More Beinart repercussions; he's opened up the space, and given the timorous encouragement. Tablet has run a great piece by parenting columnist Marjorie Ingall saying she's never written about Israel, because she doesn't buy the program and her children look on Zionism as toxic. The piece was promptly trashed by Commentary, which says that anti-Semitism never ends and Israel can count on no one but itself (further indication of what MJ Rosenberg predicted, a giant split inside the Jewish community).
My excerpt begins with Ingall's conversation with her daughter about a book. It really is only a matter of time before the daughter is talking about the right of return!
I stumbled desperately through an explanation of why two peoples feel they have a legitimate claim to the same land.
“But having land is like having a seat on a bus,” Josie replied. “You can’t just push someone out of their seat, and you can’t just leave your seat and then come back to it after a long time and just expect the person who is sitting there now to give it to you.”
My panicked reaction to her words surprised me. I found myself trying to convince her that Israel did have that right. But that’s not what I believe. But I’m not sure what I believe. I want my children to love Israel, but I don’t want them to identify with bullies. I was spinning in my own head like the desperate, overwhelmed woman in the Calgon commercial: J Street, take me away!
But Josie’s bus-bully analogy resonated. Baby-boomer Jews seem wedded to a sepia-toned image of Jews as victims—in the shtetl, in the Holocaust, in Israel’s early wars. But in real life, victims can turn into bullies.... So, exactly how should liberal parents who want to foster Jewish identity, but who see Zionism as the conversational equivalent of an Alar-coated apple, teach their children about Israel?
Thanks to Jack Ross.
The divide is three-way.
Radical anti-Zionists
Liberal Zionists
Radical Zionists
Relative to the liberals that adopt live and let live, the radical approaches (Likud and solidarity) are in fact united to deter peace.
That is the greatest divide.
Speaking ex cathedra, I see. Spouting your usual slogans. Live and let live essentially means allow Israel to do what it wants, but maybe complain ever so gently and maybe someday they’ll change.
Richard is here to calm down Josie and her mother. Everything is fine, if we only ignore address the maximalists.
I start to agree with Mooser, it would be interesting to see to what extend Richard’s son mirrors his father.
WE DO HAVE NO PROBLEM, IT’S ONLY THOSE EXTREMISTS WHICH CAUSED AND WILL CAUSE TROUBLES.
Below that we all should rely on: Never look back. Which in turn should only start post 1948.
“I start to agree with Mooser, it would be interesting to see to what extend Richard’s son mirrors his father”
Ever put two mirrors facing each other? That’s what we got with Witty and his heir apparent.
I’d leave Witty’s family out of it–he apparently mentioned his son at some point, and he’s mentioned his wife once that I saw (she was mad at how we treat him), but since he’s not using them in his arguments (such as they are) I don’t think we should either.
Witty has used both his wife and his son to argue his points. He gets no pass from me. If he didn’t want them discussed, why did he bring them up? He certainly thought his son’s actions redounded to his credit, and I disagree.
I can only agree with you had I done research to find out about Witty’s son. I didn’t, Witty brought it up. And as a point in his favor. As I remember, he used his son’s experience at school to convince us of the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism. All it did was convince me of his instability, and Witty’s dis-interest as a Dad.
Maybe it’s incumbent upon Witty to tell us why we shouldn’t discuss the things he brings up?
There’s a ton of stuff about me I don’t want discussed here, so I don’t bring them up: My early record of juvenile delinquency, the statutory rape charges, the phony marriages, the involuntary commitments the bitter divorce, the child abuse charges, the bankruptcies, the tax evasion and the warrants which still chase me around the country. I never mention them, and Witty should do the same!
Mooser has no class. That’s why he attacks Witty’s family. Never mention anything in front of him unless you’re prepared to be attacked.
Mooser, few lines above: … I never mention them [private stuff], and Witty should do the same!. Class AAA.
it’s kind of a sick pattern amongst the mondofreaks
Now really yonira, is it necessary to resort to further discriminatory stereotypes? Is venting your homophobia regularly no longer enough?
Its a horrid consequence of the blogosphere.
The walls have ears, for those of us that have the integrity to post under our own names.
“Mooser has no class.”
On the contrary, boychik, I am fust-cless!
And is anything more Jewish than the pursuit of “class”?
“The walls have ears, for those of us that have the integrity to post under our own names.”
Richard, even if I told you my full name was Derbig Mooser, it still wouldn’t be right for you to look up the voluminous public records I left behind in 8 states, and comment on those things I never mentioned.
And Richard, again, if you are ashamed of the tragedy you have contributed to, don’t bring it up. Most people don’t brag when their kid joins a fanatic religio-sexual cult.
I never laid a finger on that girl, and she told me she was 47!
He has no class but he is a fust-cless wordsmith!
When I spoke about my son, it was to contribute insight and knowledge.
There is MUCH innaccurate and derogatory statements made about Jewish and other religious commitment here, and my comments sought to illustrate that, and to candidly convey my reasonings.
I wish that you were mature enough to respond to candor with respect, rather than as a weapon for ridicule.
That makes transparency very difficult.
MANY people here are then exposed in conveying personal experiences about others.
I am unconditionally proud of my son. If he chooses to join a religious approach that he derives meaning from, even if I think of elements of it as a cult, that is his right.
i’m with witty on this.
“When I spoke about my son, it was to contribute insight and knowledge.”
When you open your yap, it’s to deceive or obfuscate. When you spoke about your son, it was to try and put one over on us. And you still are, trying to put one over on us. And when it doesn’t work you wail and moan like a stuck pig.
If you are trying to tell us you are a deceitful, bigoted old man whose alleged liberalism consists of special pleading and self interest, and coated with the poison sweetness of the assumption of shared prejudice, you accomplished that long ago. You can stop now.
Okay, you are “unconditionally proud” of a son whom not even you can deny has been taken in by a “cult”. Sure, okay. And you see no conflict there with your “liberalism”. Sure, okay.
“If he chooses to join a religious approach that he derives meaning from, even if I think of elements of it as a cult, that is his right.”
Unless of course, he does so at the expense of others.
Why is Chabad considered a cult, RW? I have had the opportunity to attend some events at various Chabad Houses and I found the young couples who ran them “modern” and ready to engage with all sorts of people. They don’t convert anyone to their brand of orthodoxy really but they provide a religious place for the unaffiliated.
“I am unconditionally proud of my son. [If he chooses to machine gun Palestinians at prayer, even if i think it's wrong, that is his right.]”
Shudder.
Here ya go, Rachel
Read ‘em and weep!
Richard Dawkins wrote or quoted: the difference between a cult and a religion is only in the number of followers.
And never forget that a perfectly ordinary and harmless religion may have cults within it, or turn into a cult at a certain level.
There is MUCH innaccurate and derogatory statements made about Jewish and other religious commitment here, and my comments sought to illustrate that
you’re rude. this was an excellent brilliant very personal article my Marjorie Ingall and you just have to get here first and post your diversion leaving no room for even little josie (i assume she would be relegated to the ‘radical anti zionist’ category. go write your own blog witty don’t come in here writing vrap and then whine and moan about the backlash.
take a bow, its all about you isn’t it. you’ve got a lot of nerve complaining at all. you’re lucky phil and andy put up with you and funds your ego driven drivel.
And when your son helps burn down a mosque in the West Bank, what then, Witty?
A mosque is basically a building, what is the issue here is the cultural value and religious rights connected to the building…
Nevertheless we should look at the fact that no religious practice is banned here. The issue remains on the fact of destroying a building built on a questionable land. Initially a building can only be preserved if it stand on a land titled for such private ownership…but even so according to law, the state having the absolute domain, has still the right to expropriate such property if it declared so necessary…and that authority can only be persuaded by an appeal not never questioned.
Before any argument, one must first understand the workings of law and governments before condemning any of the party in conflict…
Am I supposed to understand that collection of dilettante Euro-Russo immigrants who took land from a native population by using, among other things, surplus German military hardware are supposed to represent the law of Palestine?
If you are truly a disciple of human rights, peace, and equality why deprive Richard Witty of his?… Does this proves your previous declarations were simply lip service?
Zamaaz? Do you have the same blase attitude toward the burning of African American churches in the US’ South?
Richard Witty’s right to what? Burn children to death with white phosphorous? Tear up a land deed and bulldoze the home and farm of a family who have lived there for generations?
How many of Witty’s trees have been burned down here, as a Jew living in America? He ever have a storefront of his spray-painted with epithets? Does he have to wait five hours at a checkpoint to go scrub toilets thanks to his religion or ethnicity?
“Why is Chabad considered a cult, RW? I have had the opportunity to attend some events at various Chabad Houses and I found the young couples who ran them “modern” and ready to engage with all sorts of people. They don’t convert anyone to their brand of orthodoxy really but they provide a religious place for the unaffiliated.”
I said elements are a cult. I love some of the Chabad friends that I’ve made since my son determined to become orthodox. They have been warm, open, intelligent, not dogmatic as you say.
He had to leave his childhood neighbourhood, which gives him a lot in common with Nakba victims. He too experiences feelings of loneliness and exile.
Seriously, even in the grand scheme of all things Witty, the Edward Said comments are golden.
The alienation from the past is something that Said and I share, that everyone of us over 50 share.
The loss of “home” is important.
There are two ways that I know of that “home” is established, most often two complementary ways
1. Place – Native peoples develop a collective memory, a tradition of a place. It naturally forms identity. Wildly changing commercial and other modifications to place very definitely disrupt.
Most Americans for example are currently “homeless” in the sense of limited traditional bonding to a place.
Even Palestinians that adopt modernity, or Lebanese, or Gazans, will find that place has less meaning in commercially defined living places.
2. Community – “My spouse is my home”, “My family is my home”. For Jews in diaspora, that was the primary reference. We were chased out so frequently, that our primary reference shifted to our family and community.
That is also distorted in the commercial west. Sadly, in Phil’s theme of civil division, he encourages that dissolution of family and community identity.
One cannot have a “home” that is only constructed of place. But, one can have a “home” that is only constructed of family and community.
One horrible irony about modern Zionism is that they have partially rejected the family and community as “home” for possession of land, not yet loving the land as in generations.
Israelis have a lot to learn (and some to reject) from Palestinians that had lived there for a long time. But, the starting point is a different one than any that the nostalgic Palestinian nationalism refers to.
The horrible irony about the entirety of Zionism, Witty, is that is has always been practiced from the business end of a gun. Like every other form of European colonialism.
“The alienation from the past is something that Said and I share, that everyone of us over 50 share.
The loss of “home” is important.”
Which home you were forced out from, Richard?
Sweet Jesus, could you be more self-involved? You share nothing, NOTHING with people like Edward Said. Don’t delude yourself on that score.
TGIA, he was forced out of his childhood home. By, you know, growing up. That totally parallels the experience of 750,000 Palestinians who were driven out of their homes by threats of violence.
Why, has the nature of man totally changed?
This phenomenal rigidity of human character that crossed centuries since the first documentation of a people was ever written, made me even more a believer of the credibility of ancient scriptures….
Was Said forced from his home personally?
I guess there is difference in feeling between seeing a home that either you or a parent was forced from (by gun, by bankruptcy, by need for a job).
And, I would expect that there is similarity in the experience of visiting a place from the past.
Which do you think played more in Said’s consciousness, the passing of time and the natural mourning for the inevitable changes from the past, or the specific?
Yes, yes, we get it zamaaz. You’re a flat-earth creationist Bible-thumping fundamentalist. You don’t need to beat us over the head again and again with your Puritan notions of predestination.
We share that we are/were human beings. We share that we each have hearts, minds, sense of humor, sense of irony, hope.
Said was a man (a man that I met). Don’t make him or his work into a god.
What a perfectly stupid straw man, Witty. And as far as irony goes — weren’t you the one who repeats as a mantra “Zionism is a jewel?”
The fact is you don’t know jack shit about what it’s like to be a Palestinian. Hell, you don’t know anything about what its like to be a minority that is denied rights and political power because of who you are.
“This phenomenal rigidity of human character that crossed centuries since the first documentation of a people was ever written, made me even more a believer of the credibility of ancient scriptures….”
Pity for you. Most, if not all of the Bible was “just a load of fairy stories to get the kids to go to bed on the donkey ride to Jerusalem”.
Witty, I suspect the constant brutalization of his people at the hands of your precious Zionists made a pretty significant impact on Said’s consciousness.
Predestination is only ‘our’ own thing of belief.. among us who believed on it… but to others who don’t, that is not an issue… after all it is in ‘the eating that matters’… and that does not concern us either.
I just mentioned things on these matter previously for others who maybe interested to see that way…. It is only for ‘seeing’ and not for destroying others other beliefs…
“Was Said forced from his home personally?”
Said was born ion Jerusalem. In 1948 he was 12 and was living in Talbiyeh a neighbourhood in Jerusalem. I’m not aware of the exact circumstances in which his parents “left”, forced or volutarily as you put it but the fact that he could not call Jerusalem a home any longer hardly put you in the same situation. To have to explain such a plain fact is pure Dada!
Zamass is dumb. He bought it all as a kit..Adam and Eve and all that. That a single couple, like rabbits, was the genitor of the human species all on their own, their sons fornicated with their sisters to father sons and daughters who again fornicated in order to make more children and populate the earth, . The fact that this is a scientific improbability,(all would have ended up to be village idiots) doesn’t doesn’t impress him.. He’s dumb.
Mooser why are you only mentioning the less serious issues about your life that you don’t want discussed? LMAO
Zamaaz, the argument the state can do anything if it declares it necessary, would also say that the state has the right to murder innocent people. Or force them out of their homes, deprive them means to make a living, if it declares it necessary. Even execute them in mass murders. And that is exactly the state of Israel does to non-Jews. Appealing to the workings of the law and government loses something when you recall that slavery was legal, that everything the nazis did to the Jews was legal.
“orthodox.”
Oh Jesus, Witty, I grew up with Orthodox Jews! Those Chabads are by no means “orthodox”.
On crucial issues such as this conflict over Israel one matured person should never count the opinion of a person who has not yet seen comprehensively the various factors of said conflict (historical, legal, political, social, etc.) much more innocent reactions of children. Otherwise it is only sentimentalizing the issue to either blow it up to a war scale, or sustaining a low-intensity deadly conflict…which tragically only the affected people actually suffer….
Zamaaz? Were you for or against the invasion of Iraq?
Or, are you for or against it, in the present tense too, even.
I’ll tell you where you’re wrong, Richard. There’s another category: non-Zionist liberals. We’re not radically anything. Or, inherently, anti- anything. We just have no preconscious attachment to Israel and Zionism. And we are in favor of the basic liberal principles, applied uniformly without distinctions of religion or ethnicity. And we don’t see Israel or Zionism as even TRYING to approximate these values.
And we constitute the silent majority of the younger generation that Beinart is so anxious about.
“There’s another category: non-Zionist liberals. ”
Yeah, exactly. Hell, I’ve expressed sympathy for the cultural Zionists–I don’t see anything wrong with people like Judah Magnes wanting Jews to live in Palestine and get in touch with their roots or do whatever. That could be like the Amish. Live and let live, in that case, to quote someone around here. The problem comes in when you start to say “Hey, let’s start an Amish state and if we have to, we’ll transfer the “English” out of here.” Of course Amish pacifism being what it is, they weren’t really able to pull this off–perhaps they should have asked for help from the real English and had Balfour type up some promise to establish an Amish homeland in the area near Harrisburg PA. Since they didn’t do any of this, it really is a matter of live and let live.
I agree with you matt. Do you notice the Bushism in RW’s breakdown?
Either you’re a zionist, or you’re against us.
To not be a zionist (radical or “liberal”) is by definition radical anti-zionism. It’s a maximalist slur. And kinda stupid.
RW’s being is predicated on a mistaken belief you can support both liberalism (universal rights) and zionism (restricted rights for the ay-rabs).
You guys aren’t that bright.
Did you notice the identification of the Israeli right as conspirators in the resistance to peace?
Matt,
As Israel exists, to advocate for Israel to not exist, is to NOT be a liberal (as in reform), but a radical (as in revolution).
“Did you notice the identification of the Israeli right as conspirators in the resistance to peace?”
..and? What’s your point?
For your three-way to be adequate all non-zionists would have to be advocating for one-state, and they aren’t. Even then, among those that do support one-state, there is a mix of advocating for ideological reasons, and pragmatic reasons. Given the long support among liberals for a two-state solution I speculate the majority of one-staters are in the pragmatic camp. The two-state solution has become impractical, killed deliberately by Israel.
One-state might feel radical to you Richard, as a jewish supremacist, but it isn’t. When right of return, by force, after x000 years is acceptable for jews, but forbidden for Palestinians in real time, that’s some seriously messed up shit.
Richard, I’m not advocating for Israel not to exist. I, and others like me, do not feel comfortable being represented by a state that discriminates along ethnic/religious lines in order to ensure the demographic supremacy of a particular group of people. This includes laws that regulate land use, prevent intermarriage, and regulate immigration (including the Jewish law of return). If Israel were to reform these laws and policies, as you suggest is proper, I would be satisfied. However, since this would open the door to an increase in the Arab population relative to the Jewish one, it might incidentally lead to deep structural changes in Israel’s Jewish character. Would that, in your view, cause Israel not to exist? If so, your reform/revolution dichotomy really collapses, analytically.
To be a Zionist, requires a belief in Jewish supremacy over others, which I believe is illiberal.
By your definition, advocating an end to apartheid South Africa is radical
I oppose racially discrimminatory laws regarding land use, inter-marriage, citizenship excluding Palestinians that have been born in Israel but left.
I support a state’s right to invite immigration, as I support Palestine’s likely right to invite Palestinian immigration.
You don’t know that a two-state solution won’t emerge, and to state that preferential immigration is by definition racist, would place you as opposing Palestinian right of return to the West Bank.
I believe that it is acceptable to define a state jurisdiction by community, rather than only by geography. That is what a plebescite is, definition of jurisdiction.
If degree of self-governance is the definition of democracy, then the social definition is reasonable. If some other definition of what constitutes democracy is applied, then please articulate what you consider.
Witty,
The right of return for refugees is not immigration, for the same reason returning from a vacation is not immigration. If you leave your house during a conflict in fear of your life, you should be able to return without any consequences. This includes your descendants who would have, given different circumstances also been born on the land.
“I oppose racially discrimminatory laws regarding land use, inter-marriage, citizenship excluding Palestinians that have been born in Israel but left.”
Yes people, notice how Witty says “they left”.
This is not scripture, you don’t need to look for objections.
I’m candid. You can take me at my word. I’m just not simplistic.
“You guys aren’t that bright.
Did you notice the identification of the Israeli right as conspirators in the resistance to peace?”
You’re projecting again, Richard. We read you better than you read us–I’ve said over and over that you use rightwing Zionists as a scapegoat and act as though “liberal Zionists” are morally perfect. You’ve said this stuff over and over again. Perhaps you need to see something several thousand times before it sticks in your head, but some of us catch on quicker.
“I’m candid. You can take me at my word. I’m just not simplistic.”‘
Indeed Witty, conflation (whcih is what you excell at) is the art of adding confusion to a debate.
Using that same model, I should be able to move back to my great-great grandparents shtetl in Poland after they were driven out by the pogroms.
sign me up, i love the Poles!
63 years later, three generations later, its immigration.
You believe that the wording is more important to you than the content?
Its why I ask you to specify what exactly you mean by “right of return”.
If its just of people that resided and had title to land within geographic Israel, to return to geographic Israel, that is more specific than saying “any Palestinian anywhere has the right to return to anywhere in Palestine” (even if its new, not return).
Please be specific.
Yonira,
Guess what? No one is prohibiting you from moving to Poland if you really want. You already have the right that you deny to the Palestinians.
Yes, yonira you should!
63 years and three generations later, it’s still a right of return. Just because Israel denied them the right 60 years ago, doesn’t mean that right magically disappears.
A Palestinian who originates from what is now Israel has the right to return to what is now Israel. A Palestinian who originates from the Occupied Territories has the right to return there. That is the right of return.
The least you can do is not engage in Nakba denial by saying “but left.” Would you say that European Jews “left” their homes during WWII and thus have no right to request a reinstatement of their Polish or German citizenship? That would be Holocaust denial.
I don’t understand your question about democracy. You seem to be saying a state can differentiate among–provide differential rights and privileges to–it’s citizens by religious or ethnic “community” and still be democratic. Most Americans would reject this, and I reject it. In any other context but Israel, you’d reject it, which exemplifies the mental and moral contortions young Jews are being asked to engage in. It’s no wonder they reject it too.
“Please be specific.”
There is something morally wrong about the position that when you steal land, you just have to keep the original owners away long enough so that most die off and then you can claim their immediate descendants can’t come back. There’s also something wrong in saying that the survivors of 48 can come back, but can’t bring their children and grandchildren with them.
Israel pushed them out for purposes of achieving the right demographic balance and that gain is what your limited ROR is meant to accomplish. Now for pragmatic reasons maybe the Palestinians might go along with a limited ROR, but don’t expect people who believe in liberal ideals to take this nonsense as a serious moral position. It would be a concession to hypocrisy and power politics.
“and act as though “liberal Zionists” are morally perfect.”
Noone I’ve ever known is morally perfect.
Liberal Zionism however results in the optimization of self-governance (two-state solution governed by strong majorities that identify as a particular nation), a translation of “live and let live”.
I don’t “use” the right as a scapegoat. I sincerely believe that the Israeli right and the Palestinian right (Hamas and radical right-wing factions) and solidarity, dance together. They each have a vested interest in retaining a state of tension, for their opportunistic partisan ends.
And, that that DIFFERS from the needs and interests of civilians as civilians. You make a distinction that you support Gazan civilians and are indifferent or worse to Hamas. I agree.
I make the same distinction within Israel, that the ideologs are driving the country to ruin, as Bradley Burston has been posting, Uri Avnery, many others.
Liberal Zionists consider the needs of others, and are flexible in negotiations (more than flexible, actually seeking the health of the other, more than indifference).
Its just that we value Israel as Israel, not as a mush, and fear that as a mush Jews will be subordinated, and that that is not acceptable.
It doesn’t mean that one projects one’s fears and anticipatorially oppress, but it does mean that one stays aware, clear and kindly assertive.
“The right of return for refugees is not immigration, for the same reason returning from a vacation is not immigration. ”
You hit it Shafiq – and if you happen to give birth while you’re on vacation you aren’t forced to leave the kid(s) with airport customs when you arrive home either.
Shafiq, which would you prefer, limited right of return and a Palestinian state, or Palestinians living in camps and under israeli occupation for several more generations?
“There is something morally wrong about the position that when you steal land, you just have to keep the original owners away long enough so that most die off and then you can claim their immediate descendants can’t come back. ”
There is something morally wrong historically about that. I hold Israel accountable for its present actions though, not emphasizing that historical, as the conflict at the time included the effort to ethnically cleanse Jews from the land, and that that was plausible.
The revisionist argument of 1948 Israeli military advantage is revision. It is only concludable by deceptive rationalization in long retrospect. It is relevant to dispel the notion of Israel as extremely tiny relative to the Arab armies, but that is a different story told.
““The right of return for refugees is not immigration, for the same reason returning from a vacation is not immigration. ”
You hit it Shafiq – and if you happen to give birth while you’re on vacation you aren’t forced to leave the kid(s) with airport customs when you arrive home either.”
My children do not have the right to return to Hungary, Poland, Lithuania (the combination of my family’s residences). I don’t think it is international law that there is a “right of return” to three generations of inter-marriage to a home that they’ve never seen.
What would have been, or not? (What a silly theory. “What would have been”).
Democracy is of the present.
So Yonira, what you’re saying is that the Palestinians should just suck it up that the were forcibly expelled form their homes? And instead be grateful that Israel is offering to not occupy them?
Is this Liberal Zionism? All it does is reaffirm my view that Zionists have no moral compass
63 years later, three generations later, provate property is still private property.
“You believe that the wording is more important to you than the content?”
No Witty, the wording is the content you moron. the toruble ewith you is that you tend not to read, then give your own peaning based on what you arelady believe.
“Its why I ask you to specify what exactly you mean by “right of return”.”‘
By right of return I mean right of return.
“Liberal Zionists consider the needs of others, and are flexible in negotiations (more than flexible, actually seeking the health of the other, more than indifference).”
There is a spectrum of people described as liberal Zionists. At one end there are people who genuinely do care about Palestinians and (I suspect) probably feel a deep inner conflict between their Zionism and the ROR. At the other end you have the narcissists who pay lip service to peace, but have double standards on human rights (cough, cough) or in other ways show that they don’t value a just peace very highly. This is the bunch that the term “shooting and crying” was coined to describe, I think. And there are no doubt people who fall in-between, or whose positions vary from day to day.
Unfortunately much of what you write here is closer to the shooting and crying camp.
“The revisionist argument of 1948 Israeli military advantage is revision.”
Well how profound. I never though of it that way.
they need to accept that life will not return to how it was pre-1948 and start looking towards the future instead of dwelling in the past.
do you think they should just keep living in camps and under occupation until some miracle takes place?
I believe in reality, it sucks, its not just, but it is reality.
Its true that there are a spectrum of people that call themselves liberal Zionists. Dershowitz does, but I don’t call him one.
“Unfortunately much of what you write here is closer to the shooting and crying camp.”
That is your projection. In real life, I present Palestinian suffering as Palestinian suffering. How many “shooting and crying” liberal Zionists, support any Free Gaza effort? (I just think that it needs to be done very carefully to be effective dissent.) Or, support any right of return.
You so often confuse observation with advocacy. It happens very frequently among those both on the left and the right.
Did you parents/grandparents have the right? If they did, did they exercise the right?
Choosing not to exercise the right of return (and thus forfeiting it) is entirely different from being denied it in the first place. These are historical wrongs that have never been righted.
It’s ironic for you to go on about the present, when Zionism itself is all about what happened 2000 years ago.
“The wording is the content”.
The people’s experience, their welfare, is not the content?
Shingo,
Take a poll. How many know precisely what the “right of return” means, specifically. I don’t.
“‘In real life, I present Palestinian suffering as Palestinian suffering”
No you present Palestinian suffering as the fault of the Palestinians, Hamas in particular.
“You so often confuse observation with advocacy. It happens very frequently among those both on the left and the right”‘
It does in repose to hyporcites and pathological liars like yourself.
Shafiq,
If you open up voluntary leaving as a prospective forfeit of the right of return, you are opening a can of worms.
Zionism is about Jews needing to self-govern. Present.
I don’t know the personal circumstance of your family Richard but if they were ethnically cleansed from those nations – they and their descendants (you) should have the right of return.
I also don’t know the particular details of return policies in those nations after WW2 (I presume this is the reason they re-located), but *recall* the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 4th Geneva Convention were formulated in the direct aftermath of WW2 – an international version of “never again”.
You support RoR for jews after x000 years (is there actual proof jews were expelled?) so why not for Palestinians in the here and now?
Much of Gazan’s suffering is the result of Hamas’ actions. That is true.
I support the right of return for Palestinians that were dispossessed of title in 1948, and for any that were born in the jurisdiction of Israel.
The duration is a problem. I don’t believe that those that have resided in Lebanon for three generations (but aren’t allowed to be citizens of Lebanon) deserve a right of return to Israel.
The jurisdictions have changed. Palestine may offer right of return on the basis that they choose.
“When you open your yap, it’s to deceive or obfuscate. When you spoke about your son, it was to try and put one over on us. And you still are, trying to put one over on us. And when it doesn’t work you wail and moan like a stuck pig”
Said it before, and I’ll say it again.
“start looking towards the future instead of dwelling in the past.”
“Democracy is of the present.”
Holocaust Reparations
——————————
Shafiq,
If you open up voluntary leaving as a prospective forfeit of the right of return, you are opening a can of worms.
Zionism is about Jews needing to self-govern. Present.
I didn’t say voluntary leaving, I said deciding not to take up the right of return when (if) offered. For example, if Poland offered the right of return to all those who were expelled, the descendants of those who did not take up the offer can not expect it to still be on the table.
Zionism is about [the] Jew[i]s[h] [right] to self-govern [taking precedence over the rights of all others]. That is Jewish supremacy.
there is a ROR for Jews because it is part of Israel’s immigration policies, a sovereign state voted for by the UN.
there is a biblical connection, but this connection was only reasoning for jewish immigration to the ottoman and british controlled territories, the ROR for all Jews is dictated by the government in control of the area.
“The duration is a problem. ”
Yet you support the law of return, a duration so long as to be completely ridiculous.
So basically what you’re saying is that it’s okay for Jews to return after 2000 years but not for Palestinians to return after 63 years.
Jewish supremacy?
The duration is a problem. I don’t believe that those that have resided in Lebanon for three generations (but aren’t allowed to be citizens of Lebanon) deserve a right of return to Israel.
Why not?
If your idea was to be implemented tomorrow, you’d have hundreds of people becoming Israeli citizens but their children/grandchildren not being allowed to become Israeli citizens. No other country in this world has such a citizenship policy.
And don’t you support the right of all Jews to return to Israel? After 2000 years? Obviously duration is no longer an issue then. Isn’t that a racially discriminatory law?
In Palestine, they can offer the right of return. That is their choice in the jurisdiction of their self-governance.
“there is a ROR for Jews because it is part of Israel’s immigration policies, a sovereign state voted for by the UN.:
The UN voted for UN GA 181 – which Israel has never conformed to, not even from day one. Territorial expansion is expressly forbidden in 181. I also don’t recall any section condoning ethnic cleansing. Am I wrong?
OTOH, the UN has been sending Israel a message for 60+ years to clean up it’s act:
link to foreignpolicyjournal.com
I don’t particularly support of oppose the Israeli right of return. I appreciate that it is offered, in the area of Israel’s jurisdiction.
“Much of Gazan’s suffering is the result of Hamas’ actions. That is true.”
False Witty. The siffering resulted from a war that Israel started.
And the suffering if the Gazams is also the consequence of the blockade that Israel imposed in resonse to Gamas being elected.
why in the hell would Israel conform to a policy which they accepted and was rejected by the Arab nations, that argument is so ridiculous. After israel declared its independence and was invaded from 5 angles, 181 was moot.
again, maybe not just, but reality.
“In Palestine, they can offer the right of return. ”
The good news is your decree, and that of Israel, is illegal bluster.
If RoR isn’t addressed in a meaningful way (again I suggest the offer of reparations and a significant financial package to return to only the Palestinian state) it will, I imagine, be dealt with by Israeli arab mothers and father, and their big ol’ families.
again I suggest the offer of reparations and a significant financial package to return to only the Palestinian state
I couldn’t agree more Sumud, I think reparations and huge financial backing from the international community is a given. Israel will need to sacrifice both financial and from a territorial aspect.
There’s no can of worms Witty because none of the Palestinians left voluntarily.
Yonira – you can’t claim legitimacy from a document and simultaneously ignore it’s conditions. 181 is specifically referenced in the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
“After israel declared its independence and was invaded from 5 angles, 181 was moot.”
Zionist invasion of the Palestinian partition preceded any action of the arab state armies by months – so your argument is completely invalidated. Two of those five armies never entered the Israel Partition at all.
MAP: ‘Israeli Military Operations OUTSIDE UN Proposed Jewish State Dec. 1947 To May 1948′
link to palestineremembered.com
So this is your argument: Israel has RoR because it’s a sovereign state voted for by the UN with 181, despite the fact that we (Israel) chose to ignore the major requirements of 181.
Very sound!
You’re like a lite version of Dershoiwitz, Yonira – and I mean lite.
“Shingo,
Take a poll. How many know precisely what the “right of return” means, specifically. I don’t.”
Witty, when you want a definition, you look it up, not conduct a poll to decide what people think.
Is that how you obtained your education Witty? It would certainly explain your profound ignorance and misunderstanding of basic concepts.
“I couldn’t agree more Sumud, I think reparations and huge financial backing from the international community is a given. Israel will need to sacrifice both financial and from a territorial aspect.”
You see Yoni, you can make an
eloquent argument without spinning your head 360 degrees and vomiting green stuff.0
” Palestinians that have been born in Israel but left.”
Witty’s credo in two words… they left! He wouldn’t have it any other way even when someone like B.Morris to whom Richard offers sacrifices as the ultimate word on the matter, states otherwise! This lays at the core of Witty’s problem. He espouses the official, pre new historian, whitewashed, foundational myth that the zionists stole no land, they just filled an empty, abandoned space .
“I couldn’t agree more Sumud, I think reparations..”
I’m glad but I’m not sure if I’ve been clear.
I mean reparations for stolen/looted property PLUS an additional amount to effectively give up right of return to Israel. A figure should also be allocated for deceased relatives (parents/grandparents) and inheritable by the descendants – this recognises the length of forced exile. I’m not talking about a small amount, I mean a few million bucks per person.
The decision on RoR shouldn’t be made collectively, not by the PLO/PA or even a comprehensive (Territory + refugee Palestinians) referendum: it has to be an individual choice. This means that inevitably there will be a few Palestinians who do wish to return to Israel, and Israel has to accept that. If a settlement figure is high enough, the number will be small. It’s the only just way to deal with what Israel perceives as a demographic threat. Return to Israel and receive reparations only. Return to Palestine and receive reparations and a large financial package.
I don’t see why I should have to pay for Israel’s mistake BTW. Development aid will inevitably flow from all over but the cost of reparations/settlement packages should be borne by Israel alone.
“they need to accept that life will not return to how it was pre-1948 and start looking towards the future instead of dwelling in the past.”
Who are you to tell people what they need to accept or not? What entitles you to do so? What gives you the RIGHT? Mind your own business, will you!
“I don’t particularly support of oppose the Israeli right of return. I appreciate that it is offered, in the area of Israel’s jurisdiction.”
which definition of ROR would that be Witty? The one that only applied to those born in Israel?
I certainly do not hold a symmetrical approach and always thought that any solution accepted by the Palestinian people is acceptable to me but you do not seem to go by the same priciple and dictate what YOU, a non-Israel Jew, can tell the Palestinians what they should be content with. Mind boggling sense of self-entitlement and arrogance. Sick!
“Witty’s credo in two words… they left! He wouldn’t have it any other way even when someone like B.Morris to whom Richard offers sacrifices as the ultimate word on the matter, states otherwise!”
This exemplifies Witty’s cynicism snd vulgar dishonesty. No natter how many times he is corrected and how many tomes ge aknowledged the Nakba (after being forced to admit it), he can’t help himself. He will return to another thread and discreetly and sneakily try to insert the same lie, hoping it passes un noticed.
Very child like.
“. Israel will need to sacrifice both financial and from a territorial aspect.”
BTW Yonira, you know that nobody is asking Israel to sacrifice a single square inch [of Israel] right? Since none of Gaza and the West Banl / East Jerusalem actually belongs to Israel it’s not appropriate to call ending the occupation a sacrifice of territory.
Israel isnt making any sacrifices, it stole all that land.
I’m not advocating for Israel not to exist.
the dominant theme of the pro i’s at kos now is the constant mantra of how we all don’t care if israel exists (that’s the clean version, for all the others are seeking to wipe israel off the map). it’s a trap setting up and endless stream of no no we do we do and then they say we don’t etc etc . just stupid mind numbing crap. they want to OWN the conversation. don’t fall into the trap people.
Matt,
You’re exagerating the importance of a single word. They did leave. There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description.
Try not to think the worst of every comment. Its a misrepresentation of my views.
Kind of hard, Witty, when you have made overt denials of both the large portions of the Nakba, and of large portions of the lead-up and execution of Operation Cast Lead.
“There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description.”
No ambiguity there, Richard. By saying “they left” you made a clear choice between the two words you think are implied, “voluntary” and “forced”.. “They left” can only be read as voluntary…
It is even not relevant to deal with the issue of right to return inasmuch as this issue is already ‘water under the bridge’ (overrun by history and conducts of war) as the result of many succeeding wars against Israel… Knowing the fact this problem was not Israel doings nor its blunders in 1948…
It is better or a must for Israel to place aside this issue and move forward towards its own progress…
That is you reading into my comments. You look for the worst, rather than for agreements in content or principles.
Its a failing on your and your comrades’ part.
No, Witty, that is you saying the cease fire didn’t end when Israel BROKE IT to kill six Palestinians, but it only ended as a result of Palestinian reactions (which killed no one at all).
That is also you saying that significant numbers of Palestinians were not run out of their homes by gunfire, mortar attacks and even straight-up executions by firing squad, and then many refugees who did try to return were shot on sight.
how can you say you are not simplistic when you say palestinians ‘left’ their homes.
They did leave. There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description.
fine witty. let’s try that w/the holocaust.
They did die. There is no implication of voluntary or forced extermination in my description.
perfect!
“You’re exagerating the importance of a single word. They did leave. There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description.”
Don’t play coy with us Witty. You know very well that the cornerstone of Nakba denial is the allegation that the Palestinians left of their own accord, as opposed to being driven from their land. To use the term “left” is deliberately provocative and you know it.
If you don’t want the worst to be made of your comments, then take your won advice and steer clear of ambiguities.
“You so often confuse observation with advocacy. It happens very frequently among those both on the left and the right.”
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You have double standards on human rights. It’s possible you can change, if you stop assuming that anyone who criticizes your positions is either a bad person or someone who doesn’t understand what you’ve said.
Annie,
What’s your point? You are picking fights. Is your argument stronger by exageratedly fixating on a single word.
Try addressing the jist of my point, rather than the programmed irritation.
zamaaz It is better or a must for Israel to place aside this issue and move forward towards its own progress…
It is better or a must for Israel to confront this issue to move forward towards its own progress…
I don’t think that I will adopt a single standard by your definition Donald, as that would entail me not caring more about my own family and community than one that includes many that hate and shoots at my own family and community.
I will retain compassion for civilians, and willingness to make sure that my actions improve others’ lives, even those I disagree with, and even those that are conditionally angry with me.
And, I will continue to urge reform among Israelis to achieve the Zionist formula of Jewish AND democratic. And, I will continue to support those in the US government that sincerely work for peace and improvement of Palestinians’ lives.
You want to call those double standards go ahead. I think that says more about you than about me.
“And, I will continue to urge reform among Israelis to achieve the Zionist formula of Jewish AND democratic. And, I will continue to support those in the US government that sincerely work for peace and improvement of Palestinians’ lives.”
Yes, like so many “Liberal Ziioists” you will urge reform among Israelis furtehr their pursuit of an ethnically pure state.
And you will continue to support those in the US government that sincerely work for peace and improvement of Palestinians’ lives, while opposing any policies that might achieve it.
“You want to call those double standards go ahead. I think that says more about you than about me”
You’;re right Witty. It tells us that Donald is intelligent, perceptive and consistent. It tells us that you are none of those things.
“Try addressing the jist of my point, rather than the programmed irritation.”
I though you hated vagueness Witty.
So I take it you accept the jist of Palestinian right of return and BDS, seeing as there is no need to get fixated ion the details?
Where, oh where, is the Zionist Gandhi?
At least we have it on record that Witty believes in institutionalized hypocrisy as a core Zionist doctrine, anyway.
the ROR for all Jews is dictated by the government in control of the area.
Is that any argument that Zionists have which is not based on “might is right”?
Why should anyone confront an issue not of his own making? Shall we forced Israel solve problems created by Arab leaders way back 1948… By that time Israel has shared his part in the resolution (it could be nominal by context but due to subsequent reactions of Arab leaders); they by fate just turned out having the momentous advantage of the situation that precipitated.
I support energy conservation not wasting… political energy is a scarce resource…
“That is you reading into my comments. You look for the worst, rather than for agreements in content or principles.”
No witty, it’s us knowing what a scum bag you are and knowing what your agenda is and seeing through all your fluff and calling you out on it.
No that is not my argument you forget UN Resolution 273(III) where the UN voted in favor on Israel and their being a member nation. Even if you argue that 273 was dependent on 181, which is false, Israel is still a member of the UN and recognized as a such.
181 is gone the first of many failed opportunities.
Wow, you even managed to wrap it up with the “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” ethnic slur.
How about the 60+ UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of? Care to comment on those? Or how about Israel’s unsanctioned nuclear weapons program and attempted proliferation of said weapons?
If Israel gained political and strategic advantage in 1948, it was not by their own making either, they were just able to smartly hitched on the fateful opportunities (on strategic mistakes of their adversaries) that consequently followed…
If you insist on the view of making Israel accountable, you are just making yourself politically irrelevant and wasting you political energy…
fine atheist, they can continue to be occupied and live in camps.
what about them Chaos? does that not make them a member nation. do you have any other arguments? its always the well they suck worse argument.
-
Israel literally razed around 500 Palestinian villages, in many cases shooting the residents in cold blood (both during and after initial attacks on those villages, when the survivors tried to return home). When all was said and done around half of the native population of the land had been displaced.
Israel chose that. Zionist chose to bathe their hands in blood and to steal whole villages and to try to wipe an entire people off the face of the Earth. The UN had already passed a resolution allowing the establishment of a state for Jewish immigration. It did not permit Jews to treat Palestinians how Jews themselves were treated in Europe.
That is a violation of international law, and more to the point, it is a crime against humanity.
And you, sir, are a bloodthirsty racist masquerading as a Christian. Get the hell out of my religion, you faker.
Thank you Neville Chamberlain.
I don’t need any other arguments. You’re just copying and pasting from Zionist Muslim-hating web sites anyway, yonira. It’s not like you actually understand what you are even talking about.
Even if you argue that 273 was dependent on 181, which is false
What makes it false? The rejection by the “dictating body” does not make it false.
Israel is still a member of the UN and recognized as a such.
Another argument of the Zionists: cherry pick the documents which support the state while explicitly rejecting and living in denial any other obligations, promises or legal requirements.
So really, you don’t have any argument other than “might is right.” You prove once again that most damning case of Zionist moral bankruptcy is made the strongest by Zionists themselves, as opposed to its opponents.
181 is gone the first of many failed opportunities.
And 181 isn’t gone.
Every year the legal and human rights of the Palestinian ROR is affirmed.
Just because you choose to live in denial of something, does not mean that it ceases to exist.
So Chaos, 181, if Israel would have lost the war for independence would you have expected the Arab states to give back their part of the partition? Do you expect the all of the Arab countries to re-unite back into the Ottoman empire, because you don’t think it is fair?
How about the Roman empire, should that be reunited because it’s not fair that they were defeated?
You don’t just fight wars and then expect the loser to get everything back, it’s childish. This isn’t a fucking sandbox, it’s the world of IR and global politics.
Yes, Israel acted savagely and need to pay the price for that. When there is a peace settlement they will need to pay reparations, they will need to give up the land that they occupy, but to expect them to convert back to the same territorial lines as 181 is ridiculous. What kind of precedent would that set globally?
Back? When has Israel ever existed on those UN 181 lines? What kind of “war of independence” requires you to line up unarmed civilians, shoot them in the back and then plant land mines in the rubble of their homes in case any refugees attempt to return?
We gave up the whole notion of “Naaa naaa, I slaughtered most of your family and kicked you out of your house so now I get to keep it!” after World War II. You want to go back to the World War II and do things that way, yonira?
What you need to understand is that it’s none of your business to tell them what they should “accept” or not. Like everybody else you are entitled to an opinion, but you cannot tell them their options. We call it attitude. You have the wrong one!
fine atheist, they can continue to be occupied and live in camps.
So, now you have descended from saying “might is right,” to “give in to our demands or suffer our wrath.”
From a bully to a hostage. I’d say Israel is doing a great job of delegitimizing itself. Who needs anti-Zionists when we can have the yoniras of the Israeli hasbara bridage?
might is right is how the world works, it is sad but true. you wouldn’t be whining if Israel wouldn’t have whooped the Arab’s asses repeatedly over the last 62 years. it would be a different story all together.
Your grandfathers are rolling in their graves, incidentally, I’m sure. You reject EVERYTHING they fought for as WW2 vets.
Like I said in the past “Zionazi.” This is what you support, Mr. Might-makes-Right.
“fine atheist, they can continue to be occupied and live in camps.”
If it were to be that would be with your help and support, yonira.
[You don’t just fight wars and then expect the loser to get everything back, it’s childish. This isn’t a fucking sandbox, it’s the world of IR and global politics.]
Not only childish… for many centuries since the dawn of civilization man has been making wars and killing each other… yet not an iota of its tragic history had a vanquished demanded and prevailed over the victor…
This demand is amazingly incredible, that even the Russians, China, British, Germans, or the Turks could die laughing with it!
Tell that to the people of Hama Chaos.
You realize, yonira, that your grandfathers would metaphorically be fighting you today, as a nationalist militant who believes that a privileged ethnic group has the God-given right to slaughter a people and take their land because they are “superior.” Your grandfathers would be fighting you, if they had to fight the same war over again.
Or rather, they’d be fighting your college friends who abandoned the US to help man the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Think about that — who would you be rooting for, yonira? The American soldier, or your frat brothers?
“might is right is how the world works,”
Humans have the ability to challenge and change “how the world works” if that is not right!. Intelligent humans, that is!
And yet these mighty nations out of polity did not laugh, as they have diplomatically respected the right of every one and the pain of the people suffering…
“I don’t think that I will adopt a single standard by your definition Donald, as that would entail me not caring more about my own family and community than one that includes many that hate and shoots at my own family and community.”
Well,there’s your problem in a nutshell–you seem to have some considerable confusion about what a single standard on human rights means. It doesn’t mean that you are a saint who cares as much for the children of strangers as for your own. It means that you judge the morality of similar actions by the same standards no matter which tribe commits them. If you’re a 19th century white American you are supposed to be as shocked by the Sand Creek Massacre as you are by the atrocities committed by Native Americans against whites. You might know white victims and feel more grief about them, but if you have a single standard you can step outside your own feelings and understand that murder is murder. You don’t concoct elaborate rationalizations explaining why the atrocities committed by your tribe might not really be atrocities or haven’t been proven to be atrocities,whereas what the Native Americans do is unquestionably savage.
“than one that includes many that hate and shoots at my own family and community.”
I repeated that one. Stare at it, Richard. Do you see how ugly it is? Rather than say you are horrified by the people on both sides who kill or oppress or support those who kill and oppress, you talk about how you prefer your tribe (that includes murderers) over theirs because their murderers kill members of your tribe. Do you really see any difference between the murder of a Palestinian baby and a Jewish Israeli baby?
“I will retain compassion for civilians”
But given your previous statement, you obviously think you’re being a real saint to do this–after all, those civilians are members of that other community and some are even angry with you and that community contains people who hate yours and commit atrocities against it. And nevermind what your tribe might have done to provoke legitimate anger at yours.
Maybe you can’t change.
might is right is how the world works
That is also how pariah states work.
you wouldn’t be whining if Israel wouldn’t have whooped the Arab’s asses repeatedly over the last 62 years.
That’s mature, yonira. Israel “whooped the Arab’s assess.” Do you find massacres, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity to be matter of playground fights?
Would you similarly accept that the Nazis “whooped the Jew’s assess”? Think about it.
Excellent analysis Donald,
Though sadly, your efforts to educate and inform will be in vain. You are right about Witty, he’s not able to change because you’re dealing with generations of indoctrination and an infused belief in belonging to a superior tribe. In spite of the fact that his reputation on thsi forum is a joke, Witty continues to rant as though he is the only adult here and that we’re all here for his entertainment and his benefit.
Tribalism runs deep and affects those afflicted on a subconscious but very powerful level. I’ve witnessed highly educated and perceptive people give in to it and unable to explain why. In the case of Israel and Zionism, the problem is compounded by the existence of a state that not only reflects the very worst aspects of the Zionist ideology, but has corrupted it even further. There was a point when Zionism might have defined Israel, but the roles have been reversed.
“might is right is how the world works”
Would you have stood by that had Nazi Germany prevailed Yoni? Would the Holocaust gave been “right”?
Thanks, Shingo.
I don’t know for certain if RW can’t change, but it would probably be a gradual slow process if it occurs at all and it’s possible that arguing with him (whether it is done respectfully as he wishes or angrily) just entrenches him further in his position. People are often like that.
Like I said, Shingo, if yonira’s WW2 vet grandfathers were alive and fighting their war today, they’d be fighting the nationalism and racism represented by their own grandson.
And speaking of family, it’s Witty’s son I actually feel bad about when it comes to brainwashing and indoctrination. Like I’ve said before, it isn’t Witty who will be facing the war crimes tribunal — it’ll be his son.
They did leave. There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description.
“They did leave. There is no implication of voluntary or forced in my description” is an admission of Nakba denial, the same way that it is Holocaust denial to say “They did die. There is no implication of natural causes or systematic murder in my description.”
In both cases one refuses to acknowledge the context of history and the parties which carried out out the atrocities committed, which amount to denial of the very nature of the events.
You think you are being very clever, but your shtick has been overplayed and your deeply racist stand is clear.
Witty, you seem to be saying that if you commit a crime yesterday, that of terrorizing people out of their homes and taking their property, it’s OK and you can keep their property, because democracy is of the present.
“I support the right of return for Palestinians that were dispossessed of title in 1948, and for any that were born in the jurisdiction of Israel.
The duration is a problem. ”
Are you telling me Richard, that if it were 1950 you would be advocating for right of return of the Palestinian refugees, despite the fact that Israeli arabs would then numerically match or exceed Israeli jews in terms of population?
No, probably not. In 1950, Zionism was too fragile.
In 2010, affording equal due process of law in the form of right of return is not a threat to Israeli self-governance.
Well, at least he’s honest about his hypocrisy.
In 2010, affording equal due process of law in the form of right of return is not a threat to Israeli self-governance.
Wait another 10 years, and the direct refugees will all be dead – problem solved.
Today’s weasely buzzphrase: “Israeli self-governance”.
Ideology, in the form of Zionism, takes precedence over human rights.
The phrase “Israeli self-governance” is a lifelong theme. It is the basis of Zionism, relying on the term “self-determination”.
Self-governance is strongly preferable to occupation (governance by another). That is the reasoning behind the establishment of a self-governing Palestinian state.
On the question of whether nationalism or civilism is more democratic, it is up to the parties themselves. If the overwhelming majority of citizens preferred a single civil governance to nationally based governance, then that would be self-governance. If the communities hold that national identity is more important, or even necessary if not equally important, then two states is the only viable approach.
Ridiculing the logic, doesn’t make it any less logical.
“What would have been” is not sound political or moral reasoning. What can we do in the present is more progressive, more reasonable.
I noticed he dropped the “Jewish self-governance” in favor of “Israeli”. Of course, if the refugees had been allowed to return in 1950, Israel still would have been self-governing. Its just that the majority of its citizens wouldn’t have opted for a system of Jewish supremacy known as Zionism.
I believe that Israel should be “gerrymandered” to retain a Jewish majority.
Again, if you suggest a civilist solution to communities that prefer nationalist, you are imposing, urging the oppossite of self-determination.
I noticed he dropped the “Jewish self-governance” in favor of “Israeli”. Of course, if the refugees had been allowed to return in 1950, Israel still would have been self-governing.
That’s the weasely part. Like the “right to exist” crap.
If you insist that one group must maintain a majority regardless of the actual demographics of the area, you are the one imposing the opposite of self-determination, and you are in addition excusing ethnic cleansing, since that is way that Israel became a Jewish majority state in the first place.
If you insist that one group must maintain a majority regardless of the actual demographics of the area, you are the one imposing the opposite of self-determination, and you are in addition excusing ethnic cleansing, since that is way that Israel became a Jewish majority state in the first place.
In other words, Witty is a Zionist.
“No, probably not. In 1950, Zionism was too fragile.”
So not in 1950 because Zionism was too fragile adn not today because there are too many refugees.
I wonder if every Zionsit get’s given their own set of motorized goal posts for teh 18th birthday.
“The phrase “Israeli self-governance” is a lifelong theme.”
Zionism is not even 200 years old.
“That is the reasoning behind the establishment of a self-governing Palestinian state.”
Who’s reasoning is that? Israel has never supported such arrangement.
“Ridiculing the logic, doesn’t make it any less logical.”
No, it’s the absence of logic that does.
“No, probably not. In 1950, Zionism was too fragile.”
So RW when you wrote – “the duration is the problem” that was a lie.
You support a highly restricted and impractical form of RoR, and only now that the refugees are either senior citizens or dead. Few if any Palestinian families will willingly let their parents and grandparents return alone to Israel.
You really are a fraudulent piece of trash Richard – and that’s a generous euphemism. I wish you a long life – that you may witness the Downfall of the jewish-supremacist state – and then have time to reflect on your contribution.
“If you insist that one group must maintain a majority regardless of the actual demographics of the area”
Its the difference between a geographic basis of association and a self-governing social. Even if you contend that you are “not tribal”, the majority of the world is. Its a good thing in fact, in that people actually take care of each other. “Mutual aid”.
You are continually looking for a basis to complain, rather than finding a basis to co-exist.
Yes, you are being generous Sumud.
Thank you Sumud for even entering the question of what is the proposed scope of right of return, of actually acknowledging that the term is not clear, but ambiguous.
It is necessary for you to step up to actually clarify, rather than only take potshots at others’ proposal.
“Self-governance is strongly preferable to occupation (governance by another)”
So any jew living outside Israel is by your definition (as a minority) living under occupation? You claim that YOU as an American are living under occupation? Have you been taking acid tonight? You’re more incoherent than usual, and branding yourself as “logical” is not convincing.
“You are continually looking for a basis to complain, rather than finding a basis to co-exist.”
But you just made the case for opposing co existencve Witty.
Make up your mind you racist fool.
“You’re more incoherent than usual, and branding yourself as “logical” is not convincing.”
That was pure gold Sumud.
“You really are a fraudulent piece of trash Richard”.
That is such a productive approach.
The absence of clarification of what is meant by right of return is accurately described as a potential fraud. And, the absence of clarification of what is meant by the scope of BDS is similarly.
You gotta step up, actually take the risk to state something in positive terms.
Israel exists, and as a Jewish majority state. If your commitment is to revolution, to seeking that the Jewish majority state not exist as a Jewish majority state, then you are entering a long-term war, that will do two very bad things in the world.
1. It will severely delay the improvement of Palestinians’ lives, assertions of legal title, self-determination.
2. Result in likely armed conflict to accomplish
I refuse to participate in dissent that promotes those two “goals”. (I say “goals” because now that the consequences of that approach are clearly known, they are in some way intentional.)
Witty-speak:
Its the difference between a geographic basis of association and a self-governing social.
“Here’s a typical word salad of mine I tossed up. How do you like it?”
Even if you contend that you are “not tribal”, the majority of the world is. Its a good thing in fact, in that people actually take care of each other.
“We suffer from a bad case of tribalism, but I allege that most of the world is tribal, so it’s okay.”
“Mutual aid”.
“I had to throw in the word “mutual” somewhere. So here it is.”
You are continually looking for a basis to complain, rather than finding a basis to co-exist.
“Stop the intellectual terrorism!”
“I noticed he dropped the “Jewish self-governance” in favor of “Israeli”. ”
Ugh, compulsive liars be gone! RW must have idolised Abba Eban.
I’m afraid that your projection and exagerations of my statements are what is incoherent.
Aren’t you in favor of the concept of self-determination?
What do you think that term means?
“I’m afraid that your projection and exagerations of my statements are what is incoherent.”
No they are completely coherent. Incoherent would describe 99% of your posts.
“Aren’t you in favor of the concept of self-determination?”
Not at the expense fo another.
“The absence of clarification of what is meant by right of return is accurately described as a potential fraud.”
No a fraud is making up your own rules and presenting them as the basis for international law.
A fraud is pretendign that there is no established definition for right of return.
“If your commitment is to revolution, to seeking that the Jewish majority state not exist as a Jewish majority state, then you are entering a long-term war, that will do two very bad things in the world.”
You’re blaming the wrong party. Israel is headed for that destinatino whether it likes it or not.
“It will severely delay the improvement of Palestinians’ lives, assertions of legal title, self-determination.”
What by 63 years maybe? There’s no evidence it’s going to happen by your schedule.
“I refuse to participate in dissent that promotes those two “goals”. ”
You refuse to articipate in dissent other than thatwhich involves green yearn.
You keep provaing that a fraudulent piece of trash you are Witty.
“Thank you Sumud for even entering the question of what is the proposed scope of right of return,”
Don’t thank me. The Right of Return remains unambiguous, by my definition and by international law.
The complexity is yours alone and results from the mental gymnastics you must perform to rationalise actions by Israel that are both immoral and illegal. What a sorry excuse for a human being.
So don’t hear. Only speak.
Is that the description of a full human being, one that the voice of the world pains their ears so much that they refuse to hear reality.
Your back at “Zionism is racism”.
Its not. There are forms of Zionism that are racist, as there are forms of Palestinian nationalism that are racist, as there are forms of civilism that are racist (in prohibiting self-governance to tribes).
“Your back at “Zionism is racism”.”
Indeed. When it comes to Zionism, all roads lead to racism.
“There are forms of Zionism that are racist…”
Yours in particular stands out in that reagard.
On tribes.
Now that so many Palestinians live in a status of diaspora, their unifying identity is no longer geographic but social, even if it has roots geographically.
I assume that you value the self-association of Palestinians, diaspora Palestinians and not only geographic ones.
My college study partner who was part Palestinian and described himself as Palestinian, did not appear to consider himself a refugee. I don’t know if you would afford him the right to return, or to vote in a Palestinian election.
“Indeed. When it comes to Zionism, all roads lead to racism.”
How is self-determination racism?
“My college study partner who was part Palestinian and described himself as Palestinian, did not appear to consider himself a refugee. ”
Good for him. In the mean time, there’s 4 million others who do.
How is self-determination racism?
When colonialism is used to implement it, and apartheid (or “gerrymandering,” as you prefer to call it) is used to sustain it.
Its the difference between a geographic basis of association and a self-governing social.
No, its using a religious/ethnic basis of “governance” to rule over a geographic area (Israel) that houses others of a different religious or ethnic background, and thus denying some citizens of their human rights under the false rubric of “self-governance” than completely denies the minority citizens of their part in the geographical governance.
You are continually looking for a basis to complain, rather than finding a basis to co-exist.
No one here does more complaining than you, Richard,so you continual complaints that others are simply “complaining” are becoming laughable.
And if your head wasn’t up your ass you’d understand that equality of treatment and equality in “governance” within a geographical area (such as Israel) is the strongest basis for co-existence. You want everyone to accept an unequal and unjust situation simply because you think it benefits your affinity group. But that is not the road to co-existence . Those with the greater privilege in such a state come to believe they somehow deserve the privileges, and those who are denied their say in the governance based solely on what they aren’t (-Jewish) will obviously and rightly bear resentment against those that deny their rights. There can be no true or lasting basis for co-existence under such a system.
“The absence of clarification of what is meant by right of return is accurately described as a potential fraud. And, the absence of clarification of what is meant by the scope of BDS is similarly.”
There is no absence of clarity. There is no ambiguity. You know the legalities of right of return, and the stated position of the BDS Movement. You’re pretending not to understand so you can avoid taking a morally sound position.
“You gotta step up, actually take the risk to state something in positive terms.”
You mean like this?
link to mondoweiss.net
It’s in this very thread, you’ve ignored it. The right of return is not ambiguous – my proposal covers how to settle it in a way that is just, legal and even takes into account Israel and your’s ugly desire to be jew-only.
Your opening comment on this article:
link to mondoweiss.net
…told us you classify anybody is who is not a zionist as a “radical anti-zionist”. It’s just more stupid denial on you part, accusing people of holding positions they don’t. It’s a wordy, see-through version of saying we’re all jew haters coming to get you. Grow up, get counselling, whatever.
I agree that equality in governance over the area of jurisdiction is optimal, required.
There is still a basis of social determination of what constitutes self-governance.
Its a “new” concept, that fits the bi-national definition of state far more than the partition definition of state.
You are confusing my assertion of self-determination with an advocacy for advantage. I can understand how you would conclude that given the current political status.
But, again, I am primarily attempting to discuss goals and means. I firmly believe that that is a far more appropriate driver of political action than resistance (which looks to me more like “reaction” and anger than progressive effort – goal).
I assume that you have been politically active long enough to note that anger is temporary, and that at some point proposal and organization occur, and that there are political and social justice implications of proposal.
For those that are willing to listen to each others’ needs and experience, it need not be presented maliciously.
Take the challenge please.
“Aren’t you in favor of the concept of self-determination?”
I reject any notion of self-determination that requires the “other” to be subordinate. Rights exist only to the point at which others rights are infringed. After that it’s thuggery, in your case Nazi-style. The civilised world rejected that, remember?
“How is self-determination racism?”
Zionism is the denial of self-determination of another population. As Benny Morris said, ethnic clasing is part of the DNA of Zionism.
Ethnic cleansing is racism personified.
Defining a state based on an ethnicity and determining that the majority ethnicity will not allow the minority to surpass it is racism.
And anti-zionism is the denial of self-determination of the Jewish people. (Those that choose to reside there).
How do you suggest reconciling these two conflicting certainties?
“I firmly believe that that is a far more appropriate driver of political action than resistance (which looks to me more like “reaction” and anger than progressive effort – goal).”‘
That proves what a deluded soociopath you are.
All you are saying is that you want the statyus quo to continue, and yet expect that it will lead to sudden change.
There’s a word for that. It’s called insanity.
“Good for him. In the mean time, there’s 4 million others who do.”
How he identifies is irrelevant. UNRWA has specific guidelines as to who is and isn’t a Palestinian refugee and therefore, who is legally entitled to right of return. Again, it isn’t ambiguous.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“I reject any notion of self-determination that requires the “other” to be subordinate. Rights exist only to the point at which others rights are infringed. After that it’s thuggery, in your case Nazi-style. The civilised world rejected that, remember?”
As do I. That is why I am a Zionist, rather than an anti-Zionist, an advocate for a two-state solution rather than a single-state (at least in the setting where the vast majority prefer national governance over non-national civil).
The question is always of optimization. EVERY solution imposes on some. The answer to the question is to form approaches that impose minimally.
My sense is that Palestinian solidarity also apply the slogan “Never again”, and in the sense of “never again will our people be subordinated”.
And, I consider that a virtue, a good in the world. No more silent and invisible.
And, the same moral challenge applies to dissent that would enact the elimination of Jewish/Zionist self-governance in the effort for Palestinian assertion.
It is the distinction between seeking peace and rationalization.
Live AND let live.
Anti-zionism is not the denial of the self-determination of Jewish people any more than anti-white supremacy is the denial of the self-determination of white people. Your insistence that the only way that Jews can “self-determine” is by oppression and discrimination against the other is in itself a slur against Jews, just as an insistence that the only way that whites can “self-determine” is by oppressing those of other racial groups would be a slur against white people.
You’re nuts RW. According to your own warped definition:
“The phrase “Israeli self-governance” is a lifelong theme. It is the basis of Zionism, relying on the term “self-determination”. Self-governance is strongly preferable to occupation (governance by another). ”
link to mondoweiss.net
…self-determination is only possible when your group is a majority. So why the hell are you living in the United States? You lack self-determination! Quick, aliyah!
“And anti-zionism is the denial of self-determination of the Jewish people. (Those that choose to reside there).”
The fact that most of the world’s Jews refuse to live in Israel and self determine proves that Zionism is a fraud.
“Live AND let live.”
Or in Israel’s case, live and mass murder.
“Live AND let live.”
Or in Israel’s case, live and mass murder.
” EVERY solution imposes on some. ”
Yet it’s only the jewish supremacists like yourself who categorise co-existence with non-jews as an ‘imposition’, and then try to present it as something soft and cuddly. At least Nazis and other authentic anti-semites had/have the guts to be unapologetic about their phobias.
“Live AND let live.”
.. just not near me you dirty ay-rab.
You are not misunderstood RW.
“And anti-Zionism is the denial of self-determination of the Jewish people. (Those that choose to reside there).”
Witty is, as usual, doing what he does best: conflating and deceiving.
The fact is that Zionism is nationalism (not “self-determination,” that’s a nice, progressive sounding word, but still just an euphemism) for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
That’s the key part.
So when one opposes Zionism, there could be several valid reasons for it.
1) They oppose colonialism, the instrument of practicing Zionism (which is settlement).
2) They oppose Jewish nationalism in Palestine, which was not a “land without a people, for a people without a land,” and for the establishment of which crimes against humanity had to be committed.
3) They oppose apartheid, which is the only way that Zionism can sustain itself.
“And anti-zionism is the denial of self-determination of the Jewish people. (Those that choose to reside there).
How do you suggest reconciling these two conflicting certainties?”
A bi-national state. Quebec-ans being part of Canada hasn’t denied them the right to self-determination. They still have as much influence as other Canadians in the running of the country. Same with the United Kingdom where devolution has meant the Scots, the Northern Irish and the Welsh mostly run their own affairs. Same with Belgium, the world’s first and probably only bi-national state. Still in existence after almost 200 years (despite many times when people thought it was going to fall apart).
The point is though, you can’t just turn up and say I want self-determination, which means I want my own state. What if American Hispanics in California were to declare their independence from the US? They make up 37% of the population, and will soon be the largest ethnic group.
“What if American Hispanics in California were to declare their independence from the US? They make up 37% of the population, and will soon be the largest ethnic group.”
Hey that’s the jewish popualtion of Palestine in 1948. Must be time for the hispanic population to rise up and convince the UN give them 55%. Historic homeland right? I’ve seen a map of the US divided along the UN 181 proportions, can’t lay my hand (mouse) on it right now..
Yes, and although my American History is a bit rusty, I’m pretty sure Hispanics were there before White Americans
“might is right is how the world works, “
So Hitler was right. And Germany had every right and need to get rid of its Jews before they self-determined.
Yes, sir, this is one Jew who is very aware of Jewish history, and the position of Jews in the world. “We whooped (sic) ‘em”
Like we whooped the Germans?
“Aren’t you in favor of the concept of self-determination?”
You know very little about that term and its history Richard.
But lemme get it down to brass tacks: “Self-determination” is what people usually appeal to when they want to kick out the Jews. “Self-determination” has a very ugly history as a mask for supremacy.
It’s not a term you want to latch on to, by any means.
An idealized middle way as cooked up in the mind of a “liberal” American in Graham Greene’s Quiet American was nonsense as is the nonsense of “liberal zionist.” It is a desperate act of cowardly minds who lack the character to pick between two imperfect sides.
So I guess there’s no such thing as a “Liberal anti-Zionist”, huh, Richard?
Any criticism of Israel comes with the smell of Zyklon-B!
[Any criticism of Israel comes with the smell of Zyklon-B!]
Ummm, a smart allegory … Yes, something similar to that…
Like white phosphorous?
[Ummm, a smart allegory ... Yes, something similar to that...]
Because until now, no critic has yet formally and categorically presented an itemized issues and historical, legal, and cultural basis for condemning Israel based on conventional principles of law, morality, and justice…
Like the Geneva Conventions, the ICC rulings about the apartheid wall, detailed reports from HRW and B’Tselem and Amnesty International and dozens of human rights organizations, international human rights making torture illegal, various UN reports and testimonies from UN personnel (often having been attacked by Israel), etc….
[Like the Geneva Conventions, the ICC rulings about the apartheid wall, detailed reports from HRW and B’Tselem and Amnesty International and dozens of human rights organizations, international human rights making torture illegal, various UN reports and testimonies from UN personnel (often having been attacked by Israel), etc….]
If these were totally legally grounded, then why was there no utmost unilateral Security Council resolution to destroy Israel?
In short, why does Israel still exist?
Because these issues such as the apartheid wall, detailed reports, etc… by HR organizations even those acts of UN personnel, are not absolutely right, just, and reasonable…
It is truly said that ‘the proof of a pudding is in the eating’…
Remember that true justice is absolute…
In these developments such as in the flotilla, it is now the UN relief agency and its supporters are now acting like ‘global bullies’…
Really? What nasty people, trying to deliver food and relief supplies to an imprisoned population.
You’re no Christian. You certainly aren’t Christ-like.
zamaaz May 26, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Remember that true justice is absolute…
yonira May 26, 2010 at 10:04 pm
might is right is how the world works, it is sad but true.
I think you two are going to have to fight this out then!
And that will keep you both busy instead of provoking the others with ignorant comments.
this attacking people’s religious beliefs is fucking old chaos, you are shameless.
So you believe it is your right as a Jew to kill Palestinians and take their land, as a matter of religious belief?
“I think you two are going to have to fight this out then!
And that will keep you both busy instead of provoking the others with ignorant comments.”
To his credit, Yonira has already told Zamaaz he’s a scum bag, but Zamaaz has his trusty Bible to protect him from taunts, even those comming from people he pretends to be championing.
can you turn off the douche for like 5 minutes? do you think it is your duty to manipulate and outright lie every comment you make?
“Remember that true justice is absolute…”
Oh there’s something absolute around here. You are an absolute idiot.
Now tell us, zamaaz, what happens to the jews when Christ returns? Don’t hold back, tell us.
The divide is three-way.
Radical anti-Zionists
Liberal Zionists
Radical Zionists
i guess in witty’s world everyone who is not a zionist is radical and anti zionist. last i heard being pro melting pot wasn’t radical anything it was just typically american.
They’re real charmers over at Commentary.
Frances – they’re gutless too.
Tablet have their comments open, Commentary have turned their comments off. Perhaps a name change is in order, how about “Diktat”?
Why doesn’t she teach her the truth: that Israel took the land just like her example of the person on the bus.
What? She’s not allowed to like a bully? You’re not allowed to love a bad dad? You can’t love your errant sister?
The ‘ism’ isn’t important. The truth is. Lying about what Israel did is the destructive element here.
It’s really something to pump your chest and proclaim you can count on no one but yourself, and then proceed to count on support from another country.
It’s the same syndrome as the one which permits ZIonists to wail and moan about anti-Semitism and persecution, and then turn around and try to call authourity down on people for thought-crimes or speech-crimes.
You can really tell how much that persecution has affected them.
I really don’t see why a person can’t love Judaism and Jewishness, and dislike Zionism. They really aren’t the same thing, you know.
I really don’t see why a person can’t love Judaism and Jewishness, and dislike Zionism.
Moosaleh – You know that and I know that, but we’re talking about the Ziocaine-addicted masses (and their Ziocandymen) here. And you know what else? Judaism is a we kind of culture. A yid can’t make shabbes far zich aleyn. And it’s getting harder and harder to tell the menschen from the good ol’ boychiklach.
shmuel, that means a jew can’t make shobbes in his own way, contrary to the proverb? you got to help the assimilated, dude
Sorry. I thought the meaning was clear from the context. The expression machen shabbes far zich aleyn (lit. celebrating the sabbath for oneself), means going it entirely on your own – from the absurd situation of it being the Sabbath or one lonely Jew, when it’s a completely different day of the week for all other Jews. My point was that there is no such thing as a solo Jew. We come in bunches or not at all.
“My point was that there is no such thing as a solo Jew. We come in bunches or not at all.”
You really feel that way? You have my sympathy.
Alone or in company I am a Jew and I know what that requires of me.
“We come in bunches or not at all.”
You can construct any kind of sexual ethics you please from Judaism but I didn’t think a minyan was required.
Mooser- beyond opposing Zionism, being funny and using Yiddish, what does being a Jew require of you?
“Judaism is a we kind of culture.”
Anyway, Shmuel, I hate to bring this up, but aren’t you from Israel? Is that where you learned your Judaism? So the main, and major, and most meaningful experience of Jewish life, that of the diaspora is foreign to you. “Judaism is a kind of “we” culture”? Yup, I bet that’s the way they feel about it in Israel.
“Mooser- beyond opposing Zionism, being funny and using Yiddish, what does being a Jew require of you?”
I’m not entirely sure, of course, but I’m almost positive telling you to go screw yourself is a big, big mitzvah. And if not, I’ll take my chances. Go screw yourself.
At any rate, I’m even more sure nothing in Judaism says I have to answer to you, dummy. Go ask your brother at the settlement, I’m sure he knows all about it.
You can construct any kind of sexual ethics you please from Judaism but I didn’t think a minyan was required.
:-)
All these Yiddishisims are forcing me to seriously consider re-watching “Fiddler on the Roof”.
Almost.
Anyway, Shmuel, I hate to bring this up, but aren’t you from Israel?
I lived the first few years of my life in a Orthodox Jewish enclave in Canada. That’s where my first ideas of Judaism were formed – in a self-imposed diaspora within a diaspora. Very “we”, but there’s a lot more to it than that. As you may have realised by now, I don’t exactly get along with the vast majority of my organised brethren. Nevertheless, I see very little point in being a Jew on my own. It’s a culture (well, a whole bunch of cultures), a civilisation (well, a whole bunch of civilisations), a religion (well, you get the picture). I have never heard of a culture or civilisation of one, and religions of one tend to end badly.
Why are you here? Why are we having this discussion? (Rhetorical questions.) I’m guessing that it’s because your own Jewishness is not just about you and the Holy One, blessed be He, but (also) about your relationship to other Jews, over time and place. That’s what I mean by a bunch. You have to at least have a shul you wouldn’t be caught dead in to be a Jew.
“You have to at least have a shul you wouldn’t be caught dead in to be a Jew”
Haha! Funny! Good rewrite of the old Groucho nugget.
I resisted for many years and then I finally joined an extremely liberal Jewish Circle ( Lynn Gotlieb was the Rabbi). And it is even worse! Give me an Orthodox shul anytime. At least they relegated us females upstairs where we can ogle good looking men to our hearts’ content.
That is so, so sad, Shmuel. Well, you just keep doing and believing what the other Jews you happen to be around do and believe. If you are lucky, you can face the Holy One as a group and excuse and explain each other. That should work out fine, if you get your stories straight beforehand. He’ll never know.
Why am I here? I’ve never made any bones about that, Shmuel. I gave Zionism up as a bad job when I was about 18-25. And paid very little attention to it afterwards. So after another 30 years, I got on the web to see if I made the right decision.
“Nevertheless, I see very little point in being a Jew on my own.”
Say what? Okay fine, whatever. See ya.
So the rule ‘If you are not a Jew like me you can’t be much of a Jew’ is in fact a universal Jewish tenet, and not confined to Zionists. Good to know.
And I agree, Shmuel. After all, we need to be selective about what kind of people are Jews! Or we’ll end up with too many!
I always was under the impression that Judaism is first and foremost a religion. If we are to believe Shlomo Sand, the jews of antiquity actively sought converts. Its seems that this whole idea of judaism being an ethnicity is a new development.
Be careful about believing Shlomo Sand.
Thank you, olive. I really never thought Shmuel would disappoint me like that. But there it is.
So are you saying the Jews did not seek converts at different times and places? Or that we should simply not believe Sand because you say so?
No wonder he turned out like he did. He never had a chance against you Witty. But he did what he thought (knew) you would like best.
Sand has an anti-israel motivation in his writing, making his scholarship suspect.
There were likely moments when Jews sought converts.
What anti Israeli motivation would Sand have Yoni? He is an Israeli us he not?
“Nevertheless, I see very little point in being a Jew on my own.”
That’s your problem, buddy, not mine, and you can’t make it mine.
I may get on Witty about his manifest failure as a parent, but at least I have never argued by reference to an imaginery, authoritive convocation of “the rest of us” Jews.
I don’t think I have ever been so aware of the corrupting power of Zionism before. Once it gets you, it don’t let go.
I am careful about believing Zand. It rurns out his thesis is not new and is supported by hisotiral records and archeological evidence.
so sands can’t have anti-israeli motives because he lives there? have you read his book, do you know his position on Israel?
“Nevertheless, I see very little point in being a Jew on my own. It’s a culture (well, a whole bunch of cultures), a civilisation (well, a whole bunch of civilisations), a religion (well, you get the picture). I have never heard of a culture or civilisation of one, and religions of one tend to end badly.”
Now if only we had a country where we could preserve all these glories from outside corruption! And defend it from impurities.
Many here have wondered if we would ever get a hasbarist worthy of this site. Maybe we have!
Sand favors the two-state solution. I heard him say so in person. I guess that makes him anti-Israel.
So Sands believes in a Jewish state, but not in a Jewish people? how does that work exactly Matt.
That is precisely Zands argument Olive.
Keep it up, Mooser. There’s only one anti Zionist on this site that has given any evidence of having accumulated a substantial body of knowledge regarding Judaism and that’s Shmuel. So keep knocking him. You’ve always had two priorities: egotism and anti Zionism. Now we see what you’re one priority is.
Sands believes in an Israeli state and an Israeli people. If you read his book you would know that. Why are you making assumptions about what Sands believes when you haven’t bothered to read his book?
He seemed to believe there is a distinct “Israeli” culture–neither specifically Jewish nor specifically Arab but shared today by all of Israel’s citizens–that constiututes the basis of its claim to independent statehood. He was against the Jewish law of return, though, if I recall.
what do these israeli people consist of tree? who will be the israelis in the two state solution he believes in?
“So Sands believes in a Jewish state, but not in a Jewish people? how does that work exactly Matt.”
It works out perfectly well for all states but Israel it seems.
All of the citizens of Israel make up the Israeli nationality. Defining Israel as a state of the Jewish people negates the nationality of those Israelis who are not Jews, and Sands is including here not just the Palestinian Israelis but the Russian immigrants who are not Jews but are citizens of Israel, and others. You should read the first part of his book, which is a retelling of the stories of several Israelis, many of them related to him in some way, who are left out of the national narrative of Israel because of Israel’s self-definition of being a state of only SOME of its citizens, instead of the state of ALL of its citizens, which is what a true democracy should be.
Read the book.
Yeah, like Judaism has anything to do with what Israel does.
So you are saying that Judaism makes Israeli intransigence necessary? Now there’s a formula for success!
Sand’s idea of Israel is much like liberal view of the US. Liberals/progressives believe in multicultural societies. The Zionist view of Israel is more akin to the right wing white America.
Well wondering Jew, I’ll be looking for you agreement with Shmuel on most topics. Certainly, the idea of a Jewish hierarchy and conformism is one you both can agree on.
And I don’t think Shmuel extends his idea of Judaism and Jewish culture to include Jewish political supremacy, as you do.
Or maybe he does, and will reveal it in time. I got no problem telling you or anybody else I have a hard time trusting anything which comes out of Israel, no matter how attractive it may be on the surface. If Shmuel can’t deal with that, he doesn’t know where he’s from.
Witty :
“Be careful about believing Shlomo Sand.”
Be careful about believing ANYBODY, Witty, especially yourself.
” The Zionist view of Israel is more akin to the right wing white America.”
Pre civil rights era, with the emphasis on white America.
The expression machen shabbes far zich aleyn (lit. celebrating the sabbath for oneself), means going it entirely on your own
are you sure? granted this is the first time i have heard this saying and i am not jewish, but my idea of doing something for oneself doesn’t necessitate doing it all alone. it means you are not doing something just to be going along with the crowd. it means you are doing it because it enriches you and your soul. even when we do things for others, even in giving we enrich ourselves. for oneself is not the same as by oneself.
Sand has an anti-israel motivation in his writing
oh yawn
So wouldn’t that be a bi-national state? or does he favorite a Palestinian Arab state and then a binational state of Israel with full ROR?
Why do you say “binational?” Why do you believe it’s impossible for Jewish immigrants to share equal rights and citizenship with Palestinian natives? Still yearning for the old days of “whites only” drinking fountains, are we?
You are so detached from reality, I am not sure if I should be jealous of you or feel sorry for you.
how are these two ppl who have been at war for several generations all of sudden going to merge into one nation with a click of your fingers. it is so delusional, you are like a naive little child.
Are you saying if we tried it, the Jewish immigrants would simply slaughter Palestinian natives outright again, like they did in 1948, until they achieve a “Jewish majority?” Is that what you’re saying?
i am saying you are an idiot and i am done wasting my time. you are a manipulative liar who thinks he is smart, but is a whining little pussy.
you’re incapable of an honest debate, so you have to say shit like what you said above, when it has zero to do with my comment. You don’t have a fucking answer to how a one-state solution would be implemented (other than what you said previously that you’ll just wait for all the Jews to leave) so you make up shit. Do me a favor if you want to actually add something, like perhaps a realistic implementation of a one-state solution, if not don’t respond to me anymore. you are wasting my time and everyone’s time on here.
Israel’s staunchest defense right here, folks.
you see, you can’t do it, you zero answers. you are fighting for something which you have no idea how it would work. that is lunacy.
“you are an idiot”
“so you have to say shit like what you said above”
“You don’t have a fucking answer”
“you make up shit”
Is that what passes for “honest debate” in your synagogue? Seriously, did you get your Judaism sent to you by mail order?
Sand isn’t at all anti-israel.
Certainly, the idea of a Jewish hierarchy and conformism is one you both can agree on.
Wow, Mooser. You must be exhausted from jumping to all these conclusions. I said nothing about hierarchy or conformism – words I happen to be extremely allergic to, by the way (don’t worry, I’ve taken an antihistamine). Needing other Jews in no way implies not thinking for yourself. On the contrary, it is interaction and tension within cultures that drive them forward (like the ancient metaphor of the lyre and the bow). Community (on many different levels) is a fundamental part of Jewish religion, culture, history and experience. I believe that some form of community (even virtual) is a sine qua non for meaningful Jewish life. I also believe that independent thought and action are essential to healthy, positive Jewish (and all human) life. There is no contradiction between the two.
If you’ve read Bashevis Singer’s The Slave, the idea of being a “Jew alone” vs. being a part of a community – as flawed and uncomfortable as it may be – is central.
Annie,
I think this is the source of Mooser’s misunderstanding (a polite Italian would say my failure to explain myself adequately) of my comment about “we” culture. We’ve got truckloads of proverbs and treatises on the value of independent thought and action, but there are some things you just can’t do entirely on your own – like declare the day of the week (or – my point – be a Jew). There is positive independence and negative, or even preposterous independence. The Yiddish expression refers to the latter kind, although determining which is which is certainly a judgement call.
Doing something with and in relation to other people does not entail renouncing your individuality. Group and groupthink are not the same.
Olive,
Judaism is first and foremost a collection of related cultures, with an important religious component. Judaism is not an ethnicity in a genetic sense (nor are other groups, such as Italians, often considered ethnicities), but comprises a number of different groups that might be considered “ethnicities”, with some sort of cultural-religious affinity between them – sometimes to the point of considering themselves a single “ethnicity”.
My remark was about community and identity, not ethnicity, and certainly not about “nationhood”.
“you are wasting my time and everyone’s time on here”
“But dammit, you don’t go!”
Sorry Shmuel, but I have a very hard time trusting white people from the South, and I have a very hard time trusting Israelis.
As a matter of fact, if I were assigned by Israel to do hasbara, and given a free hand, I would do it exactly like you.
Are you, in fact, an anti-Zionist, or do you believe a Jewish-supremacy State is a tenable concept?
You guys and your Yiddish proverbs. I didn’t even know what Yiddish was until my 7th grade science teacher asked, “am I speaking Yiddish?” What were all those Cedars for, then?
“Moosaleh – You know that and I know that…
My doctor told me I had an irony-poor diet, and I was just trying to reach my MDR. I’ll go back to putting filings on my corn-flakes.
Did you read the article Phil?
Ingall’s conclusion does not reflect your headline.
“When you’re an American Jewish parent, ambivalence and sorrow about the state of Israel aren’t necessarily bad. Disengagement is. What I need to fight in myself is the tendency to tune out when I’m confused and upset. When I tune out, I can’t learn, and I can’t teach my own kids. Disagreement with Israel doesn’t mean not loving Israel, just as being upset with your own children doesn’t mean you don’t love them. But I need to engage with what frightens me, and my failure to do so is why it’s taken eight years to write this column.”
Ingall’s conclusion is very sensible: He’s frightened of what happens when he questions Israel. Not everyone can be brave, and some people are outright cowards. Maybe Ingalls should just turn his kids over to the Israelis, and then he won’t have to worry.
She is a female.
I’ve never understood the concept of loving a state. Maybe you could explain to me why American Jews, who are US-born, US-raised, currently live in the US and have no plans on ever moving to Israel, should love the country?
What is Israel to the average diaspora Jew?
What is Israel to the average diaspora Jew?
It is complicated :=)
“What is Israel to the average diaspora Jew?”
A fantasy, of one type or another.
“A fantasy, of one type or another.”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
If I look at a tree, there is a mental image in my brain of it, and the fact that no one else can see it doesn’t mean that that mental image isn’t there.
Not being Jewish myself, I can tell you that the situation for me might be analogous to being American, if the USA somehow ceased to exist during my lifetime ; I would still consider myself “American” in some sense, even though there would be no America – mostly images from childhood, a certain upbringing, a certain worldview, etc.
The fact that my ancestors came from Eastern Europe (somewhere) is totally irrelevant.
Does this make sense?
I don’t think the analogy works, since most American Jews don’t come from Israel, and have never grown up there.
True, but the analogy I was trying to make is that a thing doesn’t have to exist in the physical world for people to believe in it or for it to have some importance, however illusory – hence the “mental image” idea.
I actually agree with Mooser that it is a kind of fantasy – the fact that it seems to be important for so many people (including Mecca for Islam, Jerusalem, the “Virgin” at Lourdes, etc.) means that there is something to be dealt with, regardless of it being good or bad or neutral. After all, what is the US? There is no contiguous territory with Alaska and Hawaii, no real geographic border with Mexico and Canada – it’s an idea also.
“Yes, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
Would you rather that Americans (Jews or not) attitudes toward Israel are the product of fantasy or fact? That’s all I’m saying.
The things that Israel does were once very common ways of governing and being, all over Europe, and also wherever Europeans had colonies. Because most of this has disappeared, what Israel does is considered Jewish, instead of colonial. That isn’t good for anybody.
And the idea of “America” also includes its Constitution, and basic principles as included in the Bill of Rights. Israel has none of that, and it’s central idea, of Jewish supremacy, is not a good one, on any grounds.
I would not care to comment about the ‘average Diaspora Jew’, but I would offer two ideas that might be involved in the thoughts or emotions of some Diaspora Jews. The first is the role that “Israel” (the place rather than the state) and “Jerusalem” play in the Jewish religion. I would start with prayers and then talk about the role that returning to Israel or Jerusalem play in the imagination of a Messianic future. This is the positive input into the idea of Israel.
The negative input is the history of antiSemitism. Although the present tense in America is rather devoid of antiSemitism, the same is not true for other places in the Diaspora, specifically Russia and the former Soviet republics. And if the present tense is empty of antiSemitism, the history books obviously are overflowing with it.
So the combination of prayers and history would be the starting point to attempt to imagine the role of Israel or Jerusalem in the Jewish imagination. (or mind or feelings.)
Agreed.
Bill of Rights, Constitution
“Israel has none of that”
Yes. This has always amazed me, since it can’t be because of a lack of people capable of writing any of this up. Is it precisely because it is based on the idea of Jewish entitlement that a document that comes right out and says it can’t be drawn up? It would be too blatant?
Well , there is the Declaration of Independence.
“there is the Declaration of Independence.”
But who takes that seriously?
Wondering Jew: what you have jut described as the role of zionism for Diapora Jews iss a combination of messianism (“next year in Jerusalem”) and anxiety (due to a long history of persecution).
This, however, also describes Messianic Jews, who really are Christian converts who added the fantasy of Jesus’ second coming on top of Judaism.
So, your thesis of diaspora Jews’ attitudes to Israel as a mixture between history and prayer would seem to be missing an element or two. That since I assume you’d exclude convert groups like Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews from the body-politic of the”diaspora Jews” – amorphous as the latter is.
Then why does AIPAC and America’s Zionists think Israel needs a superpower behind it, you know, to smooth things over?
“Many here have wondered if we would ever get a hasbarist worthy of this site. Maybe we have!”
That is so below the belt, Mooser! Very nasty. You love picking fights with friends and foes alike, don’t you?
So fun to see trouble in the anti-zionist paradise though! This is how Israel comes out ahead.
PS: Lay off Shmuel. He is my favorite anti-zionist. Donald too. Unfortunately it is pretty much unrequited love at this stage.
Careful lads, honey trap.
Remember Vanunu!
“He is my favorite anti-zionist. Donald too.”
Yikes.
As for the Mooser/Shmuel disagreement, it’s just another illustration of the fact that at Mondoweiss the revolution devours its own. I seem to recall being accused of being a Zionist and a comfortable American Jew some weeks back, accusations that would have been literally incomprehensible to much of my family (especially my tobacco-chewing Ozark-dwelling Southern Baptist grandma, who wouldn’t have known a Zionist from a Zoasterian.)
Anyway, though, I agree that Mooser is being hard on Shmuel for some reason which Mooser insists has to do with Shmuel coming from Israel. As best I can tell, they disagree on whether being a Jew has some communal significance. Being a Christian has some communal significance and we stole most of our ideas from you guys, so I lean towards Shmuel’s view, not that this matters. I don’t quite understand what it means to be a Jew anyway, if one isn’t religious, but that’s one of a few million other things I don’t understand. Of course, the anti-semites seem to insist on Jews remaining Jews no matter what they choose for themselves, but that’s another story.
“Yikes”, you say. I am crushed =:)
Schmuel is right. Judaism like most Abrahamic religions is a community based religion. You can’t be a jew by yourself. It is actually very hard to practice Judaism if you are not affiliated with a synagogue or don’t live in a Jewish area. Now of course, you can be a secular Jew and do “jewy” things without any affiliation but you have to have a large extended family or be part of a social network. Eastern religions are different I believe and that’s why they seem attractive to those who don’t like “organized” religion.
rachel, your comments bespeak of an experience framed entirely by living in a North American community, where the synagog plays a similar role to the church in most people’s lives. You cannot imagine Judaism as something other than being part of a larger whole, ie, it is at its most basic, a tribal experience, with traditions, customs and prayers (for those who partake in them), framing the “ties that bind”. What the raging conflict for jews is – the one around which Mondoweiss revolves – is that once zionism is added to the tribal mix, it interacts with it to change the entire experience towards a nationalistic one, with messianic elements thrown in for good measure. If zionism becomes toxic, the entire tribal sense of identity can be infected. At worst boiling over into a witches brew with fumes of ziocain cowing the multitudes into stupor.
I believe – from best I can tell – that Mooser’s lone wolf quest is for a “re” definition of Judaism – as something that can and does stand apart from the tribe. In that he taps into a long – though little known -tradition in Judaism, which always had a special place for its loners, though they had never been given the august standing accorded for example to Christian hermits and monks. the problem is that when ‘tribe” – where religion is less significant than communal customs – is pushed aside, what’s left is the relationship between self and god. Which may not be modern enough a concept for most jews, whether from the Diaspora or from Israel.
In the coming years, we are going to see a lot more of the space in which Mooser and Shmuel are tagging in seemingly different directions. If I were you though, I wouldn’t count on it being anything other than a friendly “tag of war”.
Thanks, Danaa, very much.
And I have no problem admitting it: I am suspicious of anything which comes out of Israel, no matter what it appears to be on the surface.
I’m sure Shmuel, given his background, can understand that!
Mooser is like a spoiled child. he reminds me a lot of Cliff, both of them will have a fit if someone says anything they don’t like. They have no real friends or allies, they are entirely self centered, angry individuals. Mooser tries to mask it w/ his witty remarks, but it’s a thin mask.
Makes me wonder about what their real lives are like, pretty fucking miserable i am sure :)
I do enjoy Mooser witticisms but I have not followed his posts enough to know whether he is a spoiled child like the 2 “gentlemen” (cough, cough) you describe. I think it is an age thing.
At 58, well, actually somewhere between 56 and 59, I’m not sure, being accused of being a “spoiled child” is a compliment.
And am I spoiled? You bet! You couldn’t even know the half of it.
Basically I get treated like a visiting prince from an exotic land, all the time, and have for the last twenty years (or maybe twenty one? I’ll have to look at the certificate again.)
Yes, I am very, very spoiled, you hit that one right on the nose! And worst of all, I know it and love it!
Thanks, guys and Yonira and Rachel, you have made my morning, and now I gotta go. To work? Nope. not me, way too spoiled! My wife says it might roughen my hands!
Stop projecting, you sorry little twit. Nobody wants to hear about your life, especially by proxy.
then stop bringing up my life you fucking asshole.
Stop acting like an idiotic, racist bully and maybe I’ll leave you alone.
no you won’t, i’ve offered and you didn’t accept.
You offered to stop making personal attacks against me, and even if I thought you that was sincere (or even possible, given your level of civility), that wouldn’t mitigate the fact that you lob anti-Arab and anti-Muslim epithets around as if they were tear gas grenades and you were an IDF soldier at a peace protest.
LOL, in the same sentence you make anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli epithets around as if they were Kassam rockets and you were a Hamas militant
Yonira, isn’t that your job?
“pretty fucking miserable i am sure :) ”
May I ask you something yonira? What is this smiley for? What are trying to communicate? I’ll tell you what it reminds me of. It reminds me of this vile practice in Jerusalem where some Ultra Orthodox would approach a Christian tourist, all smiling and welcoming until they’re close enough and then they spit in their face! I cannot imagine anything more wicked than that.
“pretty fucking miserable i am sure :) ”
Another thing this smiley remind me of. A perfect illustration in fact. The “sharmoota “video where the settler humanoid all smiling and cheerful delivers her repeated “sharmoota” to the Palestinian woman while showing her the tongue…Absolute nastiness.
“Makes me wonder about what their real lives are like, pretty fucking miserable”
Oy, if you only knew! So miserable! And to top it all of, my wife just lost about, oh 15 lbs recently, so I’ve even got less of her. No, you could never know the misery I endure.
And I have no money either. Send me some! You wouldn’t see a fellow Jew starve, would you?
Look, I gotta go, but before I do, I just wanna say that it’s awful the way you force Yonira and rachel to stay here and be insulted! Let them go! If you love them, set them free!
Yoni, I’m working on this! Maybe later today we will get a supermajority, and can finally pass a resolution allowing you to leave! Til then, try and hang on!
Anyway, I’ve sure learned something here today, Judaism is a “we” thing!
We must submerge ourselves, Zionist and anti-Zionist alike in the Jewish hive-mind, and welcome our duly appointed Jewish overlords!
So basically Judaism is just like Socialism or Communism! Hooray!
But wait, why are the Zionists always complaining about “the left” and “crazy leftists”? From socialistic Judaism to outright Communism seems like an easy, natural step!
Gosh, I hadn’t thought of that “we” thing in terms of its power as a conversion point: “Come to Judaism, and leave your conscience and morals behind! It’s a “we” thing!” “In a confusing world on fact is clear: conversion to Judaism relieves you of all moral quandries! It’s a “we” thing!”
They’ll be breaking down the doors, especially if we can insinuate this “we” thing extends to group sex. And communal child-raising, like the original Kibbutzes!