While there is no doubt that Israel holds military superiority over any possible armed force it might go to war with, there is another threat that Israel appears to have no response for – moral outrage. The Jerusalem Post covers a new report which outlines Israel’s true Achilles heal. From the article "Hubs of delegitimization":
A new report by the Reut Institute, a Tel Aviv-based national security and socioeconomic policy think tank, maps out the "new battlefield" in which Israel finds the legitimacy of its very existence attacked by a wide array of organizations and individuals in global centers like London, Toronto, Brussels, Madrid and Berkeley.
The report, which also makes recommendations for possible remedies, is to be presented next week to Israeli diplomatic officials, and will also be presented at the Herzliya Conference in January. The report’s authors spent two weeks in London interviewing some 45 people, including members of Muslim groups and anti-Zionist Jewish organizations, and academics, journalists, pollsters, jurists, activists and politicians.
Beginning with Israel’s traditional strategic concept, conceived by David Ben-Gurion, which posits that to win its wars, the IDF would have to take the fight to its enemies, the Reut report posits that increasingly, Israel cannot "win" its wars in the traditional sense as it is not up against conventional Arab armies, and there is no decisive victory over an enemy army to be had.
While there is still a physical existential threat posed by certain enemies (including unconventional terrorism), the new front focuses its attack on Israel’s political legitimacy, painting Israel as a pariah state, exhausting Israeli society, burdening its economy, and mobilizing Israel’s Arab minority as an anchor in the struggle against the Jewish state.
The key concept for this "Resistance Network" is overstretching Israel along the fault lines of demography, democracy (binational state vs a state of the Jewish people), Jewish identity and territory.
What does it mean that Israel views challenges to racist demographic priorities and simple calls to democracy as an existential threat? It is also interesting to note that later in the article the think tank’s recommendations ape the Israel settler "price tag" strategy for dealing with opponents ("establish a ‘price tag’ for attacking Israel and punish boycotters").
At least this report seems honest about the near impossible task at hand – trying to sell Israel’s apartheid system to a liberal international public. Often times when Israel’s supporters try this it comes off looking like a sad joke. Like this op-ed in today’s Haaretz, where an Israeli settler compares herself to Rosa Parks:
Despite the fury and the insult, let’s not turn to violence. There is a simple, natural solution that is full of life – continuing to build. That will perhaps embarrass the prime minister in front of U.S. President Barack Obama, but that’s precisely the point. A person with a manual cement mixer in Samaria can change history. Sometimes the man in the field can be a lot stronger than the great leaders. Just like Rosa Parks.
Arguments like this are going to make the Reut Institute’s work much harder.
This will put Witty in heaven! That kind of exculpatory drek is his meat and drink. Heck, the boxed quote could have been written by Witty! “Let’s not turn to violence”, for-frickin-sooth!
The Zionists (let alone the settlers) embraced violence as their method from the beginning:
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
“Just like Rosa Parks.” So, who’s forced to sit in the back of the bus?
What a fucking insult to the Civil Rights Movement here. Right out of Luntz’s Hasbara Dictionary for The Israel Project, BTW: compare Israel to America and America’s problems.
How dare she co-opt the US civil rights movement for the right to build on stolen land. How fucking dare she!
Apparently the Israeli settlers have no sense of historical irony, if the woman who said she is “just like Rosa Parks” is a good example of settler thinking:
“Just as a simple man named Ghandi led the successful non-violent struggle in India and simple people such as Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela led the struggle for civil rights in the United States [and South Africa], simple people here in Bil’in are leading a non-violent struggle that will bring them their freedom. The South Africa experience proves that injustice can be dismantled.”
- Desmond Tutu in Bil’in
You want to see an insult to the Civil Rights Movement here? Go take a look at Witty’s “separate but equal” arguments over here.
“What a fucking insult to the Civil Rights Movement here. Right out of Luntz’s Hasbara Dictionary for The Israel Project, BTW: compare Israel to America and America’s problems.
How dare she co-opt the US civil rights movement for the right to build on stolen land. How fucking dare she!”
Would you say that it would be an insult to the Civil Rights Movement to offer support at home, while supporting Zionism abroad? What would it say about a person who would march with an MLK, while knowingly supporting the actions taking place in Palestine and neighboring areas? It’s impossible to claim ignorance about what happens when one group of people is uprooted and displaced by another. It doesn’t happen willingly, and people are wronged and hurt in the process.
The two-state solution negotiated and consented on the basis of the green line will resolve all questions.
If Hamas wants a voice, it will have to join the PA.
If the goal of militancy is “ending the occupation” defined at 67 borders, and Israel agrees to that fundamentally, then there is no more basis to militancy.
Legitimacy is addressed, except in the remaining extremists.
If after a negotiation, Palestinians reject the results, then there will likely be war, not a good outcome for anyone.
The relevance of militancy is primarily for street cred. Militants have nothing if they cannot create a situation of tension.
Absent any rational basis of that tension, one would hope that the populations will accept each other, and marginalize fanatics.
link to al-bab.com
We’ve been waiting on Israel since 2002.
Me too. Lets actually get there.
Great. Well, we’ve got all the Arab states and even Iran on board. Go get Israel for us, won’t you?
By giving Israel a big hug, after which it will magically transform from colonialist oppressor to generous benefactor, right?
“The two-state solution negotiated and consented on the basis of the green line will resolve all questions.”
The two state “solutuion” does not solve anything. Partition has not worked and will not work because, in this case it is based on denying the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and the implementation of the right of refugees to return to their homes. As long as those issues are not properly addressed partition is none starter and a postonment of conflict.
Hiding behind the the TSS is an excuse to maintain an ethnic state which grants privileges to some of its citizens while denying them to others because they do not belong to the right “tribe”. There is no room for such a state in the modern world. Like Tony Judt has characterized a state such as Israel it is “anachronistic”.
Thats the attitude that supports a two-hundred year war.
If you hold that attitude, then to describe it as “remove the occupation” is a false description.
The wars of 1936-39 and 47-48, initiated by indigenous Palestinians and Arab states, were oriented to removing the Jews from the region (ethnic cleansing).
A partition is MORE DEMOCRATIC than a forced assimilation.
“Separate but equal?” Really, Witty? Seriously?
Your characterization “The wars of 1936-39 and 47-48, initiated by indigenous Palestinians and Arab states, were oriented to removing the Jews from the region (ethnic cleansing).” is an insult, Dick Witty, to those on this blog who know the
history of that time and place. You always repeat your hasbara as if it’s not been
parsed and shredded on this blog time and time again. Your constant assumption
that the Palestinians, the Arabs, are always the negative instigating cause is like
a knee-jerk reaction you simply can’t stop–time to respect at least the regulars here on this blog for a number of years. We can imbibe hasbara history from
the fountains flowing everywhere going on at least half a century.
What specifically do you disagree with?
Do you know of the Arab resistance of 1936-39, or the 1947 snipering, or the 1948 Arab invasion?
Actually BOTHER to read of the history. Only from a self-censoring perspective is the conflict an oppression only, and not a conflict.
“Do you know of the Arab resistance of 1936-39, or the 1947 snipering, or the 1948 Arab invasion?”
How about we start in 1905, or even earlier, when Zionists were talking about removing the Palestinian population and that no Zionist State would be possible without such a policy?
The existence ofan Arab resistance in 1936-39 tells us there was Zionist colonization and enthic cleansing already taking place. Ben Gurion said in 1939, that Israel would have to build it’s military forces to prepare for the impending conflict.
1947: Zionist terror gangs were doing more than just sniping, like say, blowing up hotels for example.
Yes, we have actually BOTHERED to read of the history, which is why you can’t get away with your BS.
Who Could Have Predicted?
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered”
Wow, talk about a non-starter. What would your solution be Aref?
Well, I’m assuming it would be the bi-national state. You really shouldn’t take the one-state solution as an insult. I’m Indian, and if I could do anything to stop the 1947 partition, I would.
States based on race belong to a bygone era. When in several countries, ‘mixed-race’ is the fastest growing ethnic group, you have to ask yourself the relevance of race in the modern world.
It would be a single secular and democratic state where citizenship is not granted based on religion, creed, or what tribe one belongs to and where all citizens enjoy the same rights. Do you have a problem with such a state?
I do. Its impossible. It would quickly devolve to opportunism, expressed violently, by both Arab and Zionist fanatics.
As the populations regard the other as foreign, it would result in some 51% ruling over some 49%, which is LESS democratic than a more democratic application in partition.
What behavior by either Arab communities or Zionist, gives you any confidence that a single-state would remain democratic and not devolve quickly to forced suppression?
Impossible? hardly more than TSS which Israel has de facto rendered impossible. As for the rest it is speculation.
In a democracy it does not matter what percentages of people of certain ethnicity consititute–this is the paradigm shift that needs to happen but which you seem to be incapable of comprehending (too much ingrained tribalism?). Of course in any society there extremists who will have recourse to violence given the right circumstances which make such violence acceptable and supported by others. A truly democratic society where citizens have equal rights will exert control over those extreme elements–otherwise they have too much to loose.
Refusing to consider the possibility of a single democratic and secular state because “it is impossible” is akin to refusing to get out of the house because there is the possibility that you might be run by a car.
If the US can pull itself together after the horrors of the Civil War, then I don’t see why Israel and Palestine can’t. The differences between North and South seemed irreconcilable, but they weren’t.
The whole idea of a bi-national state is that both control 50% and therefore, the only way to get anything done, is to work together. That way extremists are marginalised. My greatest fear is that a two-state solution will turn out to be an India/Pakistan, where they’ve fought three wars, proliferated nuclear weapons, and engaged in horrific pogroms, all because of a partition. Unity is strength.
Witty, I think the primary difference is one of the populations is foreign, whereas the other is pretty much unquestionably native.
I’m getting really sick and tired of listening to constantly rationalize ethnic cleansing of non-Jews in order to make room for Israel because somehow that’s what you think “democracy” is. It isn’t. There is NOTHING democratic about Israel when all Israel does is brutalize non-Jews and drive them off to maintain an artificial majority where none existed prior.
And of course, all that land they grabbed from the people who were killed and driven away is pure coincidence.
“States based on race belong to a bygone era. When in several countries, ‘mixed-race’ is the fastest growing ethnic group, you have to ask yourself the relevance of race in the modern world. ”
States based on ethnicity, race, culture or nationalism may or may not belong to a bygone era, but spoils based on ethnicity, race or culture certainly belong to the modern era of “mixed race states.”
I don’t see how ideology is supposed to be an alternative to race, culture, ethnicity, nationality or anything else, as there will always be those who are left out. Is it better to discriminate (or worse) on the basis of ideology? I’ve met many nasty internationalists and humanists, as well as many peaceful bigots and racists.
BTW, the wounds from U.S. “Civil War” never really healed. Quite a bit of oppression, demagoguery, as well as demographic change, were needed to “heal the wounds.”
“States based on ethnicity, race, culture or nationalism may or may not belong to a bygone era, but spoils based on ethnicity, race or culture certainly belong to the modern era of ‘mixed race states.’”
What is this supposed to mean????
Who talked about ideology as an alternative to race, culture etc…? A democratic state does not discriminate among its citizens based on any narrow criteria whether it is race, ethnicity, gender, religion or ideology period. A Secular Democratic State does not privilege a group of citizens to the detriment of another for any reason.
” BTW, the wounds from U.S. “Civil War” never really healed. Quite a bit of oppression, demagoguery, as well as demographic change, were needed to ‘heal the wounds.’ ” So did they heal or not?
Yes there are people who still fly the confederate flag however, they are very much a minority. Yes there are racists in the US and some are in the “South” but if you conduct a poll across the US you will find that the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer to stay in the Union despite the regional differences which exist across the US. Regional differences as well as disagreement on political, religious or social issues is not contradictory to the notion of union or a single state (demanding uniformity of thought is authoritarianism).
Ideology is not meant to be an alternative to race. My whole point is, there is no pre-defined difference between people, as a basis to include and exclude certain ‘types’.
Let’s take the US for example – theoretically, anyone can become a US citizen as long as they believe in a set of principles that mostly revolve around personal freedom. There’s no reason why every country in the world shouldn’t be based on these same principles.
Races, ethnicities, nationalities, ideologies and cultures, all change, merge and die out. A simple change in a border can change your nationality. You can change your culture simply by moving to another country and your race and ethnicity are defined arbitrarily. It makes little sense to define anything on based on these variables, seeing as they are all artificial.
The partition of Indian and Pakistan Shafiq?
I know about the partition, but not about the relationship between Hindu and Muslim inhabitants before that. Would a bi-national state work or would it have worked there?
From what I understand, it worked fine for how many hundreds of years before the British came along?
Before the partition, the Hindu-Muslim relationship was fine. But then extremists on both sides insisted on having separate states, something Britain started giving serious consideration to – this led to confusion and uncertainty, which led to more people turning towards the people who supposedly had the answers ‘the extremists’, which led to terrible atrocities and the beginning of the mutual distrust.
A combined India would not have been a bi-national state as such, but more of a devolved federal state, where the posts of defence minister and prime minister would have rotated between Muslims and Hindus.
Of course the concept of race, ethnicity and national identity have not died for most people, and to believe otherwise is trendy and wishful thinking.
What does it mean to state that racial spoils is common? Ever heard of affirmative action? I think there is some form of AA in most Western nations where there is immigration or minority groups. Clearly, group politics is alive and well.
Who mentioned ideology replacing race, ethnicity or nationalism in politics? Isn’t multiculturalism the unstated ideology that is to replace all previous tribal or national identities? We’ve had rule by law in traditional nation- states, so I don’t know what multiculturalism is supposed to add other than people. There will definitely be winners and losers under multiculturalism or any other ideological regime.
About regional differences and the Civil War wounds: I don’t claim that most Americans want the nation to dissolve. I don’t even think that many Americans are willing to raise a voice when they are at real odds with their rulers. But I don’t believe that regional differences were ever healed, and Southerners and Northerners definetly view the past differently. There is still a regional divide, and real animosity between the groups.
I see, you think that affirmative action is a bad thing!!!! That explains a lot, of course you are unwilling to let go of your privileges and therefore consider a Single Democratic State as an abomination designed to destroy Israel just like Affirmative Action is designed to destroy America as a “White Nation”. Thank you for the explanation, that was very enlightening :) BTW, no most western countries do not have some form of AA–Affirmative action was designed to help African Americans and other minorities who were the subject of racist laws and practices gain access to education and jobs.
As to multiculturalism, you might think that anything with “ism” is an ideology, it is not. Multiculturalism aims at recognizing and celebrating the differences and the various components and contributions of different groups, cultural, ethnic, gender, religious, etc… to society. It aims at emphasizing the equality of all members of society not replace “the rule of law in traditional nation-states” as you like to say. Again this demonstrates unwillingness of letting go of your privileges as a “white” individual. Beautifully illustrated I might added.
Yes of course there are some who cling to their anachronistic ideas like you do and like Zionists do. However, saying that there is a regional divide between the “Southerners” and “Northeners” is simply ignoring the cross pollination that has taken place over the years due to people’s mobility and emigration. Of course there are regional differences not only between South and North but between East Coast and West Coast, between urban centers and rural areas. Would I characterize that as “real animosity”? Certainly not unless I again cling to a notion of privilege which I think has been forcebly taken away when those who were the victims demanded their human and inalienable rights as guaranteed by law and the constitution. I suppose that you also think that Democracy is an abhorrent thing and prefer to live in a fascist state or under Apartheid. Well, Apartheid has fallen, fascism has been defeated and will continue to be every time it raises it ugly head. You can choose to live in 19th century ideas of Nation state and pure race or join the world of today where separation barriers continue to tumble and they will all tumble.
The concept of race, ethnicity and culture have not died, but individual races, ethnicities and cultures have died. In Italy and Germany, very few people think of themselves as Bavarians or Sicilians. In the US, there was a time when you weren’t American, but you were a Rhode Islander or a Virginian – no longer.
Affirmative action is a misguided attempt at bringing about racial equality. The whole idea of racial equality is treating everyone equally regardless of race, which is exactly what I’m espousing. Multiculturalism, is also another misguided idea – I’m a melting pot person and not a hyphenated American one.
The only ideology I’m for is the one in which real personal freedom and real equality prevail. To go back to the US, 19th century US immigration policy was based on the melting-pot principle and the phrase ‘e pluribus unum’, where everyone was welcome and their cultures would combine to form an ‘American’ culture. The future is just this, but on a world scale, where you don’t just care about the people living within a 10, 14 200 mile radius, but you care about everyone in the world, equally.
Shafiq, I hope you are right about the future, but nothing in the past leads me to believe that you are. From my experience, most attempts at racial equality are just thinly-veiled political schemes with designated losers and winners.
I have to disagree with you about 19th century immigration policy, if you mean to compare what happened then with what is happening now. In both cases cheap labor was/is a big issue, but modern immigration is unprecedented in numbers/percentages, lack of screening and an ideology that is hostile to the culture, history and wishes of a large majority of American citizens.
I also have to disagree with the view that Americans have dropped state or regional identities, because that’s just not the case for many people. Maybe through moving around new identities can be formed, but that’s not immediate, and it’s not the same as becoming an internationalist who views everyone as a potential American.
I’m not sure who decided that America has no culture of its own, or that the world should be allowed to come here against the wishes of the traditional citizens, and I seriously doubt that the people who have made those decisions intend to establish a true working democracy, equality or raceless politics.
I’m slightly more optimistic. Not very long ago (especially in Europe), emigrating was seen as being traitorous to one’s country – not anymore. Not very long ago, the vast majority of people had only spoken to other people of the same language, nationality, culture and religion – not anymore.
Many attempts at racial equality are proposed by political opportunists, but that doesn’t mean attempts at creating racial equality are inherently bad. It’s an economic myth that immigrants depress local wages. It does happen in some cases, but in most (especially in the US), immigrants are the most economically dynamic members of society, positively affecting the wages of locals.
The percentage of foreign-born nations has hovered between 5 and 15 % since 1850 (it’s currently at 11). This is hardly a culture changing influx and the point is, ordinary American citizens shouldn’t have a choice, especially when it comes to the US. You are all descendants of immigrants and the US has always been (since before the revolution) based on its openness to anyone wanting to go settle there. The whole idea of American culture, is that it evolves as its demography changes – Americans adapt some of the better traditions of its recent arrivals whilst the immigrants adopt general American traditions.
State based identities (with the exception of Texas) have largely disappeared from the mainstream. One no longer things they’re entering a foreign nation when they cross state borders, which is exactly what people used to think. As people move around more often, which they will do, their origins will become less relevant.
The idea of a traditional American citizen is itself an invention. There was a time when Ben Franklin was opposed to German immigration because he thought they would retain their old culture, constantly speak German and refuse to integrate. They did retain parts of their own culture (hence the Christmas tree and Hot Dog) but they did integrate and hardly any of them can speak German. Then it was the Italians, the Chinese … …
Aref, I can only conclude from your post that you are uninformed or totally blinded by ideology. Multiculturalism is a joke, and most Western nations have some form of preferential treatment for immigrants or minorities that has nothing to do with “equality” whether the treatment is exactly the same as Affirmative Action in the US, or not. A democracy would allow citizens to have a say in issues like immigration, who gets what priveleges and foreign influence within the government. American citizens are allowed input in none of those areas.
What makes you think that every white person is privileged? That isn’t the case, and I’d argue that most aren’t. Also, I’ve seen too many cases of Affirmative Action used as a means to establish and keep racial spoils and privileges to take your comments seriously.
I mentioned nothing about white supremacy. Opposing immigration and preferential treatment of any group based on race or ethnicity has nothing to do with racial supremacy of any kind. I see no reason to believe that a homogeneous nation is more corrupt, warlike or violent than a multicultural nation.
The “world of today” is a wreck, and I’d love to avoid it. Ditching Israel and avoiding Balkanization would probably help in doing so.
My experiences do not allow me to relate to your views on American society and regionalism. My guess is that you have spent very little time in the U.S., have seen very little of the U.S., or live as an outsider within the U.S.
Also, implicit in your argument is the belief that the United States as it was founded and functioned for most of its history is invalid or comparable to Zionism. That may be true from an American Indian perspective, but it certainly does not give a single immigrant or his descendants the right to comment or move here to take advantage of the spoils.
“It’s an economic myth that immigrants depress local wages. ”
That’s simply not true. I’ve seen what happens to industries where immigrants are brought in in large numbers, and the result is usually decreased or stagnating wages. I also know people who hire immigrants because they work for much less than Americans can work for without drastically reduced living standards. I’ve heard managers talk of bringing in illegals to lower production costs.
“The percentage of foreign-born nations has hovered between 5 and 15 % since 1850 (it’s currently at 11). This is hardly a culture changing influx and the point is, ordinary American citizens shouldn’t have a choice, especially when it comes to the US. You are all descendants of immigrants and the US has always been (since before the revolution) based on its openness to anyone wanting to go settle there. The whole idea of American culture, is that it evolves as its demography changes – Americans adapt some of the better traditions of its recent arrivals whilst the immigrants adopt general American traditions.”
Those stats are clearly wrong, and do not account for the massive number of illegal immigrants in the nation. Pre-1965 whites made up well over 80% of the population, and we are now talking about Latinos becoming a majority within 40 years. Obviously we are looking at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Also, previous waves of immigrants were mostly made up of western Europeans who were easier to assimilate, though I would argue that many never really did assimilate completely. Then there’s the fact that most Americans do not want the immigration, and almost certainly would have voted against it if given the choice.
“State based identities (with the exception of Texas) have largely disappeared from the mainstream. One no longer things they’re entering a foreign nation when they cross state borders, which is exactly what people used to think. As people move around more often, which they will do, their origins will become less relevant.”
That’s just not true. Regional and ethnic identities are still very strong, which is a major point of this blog. What people seem to have a problem with is white Americans having an identity. My guess is that if you live in the U.S., you live as an outsider, have a supreficial understanding of what goes on, or haven’t seen much.
I admit that I have a real problem with an immigrant questioning the validity of America or the rights of Americans to determine their own demographics, ideologies, culture or identity. My ancestors have been here since colonial times, and had an established identity well before hot dogs or melting-pot bs were dreamed up.
Shafiq:“It’s an economic myth that immigrants depress local wages. ”
Todd:”That’s simply not true.”
Yes it is.
By way of evidence I offer this simple analysis from an article in the Post :
* Immigration generally has only a limited impact on unemployment immediately, and no impact at all in the long run.
* In the short term, immigration undercuts wages for low-skilled workers and some high-skilled ones, and its impact on the total taxes paid by Americans is probably slightly negative. This is offset by an equally slight positive impact on economic growth, leaving its overall effect neutral.
* The long-term benefits are considerable, especially by entrepreneurial immigrants with university degrees, but also by high-school dropouts who later move into the middle class. Only a distinct minority of the children of poor immigrants fail to move up and remain a fiscal burden.
* Census data show that unemployment among native-born Americans without a high-school diploma was 30%, and underemployment much higher. Although it’s impossible to calculate their number, clearly some of these people are jobless because of competition from the legal and illegal immigrants. [While I surely sympathize with the millions of unemployed Americans who are simply unlucky, this is no place for people who don't have the self-discipline to complete their free (and ridiculously easy) K-12 education, for which we taxpayers pay $10K per year per child. As far as I'm concerned they should be encouraged to emigrate and make room for someone who appreciates the advantages of living here.]
* Almost all of the anti-immigrant activists who present themselves as the champions of America’s underclass, especially in Congress, are the same people who voted against the extension of unemployment benefits and who oppose social welfare safety nets, suggesting that hypocrisy is a major component of their politics.
* These hypocrites also deny the free-market principles that they claim to uphold on other issues. Labor is, after all, a service which follows the same economic principles as all other goods and services. The flow of labor is a form of international trade which, over time, increases productivity and surplus wealth for everyone.
* The issue is managing the issue of “over time,” but the American economy has proven over and over again to be remarkably quickly able to absorb immigrants and reach a new, richer equilibrium.
* We need policymakers to stop their infighting and work on those balances.
link to washingtonpost.com
Todd:”I admit that I have a real problem with an immigrant questioning the validity of America or the rights of Americans to determine their own demographics, ideologies, culture or identity. My ancestors have been here since colonial times, and had an established identity well before hot dogs or melting-pot bs were dreamed up. ”
Ah, is one of your ancestors in this picture here?
link to luckybogey.files.wordpress.com
Sammy, I did say colonial times. Also, there is a difference between immigrants and colonists.
When you bring up American Indians, you do raise the issue of there being no such thing as The Indians. The place where I was born was on land that the Cherokees took from the Creeks several generations before losing the land to whites. One wrong doesn’t erase another, but let’s not pretend that the natives were not familiar with war for land.
If you wish to dismantle the U.S., just say so. My guess is that most people who use the American Indian to support immigration really wish to abolish the nation as it was founded and operated for most of its history. Unless one is an actual Native American, he has no room to speak. My assumption is that you don’t live on a reservation. I would also guess that there is at least a little ethnic and racial animosity towards traditional America in many who wish for the destruction of traditional America.
I just find it hilarious that obviously non-assimilating people want other people to follow their “culture”; do as I say, he said, not as I do. I’d say, if your culture is worthwhile, it doesn’t need you to defend it. If not, nothing you do or say will save it.
Shafiq,
Your WP article hardly refutes my points, and most immigrants are not well-educated and entreperneurial. In fact, the vast majority of our immigration comes from the third world. There has never been a wave of immigration like the on that America has endured since 1964. And I would hardly expect honesty on the topic of immigration from any major American newspaper. You are even glossing over the fact that most Americans do not want the immigration.
I also like how you just casually throw working class Americans under the bus, as if their plight means nothing. Not everyone should go to college, and the rest of us have a duty to our fellow Americans to negotiate stability for everyone, rather than engaging in some “international trade” of humans for our own benefit. Clearly, someone like you should not be allowed to come to America.
“I just find it hilarious that obviously non-assimilating people want other people to follow their “culture”; do as I say, he said, not as I do. I’d say, if your culture is worthwhile, it doesn’t need you to defend it. If not, nothing you do or say will save it.”
Sammy, I can tell by your other posts that you are smarter than this statement. I’m not even sure who you are calling “non-assimilating.” Either way, it’s obvious that sheer numbers can overwhelm any nation or culture, no matter how worthy.
Working class Americans? Send them to California and Florida. There is an urgent need for uneducated fruit and vegetable pickers who will work from 5 am to 7 pm. More than 50% of produce is being discarded due to lack of workers. I’m sure many will be happy to work for minimum wage.
Clearly, someone like you should not be allowed to come to America.
Good thing then, I don’t live there.
I’m Indian, and if I could do anything to stop the 1947 partition, I would.
Me too, its the biggest disaster in the history of India, next to the East India Company.
Good. I’m not sure that 50% of produce goes unpicked anywhere in the U.S. That seems very high. But if some farms are producing more than they can handle, then they deserve to have their produce rotting in the fields. Americans aren’t lacking food. Maybe we should take a new look at industrial farming practices. Either way, I believe that America can do better for its citizens than gutting the economy and outsourcing and insourcing labor. It’s not like corporate American is largely owned by individual entreperneuers with no ties to government.
True. Too much food is an American problem. But as the recession proceeds and Mexicans decide to stay home [as the 40% drop in immigration indicates], you’ll have ample time to relish all the jobs that will not get outsourced.
America would do just fine without the immigrants, and teens and young adults would be better served by working instead of hanging out at the mall and living an extended youth as aimless consumers. Besides, America can’t remain a viable modern nation while relying on a continuous supply of cheap imported labor rather than innovation. I don’t even think that America can remain a viable nation by replacing its citizens with foreigners.
That’s simply not true. I’ve seen what happens to industries where immigrants are brought in in large numbers, and the result is usually decreased or stagnating wages. I also know people who hire immigrants because they work for much less than Americans can work for without drastically reduced living standards. I’ve heard managers talk of bringing in illegals to lower production costs.
I’m pretty sure we’ve had this conversation before, but here goes. The people who lose their jobs to immigrants, usually go on to find better paid jobs elsewhere. There’s simply no compelling evidence to support your statement (This is something I’ve spent considerable time researching). When there’s an influx of immigrants to an area where there isn’t enough labour demand, it manifests itself in unemployment – not of the locals, but of the people who moved there. If an employer had to choose between a local and an immigrant, they’d most likely choose the local, even if they had to pay a bit extra. Having said that, this is more true in Europe than in the US, as European states have higher minimum wages.
“Those stats are clearly wrong, and do not account for the massive number of illegal immigrants in the nation. Pre-1965 whites made up well over 80% of the population, and we are now talking about Latinos becoming a majority within 40 years. Obviously we are looking at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Also, previous waves of immigrants were mostly made up of western Europeans who were easier to assimilate, though I would argue that many never really did assimilate completely. Then there’s the fact that most Americans do not want the immigration, and almost certainly would have voted against it if given the choice.”
You’re not talking about migrants here, but about white people and non-white people. This is based entirely on racial prejudice seeing as a Latino from Mexico would find it much easier to assimilate than a Russian from Siberia, even though the former is non-white (according to your definition) and the latter is white. Are Lebanese people white? What about Turks?
In the early 20th century, most immigration came from Southern and Eastern Europe, whose citizens have pretty much assimilated completely. An American-born Hispanic has little in common with his cousins who liver further south, and we are seeing signs of them assimilating too.
That’s just not true. Regional and ethnic identities are still very strong, which is a major point of this blog. What people seem to have a problem with is white Americans having an identity. My guess is that if you live in the U.S., you live as an outsider, have a supreficial understanding of what goes on, or haven’t seen much.
I admit that I have a real problem with an immigrant questioning the validity of America or the rights of Americans to determine their own demographics, ideologies, culture or identity. My ancestors have been here since colonial times, and had an established identity well before hot dogs or melting-pot bs were dreamed up.
I don’t live in the US, but I have studied its history. Each wave of immigration had its doom-sayers but the civil wars and union-breakups never came, so excuse my scepticism when I hear people tell me the latest wave of immigrants won’t assimilate. People who don’t like American culture don’t come to the US – people who do immigrate, do like American culture and are willing to adapt to the American way of life.
Sometimes, assimilation happens without anyone noticing. Like in Israel for example, it continues to claim that it’s an outpost of Western civilisation, but its culture more similar to its neighbours.
My ancestors have been here since colonial times, and had an established identity well before hot dogs or melting-pot bs were dreamed up.
Your ancestors came here most likely because they had a problem with the ‘Old World’, religious persecution, debts, promised of a better life etc. If your ancestors were given a chance, why not the latest set of migrants?
America would do just fine without the immigrants, and teens and young adults would be better served by working instead of hanging out at the mall and living an extended youth as aimless consumers. Besides, America can’t remain a viable modern nation while relying on a continuous supply of cheap imported labor rather than innovation. I don’t even think that America can remain a viable nation by replacing its citizens with foreigners.
That’s where your wrong – America’s greatest strength is its ability to attract foreigners. Did you know that 3/4 of new business start-ups in the US were by immigrants? Just because you do away with immigrants, doesn’t mean that there’d be more jobs available for those who are left (this is a common mistake politicians make, ironically, paying for it through higher unemployment and lower economic growth). If you get rid of all the immigrants, unemployment wouldn’t budge and those aimless consumers will remain aimless consumers.
It’s also wrong to think that American growth has been due to cheap labour – it hasn’t. The average wage for an American has tripled since 1950 and if America doesn’t want to be left behind in the shadow of China and India, it needs as many dynamic immigrants as it can get. The wages of Chinese and Indians will eventually catch up to the average American wage and therefore, judging by population their economies will be three times as big.
Not only that, but they’ll have three times as many researchers, scientists and academics, all of whom will be contributing towards Chinese and Indian economic growth through the technology they produce. The US is in a unique position of being the only rich country whose population is rising.
Interesting post Shafiq. I know people who lost small businesses because the either couldn’t compete with those who hired immigrants, or wouldn’t hire immigrants themselves. I also know people who hire immigrants to stay in business, or to make more profits. It’s also important to note that the government expressly aimed stimulus jobs at non-whites, many of whom are immigrants.
“You’re not talking about migrants here, but about white people and non-white people. This is based entirely on racial prejudice seeing as a Latino from Mexico would find it much easier to assimilate than a Russian from Siberia, even though the former is non-white (according to your definition) and the latter is white. Are Lebanese people white? What about Turks?
In the early 20th century, most immigration came from Southern and Eastern Europe, whose citizens have pretty much assimilated completely. An American-born Hispanic has little in common with his cousins who liver further south, and we are seeing signs of them assimilating too.”
Mainly I’m talking about Westerners and non-Westerners, and it is clear that Westerners have always assimilated easier than non-Westerners. Like I stated earlier, a big part of this site deals with the problems of people who refuse to assimilate. Why possibly compound the problem in the future, especially when the citizens were never given a vote, and most are against massive immigration?
“I don’t live in the US, but I have studied its history. Each wave of immigration had its doom-sayers but the civil wars and union-breakups never came, so excuse my scepticism when I hear people tell me the latest wave of immigrants won’t assimilate. People who don’t like American culture don’t come to the US – people who do immigrate, do like American culture and are willing to adapt to the American way of life.
Sometimes, assimilation happens without anyone noticing. Like in Israel for example, it continues to claim that it’s an outpost of Western civilisation, but its culture more similar to its neighbours.”
There has never been a wave of immigration like the post 1965 wave of immigration, and there is likely to be a breaking point at some time. I have been to Israel, and I wouldn’t claim that Israel has asimilated into the Middle East. Israel is just an artificial experiment that doesn’t really belong anywhere. And asimilation isn’t the goal among many immigrants today. There are many radicals coming to this country who despise the West and Amrericans.
Actually, my ancestors weren’t given a chance. I don’t know the situation of each one, but some were speculators, and others were proably forced to flee. The point is that the whole world can’t come here, and there is something to be said for social and cultural stability.
You can affirm what you like Todd but that does not mean that you are right. When you affirm that “most Western nations have some form of preferential treatment for immigrants or minorities” I would challenge you to provide proof to back your claim. However, do not confuse temporary mechanisms to help new immigrants assimilate to the new environment and society with what you call “preferential treatment”.
Whether you relate to my views or not is irrelevant and quite frankly I could care less if did or did not. What I have studied and read may not be exactly your experience but I invite you to look a bit further than your nose and navel because those do not reflect what the rest of the American experience is.
I have spent most of my life actually in the US and also in Europe. So your guess is wrong. I may not have visited or lived in every single state but I do not need to because I can actually read (what a novel concept !!!!) and observe and I do not listen to Fox News–let me guess your favorite channel?
Now that you mention it, there is a certain affinity and similarity between the colonization of the US and the colonization of Palestine. Anyone who denies that has not read the history of either. However, if you have noticed I am an advocate of a single democratic state in Palestine/Israel. This is inspired by the system we have here in the US, where, at least constitutionally, all citizens are equal and enjoy the same rights and obligations (yes practice may be different but the constitution provides ground for challenging the practice). So jumping to the conclusion that I think the US system is invalid, once again you are wrong and only shows to what extent you are blinded by your ideological framework.
This is all I have to say on this subject and you may have the last word if you so please.
Aref, I have traveled over much of the US, and know people from all parts of the nation. I’m sure that I understand the nation better than you do. There is something to the view that a person can never really understand a foreign nation or culture like a native. I could never be an Indian, and you’ll never be an American. I will say than an outsider can sometimes see certain things more clearly than a native, but I don’t believe that’s the case with you.
I’m not familiar with the legal codes of other Western nations, but I do know that programs similar to affirmative action exist outside the US, and I also know that in many countries benefits to immigrants go well beyond what is needed to settle refugees. link to multietn.uu.se
I understand that you don’t care about my opinions, and that really is part of the problem with many immigrants who come to the West. You also don’t understand a fairly large segment of the population, if you would just lump me in as a “Fox News fan.”
And outside of having colonial origins, the United States and Israel aren’t that similar. I’m not even sure that I buy the colonialism part about Israel, and America was founded by breaking with colonialism–although it did pursue colonialism on its own.
“That’s where your wrong – America’s greatest strength is its ability to attract foreigners. Did you know that 3/4 of new business start-ups in the US were by immigrants?”
That may be the case, but the majority of new businesses also fold within a year. I would also guess that most of those businesses service immigrant communities, since many of the immigrant communities relatively are new. I wouldn’t think that the overall impact of immigrant businesses is that great for the rest of the nation. The immigrant angle to the housing/credit bubble is interesting, too. Its probably true that many of the businesses you mention were involved in building and construction, which has been a speculative house-of-cards over the last several decades.
There are plenty of negative stats you could find about incarceration rates or high school drop out rates among immigrants, as well. The situation isn’t as sunny as some make it out to be. I may be more cynical than many, but I do believe that I am more accurate than those who simply deny the problems that immigration brings.
“It’s also wrong to think that American growth has been due to cheap labour – it hasn’t. The average wage for an American has tripled since 1950 and if America …”
The devil must be in the statistics with those claims. It’s generally understood that the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the nation has widened over the last three or four decades, and that large amounts of credit and two income earners are needed to attain the standard of living that you mention.
I’m not as high on China and India as you are, as I understand that they have real problems of their own. To be honest, I’m not worried about being left in the dust as much as I am worried about being dragged down to the same level. Either way, both nations have a very long way to go to catch up to the West.
Look Todd, I am an American, and I find your views on immigration prejudiced and repugnant. Why should your bigoted reverence for a “white” cultural and political supremacy supersede another man’s desire for a livelihood? Why should we be able to hoard power and privileges, withholding them on the basis of skin color or “culture”? And why would we want to?
It’s certainly not as if the United States has acquired this wealth in a vacuum. Free movement of labor is a pillar of capitalism. And it has been the United States strong-arming Latin America into economic integration under a capitalist framework, not the other way around. Clearly the United States benefits from this “interdependence”. But when the Latin American “other” stands to benefit a tiny bit, you want to renege.
And regardless of the possible costs, immigration is largely economically functional. It is not only bigoted, but absurd to wall off people who want only to serve an order that benefits us tremendously in exchange for a fraction of our privilege.
You seem to be attacking exactly what makes America different and better than Israel: that there is a fundamental unity and continuity through changing racial/ethnic balances, such that racial/ethnic change is not unthinkable or even undesirable, except to (marginal) racists. I worry that if Minuteman types actually were in charge here there would be practically nothing to distinguish the United States from Israel.
Thank you Robin. I agree wholeheartedly.
“I understand that you don’t care about my opinions, and that really is part of the problem with many immigrants who come to the West. You also don’t understand a fairly large segment of the population, if you would just lump me in as a ‘Fox News fan.’”
Only a racist like you would generalize from what is supposed to be an individual’s opinion of another’s rhetorical BS to a whole class. You have proven beyond a doubt what you are about.
“Only a racist like you would generalize from what is supposed to be an individual’s opinion of another’s rhetorical BS to a whole class. You have proven beyond a doubt what you are about. ”
Aref, I never made any statement about racial superiority, so I have no clue what you are talking about. Wildly throwing around the term racism means about as much as wildly throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism. You are clueless and hysterical.
Great, Robin, I’m glad you’ve established your moral superiority over me. Give me a break! Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows damn well that immigration is very unpopular in America, has been gone about in an extremely undemocratic manner, has tons of negative consequences and that there are logical limits to how far the situation can go before things fall apart.
If you buy into the propaganda about a nation of immigrants or melting pots and salad bowls, what can I do? Those are largely 20th/late 19th century ideas.
I’m just going to asume that you know nothing about the negative effects of cheap labor and ignore your comments about what you call capitalism and the flow of humans.
Race, culture and group politics do matter. Do you really pay attention to this website at all? Do you?
I suggest you go to a LaRaza or ACLU meeting and cry about racism, anti-Semitism or bigotry, because most people are tiring of the game. I don’t take people like you seriously, and I certainly don’t consider your views to be saintly. If you don’t wish to live like an American, then maybe you should move abroad.
I have more at stake in America than any migrants or emigres.
Your Zionist comparison also makes no sense. I’ve made no statements about a God-given right to anything, and I’ve made no claims that any group of citizens should be harmed, dispossessed or given an inferior legal position. I just believe that multiculturalism is a sham, and understand that many people who have come to America have no respect for the people, culture, laws or traditions that were already in place.
Your post has zero relevance to the article at hand. It seems that you’re only capable of Palestinian-bashing and dictating what the Palestinians must do if they want to achieve piece.
Sorry, Israel, that’s one war you actually can’t win by murdering enough Palestinians to silence them.
This is hilarious! Israelis are completely nuts.
How do they demolish the homes of indigenous peoples, evict them, dispossess them, steal their land and resources, build Jewish only settlements, Jewish only roads, entertain mythology that belongs in prehistoric times [if at all, since Shlomo Sand's book seems to indicate its all fiction] and still consider themselves victims!
“entertain mythology that belongs in prehistoric times”
Oh, it doesn’t go back quite that far. It is sort of funny, tho, to watch Zionists struggle for the 19th century British Public School Biblical geography they have adopted.
But there is a kernel of truth in the Israeli attitude. I think an awful lot of people in Israel are indeed victims. But they will, as people do, take every evasive and obfuscatory route they can to avoid the simple facts that they are, above all, the victims of other Jews.
Can you put a date on Abraham’s birth in Ur?
“Can you put a date on Abraham’s birth in Ur?”
No, I have another engagement on that day.
Go, make fun of the ESL Indian.
“Go, make fun of the ESL Indian.”
Okay, I’m flummoxed! Does anybody know what “sammy” is refering to?
I might mention that some of my best friends are ESL Indians, and I wouldn’t mind if my daughter dated one, if I had a daughter. Marriage, of course, we would have to discuss, cause I’ll never leave my little girls behind.
Sammy, don’t take it personally, that wasn’t Mooser making fun of your language skills (which, incidentally are actually quite good for ESL). Mooser makes jokes in any opportunity he sees them. I’m pretty sure he’s made one or two good ones off of my own posts. :)
This might sound strange, but I’d actually consider it a sign of appreciation on Mooser’s part.
Look the initials “ESL” and combined with “Indian” are not connecting with anything, but I do assure you, I will be happy to make jokes about it as soon as I find out what it is.
And Chaos4700, you should be more compassionate about people’s problems, especially mine. Look, I admit, I’m a jokie! It was a just a way to get a thrill at first, a stale pun hear, a little parody there, a brittle and sparkling jape or two on week-ends, but soon I was addicted to humor! For God’s sake, look at me now, I’ve got an MC on my back, and I’m up to five sockdolagers a day!
I’m hoping an extended stay at Humornon will help.
And besides, Chaos, what do you know of suffering? Think about mypoor wife! I try all my material out on her, including my organ arrangements!
Oh, yeah, my point, there was a point, really, honest! My point is that most of the prevarications and fabrications of Zionism are of recent vintage, and I very much suspect, not designed to appeal to Jews in any particular sense as much as they were designed to appeal to the people who could help the Zionists acheive their aims.
The Zionists didn’t wrest their “homeland” from the “Arabs”, there’s not enough Zionist Jews in the whole world to do that. They got their foot in the door through Britian (General allenby considered gaining Palestine for Britain to be the height of his career) .
Send her my condolences then, would you Mooser? ;)
Sammy, you’re Indian?
Home-born or diaspora?
Okay, Indian I got, from India, but what’s the “ESL” part. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that. Or maybe I am, but it’s not connecting up at the moment.
And again, my point, Sammy, is that there is nothing at all ancient, or for that matter, even settled, about anything having to do with the Jewish religion or culture (not a bad thing at all, in my humble) and no mechanism which could accomplish that. So it’s always open season on Judaism, especially for Jews (and who would have more right?). Jewish religion can be subverted, co-opted, re-arranged, or invented to meet the needs of the people doing the expounding.
BTW, Sammy, you got any proof Abraham even existed? Mhy point is: the entire edifice of Jewish religion and culture, as expounded by the Zionists, sprung full grown from the heads of Zionists, to meet their needs.
Oh! Sorry. That stands for “English as Second Language.”
I’m a desi murgi now, quite recent, I spent the last decade and some as “diaspora” whatever that is
Mooser:
And again, my point, Sammy, is that there is nothing at all ancient, or for that matter, even settled, about anything having to do with the Jewish religion or culture
I’m not so certain; I’m still trying to figure out the dichotomy of atheists who are Jews because their mummy is one and Jews who are not “real” because mummy didn’t come from a direct line from Ur. Thats before you read biology and find out that they’re mainly covert Kurds with German mothers. And thats apart from the fact that the Ashkenazi, according to the Bible, are the bastard sons of Gog and Magog.
Interestingly, completely missing from the extensive Indian and Persian literature. Unless Abraham is Brahma and Sara is Saraswati. In which case, Shlomo might want to go look for Jesus in Kashmir [where he died of old age, of course] and who knows, they may discover that Moenjo Daro was the **real** promised land.
Oh okay. I use the word ‘diaspora’ for lack of a suitable alternative word (ethnic Indian who wasn’t born in or no longer lives in India). When there’s around 30 million of us non-Indian Indians, I think we make up an important group distinct from our home-born cousins, especially if (like me) you’ve never set foot in the country you’re meant to be ‘from’.
Well I don’t consider ABCDs as “real” Indians, so there
link to en.wikipedia.org
I’m assuming the “A” part, naturally
English as Second Language! Of course! Okay, now I know what ESL means.
Thanks, that’s a puzzle solved, and all in one day!
“they may discover that Moenjo Daro was the **real** promised land.”
For God’s sake sammy, be careful what you say! Next thing you know it’ll all be part of greater Israel!
“Beginning with Israel’s traditional strategic concept, conceived by David Ben-Gurion, which posits that to win its wars, the IDF would have to take the fight to its enemies”
So that’s where we got this military strategy since the neocons starting running DC.
Hats off to PNAC, and to that handful of government crew and their scribes.
It seems though that Israel is fighting on this front as well. Sweden, Barak Obama, Goldstone, and the Freedom March have all been widely discredited and humiliated.
Israel could surprise us all and win this.
We shouldn’t underestimate Israel’s ability to fight on new fronts and act accordingly.
And what does “winning” look like, exactly? Tell me in terms of numbers of corpses, please, that’s probably the most reliable metric we have of measuring Israel’s “success” thus far.
Opinion polls generally paint a different picture. According to the 2009 BBC Global Poll Israel has a reputation only slightly better than North Korea – and this was conducted before Gaza. I’m eagerly anticipating the 2010 poll. Maybe Israel can snatch the grand prize for “most negative views” from Iran.
Here’s a 45 minute video of Chomsky, giving his version of Gaza, one year later: link to democracynow.org
Inter alia, he does end up talking about how things have evolved into Israel now trying
to win its war for its legitimacy against world consensus. He points out that one way the analogy with apartheid does not work is that the white S Africans needed the natives, while the Israelis do not; they just want the Palestinians to leave. OTH, he
says that through 1989 the USA supported the apartheid regime, and then the USA
slightly shifted away from that support, and that shift by the one vote that really counts
at the UN spelled the end of the apartheid regime. He implied that is the thing to
watch to know which way the wind blows–and the whole world knows it. He didn’t say
what caused the USA to quit rubber-stamping apartheid regime; nor did he say what
might cause a shift in the USA government’s shift away from rubber-stamping Israel.
Early in the video, he lays out his usual conceit that the USA and Israel have been locked
in embrace entirely due to a coincidence of the exact same interests.
Also, he debunks Richard Witty’s version of who and what caused the Israeli turkey shoot in Gaza a year ago. He said it was Israeli preplanned, and instigated on November 4th against the Palestinians while the enabler nation, the USA, was
preoccupied with its national elections; and that Israel spurned subsequent attempts
by the Palestinians to keep the peace before the pre-planned turkey shoot commenced.
The skillful right in Israel consider the conflict never-ending and are determined to not yeild in any manner, and also not engage in exagerated responses.
They seek only minimization of Israeli casualties, and will do any incremental effort towards that end, efforts that are invisible to the outside world.
Your proposals for dissent and condemnation change nothing on the ground, nothing in reality.
There have always been approximately the same number of opponents to Israel in the world, repeating approximately the same arguments, rejecting compromises, and therefore delaying one decade after another any justice or hope for Palestinians in any form.
Netanyahu has been warned now about going too far with annexation and will limit his expansion plans to East Jerusalem and “natural growth”, that has already been partially accepted internationally.
Its a horrible outcome for the world, as it permanently keeps Palestinians in half a world, and always in a state of conflict and therefore some suppression.
To make change on the ground, change in reality, requires pushing for the Arab League proposal and accepting negotiated settlement that the PA accomplishes on that basis.
The international solidarity for Palestine will evaporate in a week. The EU proposal, based on the Arab League proposal will be accepted, done.
No more Israel to attack.
Israel is forever the victim in your eyes, Witty, no matter how many Arab civlians they slaughter, huh?
Good old No.4! (The Whole World Sucks!) there are so many interesting ways to use it.
But it always ends up the same: everybody else is responsible for making Israel work.
Witty, this is how they started: link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Scroll down to the reproduced typescript report from the British Colonial office, and the list of terrorist actions by the Zionists. Mostly, they snuck around at night and shelled the “Arab quarters” (in the language of the report) shelled civilians, to drive them out of areas the Zionists wanted. What people could ever accept barbarians like that coming in and taking over, with the connivance of the colonial masters of the area?
Oh lookee there! Zionist truck bombs! Ahh, but the world is full of anti-semites, who (whom?) they ascribe this fiendish invention to the Muslims! And we thought of it first!
I see what you mean, Richard, nobody wants to give us any credit!
There’s also the Davidka, which can be thought of as the philosophical forerunner to the Qassam rocket. Just yet another example of the “civilizing” influence of European Zionism on the Middle East!
Well yea!!!! Wasn’t it Herzl who wrote in his “Jewish State” “We shall form there (where the Jewish State would be established) a part of the rampart of civilization against barbarism” So you see it is working. We should give Zionists credit about teaching us how become civilized and use rockets instead petitioning :))
The legitimacy of Israel depends on the legitimacy of the expulsions of 1948, and since these were rather obviously not legitimate there is no valid argument that I can see for the legitimacy of Israel’s existence.
The two-state solution as generally envisaged would represent both a shockingly unfair partition and a legitimation of an extreme injustice. Serious problems.
A site for Ur of the Chaldees was identified with great flourish by the self-taught archaeologist Sir (Charles) Leonard Woolley in (I think) 1925 – he was a clergyman’s son, brilliant, a bit too imaginative. As Mooser suggests, he was, just like me, very much a product of the British minor public school system (I was learning the same biblical geography 30 years later) and of Oxford. The site of Ur is disputed.
I think the more important questions about dating concern not so much the real Abraham as the Abrahamic cycle of stories and poetry, one of the world’s great literary works. In that story Abraham arrives in Palestine from Aram, makes mistakes, puts things right, pays taxes to the legitimate ‘gentile’ ruler, King Melchizedek, and achieves a profound understanding of God’s purpose and of the true value of human life. This mirrors the work of those who arrived from the same direction in the sixth century, reorganising everything, claiming to be ‘returning exiles’, and calling on Jerusalem to ‘rejoice greatly’ at the arrival of her legitimate Achaemenid king. In their writings they achieved one of the great poetic visions of God’s work to reunite and rescue the human race. It was they, probably working on very little earlier material, who gave the Abraham story its final or near final form.
Which I think illustrates the point that Mooser makes about the openness of religion to interpretation and reinterpretation.
The insistence on matrilinear descent was not originally there, as the story of Ruth, the mother of kings, shows.
Pingback: Israeli journo advocates for the segregation of days past