In the National Interest, Paul Pillar, former CIA analyst, looks at the recent Indian judicial ruling on the Ayodhya site, sharing it between Muslims and Hindus, for both of whom it is holy, as a departure point for a meditation on Why Israel, unlike India, is so intolerant of its minority? Note that the url for this post includes the words, "the-lobby-must-not-be-named." Part of his very intelligent answer, which only obliquely mentions the lobby:
Hindus... constitute the majority in India just as Jews do in Israel. Hindus were conquered by foreign Muslims beginning in the 13th century and became oppressed subjects in their own homeland. And India is the only place that, notwithstanding substantial Hindu communities in other countries, could ever be considered the homeland of Hindus. Some on the Indian political right have wanted to run with that concept and turn India into something closer to Hindustan, the land of the Hindus. Given the Hindus' difficult history, it would be very easy to sympathize with that idea. But the dominant political ethos since independence—still voiced by the Congress Party, the principal governing party at present—sees India instead as a multi-confessional and multi-ethnic commonwealth, one in which Muslims become Bollywood film stars or even the president of India. And this is the case even though Hindus are an even larger majority in India (81 percent) than Jews are in Israel (76 percent), with Muslims being proportionately a smaller minority in India than in Israel.
There are several reasons that the Jews of Israel and the Hindus of India have taken such different paths, despite both having their versions of miserable and bloody histories. Leadership surely is one; there has been no Israeli equivalent of Mohandas Gandhi, whose approach to pursuing a cause was the antithesis of might-makes-right. While Gandhi was shaking off British rule in South Asia through mass marches and other nonviolent tactics, future Israeli prime minister and Likud Party leader Menachem Begin was shaking off British rule in Palestine through terrorist violence such as blowing up the King David Hotel. Another reason is the talent and resourcefulness of the Israeli people, who have had the skill not only to make the desert bloom but also to develop (with American help) the military power that makes it possible to achieve goals not through compromise but through force. Whatever the combination of reasons, the flicker of hope from the court ruling about Ayodhya and most Indian responses to it suggests that there is a better path.
I think Pillar fundamentally misreads the situation.
Hindus were not conquered or became oppressed subjects. The Central Asian rulers who came to India in the 10th-15th centuries were integrated into Indian society and insofar as anyone was oppressed, it was equal opportunity feudalism.
Yes, Gandhi fought for independence on moral grounds, and rejected violence. But modern Indian politics is not based on high-minded principles but the dynamics of democracy — majority rule, vote blocs etc. And in this democracy Muslims are way, way behind and often left feeling powerless and helpless. Educationally, socially and economically. Yes, there are some movie stars (some who can’t get entry to certain housing communities!) and entrepreneurs, but they are the exception.
And in essence, in Ayodhya, the court upheld “might is right” by dividing a piece of property that clearly (with title) belonged to the Muslim Waqf (community holding) board. Legal experts in India are horrified at what this implies. Somebody could plant idols anyplace and unleash a nightmare of litigation that will end in the “disputed” property being divided — between the rightful owners and the usurpers.
Obviously, in the I/P situation, even such a ruling would be progress — but it’s only akin to withdrawing from Gaza, or giving up part of the West Bank. Not some huge compromise representing some underlying understanding between the communities.
One difference is that in India, Islam and Hinduism are entirely unreconcilable; they can not coexist. To Islam, Hindu polytheism is anathema. Muslims may marry other Peoples of the Book, but never Hindus.
Whereas, when the Caliph Umar built his mosque on the site of the ruined temple, it was not to eradicate the holy place of the Jews, as so many Zionists claim, but to honor and restore it as a place to worship the god shared by both religions.
That may be true if we were to consider Islam as merely an unchanging textual document. In reality Islam (like most other traditions) is a varied tradition that adapts itself to the situation around itself in a given space and time. Hence, why after hundreds of years of Muslim rule India is still predominantly Hindu.
Furthermore, in practice Islam and Hinduism in India have historically experienced a great deal of syncretism. Marriage between Muslims and Hindus at certain points of this long history was not uncommon and even today you can find Muslim-Hindu marriages (although rising nationalist trends are making this more unlikely).
More puritan Muslims complain bitterly that Hindu influence has corrupted the faith and led the faithful into unIslamic practices, such as dowry for women.
But yes, I am taking the “book” position.
That’s a strange claim Postherd, considering that all the books on Islamic law require that a husband must pay a woman a marriage payment in order to marry her.
As for Muslims living with Hindu’s; the Hanafi school of law (which is the dominate Sunni Muslim legal school of thought in the Indian subcontinent ) allows for Hindus and Buddhists to be treated in the same way as People of the Book. The same goes for the Maliki school of law.
Yes, puritanical Muslims may complain about it, but Islam as practiced in India incorporates a lot of Sufi trends that came out of the syncretic tradition, including music, visiting shrines, many extra festivals.
And actually, the trend of inter-religious (inter-caste) marriage, especially in cities, is increasing, because of the increasing Westernization of lifestyles. Unlike a generation ago, young people often move out, leaving their small town to study and work in cities, where they are free from traditional constraints. Individual choices are trumping social pressures.
Excellent point.
The objection is made to the practice of the woman’s family paying the man, not the other way around, which is the Muslim practice.
And yet there are still hundreds of young people killed each year in India for trying to exercize this individual choice.
For syncretism, Akbar’s din-e-ilahi and Sikhism are good examples. Akbar’s relgion didn’t get off the ground, but Sikhism did.
Potsherd
The general level of tolerance for other religions in India is remarkable and to my mind it puts Israel to shame.
For me the status is symbolised in the song Sansa Ki Mala which was a big hit for the Muslim Nusrat fatih ali Khan and involves the invocation of some Hindu gods as an expression of love. Hindus and Muslims live side by side in many Indian cities and villages.
There would be no question of barring access to holy sites for Muslims as is the Israeli practice. Zionism is hysterical.
As there is no Israeli Gandhi, the nations must act. See:
this essay.
Are you kidding? This has got to be one of the most ridiculous articles I’ve ever read.
1. The Muslims of Pakistan are not claiming that all of India should belong to them as their “historic” land. 1948 brought about a two-state partition which essentially divided the former colony into Hindu and Muslim states (though I don’t hear you saying anything about that.) The two-state solution is essentially about creating a Jewish and Muslim/Arab state. As the author admits, far more people have been killed in Hindu/Muslim fighting since than have been killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
India has had major riots in the past two decades, and thousands of Muslims have been killed.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
Get over Gandhi. His non-violent tactics may have played a role in gaining India independence from an exhausted post-war Britain, but it is naive to believe that his ideas have really been put into practice in India. The man was shot to death. As was Indira Gandhi. As was Rajiv Gandhi. India has fought four wars with Pakistan. Both countries have nuclear weapons. All this, and no one claims that Pakistan should be part of India or India part of Pakistan. So there’s a court ruling on some historic mosque and suddenly India is the blessed paragon of virtue? Gimme a break.
The entire premise that the Jews are so “intolerant” of their minority is completely ridiculous. Yes, it’s true that most Israelis would like to keep Jerusalem in Jewish hands. That is because the Jordanians restricted Jewish access to East Jerusalem pre-1967, destroyed the Hurva synagogue in the Jewish quarter, and generally did not respect Jewish holy sites. The Wall was a complete mess when Israel took it over; it was uncared for and strewn with garbage. Since 1967, Muslims have been allowed unfettered access to the Temple Mount to worship at Al-Aqsa, and Jews have not been permitted there.
Menachem Begin is not equivalent to Gandhi. David Ben-Gurion led the Yishuv, and he was not a terrorist. Like with the Jewish struggle against the British for independence, not everyone was united. Again, hundreds of thousands dead, four wars, nuclear weapons on both sides, riots, and constant fighting over mountains in Kashmir. India is not an example to follow.
As I’ve said before, the Muslims in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, were never a majority. Any claim to the entire land would be ridiculous based on the concept of democracy. The claim that Muslims should have their own country was equally ridiculous when the alternative was an albeit imperfect secular state inclusive of all religions.
NB. Mohandas Ghandi is not related to the current Congress-affiliated Ghandi dynasty.
“1. The Muslims of Pakistan are not claiming that all of India should belong to them as their “historic” land.”
As the Israelis are claiming? I can only assume that is what you are referring too. The Palestinians were already there, they are not “claiming” anything.
Any other reading of your sentence would be ridiculous, don’t you think?
We should also remember that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are native to that area, the only difference is that their ancstors converted from Hinduism. The case with Palestine, on the other hand, has Europeans claiming ownersip to a land that is not even on their continent.
“The Palestinians were already there, they are not “claiming” anything.”
As were the Jews.
“As were the Jews.”
There is no such thing as “the Jews”.
Until the Ashenazim showed up, who were definitely not “already there.”
Again, I’m not receptive to the “too many Jews in the neighborhood” argument.
Again, I’m not receptive to the “too many Jews in the neighborhood” argument.
And now you are strawman-ing again. No one here made such an argument. You on the other hand, seem to be embracing the “too many Palestinians in the neighborhood” argument in issuing your apologetics for the dispossession of the Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
How about “demographic threat?”
I don’t get your argument Shingo, would also say there are no such thing as the Muslims, the Christians, or the Buddhists either?
India’s Muslims are native to the subcontinent, not just for a few generations, but going back 500 years.
The Muslim homeland, egged on by British colonialists, was envisioned as a haven for an oppressed minority, with the idea that they could never get adequate representation under a democracy in a Hindu-majority nation.
However flawed, the Indian partition plan was mutually agreed upon by Hindu and Muslim leaders claiming to represent their communities. The subsequent population transfer was an unmitigated disaster, with millions killed or dying in the process.
And it was also a disaster for the 100 million or more Muslims who remained in India, with their numbers shrinking and their voice less likely to be heard in a clamorous democracy. ON top of it, they still get blamed for Partition by rightwing Hindus who would like to see it reversed and who dream of “Akhund Bharat” — undivided India incorporating Pakistan and even Nepal. For them every mosque must have been built on a demolished temple, and they tell Muslims — go to Pakistan, or qabristan (cemetery). They say that Muslims don’t belong in India, that their loyalties lie in Mecca etc.
Many people in India and Pakistani actually believe Partition was a huge mistake, and that the two countries combined — a one-state solution to concerns about rights and representation — could have achieved much more, instead it’s a source of festering religious animosities.
India’s Muslims are native to the subcontinent, not just for a few generations, but going back 500 years.
A lot of India’s Muslims are more indigenous than that. They were lower-caste Indians, and especially untouchables, especially in Bengal. So of course they were open to conversion to a more egalitarian religion.
Just so, many of the Palestinian Muslims, and presumably virtually all of the Palestinian Christians, are indigenous to Palestine, they just happen to have converted to another religion at some point.
Since 1967, Muslims have been allowed unfettered access to the Temple Mount to worship at Al-Aqsa
Not to mention the age restrictions on those allowed to the enter the Haram al-Sharif (eg. men over 50, women over 45, children under 12).
hophmi makes some good points about India, but his vision of Israel is badly flawed:
Since 1967, Muslims have been allowed unfettered access to the Temple Mount to worship at Al-Aqsa, and Jews have not been permitted there.
Wrong and wrong. Muslim access to the mosque is highly fettered. Only elderly men are allowed into Jerusalem from the WB to pray at the place, and Israel shuts down the crossings for every Jewish holiday, regardless of Islamic worship needs.
And the reason the intifada of 10 years ago is named for al-Aqsa is Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the mount, claiming sovereignty over the place. Jews go trooping up there constantly, guarded by soldiers, for the same reason. The only thing they aren’t allowed to do is openly pray in the regalia.
And how many Muslims did you say visit the Hurva synagogue now that it’s been restored?
“And how many Muslims did you say visit the Hurva synagogue now that it’s been restored? ”
Huh? What does this have to do with this question? The Temple Mount is off limits to most Israelis; that’s why special permits are needed. The Hurva, as far as I know, is not off-limits to Muslims who want to visit. There are plenty of Muslims in the Jewish Quarter.
Of course, the age restrictions on worshippers at Al-Aqsa came about after the terrorist attacks started. And again, it is better than the pre-1967 situation, where Jews were not permitted to worship at the Western Wall, which was desecrated by the Jordanians.
These are red herrings. The claim made was how great India treats its Muslim minority and how badly Israelis treat theirs, and secondarily, where is the “Israeli Ghandi”? The former claim is ridiculous given the history of India-Pakistan relations, and the latter claim is irrelevant.
So, in other words, hophmi, you are admitting that when you said that
“Since 1967, Muslims have been allowed unfettered access to the Temple Mount to worship at Al-Aqsa, and Jews have not been permitted there.”
you were stating a falsehood.
What else is new?
Get over it, tree, and focus on the actual topic here, which is the comparison made by Phil and the writer he cites. Access is relatively unfettered, as far as I’m concerned.
Everyone here who claims that Jews are not indigenous to the Holy Land is stating a falsehood as far as I’m concerned, since we’ve been there for thousands of years.
Get over it, tree, and focus on the actual topic here, which is the comparison made by Phil and the writer he cites.
ROFLMAO. Its the blind complaining that others can not see!
I can assure that the topic of the post above was NOT Jordan’s rule over East Jerusalem prior to 1967. Go ahead, read it again. Jordan isn’t mentioned anywhere. You were the one who went off-topic and topped it off with a falsehood. I missed the comment policy rule that says that you have a right to go off topic to post falsehoods, and the rest of us have to shut up and like it. You’re a hoot. It shows how very tolerant you are. No wonder you don’t consider restricting access to Al-Aqsa, and denying Palestinian citizens access to mosques in their villages, declaring only Jewish sites to be protected holy sites, etc. to be instances of Israeli religious intolerance. “Relatively unfettered”. There’s a nice euphemism. Reminds me of “pining for the Fjords”.
Somehow though, I suspect that if the tables were turned you’d be upset. Frankly you seem much more upset about what Jordan did over 60 years ago than you are over what Israel is doing and continues to do today. Why is that? Trust me, this question is the essence of Phil’s post, and to some extent all that Phil writes here.
The Jews who lived in historic Palestine, then converted to Christianity under the Romans, who then converted to Islm and adopted the Arabic language, were there for thousands o years.
The descendents of Khazar kingdoms ( i.e’ the founders of Israel) don’t count.
There were native Palestinian Jews living in Palestine before the Zionists arrived from Europe. As far as I can tell, they were strongly opposed to the Zionist plans.
Again, an out-of-expertise scholar writing a book resurrecting a discredited theory does not establish the truth of that theory. Jews are not descended from the Khazars. No one but Shlomo Sand and Arthur Koestler has made that argument.
hophmi,
“Jews are not descended from the Khazars. No one but Shlomo Sand and Arthur Koestler has made that argument.”
Actually, you’re wrong. If you can read Hebrew, check out Arutz Sheva in September 2008 that discussed the Itil excavations sponsored by the Russian-Jewish Congress.
From AP at the time:
LOL,
you guys are so unbelievable, now the Khazar myth again, it is like a cycle of hogwash.
this place is disgusting.
what does your quote prove, other than the fact you are a conspiracy nut, who will believe anything which is anti-Israel.
No one here is arguing there were such thing as Khazars, or the Khazarian empire adopted Judaism, There are a lot of dots to fill in for Olive’s anti-semitic notions to be true though.
Here is a good collection of data about the connection between the Khazarian myth and anti-semitism.
link to redstate.com
link to jewlicious.com
Wonderful. More neoconservative garbage blog links. So glad to have you back, yonira.
“Actually, you’re wrong. If you can read Hebrew, check out Arutz Sheva in September 2008 that discussed the Itil excavations sponsored by the Russian-Jewish Congress.”
Sand’s argument is that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars. Obviously, a Jewish Khazar kingdom did exist. But the idea that that’s where most Jews come from today is not widely accepted.
Of course it’s not widely accepted, hophmi. There’s no money to be made or easy land to be swiped in it. If it were merely about what was “widely accepted,” Saddam’s nuclear weapons would have magically appeared as soon as the US invaded Iraq.
Chaos, if you are interested in the Khazarian myth and how it equates to modern day anti-semitism, that is a great place to start. Yes the redstate blog is garbage, but in that instance there is a lot of good information which they linked to.
The point is that there was a revered Indian leader, considered the father of the nation, who tried his best to promote religious harmony and understanding.
Not red herrings at all, hophmi. If Israel is justified in denying citizens of enemy states or others (for reasons of security) access to holy places, then Jordan was equally justified in denying Israeli citizens access to holy places under its control, when Israel was considered an enemy state. Saying that Israel has good reasons for denying such access doesn’t make it “unfettered”; it just makes it (possibly) explicable, and so comparable to the policy adopted by the Jordanians between 49 and 67.
Look, hophmi, your statements were false. The only question is whether you were ignorant or lying.
Neither. My statements are true. Israel allows unfettered access to Al-Aqsa. Like every other country, they make sure no one gets hurt in crowded areas. So when there are riots, they restrict access to older people.
I’m perfectly willing to put Israel’s record of treatment of religious minorities up against all others in the region. Let’s see. Shall we start with the Copts in Egypt? Or maybe the Ba’hai in Iran. Or maybe Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. No, maybe we should look at Christians in Sudan. Nah, you know what, let’s not even get started.
Well, you know, just ask yourself why it is that all those Israeli Arabs prefer to stay in Israel rather than live under the rule of the Palestinians.
“If Israel is justified in denying citizens of enemy states or others (for reasons of security) access to holy places, then Jordan was equally justified in denying Israeli citizens access to holy places under its control, when Israel was considered an enemy state.”
It’s really not the same thing. Jordan was not at war with Israel between 1949 and 1967. Israeli restrictions have come when there have been actual riots, stone throwing and the like. Yeah, sure, Ariel Sharon’s visit was a provocation. But Ariel Sharon and the 1000 people with him didn’t throw stones at anyone.
Lest we forget, the youth at Al-Aqsa used to throw stones down at the worshippers at the Western Wall not too long ago. There was no such history of violence among Jews at the Western Wall in the period of Jordanian occupation.
Bullshit, hophmi. Simply bullshit.
Nothing like repeating lies (and when the error has been pointed out to you, that makes it a lie) to make yourself not credible. Even less credible.
You’re wrong. Calling my argument bullshit does not make you right.
Again, not unfettered. Explained, but not unfettered, just like the denial of access to Iranian, Saudi, Syrian, Yemeni, etc. Muslims – or Christian citizens of countries Israel defines as enemy states but with which it is not currently at war (like the situation with Jordan, ’49-’67).
Shall we start with the Copts in Egypt? Or maybe the Ba’hai in Iran. Or maybe Christians and Jews in Saudi Arabia. No, maybe we should look at Christians in Sudan.
None of these claim to be bastions of democracy. If you have to start comparing yourself to such regimes, you’ve lost the argument.
“Like every other country, they make sure no one gets hurt in crowded areas”
Yeah right, they just fire live ammunition into those crowd.
“I’m perfectly willing to put Israel’s record of treatment of religious minorities up against all others in the region. Let’s see.”
Yes, let’s compare the numbers murdered against the numbers Israel has massacred in Palestine.
“Well, you know, just ask yourself why it is that all those Israeli Arabs prefer to stay in Israel rather than live under the rule of the Palestinians.”
Sure it has nothing to to with what they have seen what Israel does to Palestinians not living in Israel right Hophmi?
“Jordan was not at war with Israel between 1949 and 1967. ”
That’s if you ignore the aerial bombardment by Israel on a Jordanian village called Samu. In the course of this attack on Israel they blew up around 125 buildings and killed a large number of Jordanian soldiers.
Like Witty, for you it’s only war when Israel is on the receiving end.
My statements are true. Israel allows unfettered access to Al-Aqsa. Like every other country, they make sure no one gets hurt in crowded areas. So when there are riots, they restrict access to older people.
Israel restricts Palestinian access to Al-Aqsa no matter whether there are riots or not. Whenever there is a Jewish holiday Israel enforces curfews throughout the Occupied Territories. Israel has instituted a permit system which is completely arbitrary in determining who in the Occupied Territories can enter East Jerusalem. Jews have also rioted in Jerusalem, throwing stones, destroying property and injuring Israeli policemen, but no such restrictions are instituted to limit the age of those Jews visiting the holy sites.Here are 2 recent examples:
link to ynetnews.com
link to timesonline.co.uk
link to ynetnews.com
So your excuse that the restrictions are merely a “crowd control” measure doesn’t stand up since the same restrictions are not applied to Jews at all. In fact, Palestinians often find themselves restricted or confined under curfew when Israeli Jews riot. So the victims are made to suffer for the crimes against them. This happens on a recurring basis in Hebron.
I’m perfectly willing to put Israel’s record of treatment of religious minorities up against all others in the region.
Isn’t that number 2? “They suck.” Have you been forced into that gambit already? You started out with. “The entire premise that the Jews are so “intolerant” of their minority is completely ridiculous,” and now you’re backtracking with the ol’ “X is more intolerant than they are”. Give it up. There is nothing “ridiculous” about stating that Israel is intolerant of its non-Jewish minority. There is plenty of support for that viewpoint right here on Phil’s website. Come on, you said you could read. Then do so, instead of making lame excuses for things you would never excuse if they were done to Jews instead of by Jews.
Well, you know, just ask yourself why it is that all those Israeli Arabs prefer to stay in Israel rather than live under the rule of the Palestinians.
Now there’s another hackneyed ol saw. What a surprise, citizens of Israel, discriminated against but with more rights than the Palestinians living under a dictatorial Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories prefer to stay in their homes and with their families. Who would have thought. I see that you prefer to live in New York in your home, with your family and friends and work, rather than move to Israel. That must mean that you would prefer not to live under Jewish rule, right? That’s your point, isn’t ? Pretty lame and false point, isn’t it?
Jordan was not at war with Israel between 1949 and 1967.
It was in a state of continuing hostilities and border skirmishes with Israel. Can you say Qibya? Geez, read up on some of this stuff, and stop getting your talking points from ignorant hasbara sites.
Here’s an excerpt from “Violent Truce”, written by E.H. Hutchinson, who was the American head of the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission in the early 50′s.
From March 23 through June 30, 1954, Israel was condemned for fifteen violations of the General Armistice Agreement. By raiding into Jordan or firing across the border, Israeli soldiers and border police killed twenty-one Jordanians and wounded thirty four. Total Israeli casualties suffered during the attacks are not known, but the bodies of five of her soldiers or border policemen were recovered inside Jordan.
page 55.
Hutchinson’s book is replete with instances of Israeli violations of Jordanian sovereignty, including the killing of Jordanian civilians and soldiers on their home soil.
Israel is not in a state of war with the Occupied Territories now, but is in a state of continuing hostilities, mostly on the part of the occupier, so to claim that Israel’s restrictions on non-Jews is incomparable to Jordan’s restrictions on all Israelis only holds true to the extent that Israel’s restrictions are more discriminatory.
Yeah, sure, Ariel Sharon’s visit was a provocation. But Ariel Sharon and the 1000 people with him didn’t throw stones at anyone.
No, they just shot at them with guns, killing people. Much more civilized, I’m sure. Why Ariel Sharon, the butcher of Qibya and Sabra and Shatilla, head of the Green Patrol, was a Man of Peace! George Bush told me so.
Again, Jews in Israel have rioted, throwing stones and injuring people, but they are not restricted from worshiping at their holy sites because of it.
“Now there’s another hackneyed ol saw. What a surprise, citizens of Israel, discriminated against but with more rights than the Palestinians living under a dictatorial Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories prefer to stay in their homes and with their families. Who would have thought. I see that you prefer to live in New York in your home, with your family and friends and work, rather than move to Israel. That must mean that you would prefer not to live under Jewish rule, right? That’s your point, isn’t ? Pretty lame and false point, isn’t it?”
No, actually, when asked whether they would want to stay in Israel or move to an INDEPENDENT Palestinian state, most said they prefered to stay in Israel. THAT’s my point.
“It was in a state of continuing hostilities and border skirmishes with Israel. Can you say Qibya? Geez, read up on some of this stuff, and stop getting your talking points from ignorant hasbara sites.”
Like I said, Jordan and Israel were not at war from 1949 to 1967.
“No, they just shot at them with guns, killing people.”
Who from Ariel Sharon’s visit shot people?
“Again, Jews in Israel have rioted, throwing stones and injuring people, but they are not restricted from worshiping at their holy sites because of it. ”
Yeah, they threw stones in Mea Shearim, not the Western Wall. Mea Shearim is not a holy site. The worshippers at Al-Aqsa threw stones from the Temple Mount down on the worshippers below. That’s stones thrown at worshippers at a holy site, not stones thrown at policemen in a neighborhood. Learn the difference.
Good God, can you please make up your mind? Either Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab states, or it isn’t. You can’t keep declaring that Israel is in a continuous state of war and then is the peacemaker because it isn’t!
Half the Jews in Israel are prohibited from praying at their most holy site. Jews are dragged away and put under arrest by the Israeli government for praying there.
The bullshit is in your insisting you are right when you are demonstrably wrong.
You are, as usual, wrong again, hophmi.
Israel and Jordan remained in a state of war until 1994. The agreement of 1949 that established the Green Line was an armistice, a ceasefire, not a peace treaty.
link to mideastweb.org
However, Israel continued during this period to carry out terrorist attacks on Jordanian-controlled territory, murdering innocent Jordanians. This is all documented by Benny Morris, a source you claim to credit, in Israel’s Border Wars. Note the title: Wars According to Morris, Israel was certainly at war with Jordan during the period you claim it was not.
As for the Palestinians who prefer to remain in Israel, it’s very simple: the want to remain in their own homes. This is a factor that Zionists are willfully blind to – Palestinians are strongly attached to their homes, to their villages. They prefer to remain in their ancestral homes even under Israeli rule than to move to a strange place. And they prefer to return to these homes rather than remaining in a strange place.
The difference between us, hophmi, is that if someone demonstrates with sound evidence that I am wrong, I will acknowledge the fact. I will say, “I was wrong about that, thank you for providing correct information.”
Whereas you continue to repeat your wrong comments, and that is bullshit.
Get ready, potsherd. The next move in this two-step is for hophmi to ad hominem Benny Morris or pretend like the words in his books magically transmogrified while we weren’t looking.
“The difference between us, hophmi, is that if someone demonstrates with sound evidence that I am wrong, I will acknowledge the fact. I will say, “I was wrong about that, thank you for providing correct information.””
Sure. There was an Armistice. And plenty of backchannel relations during that Armistice. If you want to call it war, go ahead. If an armistice is technically a state of war, I grant you a big technical point.
Jews were still restricted from their holiest places during the Jordanian occupation. That is one of the main reasons Israelis, and many Jews are uneasy about letting others administrate the Old City.
“As for the Palestinians who prefer to remain in Israel, it’s very simple: the want to remain in their own homes. ”
If it’s about remaining in their own houses, they would surely support the Lieberman plan. But they don’t because they value the freedom and prosperity they have in a modern liberal democracy.
Hey, listen, I certainly want them to stay.
I call the situation between Israel and Jordan under the armistice a war because there was shooting and killing. Israel made regular incursions into Jordanian territory to conduct terrorist raids and murder Jordanians.
No one has denied that Jordan prohibited Israeli Jews from entering its territory during this period. Although I’m not sure why they should have allowed this while Israeli terrorists were killing their citizens. But if it were so greatly valued by Israelis, maybe they should have put provisions allowing such visits into the armistice agreement.
But you know, that was then. The Israeli mindset is trapped in the meme that says “the Arabs are the same Arabs and the sea is the same sea.” No wonder they don’t manage to make peace, which requires trust.
That is one of the main reasons Israelis, and many Jews are uneasy about letting others administrate the Old City.
Isn’t it conceivable that Muslims (and some Christians) might have similar feelings about Israeli control – which has barred (and continues to bar) very many of them from visiting the holy sites, entirely at its own discretion? It’s like all of the issues of trust and security and control: only Israeli fears must be considered, presumably because they are the “good guys”.
“Isn’t it conceivable that Muslims (and some Christians) might have similar feelings about Israeli control – which has barred (and continues to bar) very many of them from visiting the holy sites, entirely at its own discretion?”
I’m sure they do. It’s natural, given the history of the region. But right now, Israel has sovereignty, and Jews have very legitimate fears about protection of their holy sites under the rule of others. We all remember what happened at the Tomb of Joseph a decade or so ago. We don’t have fond memories of the Wall during the time the Jordanians occupied East Jerusalem. And we generally do a decent job of protecting the holy places of others. The visit of several high profile rabbis to the burnt mosque yesterday is a reflection of how most Israelis feel about the matter of protecting holy places. I don’t think you could have written a stronger condemnation than the one delivered by Ehud Barak, who described the arson as an act of terror, with all that implies in Israeli consciousness.
Israeli administration of the Old City is pretty good, if you’ve ever been there, and I’ve walked through the whole thing a few times. The funny thing is that there is plenty of fighting at the Church of the Holy Sepulcre – between the Christian sects that vye for control of it. As far as Al-Aqsa goes, I don’t think it can be ignored that for the most part, Israel has not only protected the mosque, which has been the target of quite a number of plots from extremists, but has basically kept Israeli Jews away from it while facilitating the visits of tourists. There are exceptions, of course, like Sharon, but I think that’s pretty remarkable given that this is, after all, the holiest site in Judaism, the Israelis do exercise sovereignty over it, and plenty of Jews would love to go up there.
They’ve allowed the Waqf to run the place, and they really have interfered very little over time.
To be perfectly frank, the Temple Mount and the Wall comprise holiest site in Judaism. The Vatican is ruled by the Catholic Church, who have their own ministate just for this purpose. Mecca is ruled by the Saudis in a totalitarian Islamic theocracy. The whole Wall area is home to one yeshiva after another. I can see some sort of monitoring regime, but I think any kind of divided sovereignty in the Old City is unfair and totally impractical given the reality there today. Even most secular Jews who are perfectly willing to live with a divided municipal Jerusalem would not divide that or turn it over to an international regime, I don’t think. All expansive definitions of Jerusalem aside (and Benvenisti is right when he says that the idea of Jerusalem has been manipulated and expanded for political reasons over the last 42 years), the Jerusalem Jews pray for on Passover is the one in the Old City.
Remind us again, who put the Saudis in power?
But right now, Israel has sovereignty, and Jews have very legitimate fears about protection of their holy sites under the rule of others
Right now Israel has a lot of things, but if a solution is to be found, the needs and concerns of all sides will have to be taken into account.
And we generally do a decent job of protecting the holy places of others.
Apart from the arguments above regarding access, that you continue to dismiss, Israel’s record of protecting holy places is really not that hot (see, for example, this article by Meron Rapoport). Not to mention the changes Israel has made (whether you happen to consider them just or not) in the Ibrahimi Mosque/Cave of Machpelah or (less importantly) in places like Nebi Samwil/Samuel, or Israel’s tunnelling expeditions in the area of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif.
Israeli administration of the Old City is pretty good, if you’ve ever been there, and I’ve walked through the whole thing a few times.
Again, this is your opinion, hardly gospel truth. Israel has in fact severely damaged Palestinian life in the Old City and Jerusalem in general, through policies of Judaisation and the severing its ties with its Palestinian hinterland. Once again, you may find all sorts of reasons and justifications for these policies, but you will forgive Palestinians if they have their own interests and concerns. BTW, I’ve walked through the Old City a lot more than “a few times”. As for the Christians, I’m sure they’re grateful for that firm, Jewish hand. Lord knows how they managed for all those centuries.
I think the decision to maintain the status quo on the Temple Mount itself – limiting Jewish prayer to the Wall area – was a wise one, although the transformation of the Wall area into a grandiose symbol of Zionist nationalism was far less wise, and the destruction of the Mughrabi Quarter was a war crime. I think sincere Jewish prayer on some part of the Temple Mount (as opposed to political provocations and muscle-flexing) could be looked into in the context of true freedom of access for all (as opposed to simply expanding rights for Jews). At the moment, most Jews – whether secular or religious – have no interest in praying there (for various reasons) and those who do (such as Gershon Solomon and his Temple Mount Faithful) have clearly political aims and designs on the entire area.
Your argument about what Jews want and/or are prepared to accept is fine and dandy, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Say that you are not interested in any reasonable agreement with the Palestinians (that gives equal weight to their needs and concerns) and as long as Jews have the upper hand, this is the way things are going to be.
Israeli fanatics have transformed prayer into a tool of terrorism. To pray on the hill is an exercise in nationalism, a declaration of Jewish sovereignty over the area, and a land grab.
First, a “holy site” is identified, then nationalist Jews insist on going there to “pray” with their flags and Israeli flags, then the IDF has to go along to protect them, then the IDF has to clear out all the Palestinians so the praying Jews will be safe, then it is declared a closed military zone where only Jews can have access, then a settlement springs up next to the “holy site.”
I don’t see how the Wall has been transformed into a gradiose statement of Zionism nationalism. It’s one yeshiva after another over there.
I’m not sure what you’re implying with your statement about Christians in the Old City, who seem to spend more time fighting amongst themselves than with anyone else.
Are you implying that is no political element to prayer at Al-Aqsa?
Yes, hophmi. Everyone but the Jews are violent and politically opportunist. But Zionism ain’t racism!
I don’t see how the Wall has been transformed into a gradiose statement of Zionism nationalism. It’s one yeshiva after another over there.
The yeshivas are visible around the periphery (particularly Yeshivat Hakotel and Rabbi Goren’s namesake Kolel Ha’idra), but the plaza itself (created by demolishing over a hundred Palestinian homes before the dust of battle had settled) is meant to be imposing, well beyond the small area adjacent to the wall, generally used for prayer. The site was certainly envisioned by its mostly secular architects (e.g. Moshe Dayan), and even some of the religious figures involved in its development (especially Shlomo Goren) as a national symbol – witness, for example, the military swearing-in ceremonies held there.
It was your remark about Christian infighting at the Holy Sepulchre that was beside the point – irrelevant to the issue of sovereignty and Israeli religious tolerance.
There is certainly a political element to prayer at Al-Aqsa, but it is just that, an element. First and foremost, it is – at it has been for centuries – a place of worship. I think you would be hard pressed to find Jews who wish to pray on the Temple Mount who do not have a primarily political (and supremacist) agenda. In any event, as I wrote, in the context of complete freedom of worship for all (not just more rights for Jews) in Jerusalem, an arrangement for Jewish prayer somewhere on the Temple Mount could certainly be looked into.
“I think you would be hard pressed to find Jews who wish to pray on the Temple Mount who do not have a primarily political (and supremacist) agenda”
That is true. But it doesn’t change the fact that they are people who wish to pray there, and it is other Jews who restrict them from doing so, which seems to me to be a telling example of how Israel protects a Muslim holy place.
which seems to me to be a telling example of how Israel protects a Muslim holy place.
Or it could be a purely pragmatic decision, as explicitly stated by those responsible for this policy, since ’67 – despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. As I said, it has been a wise policy, not a generous or righteous one, and certainly not an indication of Israel’s “good faith”. Where Israel has found it in its interest to abuse Muslim holy places and Muslim religious freedoms, it has done so, with no qualms.
You mean King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. It sure as hell wasn’t the Americans like you are insinuating.
Oil was discovered AFTER the Saudis were ‘put in power’
Thanks to Shmuel and potsherd for correcting hophmi’s false statements, and saving me the trouble. However, I would like to add two points.
One, Jordan did not restrict Jewish access to East Jerusalem or the Western Wall. As I have mentioned before, my (Jewish American) aunt visited East Jerusalem, including the Wall, in the early 60′s as part of her tour of the Middle East. Jordan restricted access to East Jerusalem to ISRAELIS. This restriction was on all Israelis, regardless of religious or ethnic background. Israeli Arabs were not allowed to enter East Jerusalem either during that time.
Two, part of the Israeli “renovation” of the Western Wall included the demolition of numerous long standing homes of the Palestinian residents of area. This destruction of Palestinian homes is now ever widening and expanding throughout East Jerusalem. There is no honest way to describe this as OTHER THAN intolerance of Israel’s minority. You are woefully misinformed, hophmi. You are defending the Israel of your dreams and refusing to see the reality in front of your eyes. I suggest you start reading more from btselem and icahd and others about the real situation there. I’d suggest Adalah, too but I suspect that you would dismiss info that doesn’t come from Jewish sources about how bad things are in Israel.
David Ben-Gurion led the Yishuv, and he was not a terrorist.
He was the one who ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Violence perpetrated against civilians in order to achieve political ends. If that doesn’t qualify as a terrorist action, then nothing does.
And, by the way, Israel showed no respect for Jewish holy sites during the1948 war, either. Haganah fighters were holed up in the Hurva synagogue, using it as a base for attack. This is why the Jordanian Legion attacked and destroyed the synagogue in May of 1948, after having warned the Haganah that it would be destroyed if they did not abandon it.
Tree:
This is why the Jordanian Legion attacked and destroyed the synagogue in May of 1948, after having warned the Haganah that it would be destroyed if they did not abandon it.
I didn’t know that. Would you post a reference ?
I’d be glad to, Elliot. I’m not sure exactly where I first read about this. Perhaps in Avi Shlaim’s book about Jordan, or one of the books covering Pasha Glubb. But luckily, there is Wikipedia to the rescue:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia lists two sources for this account. Larry Collins and Dominique La Pierre, “Oh Jerusalem”, and Itamar Rabinovich and Jehuda Reinharz, “Israel in the Middle East”. Neither of those were my original sources, I’m sure, but the general gist of this recounting sounds similar to what I have read. If it suddenly hits me exactly where I read about this, I’ll post that for you too.
From that same wiki page
”The question of whether responsibility for its destruction should rest on the shoulders of the Arab Legion or on the Haganah who had turned it into their last stronghold is debatable.”
Funny how it’s not debatable when Israel destroys countless mosques using that justification.
On second thought, here is an excerpt from the website of Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights In Israel:
link to adalah.org
You’re a lawyer, hophmi. Does any of this sound like “religious tolerance” of a minority to you? And please note, these are all actions taken by Israel against its own Palestinian citizens, not the Palestinian subjects of Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories.
Again, you’re missing the point. I didn’t say things were perfect. I said comparing Israel’s treatment of its Arab minority to a case where riots have killed thousands of Muslims, there have been four wars, a partition to divide a large territory into two countries based on religion, and the nuclearization of the region is completely ridiculous.
I didn’t say things were perfect.
No,, you said:
The entire premise that the Jews are so “intolerant” of their minority is completely ridiculous.
And topped it off with a falsehood. The evidence of Israeli intolerance of its minority citizens is everywhere, and yet you don’t see it. Shmuel , I and others have tried to lead you to water but you refuse to drink because to actually know what Israel is like would break your illusions and for some reason you feel the need to cling to them. And now all you are doing is squirming and pounding the table.
Again, the context of the argument here was that India is tolerant and Israel is not. That’s completely ridiculous, because history, particularly recent history, has not shown that India is tolerant of its Muslim population.
Again, I didn’t say the situation was perfect. But Arabs in Israel have political rights and civil liberties, and to say jews are completely intolerant is patently ridiculous.
‘to say jews are completely intolerant is patently ridiculous.’
Of course it is. The state of Israel and its supporters (Jewish and not) are intolerant.
‘But Arabs in Israel have political rights and civil liberties’
Arabs (Palestinians) in Israel can’t lease land. I could lease a plot in the Negev and I’m not an Israeli citizen.
By the way, my elementary school counselor used to say a playfight turns into a real fight. That seems to work for playing dumb. Which is what you’re doing.
…and to say jews are completely intolerant is patently ridiculous.
Ah, you realize you are losing the argument so you attempt to move the goalposts yet again. No one said “Jews are completely intolerant”, and you know it.
The article posted by Phil talks about Israel’s intolerance of its minorities. You objected to that categorization by saying “The entire premise that the Jews are so “intolerant” of their minority is completely ridiculous.” This statement, though false, only makes sense if you are using the term “the Jews” as an inexact placeholder for the Israeli government and Israeli Jews. Muslims and Christians are not minorities of “the Jews”, they are minorities in Israel.
Now that you’ve been proven wrong about Israel’s lack of tolerance for its religious minorities you’ve changed your wording to imply that someone said that “Jews are completely intolerant”, which is false. That’s dishonest argumentation. Israel is intolerant of its religious minorities. It discriminates against them in numerous ways, some of which have been illustrated in Phil and Adam’s postings here.. Anyone who acknowledges that faxt is simply looking clearly at the situation in Israel. All Jews are certainly not “completely intolerant”, but Israel is truly intolerant of its minorities. Just as all whites are not “completely intolerant” but the Jim Crow South was certainly intolerant of its black minority. You seem to think that what Israel does reflects the attitude of all Jews. That is an anti-semitic stereotype you are harboring there. Defending Israel on this subject is not “defending Jews”, anymore than defending Jim Crow practices was “defending whites”. Its simply excusing bad attitudes because they are held by someone who shares your affinity group, which is the height of hypocrisy.
No, I was not trying to move the goalposts. Obviously, I’m talking about Jews being intolerant of minorities in the context of the Israel, not overall. Excuse me for the shorthand. I believe, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INDIA COMPARISON, that that’s patently ridiculous, and yes, I admit things are far from perfect.
At the end of the day, Arabs have voting rights, are represented in the Knesset, and prefer Israel to a PROSPECTIVE INDEPENDENT Palestinian state.
“At the end of the day, Arabs have voting rights, are represented in the Knesset, and prefer Israel to a PROSPECTIVE INDEPENDENT Palestinian state.”
Yes, like all human beings, they prefer not to be bombed or have their homes demolished.
Otherwise, your simply speculating.
“Arabs.” Why can’t you say Palestinians? Why is it always “THE Arabs?” Like the way it used to be “THE Jews…”
Well, because not all Arabs in Israel are Palestinians, for starters.
Really? Because you keep saying that Israel is the JEWISH state, and you keep insisting that Arab and Jewish are mutually exclusive. Where does that leave Arab Israelis?
Also? I love it how you pretend that there aren’t Arab Israelis who would prefer if the land was still Palestine and wasn’t an exclusive state at all, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise.
“Also? I love it how you pretend that there aren’t Arab Israelis who would prefer if the land was still Palestine and wasn’t an exclusive state at all, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. ”
I’ll call them Palestinians. That’s fine.
“Also? I love it how you pretend that there aren’t Arab Israelis who would prefer if the land was still Palestine and wasn’t an exclusive state at all, Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. ”
I’m sure there are, though what Palestine means to them may not be so nice for my people. Fortunately, Israel is a place where there are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Ba’hai, white people, brown people, black people, Arabs, Druze, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbeks, Ashkenazim, Sepharadim, and yes, people from all over the Arab world live together.
“One, Jordan did not restrict Jewish access to East Jerusalem or the Western Wall. As I have mentioned before, my (Jewish American) aunt visited East Jerusalem, including the Wall, in the early 60’s as part of her tour of the Middle East. Jordan restricted access to East Jerusalem to ISRAELIS. ”
Like I said, Jordan restricted access. I didn’t say the restriction was absolute. But the history is clear, regardless of your aunt’s tourist experience. And you conveniently omitted my other point, which was that Jordan desecrated the site.
“[Ben-Gurion] was the one who ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”
Yes, I’m familiar with the Palestinian narrative, thank you. The writer’s comparison was of Gandhi and Begin. I think that’s ridiculous, because their roles were not the same; Begin was not the leader of his community and his organization was tiny compared to the Haganah. Stick to the topic instead of another endless retread of your talking points.
Stop squirming, hophmi, you only look more ridiculous than you’ve made yourself already with your false statements.
I care little about what you think potsherd. You’re in an echo chamber here and I know most people here will pat you on the ass every time you gang up on the guy with the other point of view.
I’m not squirming. I have the courage of my convictions. Do you? I can understand both narratives at once. Can you?
I can also read and listen, skills foreign to most people here, apparently.
Yes, I’m familiar with the Palestinian narrative, thank you.
I’m not talking about the Palestinian narrative. I’m talking about the Israeli archives and what they show. Palestinians are not the ones who wrote the Israeli archival material.
Like I said, Jordan restricted access.
No, you said Jordan restricted JEWISH access. What it restricted was ISRAELI access, regardless of religious background. Israeli Muslims and Christians were restricted in the same way that Israeli Jews were.
I didn’t say the restriction was absolute.
No, you simply implied that it was, and misstated who was restricted, which made it look like purely a religious restriction rather than an national one. Does the long ago Jordanian restriction qualify under your “relatively unfettered” rubric?
Hophmi. if you don’t want me to respond to your talking points, then I suggest you stop making them. You stated that Ben-Gurion, as the leader of the New Yishuv, was not a terrorist. I was responding to that statement. I’ve remained on topic in my responses to you. You, on the other hand seem to be all over the place.
I’ve got to head to work now. When I get a chance later on tonight I will respond, on-topic, to anymore of your pronouncements that I deem important to respond to. See ya later.
I have to admit, it takes a lot of guts to keep repeating a lie. That’s not the “courage of your convictions,” that’s blind idiocy.
“No, you said Jordan restricted JEWISH access. What it restricted was ISRAELI access, regardless of religious background. Israeli Muslims and Christians were restricted in the same way that Israeli Jews were. ”
Oh, gimme a break. If you restrict everyone’s access to a Jewish holy site that only Jews would want to go to, you’re restricting Jewish access. Post 1948, Jordan ethnically cleansed the Jewish villages of East Jerusalem, destroyed most the synagogues, and restricted Jewish access to Jewish holy sites in contravention of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. It is well-known stuff, not a talking point.
Your argument that Ben-Gurion was a terrorist is not held by any reputable scholar I know, and ONCE AGAIN, the comparison made was Begin and Gandhi, which makes no sense.
And needless to say, the Israelis archives do not show that Ben-Gurion “ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.” I’ll take Benny Morris’s view on the matter. He says nothing of the sort, and he’s the most respected authority.
Then read Morris’s Israel’s Border Wars, which document in detail the early years of Israeli terrorism, presided over by Ben-Gurion.
“Oh, gimme a break. If you restrict everyone’s access to a Jewish holy site that only Jews would want to go to, you’re restricting Jewish access.”
Not at all hophmi. It works the same way that having Helen Thomas fired does not restrict her right to free speech remember?
“Post 1948, Jordan ethnically cleansed the Jewish villages of East Jerusalem, destroyed most the synagogues, and restricted Jewish access to Jewish holy sites in contravention of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. It is well-known stuff, not a talking point.”
Yes, that was AFTER Israel did the same on a much grander scale remember?
“Your argument that Ben-Gurion was a terrorist is not held by any reputable scholar I know”
Yes Hophmi, that settles it then. If it’s someone you know, who are we to doubt you?
“And needless to say, the Israelis archives do not show that Ben-Gurion “ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.””
Correction, the Israeli archives that have been released to the3 public, not the archives that Netenyahu has sealed for another 2 or 3 decades because releasing them would be a threat to Israel.
“I can also read and listen, skills foreign to most people here, apparently.”
Yes, read and listen, pass through Zionist filter, then rinse and repeat.
Oh, gimme a break. If you restrict everyone’s access to a Jewish holy site that only Jews would want to go to, you’re restricting Jewish access.
OK, I know you aren’t that ignorant to believe the only holy sites in East Jerusalem are Jewish ones. This is what you said earlier
…the Jordanians restricted Jewish access to East Jerusalem pre-1967…
And I corrected you to tell you that it was only Israelis that were prohibited from enter Jordanian-held East Jerusalem. Christian and Muslim Israelis were likewise prohibited from entering East Jerusalem to worship at Al- Aqsa or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Are you really trying to pretend that there are only Jewish holy sites in East Jerusalem? Or, having been caught in a falsehood are you trying to pretend you didn’t say what you said earlier? Not a very smart move for someone who claims that he knows how to read and listen.
And needless to say, the Israelis archives do not show that Ben-Gurion “ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.” I’ll take Benny Morris’s view on the matter. He says nothing of the sort, and he’s the most respected authority.
You need to read more, hophmi. Or you need to retain what you read. Here’s Benny Morris, whose view you claim you “take”, on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and Ben-Gurion’s role in it, in an interview with Avi Sharit in Haaretz in early 2004:
link to counterpunch.org
So I take it that you now are willing to admit that Ben-Gurion was responsible for the ethnic cleansing now that it has been pointed out to you that Morris, the “most respected authority” by your own words,, has stated such, on the basis of his reading of Israeli archives? Or are you going to try to weasel out of what you just said, yet again?
“Not at all hophmi. It works the same way that having Helen Thomas fired does not restrict her right to free speech remember? ”
HUH? How is Helen Thomas’s firing the same thing as restricting Jews from a holy site?
“Yes, that was AFTER Israel did the same on a much grander scale remember?”
Hardly, and certainly not to Jordan, who attacked them in 1948.
“Yes Hophmi, that settles it then. If it’s someone you know, who are we to doubt you?”
Simply cite a few reputable scholars who hold this opinion.
The claim was that Ben-Gurion ordered the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
“There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer.”
None this sounds like an order to me. This is the difference between something common in internecine conflict and the Plan Dalet you all love to cite as evidence of something more organized.
Simply cite a few reputable scholars who hold this opinion.
I cited an interview with Benny Morris, your accepted authority, on Ben-Gurion’s responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. You said you take his view. Why the silence? Ethnic cleansing is violence against civilians in order to achieve political ends; a clear definition of terrorism.
Of course it doesn’t to you. You refuse to see things directly in front of your eyes. Morris is clear that Ben-Gurion was responsible for the ethnic cleansing. He’s simply saying that he didn’t put his orders down in writing. Rabin himself, in his autobiography, admitted that Ben-Gurion gave the oral order to cleanse Lydda (Lod) and Ramle, an action that Rabin carried out.
Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].
So I guess that establishes that you don’t even believe your own respected authority when he contradicts what you want to believe. That constitutes clinging to a fantasy. You would do yourself good to question why you feel the need to do so against all evidence to the contrary.
Hitler didn’t put anything down in writing ordering the destruction of European Jews, either. By your logic that must mean that it was all just part of your typical “internecine conflict”. Think about where your “reasoning” is leading you.
(As an aside, I would recommend reading Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. He had access to recently declassified notes and diary writings from Ben-Gurion’s meetings with “The Consultancy” which deliberated on and agreed to the cleansing long before Plan Dalet was instituted. )
Oops, messed up my formatting. From “So I guess…” on down the words are mine. Only the one paragraph starting with “Yes. One of the….” is a quote from Benny Morris.
“I cited an interview with Benny Morris, your accepted authority, on Ben-Gurion’s responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.”
Your claim was that Ben-Gurion ordered ethnic cleansing and also that Ben Gurion was a terrorist. Benny Morris does not support your view that Ben-Gurion ordered anything, and you cite no scholar who labels Ben-Gurion a terrorist.
Keep trying.
That’s right! The ethnic cleansing just happened. All on its own. No documentation whatsoever.
In May 1944 (during a closed deliberation) Ben-Gurion continued to express without restrain his conviction that Arab transfer was inherent in the very conception of Zionism, he said:
Too easy.
In May 1944 (during a closed deliberation) Ben-Gurion continued to express without restrain his conviction that Arab transfer was inherent in the very conception of Zionism, he said:
“Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)
In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion said:
“In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority …. There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)
I quoted from Benny Morris who stated that he has no doubt that the order to “expedite the the removal of the Arab population ” came from Ben-Gurion himself. And Yitzhak Rabin said the said thing in his autobiography If you want to pretend that Morris and Rabin didn’t say that, well that just shows the depth of your fantasy.
I see the problem is you’ve got a man-crush on Ben-Gurion. No one is allowed to besmirch your idol with the truth.
Do you disagree with either of these statements?
“David Ben-Gurion led the Yishuv, and he was not a terrorist”
Are you sure Hophmi?
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
raichle
David Ben-Gurion quotes (Polish born Israeli Statesman and Prime Minister (1948-53, 1955-63). Chief architect of the state of Israel and revered as Father of the Nation, 1886-1973)
Yeah, you might try getting quotes from somewhere other than David Duke’s website. The quote has been debunked as a fabrication.
link to zionism-israel.com
“Yeah, you might try getting quotes from somewhere other than David Duke’s website”
You might try getting our argument from a non Zionazi web site..
Just stating the quote was not made, without proving evidence (typical of Zionist propaganda site CAMERA) , is not debunking anything.
Your sad little link doesn’t even debunk it, but claims that the report in which it was sources is “controversial”.
Cite a source for the quote. My link is to Ami Isseroff’s site, one of the most reputable on the net. Ami Isseroff is a longtime peace activist. Otherwise admit the you can’t provide a source and that you culled it from a website.
I love it how Zionists are always forced to beat their own forefathers over the heads with shovels. Why do you always have to lie about your past?
Again. The quote is a fairly well-known fabrication. I’ve seen it and a number of others before. It’s a fabrication that pops up an anti-Israel websites (and absolutely nowhere else) all the time. By the way, the quote is usually attributed to Israel Koenig, not Ben-Gurion, and the source cited (as you can see on CAMERA’s website, is Ian Lustick’s book, which, of course, you can go and check and where, of course, you won’t find it.
Shingo says “Just stating the quote was not made, without proving evidence (typical of Zionist propaganda site CAMERA) , is not debunking anything.”
The proving evidence is right in the CAMERA debunking, if you bothered to read it, which you obviously did not. The quote is attributed to Israel Koenig in Ian Lustick’s book based on a leaked story to Al HaMishmar. You can check the book. Let me know if you find the quote. As I said, these fabricated quotes are not new, and can often be traced to a source. The most common is the quote attributed to Ariel Sharon that was actually a quote from a character in an Amos Oz novel.
As hard as it may be for you to believe, some people on the pro-Palestinian side do make these things up from time to time.
Here is the whole thing.
link to camera.org
hophmi, even if that quote was fabricated, David Ben-Gurion still made a lot of damning statements. These are all lifted from The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, and keep in mind the writer of that book was granted a position at Ben-Gurion university by Ezer Weizmann (president of Israel).
“I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.”
And, “what happened in Jerusalem and what happened in Haifa could well happen in great parts of the country – if we hold on… It is very possible that in the coming six or eight or ten months of the war there will take place great changes… and not all of them to our detriment. Certainly there will be great changes in the composition of the population of the country.”
And, “The war will give us the land; the concepts of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ are only concepts for peacetime, and during the war they lose all their meaning.”
And to JNF director Yosef Weitz, “In the Negev we will not buy land. We will conquer it. You are forgetting that we are at war.”
And, “We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate Upper and Lower, Eastern and Western Galilee, the Negev and the Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way… I believe the war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of the Arab population.”
David Gruen doesn’t have a good name for you to defend.
OK, Andrew. But he never said what was claimed here. I think we’ve proven that.
The statements that you cite are not particularly damaging given that they uttered in the late 1940s when population transfer was a much more accepted idea, and Israel was in the middle of a war. I’d invite you to peruse the quotes uttered by Palestinian and Arab leaders of the same period, which is more obviously bloodthirsty, starting with Hajj Husseini. They are not pleas for peaceful co-existence, though you can certainly find plenty of quotes from Ben-Gurion and others asking Arabs to stay in the country.
I do not think you can argue that Ben-Gurion had no basis for his statements when the Arabs were as obviously hostile to Jewish sovereignty as they were.
I think there’s plenty to defend about the man who was the father of modern Israel, a land of kibbutzim that none of your ilk had a problem with as long as it was mostly socialist. He’s also a man who argued against long-term occupation of the West Bank.
He’s one of the twentieth century’s greatest men, without a doubt.
hophmi,
You hew to romantic notions of what created Israel and use charged words like ”Palestinian and Arab leaders of the same period, which is more obviously bloodthirsty, starting with Hajj Husseini…others asking Arabs to stay in the country.“
Basically, a crock.
At no time was it ever intended that Jews would replace the indigenous Palestinians in their own land. Read it yourself from the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale: link to avalon.law.yale.edu
And then there is this from Sir Richard Catling, deputy head of the special branch of the Criminal Investigation division in Jerusalem in 1944 and then Assistant Inspector General, declassified two years ago. The correct story will be written, and all these fairy tales you spout finally debunked.
link to mondediplo.com
I doubt you’ll read any of this, intent as you are on having your view of history accepted, but at least these are documents from people who were present, as you weren’t.
“As controversial as Koenig’s proposals were at the time, however, there was absolutely no suggestion of using “terror,” “assassination,” “intimidation” or “land confiscations.””
That’s hilarious.
Even according to the Camera article, Koenig prescribes “terror,” “assassination,” “intimidation” or “land confiscations”, but then turns around and denies that these were proposed by Koenig.
Summary: Even if the quote was fabricated, Israeli policies have followed this prescription to a T.
“The statements that you cite are not particularly damaging given that they uttered in the late 1940s when population transfer was a much more accepted idea, and Israel was in the middle of a war.”
Rubbish. The world went to war to oppose “population transfer was a much more”.
“I’d invite you to peruse the quotes uttered by Palestinian and Arab leaders of the same period, which is more obviously bloodthirsty, starting with Hajj Husseini.”
Get your history books out you idiot. Husseini was in exile from 1939.
“though you can certainly find plenty of quotes from Ben-Gurion and others asking Arabs to stay in the country.”
And plenty of quotes from Ben-Gurion opposing allowing the Arabs to return.
“I do not think you can argue that Ben-Gurion had no basis for his statements when the Arabs were as obviously hostile to Jewish sovereignty as they were.”
Actually, even Ben Gurion was honest to admit that Israel were in the wrong.
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
“I think there’s plenty to defend about the man who was the father of modern Israel, a land of kibbutzim that none of your ilk had a problem with as long as it was mostly socialist.”
Correction: We had no problem with it so long as it did not involve ethnic cleansing, land confiscation, mass murder, home evictions and home demolitions.
You’re quite the sleazy propagandist aren’t you Hophmi?
“He’s one of the twentieth century’s greatest men, without a doubt.”
As far as war criminals and terrorists go, perhaps.
Do us a favor and stop slandering socialism by associating it with the ethnocentric police state beast that Israel has become and always must have been to be a state for exclusive Jewish interests.
“Even according to the Camera article, Koenig prescribes “terror,” “assassination,” “intimidation” or “land confiscations”, but then turns around and denies that these were proposed by Koenig.”
Koenig raises these ideas in a committee, WHERE THEY ARE SOUNDLY REJECTED.
Incidentally, what part of the Holy Land does a name like Koenig come from? Ramallah? Jaffa? Hebron?
Koenig raises these ideas in a committee, WHERE THEY ARE SOUNDLY REJECTED.
So Camera says, but they are lying.
And this about the reaction to the leaking of the report, 5 months after it was finalized:
link to en.wikipedia.org
In Israel, the consensus is that the Koenig Report is an accurate reflection of Israel’s policies towards its minority Arab population.(And many Israelis don’t have any problem with that policy.) Only in the US can groups like CAMERA lie so boldly about Israeli policies and be believed by the gullible.
BTW, Anyone interested in a detailed historical background and discussion of the Israel policy of land confiscation, both within the green line and in the occupied territories, I’d recommend reading the publication from Badil, available for free download here:
Ruling Palestine: A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine
“The main focus of Ruling Palestine: A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine is the methodical process underlying the Zionist conquest of Palestine and the dispossession and displacement of its indigenous Arab inhabitants, in particular legal instruments and policies relating to colonisation and land acquisition. This process is measured against the standards of relevant international law and UN resolutions. “
I love it when zios trot out that song, “population transfer was a much more accepted idea.” So not only do you admit the Nakba really happened, and isn’t just a narrative, you don’t have a problem with the mass deportation of Jews by Germany in the 30′s and 40′s.
“Israel was in the middle of a war”
The Palestinians were in the middle of a war for their right to live in their country. The Brits and Zionists who joined them started the war. There are isolated cases of some Zionists (the mayor of Haifa) asking for the Arabs to stay because they were laborers; there’s no question Ben-Gurion wanted as few Arabs remaining in the country as possible.
And it’s very interesting how you justify the expulsion of the Palestinians because they were opposed to Jewish sovereignty. You think maybe regardless of what they did, even if they accepted the UN partition, the simple fact they exist in their country would’ve necessitated their removal for the sake of this Jewish sovereignty?
Ben-Gurion was reluctant to occupy the West Bank by the late 60′s due to the Palestinian population. He considered to occupy it during 1948-49. This is from 1949 by Segev:
i.e. he was a dishonest windbag who could take a stand against expulsions, as he did in the above passage, after he spent a year commanding them.
Population transfer was a much more accepted idea at the time, having been used in Greece and Turkey, the Caucusus, and with India and Pakistan on religious lines. The international community, through several international commissions beginning with the Peel Commission, always assumed that ending the Mandate woudl involve some form of population transfer. To say that the world went to war to prevent population transfer is a little bit ridiculous.
There’s no need to admit that population transfer is a great thing, but in context, Ben-Gurion was no worse than the UN in this regard, and his thinking that a Jewish state was not viable in a place that was 40% Arab was not wrong. A dispassionate historical examination views Ben-Gurion’s beliefs in context, and the context was the post World-War II world, where there were millions of displaced Jews, a standing promise from Britain to allow the Jews to establish a homeland, and ideas of population movement that were much more accepted then than they are today.
And in all honesty, few are willing to grapple with Benny Morris’s cynical but true observation that had Ben-Gurion completed a population transfer (or ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from the West Bank into Jordan, we likely would not have a conflict today.
“And in all honesty, few are willing to grapple with Benny Morris’s cynical but true observation that had Ben-Gurion completed a population transfer (or ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from the West Bank into Jordan, we likely would not have a conflict today.”
A little hard to call it “true”, since it is a counterfactual, unless you have access to parallel universes where you can see how it worked out. It’s just as likely that we’d have an even larger number of Palestinian refugees burning with resentment.
As for population transfer, sure, there were plenty of people willing to countenance it for others. And still are. I’ve personally heard evangelical Christians suggest it as a solution today, including one who considered herself a liberal. Anyway, yes, Zionism was a product of its time and it is not at all surprising to find educated Westerners who happen to be Jewish holding the same low moral standards that many others shared.
Benny Morris’s cynical but true observation that had Ben-Gurion completed a population transfer (or ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from the West Bank into Jordan, we likely would not have a conflict today.
Benny Morris was an ass, and you’re another if you agree with him. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is the fundamental source of the conflict today. It is the original sin, from which all the suffering descends.
If the West Bank population had been added to the rest of the exiles, with only the river barring them from their rightful homes, this would only have increased the pressure on Israel.
The lesson is clear: if a Jewish state was not viable in Arab Palestine, the mistake was in trying to establish it there.
See hophmi, I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to do here. Are you trying to defend the Nakba as a whole, or just Ben-Gurion’s advocacy for expulsions? Are you saying the Zionist militias should have expelled all the Palestinians back then as per Morris, or are you saying it should be done by the IDF now? Am I supposed to recognize a distinction between either stream of thought?
You need to understand your audience. I think mass expulsion is immoral. It is wrong. There is no reason to do it other than the abstract desires of the perpetrator. That includes India-Pakistan, Turkey-Greece, the Caucasus and Palestine. While I am to an extent interested in what the perpetrators were thinking, I do not accept their self-justification as an excuse for their actions. What David Ben-Gurion told himself to rationalize his actions does not become an argument just because it leaves his pen, travels through an entourage of apologists and enters my own gray matter. You write an utter insult to the intelligence like, “his thinking that a Jewish state was not viable in a place that was 40% Arab was not wrong” as if it’s a given a Jewish state justifies any means.
Although Ben-Gurion cited contemporary events, transfer was in the Zionist lexicon before the turn of the century. Many practices in Palestine, such as Hebrew labor, were taken directly from imperial regimes such as Germany’s Kulturkampf which forbade German settlers in Poland from employing Polish. The Zionists demonstrated the ability and willingness to depopulate whole villages (Sheikh Bureik was decimated in the early 20′s) well before WWII. Arabs and Yemenite Jews who worked in the settlements were paid low wages and they were excluded from the Kibbutzim altogether. WWII was not necessary for the Zionists to consider racist oppression.
In attempting to justify the Nakba, you’re telling us what we already know: What was unsavory in Europe is unsavory in Palestine. Jewish state be damned.
Forgot to mention, the Peel Commission was all the British and had nothing to do with the League of Nations, never mind the UN. There is no UN document that approves of population transfer, and quite a few that frown on it. Try the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 4th Geneva Convention.
>> … had Ben-Gurion completed a population transfer (or ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from the West Bank into Jordan, we likely would not have a conflict today.
Just think of all the pleasure and satisfaction that would have been denied the “humanists” who enjoy the “resilience and energy” of oppressed Palestinians!
So, say ‘no’ to successful ethnic cleansing (which is “currently not necessary”) and never forget to “remember The holocaust!”
hophmi,
You are historically wrong. Here is the proof:
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
Yes, the colonialist British always did like to play both sides off against the middle.
The UN Partition plan established two states, a Jewish one, and an Arab one. You can judge for yourself what exactly they meant by that.
I’m not attempting to justify the Nakba, which would have been called the Geulah if the Arabs had won instead of the Jews. But since the world is not populated with ethnically homogenous states where all the ethnicities get along and sing Kumbaya, and since the media much prefers internecine conflict to old history, I think that had there been a complete ethnic cleansing, and the Palestinians accepted by their fellow Arabs as citizens (rather than denied citizenship as in Lebanon, and ethnically cleansed, as in Kuwait), we’d likely not have a conflict today.
I think that had there been a complete ethnic cleansing, and the Palestinians accepted by their fellow Arabs as citizens (rather than denied citizenship as in Lebanon, and ethnically cleansed, as in Kuwait), we’d likely not have a conflict today.
Where did this meme come from? Jonah [or is that you, too, hophmi?] was just saying the same thing.
I can’t imagine anything more wrong. People aren’t fungible. Homes aren’t.
I will also point out that the UN partition plan proposed two states, it did not establish them, and the absence of agreement by the parties made it moot.
“But since the world is not populated with ethnically homogenous states where all the ethnicities get along and sing Kumbaya…”
Oh no, you’re not attempting to justify the Nakba. Of course, someone said (It may or may not have been you, I don’t really care to check) that Israel is a melting pot of various ethnicities.
There’s no guarantee absorption by the other Arab states would solve the conflict. Palestinians on the eve of the 6-day war had Jordanian citizenship and that didn’t stop Israel from occupying the West Bank. Hell, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon wasn’t limited to the Palestinian refugee camps. There was no terrorism against Israel from the Lebanese cities that were bombed and occupied by the IDF (Tyre, Sidon, Beirut).
If the Zionist pioneers weren’t bent on a segregated state with an eye to removing the gentiles, and if they didn’t succeed in setting up their belligerent state, we’d likely not have a conflict today. There certainly would’ve been no riots in Hebron and Jerusalem or an Arab intervention in Palestine. Chew on that for awhile.
“The UN Partition plan established two states, a Jewish one, and an Arab one.”
If you read UNGA 181, you’ll find both states were obligated to offer unconditional citizenship to everyone in its respective borders. Neither the Jewish Agency nor the Arab Higher Committee/Arab League accepted the partition, the Zionists paid lip service but proceeded to flagrantly disregard the boundaries and had no intention of honoring the citizenship clause. The partition did little more than signal they could get away with ethnic cleansing.
Although this article does gloss over many of the faults of modern India, the premise of it remains true – It’s much easier being a Muslim in India than it is being one in Israel/Palestine. And a lot of that is due to the tolerance of the Hindu majority.
There are lots of details that are different though. Muslims never made up a majority in India (they did in Palestine). A simple one man one vote concept would have turned a Hindu majority even in pre-partition days. The commonality though is that the partition of 1947 was wrong then and that a two-state solution would be morally wrong today. Dividing territory based on religion or race in the 20th and 21st centuries is mind-numbingly stupid. More so as we know both are to a large extent artificial concepts.
The movie Gandhi (which I just rewatched on DVD) is a great sermon against Islamophobia.
There’s a lot about the history presented in the movie that is questionable. It was made with great assistance from the Indian government, and with the encouragement of Lord Mountbatten, so it is perhaps no surprise that Jinnah emerges as the villain of the piece. But that Gandhi opposed fanaticism against Moslems cannot, I think, be questioned.
“Where is the Gandhi of Israel?” Don’t hold your breath.
There is a tragic result of partition in both Muslim regions partitioned.
That is that there is no significant accepted non-Muslim minority in either Pakistan or in Palestine.
There are some accepted Hindus in Bengladesh. Not many.
It is an irony of modern Islam, conflicting with centuries of former history, or relative acceptance of monotheistic minorities.
No significant accepted non-Muslim minority in Palestine? Perhaps not now. Christians were an accepted minority in the West Bank, but the Israelis are forcing them out. The Israelis are forcing out the Muslim majority as well.
The current status of Pakistan is no Hindus, compared to 16% Moslems in India.
The current status of Palestine outside of settlers is no Jews, compared to 19% Moslems in Israel.
Both were consequences of British colonialism. Funny how you left that out.
The Gandhis of the modern Congress party are genetically related to Mohandas Gandhi, and politically through association with Congress.
But, not ideologically. Indira Gandhi was convicted of corruption charges, and orchestrated horribly unjust extended martial law.
Actually there is no genetic connection whatsoever. Jawaharlal Nehru’s daughter Indira married one Feroze Gandhi (a Zoroastrian) who was no relation to MK Gandhi.
No one said they were related. They are all Indian political leaders who were assassinated.
Hophmi, you really should read before you comment. RW clearly said:
The Gandhis of the modern Congress party are genetically related to Mohandas Gandhi, and politically through association with Congress.
They are physically related. Indira Gandhi was a great niece of Mohandas.
RW — October 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm “The Gandhis of the modern Congress party are genetically related to Mohandas Gandhi”
hophmi — October 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm No one said they were related.
hophmi — October 4, 2010 at 6:06 pm I can also read and listen, skills foreign to most people here, apparently [NOT].
‘Nuff said.
No one said they were related.
Hmmm, having trouble with that reading thing again, hophmi?
Richard Witty, two posts above yours:
The Gandhis of the modern Congress party are genetically related to Mohandas Gandhi…
You might want to stop insisting that you “can read and listen” and actually start doing it instead.
@ occupyresist:
ahmed October 4, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Actually there is no genetic connection whatsoever.
It was never my point that were related or unrelated. The point is that they were all assassinated. But please, go back to your “fact-checking.”
Can the Zionists please just stop with the eugenics talk? This is just embarrassing.
you’re making less and less sense.
But go on, do ramble. Your antics give so much “vibrancy” to this site.
c’mon, hophmi, you made a false statement, acknowledge the fact for once. Act like a grownup.
hophmi October 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm
” No one said they were related.”
Witty said they were, and he was the first thread.
This is why I have no respect for you people. I make a point about how Indian leaders have been assassinated and how India does not have the world’s best record of treating its minorities well in response to an article that compared India with Israel and Gandhi with Begin, and you want to have a discussion about whether Mahatma was related to Indira and Rajiv so that you can call me a liar.
Hophmi, this is why your arguments are not respected around here. You didn’t read Witty’s comment, then assumed that those responding to correct him were responding to correct you, and made the utterly ridiculous statement that “No one said…” when Richard did in fact say that. And to make your gaffe worse, you earlier lambasted everyone else here as not being able to read and listen, and stated that it was something you alone here have mastered. Well, you got hoist on your own petard and now you seem to be incapable of admitting error on even the smallest of things. No, its everyone else’s fault that you made a fool of yourself. You’re playing the victim. Its really unbecoming. Take responsibility for what you write.
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”
I don’t care whether or not there was a relation.
I care that you actually read before posting ignorant comments.
You need to complain to your fellow Zionist, R Witty, as he was the one who introduced the diversion.
Hoisted based on WHAT?
Does the relationship between Indira Gandhi and Mohandas Ghandi have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this discussion?
You all sit here engaging in an intellectual circle jerk and treat everyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy like crap, regardless of how polite we are.
So instead of actually discussing issues, we sit here determining which Gandhi is related to whom and debunking fabricated quotes. I recognize Witty made a claim, even though I missed it in this mess of 100 plus comments. My point is that arguing about it is a pointless waste of time because whether the Gandhis are related has nothing to do with any of this.
Jesus.
This is honestly one of the saddest exchanges I have seen in the comment section on Mondoweiss. There are over 100 comments, all attacks against Hophmi and his response to it, talk about being hijacked.
Somebody who wants respect can begin by admitting error, especially when it’s evident.
What’s so hard about saying, “Oops, I didn’t notice Witty’s comment before I posted?”
I agree. The entire subthread is irrelevant and trivial. But if hophmi wouldn’t circle his wagons and insist on defending, at length, some of his indefensible statements, this wouldn’t happen.
I admitted above that I missed Witty’s comment. Again, please explain to me the importance of the Gandhi relationships to this discussion.
Can we go like five minutes without the Zionists flip-flopping? Just once?
If it’s not of any importance, why are you carrying on about it when no one disagrees with you except that fool Richard Witty?
And now even he says he was wrong. It’s really a simple thing to do.
Hoisted based on WHAT?
Based on your ad hominem attack on others here for supposedly not being able to read and listen, and your claim to superior reading skills. You didn’t read or listen, and even when you were corrected you still didn’t get it. You pretty conclusively proved that your reading comprehension doesn’t come close to your exalted view of your abilities in that regard.
Heck, the very fact that you have to ask this question when it was explained to you multiple times by multiple posters shows that despite your attempt to paint yourself as a superior reader, you managed by your own words to prove otherwise. Hence hoist on your own petard.
genetics and eugenics are not the same thing Chaos. I know it is one of the catch phrases in your handbook, but you need to know when to apply it correctly.
Is that the new word you learned in class today, Mr. Schwartzman? “Handbook?”
No they’re not related – not biologically, nor politically, nor ideologically. The current Gandhi family is actually the Nehru family with Nehru’s daughter seeing the political benefits of marrying someone with the Gandhi surname – related or not.
Congress is a broad party that encompassed a broad range of views in 1947 – it can not be claimed that the party today is the same one Gandhi was part of.
They are related.
Indira Gandhi was a grandniece of Mohandas.
They are related.
That’s our Witty.! Boldly sticking to misinformation no matter how many times he is corrected.
I was wrong.
Can we frame that last post above? It answers so many questions.
“Where is the Gandhi of Israel?”
This is like asking “Where is the Gandhi of Ohio?”, or
“Where is the Abe Lincoln of Sri Lanka?”, or,
well, make up your own…
Sure, just like asking “Where is the Ghandhi of Palestine”
Oh wait, Zionists already beat that question to death and then, when there do exist figures that represent the non-violent movement, decided to ignore non-violent protests and the extreme reactions to them….
“Why Don’t Palestinians Adopt Gandhi’s Methods?”
link to mondoweiss.net
Incidentally, what happened to Richard Mitty,…seems like a fun fellow.
“Why Israel, unlike India, is so intolerant of its minority?”
The Muslims have the entire Temple Mount, the site of the Jewish Temple. Muslims are citizens of Israel, and if there weren’t the security situation, would have even more rights.
Just recently, Abbas repeated his demand that a new Palestinian State be completely free of Jews, like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
The question is a lie.
Jordan is completely free of Jews?! Seriously, why are we letting Zionists post degrading, blatant lies again?
Yes, there is a parallel but it that Israel=Britain in Palestine while Britain=Britain in India. If Pillar’s typical of the CIA then it ieasy to see why few believe in A: their competence or B: their honesty. The question should be where is the Mountbatten of Israel to arrange the withdrawal from occupied territory.
In order for a non-violent leader to emerge that can galvanize the masses to action there must first be a reservoir of non-violent will among the people to embrace and empower such a leader …
… you’ve all thought it through after reading that statement and know that there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that any such person could emerge in the current hateful, right-wing militarist society that is now israel’s jews … and even if they did, they would be struck down by their own almost immediately
… the problem is the concept of borders and policing … Jerusalem must become an international city open to all and policed by the UN and completely disarmed except for the UN forces …. other parts of israel need to be de-bordered as well, again with international forces there to address conflicts and keep the peace
… the people of israel clearly do not want peace and the zionists want more cruelty, killing and war until they can lay claim to all the land they want and force out all the people they don’t want: such ruthless thugs will certainly not produce a “Gandhi”
Check this out
FAR-RIGHT ATTACKS ABOUT MEETING AHMADINEJAD AND ENGAGING IRAN: HILLARY MANN LEVERETT RESPONDS
“The meeting last week between Hillary’s Yale University students and President Ahmadinejad has attracted a measure of critical attention from far-right commentators like Ann Coulter, Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin. Yesterday, Hillary received an email from Charlotte Allen, who described herself as a contributing editor for “Minding the Campus,” a “higher education website” sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is a neoconservative think tank (Bill Kristol is on its board). Ms. Allen was writing a story about the meeting between Hillary’s students and President Ahmadinejad. Readers may judge for themselves, but our impression of the questions was that Ms. Allen might not really be interested in writing an objective story about this meeting. We append below the questions that Ms. Allen sent, verbatim, as well as Hillary’s answers, in full. Hillary requested that the Manhattan Institute publish her answers in full but this request has been explicitly rejected and we are told that “Minding the Campus” will be publishing its own version of Hillary’s answers. Nothing like accuracy in media.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett”
link to raceforiran.com
Last week Jon Stewart even mentioned the settlement expansion but of course could not bring himself to call them “Illegal” In fact they referenced the illegal settlements as being on disputed land. The only countries that dispute what land belongs to the Palestinians are Israel and the U.S. Well and I guess the Jon Stewart show.
Stewart inferred that there had actually been a settlement freeze by saying that “Israel has resumed settlement construction” They never stopped expanding settlements
Then the Daily show pops up a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories without the illegal settlements. As if the West Bank and the Gaza are contiguous pieces of land. Did not show the illegal settlements on that map
I guess they expect us to be excited that they even mentioned settlements. Forget mentioning that they are illegal and that there has never ever been a freeze. Starts at 2:00
link to thedailyshow.com
[Ahem.]
Stewart implied that there had been a settlement freeze.
There is a Gandhi here, there is a Gandhi there, there is a Gandhi everywhere. Now we have a Gandhi reversal invoked, here is what I think of all of your Gandhi’s and where it is going to get you –
WHY THE GANDHI SYNDROME?
Shouldn’t someone whose former employer is the CIA begin with asking where is the US Ghandi?
This is an ignorant and shallow article, about India, about Israel, AND about Palestine, even bringing up the the “making the desert bloom” canard. I am somewhat reassured by the fact that this is the scholarship level that drives US foreign policy. It explains a lot.
But I guess it was published in “the national interest” so it must be true.
The whole discussion on how well this minority is treated by that state is frigging tedious. Why don’t we just come out and say it, the USSR treated Jews better than Hitler’s Germany.
India has achieved a degree, though only a degree, of acceptance of religious diversity: not that things are perfect in the West.
The problem in Palestine is not that one group decided that it wanted – and decided to impose – religious uniformity in the style of seventeenth century Europe or of contemporary Saudi. To my mind we miss the genius of Zionism if we think that. The problem is that one group has decided, for reasons related to religion, that its members and they alone have a true right to share in sovereignty over the country, others only by generosity of the true heirs. I may have said this too often but I think generosity, or what looks like generosity from this point of view, was always part of the plan, as a natural expression of the transformation of a traditional, perhaps somewhat intolerant, religion into a rational ideology – of course for the benefit of the whole human race – as advertised by George Eliot. It was never necessary or desirable, on standard Zionist ideas as I understand them, to say ‘Out with all Muslims and Christians!’ – they will always be welcome so long as they are harmless minorities grateful for being given their share in the grand scheme of things. The imposition of religious uniformity, which I suspect some Hindu militants do hanker for, would look like a retrograde step into the barbarism that Zionism was meant to help the whole world to get over. The non-uniformity of India isn’t a particularly relevant model.