From Coteret: Tel Aviv presents municipal program to stop Jewish girls from dating Palestinian boys.
The municipal finance committee decided three weeks ago to give NIS 250,000 [~$66,000] to what it refers to as “‘an aid program for immigrant girls at risk”. The program will be launched this month in the Shapira, Kiryat Shalom and Nevs Ofer neighborhoods. The committee said some of the project’s aims are ‘locating immigrant girls at risk… case-specific family and community intervention to locate the girls… and locating the appropriate figures in the community to treat the girls.’
The program is aimed to treat up to 120 young women under 22, and is jointly run by the Tel Aviv Municipality, the Absorption Ministry (which will sponsor 75 percent of it), and the World Congress of Bukharan Jews
…”the term ‘distressed immigrant girls’ is politically correct whitewash for the true destination of the budget,” a senior source in the municipality said. “This is a war against the trend of scores of Jewish girls getting together with minority men and with migrant workers, and then getting into trouble with their families and the families of the minority men, that often ostracize them for being Jewish.”
Yooonira? Is this the sort of thing Alex Jones talks about? Like I said, I don’t really listen to him. I mean, technically this isn’t eugenics, I suppose — this is more about racial purity.
Gotta protect our girls from being led astray – or worse – by the oily charm of those swarthy, unshaven characters of dubious origins and questionable decency.
“families of the minority men, that often ostracize them for being Jewish.”
No-one would ever ostracise the minority men for not being Jewish.
you talkin’ about Barney Frank?
Barney Frank? Who he?
He’s a fat, oily gay American of Jewish background, who always plays one side against the other, and,for example,was on the left side of the USA home disaster (Fannies)
that the right side (financially) of Wall St finished off. He’s a heart attack for average Americans.
The separation of the religions/ethnicities is bad. But to invoke the name of Emmett Till is in poor taste. There was no threat of violence in the report.
Only that Israeli Jews need to remain reinrassig. That’s all! No violence to see here, move along.
That’s why it’s just a “shadow”. And it’s not as if Israeli separation (apartheid in Afrikaans, segregation in American) is not accompanied by violence and murder, which are hard to “separate” from supremacism and dehumanisation of the Other.
Invoking every image of the southern crimes against blacks does not mean that this comparison, even when including the term “shadow” rather than mirror, is apt, appropriate, fair or useful. It is rhetoric and demagoguery. Emmet Till was killed for whistling at a white woman. This is not the origin or the basis of Jews killing Palestinians. If Phil Weiss wants to let his rhetorical “freak flag fly” he has that right. This is his blog. If you want to say, “amen” pronounced like the Hebrew or like the southern blacks or the southern whites or however they pronounce it in Italy, that is your right too. But putting reins on rhetoric might be more useful than letting rhetoric fly free and freaky.
WJ,
Generally speaking, I agree with you about the pitfalls of hyperbole, which is why I try to avoid Nazi comparisons and have some doubts about Abunimah’s recent use of the word “genocide” in reference to the abhorrent views expressed by Martin Kramer.
Having said that, there must be some way of expressing the profound process of marginalisation and dehumanisation of Palestinians going on in Israel, since before its inception, but gaining ever greater momentum. Dating Jewish girls is not the specific motive of the violence against Palestinians in Israel, but it does share a common basis – just as the murder of Emmet Till was not an isolated incident related only to a black boy whistling at white woman.
We live in an era of relative subtlety. Overt colonialism, totalitarianism, ethnic cleansing, segregation, etc. are so 20th century. Our leaders have learned to pursue similar ends without the excesses that were the downfall of their predecessors, making us believe that they are different, democratic and ethical. So how do we say the emperor has no clothes without actually saying it?
I would go a step further, recognising the underlying mechanisms of racism and dehumanisation at play in Israel is a kind of watershed separating liberal Zionist critics of Israel from non/anti-Zionist critics. The former focus on specific incidents which they strive to characterise in the most precise terms possible, rejecting any analogy that “exaggerates” the problem or “demonises” those responsible. The end result is that we may agree in our criticism of various abuses, particularly with regard to the occupation, but we are on completely different pages in terms of context, motives and possible ramifications.
This brings us back to the discussion of Zionism as a survival-based ideology. Liberal Zionists believe that the core values of Zionism are sound, viewing Israeli abuses as non-inherent exceptions. The tipping point, at which we recognise the fundamental untenability of the core is individual of course, but assuming you are a man of good faith (which I do), you must have your tipping point as well. Mine came at the time of the Second Intifada, with the murder of 13 Palestinian Israeli citizens by the Israel Police (with virtual impunity). What would it take for you to begin to question the fundamental soundness of Zionism and the “Zionist project”?
Shmuel, you wrote you “have some doubts about Abunimah’s recent use of the word ‘genocide’.”
Here is MJ Rosenberg today (now yesterday, I guess) addressing the same thing in his article “Yes, Kramer Did Advocate Palestinian Genocide” on HuffPo: link to huffingtonpost.com
Rosenberg quotes the Geneva Convention:
MRW,
I know about the technical definitions of genocide, whereby Israel’s actions against the Palestinians (not just Kramer’s ghoulish proposal) can be defined as genocide. I am not completely convinced however, by the broader, more inclusive definitions of the term, and question the wisdom of using “doomsday” words to criticise Israel and its supporters, when and where everyday words can be more effective. As someone put it on another thread, Anees’ description of the terrifying reality of Palestinian life is far more powerful and convincing than throwing aound words like genocide.
I did say however, that I have my doubts, not that I am dead set against it, and I have immense respect for Abunimah and his judgement.
Have everyday words been effective, Shmuel? They haven’t, in the United States — where it’s Palestinian actions, any action, from some youths throwing rocks, to unguided rocket attacks, and then the ridiculously exaggerated importance on the Hamas “charter” and some out and out falsified “evidence” of Palestinian rhetoric, are all framed as genocide against the Jews.
And when Zionists use the word, it goes largely uncontested — because if you’re willing to argue about that, well, then, obviously you’re a Holocaust denier!
Shmuel,
I’m not sure what it would take for me to question the soundness of Zionism. The implementation of Lieberman’s “no loyalty, no citizenship” would be a blow. The implementation of “the buses to the Allenby bridge will be loading at the Damascus Gate (Bab el Amud) at 8 tomorrow morning” would be a blow.
But I do not wish to even utter these phrases. Something about the Emmet Till headline has caused a certain phrase to go through my head: “Don’t open your mouth and give the devil a chance.” Al tiftach peh l’satan ra. Obviously it is more likely that the words of a Baruch Marzel would cause acts of violence rather than a shadow of a headline on a blog that right wingers never read, so something irrational is working in my mind currently.
I’m not sure that I am so convinced of the sound core of Zionism. When I recently read (ten years, to me, is recent) Hannah Arendt’s predictions that a Zionist state (rather than a homeland) would cause unalterable hostility from the surrounding neighborhood and necessitate alliances with Great Powers the accuracy of her prediction came as a bit of a shock. I recall a documentary (or a book) about the Sinai campaign of 56 and Ben Gurion stating that his hand shook (some expression of extreme doubt) when he signed onto the British French plan.
I can’t rewrite history or wish it away. I credit the Zionist movement with saving the lives of many of my relatives who moved to Israel from Poland in the 30′s. I understand the current of history that in the aftermath of WWII made the creation of a state an “irresistible” idea whose time had come. Yet I idealize New York’s multicultural society rather than Israel’s ethnocentrism.
But I don’t believe that New York’s multiculturalism would replace the current ethnocentrism in the land if Zionism is defeated. This is not a solid belief in Zionism, but rather a solid fear of the alternative.
On to the more mundane questions of the post at hand: Just a few brief points.
I wish Israel had civil marriages so that Jew and nonJew could legallly marry without traveling to Cyprus (let alone cohen and divorcee).
The Emmett Till headline emphasizes the racial aspect of the conflict rather than the religious aspect of the conflict.
There are racial aspects to the conflict. (But in fact it is certainly difficult for me to tell the difference between most Mizrachi Jews and most Arabs. I am curious as to the “intermarriage” rate between Mizrachi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, rather than in the Diaspora. Also: every Jew from an Ashkenazi background knows at least a handful of Ashkenazi Jews who could easily pass for Mizrachi.)
A bit disjointed and I’m sure incomplete, but an attempt at sincerity.
Chaos,
I don’t think the right everyday words have been used; words like racism, supremacism, murder, torture, massacre, intentional starvation, duplicity, state terrorism and even apartheid, Jim Crow and ethnic cleansing. IMHO words like Nazi and genocide do more harm than good – all the more so, because they come out of the blue for most westerners (particularly in the US). Why would someone who has never heard the word murder or massacre with regard to Israel be more likely to believe genocide or holocaust?
WJ: I can’t rewrite history or wish it away. I credit the Zionist movement with saving the lives of many of my relatives who moved to Israel from Poland in the 30’s.
My grandparents also left Poland in the 30s – for Canada. My grandfather was fortunate enough to have a “useful profession” and a sponsor. A distant cousin of his got a visa for Brazil and another for Uruguay. One of my grandmother’s brothers was a Zionist and went to Palestine, but he could probably also have managed a visa for Canada or South America. All members of my grandparents’ families who did not leave Poland in the 30s were murdered by the Nazis (with the exception of one cousin who was hidden by a non-Jewish family). Undoutedly, there were Jews who were unable to obtain visas for other coutries, but managed to wing “certificates” for Palestine. Not all were motivated by Zionism or owed their survival to the Zionist movement.
WJ: I’m not sure that I am so convinced of the sound core of Zionism.
So where does your defence of Israel and Zionism on this blog come from? Why do you feel the need to focus on certain details, take issue with certain positions (we alls do and we all have our reasons)? It’s good for the blog that you present another point of view, but I’m wondering where it comes from on a personal level (not too personal I hope – feel free not to answer). There’s more to it than just criticism of the one-state idea, out of concern for the physical safety of Jews in the unlikely event such an idea is ever implemented.
“But in fact it is certainly difficult for me to tell the difference between most Mizrachi Jews and most Arabs. ”
That’s because Mizrahi Jews are Arabs. There are Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, as well as Druze, Baha’i, etc., Arabs.
The Mizrahi are (or were, in Arab lands) native speakers of Arabic. Their culture was Arabic.
And their genetic make-up was Arabic. That’s why they still look like Arabs.
Additionally, RoHa, a lot of Mizrahi culture has been expunged in the migration to Israel, since the Ashkenazi Jews of European descent wanted to retain control. To the point where Arabic is now being stripped form signage in Israel.
The false equivalence between Palestinians who were and continue to be ethnically cleansed — by guns and land mines and bulldozers, and Mizrahi who left their countries behind. I’m not going to say there wasn’t anti-Jewish violence in Arab countries but it was NOTHING like the Nakba. Zionists induced the Mizrahi to migrate, by the promise of land and jobs and membership in a “Jews only” club modeled after the image European decadence.
And failing that, Zionist terrorists would have no qualms about targeting Mizrahi communities in Arab lands themselves, and making them scapegoats to Israeli state terror, if that’s what it took to “persuade” them to emigrate.
Shmuel,
I think it’s a matter of the ‘pond’, you know, that thing that physically divides us now. In Italy, you can hear or read a discussion of Israel that would be utterly silenced here. You can’t discuss the Holocaust in Europe, question details of it, whatever. We can’t discuss Israel here. It’s either all Hatikva and happy techno-genius Jews in Israel, or nothing. (I’m being facetious but you get the point.)
The mere act by MJ Rosenberg of attaching the word ‘genocide’ to Kramer’s words — and you can’t get away with that here unless you invoke the Geneva Convention and its laws because we’re a ‘nation of laws’, so-called, and at war — is somewhat monumental, especially considering who he is. The fact that a Harvard-connected Pro-Israelist could be accused of inciting technical genocide after the Goldstone Report critics used Congress to convince Joe Six-Pack that Israel could never do such a thing is going to give some people pause. For the first time.
I know exactly what you’re saying. And I happen to agree. Listening to hyperventilated hyperbolic vocabulary is exhausting when simple words and unembellished observations will do; in fact, they are more powerful. That, of course, is my complaint about what we hear from, and about, Israel. Here. It’s always over-the-top threats to Israel, over-the-top terrorism bearing down to eradicate Israel, it’s always Israel that hangs by a thread about to be destroyed any second now unless it can get billions from our treasury in military aid, on top of the daily stipend. Yada-yada.
I’d be interested: are you allowed to get Al-Jazeera in Italy? We’re not. Well, DC allowed it last year, and I think Vermont and Maine have it, but the ADL got it banned across the rest of the country.
MRW: I’d be interested: are you allowed to get Al-Jazeera in Italy?
Personally, I don’t have a TV and get most of my information online. A quick look at Italian Wiki however, tells me that Al-Jazeera is available In Italy, directly via satellite (Hotbird) and in a couple of satellite packages (Sky and Alice).
You’re right about the pond. Despite our current fanatically pro-Israel government and serious Zionist inroads into the opposition (not by US standards though), the mainstream press writes things about I/P that would (and does) send even the most stoic ADLer into fits of apoplexy.
The USA is most resistant to allow its citizens to be informed via Al Jazeera English TV. Why, that would take Joe The Plumber right out of his invisible crib. Most Joes and Janes in the USA have no access to Al Jazeera, or even to its only two competitors, BBC Intl ad CNN Intl. Gotta keep the American masses dumbed down. Most of them never even heard of the word Gaza, or Nakba. But they all know Anne Frank and The Holocaust. What bad guys the Germans were. And how their ancestors murdered the native Americans. The few who’ve heard of Al Jazeera think its Terror TV. What Guttenberg’s printing press was to the Reformation, satellite tv is to Al Jazeera English’s POV. For the first time since the invention of tv, the Third World’s POV
is being put out there for Joe and Jane to see. This is an earthquake; and
consider that last year US media coverage of foreign news was cut by 40%
due to US economic breakdown–foregn news is never really profitable–
and this in a time where “it’s a small world” global interconnectivity and economics…. Just what Joe and Jane need, they can’t get job, or pay their mortgage, and they can’t get any objective news on the wars their country is fighting at great expense, nor can they get a dole from the US government like each Jewish Israeli gets every year from the US government–and so, additionally, they can’t get objective news from their MSM, nor can they
get it from Al Jazeera. If you want to keep a baby a baby forever, don’t allow him or her to read, and if they somehow manage to do that, make sure they only read what you approve:
link to alternet.org
MRW, using your logic.. The only way the Palestinians can procreate is if they have subsides and welfare to pay for their kids? There is a huge difference between preventing something and simply not funding it anymore. This was Kramer’s argument, nothing else.
Shmuel,
To the degree that the Zionist movement resulted in the Balfour Declaration and to the degree that the Balfour declaration resulted in the British mandate with its “homeland for the Jews” priority, the influx of Jews to I/P between 1920 when there were 85,000 Jews and 1939 when there were about 400,000 Jews should be credited to the Zionist movement. (In theory the Weizman Feisal agreement, which Feisal conditioned on the noninterference of Western Powers, which the mandate negated, might have resulted in a greater influx of Jews. Another of those “what if’s”.)
As far as why the survival of the Jewish people, specifically those living in I/P, is so important to me, I’m not really sure or to be precise I’m quite sure that I don’t wish to discuss the variety of reasons in the open on this here comments section. If you wish to discuss it elsewhere, I’m amenable.
RoHa- What percentage of the genetic makeup of the people of Iraq for example is Arabic? And what was their genetic makeup before the Islamic conquest? Persians for example seem genetically similar to Arabs. Are “Persian Jews” Arabic in their genetic makeup? Or are we mixing up terms here. Maybe Middle Eastern genetic makeup would be more accurate and Arabic is a language and a culture. I don’t know.
Wrong, again, as usual, yonira. Your losing streak is intact.
Kramer refers to Israel’s total strategy for Gaza, which includes restricting the food supply to induce malnutrition. Malnutrition is known to reduce birth rates and increase child mortality. In short, slow genocide.
WJ, Persians are NOT genetically similar to Arabs or other semitic peoples. They are a caucasian people.
The people of Iraq are of mixed heritage, which includes a significant amount of Arab blood. They were subject for centuries to raids from Arab tribes, many of which settled in the area.
WJ,
I don’t doubt that there are Jews who owe their lives to the fact that they managed to immigrate to Palestine. Many more owe their lives to the fact that they or their forebears were able to immigrate to other countries – especially the US, beginning in the second half of the 19th century (the other side of my own family). Could more have been saved had the Zionist leadership been more concerned with saving Jews than with furthering the cause of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, very possibly. Certainly after the war, the Jewish agency was adamant in preventing resettlement of the DPs anywhere but Palestine (see e.g. Abba Hillel Silver’s response to the UN Partition Plan – the only article rejected outright by the Jewish Agency was the recommendation that every effort be made to resettle the DPs wherever possible). Let us also not forget those who Jews who have lost their lives as a direct result of Zionism. Of course many more non-Jews have lost their lives, in fact and in essence, as a direct result of Zionism. I’m sure you will agree that this is not a trivial consideration.
To the extent that you are willing to discuss this here, do you mean survival of the Jewish people as a people (Sand fans please don’t pick nits here) or do you mean the physical survival of Jews as individuals? If it is the latter, I think the reasons are obvious and understandable. If it is the former, why do you think Zionism (of which you say you may not be convinced) – particularly political Zionism – is a sine qua non? If it were just a matter of personal curiosity, I’d be happy to have this discussion elsewhere, but I think it is especially important to have this discussion on this blog. If some of the other poster don’t like it, they can move along, nothing to see here. If you would still rather not pursue it, I understand.
WJ queries:
Are “Persian Jews” Arabic in their genetic makeup? Or are we mixing up terms here. Maybe Middle Eastern genetic makeup would be more accurate and Arabic is a language and a culture. I don’t know.
Arabic is language and culture. Genetic mapping (haplotype mapping it is called these days) show fairly clearly that Saudis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Persians and other N. Africans all make up their own genetic group but with evidence of migrations between them. And yes the Ashkenazi Jews share some markers with their Palestinian cousins (Sand needn’t worry though because they also share markers with Central Asian people where the Khazars once lived). We can even see Mongolian haplotypes mapping with the populations living in land once conquered by the Mongols.
Shmuel,
Zionism as the need for Jews to be sovereign in Zion as in statehood, with its implications of majority rather than minority, turns out to be a very tricky business, given the desire of the Palestinians to be fruitful and multiply and live in the same place. So statehood is only a necessity in terms of practicality.
What are the advantages for individual Jews and a a large chunk of the Jewish people to live in Zion? We don’t know yet, because in fact the history has been one of conflict and war rather than peace. I think the Hebrew language is a great thing, partially because of the books that have been written in it, but mostly because though all young children are beautiful, young children speaking Hebrew are particularly dear to me. After the war (WWII) there were very few children left who spoke Yiddish and so children speaking a Jewish language are dear to me.
Is there something useful to the Jewish soul to be nourished by the hills of Jerusalem? Maybe not just the Jewish soul, but certainly the Jewish soul. Certainly the Haredis make this difficult to feel for their predominance of the city makes it difficult to appreciate the hills. And certainly the conflict makes it difficult to feel the hills. Once I stood on the walls of the city near the Jewish Quarter looking out over the City of David (I guess it’s Silwan), appreciating its beauty. Along came a supernationalist and said something to the effect of “We need to buy up those homes, so that they will be Jewish homes” and this sentiment dispelled my trance rather than enhanced it.
The idea of a rebuilt Jerusalem, not the question of sovereignty, but a Jerusalem truly at peace, though it is not near, is a useful goal and a worthwhile goal. Making New York into a better city is also a useful goal and a worthwhile goal. But I guess it lacks the poetry that a rebuilt Jerusalem has for me.
Of course a Jerusalem at peace threatens: what to do when they find a red heifer and wish to resume the sacrifices that I wish to consign to the dustbin of history. But it is something to be thankful for that there is the sound of brides and grooms emerging from their bridal canopies and children laughing with joy and glee. And if peace could be added to this!
I don’t feel that all Jews need to live in Israel to experience their Jewishness and certainly when bringing Jews to Israel is part of a demographic contest and part and parcel of the “you can’t come back, because this isn’t your land, but we must come back, because it belongs to us”- no, no, no. But even atheists have a spiritual side and something to give to the Jewish people and if Jerusalem were at peace, that Jerusalem would be a destination for Jews other than just committed Zionists and committed Torah’ ists, that new Jerusalem would improve the Jewish people and improve what we might give to the world.
I think world travel has value and the fact that today there are only two major homes for the Jews: America and Israel is lamentable. If only eastern European Jewry had not been wiped out and there was a large vibrant population to visit there rather than death camps and ghettos. So I don’t subscribe to: we must be ingathered and segregate ourselves from the world. But I think there is a tone deafness to many Jewish atheists and maybe they would hear a new range of notes or see a new range of colors if Jerusalem were added to their itinerary. Unfortunately Jerusalem has become the home of the Haredi and of the conflict rather than the home of rebirth. There are many square miles of land that can teach the human race about mystery and spirit and creation, but there is some element that is special about Jerusalem.
sylvanen has some answers to your questions about genetic make-up, and from that it seems that “Middle Eastern genetic make-up” would be the best way to go.
“Maybe Middle Eastern genetic makeup would be more accurate and Arabic is a language and a culture.”
So what is an Arab?
(a) A person who speaks Arabic as first language and grew up in Arabic culture? If so, Mizrachis are Arabs.
(b) A person of Middle Eastern genetic make-up? If so, Mizrachis are Arabs.
(c) a+b? If so, Mizrachis are Arabs.
Do you find in yourself some reluctance to think of Mizrahi Jews as Arabs? If so, why?
“What are the advantages for individual Jews and a a large chunk of the Jewish people to live in Zion?”
Advantages to whom?
“and so children speaking a Jewish language are dear to me.”
And because it is dear to you the rest of the world has to support the evil that is Israel?
“Is there something useful to the Jewish soul to be nourished by the hills of Jerusalem? Maybe not just the Jewish soul, but certainly the Jewish soul”
And Jewish souls are more important than others, so they must be catered for even at the expense of others?
“that today there are only two major homes for the Jews: America and Israel is lamentable”
Homes for the Jews?
“the physical survival of Jews as individuals?”
No problem with this, but
“survival of the Jewish people as a people ”
Why is this important? I have asked WJ, but he wants to keep it a secret. Are you allowed to tell me?
Yeah, the Israeli leaders call that huge difference “putting them on a diet.”
RoHa: Why is this important? I have asked WJ, but he wants to keep it a secret. Are you allowed to tell me?
No.
WJ,
I understand what you’re saying, and even share some of your feelings, but there is a Talmudic principle that a righteous act performed in sin (mitzvah haba’ah be’averah) is hateful to God. According to Jewish religious law, such a worthy act is not merely tainted by the evil action that facilitated it, but is completely invalidated by it. I believe this principle is even stronger when it comes to values such as “spirituality”, “holiness” and even identity and continuity.
You refer specifically to Jerusalem, as a symbol of your feelings. The prophet Isaiah (1:27) did the same thing, when he said: Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and they that return of her with righteousness. Any other kind of Zion is not worth redeeming or returning to.
This is true, I have chatted with Egyptian Jews and Christians and you cannot tell them apart from Muslims.
Shmuel,
I suffered the slings and arrows of putzes in order to give you an answer I didn’t wish to give. But I guess I was not clear. The Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is validated by the lives of Jews that it saves. (In theory if you could convince most of the Jews to leave before Hamas takes over, there would be no problem. A subservient Haredi sector would serve Hamas’s purposes well, see how well Ahmadinejad and Neturei karta get along. ) The advantages of Jerusalem that I cited were the advantages for the future that has a peace. I realize believing in peace requires a suspension of disbelief.
RoHa- The survival of the Jewish people as a people might not have priority over other causes, but it is important because a large portion of the Jewish people wish to survive as a people and they believe that given time their existence as a people will pay dividends to themselves and to the world.
Excellent caution.
Shall the world now anticipate that Iran will no longer be referred to as the world’s most dangerous terrorist state, that AJF will recant the fliers it published and broadcast that depicted Iran in a flaming mushroom cloud?
Now you’ve confused me WJ. Are you talking about physical survival or spiritual survival? And as long as you are suspending disbelief, why presume the worst of the Palestinians?
Throwing around the word genocide is good enough for the US Congress and the Israel lobby that leads it around by the nose.
link to theyeshivaworld.com
Shmuel,
If I were prime minister (with an automatic coalition) I’m not sure what I would do. I would consult Yossi Alpher and try to figure it out.
If I had a time machine I’m not sure what I would do.
If I were truly suspending disbelief, I would not presume the worst of the Palestinians.
But in truth I am not prime minister, neither do I have a time machine, nor am I suspending disbelief.
In fact I do not presume the worst of 51% of the Palestinians. But Hamas is strong enough and cruel enough to push their way into control. And to believe that Hamas has coexistence in heart or in mind, does not require suspension of disbelief, it requires a frontal lobotomy. It was not the idealists who won the Russian Revolution it was the guns and the result was the gulag. It is those with the guns that rule the outcome of the revolution.
My comment regarding Jerusalem and its spiritual benefits aside, my comments are about survival, physical survival. In the land of the green line, plus the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall.
Guess what psychopath, I do not tell Israel how to refer to Iran. But I am allowed in the comments section directly under Phil Weiss’s posts.
WJ: But Hamas is strong enough and cruel enough to push their way into control. And to believe that Hamas has coexistence in heart or in mind, does not require suspension of disbelief, it requires a frontal lobotomy.
Do you consider this a law of nature, or is it in any way related to Israeli policies and actions? Was it always so? Considering Palestinian experience, should Palestinians not hold a similar view of Israeli bad faith and evil intentions? Do you think there is any way of breaking this cycle?
Your idea of “us here and them there” (as Ehud Barak so eloquently put it) goes well beyond the proposals of any Israeli government, yet it would still depend on Palestinian good will (within Israel, as well as in Gaza the WB and Jerusalem) to provide Israeli Jews with any sort of physical security. If no such good will can be expected, why bother?
I really appreciate your candid answers and your participation in this forum altogether.
WJ, simply not true: “I think world travel has value and the fact that today there are only two major homes for the Jews: America and Israel is lamentable.”
You forget the Jewish Autonomous Region in Russia:
link to eao.ru
Look at the pictures:
link to eao.ru
It is 13,899.7 sq mi in size, much larger than Palestine.
Here’s why Stalin made the decision in 1928, although it didn’t become a political region until 1932. Form Wikipedia:
The wikipedia site, Jews and Judaism in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, has different information and so does the official site, which is the first link above.
Shmuel-
I think the greatest need for good will from the Palestinians will be in Jerusalem, for if there will not be barbed wire or a cement wall between the Jewish/Israeli sections and the Palestinian sections there will be a need for a combined Israeli Palestinian police force in at least a part of the city.
As far as Gaza is concerned, I think some third party can be found to “police” the docks and the border with Egypt to limit their armaments.
The West Bank is tricky. Because of the proximity to Ben Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv, the Netanyahu request (idea, demand, whatever) to control the Jordan Valley seems “reasonable”. In fact some third party would have to rule the Allenby Bridge to limit the weaponry allowed into Palestine. (Whereas this seems reasonable to me, there cannot be any policing of who is allowed into Palestine.) I understand that this will not be accepted by Fatah/Abbas/PLO and that is why Yossi Alpher prefers dealing with Syria or stabilizing Gaza at this time rather than engaging Abbas in negotiations that would fail with consequences of violence.
(The whole exercise of trying to figure out a solution seems like a joke sometimes. There was an episode of Popeye once where he broke a pile of plates and as penance was assigned the task of gluing them back together. There was one plate with two chunks missing and he held in his hand a chunk that was too big for one missing spot and too little for the other missing spot and the cartoon was on a loop of him persisting in trying to match the chunk with first one and then the other spot over and over again. That’s what trying to figure out this conflict seems like sometimes.)
You seem to react to the futility by endorsing that which appeals to the purity of your beliefs: one state. In Israel the right wing reacts to the futility by endorsing that which appeals to the purity of their beliefs: continued settlement and transfer of the Palestinians. Since my major objection to your solution is practical and even the objection that I would say out loud to the right wingers would be practical, the impracticality of my own vision seems to place me in an untenable position. Thus I return to the cartoon image of Popeye and the broken plates.
WJ re your wondering jew February 25, 2010 at 3:26 pm.
You ought to read this. It’s rather long, but it might give you some more information about Zionism.
Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism
It’s a fascinating review in The American Council of Judaism about A THREAT FROM WITHIN: A CENTURY OF JEWISH OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM by Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of History at the University of Montreal. “Dr. Rabkin studied Judaism with rabbis in Montreal, Paris and Jerusalem. He brings a lifetime of study and experience to his subject.”
You might be interested in this:
I forgot the link: link to acjna.org
Shmuel, re: your post at 4:15 pm: deft, excellent.
Let us also not forget those who Jews who have lost their lives as a direct result of Zionism. My brother’s mother-in-law’s parents being two of them, and their pre-pubescent children left to die and fend for themselves because they weren’t sufficient Palestine fodder, too young.
MRW- The existence of Birobidzhan is more a historical curiosity rather than a homeland, something to refer to when arguing against the inevitability of Zionism as the sole possible survival mechanism available. To refer to it today as a homeland for the Jewish people when there are less than two thousand Jews who live there is nothing but mockery.
(The fact that Comrade Stalin burnt the books and imprisoned the teachers when that whim took a hold on him at various times serves to counter the argument of its usefulness as a historical answer to Zionism’s inevitability.)
WJ, the low number of Jews there now does not obviate (1) it’s Jewish character, (2) Jewish government for all, and (3) required Yiddish and Jewish education for all kids regardless of their religion. So there is no mockery other than what it makes of Israel’s claim that a lower Jewish population in a one-state Israel would eradicate its Jewishness and Jewish rule.
You should read its official website.
WJ – what seems “reasonable” to you is still governed entirely by Israeli exceptionalism. Why should a third party be needed to regulate imports into Palestine while Israel freely imports all the weapons it can? Why should “Israel’s security” be an excuse to limit Palestinian freedom while “Palestinian security” is sacrificed to it?
Why should the victimized party be made to pay for the good of the victimizers?
WJ: You seem to react to the futility by endorsing that which appeals to the purity of your beliefs: one state. In Israel the right wing reacts to the futility by endorsing that which appeals to the purity of their beliefs: continued settlement and transfer of the Palestinians.
On the contrary. I react to the futility of the approach that lies both at the heart of the conflict and at the heart of virtually every Israeli-proposed “solution” to date. I suggest another approach, based on the fundamental equality of the two sides. The number or character of any eventual state or states is irrelevant, except as an exercise in recognising the equal humanity of both parties. I believe this approach to be not only more just, but also more pragmatic. Ideological purity has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The inadvertent irony of this is breathtaking, when you consider Israel wages the same sort of campaign against Palestinians.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Good! I keep hearing about various groups, tribes, etc., cries of “this way of life (etc.) must not be allowed to disappear”, but no one says why not. It seems as though nothing must be allowed to change. Now you have given me an answer of the type I wanted.
Now I can consider it.
“it is important because a large portion of the Jewish people wish to survive as a people”
O.K. Now we can ask, first, whether that wish is sufficient to justify the actions taken to ensure that survival, and, second, why they hold that wish. It may be the case that there is no rational basis for the wish, but merely a shared superstition. For example:
“and they believe that given time their existence as a people will pay dividends to themselves and to the world”
Will pay dividends in time? So no dividends yet, after …. how many thousands of years would you say it has been?
Maybe that belief needs a rethink.
And what sort of dividends? And is there no other way of getting them?
RoHa- I think the Jewish contribution in the latter part of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century has been sizable. Although for the most part those contributions have been made by those that left the fold, one cannot deny that the attention to education and the iconoclasm that is part of the Jewish tradition have helped the contributions of many of them to the culture of the last hundred or so years.
So Judaism or Jewishness has paid dividends and may continue to do so.
Certainly there may be other ways of getting these dividends. So if you wish to attempt to dissuade Jews from remaining Jews, go right ahead, no one is stopping you.
So you are saying that the survival of Jews as a people is important because Jewish attention to education has led ex-Jews to produce quite a few major contributions to science, philosophy, and the arts, are you?
How many of these contributions came from ex-Jews living in Israel? (Yes, we already know about the cherry tomato and the water heater.) In Birobidzhan? (Ancient Jewish Palestine produced absolutely nothing of any real value, but that is outside the timeline you offered.)
And how many from Jews living in Europe or America? Why so many from ex-Jews who were barely distinguishable from the other middle class Europeans who made the great advances of the last two centuries? It seems that the less Jewish they were, the more likely they were to contribute!
This is a pretty thin basis on which to build an argument that the wickedness of the concept of Israel, the wickedness of the creation of Israel, and the wickedness of the conduct of Israel are justified in order that the Jews might survive as a people.
“Joe the Plumber”? “American masses”? Please. Stop being coy. Just say it: “stupid goyim”. We know the code words. We are the ones God has commissioned you to enlighten.
What are you saying, WJ? That the Jews gave the world the benefits of skepticism? The Greeks don’t count? Or certain Romans? Or the European gentiles? Isn’t Jewish the tradition of Jewish tribalism at least as significant as Jewish iconoclasm? And for Gentiles, isn’t it important what Jewish traditon and deeds says about them? There’s a lot more individual goys in the world than indivivual jews (to the extent that is not itself an oxymoron). Maslow, anyone?
WJ, you point to the Russian Revolution to show why (hard core) Hamas would win, and in what way. That no co-existence could win. So, given the disproportionate part played by Jews in the Russian Revolution, especially as leaders and physical police, as opposed to cannon fodder, why would you think
HAMAS would would act like those Jews? They are not Jews. Please explain
why you think Palestintians would be as revenge-filled, as power hungry, as the Jews you hold up as a template? Are the Pals as a whole really as glued to an eye for an eyelash as the Jews? Do the Pals really wish to bring down the innocents like
Samson of old? Look at the history of the I-P conflict. Who’s the aggressor?
Yeah, maybe the Palestinians should start broadcasting how prevention of their slow demise by Israel might actually support world humane values? The USA is not, in it’s current de facto policies, in accord, but hey was the fact that a black Amerian invented uses for peanuts really the basis for the USA civil right movement? Current hasbara acts so.
Citizen- Instead of picking on the contributions of the more obvious Jewish greats like Einstein, Kafka and Freud, let me talk about Groucho Marx, Lenny Bruce and Bob Dylan. Certainly Judaism wasn’t the essence of their contribution, but certainly humor was and outsider status was and maybe even bookishness was (although Groucho didn’t become bookish until after he achieved success.) I guess one can say that their contribution was based upon their individual talent which was God given or gene given. Maybe it was just coincidence that they emerged from the Jewish people.
The question I was responding to was why would Jews wish to persevere as Jews. And my answer was that there is a belief that the Jewish people ought to persevere because they might give something to the world. The next question was: well, how long do we have to wait until they give something to the world. They haven’t given anything yet. So I answered. Yes, they have. Now you’re saying, they have only as individuals having nothing to do with the group or the tradition that produced them. So let me return to the original question. Why do the Jews wish to persist as a people? Because they are proud of what individual Jews have produced in the past, which induces an irrational pride in their people and therefore they wish to persist.
Then RoHa’s question is: But that is only the Diaspora Jews who have produced that. So since Israel’s Jews have not produced those gems, Israel should be dissolved because they have contributed nothing to the world. And my answer is that the Jews wish to persevere as a people and their past contributions as a Diaspora people does not mean that these contributions will be duplicated in a war torn situation or in a sovereignty situation and if one wishes to duplicate previous contributions, one would be hard pressed to do so, because the world is constantly changing. but Jews desire to persevere as a people, because they do and they do not need to justify it. You might hate Israel and feel that it should be dissolved, but the Jews don’t wish it. You feel that their wishes should not be listened to. good for you. In fact double good to the twelfth power to you. But the Jews wish to persevere as a group. Not all Jews. But some of them. Now explain to me how your opinion and my opinion are supposed to interact in some way that you would enlighten me or I would enlighten you.
Not to discourage you from posting — you’re making some very viable points — but WJ isn’t going to answer. Potsherd and I confronted him with his hypocrisy, racism and callous disregard for human life down here and he fled.
Zionism has absolutely no answer when you confront it with the indignities and crimes against humanity that its existence necessitates.
See? WJ’s only recourse is to distract and obscure from the core issues of the debate.
If Potsherd has any questions and wishes to engage in discussion I am welcome to it. Have a nice day, Chaos.
Potsherd confronted you with the crimes that Israel’s existence perpetrates on the Palestinians and you ignored that. Don’t exploit the fact that potsherd’s not at the keyboard right this second as a dodge. You’re a moral and intellectual coward, WJ.
The conversation has changed a few times in the last 12 or so hours. I will state my position on the Israel Palestine conflict. I am in favor of a two state solution. I think a one state solution will lead to further conflict and then there will be a new need for partition. I think Justice is a fine thing, but reality is certainly something that needs to be considered, especially when the goal of justice will yield conflict and not justice.
Exactly, Shmuel! Any just solution must begin in the assumption of equality.
WJ – I am happy to engage in this discussion. It seems to me that your position is the default “liberal” Israeli one, in which Jewish exceptionalism is the most fundamental value, in which the Jewish position is always privileged over the Palestinian. It is this position, I am convinced, which lies as the fundamental obstacle to a just solution, since justice will necessarily mean a relative disadvantage to the Jewish side, to eliminate the advantage they now hold. This is what “reality” means – Jewish privilege.
Shmuel’s comment is the antidote – a just solution must begin with equality, recognizing the equality of both sides. If Israeli security matters, then Palestinian security must matter equally.
And if you believe that “conflict” is a sufficient reason to deny the Palestinians justice, how can you support a two-state solution, which will inevitably result in conflict between the settler fanatics and either Israel or Palestine. The settlers hold the entire world hostage with their threats of violent resistance – a threat much more explicit that any threat issued by Hamas. And Israel will not confront them and will not allow any Palestinian military force to confront them. Because Jews are privileged.
How, then, does “reality” prefer such an outcome?
Chaos, I think you should stop with the insults. I disagree with WJ on some things, but he’s no RW and I don’t think I’m alone in seeing the distinction. (Shmuel and Potsherd, for instance, had no patience with RW and urged the rest of us to ignore him–they obviously don’t feel at all the same way about WJ.) The blog is better having a rational straightforward liberal Zionist around to argue for that position.
On the issue of Jewishness, I’m on WJ’s side and don’t think he or any Jew is under any obligation to explain why they see value in self-identification as a Jew, though he’s done a good job with it anyway. On the one state solution, I agree with almost everyone here–it’s the fairest solution, but on the other hand it might lead to civil war, and on the third hand the two state solution seems equally remote. And I agree with potsherd and Shmuel that equality has to be the starting point of any solution.
guess what wonderlust, American government leaders do not listen to Americans when we tell them that America in friendship with Iran is in the interests of the American people.
America’s leaders DO listen to Israeli and Jewish American elites when they tell lies about Iran that result in America acting against Iran in ways that harm American interests. Why would Jewish Americans and Jewish Israelis do such things that are harmful to the interests of Americans?
If American Jews won’t listen to the American people; if America’s leaders will not listen to the American people when it opposes the expressed desires of Israel and American Jewish elites, and if you, presumably a Jew, do not “tell Israel how to refer to Iran” in terms that are honest and just, WHO WILL tell Israel, and to whom will Israel listen?
If NO ONE can rein in Israel, shall I tell my children to fly to the moon to find a place where they can live free of the threat of a nuclear armed, rogue state that does not shy from co-opting the governments of even its friends, and of assassinating the leaders of its enemies?
Donald: prove me wrong when I call WJ a coward. Insulting it might be, but it is also demonstrably true — this notion that WJ is a “liberal Zionist” is false because the two prove themselves to be mutually exclusive, every time. He ignores and excuses crimes against the Palestinians, every time — dismisses them as “necessary” to “Jewish survival.”
Israel bombs and murders Palestinians; WJ ignores that and harps on twenty year old “charters” and rocket attacks that, nine times out of ten, don’t hurt anyone, and then pretends like Israel’s violation of the cease fire on November 4th, or Israel’s continued attack on fishing boats out of Gaza in violation of the Oslo accords it signed, mean nothing.
He is a hypocrite and as long as you allow him to propagate arguments which are based on lies, as long as you take truth out of the equation and attempt to give his perspective a legitimacy it doesn’t have, you will lose the debate. Because we’ve all seen what six decades of racism and demonization of the Palestinians and outright lies have gotten us.
potsherd, I hear you. And I accept that your objections to the two state solution are based upon your concept of justice and equality.
The problem created by the settlers is not a tiny one. But still it is much more definable than the problems that a one state solution would entail.
In fact in the foreseeable future there will not be a two state solution but rather the continued oppression of the occupation. Yet, whereas I can imagine a two state solution, the one state solution is shrouded in a fog to me, a fog that may be hiding a just solution, but which I think in fact hides an impossible solution that will not take place in the next forty years and so I label it unrealistic and filled with dangers and conflict. Maybe my reality is overly obeisant to the power of the Israeli military. Maybe I cannot look in certain directions because of taboos or prejudice. I cannot swear to my motives. But in fact I don’t feel the one state solution is realistic.
On the other hand, I actually think that fleshing out the one state solution is valuable, in that it can help set a goal beyond the two state solution and I do not think that imagining a better world is a useless enterprise. The analogy of the airplane comes to mind. It was dismissed as fantasy, but in fact it was realized. But it was realized by those who took the factors of gravity and wind and the physics into account. Putting this “one state” idea up on a pedestal, without taking the factors of conflict and power and extremism into account is to ignore gravity and physics.
pg- the current regime of Iran is terrorist, because of their participation in the bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires in the 90′s. but I do not advocate attacking Iran either for its complicity in that act or for its development of nuclear weapons. I am in favor of sanctions against Iran, in the hope that this would lead the leaders of that country to rein in their appetite for nuclear weapons. I have not sufficiently studied the nonproliferation treaty and its implications to understand precisely whether there is a legal reason behind the sanctions, and in fact my desire to counter their weapons program is not based on legality but defensive instinct. I am not in favor of a military attack on Iran by either Israel nor the United States.
You are correct that all excessive rhetoric is up for discussion here and there is no reason to limit ourselves only to the blog’s rhetoric.
Speaking of rhetoric, I will try to withstand the urge to play upon your screen name. It seems to indicate that you are a psychopathic god. I would not refer to you as a god. Maybe you are labeling religion as believing in a psychopathic god. But it is the name you have chosen. I will call you pg.
Simple fact, WJ — the two state solution hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked for the basic fact that Israel never honors its word. The displacement of Palestinians to make room for “pure” Jewish communities hasn’t stopped. It hasn’t even slowed down.
And as usual, you frame the entire discussion purely in terms of “what’s in it for Jews?” Or at least, your Jews, the clique you belong to. You’re fine with perpetuating the farce of a two-state solution, WJ, because to this point Israel has profited from it immensely.
But not Israel, huh.
This is exactly my point. This is pure propagandistic bullshit, and you guys should be calling WJ out on it. He can’t say Iran is a terrorist state, and then claim Israel isn’t.
hey guys i just watched a TV show about Apartheid Israel and how the laws are applied to Arabs living there, you can watch it on Aljazeera link to english.aljazeera.net
WOW guys Israel makes me so angry!!!!!!
WJ – Iran is no more a terrorist state than most others, and less than some. When Iran retaliates against Israel, you call it “terrorist”. So people who set off bombs in the cities of other countries are terrorist. Then Israel is even more a terrorist state, and the US far more than that.
Again, exceptionalism.
You’re being too delicate, in my opinion, potsherd. This is outright racism — “You must be at least this Muslim to be terrorist.”
Case in point — when a Palestinian American soldier has a mental breakdown, after witnessing what sort of carnage Israel and the United States visits upon Middle Eastern people, and takes guns to the military base where he works, that’s automatically “terrorism” in the mainstream media discourse that WJ apparently wants to forward.
Meanwhile, a white man tries to murder his own family in an arson fire and then flies an airplane into a government building, and that doesn’t earn the “terrorism” label.
WJ is exactly the same. Anything the Iranians and the Palestinians do wrong, it’s “terrorism.” Anything the US and Israel do, it’s “self defense.” That’s blatant racism. The only deciding factor in WJ’s reasoning is how brown-skinned the culprits are.
potsherd- This particular discussion began with a discussion regarding rhetoric. I felt that Phil’s use of the Emmett Till headline was excessive given that the issue of inter religious dating where there was no violence involved was not worthy of such a headline. Then pg said, well, if you’re concerned about rhetoric, what about calling Iran a terrorist state. And I reply, Iran is a terrorist state. Now you’re saying if Iran is a terrorist state, then Israel is a far worse terrorist state. In fact I have never complained about anyone attacking Israel (rhetorically) for its attacks on civilians. The only rhetoric in that regard that I have ever objected to was the Nazi rhetoric. So feel free to call Israel terrorist and I should feel free to call Iran terrorist. How does that work for you?
You mean like here? Forget that already? I posted that way back before this thread began.
That’s why you’re afraid to confront me, isn’t it, WJ? Because I’m not afraid to take you to the mat when you lie. I’m not as much of a pushover as the some of the other people here.
Chaos- What violence described in the article deserves a reference to Emmett Till?
Oh, so as long as Israelis aren’t caught standing over a body with blood on their hands, you’re fine with all the “racial purity” talk? Good to know where you stand.
You’ve already told us that Mizrahi Jews are Arabs genetically and there is no objection to dating between Ashkenazi and Mizrachi Jews in Israel. So this isn’t a racial issue.
If one uses the rhetoric of Emmett Till the article should include some violence. This article contains zero violence. The other article contains a hint of the potential for violence. I felt this is rhetorical excess. But for you there is no such thing as rhetorical excess. I guess Phil should be pleased to have a person who appreciates nuance in words and never uses a tweezer when a jackhammer can be used, to defend his rhetorical nuance.
It’s a race! It’s a religion! It’s a race! It’s a religion!
You know what? Forget it, WJ. You’re only here to pick up the niche left behind when Witty vacated, trying to steer attention away from the fact that the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT is funding a program to make sure that JEWS and JEWS ALONE are supposed to touch other Jews by harping on the headline.
This is like having a conversation about laws against inter-racial marriage in the United States and then saying, “Oh, well there is no violence involved!” merely because the article about the laws doesn’t deign to mention Emmit Till.
You aren’t interested in a serious debate. You aren’t interested in Palestinian equality or human rights. You are merely interested in forwarding and justifying Zionist extremism by playing word games.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz, [at Deir Yessin, at Sabra, at Shatila, at Gaza..]
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return. ~W H Auden, September 1939
WJ, by backing this program you are inciting hatred so its another type of violence. Its like the holocaust deniers, by denying the holocaust no violence is involved.
aparisian, I did not back the program. I merely cited the rhetoric as excessive. But you are an addicted to excessive rhetoric.
WJ, i was not expecting such “yonaric” attack, i thought you were more sophisticated than that.
You didnt succeed to convince me that the rhetoric is excessive… your arguments about the violence involvement are not valid. Try again WJ
parisian, have a nice day.
no WJ you just give me more energy to fight Zionism and i mean it Zionism is no better than Nazism, yes Nazism made more crimes but still its at the same level.
a parisian- and what did your grandparents do during the war (WWII). Or are you a recent immigrant to France?
my grandparents fought the occupiers and they were labelled terrorists by the collaboration and their friends the Nazis. My grandparents said no to race purity and ethnic cleansing. And today they see themselves in the Palestinians.
WJ – there is a GREAT deal of objection to dating between Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, among the respective haredi communities. I would not at all be surprised if a program such as this one were not directed towards “saving” Ashkenazi girls from nasty Mizrachi boys.
And what is your cure for the I/p conflict? Send all the Ashkenazi Jews back to europe?
Wondering Jew wrote:
1. “the current regime of Iran” and the government of Iran today are precisely the same?
Is the “current regime” of the US the same as the government of US during the Reagan administration? Should the Obama administration be punished for the Iran-Contra affair– not with military action, mind you, that would be harsh; just sanctions until US “reins in its appetite for nuclear weapons.”
Is the “current regime” of Israel the same as the Sharon regime? Should Israel be punished for Sharon’s involvment in the massacre at Sabra and Shatila? Not with military action, mind you, but with sanctions until Israel reins in its nuclear appetite and joins the international community in submitting to NonProliferationTreaty and international oversight of its nuclear program.
2. Moreover, the jury is still out on allegations of Iranian involvement in the Buenos Aires bombing: numerous irregularities and conflicts of interest marked the judicial process.
Islamic Jihad claimed to have carried out the attack in retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Abbas al-Musawi. Ehud Barak is famously quoted as explaining Hezbollah’s origins:
Hezbollah strategist Imad Mugniyeh is said to have assisted in planning the Buenos Aires attack; Mugniyeh was assassinated, most likely by Israelis, on Feb. 12, 2008.
On Jan. 19, 2010, Mossad assassinated Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. According to Anthony Cordesman, Hamas was initially funded and supported by Israel, who created the organization in a “direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.”
What I conclude from this sick cycle of assassinations, co-options, and retaliations, are that:
a. Israel considers itself above the law and civil norms of conduct;
b. Israel is really quite stupid in its actions; shades of Abraham crashing about in the icon shop, smashing other people’s gods in a quest to prove his own superiority, a poorly thought-through act that resulted in Abraham’s expulsion from the land of his birth. There’s a lesson in there.
c. Israel meets the current pop culture definition of insane: it keeps doing the same things but expects a different result.
3. What level of arrogance and inequity gives you the right to declare Iran’s government “terrorists” for unproved acts the likes of which are committed by Israel on a routine basis? How dare you presume to target either a government or an entire people for sanctions, which are the equivalent of war, in that the imposition of sanctions are KNOWN to result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?
SANCTIONS KILL; the world knows this.
These Jewish people whose persistence you are so keen to ensure for the “good that they will bring to the world,” — are they smart enough to figure out that KILLING PEOPLE by starving them is NOT doing good things for them?
HOW DARE YOU!
potsherd- the haredi, as a rule do not go on dates that are not arranged by their parents.
pg, have a good life. see you and write to you on the other side. so long!
Oh, so now you’re going to shun aparisian and PG too, huh?
How come the Zionists on the blog are all the same? You’re all just trolls of one flavor or another.
Go ahead, WJ, pack up your toys and go home. We won’t mind. I find Witty and yonira to be far less tepid examples of Zionism, whereas you just waffle and pout when your arguments are exposed as fradulent.
and me without the Hasbara manual to the appropriate paragraph for: “lacking substantive argument, cut and run”
that being said….
other side of what?
WJ – and the dates are never arranged between the different “races”
Jewish morality and ethics has been tested for many decades since they
have become physically empowered in Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people–authorized officially by the goys (with key economic pressure by the USA, a nation 98% gentile & the financially enabling nation for many decades). The people of the book have become the people of wealth and guns, thanks to the USA. So, given the Jews wish to persevere themselves as a group, my question is merely, at what cost to non-Jews innocently in their way? Just because Jews think G-D is on their side, doesn’t mean it’s true, or should be genuflected to, yes? What Palestinian harmed Anne Frank? What rural American farm boy killing Arabs in the Middle East in my name ever even met a Jew?
potsherd great post !! Thank you but they are blind and deaf.
oops I meant PG
As far as “the Jews want to continue as a people” (whatever “a people” means) is concerned, one has to ask, “at what cost, both to Jews and to the rest of us?”
I know you don’t think that the rest of us matter. Only Jews count for you, and you are incapable even of understanding that the rest of us think that we are just as important as Jews, let alone actually thinking that we are as important.
(This is clearly shown by your maundering about how nice it is to hear children speaking a Jewish language, even though this has been achieved by driving Arab children out of their homes and blowing them to pieces.)
For you “Jews want …” is equivalent to “everyone should strain themselves to make sure that Jews get …”
So I will simply make these bare assertions, and if you can comprehend them, good. If not, too bad.
If the state of Israel is necessary for the Jews to continue to exist as a people, the price is too high.
If separation from the rest of the human race, refusal to countenance mixed marriages, greater concern for other Jews than for fellow citizens, or all the other peculiarities that are reputed to be part of the Jewish condition are necessary, the price is too high, both for Jews and the rest of us.
If attitudes like yours are necessary, the price is too high.
Wondering Jew, you stupid bastard, can you tell me in any meaningful way what a persons “genetic makeup” has to do with anything? And what factors, in the context of the IP issues, are affected by “genetic make-up”?
Unbelievable stupidity, masking as bigotry. Or maybe it’s the other way round. Your choice.
(3) required Yiddish and Jewish education for all kids regardless of their religion.
Now that’s funny! I think you meant “Hebrew”, not Yiddish.
“Although for the most part those contributions have been made by those that left the fold, one cannot deny that the attention to education and the iconoclasm that is part of the Jewish tradition have helped the contributions of many of them to the culture of the last hundred or so years.”
You are full of shit, and that sentence has absolutely no meaning. Well, except to indicate that you think there is some kind of intrinsic difference between Jews and other people.
So what you are saying is: Hitler was right! The Jews are an alien nation.
“I’m on WJ’s side and don’t think he or any Jew is under any obligation to explain why they see value in self-identification as a Jew,”
Why yes, he very, very much does, when his “self-identification as a Jew” leads him to commit crimes! So you figure Madoff will get off when he starts blubbering about his “self-identification as a Jew”?
And if his “self-identification” as a Jew leads him to assume a superiority over others? Does he need to explain that? Why yes, he very much does.
If he’s a Jew, that is.
Citizen, a good, a very good case could be made that the elite Jews of Israel take more advantage of the rest of the Jews, more advantage than they take of anybody else. Don’t forget that.
Shmuel, Zionists read the Holy books differently from most Jews. They never read to the end of the book, and consider the story and its meaning for them, nope they read to about the middle, and try to evoke the same “inerrancy” as the Christian rapturists do. That what has happened, that God, after favoring the Jews for a while, gave it up as a bad job (no pun intended) and either took a vacation or interested Himself in other things, never seems to occur to them, probably because it’s the only religious interpretation which makes sense or accords with reality. On the other hand, if you do have His phone number, there’s a couple of demo tapes I’d like Him to hear.
Yeah, and all that about good deeds conceived in sin? That’s probably some nonsense we Jews tried to put out when we were on the down side. But when we are on the up-side, it’s “watch out, Arabs, cause we can make the sun stop in its tracks if we want to”
Problem is, once you wander away from Jewish supremacy, the facet of Zionism which shines brightest is the fact that it was a really nasty trick to play on the Jews. A hoax by elite Jews to take advantage of the problems of Jews less able to determine their own futures.
“As far as why the survival of the Jewish people, specifically those living in I/P, is so important to me, I’m not really sure”
But I know that if any of those girls date Arabs, it’s back to the gas chambers for all of us!
For God’s sake (now that’s a strange locution to use in this context) WJ, stop cutting the dicks off of Jewish males, and the Jewish girls will come running back!
Ah, but I’m glad all the Jewish people in America are only marrying Jews! Maybe there is hope!
Explain to me how your opinion is internally logical, how it interacts consistently?
Yes, well, those Mizrachis are – let us say – a bit heavily shaded in, aren’t they? I mean, they don’t reflect the sunlight quite as much as Ashkenazis. You might even say they are sort of “tinted” people.
Nothing against them, of course. Some of my best friends, and so forth.
But not quite our sort of people.
“The Jews are an alien nation.”
So it would seem, Mooser. But they hide it well. All the Jews I have seen look pretty human. Not an antenna or tentacle among them.
“Why yes, he very, very much does, when his “self-identification as a Jew” leads him to commit crimes! So you figure Madoff will get off when he starts blubbering about his “self-identification as a Jew”?
And if his “self-identification” as a Jew leads him to assume a superiority over others? Does he need to explain that? Why yes, he very much does.”
To the extent that someone uses their identification as an X (where X can be anything, including a liberal human rights champion urging us to invade Iraq and “liberate” people) as a reason for killing or oppressing people, then yeah, they need to explain themselves.
To the extent that WJ does that, he needs to explain himself. I haven’t read him closely enough to know how guilty or innocent he is of this. He doesn’t rub me the way RW does, but I could have missed something.
The threat of violence is evoked by those vigilante squads that drive around with baseball bats looking for suspicious couples. This is the activity that this program is based on.
Hey, it’s all good; go see Inglorious Basterds, where the golem–oops I mean the
shining Hebrew light (who invented Hostel, the movie), batted out German soldiers
who were no different than any typical GI in terms of motivation for joining the Werhrmacht. Makes me wanna puke.
wondering jew wrote (somewhere in this thread):
I suffered the slings and arrows of putzes in order to give you an answer I didn’t wish to give.
I found your comments quite interesting and worthy of serious answers (I hope you didn’t consider me a putz because of my observations on the genetics of ME people). Even though I disagree with most of your points, I believe your perspective deserves serious consideration. In that light, let me make an observation or two on some of the things you have stated above.
I agree with your deep reservations about the outcome of the one state solution. However, what I happen to prefer or not prefer is not relevant; what I see happening is that Israel is pursuing policies that can lead logically to only a one state solution. I have to accept that they control the agenda, not me. You then argue against this outcome with your fear that Hamas (which we all agree is a major player) will never accept Jews living in the land of Palestine. Though you seem to implicitly accept that the PLO/PA would accept such an outcome. Here is the problem with that.
In the 1980′s the PLO began to move toward agreeing to a two state solution. I am willing to bet that you (or many of the people who share your views today) would have argued that the PLO would never agree because they would never accept Jews living in the land of Palestine. However Arafat began moving in that direction. In the early 1980s Israel began backing Hamas both financially and through selective enforcement of occupation laws, in order to undermine the Arafat. Then in the late 80s and early 90s, Israel began to accept Arafat’s proposals at exactly the same time that Israeli encouraged Hamas began to become a major player, thereby making his efforts during the Oslo process that much more difficult.
This is a complex argument, but the way you and other humanistic Zionist come across is that any peaceful resolution to the IP problem is impossible because (from 1950 to 1970) the Arabs are intransigent, or (from 1970 to 1990) Arafat is intransigent or (from 1990 to today) Hamas is intransigent (and let us not forget, Israel helped empower Hamas at it beginning).
To summarize these last 40 years it seems to me, as an outside observer, that Israel is not at all interested in resolving this problem peacefully. And it seems that you WJ are completely oblivious to this history and is guided entirely by some moving emotional attachment to a humanistic, progressive Zionism whose ideals have never played a role in actual policies of the Israeli state.
“In the 1980’s the PLO began to move toward agreeing to a two state solution”
My memory tells me that it was in the mid 1970s that the PLO started making two-state approaches to Israel. They finally decided that if they could not have a free Palestine, they might at least get rid of Israeli occupation. It took a long time for the idea to be fully accepted by all the PLO.
“would have argued that the PLO would never agree because they would never accept Jews living in the land of Palestine.”
Always a bum argument. The objection was never to Jews, but to a Jewish State.
The PLO objected to the presence of Jews who had arrived after the advent of the Zionist movement. The object wasn’t to Jews per se, but to the belief system of the Jews and/or to the history of those Jews.
Gasp! You mean the Palestinians were objecting to foreign invaders from Europe waging a campaign of terror stealing their homes by force! Those bastards, huh.
WJ: The PLO objected to the presence of Jews who had arrived after the advent of the Zionist movement. The object wasn’t to Jews per se, but to the belief system of the Jews and/or to the history of those Jews.
No it wasn’t. The objection was to Zionist dominance. The PLO never had a problem with Judaism or Jewish history. That is precisely why the PLO adopted the 1917 cut-off date for Jewish presence in Palestine (not the advent of the Zionist movement, BTW, but the advent of imperialist sponsorship of the Zionist project of Jewish dominance in Palestine).
Wanna see what the Palestinians objected to? They’re called mortars and rifles!
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Sylvanen- Personally I do not object to a two state solution with Hamas. Personally I would accept a 62 year hudna rather than outright recognition. But as you said, it is not our personal preferences that count, but policy as made by the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I think there was a chance for an Israel Palestinian accord, if Rabin had not been assassinated. I think there was a chance (slighter, but still a chance) if the preparations for Camp David 2000 had not been so flimsy. I still think there’s a chance (slighter, but still a chance) if Kadima ever regains power in Israel.
I don’t know if it’s morbid curiosity or what, but I would be curious to see the PLO accept the idea of one state. It would mean folding up the tent and saying, “Okay Israel, annex the West Bank and make the Palestinians into Israeli citizens.” In fact the first step would be easy, because Israel has already annexed Jerusalem, the PLO could give a green light and tell all the Palestinians living in Jerusalem to apply for Israeli citizenship (something which they have forbidden until now.)
It won’t happen soon, given the fact that the PLO is corrupt and currently has funds flowing in and they have therefore no reason to give up the flow of cash.
Ah, yes, invoking “hudna.” When in doubt and your Zionist apoligism is failing, invoke a scary Arabic word.
You are clueless aren’t you? This is Hamas idea, not WJs. Do you even know what a Hudna is and why Hamas thinks a Hudna would be preferable to recognition? Can you tell us what the difference between a formal recognition and a hudna is?
Say something w/ some intelligence for once Chaos, or just shut up.
What, no calling me “fag” this time? I’m disappointed.
Chaos, i’ve never called you a fag. you are the only guy who is obsessed w/ your homosexuality and feel the need to bring it up.
You didn’t call me a “dirty kike” this time Chaos? I am disappointed
So I get your style, you can’t answer a legitimate question so you try to mask your ignorance by lying, is this something you’ve learned to do as a defense mechanism?
WJ the more you say the more I think we might be in agreement. I really do believe that the two state solution would be the best but as we seem to agree that is a question that is out of our hands — Israel is moving towards the one-state solution. I cannot get too upset with PLO corruption given that it is the US, the EU and Israel that is paying the bribes to the Palestinians officials that are considered so corrupt. This is of course a problem for building a Palestinian state but it will go away once outsiders stop bribing their officials.
Whatever, WJ you sound like you might be more agreeable to a one state solution than you have stated in the past. If that is the only alternative, it sounds like you might be willing to give it a try. Is that right?
“Okay Israel, annex the West Bank and make the Palestinians into Israeli citizens”
And there we agree. The Palestinians originally wanted a united, independent, Palestine. The British denied them this, and then the Zionists set out to take Palestine from them. The aim of the PLO was, first, to undo the partition and let the refugees go home. The call for a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza was a cry of despair which came later, but even that has been denied them.
If they ask for annexation and full, equal, citizenship for all people living West of the Jordan, the Israelis will have to refuse. Allowing it would mean the end of Jewish dominance.
syvanen- I believe that the radical elements of Hamas would be ascendant in any solution that gives any freedom to the Palestinians. This is based both upon the nature of PLO, corrupt, and the nature of Hamas, singleminded and backed by Iran, and the nature of revolution- he with the most guns and the most heartlessness wins. I am not amenable to a one state solution. It won’t work at this point. Israel has more guns than Hamas and they will use those guns to maintain power.
I am amenable to a one state solution in theory only. I am not against the sharing of power if I believed that all parties wished to share power or believed in the long term inevitability of sharing power. This is not the case currently.
RoHa- The aim of the PLO, as stated in its charter, was to send all those Jews who came to I/P after 1917 back where they came from. The current proposal for one state does not contain the demand to send post 1917 Jews back where they came from.
If you believe that a one state solution will result in peace, where the only problem that the Jews have to deal with is a loss of dominance, you are deluded. There will not be a one state solution soon. If there were one in the foreseeable future the result would be violence and he with the most guns would win. That would not be the peaceable population. That would not be the PLO. That would not be even Hamas. That would be Israel. So I don’t see how a one state solution can lead to anything but violence. And I don’t see how that violence can lead to freedom for the Palestinians.
The one state solution will result in justice, WJ. Peace without justice is merely successful tyranny.
Then would you imprison the entire settler population, fanatical and armed, for the same reasons? Walls, barbed wire, watchtowers, air strikes?
Always, your reasoning is based on Jewish exceptionalism. Always, you choose that Palestinians will be the ones who suffer.
Chaos- What reason can’t, cant can.
Actually potsherd, I favor a two state solution, even though the Palestinian state will be controlled by Hamas. I don’t believe they are irrational and thus I would agree to sign an agreement with them.
The fact is, WJ, you are perfectly happy with the Israelis using a brutal occupation to extort a two-state solution that is overly favorable to Jewish extremists. Potsherd’s right — your double standard shows through every time. He brings up crimes and suffering happening right now, and you neatly ignore it.
Chaos- I would engage with dialogue with you, but this is proven to be as useful as spitting in the wind and as pleasant as rolling in the snow. Have a good day.
Wow, checkmate, I guess. I wasn’t expecting that.
Astonishingly, again we agree up to a point.
But the two-state “solution” (aside from all the efforts Israel is making to render such a “solution” impossible) is not a solution. It will not bring equality or justice to the area.
That is why I say the effort should be to make a one-state solution possible.
A two-state arrangement, combined with a stated intention of moving to a single state, could well be a starting point.
But from the beginning some changes will be necessary, and Israelis will have to make them.
They will have to renounce Zionism as the evil Jewish-supremcacist doctrine it is. (Impossible? Maybe not. Other people have renounced National Socialism, Apartheid, and straight out racism.)
They will have to repeal the Law of Return, and acknowledge the Right of Return so that Palestinians can go, if not back to their stolen or destroyed homes, at least back to the region.
They will have to give full and equal citizenship to the Arabs of Israel.
If Israelis want peace with justice and honour, they will try these things.
Just look at how Israel has used false flag and real opportunity in cycles to grab more land in an opportunistic manner. They invented preemptive war as a practical way to grab more land, more lebensraum. They took their pattern from Hitler. They thus made Hitler’s last political will and testatment to heart; through Israel, Hitler’s activity lives on–the Germans will be the last to realize this as they have taken over
as “the people of the book.” Shame. It does not exist.
Minority men? The one with Tom Cruise?
Seriously, if Tel Aviv is so fragile that this hate farce actually receives funding, Hezbollah should just send its best looking guys over the border to seduce all of the wayward Eastern European girls.
“Some things worth knowing”:
link to yadlachimusa.org.il
The wayward Eastern European (Jewish) girls come from families who were not indoctrinated in separate Hebrew schools, and not kept apart by neighborhood, as natural born Israeli girls are–so they are vulnerable to arab young men.
What that is saying is that Israel is a segregated state and is trying to become more so.
That site is so weird! They complain about Christian missionaries, but they only refer to Jesus by the letter J, as if reading the name would erode someone’s Jewishness.
They can’t call him Yeshua?
potsherd- Many religious Jews hold the history of Christianity (as in the Inquisition and the pogroms and the you know what) against the founder of Christianity (which they consider Jesus to be rather than Paul) and thus they are not fond of him and prefer not to mention his name. In fact (me too) the bad history of Christianity can be traced back to the New testament and not just other parts of bad history. But to blame the New Testament on Jesus is also short sighted. I also don’t blame those parts of the New Testament which say that the only way to the father is through the son on Jesus and any implications of polytheism, such as the trinity, I don’t blame on him either. But there are those that do, and thus the aversion to his name.
In general, I think it’s wise when people refrain from making themselves look ricidulous.
Wj,
That attitude you describe among certain religious Jews sounds just as bigoted and intolerant as attitudes that blame Islamic extremist violence on Muhammed or blame Jewish extremism on the Tanakh, don’t you agree?
As an reader of your posts, it appears to me that you have a much greater sensitivity to wrongs against Jews than you do to wrongs against non-Jews. If there is one thing that Zionism in Israel has proven, its that Jews are just as capable as Christians, Muslims, Hin dus, or any other religiously defined group of being bigoted and committing violence and oppression against those who fall outside the chosen group. I doubt that virtue originates with any religious group (or any atheist groups, for that matter. It is simply a way for people to give order and meaning to their existence. Those who are inclined to hate and denigrate others will always find an excuse if they scour any religious text, and those who are inclined to acceptance will find passages to support their feeelings. People bring their own morality to their beliefs and drape their religion around it.
tree,
Regarding the attitudes of certain religious Jews towards Jesus, I would add a voice in their defense. Whereas Muslims and Christians have spent the last thousand plus years in power and as a majority in many countries, the Jews until Israel have been in a minority and until the benign experience in America have been primarily on the shit end of the stick in most situations in most countries. (Even where they have been middlemen, better off than peasants, that situation more often than not has resulted in a little later on being on the shittier end of the stick even than the peasants.)
Thus their resentments have been well earned, even if Jesus was not the proper target of their resentments.
Resentmen isn’t the point, WJ. It’s making themselves look foolish and superstitious, like Iran calling Israel “the Zionist entity.”
I’m not surprised at your defense of Jewish “resentments. Its in character of the gist of many of your posts. What I find sad about your defense is that Palestinians have been on the shit end of the stick for over 60 years and yet you don’t seem to cut them the same kind of slack that that you cut those religious Jews, just as you seem to care less about real, present oppression and violence that Palestinians are subjected to than you do about a imagined future where Israeli Jews might be oppressed,
You’ve got the same kind of double standard as RW has, its just that yours is a less glaring one.
Shmuel shares the same concern that I do:
The number or character of any eventual state or states is irrelevant, except as an exercise in recognising the equal humanity of both parties.
If your overriding concern is only for Israeli Jews, and that is all you have expressed here, then you aren’t acknowledging the equal humanity of the Palestinians.
“…better off than peasants, that situation more often than not has resulted in a little later on being on the shittier end of the stick even than the peasants.”
Peasants were the bast majority of European gentiles for how many centuries?
And “a little later” encompasses, in European history, the whole life time of
many peasants down through the ages.
WJ, you need to get a clue that just as not all Jews were court Jews, or land managers and exploiters of peasants in behalf the gentile royalty, or tax collectors for the same royalty, or funders of both sides of civil and regional wars in Europes, most gentiles held the shitty end of the stick at least as much, if not more so, than any Tevya or rag peddler on the road.
bast–I meant vast
And I might add that if the majority of Israeli Jews cannot acknowledge the equal humanity of the Palestinians, then it is not at all surprising that many people outside of Israel find it difficult to understand or favorably react to Israeli Jewish demands and pleas that all others should also care more about them than about the Palestinians. Jewish supremacy in Israel has been a disaster for Jews and non-Jews, and proven itself incapable of treating non-Jews fairly. I don’t see any reason why it should be excused anymore than any other groups’ supremacist attitudes. Jews are not exceptions to the rules of bigotry and intolerance, and have no need to be given any slack on the subject.
Arabs are probably the ones they are most worried about, but they also mention migrant workers. That would be all those Chinese, Thais, etc., some of whom are polluting Israel by having children.
Can’t have those yellow Johnnies touching nice (or even not-so-nice) Jewish girls.
“”We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don’t have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not – we are basically the white race. We are on the western side of Asia and they are on the southeastern side.” – Naftali Tamir, Israeli ambassador to Australia.
link to haaretz.com
(Just the sort of thing to say in the hearing of Kevin Rudd. Rudd’s son-in-law is Albert Tse, born in China.)
Government Minister Penny Wong would not have been too thrilled with that, either.
Nor the thousands and thousands of Australians of Asian ancestry.
Nor all the Australians of European ancestry who are married to people of Asian ancestry. (That group includes me.)
Nor their children.
And it pissed off a fair few others, as well.
my spam box frequently catches adverts for “luscious Russian wimmen.”
makes me laugh.
of course, at my age, I need to make sure my insurance is paid up before I allow myself that exertion.
What is particularly shocking (but not surprising) about this story is that Tel-Aviv is supposed to be Israel’s most liberal city, it’s showcase of “normality”. My coastal friends and relatives always used to tell me that the reason I would get so worked up about things like discrimination and violence was because I lived in Jerusalem; Tel-Aviv is different.
For similar reasons, the most shocking views and actions in Israel come not from the Kahanists or the “hilltop youth”, but from the “left”.
You mean like, from here?
link to ratuv.co.il
I read the site gets a lot of hits from Arab countries, and that the owners are going into a movie venture staring young Israeli porno stars and Arab studs.
“Tall, dark, and handsome.”
“Blonde bombshell.”
Where’s David Duke when Israel needs him?
That’s my point about Israel, too. Even most of the “left” in Israel seems like it’s more reactionary than even what is considered “centrist” in the United States. There are bright, shining exceptions, mind you, but I think the most deplorable things I’ve read about the Israeli left is how quickly they drop the idea of removing settlements “if the Palestinians [specifically, Abbas' shill government] are willing to negotiate on it.”
That’s the point. Tel Aviv is where you are most likely to find this racial line-crossing, so it’s the obvious place to begin the campaign against it.
Let’s see this mentioned by that Hasbara Ministry trying to polish the turd of Israel’s reputation as a fun, liberal, sexy place to live.
Racial purity, Eugenics, Ethnic cleansing, Jewish only settlements, Jewish only roads, Jewish only laws, Separation wall, non Jewish Israeli immigrants denied basic rights and the world is silent?This is exactly what Nazism regime was! Excuse me Israeli apologists but if you dare calling me Israeli hater or other bull shit names i advise you to go fuck yourself!
It’s interesting to compare the revolting image of arab seducers of young Israeli girls rendered by Yad L’Achim with Julius Streicher’s publications depicting jewish seducers of frauleins. Lose the Aryan soul? Lose the Jewish soul?
Emmett Till grew up mostly in Chicago, where whistling at a white girl was tolerated, especially compared to Mississippi in the 1950′s. According to the FBI report,
Emmett, age 14, had a new wallet that had come with a photo of a good-looking
white woman in it as part of the package. Out front of the store he was showing
his wallet to friends, local kids who had picked cotton or share-cropped all day. One of them dared him to go flirt with the 21-year old woman working inside the store; she was the wife of the store owner who was away on a trip. According to her, Emmett grabbed her hand when she held it out over the counter for cash in return for a purchase he was making. He held it tight; she broke away with great effort, and went down to the cash register. He followed her and grabbed her around the waist at the end of the counter. He told her not to be afraid of him, and something directly sexual about being with a white woman. And couldn’t she deal with it? A friend came in and got Emmett. Shortly thereafter the woman left the store; he either whistled at her then, or whistled at a checker game move on the store porch. All the young blacks raced away from the store once he whistled, realizing that public whistle was trouble. (The FBI report also reveals that Emmett’s father was executed by US military in 1945 for two rapes and a murder he committed, apparently while serving as a private in Italy.)
Also interesting to compare Brand Nazi Germany’s sunshine BDM girls with
Brand Israel IDF girls half naked in glossy magazines like Maxim.
Sex sells.
Porno sells.
Julius Streicher would have painted the Emmett incident on the front page of his newspaper, leering and lingering over what happened inside the store as in a comic strip; the last block would be Till’s broken body sinking into the water with a huge
steel fan tied to it with barbed wire. His most ardent customers were juveniles, and young men–both gentile and jewish germans.
As many know, Emmett Till’s story catapulted the US civil rights movement.
The frog never realizes it until it can not hop out of the pan.
good to know thanks!
You are an Israel-hater aparisian, and sort of full of shit also.
Yoniraspew! The equivalent of projectile vomit on the internet. We reamed you pretty well about eugenics the last time around, yonira, when your best rebuttal was to cite a crackpot media host (good to get an eye into the sort of things you peruse, by the way). And incidentally? Being vicious to the French guy in no way ousts you for your neo-conservative streak, so rest easy.
ok, how was I reamed, I didn’t even address the idea of eugenics, i simply asked if you were an Alex Jones fan.
All this talked about getting reamed and spew Chaos, are you crushing on me?
Oh, believe me, even if prevaricating Jewish supremacist neocons were my type, I wouldn’t stick anything in there until you washed that mouth out with soap.
yonira can you define what Israel-hater is? using the same logic can i call you Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims hater…
aparisian, i’ve never said anything like palinazi, arabnazi or muslimnazi, where you use words like zionazi in all of your posts. I would assume you hate Nazis, so your comparison between the two in pretty much everyone of your posts would lead me to believe that you hate Israel.
What would make you believe I hate Arabs, Palestinians, or Muslims? Because I am pro Israel. Even when I denounce Caste Lead and the occupation whenever I can? Does that make it sound like I hate Muslims/Arabs/ and or Palestinians?
You don’t denounce it whenever you can, yonira, and half the time you deny things that are actually going on in the occupation.
Do you sound like a racist that hates Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians that characterizes Palestinians as drugged out, violent terrorists? You tell me. Or how about Jewish “superiority” over rocket-making donkey-painting Palestinians? Bonus points for denouncing your old pal OhioJoes while you were there, huh?
Yonira you are a big liar! BTW Thanks Chaos for pointing out the evidences.
This is exactly the type of cause which is better left to private initiative. Somebody needs to alert Shelly Adelson and his Birthright outfit to the opportunities here.
Private initiative gives the US 60% of all democratic funds coming from a handfull of jewish american moneybag individuals and pro-zionist orgs; and 40% of republican funding, not counting christian zioinist who need jews to congregate geographically for their end times movie film of salvation. Birthright is the way to go–too many gentile Americans these days are opting to not cut their baby’s dick. Next thing you know, they might think it looks good, like EU people. No thanks to Larry David. After all, who wants such a heavy dose of erotic nerve endings?
Citizen, can we please, please, just sort of leave that whole circumcision thing alone? Nothing “the Jews” have ever done concerning Zionism, or even the financial machination of Madoff, will evoke the rage that will surface when Americans find out the truth about circumcision, and what it does to males.
Nothing, nothing in the world will enrage Americans in quite the same way as finding out that because of a barbaric Jewish custom, they had most of their erotic potential removed just after birth. That will piss them off.
My story, of a circumcision by a drunken mohel and its consequences (“I just wanted to make sure your parents got their money’s worth” no, you were drunk at my bris and flailing away like you were bringing in the sheaves) is one of the sadder stories, but the ordinary consequences are bad enough.