Jerry Haber’s call for liberal Zionists to join the broader BDS movement is laudable for what he’s attempting to do. Sadly, Haber’s Zionism informs his writing in a way that largely undermines his professed goal. The current of Jewish paternalism that runs throughout the list translates into both an excessive focus on the importance of the Zionist "peace" camp in Israel, and the adoption of an infantilizing and placatory tone vis a vis the Palestinians. While that may not be a reflection of Haber's personal views, he still seems to think that these are the points that will sway the liberal Zionist.
The peace camp in Israel is mostly non-existent and ineffectual. That’s because liberal Zionists can’t help but be co-opted by the Israeli war camp, which correctly identifies Palestinian equal rights as the end of Jewish-ruled Israel. Any liberal Zionist who actually does agree that “the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality” ought to be recognized by the Jewish state exists in a steadily narrowing temporal envelope. In time, those non-Jews will undo the Jewish state on their own and those liberal Zionists will have to make a binary decision; equal rights (without an overwhelming racial majority) or Jewish supremacy (i.e. Zionism). I get the sense that liberal Zionists are only capable of subscribing to the 'Jewish and democratic' meme so long as they can depend on a Jewish-majority demographic reality, which will not be the case forever. Honest liberal Zionists will recognize the unavoidable decision looming ahead. I hope brave Zionists will make that decision today.
As for the second point, Haber writes that “Palestinians should have a little naches (pleasure) after all their suffering and BDS provides them with that.”
The goal of the BDS movement is not to provide the Palestinians with a little naches. Instead the BDS movement seeks to correct the effects of decades of imperial control and colonization of Palestine/Israel by Zionists. Admittedly, what that correction may entail is interpreted differently by different people. But truthfully, any Zionist who opts to join the BDS movement in order to provide Palestinians with a little pleasure is probably better off buying me a tuna sandwich and a coke.
There is another problem with Haber’s naches. He notes early on that the BDS movement is a product of Palestinian leadership. He then recasts the issue so that Palestinian agency exists as a function of Zionist indulgence. ‘Look, they’re like Gandhi. Throw them a little naches bone.’
Haber casually dismisses the import of the Palestinian right of return to Palestinians when he writes "even if you don't recognize the right of return, you recognize the importance to the Palestinians of claiming that right."
The right of return is an inviolable and sacrosanct principle which necessarily spells out the end of the Jewish state, as such. Haber should understand that many Palestinians, me included, would prefer to march alone than march alongside anyone who does not endorse our right to return, meaning Zionists. There is a fundamental tension here: on the one hand, Palestinians aren’t human (Jewish) enough to reclaim their birthrights in Israel, but they’re just human enough for us to call for our compatriots to ease the boot heel pressure on their necks a little. That’s like telling black people that they should have the right to property, just not in your neighborhood.
But isn't it better to find common cause with liberal Zionists on this issue? Don't we need all the allies we can get? People may disagree on this question. But I'm inclined to focus on building a movement with a solid moral foundation, rather than one which is fractured and part racist. If liberal Zionists want to disengage from the settlements for the sake of preserving their racist state they are welcome to do so. But I don't intend to endorse their racist goal or assuage their Nakba guilt by working alongside them.
There are no gradations of humanity; either we’re equal, or we’re adversaries. I regret framing the issue in such aggressively stark terms, but our (Palestinians and Jews) humanity is what is at stake here.
----
I decided to come up with my own list for why liberal Zionists should support BDS and equal rights. Like Haber’s it’s Jewish-centric:
1 Think of your grandchildren. Think of the embarrassment they’re going to feel when they explain that their grandparents were ardent supporters of the world’s last racist apartheid state. If you’ve ever met a white South African in their teens or twenties, then you know what I’m talking about.
2 Think of your next reception in Thailand, Bolivia, France, Britain, or basically anywhere but America, when you explain that you actually don’t believe that Palestinians are somehow inferior (This one pays immediate dividends).
3 Finally, imagine what it might feel like to live in a normal country, where Rabbis don’t tell you who you can marry or where you can build your hospitals, and where you don’t subsidize the activities of roaming gangs of violent supremacists in the West Bank. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?
Ahmed, what’s a liberal Zionist? I’m having a problem associating the 2 words together, I always thought that you were a Zionist or you weren’t a Zionist and now you’re saying Zionists come in different flavors. From what I know, the only difference between the different forms is that one of them uses vaseline.
Walid, a liberal Zionist is like an egalitarian segregationist. It’s also related to a spineless invertebrate.
Ahmed, sorry, I may have misdirected your discussion and ask that my post be deleted. The subject is about BDS and I went in a completely opposite direction.
LIberal Zionists accept the right of Palestinians that were denied their day in court surrounding 1948 forced removals and 1951 prohibition from return, to get their day in court. I do.
I do NOT support the maximalist interpretation of right of return to general descendants of residents of Israel, and certainly not the maximalist interpretation of any Palestinian having the right of return to live anywhere in former colonized Palestine (it has not yet been sovereign, only a jurisdiction of a colonial power).
So, we won’t march together.
I’ll claim that you are secretly seeking to take over the country and you will claim that I am secretly seeking to take over the country.
I know for a fact that your accusation of me is innaccurate.
On when push comes to shove, I think you pose the question well at least for Zionists. “When in a state of war, will you side with the valid Palestinian claims (accompanying excessive and expropriative claims) or will you side with your family and family of family?”
Its posed that way already, but isn’t in fact. Phil for example, has not faced the possibility that his mother’s close friend will be evicted by a Palestinian that resided in the house for two years in 1944. Or, that some radicals that he corresponds with will be mistaken for Zionists during a war, or if in Palestine accused of treason for sharing innocuous information with the enemy liberal Zionist press.
I think the important message is to stop pushing oneself (an action that we control), instead reconciling, even around oft-repeated invocations that are not actually current needs.
The right of return is not a need. The right to a decent and safe and free current life, is.
Two “maximalists” in that one! Go for a trifecta, Richard!
And I can’t even count the number of times Witty has tried to push Phil under the bus. “Phil for example, has not faced the possibility that his mother’s close friend will be evicted by a Palestinian…” What a cheap shot.
Since the right of return is not a need, let’s just say it’s a privilege, which brings up the question, then why should, say Richard Witty or his son both American born and reared, be given the ROT, and not some Palestinian family dispossesed in 1947 or ’48, with the grandparents still living?
And will any Palestinian Israelis or any Palestinians at all be on the judicial bench when the right to disputed land is being decided? Or will every court be akin to the old days in the USA when only white males sat on SCOTUS?
RICHARD WITTY- “The right to a decent and safe and free current life, is.”
Something we agree upon. The current priority for people concerned with peace and justice in Israel/Palestine must be to end the Gaza blockade, and to end the intentional harassment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in Israel proper. This is an immediate necessity. People need to be able to live and work and get on with their lives. You can’t effectively work for future goals in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Alas, I fear the immediate future is bleak. It would appear that the Zionists have concluded that they need to take extreme measures now to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Jewish immigration into Israel to offset the “demographic problem” has pretty much run its course. There isn’t going to be another significant aliyah like the Russian one. Under these circumstances, the “Jewish and democratic” state will likely become increasingly brutal. Opposing this is where our emphasis should be.
I think working for future goals is what creates the possibility of a better life.
So, is that the focus of BDS, or the right of return?
I’m actually moved by your comment Keith. Thanks for even agreeing on a single statement.
One of my great frustrations on this, is that I don’t find that I have a path to be of help in the scope that I am interested.
The radical path is repugnant to me, so I will not sign onto BDS especially cultural and academic, and even the assertive social service organizations that I’ve encountered have some litmus of rhetoric (rather than just helping).
Any suggestions?
Oh please, Richard, I’ve never seen a guy more entranced with his own impotence.
Like I said, you are not fooling anybody except your self (you certainly don’t fool your own son, he knows what Daddy wants and will make him proud) and are disgustingly, smugly proud of doing so.
Problem is, you’re not finding your ideal audience here. As far as my experience goes, your opinions will be lapped up by those who are basically somewhat anti-Semitic, but think they have something to gain from associations with Jews, and can gain it by sharing bigotries.
RICHARD WITTY- To the degree that you are concerned with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the general human rights abuses in all of the occupied territories, that should be your focus. You don’t have to agree with a one state solution, or legally defined right of return to make a meaningful contribution to Palestinian welfare. Actually, the physical well being of the Palestinians should be our top priority.
Richard
If you have a modicum of decency you’d renounce YOUR right of “return”. You’d stop to oppose the right of return to those who RIGHTFULLY own it.
Not holding my breath though.
Except that your tribe HAS taken over the country, an action that you support openly. So the hypothetical “accusation” against you is clear fact. Are you really so oblivious?
The strength of the one-state approach – that you reject – is that it disavows notions of ethnic “group ownership” that give meaning to phrases like “Jewish [or 'Palestinian'] takeover”, in favor of universal individual rights. Like an actual liberal democracy.
Richard, your post confused me. Did you say that you agreed that the Palestinians were evicted and kept out but that you don’t agree for them to have a general right of return? Are you saying you are a liberal Zionist?
Walid, yes, that’s exactly what Witty’s saying.
Ahmed,
I think you misunderstand both Haber’s point and tone. It was his intention to be patronising and indulgent – but of liberal Zionists, not Palestinians. He is trying to counter the idea that BDS=anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism, which is insidious and winning hearts and minds throughout the liberal Jewish community. He is basically saying “even if you’re unreconstructed, you can still support BDS”. The “naches” reference makes a valid point (again, I see the condecension as directed at liberal Zionists rather than Palestinians), and that is that BDS is a way of showing solidarity with Palestinians, who deserve to know that they are not alone. Read some of Haber’s other posts, that’s his style.
I understand your principled approach (I think it’s come out on other issues as well), but Haber’s arguments will win some lib-Zio’s over to BDS, while yours don’t stand a chance. I don’t see anything wrong with ad hoc alliances, if there’s a chance that they may contribute to ending some of Israel’s worst human rights violations.
Shmuel,
The thing is that BDS=anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism may not be correct but BDS=anti-Zionism is correct. Look at the overlap between those advocating BDS and those that support a one state solution. It is huge. Jews need to understand that the BDS campaign is just another mechanism to get rid of the Jewish state.
After reading your posts, eee, I suspect a lot of American Jews are seriously taking a second look as to whether they really need a so-called “Jewish state.”
you say some of the most silly things chaos. yeah dude i can totally see american jews left and right renouncing israel after reading a blog post. you are a character ;)
This is like a whole day later. And all you did was come around to post something derogatory? Good god, your self esteem must be down the friggin’ toilet if this is all have to look forward to at this hour.
“Jews need to understand that the BDS campaign is just another mechanism to get rid of the Jewish state”
Jews need to understand, and I suspect most do, even if they won’t admit it, that the survival and flourishing of Judaism has very little to do with Israel, one way or another.
And now that I think of it, why is it that Jewish walk-aways and intermarriage didn’t stop dead the day Israel got its statehood? Didn’t seem to make a whole lot of difference?
And again, it’s a nasty and bigoted thing to want to rid the world of a certain religion (under most circumstances), but a State? Anybody can, with perfect equanimity, advocate for its demise.
Only a fool, or someone who hated their own religion would attempt to posit a state (especially a colonial settler project state) on it’s back.
Oh, but I forgot, that doesn’t mean squat to you, you’re an atheist.
So you admit, up front, that Judaism is no more than a ploy, a schtick, something to be minipulated for political or economic gain.
“And again, it’s a nasty and bigoted thing to want to rid the world of a certain religion (under most circumstances), ”
I must be really bigoted, then. I’ve got a whole list of religions to get rid of. All forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha’i, Druze, Yazidi, Parsee, and sky-clad Jainism for males. The last should be restricted to personable young females.
I’d like to keep voodoo around, though. You can’t go too far wrong with a religion that includes rum, cigars, and lissom young women doing wild, abandoned dances. The Gods actually come to the ceremonies, and you can enlist their help against your enemies.
I guess, in essence, what you are saying, Shmuel, is a partial loaf is better than none; there’s always political horse-trading. And even diluted help is better than none. Too, there’s always hope that every step forward puts one that much closer to the ideal goal. I think Obama took that approach with Obamacare, and he’s taking it too with Wall St. One of the first steps in the USA civil rights movement was getting clearance in some local southerntown–to sit at a soda fountain open to the public.
Citizen,
I have participated (and continue to participate) in many political battles over the years, and I cannot think of a single one in which the groups I was involved with did not team up with other groups, on an ad hoc basis. I regularly march and cooperate with Communists and Catholics, Islamists and Secular Humanists – when our goals converge. In the case of liberal Zionists, there is also the chance that a PEP might learn something and actually try to grapple with the only exception to her/his progressiveness.
I agree with Shmuel, more than this little phrase can tell. Haber is one of the voices on the Israel Palestine issue that shows an absolute integrity of character. You have to read him more of often.
Obviously he ridicules the people Phil calls pep with the word that irritates you. I agree with Shmuel here again. in nuce He means come on if you are honest, you know it’s not much they ask.
He is definitively not ridiculing Palestinians, definitively not.
You are definitively attacking the wrong person.
He means, come on, if you are honest, you have to admit it’s not much they ask.
I agree with both you and Shmuel. Jerry is one of the most humane people I’ve ever read on any subject and I think, like Shmuel, that the tone of gentle ridicule in his post is aimed squarely at the liberal Zionists. He knows their prejudices and is trying to pull them forward as best he can. I wish I had his patience. (Sometimes I wish some of our Zionists would go there–particularly RW–but that could try the patience of any saint).
Many Palestinians were forced out during the war, and I said that those that had prospective claims deserve their day in a color-blind court.
I said that I regarded the idea of general right of return for descendants to Israel (as distinct from green line sovereign Palestine) and definitely to the general nationalist “any Palestinian wherever residing currently or historically” to return to Israel.
It won’t be consented to, and if you are willing to go to war for those vaguer interpretations, then that would be a contention.
If you consider that merits a lifelong, centuries long war, I would consider that a provocative stand, beyond a principled one.
You describe right of return as sancrosanct. Zionists (the overwhelming majority of Israelis) regard the state of Israel as a Jewish majority state as sancrosanct.
Exceptionally kind acts might change the consciousness of Israelis (and hopefully vice versa). Violent or punitive acts won’t likely.
The period of Jewish walking apology/shame is past.
As I assume that the period of Palestinian subordination is over.
The point of that is that it is better that we talk as adults, men, seeking our own and our neighbors’ good.
Yeah, cause if there is one thing Zionism is dedicated to, it’s dealing with other’s as equals in Palestine! As far as seeking our neighbor’s good, I thought the Zionist policy was “No benefit to a Jew, without an equal or greater Palestinian benefit”.
Now if only the Palestinians could get a fraction of help from the US government that Israel has had for scores of years…
“As I assume that the period of Palestinian subordination is over.”
Praise God! The occupation has ended, reparations have been paid, Israeli war criminals punished or at least made accountable, and Palestinians are returning. I don’t know how it all got past me, but I’m glad it happened.
Nicely put and to the point. It takes two to tango.
Yeah, it takes two midgets, or two normal-sized people; otherwise, it’s just a painful joke.
‘The period of Jewish walking apology/shame is past.”
What are you talking about, Witty? If you are ashamed to be Jewish (and it’s pretty obvious you are, and constantly seeking a way out) and feel you need an apology, that’s your problem. But don’t try and make it mine, like you made it your son’s.
As a side bar, isn’t that sort of statement what made Hitler so popular among Germans?
like you made it your son’s.
that issue has been on my mind occasionally.
I think the point is that some American Jewish guy who HAS the legal right to move to Israel today doesn’t get to say whether or not my husband has the right to return to Isdud (now Ashdod).
For the record, no one in my husband’s family wants to leave Khan Younis to go live in Ashdod. But they ALL support the Right of Return!
My wife has the right to return to Hungary, but no right to retrieve stolen property or compensation, and it was a lot.
Where do you see the boundary between what is legitimate right of return versus excessive?
I’m not asking about her, but about your family say.
If your family intermarried for three generations with non-Palestinians, would you believe that each of the great grandchildren have the right to return to anywhere in Palestine, and be compensated?
Where is the line?
I think this has to be worked out in the course of negotiations.
This is what has to be negotiated.
So you don’t have an opinion on it?
Anyone else you know that you could refer me to?
There are hundreds of opinions on it.
The point is that lately, Zionist talking points are “RoR is off the table.”
That’s bullshit. It isn’t yours, or Israel’s, to take off the table. And it certainly isn’t Salam Fayyad’s.
Well, that’s what Zionists always do. How many times have we seen Witty move goalposts? To the point where Israel can literally kill Gazans in the midst of cease fire, and somehow its Hamas fault for “breaking the peace” of it all.
Yup, Chaos, moving the goalposts. Will there be hard cases, confusing cases, sure, and Richard immediately cites, without the slightest evidence to say how common these cases are, or if they exist at all.
What about the thousands of cases where it is perfectly clear that property was taken, people forced to flee, and their deeds still exist? Hows about we settle those, and then adjudicate the harder cases?
Why, one might even say Witty is taking a stance of “maximalist” negation! It borders on the fascistic!
Well, I hear your anger Judy.
I don’t hear your proposal. Its the next step.
Anger is easy.
Sexist AND racist. Anyone else notice that about Witty?
“Sexist AND racist.”
I’ll give him this: he’s consistent. I still don’t understand how he can go on bamboozling the audience most intimately involved with his projections.
Simple. It’s solipsism at work.
You’re goddam right I’m angry. My family members live under a siege that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I haven’t seen my in laws in a decade. My husband is so homesick he’s sick with it…. and you can be in Tel Aviv tomorrow. Goddam right I”m angry.
I’d like to see Palestinians withdraw from the faux peace process. Refuse to implement the occupation for Israel. Work toward national unity within Palestine. I think Palestinians must STOP and regroup, and refocus on national liberation rather than on begging for a seat at the table with the US and Israel.
I support worldwide BDS to stop the status quo of occupation and siege.
As for Israel, I still don’t really understand what forces in place continue to drive the occupation/settlement machine. The occupation machine seems to have a life of its own. What can be done to change that structure?
I don’t feel too hopeful. I see Israel as comprised of right wingers who are clear in their hatred of Arabs, clear that Israel will never compromise, and clear about the need to stay in control. I see “liberal” Zionists like yourself, who say words of peace, but who don’t support any real change other than touchy-feely nonsense reconciliation talk. In both camps, the status quo rules. Israelis get to party at night and sit in coffee shops by day. Woo hoo!
Ultimately it will come down to who has the greater capacity for suffering and who has the higher birthrate.
My money is on Palestine.
We’re not just talking about the ones from sixty years ago. We’re talking about the ones that were evicted on numerous occasions since then, the ones that were evicted yesterday, the ones today, and the ones tomorrow. Don’t worry about the Palestinians who married and made babies with Chinese. We’ll get to them later. There are plenty of full bloods to deal with.
Judy – work that anger :-)
I followed your conversation the other day on sexual/physical abuse as a model for understanding the I/P conflict, makes sense. On that track the Israeli obsession with incitement is obscene. It’s the abuser saying “when you stop resisting, i’ll stop abusing”, what an abomination.
The oft-repeated argument that Israel acts in self-defence in the Occupied Territories has to be demolished.
Speak for yourself, Richard Witty. I don’t know anyone personally that likes to get angry; they try to avoid situations conducive to it.
Ultimately it will come down to who has the greater capacity for suffering and who has the higher birthrate.
My money is on Palestine.
now that is fucking depressing :(
As if you weren’t bothered enough by being outpaced by Hispanics here at home, huh? Poor, poor, yonira. Where can he go that he could get away from those wretched brown people?
you are such a racist dude, it is crazy. i am dating a brown girl, if she hasn’t driven me away from them, i don’t know what will ;)
you don’t think its depressing? these are real ppl we are talking about, and they are waging a battle by bringing more and more babies into utterly miserable conditions. you are quite the arm chair activist.
You know, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that this woman you claim to be dating actually turns out to have an air valve on her left thigh and could conceivably be used as a flotation device in the event of a water landing.
I continue to be intrigued how you sick white racists think. You even try to frame something as simple and wholesome as giving birth and raising a family as an act of war that warrants military retaliation.
Witty,
Tell your wife not to feel too bad about it. She can have a lot of her own in Israel! For free! God gave it to her and all her descendants for ever and ever, 1000s of years ago!
I broke my rule of addressing you. I just couldn’t help it. I saw the word “wife” scrolling down and I was intrigued because you don’t mention her often.
“The period of Jewish walking apology/shame is past. ”
This is a new Witty phrase recently. It’s topsy turvy, both morally and historically. In the past Jews were held responsible for crimes they didn’t commit. Now, when Zionists have power and they really have committed serious crimes, some wrap themselves up in the mantle of persecuted Jews of the past and imply that criticism of Zionism is equivalent to antisemitism.
When you commit crimes or when an ideology you support is responsible for crimes, the proper attitude is shame and what one should do is apologize.
Your language is still “crimes”, as in punishment.
Apology for actions is not the same as shame. I believe that Israel and Israelis should do the self-inquiry to sincerely identify harms that they did (even if they had no other option that they were aware of), harms that they intended (that they did choose), and apologize appropriately for both.
“Walking apology” is something entirely different. It is the repeated invocation of existential shame, of apologizing for being (individually or collectively).
Seeking the “walking apology”, the “walking shame” is fascist or Stalinist or Maoist, or whatever coercive politically judgemental metaphor is most useful. It amounts to racism, experienced as continuation of the holocaust, of wanting Jews to not exist, only seen when they are “in the way”, rather than alive and a community that just is.
I hope that you don’t now indulge in demanding what I call a “walking apology”, a permanent and unconditional shaming.
It is the territory of “never again”. That is distinct from apologizing for actions. We will though, those of us that have been through any crucible, never again exist in self-denial or fundamental state of unconditional shame.
The same phenomena applies to Palestinians. Never again will Palestinians that have lived through struggle, allow themselves to be dismissed, ignored.
Its a good in the world, to be a man, and to see others as men. (Adults, not just men.)
It nowhere implies that criticism of Israel or of Zionism is equivalent to anti-semitism. It does imply that the denial of Zionism at all, is equivalent to a form of anti-semitism, in hating that Jews exist as a community.
It allows for criticism of policies and practices, but not of identity, not of existence. Its why when Ahmenidijad speaks of Israel as “that microbe”, he is repeating the will of the holocaust.
It also allows Zionism to morph to a greater democracy if that evolves, but not by Israel’s destruction, and not by shunning.
You should understand the images applied, and reasoning that connects the images. They are not unreasonable, nor are they suppressive.
How come your posts, Witty, of late, all boil down to “Yer a Commie bastard!”
I tuned most of that out. Saves time.
It’s fairly simple. Israel exists as a Jewish state because of ethnic cleansing and they’ve also committed other atrocities since. Palestinians are also guilty of atrocities , though lesser ones. People should feel shame when they commit or try to cover up atrocities.
Ergo, Witty is sociopathic. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, it’s impossible for him to attribute human emotions and motivations to Palestinians. They will always be a savage threat to his pure “jewel” of a “Jewish state.”
Also, did you hear that apparently one of his sons actually lives in a West Bank settlement? Kind of explains the irrationality of his bias, doesn’t it?
“Walking apology” is something entirely different. It is the repeated invocation of existential shame, of apologizing for being (individually or collectively).”
How well you have explicated your son’s inheritance. Ah, such an intimate bond, he knew exactly what his father wanted from him, a reaction based on fear and weakness.
“Also, did you hear that apparently one of his sons actually lives in a West Bank settlement? “
Hey, the kid was desperate! He did not want to end up a “walking apology”, something he has seen all his life, and using the principles engendered by his upbringing, went where he thought he would find help.
The poor schlemiel!
“Your language is still “crimes”, as in punishment.”
Heaven forbid [war] criminals should actually be punished.
You propose a self-admnistered system of law. Was that the reason Israel killed 255 policemen in Gaza?
Again, unless you propose to kill the “criminal” or whatever metaphor you want to use, they are still your neighbors, and you have to work it out with them, or continually fight them.
Its the same story for Israel relative to the Palestinians.
It won’t disappear.
Witty: “Seeking the “walking apology”, the “walking shame” is fascist or Stalinist or Maoist, or whatever coercive politically judgemental metaphor is most useful. It amounts to racism, experienced as continuation of the holocaust, of wanting Jews to not exist, only seen when they are “in the way”, rather than alive and a community that just is.”
Did/does the Goldhagen thesis seek a walking apology/shame?
Does it amount to racism? How long will each new generation of Germans oblige, send reparations to the state of Israel, very little of which goes to actual survivors? Give Israel nuclear arm subs?
And, anyone else note how Witty blended denial of Zionism into denial of jewish communal existence?
Witty’s son lives in a settlement, and in the West Bank, no less? Disgusting. Witty should be ashamed of him and himself.
Not, you know, that he will be.
Is it worth it to get liberal Zionists on the BDS wagon?
Of course it is worth it. If it is worth getting the managers of ABN Arno, the Norwegian Finance Minister, the Saudi government, and Salam Fayyad on board the BDS wagon, none of whom can be described in any way as a principled supporter of justice, than what makes liberal Zionists different?
A movement for justice wins when even the people who disagree with its principles are forced accept its demands. That’s the point of BDS. It should be noted than nobody (including Haber) has suggested changing the principled language of BDS to accommodate liberal Zionists (or the managers of ABN Arno, or anybody else). Liberal Zionists should support BDS for reasons that appeal to them in their current state of moral confusion, just as ABN Arno managers should support BDS because it serves their financial interests. BDS grows as more people understand that it is the best alternative for them to support. Only a fraction of these will actually support BDS on the basis full political agreement.
That is the strategy that has made BDS as successful as it has been.
I think that bold statement describes the ‘Liberal Zionist’. More on ‘Liberal’ intellectuals:
People like Dick Witty, are so quick to support the red tape, not because it’s justified but because it serves the interests of power structures they are invested in.
So Dick straw mans international law as ‘political correctness’. The end.
I remember Dick Witty once telling us he was a ‘courageous voice’ after being thoroughly refuted on something. He basically gave up debating and in retreat, began to whine as he usual does. Except this was more pathetic than usual.
Perfectly fits the ‘Liberal’ intellectual archetype. The though-police, the gate-keeper, telling us what is extreme and what is not. The sad sad equivocations.
I contrast, I thought Hedges omitted a third important criteria, which is the reference of compassion.
Often those that think of themselves as truthtellers (Finkelstein and Chomsky), even motivated by a sense of concern for others, ignore compassion as a primary criteria in their comments.
The dismissal of others’ sensitivity is an important feature in that. Finkelstein and Chomsky aren’t excluded just because they speak the truth, but because they brow-beat.
The thing I question, more than question, in Finkelstein’s invocation of international law includes a false presentation of the authority, rather than acknowledging an opinion.
And, to add to that, he used to speak of the ICJ as if it was a court, and not an advisory body recommending prosecution to the General Assembly of the UN. He stopped, once confronted on the exageration.
I ran an audio tape rental/subscription library in the mid-90′s called Green Island Cooperative Library with a couple hundred hours of Chomsky tapes from the time, of which I listened to about 90%. I often found him making logical jumps, describing his train of thought as authoritative and the only possible conclusion, when I didn’t buy it.
I took his advice in the Hedges article to heart, to remain skeptical. He only referred to skepticism of the of mass media, conventional views, but in the world of the conforming left, his are the conventional views, that I am skeptical of, and sometimes add up insightful and inspiring, and sometimes add up dismissive and propagandistic.
You look different in text than you do in your photo. :-)
“Compassion”
ROTFLMJAO!!! Oh yeah, Witty, “compassion” that’s your speciality!
I’ll leave it there, I’m laughing too hard to type.
Compassion is prompted in One by the pain of the Other. More vigorous than empathy (and without the pity of Sympathy), the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate the Other’s suffering. Yeah, Witty, you’ve keyed out tons of
compassion for the Palestinians in your three years or so of comments on this blog. (You were especially compassionate during the Gaza Turkey Shoot.)
Reminds me of Melisa Tomei’s line to Joe Pesci in My Cousin, Vinny: “Yeah, you blend.”
>> There are two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege it will always be at the expense of truth and justice.
That is a beautiful statement.
“That is a beautiful statement.”
Say what? It’s nothing but unmitigated anti-Semitism to say that Zionists can’t have both! Remember, the only real blood libel (to a Zionist) is to say that Jews have the same limitations as the rest of humanity.
>> Say what? It’s nothing but unmitigated anti-Semitism to say that Zionists can’t have both!
Well, clearly I meant that it was beautiful only to the likes of “regular folk” like me… ;-)
Source from Fink’s webpage:
link to normanfinkelstein.com
Richard, what do you feel should be the right of return for Palestinians?
Claims by direct former property owners, and “squatting” residents as well, entitled to compensation based on the then market value of the property lost, adjusted for inflation, accompanied by the right to be an Israeli citizen.
Perhaps offered to one generation of primary descendants, ie a single heir.
Identification of other property identified as abandoned also compensated for whom owners can not be identified, maybe at 50% of then value (adjusted for inflation), to a trust for the development of Palestinian community in Palestine.
Its a lot of land, but the then market value was not that high even adjusted for inflation. It would amount to a lot of money, but not a breaker.
It would end the dispute though. The dispute would have been settled, once and for all.
Its about time. Life should be normalized, rather than kept mutually harassing.
There will continue to be follow-up on prior claims, and there will be future disputes.
I don’t claim that what I regard as fair will be offered. I suggest it as it is fair in a color-blind setting. Color-blind, it looks like the rule of law to Israelis and hopefully others.
When I was a kid, my aunt used to have us say divide a cupcake. We would always play opportunistic games to get the biggest piece. The way that we got to choose fairly was for one person to cut the pieces and then the other chose which one they wanted. It created the setting where for the person cutting, their best outcome was the most fair one.
It was artful. Something similar should be done in Palestine. Some skillful negotiator should create that game with the two parties.
One big problem is the political division in each of the communities. Israel is divided between nationalists, religionists, commercialists and humanists. Palestine is divided between nationalists, religionists, humanists.
Neither community has the institutions to constitute authoritative negotiating partner.
There’s no difficulty in recognizing the fair solution to the I/P conflict–it would mean the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants, with compensation for the property they lost. There would also be compensation for Jews expelled from Arab countries and the right of return for them, or compensation for Jews who lost property unjustly even if they weren’t expelled. (I won’t get into the numbers, which I don’t know). That’s of course a problem between Israel and the various other governments, not the Palestinians. Judging people guilty of war crimes and atrocities would be more difficult–perhaps a truth and reconciliation commission would be the way to go there.
The difficulty is in persuading the two peoples to live side by side in peace–I’m no judge of how difficult that would be. But it’s not helpful, to take a very real difficulty of one sort (fear of violence, civil war, oppression) and pretend it is a difficulty of another sort. Basically, liberal Zionists of Witty’s stripe just don’t want to admit a moral principle if it threatens the moral foundations of his brand of Zionism. I think WJ is more honest about this. Zionists of the RW stripe elevate Zionism above the basic principle (which has absolutely nothing to do with who ruled Palestine at any given time) that ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, not a slightly shady way of redrawing the boundaries of a congressional district to get the sort of votes one wants. (An analogy he used recently).
I got a little more specific than you Donald.
The question to me was “what do you suggest the right of return entails?”
And, I tried to put in practice my metaphor of trying to identify what I considered most fair and verifiable, so that “you pick”, not that “we pick”.
We’ve read your take on right of return numerous times, and it always adds up to two things:
A) Jews alone get to share that right to their descendants, and
B) Israelis should be allowed to profit from their ethnic cleansing and settlement activities, above all other considerations.
“Israelis should be allowed to profit from their ethnic cleansing and settlement activities, above all other considerations. ”
I was just about to type pretty much the same thing, but see that you beat me to it.
What I like about WJ is,from what I’ve seen of his posts, he’s honest. He worries about what might happen if there was a one state solution–civil war, violence, oppression. Those are real world legitimate concerns, worth discussing. Maybe one could only get to a one state solution slowly. What is not worth discussing is how RW will twist basic moral principles to get the result he wants.
And, as the result I want is coexistance that results from two healthy communities, that is a damn good thing to stick to.
Great, RW. You could start by openly admitting the crimes committed in the name of your ideology and then asking yourself what needs to be done to rectify the injustices involved, rather than pretending that to admit injustice is somehow equivalent to giving in to antisemitic hatred.
The first step in solving a problem is admitting that you have one. It’s a big step.
Ah, I see you were typing a sort of admission to Judy just now. Probably the best you could bring yourself to do, but you’ve had years or decades to “study” this issue, as you’ve told us to do, so maybe with a bit more work you can find out just what sorts of crimes mainstream Zionists inflicted on Palestinians. You already seem pretty clear in your own mind about the crimes committed by Arabs against Israelis. Still, maybe that was a start.
It shouldn’t be satisfying to you Donald. I am not a person in power either over policies and practices, nor influencing public opinion.
But, I am still a person with strong sympathies to the Jewish people, and their/our right to self-govern in Israel.
It is an open question if you can advocate that Palestinians identify those that care for their condition and can live with them, or if urge that they hate all Israelis and/or Jews so much that they can’t possibly.
With Israelis pocketing the difference? That’s a sweet deal for your clients, I suppose, isn’t it Witty?
Yeah, a sweet deal, like Uncle Sam’s: Sam gives Israel 3 billion up front each year with no strings attached, and Israel pays no interest, but instead earns interest on that gift, while Sam borrows the gift money to give Israel, and pays interest. Unique relationship. Further no additional grants are given Israel because then Sam could attach monitoring and purpose strings; instead Sam gives Israel “loans,” which are always forgiven, hence never paid back.
Richard, that was all about paying off the Palestinians but not a word about the right of return. You read here what Judy said about its importance to the Palestinian people. Your plan doesn’t seem to allow for any return but you mentioned something about the green line. Would you elaborate?
You have to understand — for Witty it’s all about money. And faulty, deceptive accounting tricks. He does that for a living you know.
i am sure your fascination w/ naziism disgusts them much more than anything witty has every said.
Really? Because I imagine your foul mouth makes Jews cringe at the thought that they have to consider you brethren. Myself, I’m far more repelled by your terrible command of your native language.
I wonder how many refugees there are like my husband’s family members, who aren’t even after material benefits, mostly recognition of the crimes against them.
It isn’t about money, Richard.
I think most Jews are absolutely disgusted with the walking anti-Semitic stereotype that Witty makes out of himself.
I recall a study (mainly among refugees in Lebanon, if I remember correctly) that showed that virtually all refugees wanted the right to go back, but very few said they would actually return to their towns and villages of origin, if they could.
Of course, whether refugees want monetary compensation or not, they should have the right to that as well.
And even then Witty tries to do a massive swindle on that. “The land is worth more in Jewish hands, so Palestinians should only be compensated in terms of its worth in 1948.”
It’s as Judy mentioned about Palestinians looking for an admission of a wrong done by Israelis much more than about looking for a fast buck on the backs of the Jews after having sat on their asses for all these years as Israel keeps implying. I read the same studies that concluded that while all Palestinians want to hear the Jews’ mea culpa, there aren’t that many that would actually want to live in Israel. Israel has been playing a stalling game for 60 years waiting for the ’48 Palestinians to die off. The youngest of those ’48 Palestinians would be about 62 today.
Who do they want to hear it from?
The Israeli government. Dumbass.
I think a lot of people would want the right to visit, in Israel, in Palestine and in Jerusalem.
We don’t have relatives in camps in Jordan or Lebanon. I can’t speak to that experience… but I know our relatives in Jordan are professionals. They wouldn’t be interested in moving to Israel. Hopefully part of the negotiated settlement would include providing citizenship in home countries for those who choose to stay.
It’s fascinating that Zionists get apoplectic that the thought Right of Return; since I don’t personally know anyone who would return, I never “got” how RoR “destroys” Israel.
Just do the right thing. Acknowledge what was done. Negotiate return and compensation. Open the borders. RoR doesn’t have to be a stumbling block.
Just do the right thing. Acknowledge what was done. Negotiate return and compensation. Open the borders. RoR doesn’t have to be a stumbling block.
The idea that the “Jewish state” would be flooded by returning Palestinians is just a scare tactic for internal consumption and an excuse for external consumption. The real problem in recognising Palestinian ROR is accepting the fact that Palestinians have rights (as opposed to “generous offers”) and that the establishment of the State of Israel was morally questionable, at best. As long as “peace” entails only recognition and some sort of reversal of the ’67 occupation, there’s no problem for most Israelis (on a theoretical level, of course) – even if a deal includes throwing some bone to the Palestinians in the form of a “token” return.
ROR is the core – for Palestinians and Israelis – even if everyone knows that few would choose to return.
ROR is also about “who is the victim” – the all-important Zionist argument for Israel’s very existence. Far more important in many ways than “who is a Jew”.
I think you are right Judy.
Who in the Israeli government.
Olmert stated some comments on Palestinian suffering at the founding of Israel when he was prime minister.
That obviously wasn’t sufficient in your mind, as the expansion continued.
“Some comments.”
“Mistakes were made.”
“A few bad apples!”
“Separate but equal.”
You know, your comments alone Witty, bear out the answer to this thread and the obvious answer is a resounding “No.” Mostly because liberalism and Zionism show themselves to be mutually incompatible in the first place (like any incarnation of liberalism and ethnocentric militarized nationalism has proven to be mutually incompatible in the past).
“ethnocentric militarized nationalism “
Oh look, it’s Zionism’s Mommy and Daddy, come from Southern Europe and the Balkans to visit. Nice to see you folks.
Did he make those comments on the way to a groundbreaking at a new WB settlement?
No, to an invitation to Palestinian leaders to discuss reconciliation.
I see that there are four potential attitudes of Palestinians:
1. Unconditional and permanent hatred – Understandable in ways as people have been harmed severely and continue to be without evident rhyme or reason.
2. Conditional acceptance – from a distance. We won’t bother you if you don’t bother us.
3. Conditional reconciliation – We want to be good neighbors with you if you are willing to be good neighbors to us.
4. Unconditional acceptance – That can be saintly, the strength inherent in “turn the other cheek”, or the groveling of the abused (not really unconditional acceptance, but weakened).
My goal is the third. I don’t know if Palestinians can get there. I don’t know if Israelis can get there. 2 or 3 is the prerequisite of a single state. 2 or 3 is the prerequisite of a two-state approach.
If you are asking for an apology for events that my people may have committed (me not knowing of all specific negligent and intentionally malevolent events), I offer it here and now. I personally don’t know the extent that the Zionist effort intended (if that term means anything for a disparate and diverse group) Palestinians’ dispossession originally. It is obvious that it happened.
I also don’t know if the two communities could have coexisted in the scale that Jews needed and sought to reside in Israel/Palestine.
In supporting the effort of Jewish settlement (way after the fact) I personally did not mean harm to result, either your family’s family or others. I obviously was not there.
Of course it is inconsequential for me to make that apology.
And, in the present, I do not seek that harm continue. I seek that harm stop, and that paths are pursued that result in the harm stopping.
And, although it galls you, I believe that it is important for Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity to acknowledge harms that they have inflicted and intended, and noted that that contributes to escalation of conflict.
It is something that Jews are hungering for as well.
Witty, if you want harm to stop, you should work on figuring out how to change the expansionist policy of the gov’t of Israel.
Harm isn’t going stop if enough Palestinians start singing “We shall Overcome.” When Palestinians gather, IDF soliders show up and starting shooting and teargassing.
I fundamentally reject your core belief that Palestinian behavior is the cause of Israel’s unstoppable expansion.
That expansion is the heart of Zionism. I suspect that the Zionist gov’t can’t stop because that’s what it’s all about.
As for your apology, well, I will leave that bit of drama untouched.
“I fundamentally reject your core belief that Palestinian behavior is the cause of Israel’s unstoppable expansion.”
Of course, I NEVER said that.
Expansion is not the core of Zionism, residence and community building are.
You do get that Israelis are not disappearing, that any future will be a future in which Palestinians and Israelis are neighbors.
Unless one of them moves, and although Phil is gleeful that some Israelis have moved, the majority haven’t and won’t, and the more committed neo-religious are the ones that are staying, the ones with 12 kids/family, and not commercially ambitious.
Everything you write says points to your core belief Richard.
Why is there continual settlement expansion? Liberal Zionists claim that the settlers are “extremists.” Why does an extremist group dictate government policy on this most critical issue? Why has it been allowed to do so for years? Why is making coalition with crazy settlers preferable to making a coalition with, say, leftist parties? Arab parties?
Why does the settlement machine churn on unchallenged?
Why do Israeli citizens allow it?
Why do American Jews support it?
If this isn’t core to Zionism, why is it tolerated? It’s against international law, flies in the fact of stated US policy, is condemned or at least disparaged by every country in the world, and it’s JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Why?
That’s kind of like saying slaughtering the Jewish race was not at the core of Nazism, merely making the Third Reich free of Jews, was.
Well, Witty, that’s because you’re a racist who believes that Palestinians are simple, crude creatures.
In fairness, one can use such oversimplified categorizations for any group of people as long as you recognize that real people are likely to be more complicated and often self-contradictory. And anyway, you can apply his scheme to both sides. RW is a good example–I’d say he’s a combination of the first three elements of his own scheme. He’d deny any trace of 1, but if you use his scheme there has to be some way to categorize his tendency to use double standards for Israeli and Palestinian atrocities. With that in mind, maybe he’d like to modify his system.
“I fundamentally reject your core belief that Palestinian behavior is the cause of Israel’s unstoppable expansion.”
Of course, I NEVER said that.
Witty
—————–
That’s a lie, Richard. It’s explicitly or implicitly, in most of your posts. Sometimes you just try to dilute it in psycho babble.
Unless one of them moves, and although Phil is gleeful that some Israelis have moved,
————
Phil irks you, irritates you and anger you. Phil obviously has great qualities..
The settlement enterprise is not so simple as to just condemn, and that is the end of the story.
It is the result of three things that I’m aware of:
1. Momentum from the past. The structure of the settlement enterprise was adopted during Begin’s and Shamir’s time, with Sharon as interior minister, in which the objectives and outline of how it would be conducted were defined. Prior to that time, the settlements were few and far between, uncoordinated, sincerely idealist renegade establishments. Once structured (the finger strategy), they became a project. Even if the settlement expansion numbers increased during labor and kadima, they did so by momentum, not by initiative as much (like a product introduced into stores is promoted hard but realizes only limited sales, but then takes off; or like Google spending 8 years developing its core services with which to sell its advertising strategy which takes only maintenance support to realize enormous volume.)
2. Weak and divided central government with religious and other odd coalition partners that have agendas in very limited scope. In forming governments, the religious and minority parties are invited in because they provide 10% voting bloc, but for a relatively small price. Yes, cynical, but thats what happens in a divided democracy. Israel has 7 parties that influence government. In which there isn’t concensus of hearts and minds.
3. Diversion from long-term US policies. George W Bush publicly accepted the settlement policy, and the Israelis ignorantly interpreted that as precedent that would continue. That has changed, but Netanyahu has not digested the significance of the change. As his advisors (even in likud) divide, he will have to make a choice of whether to pursue expansion and the old likud policy, or drop it. As much as likud thinks that they will be able to recruit large numbers of kadima, the oppossite is equally likely.
The current settler movement, which is comprised enthusiastically of recent Russian immigrants and ideological neo-religious (right-wing and some not even Zionist), literally does use the division in the Israeli government to “slip in”.
Part of the reason its tolerated among people my age and older, is memory of the cruel and constantly aggressive isolation of Israel at the green line prior to 67.
Large parts of the Jewish world thinks of Israel as a home space, our roots. The anti-Zionist movement is also cynical and dogmatic in early coming to a conclusion of either/or. Either this space will be ours only, or yours only. I don’t know if you are of that view or not.
So, the anti-Zionist movement is perceived as keeping Jews from their homespace.
The options include Jerry Haber’s hope for shared space, which I do as well, but in a two-state format.
The other option is exclusive, which advocacy for war. I oppose it for Israel, and I oppose it for Palestine. I experience war frequently here, rather than reconciliation.
Frankly, one of the reasons that Israelis aren’t clearer in their objections to territorial expansion, is that the Palestinian solidarity world is also not clear in its needs and demands.
If, CLEAR conditions were presented for peace, not moving targets, then Israelis would get the opportunity to choose between actual options.
So, that opens my question about whether Palestinians desire to co-exist or to expel.
If they desire to co-exist, then define the conditions of co-existence clearly, hopefully in the spirit of “we define the options, you choose” to quote my cupcake metaphor.
To reiterate that model. In dividing a cupcake and letting the other one choose which slice to take, the best outcome for the one dividing, is to make it as fair as possible. (That is an oversimplification of the issues at play, but it does describe the sentiment of what is necessary.)
Through all your verbage you still don’t get it: the shadowy structures you describe will never change until they are forced to do so.
If you want harm to stop, work for that change. Period.
Done.
It is more difficult to when aggression is stated towards Jews and Israelis.
Of the 70% of American Jews that have some sympathy with Palestinian condition, 6/7ths of those are repelled by being yelled at and abused.
“Part of the reason its tolerated among people my age and older, is memory of the cruel and constantly aggressive isolation of Israel at the green line prior to 67.”
For all your vaunted reading, there’s no indication in this line that you might have read Avi Shlaim’s “The Iron Wall”.
I haven’t read Shlaim.
I’ll order it from my library.
What “cruel and aggressive” isolation at the Green Line are you talking about, Richard?
Does getting flack from Chaos and others here make you feel like you need a “safe place” Richard?
It does communicate that there is danger in compromise.
As it does to every liberal Zionist that shows up here, even those that agree with the content that occupation is wrong and should be transformed asap.
The problem is Richard, that you shoot down every measure aimed at “transforming” the occupation (is that the same as “ending” it?) because you feel threatened by meaningful pressure.
This irrational pyshological condition that plagues Zionists is what makes this conflict intractable… that and the fact that no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly what fuels the occupation machine, which has a life of its own.
I don’t shoot down Hamas sticking to the cease-fire, or hopefully permanently stopping the shelling of civilians.
I don’t shoot down proposals for Israel to relax its management of its borders, or to negotiate with Hamas directly if possible, or to form a unified Palestinian state capable of managing an international port peaceably.
Obama’s efforts if continued, will result in clarity to Netanyahu, and likely an electoral change if the knesset can vote a no-confidence resolution.
I do actively support Obama’s consistency on the questions.
The political clarification of the inadvisability of settlement expansion for Israel, will stop it.
Terror or malevolent dissent gives the strength of truth to AIPAC’s contentions that Israel is in danger. Better that it not have that argument.
Calm dissent will work, raging, spitting, fist-waving individuals in kaffiyehs will communicate something different.
Whispered dissent is allowed.
Got it.
Yeah, Witty, answer Judy. That settlement machine has been going on for 42 years plus–and as she says in the face of every other country in the world on record as saying its illegal.
Or like saying lebensraum was not at the core of Nazism, merely
residence and community building were.
Total lie. Weren’t you at one point trying to convince us it was actually hudna (ooh! Scary Ayerab word!) and that we should interpret Hamas adherence to the cease fire as actually representing a build-up to an attack, in spite of actual evidence to the contrary?
You think we all forgot that?
You mean you see no other option than silence or aggression.
You sound like Netanyahu in that.
Well, Witty, considering you consider peaceful, internationally participated protests in the West Bank as “aggressive,” I’d say you are attempting to frame all actions related to opposing your precious Zionism as a false dichotomy of either silence or aggression.
why are hudna’s generally limited to 10 years?
WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! SCARY ARABIC WORD! WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! EVERYONE PANIC! WHOOP! WHOOP! FULL ISLAMOPHOBIA MODE ENGAGED!
i was hoping for a more historically relevant explanation.
No you weren’t. You were just hoping to drag attention away and exploit a racist stereotype about Palestinians. You don’t even know the contents of UN 242 and you were spewing inane and fatuous statements about that after citing it.
please explain how you know so much more about 242? can you tell me about the debate between the french and english versions? can you tell me in detail what land for peace actually entails, apply it to the peace made with egypt and jordan and how that can be a template for peace between israel and the rest of her neighbors? can you tell me about all of the subsequent UN resolutions? can you explain why the sheba farms, syrian territory, is what is stopping a peace treating between israel and lebanon? can you discuss how lebanon and syria’s inability to enforce 1701 makes 242 irrelevant?
you don’t have a clue chaos. you copy two point verbatim from wikipedia and think you are a fucking genius. i hope i am not the only person who sees right through your charade.
Oh, I get it now. You’re just pissed because I make an idiot out of you. I’m white and Midwestern but, unlike you, I’m actually well-adjusted, conversant in multiple disciplines, successful and collegiate. In fact I’m guessing you wouldn’t be anywhere at all if you weren’t using your somewhat removed Jewish heritage as a crutch.
Basically, I’m enough of what you are to remind me of you, and I’m most of everything you fail to be. And so the primal schoolyard bully in you kicks in.
Makes sense. I mean, all you can do is regurgitate second rate garbage from right wing Zionist websites like “hudna” and “never miss a chance to miss a chance” and “Arabs rejected the partition” and other nonsense, and when someone calls you on the bullshit and shows that you don’t have a clue what you’re actually talking about, you get in touch with your inner excrement-flinging ape.
hudna
————
Hudna means truce or cease-fire..I don’t get the question. Why use the Arabic word when you can use ‘truce’
Hudna = a 10-year peace, which is in fact an evil Arab plot to fool the west into thinking “the Arabs” want peace, but as soon a that clock expires… whosh! all Jews into the sea!
Is that right Yonira?
Let’s compare that to the Oslo Peace Accords, in which neither Israel’s brutal military occupation nor settlement machine stopped for a nanosecond.
Oslo has become a means of stalling meaningful action… keeping the parties at the table forever, doling out bits of authority and money to PA leaders to keep them begging to be allowed back at the table with the big boys…
Ahmed Moor, you’re on you’re way to becoming a formidable I/P writer. Keep on picking apart Zionist logic.
Richard witty your such a suave debater. I am really amused, Your opponents throw you not only arguments, but virtually ‘fire and brimstones’ as well. Combine all of them, yet no one has yet made even a single scratch in your rationalities, cold and strong as a volcanic rock…This is one lesson showing anger and irrationality in every contest never make even a single good step for one’s welfare…
Witty has converted a believer. Who’s next in line, Julian or eee?
There are three options there:
1. Palestinians dominate and expel or subordinate the Jews
2. Israelis dominate and expel or subordinate the Palestinians
3. They co-exist
Which do you advocate for? Accurately? Everyone.
Which side are you on? Which of the three?
No answers. Too challenging to be honest?
I am for option 3.
You’re not going to get there by advocating for expansion. That is a path to war.
But, assuming that you are sincere, I hope people hear that and make it happen.
Of course I am sincere. The problem is the day after the peace treaty is signed. Do we get another Gaza in the West Bank? If there is a large likelihood of that, then an agreement is worthless.
>> Large parts of the Jewish world thinks of Israel as a home space, our roots.
The product of far too much indoctrination and/or time spent contemplating the fables contained within books of faith.
“Be American because we live in America, or French because we live in France? Integrate with our neighbours, our fellow countrymen? Never, jamais! We are forever different, forever alone, forever victims unless the holy land promised by the guys who wrote…errr, by our god to ‘our people’ is once again free!”
Pingback: MONDOWEISS ONLINE NEWSLETTER « Shoah
Why should a guy like ahmed, who is clearly american, get a right of return to a country he hardly knows, when there are israelis who have known nothing else but israel?
As opposed to you? Barely five years Jewish and you already have more right than a man of Palestinian descent?
Zionism isn’t racism, huh?
chaos, if you knew a thing about the right of return, you’d know that i always had the right of return, my conversion has nothing to do with that right. i would have been persecuted under the nuremburg laws, and i am considered a jew under the right of return.
Great, so some white slob from South Dakota is entitled to land in Israel whereas a guy who’s family was living there a generation or two ago isn’t supposed to, huh.
reality bites chaos,
So you’re a social Darwinist who rejects the concept of making the world a better place, huh? Have you expressed that notion openly in the supposedly progressive synagogue you claim to be part of? You know… “Gay marriage is illegal. Reality bites.”
Why should a guy like ahmed, who is clearly american, get a right of return to a country he hardly knows,
————-
Do you think it’s right that you or Witty, can go anytime you wish because your “ancestors” once dwelled in the area, 2000 years ago?
that has zero to do with it atheist. its all about the state of israel dictating its own immigration policies. our ancestor and our yearning for israel brought us there, hard work and sacrifice gave us the state of israel (that and some ethnic cleansing)
reality is reality, even if it bites ;)
I don’t recall Zionist Jews being so adamant about respecting immigration policies before 1948.
reality is reality, even if it bites
————–
Of course it is..But I could as well just sit down and say well, child labor and forced prostitution are realities and I can do little about them. Let’s just move on and think of something else.
BS.