent felt that sending ground troops into Gaza was “a necessary step.” The poll charted a reverse picture among Israeli Arabs: 85 percent opposed the operation.
The more the operation progressed, the more some segments of the population started to feel that the operation had realized its potential. Still, the large majority supported its continuation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[7] showed that 62 percent of the Israeli public (equivalent to some 70 percent of the Jewish population) responded that the operation ought to be continued, compared with 26 percent of the public that supported the ceasefire.
There was also a consensus in the Israeli public regarding the outcome of the operation. A poll taken on January 13, 2009[8] – just four days before the ceasefire – showed that 78 percent of the Israeli public felt that “the operation in Gaza was a success,” compared to only 9 percent that defined it “a failure” (13 percent responded “don’t know”). Eighty-two percent responded negatively to the question “Did Israel exert unnecessary force?” compared with 13 percent that responded in the affirmative. Presumably within the Jewish population only a small percentage answered yes. In a poll taken around the same time,[9] 82 percent of respondents graded the military activity “very good” and another 12 percent graded it “good”; 25 percent graded the political activity as “very good” with another 35 percent grading it “good”; and performance on the home front received grades of “very good” (58 percent) or “good” (28 percent). Clearly the Israeli public saw Operation Cast Lead as both a just and a successful war.”
http://www.inss.org.il/research.php?cat=256&incat=&read=2634
OK, not even partial quotes are accepted – so here is the link, read it for yourself from Israeli “expert” source INSS. Shows the almost unanimous support for the Gaza massacre earlier this year, internal documentation –
http://www.inss.org.il/research.php?cat=256&incat=&read=2634
Lets see if this tiny post “fits.”
Sorry citizen, not even the tiniest quote with a link is accepted – the site has problems (I tried several small variations).
I have one comment awaiting moderation that simply had the copy and pasted link on it. For another link I used the a_href form and gave it a name and that seemed to make it through OK. For what its worth.
Do you know how to use html tags for links. The conversion of pasted links to clickable links here was an option of the intensedebate software, which they don’t seem to use anymore. So that may indeed be a simple settings issue. Try to ask Adam or Phil directly.
software settings? links filters?
I got a reply directly from Phil that there is some kind of proxy server snaggle. He said he’s well aware of the problem and trying to get to the bottom of it with his
hired Administrator.
OK tree –
AN “ACCEPTABLE” MIDDLE EASTERN EXPERTISE SOURCE SHOWING UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THE GAZA MASSACRE AMONG ISRAELIS
sorry, I was a bit too fast. What a pity the delete button has gone. : (
What is noteworthy is that as the gaza massacre proceeds, the poll numbers go up up up. in other words, as more and more reportage of the horrors and war crimes on the ground are made public, the MORE the Israelis support the operation.
That is exactly the point, and all of these polls were internal, the analysis is done by no less than INSS. Ranked among the top 5 Middle East think tanks, and essentially the top one in Israel.
Ahh, this tremendously abbreviated for worked tree – thanks. People will have to read it for themselves. The posting is not a complete acceptance of the conclusions, just the fact that all of the polls point in one direction.
To be fair to the Israelis, you did have to two moderate voices in the middle of the video.
By the way, I’d like to see the old man from the mountain get off his big can and campaign for economic self-sufficiency. He’s talking big, and he knows they’ll be screwed without the US aid.
oh but i thought that the zionists in tel aviv were going to be so much more enlightened than the lunatics that blumenthal recorded in jerusalem. but it seems that there isn’t much distinction between the religious extremists and the zionists that have a more secular look and feel. and do these people not have access to the internet to know that they should just shut up when someone puts a camera to their face? or do they not care? never saw such a shameless assortment of people who don’t have an iota of shame to sound like fascists, racists and extremists in front of a video camera. i can only come to the conclusion that these people feel 100% safe that they won’t face any type of social repercussions from spewing their idiocy. don’t they have arab neighbors or friends or taxi drivers that they want to pretend to be decent human beings around?
lowenstein or dana, which one with the light hamas beard?
Largely because most of what they recorded was very reasonable. There was no racism in most of the answers. The only racism was one person who said that the Israeli Arabs should be kicked out. That was it.
Correction Thom,
You do not perceive rascism in most of the answers because they reflect your own position.
Israel has no humane right to fight Palestinian resistance. The Palestinians are the victims, not the Jews.
Terrorism is always illegitimate. The Palestinians target civilians, therefore they are terrorists. How does deliberately attacking a bus full of children “resist” the occupation? It’s murder, any way you fucking justify it.
The Palestinians are the victims of their own refusal to end the war, nothing else.
Israel, among others, is a terrorist State – so your post is an oxymoron at best.
Israel, is a terrorist State (it is not alone) – so your post is an oxymoron at best.
Israel is not a terrorist state. It does not target civilians. Unlike Palestinians, who target civilians.
Kiss my ass Thom
The Palestinians are the victims of their own refusal to end the war, nothing else.
What happens Thom if Palestinians end the violent resistance, will Israel stop to be the oppressor? No evidence of that. Even Israeli Arab citizens are not allowed to have full equality and are oppressed in many ways. An Israeli Jew (including the settlers) has a ten times higher probability to die in a traffic accident as in terrorist act.
The answer to oppression and occupation is the usage of terrorism as a resistance tactic. Also the oppressor and occupier uses terrorism in many forms.
Jews have used at least their share of terrorism now, in past and especially when forming their new state. Is killing Palestinians donkeys, burning olive trees, poisoning wells etc terrorism. Of course it is.
“The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”
Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz. )
Ergo, Israel is a terrorist state. In fact, Israel was founded on terrorism and elected 2 terrorists to the office of PM.
Chew on that for a while Thom.
Absolutely. Furthermore:
“The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure.”
–Rabbi David Batzri, head of the
Magen David Yeshiva in Jerusalem
[Haaretz, March 21, 2006]
And:
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994
[N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]
@ShimoHurtta
If the Palestinians end the violent “resistance” then Israel would stop oppressing them. That doesn’t mean that stopping the violence would get them everything they want (no right of return for example), but it would mean that they would get their own country.
Israel is in the position of a big guy who is holding down a little guy who tried to kill him. He would like to let the little guy up and both go about their business but the little guy won’t agree to stop trying to kill the big guy if the big guy lets him up. It sucks for the little guy, but meanwhile the big guy isn’t going anywhere either.
The security measures are very expensive to maintain and provide no economic benefit outside of the economic benefit of fewer and less effective attacks. In strictly economic terms, it would be cheaper just to kill all the Palestinians than defend against their mixed terrorist/civilian population. Fortunately morality prevents wiping them out.
Israel would happily spend their resources elsewhere. Terrorism is murder, not a resistance tactic. We aren’t talking about guerrilla warfare, sneaking up and attacking soldiers. We are talking about attacks on children in restaurants an buses.
The problem with fighting dirty is that if you can do it they can do it. The same rules apply to both sides. Think carefully before you answer this, is targeting civilians something that you want to make legitimate? If it is legitimate, then the Palestinians are in big trouble, the Israelis could easily wipe out their entire population. The only thing stopping them is morality, the fact that targeting civilians is wrong. So, do you want to take the gloves off or leave them on?
I assume by “Palestinian donkeys” you mean four legged horse-relatives belonging to Palestinians and are not being pejorative. As for your question, if the state or an organized group did these things as a targeted attack on civilians, then yes, it is terrorism and the perpetrators should be arrested. If they were done for military reasons (e.g., donkey’s killed in crossfire, clearing olive trees to prevent armed men from hiding in them) then not terrorism.
If they were done by individuals, then crimes, certainly. Whether it would be terrorism depends on the motives of the individual. That guy who shot up the mosque for example, that was terrorism.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If terrorism is always illegitimate, then the founding of Israel is illegitimate. And even more so the elected Jewish leaders of the state of Israel who were once regarded and ID as terrorists. Just a few years before the
birth of the state of Israel, the Nazi German state was found illegitimate at the Nuremberg Trials. Why should Israel of all places be held to a lesser standard in the world view? That would be giving no respect to the direct victims of the Shoah. Either
Never Again is universal, or it is not; in the latter case, nothing has changed: Might Makes Right.
Let’s be honest, what Thom and many people advocate is a view of international relations that is oriented towards a “pacification process” not a peace process. That is, it’s a war and there are losers in war – the Palestinians just don’t get it and continue making a problem.
I’ve always found this orientation confusing. If we apply it in the “check yourself” test as I call it, the conclusion is Jews should have just done nothing to fight the Shoah. Sometimes you lose. After all, they were a defeated and should have recognized this, right Thom? War is war? I say NO! NO! NO!
When you see it through this light, the issue becomes one of whether the initiating event was a war of aggression (’48 or ‘67). Thom assumes they were defensive and his interpretations of the consequences flow from this.
Aside from this, even if the actions of Israel are defensive, instruments such as the Geneva Conventions are intended to change the way we act in the world and to limit the damages of war, even justified wars. It isn’t an invitation to war or a justification for occupation. It says, in case this happens, here are the boundaries that we as humans have decided to set on our conduct.
Thom’s right, some human rights instruments don’t apply to Israel or Israel has reservations (so does the US, probably more). The aspiration of these laws is that they will be applied universally. Thus, there is condemnation from those who ascribe to universalism. The burning question, however, is whether the best option for Jews is separation (sovereignty) or integration (assimilation/multicultural existence) and it’s a legit debate.
The Israeli state is not a state that aspires to universalistic ethics – and big shock, many religions aren’t universalistic when it comes down to it. Israel has aspired to an ethno-cultural state that is oriented around particularlistic values and is a democratic state for Jews (hence, Jewish-Democracy). It doesn’t jibe with the orientation of many so-called liberal states, but Israelis and Jews have a legitimate beef with the outcomes of living in so-called liberal states – hence the choice of ethno-cultural model. People call it apartheid and Israelis feel it’s a legitimate form of statehood that has also been practiced in some ways by you whiney Westerners in one way or another (see bombing Pearl Harbor too).
I think this is why people respond so openly with what some call racist remarks. As a producer, I try to be objective. I think when people speak openly it’s because this is a model they feel is legitimate. If viewers find things people in the Israeli state are saying sound racist, then it might be because you think that the Israeli state’s character is racist. These people feel the state is legitimate, as are its foundations, and so they identify with the aspirations.
It’s a bit of a side-show to have a debate about the details of what law allows whom to bomb whom without getting to the issues that are at base. The Jewish community, self identifying as Israelis or Americans or whatever, deserves respect and as peaceful a life as everyone else in the world deserves (and Palestinians too). How best is that achieved while staying faithful to the merits of the aspiration.
If people find this aspiration flaky, and instead substitute “it’s either them or us” then obviously, the entire conversation with a critic is going to be like train rails. In that case, each “team” is talking to their own peanut gallery trying to rally them up with words to destroy the other – very little useful movement takes place.
What do people think of the character of the Israeli state?
If terrorism is always illegitimate, then it is also illegitimate when Israel used it, and terroism was the basis fo Israel’s founding, therefore Israel is illegitimate.
Thanks for clarifying that Thom. I knew you had it in you.
Wow, looks like the guys cleaned up my on hold posts, sorry for all of the same posts. thanks for showing the posts.
That girl near the end was preeeeety. I have to say, Zionism sounds pretty good when she explains it.
@ Thom
“Bombing them changed what the Japanese considered acceptable terms.”
And Japan had to give back all the land it had taken and occupied (that was not already
taken back by mostly US GIs, including five of my uncles).
So what land have the Palestinians taken from someone else and occupied?
Or is it the other way around and we should bomb Israel?
Also BTW, there are laws against adhesion contracts, and fraud, and further, slum landlords do have some enforceable legal restrictions. Somebody already mentioned a
thief is not entitled to stolen goods or property. And either the international laws
implemented at Nuremberg mean something, or that was just a kangaroo court as Goering said repeatedly and there’s been no progress since biblical times and might still makes right.
The Japanese agreed to PRECISELY the same terms available before either bomb was dropped. Even after Nagasaki, Japan refused surrender without guarantee regarding the fate of the emperor, just as every expert knew they would.
Truman was convinced his original two-prong strategy would cause immediate capitulation by the japanese…prong A–assurance on the fate of the emperor, prong B–announcement of Russia’s entry into the war as a power hostile to japan, no later than Aug 15. “When that happens” Truman wrote in his diary “fini Japs.”
What changed?
The successful trinity test at almagordo. THAT was when the original plan was scrapped and the demand for “unconditional surrender” was imposed.
The two A bombings were gratuitous acts of terror and mass murder and were known to be such, at the time. That was the conclusion of Truman, Truman’s military brass (incl the heads of air force, navy and army) and that was the conclusion reached by the US strategic bombing survey in the aftermath of the genocide.
The Japanese God-Man leaked a record stating he was surrendering (only after the A bombings) even while
elements in the Imperial Military were trying to surround his fortress–it was the
first time most Japanese had ever hear their God-Man speak–it was a thin, feminine voice they heard over loud speakers. If Truman had not dropped those bombs, all my many uncles would have died in the invasion of Japan.
no no no no no. No invasion would have been required.
Nuremberg didn’t implement international laws, they applied them. They punished the Nazis for war crimes not for the war itself.
Though Nuremberg was not a kangaroo court, I think Obama has demonstrated that there is some justice in calling them “victor’s justice”. Since he is not prosecuting U.S. torturers who were “just following orders”. I disapprove of that. I think the CIA men should be put on trial if they tortured people.
Again, I wish people would stop throwing around terms they don’t understand. Contract laws are within nations and states. Adhesion contracts are just form contracts. Any contract that someone hand’s you pre-printed and says “take it or leave it” is an adhesion contract. This contrasted with a negotiated contract.
No state bans adhesion contracts, nor does the U.S. government. Like any contract, they are enforceable unless they contain terms that the court finds to be unconscionable. In some states, the fact that a contract is a form contract means the court will be less picky about how bad a term has to be to be unconscionable.
Don’t confuse international law with state law. International law means the terms of treaties signed and (theoretically) customary law. The problem with that theory being that “customary law” in practice means whatever the winner of the war says it does. Thus “I was just following orders” works for the CIA (thanks to Obama) but not to the losing Germans.
There has been progress since biblical times, the problem is that the progress as far as the rules of civilized warfare has bypassed the Palestinians. They fight without honor, they applaud the slaughter of children. When an Israeli soldier kills a Palestinian child accidentally, most Israelis feel bad about it, when a Palestinian terrorist kills an Israeli child deliberately, he is regarded as a hero. Same with Lebanese terrorists too.
I am not the one who equated I-P negotiations with civil contract custom. I merely
spun off on whomever did here that there is higher laws regarding contracts between
two parties even in the civil sphere, which I alluded to in many way, one of them the legal concept of an adhesion contract. That concept applies when there is gross economic and force disparity between the two parties. Clearly the analogy between Israel and the Palestinians applies.
Both the USA and Israel should be put on trial as Germany was at Nuremberg. There is activity out there now to put ShrubCo on trial for treason and the new crimes against humanity first charged at Nuremberg. Israel deserves the same attention.
It will never happen while the USA hold so much power. It’s that simple. Goering was right.
When you analogize, try to use analogies that work in your favor. Even an adhesion contract is valid unless a court decides otherwise. If you don’t like the terms, don’t sign it.
However, the analogy to an adhesion contract is a poor one. In an adhesion contract, all terms are set by one party, the other party only has the choice to take it or leave it. In civil contract terms, the Palestinians and the Israelis are like separate entities negotiating terms. Each may have non-negotiable points, but the rest of the terms are negotiable. The problem is that the non-negotiable points of the Palestinians and the Israelis are mutually exclusive. The Israelis non-negotiable point, after the peace treaty the Palestinians give up all claims to Israel permanently, is unacceptable to the Palestinians.
The fact that “agree to leave us in peace” is a pretty normal term of a peace contract makes it hard for the Palestinians’ supporters to gain sympathy with the truth, so they lie and say that Israel refuses to give back the West Bank and Gaza.
Seriously, find someone who doesn’t know anything about the issues and tell him that there is a country the size of New Jersey with 7 million people, they took over the land and kicked out other people. Now the descendants of the other people are using terrorist attacks against the country and refuse to make peace unless the other country agrees to let 5 million of them move into the tiny country. Oh, and the refugees voted in a government that ran on a platform of exterminate everyone in the tiny country, regardless of any peace treaties signed.
Then ask “if you were the leader of the tiny country, would you let 5 million of a group of people who have been making terrorist attacks against you move in?”
Thom,
I apologize for my well reasoned argument before. I intended here to go line by line over the 1L contracts/public international law outline you provide. However, after reading this last paragraph which includes such busters as: “progress as far as the rules of civilized warfare have bypassed the Palestinians” and “When an Israeli soldier kills a Palestinian child accidentally, most Israelis feel bad about it”- I realized that I have all of the premises for an upcoming video.
To answer the first claim, all you have to do is look at the conduct of the EZL, Stern gang, et al. Attacks on civilian targets and the use of civilian shields are openly celebrated as a part of Israeli history – you know, murdering cops, bombing buildings, blowing up cars on the street, robbing banks, mortaring civilian neighborhoods, storing weapons in synagogues – that sort of thing.
As to the second comment that made me realize you’re a non-player here, it’s too bad I have tape from Tel Aviv shortly after the killing of 10 year old Ahmed Moussa in Ni’lin. Returning from filming a protest of the killing, Jesse Rosenfeld (of thedailynuisance.com) and I happened to run into the Chief Army Spokesman (for Hebrew) eating an ice cream in the neighborhood. While his responses would be expected, the patrons in the ice cream restaurant who said such things like “he probably deserved it” and “well he must have been doing something wrong” regarding the shooting in the head of a 10 year old child at least provide some evidence that your claims may be unfounded. At nearly every Tel Aviv protest of the shooting of an unarmed civilian, Israeli passerbys denounce the demonstrators, not just the recently killed indivisual, as deserving of being shot – primarily for being “Arab-lovers”.
I hope that you’re willing to be open and consider that some of the conclusions you hold are actually inaccurate and wishful. When I hear people like you speak, I feel like you aren’t even in touch with the reality of Israel as we live it today. You sound like one of these zarim who come for two weeks and are sustained off of summer camp fables.
Take the opportunity to test what it is you believe and if it is true and right, then it will prevail. If you’re not willing to question things, then a great deal of intellectual progress can be said to have been stifled by the US-Israeli relationship.
You give Jews a bad name. We all saw what Israel did in Lebanon and Gaza; if that wasn’t terror, nothing is.
Israel is a monument to terrorism and stands as a shining example of how successful terrorism can be. It was founded on terrorism, byt terrorists, who’s leaders were rewarded by being elected to lead the country. In 2006, Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of a terrorsit attack (the King David Hotel bombing) .
What otehr country in the world celebrated a terrorist attack 60 years after the fact? Israel’s current leader is the only world leader who described the 911 attacks as a good thing.
Israel, founded on terrorism, by terrorists for terrorits.
The fundamental principal applied at Nuremberg is that wars of agression are the mother of all war crimes. Wars of agression differ from other war cimes in that they include all the evils of other war crimes.
“Americans have been paying for BS guilt over the Shoah, which was actually a tiny part of the WW2…”
Whoa up there, fella! The Holocaust has a special place in the annals of human evil. The entire resources of a state, bureaucratic, scientific, administrative, were turned to the process of direct extermination. Even the Communists did not go that far.
The Holocaust does represent, in many ways (especially considering this: right in the heart of modern Western Europe!) a special nadir in human evil and monstrosities. It cannot be dismissed as “a tiny part” of WW2.
Of course, it doesn’t justify the Zionists, although in certain aspects, it helps us to understand them. It can’t be dismissed.
“That girl near the end was preeeeety.”
Just forget her, pal. There’s a reason Israel is so afraid of the Palestinian Demographic Time Bomb. And girls like her won’t do a goddam thing to help defuse it. Believe me, I know. Tried and tried, but Israeli girls just seem to have no patriotic instincts whatsofuckingever.
We are never gonna defuse the bomb if I gotta under go an interrogation from parents (So, what do you do for a living? Who’s your Rabbi? How long are you staying in Israel) before we get down to a night of defusing.
See? There’s your slogan, all my sexy sabras! “Don’t refuse me, let’s de-fuse instead”
I don’t know, I think I have some material that might impress her. Some shortcuts, if you will. For instance, I’ll tell her Israel has a right to exist, a right to defend itself, and that it’s the homeland of the Jewish people. I’ll follow that up with passionate tirade about Palestinians using human shields, launching thousands of rockets into Israel, and refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
So far so good, right?
I’ll continue by decrying Islam as The So-Called Religion Of Peace. Express my horror at Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map. AND for my coup de grace, I’ll use finger quotes every time I say the word Palestinian.
Please, pleaqse, please show more of these videos. I always get a big kick out of Jews who think they are white. It’s sorta cute. “Look, Goyim, we’re as white as you! And we will kill our closest living relatives to prove it”
I mean, if we are “white” we are Caucasioans, right? Then we didn’t come from Israel. If we are indeed a Semitic people, those awful Palestinians are our closest relatives.
Please, please, I get a kick out of whites like David Duke who thinks he’s the real Jew
same as Julius Streicher did. It’s sorta cute. “Look Jew, we’re onto you! Two can play your game!”
It is hilarious though, watching these video clips of young Jews, especially those from the USA and in Israel at the moment, aping skinhead ways. It’s also totally disgusting.
They’ve learned nothing from the Shoah, and yet they think they learned the only
important lesson. Never Again is either universally applicable, or it means nothing
from a humanistic POV. Goering, Hitler, Goebbels–they all wink in their graves
like the Cabaret host in the movie Cabaret. Joel Gray, if memory serves. Time
for a new version of Cabaret, taking place in Israel and the OT.
Thom,
You were attempting to demonstrate that there is no overlap, with the implication that a defensive (somehow as offensive as defensive) is the relevant posture.
Its been difficult, but it really is necessary for those that comment on the conflict look at it with the eyes of benevolent reason, not the eyes of rationalization for anything less than that.
The options include short-term reconciliation, of which the political formulation is the final confirmation.
Or, if that is not ready, then real efforts at long-term reconciliation, which to my mind are primarily social in the areas of mutual benefit and need. Those include ecological concerns, public health, cultural, academic interchange, economic development and integration.
Those that don’t earnestly seek to improve those short and long term conditions are in fact opponents of peace. When Zionists rationalize for the legality of continuing to expand settlements, they are opponents to peace. When anti-Zionists rant about how economic development in Nablus and removal of even a couple key roadblocks between Ramallah and neighboring towns, is insignificant and should be opposed, or argue to prohibit academic exchange between European and Israeli universities, they are functionally stopping the F2F integration that is needed.
So, relative to the prospect of overlap, I’m CONFIDENT that there are considerable areas of current overlap, and that with skillful mediation, ALL tangible issues can be successfully negotiated.
There is a difference between a position and a need. Needs you can’t compromise on, or at least find an alternative confident means to meet the needs. A position can be.
Israel doesn’t NEED to populate and control the West Bank. It NEEDS the combination of clear and manageable boundaries, international recognition, and peace.
So, Witty, do you think the Palestinians should get a state as practically sovereign as Israel is now? Or should they be relegated to a power entity a bit more economically viable but without the full rights of a state like Israel? A real state joining the UN, or a rump state, basically a sovereign state recognized by the UN in name only? How would you like to live in such a state?
You are so snarky.
I’ve always suggested that they achieve full statehood, but the reality is that to get there, it will take convincing Israel CONFIDENTLY that it intends to permanently live in peace.
How will that occur? I’m not sure. I only know its a necessity for a consented reconciliation.
I didn’t say the Israelis need the West Bank. I said they need Israel.
Also, you are misunderstanding the concept of overlap. Think of ven diagrams (those intersecting circles). Two circles can be at the same height, (by analogy, some terms can be mutually agreeable) but if one circle is too far to the left and one is too far to the right, they don’t overlap. So here is your task. Draw a line down the page. That represents the right of return. Draw whatever shape or size figure you want on the left of the line, that represents the Palestinians acceptable terms. Draw whatever shape or size figure you want on the right side of the line, that represents the Israelis acceptable terms. Now, make those figures overlap without touching or crossing the line in the middle.
Or a concrete example, think of the peace treaty as a marriage. You and your girlfriend want to get married, but she refuses to have a marriage with children and you refuse to have a marriage without children. Unless one of you changes his or her mind, there will be no marriage (Ok, barring deception).
Now imagine that for some reason your life and the lives of the rest of your family hinged on having children. Are you going to change your mind?
The West Bank is a red herring. The Israelis offered the Palestinians 97% of it and all of Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinians just walked away.
BTW, I think it is the people saying that the settlements are illegal that are the opponents to peace. They make the Palestinians think that they don’t have to give up anything to get the land back. So the Palestinians refuse to give up anything (like the right of return, the right to attack Israel later, etc).
When I hear a Palestinian leader say the Palestinians as a group will negotiate terms for giving up the right of return and a permanent peace, not a hudna, then I will have hope for peace. Until then, it is all just a bunch of pro-Palestinian propagandists lying about what Hamas will and won’t accept.
So, the Palestinians should give up the right of return, with many of them still living who remember where they once lived for many generations, and they still hold the physical keys to their former homes, while the Jews have to hark back many centuries to fiction, the novel called the Old Testament to shake loudly their imaginary keys? Great.
The Jews want the USA, home of the most practical (WASP & Deist) forefathers, to go along with the Jewish version of Hitler’s philosophy?
There’s an interesting question. How many of them are still alive from 1948. The babies would be 61 now. Anyone who was 18 would be 79 now. Are there any known stats on how many are still alive?
Oh, and yes. They should give up the “right” of return. They are like a man with a chest of gold who is drowning in the ocean. His options are not “keep the gold” or “drop the gold”. His options are “drop the gold” or “be dragged down with it”.
No matter how valuable something might be to you _if_ you could get it or keep it, trying to chase or hold onto it when all that will bring you is harm is foolish. Maybe being Jewish gives a different perspective on it. The Jews have left a multitude of houses and lands behind them when they were kicked out of a country. When we get knocked down, we pick ourselves up and get on with our lives. If the Palestinians ever win, the Jews will get on with our lives elsewhere, assuming we don’t have the power to take back the land. We won’t sit there whining and making futile attacks on the Palestinian civilian population.
When the Palestinians are ready to let go of that golden chest and swim, then there might be peace. Until then, nope.
It’s the height of hypocrisy that those who are morally and legally entitled to right of return should forfeit that right while others are granted it based on the accident of their birth. Why do Jews who have never had any connection to Israel and their children get right of return, when those who’s homes were taken from them have to give it up?
And if this is indeed to be the norm, how woul you feel about all Jews around the world having to agree to move to Israel?
You are confusing needs with demands.
There is no need for Israel to prohibit the right of return, if it is kept limited. I would suggest that the right of return should be offered to every living and first generation descendant of an individual that can prove to a court’s satisfaction that they held perfected title to land and other property within Israel. (And they should be compensated for their lost years of service.)
The numbers of individuals that would take up that reasonable right of return would be small.
I believe VERY STRONGLY that intersections can be defined.
Probably not under Netanyahu, and probably not if negotiated by Hamas. But, with the combination of rationally strong desire for actual peace (not just the rhetorical smokescreen), and imaginative and periodically forceful mediation, a real peace IS achievable.
With all the energy is put into defense of the status quo and the impossibility of reconciliation, were put into reconciliation (secure reconciliation), then it would be done.
It IS best. The fantasy of a “Greater Israel” is impossible. I spend a great deal of time here, in opposing “magical” or punitive approaches towards Israel. It really is up to us supporters of Israel to put our noses to the grindstones and stop fucking around on this.
What are you basing your assumptions on as to the numbers of “refugees” who want to “return”? BTW, is there any other population in the world where the descendants of refugees are considered refugees?
The problem is that the Palestinians know that the “small number” is nonsense. The Israelis have offered to accept a setl number, actual number to be negotiated. The Palestinians turned them down flat.
Hypothetical negotiation here: So Israel says “how many would want to come back” the Palestinians say “10,000″ Israel says “We can put 10,000 into the treaty” and the Palestinians say, “no all of them have to be allowed, we just think that only 10,000 will want to”. Israel says, “well what limit would you agree to” and the Palestinians, as always say “no limit”.
You are suggesting Israel follow the Gym membership approach. Sell so many people the right to use the gym that the facilities couldn’t handle them all, get away with it because most people never show up.
Problem is that if you are wrong about the number of gym users, you just lose money. If you are wrong about the number of “returnees” then the Israelis lose their country. Well, more of a strategy than a problem as far as the Palestinians are concerned, but a problem for the Israelis who want to stay alive.
Who’s talking Greater Israel? I’m not. I’m talking just plain Israel.
Would you be amenable to having international court to determine the right of return for individuals who made an application under your standards?
The history of land law in Israel effectively insures that (1) Decisions will be rendered in a discriminatory fashion and (2) that Palestinians aren’t going to accept the use of an Israeli court as a result of historical experience. These outcomes are the result of real experiences and factually ascertainable decisions.
Why should the Palestinians agree to only 10,000 when 800,000 were driven from their homes?
In other words, Witty as a racist Jewish Nazi, you believe that native Arab property rights are somehow less than the property rights of murderous genocidal Jewish invaders, interlopers, thieves and usurpers.
Such beliefs are one of the reasons why patriotic non-racist Americans should want to see a Jewish Nazi supporter of Zionist supporter of Israeli terrorism like you put in jail under the US anti-terrorism laws.
It is only fair because then your property rights would be restricted and all of your assets could be seized as the fine for your crimes.
And by “plain Israel” you mean what boundary?
The number of living and first generation direct descendants of those that can prove property rights, is inevitably small.
It amounts to an affirmation that Israel abides by the rule of law, in which title and residence rights are preserved.
You are concluding failure before making an effort.
If you have a business, a gym, that doesn’t have the perfect number of members, you don’t close the gym, you accommodate the paying members.
For Israel to remain Israel, the Jewish population that identifies as Jewish, would have to be around 70%. I think it is UNLIKELY that the population would shift due to a limited right of return afforded to current viably title holders.
My comment related to you intersection analogy, assuming that current demands were needs, and therefore uncompromisable.
All tangible issues are resolvable. Some of the issues will require outside help to bridge divides in sequence. But, that is doable.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
The arabs native to what was once called the Mandate operated under a different set of property laws than the property/title laws Witty seeks to apply to settle property issues. Should any title perfection process aimed at peaceful solution simply ignore
the rules used by the natives for generations before 1890 or so?
These videos make me feel dirty, like a voyeur.
Keep the Zioporn coming.
Phil
Adam
Hellooooooo.
Why no news on the kidney-trading RABBI israeli vermin, arrested in New Jersey??
didn’t you get enough info from the KKK blog?
The hasbara group was out in full force to offset the kidney-trading as a necessary evil on Morning Whatever with Rattigan this AM. They had a kidney transplant woman from the AEI (neocon heaven) claiming that people who want to donate kidneys could get a big tax break. Eliot Spitzer creamed her argument. Now, he’s one smart guy.
“I didn’t say the Israelis need the West Bank. I said they need Israel. ”
Hey Thom, I don’t need your house, I just want to live on the inside of it – get a fucking life you imbecile.
So many of you are keen on moving ‘them’ to ‘there’!
Hey! The ‘There’ belongs to us. Hands off my land! Take them all to your Promised Land.
I find the guys in the video funny… lots of wierd hats, lots of ranting about the god who gave lands to certain people, I didn’t know that God worked as a real estate agent for a while
@ Thom saying:
“Israel is in the position of a big guy who is holding down a little guy who tried to kill him. He would like to let the little guy up and both go about their business but the little guy won’t agree to stop trying to kill the big guy if the big guy lets him up. It sucks for the little guy, but meanwhile the big guy isn’t going anywhere either.”
But this isn’t happening in thin air. The big bully is a trespasser and his business is
crime against the little guy and his property, and his family and friends, and their property. The big bully has a long
criminal record.
He can call it what he likes, little an big guy and all of that bullshit. What it really is is genocide. I am not from ye old holocaust hegemony school, but am professionally trained in Stannard’s school – so let him run off at the mouth, he will look like a fool in the end.
@ Thom saying:
“Israel is in the position of a big guy who is holding down a little guy who tried to kill him. He would like to let the little guy up and both go about their business but the little guy won’t agree to stop trying to kill the big guy if the big guy lets him up. It sucks for the little guy, but meanwhile the big guy isn’t going anywhere either.”
The reality is that the big guy is a rapist and child killer, who is insisting that he needs to continue raping and the victim to defend himself when his latest victim has tried to fight back. He also stole the little guys house and hope and is insisting that the ownership of the stolen property is disputed.
That rabbi in NJ was getting $168,000 a kidney. NJ has a reputation for pervasive corruption.
For which he paid $10,000.
Meanwhile, here’s the summer fare for the US Hollywood audience across the USA–a wet dream come true, delivered especially by top heartthrobs playing Jews (very badly):
http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/07/13/inglourious-basterds/
Even Goebbels would be embarrassed by this movie, even with the victims switched.
Worse, Julius Streicher would be embarrassed–but not Hollywood, not Brad Pitt. The guy apparently is very ignorant, a veritable comic book “man.”
Come on this is not serious – going to Jerusalem and interviewing Jewish messianic Americans and Bnei Akiva kids – ultra nationalistic religious kids, each one with a skullcap is warped and skewed. Most Israeli kids of pre or post army age service are right wing and much of the society is, but it is not monolithic . Older, more educated and non religious Israelis don’t hold these beliefs. Let’s go to the deep south and interview mostly racists and then put it out on Youtube as a serious depiction of US attitudes to blacks.
I support the Israeli peace camp and a Palestinian homeland, but I would not give this website a cent for it’s tabloid type reporting – Jerry Springer goes to Israel and tells it like it is …… you guys really are part of the dumbing down of the US. Posers, shallow and insincere, anything for a buck or a moment in the spotlight. But it’s so cooooool and honest – let’s all go and tweet about this .. in 14o words.
Somebody needs to stab that guy with the banjo.
Is this post going to headline Mondoweiss forever?
Why not? Consider Your US tax dollars in action, circa 2006: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/tovej.html
It’s important for Palestinians to reclaim their land and resist further theft of it. It’s important for Americans to quit enabling what Israel is doing.
@Shingo
The occupation, if it is an occupation, is legitimate. Why do you think the Geneva conventions have all those rules about what to do in occupations? If occupations weren’t allowed, the list would be very short. Rule 1: No occupations allowed. Rule 2: There is no rule 2.
The Palestinians decided not to have peace a long time ago. The Palestinians decided they wanted to chase the dream of the right of return more than they wanted peace.
Peace is a two way street. Like any other deal, the terms have to be acceptable to both sides. I can’t just go up to you and say “I decided to have a deal where I get a thousand dollars from you and you get this shiny nickle from me”.
If I want to buy something from you, and the most I am willing to pay is $100, you want to sell it, and the least you are willing to accept is $90, then we can make a deal somewhere between $90 and $100. $91 fits “$90 or more” and “$100 or less”. Talking and negotiating can get us to a deal somewhere in the range that is acceptable to both because we have some set of terms that intersect. If the most I will pay is $75 and the least you will sell for is $77, then there are no mutually acceptable terms. No number fits “$75 or less” and “$77 or more”. Negotiating won’t get to a deal because there is no overlap of acceptable terms.
Peace treaties are more complicated and multidimensional, but the ultimate question is the same as any deal “what set of terms are acceptable to both sides”.
So what set of terms are acceptable to the Israelis? Forget the fine details, let’s just look at the boundaries, the “don’t bother even asking, no we won’t think about it, just no”. There may be deals with these conditions that are unacceptable to Israel, but any deal without them is automatically unacceptable.
1) No right of return. Regardless of whether you think Israel should be a Jewish state, most of the people in Israel think it should be a Jewish state. They know that if the Palestinians get the right of return, Israel is finished as a haven for Jews and would become yet another Islamic theocracy in short order, followed by expulsion of the Jews, if they were lucky, or extermination of the Jews. Of course the masses of people who clamor about how awful Israel is would pay as much attention to the expulsion or extermination as they do in Sudan, Darfur, and all the Arab countries that expelled the Jews after Israel was founded (i.e., none).
2) Peace, not a hudna. If the Palestinians are just going to take a break from trying to destroy Israel long enough to build better weapons to attack Israel with then Israel is better off having the fight now. No point for Israel in trading land for no peace. No point making a deal if the Palestinians are just going to come back for the rest of Israel later.
Any arguments about those positions? Rational ones that go to Israel’s position, not “the Palestinians deserve” whatever. Nations make treaties based on what is good for them, not based on what their enemies think they deserve.
Now the Palestinian minimum negotiating points. There may be deals with these features that are unacceptable, but the Palestinians have been very clear that they won’t accept any deal without them.
1) Right of return. Unlimited, applying to all descendants of the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 and afterward.
2) No giving up claims to the rest of Israel. No acknowledgment that the peace deal means they agree that Israel stays Israel permanently.
I have seen arguments (unconvincing ones, that contradict what every Palestinian leader has said) that the first is negotiable, if so, great. The second, not even in the most blatant attempts to make the Palestinians seem like the reasonable party has a Palestinian leader said they would ever agree to permanently give up claims to the rest of Israel.
The acceptable terms of the Israelis and the Palestinians do not overlap. Therefore, there is no deal to be made.
This happens at the beginning of every war. The reason that most wars end fairly fast is that the side with the upper hand bombs the loser until the loser’s acceptable terms shift to intersect the side with the upper hand. That’s what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bombing them changed what the Japanese considered acceptable terms.
This war has dragged on for so long (42 years so far) because the Israelis are unwilling to inflict the massive suffering that would cause the Palestinians to shift their terms to terms acceptable to the Israelis and the Palestinians are unable to inflict the massive suffering that would cause Israel to shift its terms to terms acceptable to the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians keep up their ‘resistance’ Israel has all the right to fight that resistance, and when the Pals decide to have peace, Israel then and only then must stop their occupation.
The difference being that under international law, resistance to occupation is legimtimate, which occupation is not.
The Pals decided to have peace a long time ago. Israel has decided that it wants occupatioon more than it wants peace.
Thom,
Since this new format doesn’t allow for the depth of more than one reply, I’m posting this here. Once again, you really don’t know what you are talking about. Ive had to correct you several times before on facts you got wrong and yet you keep on with a constant barrage of mis-comprehension and bigoted commentary. (Yes, I’m well aware that YOU don’t see your own bigotry. ) I’m nearly convinced that you are simply talking to convince yourself and aren’t listening to anyone else. I don’t have a lot of time to post, as opposed to you, who seem to live in the comments section here, so this will only be a short reply to some of your comment above, because I don’t have the time to go into its many fallacies.
First off, when Israel first captured and occupied the West Bank, the Palestinians who lived there were nationals of the State of Jordan, which is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention and are therefore protected. Furthermore, after Jordan cede all claims to the West Bank over to the PLO in 1988, the Palestine National Council in 1989 formally agreed to abide by the Conventions. From a list of signatories of the GC:
Therefore Israel was, and is, in fact clearly obliged to live up to ALL of the conventions in place between signatories to the agreement. So all of what you said about the lack of a requirement on Israel’s part to live up to the articles of the GC and your claims that the Paletinians are not “protected people” are mere sophistry and special pleading on your part and have no relationship to the reality of what the GC says or means.
This is just one example of your bigotry. I’m sure that you don’t know any Palestinians, and probably don’t care to know any, and I’m sure you’ve never been to the West Bank, but you think that because you follow racist and bigoted Israeli propaganda that you are an expert in Palestinian culture. You’re a bigot who is perfectly willing to bash an entire people on the basis of a hateful stereotype that you have willingly swallowed whole. If one reads about individual circumstances of the large number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF over the decades, its very apparent that very few died in crossfire or as a result of gunfire from Palestinians. Many of them have been killed walking to school, or playing soccer in an open field, or sitting in their classroom or their homes or doing the everyday things that children do. The excuse that the IDF often uses to justify the killings is often, after the fact, discovered by various Israeli human rights groups to be lies and distortions. The excuses are used both to assuage the guilt and to blame the victim.
If you want some examples of the deaths of Palestinian children, see here at Lawrence of Cyberia:
Toddlers of Mass Destruction
How Many Children Does It Take To Make A Jewish State In Palestine?
Or simply read some of the case studies at B’Tselem.
Thom,
wow, great analysis, I think you are right on. Its funny how none of the leftist Israel haters will even try to refute anything you said. The proof is in the pudding my friend.
Keep it up, sometimes its tough to come here day in and day out and see all the hatred for Israel and in my cases for Jews as a whole, but its a much needed thing. Keep up the good fight, we know we are right and we will prevail. I just hope the Palestinian people and their leadership realize the same thing. Peace is right around the corner, they just have to accept the facts on the ground.
Israel doesn’t forbid dissent officially, just like they don’t have an official policy of stealing land or ethnic cleansing . B’Tselem is human rights organization, which is ignored within Israel and virtually unknown outside of Israel. The reporter, Amira Hass from Ha’Aretz was arrested last month, for going into Gaza.
Of course, I have not lied about definition of fascism, but cited a definition. You don’t seem to have grasped what lie is.
From your dictionary definition of: Fascism:
1) Zionism is indeed a political/secular philosophy and movement.
2) Israel absolutely exalts nation and ethnicity above the individual, no question. Can anyone say, right of return? Israel is never described a sate of individuals, but a collective known as the Jewish people, thereby consigning the rights of individuals as secondary.
3) Israel is a militaristic state, where the military lives by it’s own rules. The government is indeed centralized. One need only read the charter of all political parties to realize they are one and the same.
4)Israel does not have an autocratic leader, but does exercise severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition, in this care, the Arab parties.
5) Suppression of non-violent opposition? Can anyone say Gaza, Fatah? Is shooting demonstrators not qualify as suppression of non-violent opposition?
6) Politicized ethnic fundamentalism is rampant and unambiguous. All political parties are unanimously dedicated to the maintaining of Jewish state, and only recognizing the right of return of Jews. As the saying goes, the right are unabashed about wanting to remove the Arabs. The left will agree so long as the buses are air condicioned.
7)Extremist organic nationalism is blatantly obvious. Israel has moved so far to the right, it will soon pop up on the left.
8) Whether there are Jews of every race is irrelevant because Israel discriminates against non Jews, which is both racism and bigotry.
9 )Social Darwinism might not have been a component of Zionism, but it has become embedded in Zionist ideology.
10) Biological determinism is a component of Zionism, because rights of individuals are determined according to birthright. Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html
11) Essentialism is the very foundation of Zionism. It is the belief that Jews are unique and as such, will never be accepted into wider society.
12) Primordialism. Most Jews are not relate din any way to the ancient Hebrews, but converts to the religion
13) Perverted eugenic theory is indeed a fundamental aspect of Zionism. Zionism is based on the belief that all Jews and the progeny of the original Jews, when this is a scientic impossibility.
14) Opposition to race mixing” Over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html
Your fellow traveler, Eitan, stated that Jews who intermarry are self hating Jews.
15) If there is any state that exemplifies the belief in national revival through racial purity, Israel is it. Israel believes a piece of land belongs to Jews, which only makes sense in the context of Jews being genetically related to one another and the original Israelis.
As always Thom, you’ll find that reality is anti Semitic.
Thom,
No occupation is legitimate, especially when they are based on wars of aggression, which the Geneva Convention lists as the mother of all war crimes.
Israel has never wanted peace Right of return is one of the rules on the GC.
Peace is a two way street, but a thief does not get to negotiate the terms of retuning stone goods.
Peace treaties are more complicated and multidimensional, but the ultimate question is the same as any deal “what set of terms are acceptable to both sides”.
1) If you are going to deny right of return, pay compensation.
2)Even if the Palestinians were determined to destroy Israel, do you expect us to believe that this 3rd world stateless society can build better weapons than the state of the art weapons Israel gets for free?
Right of return – pay compensation and agree to the creation of a Palestinina state.
Even Hams have said they would support a 2 state solution, one o them being Israel..
The terms of the deal come down to rights under international law, now what Israel or the Palestinians are willing to give up. Again a thief does not get to negotiate the terms of retuning stone goods.
This is not a war but an occupation. Wars usually last while both sides are capable of maintaining a fight. Israel does not want the war to end, because the end of the war requires a political settlement.
This war has dragged on because while Israel can claim to be at war, it has the justification to maintain it’s occupation. Settlements are used to expand the borders and seize more land.
Another reason the war has dragged on is because Israel has had an unlimited supply of weapons and money to keep massacring the Palestinians. Israel has every reason to want to keep the war going, because the minute it ends, so will the expansion.
Even if there isn’t a front-end numerical overlap, there are other constructable overlaps.
In polling over decades, including recently, on both sides there has been consistent enthusiasm for the concept of viable land for confident peace.
So, that is the object to seek to achieve.
Likud and its supporters regard the current status and slow incremental demographic and territorial changes, as a permanently acceptable status. They are personally happy that there are areas of Israel (like the films) that seem to be comfortable capitalist utopias (enterprise -> luxury retirement). The depictions of severe class discrepancies within Israel and between Israel and Palestine don’t bother them. The descriptions of compromises to color-blind civil rights and equal due process under the law, don’t bother them.
Others view the current status as both unacceptable and unviable. So, those that don’t consider the current status as permanent or acceptable, seek change in a form that is convivial, rather than leaving permanent animosity.
Thats the liberal left t0 center left. THAT is the majority of long-term Israeli political perspective. Conditional.
We, in that set, that genuinely desire peace, must be careful to not stray either to the right, that justifies and accepts continued abuse of Palestinian civilians, nor to the left and left-right, that is more angry than innovative and ignores that peace is constructed by mutual consent based on meeting mutual needs.
We have to get there. We have to BE compassionate and helpful, in ways that we are confident our families of families will be safe.
Genetically and socially, the Israeli society and Palestinian society are close. We are cousins. While cousins may fight, we are permanently linked. Israelis and Palestinians live in a very small part of a very small world.
Thom, you know, I get really tired responding to your silly screeds. You act as though because it is merely an occupation it is “legal,” a really really dumb comment. Than, you act as though it is a personal matter between the Palestinians and the Israelis, no international community – yet you claim the “laws” of occupation from which it definitively springs.
Now, if it is an occupation as defined by the laws of the conventions and international laws – it has rules. Low and behold, Israel HAS BROKEN EVERY RULE OF OCCUPATION WITH IMPUNITY (want me to name them?). There is not one rule Israel has not thumbed the collective nose at, therefore, is it an occupation? I would say it is a genocide, but we enter a definitive hornets nest – if we did though, you would lose the argument hands down, because you are a lame liar.
Second, the right of return is not something which is merely the desire of the Palestinians (as you say), it is enshrined in UN resolutions. It has never been denied by the international community, just like the 67′ borders which Israel is supposed to honor have not been expunged. Every year the will of the world community is expressed with a reaffirmation of its commitment to these resolutions – and every year the community votes well over 100+ to 4 or 5 (Israel, USA, Marshall Islands, Malu, Palu whatever). So, you make yourself a laughing stock with your “argument” points.
Third, the entire premise of the “peace process,” which is really the “piece process,” where Israel steals more land during the “good faith negotiations.” Where the USA is supposed to be an impartial broker, when it really sits as counsel for Israel. The whole process is a sick cruel joke.
Does Israel “exist?” Indeed it does, but it cannot continue to exist in its current condition, as a racist Apartheid, genocidal regime. It has as much “right” to commit genocide on the Palestinian people as the Nazis did on us; it has as much “right” to exist as an Apartheid racist entity as South Africa did – and we know how much “right” they had to continue their abominations.
So Thom, you are fresh out of bullshit – the fantasy well has run dry. Try to post you crap on Little Green Footballs, it will be accepted there with accolades.
I don’t think anything in the GCs outlaws war. If you have a cite for that, please quote it.
Again, if all occupations are illegitimate, why are there rules for occupation, other than “don’t”?
Compensation. Offered and rejected. No Palestinian leader has said that the Palestinians as a nation would give up the right of return in exchange for compensation.
I didn’t say the Palestinians could build up enough to destroy Israel in the 10-20 year hudna. They could however build up enough to kill a lot more Israelis when the Palestinian terrorism resumes (escalates really, since I don’t believe it will ever stop, just reduce) in 10 years. Then Israel would have to invade them again and the whole thing starts all over.
You have never provided a single link in which the leader of Hamas at the time said that the Palestinians would accept a two state solution with one of them being Israel. The furthest they have gone is a two state solution with both of them being Palestinian (right of return is always part of the “deal” they are willing to accept).
Show me one single quote from a Hamas leader that says that they are willing to have a permanent peace, with two states, and no right of return (or that the deal will include compensation but no return). You can’t, so quit lying about it.
@Shingo
BTW, a thief doesn’t get to negotiate, but a government does. That’s war for you. As I said, regardless of what the Palestinians think they deserve, Israel isn’t going to commit suicide. The taking of the land is legitimate, and the war which started the occupation was self-defense on Israel’s part, but even if that wasn’t the case, you still need a peace treaty to end the war. Which means, mutually acceptable terms or the war goes on.
@Richard Witty
Polls saying both sides want peace are meaningless. The Israelis want a peace that lets Israel keep existing without the Palestinians moving in and voting it out of existence. The Palestinians want peace that lets them move into Israel and vote it out of existence.
Saying both sides want peace is like saying both sides in my selling argument want a sale of goods to happen. They may both want a sale. Ask them and they may both say they want a sale “at a fair price” but they mean different things when they say “a fair price”, so no sale.
Genetically the Palestinians and the Israelis are very very close. Culturally, worlds apart. I saw a great cartoon that summed up the biggest difference. A Palestinian with a gun, an Israeli with a gun, a Palestinian baby carriage, an Israeli baby carriage. The gunmen were pointing guns at each other. The Israeli from in front of the Israeli baby carriage, the Palestinian from behind the Palestinian baby carriage.
@v
Excellent. Glad you noticed that. My point in making that argument was not “this occupation is being conducted in a legal manner”. I was countering the blanket statement from your side that “occupations are always illegal”. That argument is much broader than “this occupation is legal” and much simpler to counter. As I said, not all occupations are illegal, even under the Geneva Conventions, because otherwise, why have rules about what you can and can’t do in an occupation?
As to the legality of this particular occupation (if it is an occupation).
The 4th GC applies to Israel because Israel signed and ratified it. What they agreed to was (among others) that if their enemies followed the GCs, then the enemy would be protected persons under the 4th GC. They did not agree that all enemies would be protected persons under the 4th GC.
It can be confusing if you aren’t used to how laws and contracts work. They often include terms that have specific meanings that are defined within the statute or contract itself and do not have their generic meaning. “Protected person” is one such term. The confusing thing is that even people who aren’t “protected persons” are protected by part of the 4th GC. Part II describes what you (party to the 4th GC) can’t do to anyone. That part talks about populations, but does not once mention “protected persons”. That’s not a coincidence, part II was intended to apply to protected persons and everyone else as well. So feel free to name any rule in part II of the 4th Geneva Convention that you think Israel has broken.
As for part III (occupied territories), the Palestinians are not protected persons under the definitions of “protected persons” given in the 4th GC, so literally nothing the Israelis do in the West Bank and Gaza can violate anything in part III. Rules in part III are only broken when you do things to “protected persons”.
It’s like the many laws in America about what you can’t do with a minor. Can’t sell them cigarettes, can’t sell them beer under 21, etc. You can’t break those laws with someone over the age defined in the law, no matter what you do. You can still break laws with respect to someone over the age of 18 (e.g., selling drugs is illegal regardless of age). But not laws that are limited to minors.
Biased international institutions have assumed that the Palestinians are protected persons, but aside from one dissenting opinion in an ICJ case, which had a rather poor justification for considering the Palestinians to be protected persons (because Jordan used to occupy the West Bank), I have not seen anyone in the international community analyze the issue.
The Palestinians are not “protected persons” because the 4th GC specifically excludes nationals of states that do not abide by the GCs from being protected persons. Follow the GCs and your peeps are PPs. Don’t follow the GCs and your peeps are not PPs. The Palestinians don’t obey the GCs
So far, the only person here who tried to argue the point has been Shingo. After many appeals to authority (because X,Y, or Z said so for political, not legal reasons) he made a solid effort to argue the point, but failed. His argument was that the exclusion didn’t apply because the Palestinians aren’t a State. That argument fails because if they aren’t a state, then the West Bank and Gaza aren’t territories (lands of a State) and therefore not occupied territories.
Either way, not obeying the GCs has screwed the Palestinians as far as the actual laws go. As far as what a biased international community says? Well, they don’t care about the laws, just about bashing Israel.
It is so nice of you to try to educate me Thom, unfortunately you do not know what you are talking about. Even the “belligerent” individuals under occupation are protected.
“Biased international institutions have assumed that the Palestinians are protected persons…” lol However, you will correct them Thom? What an idiot.
You have quite a case of hubris Thom, and you do not know dick to boot. No interpretation of the convention reads like what you are saying, none. You need to get your head examined…lol
Thom,
You evidently haven’t heard of the fundamental GC.
Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. It is generally agreed by scholars in international law that the military actions of the Nazi regime in World War II in its search for so-called “Lebensraum” are characteristic of a war of aggression.
It’s interesting that Israel signed and ratified the 4th GC, because and Teodor Meron stated, the settlements in teh occupied trritories is a gross violation of the 4GC.
This cocnusin was supported Israel’s Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice.
A thief doesn’t get to negotiate, nor does a state that commits war crimes. The German’s didn’t get to negotiate.
Retunign land that it doesn’t own, is not commiting suicide, it’s justice. Suggesting that by returning the land it stole is akin to suicide, is like arguing that Donald Trump givign away half is wealth is euthenasia.
If taking of the land had legitimatimacy, then no state in teh world would be safe. Every country would live in fear of being occupie and assimilted and what’s more, it implies that Israel is only a temporary state until a bigger and more powerful state decided to invade it.
Is that the status quo you’re advocating?
There was nothing defensive about the 1967 war which Israel deliberately started and had been trying to start since 1956.
The most boring thing on this site is you posting the same thing over and over again! Can’t you come up with something new?
Comments on this entry are closed.