Yesterday we posted a piece on Holocaust survivors in Israel warning about stirrings of neofascism in the Israeli polity. Well, Peter Belmont republishes this letter to the NYT in December 1948, in the midst of the Nakba, and referring to the massacre at Deir Yassin and the rise of Menachem Begin, penned by Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and Herman Eisen among others.
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants (240 men, women, and children) and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
(signed)
Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
“The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character…”
The only true democracy in the ME. The most moral army. A save haven for the Jewish people. Etc.
Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the words of Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein, but in fact Menachem Begin, besides making peace with Egypt when he finally gained the post of prime minister, was willing to spend 28 years in politics as a member of the Knesset (from the first Knesset election until his party gained power in ’77) and very few fascists who aspire to the “Leader State” act in such a fashion.
(After the establishment of the state) Begin’s reaction to the reparations agreement with West Germany was the only time when his demagoguery got the better of him, rather than his democratic instinct. Obviously calling him a “democrat” with the history of his pre state actions is an iffy proposition, particulary in regard to the Palestinians. His “contribution” to the settler movement was/is a major blow to the hopes for peace and there was no formula for how to include the Palestinians in his wishes for a large and democratic Israel.
In the case of the Altalena it might have been suicidal for the Irgun to have fired back at the Palmach, so there were practical considerations for his decision, but in fact he did tell his followers to stand down and eventually to disband.
The man was the leader of Irgun and was responsible for terrorist acts resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. The least he deserved was life in prison! He was a murderer, plain and simple.
This would be the same Menechim Begin who characterized Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs” in a speech once he finally gained that coveted posts, and who decades earlier said of the UN partition plan:
And yet the only time when his demagoguery got the better of him was when it came to how much money West Germany was going to be indentured to Israel for.
How quaint.
chaos- The “beasts walking on two legs” comments was not referring to Palestinians, but rather to Palestinian terrorists.
As far as the West German reparations, Begin was opposed to taking any money from West Germany because he felt they were murderers and they would feel forgiven if they paid reparations.
And was Begin making a distinction between actual terrorists, and people who were merely organized in resistance against Israeli oppression? Golda Meir didn’t make any such distinction in Operation Wrath of God, to be sure.
And even if that’s the case that Begin was limiting his commentary to heinous criminals: A) no human being has the right to classify any other human being as sub-human, no matter what the circumstances — and let alone if he (or she) is a head of state, and B) how were Palestinian terrorists any different from Begin himself, given his relationship to the ongoing Nakba?
One notes he took the money anyway. Nice move, sidestepping Begin’s rejection of the UN Partition incidentally.
But since all Palestinians are terrorists, what’s the difference?
Chaos- Regarding the reparations money from West Germany- that was negotiated between Nahum Goldman and the West German government in 1952 and 1953 and the prime minister at the time was Ben Gurion. The money was paid out over the course of 14 years. Begin only became prime minister in 1977, so he did not take the money. (There was no payment to Polish Jews for death of family members and Begin never was imprisoned by the Nazis in a labor camp, although he spent time in a Soviet labor camp.)
As far as the statement on partition it was not demagoguery in the sense of swaying the masses. (Begin’s speech in reaction to the reparations agreement was the kick off to a stone throwing march on the Knesset. I think we can agree that such timing has a rather specific demagogic quality to it.) The distance (in time) between the statement on partition and the capturing of the rest of Eretz Israel (I’m using Begin’s language) was 20 years and was accomplished by those who were not his followers. If you find his language incendiary, it still was not demagogic in the same sense of the word as the speech on the reparations.
Excuse me? Germany is still shelling out to Israel on a yearly basis. Try again.
First of all, Israel was already in violation of the UN Partition by 1948 at the latest, and even putting that aside, you guys were already razing Palestinian villages and driving off their native inhabitants the year prior, and that was a violation of the terms of the partition.
And you’re going to insist that Begin wanted that, but can’t be held responsible for it, because he was only made Prime Minister 20 years later?
Would you mind forwarding a plausible explanation that doesn’t exonerate the fanatical extremist next time?
Chaos- How much money is West Germany paying to Israel every year currently? I was aware that they were still paying individual survivors living in Israel, but I was not aware that they were paying Israel itself. How much are they paying?
My point regarding Begin was regarding his demagoguery, by which I meant specific words that led to specific actions.
Israel to seek another 1b euros Holocaust in reparations from Germany.
Far be it for me to expect you to know what’s going on in your own country, let alone your history, I suppose.
Chaos- That is a demand that Israel will make or has made, but it has not been accepted by the Germans, thus according to your statement currently there are no reparations being paid, so my assertion was correct.
You have GOT to be kidding. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. No wonder you are so desperate to exonerate Begin — following by example, huh.
Mr. Chaos-
I assume you are sincere in your hatred for Israel and its supporters and I assume this is based upon the oppression that the Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the Zionists. I fail to see the utility of constantly expressing this hatred in your manner. But I made certain assertions and you were unable to counter my assertions with facts. I would appreciate it if you could dialogue or converse or discuss without rancor. If you cannot, do not be surprised if I discontinue engaging your assertions.
To recap: you asserted that Israel under Begin accepted reparations money. Based upon what I have read I denied that this is true and I ask you to cite some source that asserts money was given to the state of Israel by West Germany during the years 77 to 83 (the years of Mister Begin’s premiership) and to specify the amounts of that money. (The fact that some representative of Israel made claims in 2007 is not relevant to the discussion of Menachem Begin.)
Yes, yes. Beg for more handouts with one hand, denounce me as acting out of hatred on the other, then wash the feet of your idol and pretend like you have something to be proud of.
There is no having dialogue with people who feel like ethnic cleansing is a righteous activity in any context. That sort of greed is antithetical to modern civility.
“Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the words of Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein….
Gee, not so far you couldn’t manage the distance.
Obviously calling him a “democrat” with the history of his pre state actions is an iffy proposition, particulary in regard to the Palestinians
Then how would you classify his actions in the pre-state period, particularly in regards to the Palestinians?
>> (signed)
Who were all these self-loathing Jews and why did they hate Israel so much?! Were they not aware that Palestinians are “resilient and energetic”? Did they not know that by failing to “make ‘better wheels’” and “humanize ‘the Other’”, those Palestinians were being destabilizing and maximalist? Had they forgotten to “Remember the Holocaust!”?
Menachem Begin was the head of Irgun responsible for killing Brits and Palestinians and together with Lehi caused the deaths of hundreds of men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin.
Only in Israel does a terrorist who committed acts of extreme violence and destruction of property get to become Prime Minister. Today he’d be in a Guantanamo facility and had he killed hundreds of innocent people today, he’d get the death penalty.
Ethnic cleansing and terrorism; this is the foundation of Zionism.
Try and spin this eee, Witty and company!
Only in Israel does a terrorist who committed acts of extreme violence and destruction of property get to become Prime Minister.
i’m sure we could think of a few other countries. speaking of which…reminds me when i linked to this same nyt article just the other day in max’s excellent post. hophmi responded
but i doubt ‘everyone’ has seen it. i’m glad phil front paged it here today.
Again, it’s irrelevant. It was easy enough, particularly in 1948, to discredit one’s political opponents by accusing them of fascism. Begin was no fascist, and the list of former guerrilla leaders who mainstreamed and went on to lead governments is long. Begin gave back more land than any other Israeli Prime Minister.
No one cares about this except Western political activists.
That’s like describing a particular robber as better because he gave more money back to the bank when he was caught. And of course, was given a nice plea arrangement in the process, considering the US is still in the hole for billions of dollars a year to Israel.
>> Ethnic cleansing and terrorism; this is the foundation of Zionism.
>> Try and spin this eee, Witty and company!
They’ve already spun it:
- Ethnic cleansing was necessary and justifiable in order to create “a good in the world”; however, it’s “currently not necessary”.
- Terrorism? Nah, that was merely self-(self-)determination undertaken by “generation to generation” fear-scarred members of the “collective”. (The fact that Israel continues to oppress, steal, kill and destroy is another matter.)
Eljay,
Exactly. Ethnic cleansing as a bad that was needed to be done to create a greater good which is the country of Israel. Just as giving a cancer patient chemotherapy is bad but required for the greater good of keeping the patient alive. Unfortunately, there was no other option.
I think this just needs to be reiterated, as a statement of proclamation from a mainstream member of Israeli society. The reinrassig needed their lebensraum. That’s all there is to it.
yeah, i have to agree it is an outrageous outrageous statement.
Palestinians=cancer. Nice one, eee. It perfectly illustrates your sick bias.
“Exactly. The Holacaust was a bad that was needed to be done to create a greater good which is the country of Aryan Germany.
Just as giving a cancer patient chemotherapy is bad but required for the greater good of keeping the patient alive. Unfortunately, there was no other option.”
There you go, “eee” fixed it for you. Why don’t you ask the moderators to ban me for the comment? You certainly won’t be banned for yours.
“Unfortunately, there was no other option.”
Not according to Einstein:
“Just one more personal word on the question of partition. I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain–especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.”– Our Debt to Zionism, 1938
see also: Einstein on pacifism, Hitlerism, and militarism
link to press.princeton.edu
fascists like Begin were not the only objection Einstein had to Zionism
link to theatlantic.com
eee,
All “civilized peoples” recognize ethnic cleansing and population transfer as a serious war crime and crime against humanity. In practically all of the English-speaking world, i.e. Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. it is a crime to publicly advocate or trivialize the ethnic cleansing of the members of any racial or national group. See for example the EU Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. FYI, although Zionists were largely responsible for the adoption of that legislation, it applies with equal force to incitement by Zionists too.
Exactly. The EU has been steadily moving away from the ‘uniqueness’ of the Holocaust since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Zionists don’t like it one bit, fearing ‘delegitimization’ as losing their ideological license to victimize and demonize other people
link to ynetnews.com
Read that article carefully.
Do you agree that Communism and Nazism are equal evils?
Do you think maybe there’s a political angle to the push by the Lithuanians, who collaborated more closely with the Nazis than any other occupied people, leading to the deaths of 96.4 percent, that’s 96.4 percent, of the country’s Jews during WWII (perhaps the most intellectually rich Jewish community in the world by the way), to cast themselves as victims in this way?
The Arabs rejected a binational state unequivocally.
Just as ethnic cleansing is a bad that will be done to form the state of Palestinians, as it was done in Gush Katif and will be done in the far-flung settlements.
Antidote,
In response to that breathless Ynet article you linked to…a little balance the author obviously neglected to read in the same paper.
link to ynetnews.com
Stalin’s Jews by Sever Plocker
We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
All due respect to Sever Plocker, this means little and is frankly a example of internalizing the antisemitism of others (he even says that Jews should dwell on these people because “others” will) who argue that Judaism had something to do with Communism or that there was something Jewish about Bolshevism. I don’t recall anyone denying that some Communists were Jewish, so it should not be a surprise that some Jews were Communists. It’s frankly disgusting that Plocker or anyone else would find it notable that some Communist “had a Jewish wife.”
I can fairly guarantee that there were way more Orthodox Christians who joined the Communist Party than there were Jews, who were as victimized by the Communists as anyone else was.
There is no allegation that Jews joined because they were Jewish, and no allegation that Jews murdered anybody because they felt they were superior as Jews.
The Nazis murdered Jews for being Jews. The Communists discriminated against and sometimes murdered Jews for being Jews.
As Plocker himself says: “The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.”
Friedman describes in The Red Mafiya how he tried to use his Jewishness to interview a Brooklyn Little Odessa kingpin to no avail. The kingpin was Jewish and couldn’t give a s**t what his religion was. BUT. When Friedman mentioned that his grandfather came from the same village in Russia as this guy — “Oh, we have the same blood!” — the heavens opened and he was in. Friedman concluded in an article that I dont have the link for that geography counted more than religion in Russia and that we in the West tend to coat the history of Russia and its wars with our values, not theirs, and that it makes perfect sense that geography should count more as an indicator of community because of the vast size of it.
It’s frankly disgusting that Plocker or anyone else would find it notable that some Communist “had a Jewish wife.”
That is completely ridiculous given what Plocker was writing about. Why is it disgusting to tell the truth?
“Do you agree that Communism and Nazism are equal evils?”
I have no problem with that
“Do you think maybe there’s a political angle to the push by the Lithuanians…”
I’m sure there is. Do you think there’s a political angle to the Zionist obsession with the uniqueness of the Holocaust as the greatest humanitarian disaster of the 20th century, if not world history, past, present and future?
At least they were honest. The The Zionist rejected a bi national state in deed while pretending to accept it.
As Plocker himself says: “The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.”
ok, hophmi, how does this sound to you:
“The Germans active in official Nazi terror apparatuses (In Germany and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Germans, but rather, as Hitlerists, National Socialists, and “Aryan people.”
your just hell bent on making your self look bad. if you need to deny people their basic human rights to achieve something than more o0r less by definition it is a bad thing. no matter how much you believe the creation of Israel was a good thing any sort of rational semi objective measure says other wise. Israel is quite simply the greatest crime post world war 2 period.
No they didn’t. that is a lie plain and simple. what they wanted was a state where everyone was an equal citizen. what they rejected was foreign jewish dominion.
sorry but this argument is perhaps one of the most vile and disgusting of all arguments of Israel supporters( one that I ran into on another website by one who had the gall to call himself neutral). the correcting of a crime is not a crime or I suppose you think the return of stolen artwork to their jewish owners is a crime?
Hophmi,
The Nazis murdered an estimated 20 million people. The Soviet and the Chinese Communist regimes murdered an estimated 85 million. I’d say they are equally evil.
The Lithuanians are covering up their own complicitily in the Holocaust. The Jews were not complicit in the Holocaust.
“ok, hophmi, how does this sound to you:
“The Germans active in official Nazi terror apparatuses (In Germany and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Germans, but rather, as Hitlerists, National Socialists, and “Aryan people.””
It sounds idiotic. Communists acted as Communists. Their Jewishness was incidental to their Communism. They did not practice their religion, and they did not act in the name of Judaism.
The Nazis acted as Germans, and their movement was a movement of German ultranationalism. No serious person would try to suggest that Nazism was something other than German. No serious person would suggest that Communism was Jewish.
“Israel is quite simply the greatest crime post world war 2 period.”
Let’s add this to the annals of grand pro-Palestinian hysterical hyperbole.
I can think of much worse things than the creation of a Jewish state for DPs. Cambodia for starters. Congo. Darfur. The Iran-Iraq war.
No, they used the German Holocaust to justify their own campaign of death against Arabs.
“The Lithuanians are covering up their own complicitily in the Holocaust. The Jews were not complicit in the Holocaust.”
‘The Lithuanians’ are no more a homogenous group than ‘the Jews’. The appropriate analogy to the Ls being complicit in the Holocaust is not that Jews were complicit in their own destruction, but their complicity and denial of aggression against the Palestinians. Israel Charny has made some relevant points regarding the motivations for genocide denial in Israel and elsewhere in his 2001 paper on “The Psychological Satisfaction of Denials of the Holocaust or Other Genocides by Non-Extremists or Bigots, and Even by Known Scholars”. I don’t agree with some of his observations and classifications of what constitutes or contributes to Holocaust denial (i.e. his inclusion of Chomsky), but it’s a good start:
link to ideajournal.com
the way I read the history, the crime of zionism began in the last decade of the 1800s. Phyllis Bennis said the other day that in the sense of Jewishness in which she was raised, the only unifying element of Jewry was zionist Israel, so she was a zionist. Then, she says, as a teenager she read about Herzl and concluded he was a lunatic.
Herzl was merely lunatic.
Jabotinsky was zionism’s very own Osama bin Laden, but without any sppiritual grounding (for most of his years, Jabotinsky did not dentify himself as Jewish, only as zionist.)
MRW – good grief, I didn’t see Plocker’s article, and am a bit surprised Ynet published it (well, there are some very negative reactions in the talkbacks, as one would expect). Stalin’s genocides have received a lot of attention lately, in Europe and the US (see for instance Samuel Sinner’s publication(s) on the Volga Germans below), but I dare say Plocker’s article would not have seen the light of day in any European or North American msm venue, certainly not in Germany
link to cvgs.cu-portland.edu
link to artukraine.com
“the way I read the history, the crime of zionism began in the last decade of the 1800s”
So Jews buying land in the Middle East was a “crime.”
“Phyllis Bennis said the other day that in the sense of Jewishness in which she was raised, the only unifying element of Jewry was zionist Israel, so she was a zionist. Then, she says, as a teenager she read about Herzl and concluded he was a lunatic.”
Good for her. Fortunately, not everyone was raised with Phyllis Bennis’ sense of Jewishness.
“Jabotinsky was zionism’s very own Osama bin Laden,”
Another one to add to the annals of hysterical pro-Palestinian hyperbole.
hophmi,
Please don’t try to play the dog-eared Holocaust card with me. It was widely reported that the Zionists opposed a plan for other countries to take-in half a million European Jewish refugees during WWII. President Roosevelt said
See Morris L. Ernst, So Far So Good (New York: Harper, 1948), pp. 170-77 or Alfred M. Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953)
There were an estimated 9 million Jews living in Europe during WWII. It is a matter of public record that in 1940 The World Zionist Organization was only interested in settling 1,000,000 of them in Palestine:
See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa, page 837
PBS portrayed Moshe Shertok as the agent of the Jewish Agency who met Joel Brandt and turned him over to the British authorities for detention and questioning. The New York and the London Times both reported that the Jews-for-trucks deal was rejected by Zionists as well as the Allies.
“Please don’t try to play the dog-eared Holocaust card with me. ”
I’ll use whatever argument I like. I don’t believe I said anything about the Holocaust here other than in reference to the Lithuanian question, but it’s telling that you brought it up.
“It was widely reported that the Zionists opposed a plan for other countries to take-in half a million European Jewish refugees during WWII. President Roosevelt said”
Your point?
“There were an estimated 9 million Jews living in Europe during WWII. ”
It was 11 million, but go ahead.
“It is a matter of public record that in 1940 The World Zionist Organization was only interested in settling 1,000,000 of them in Palestine:”
Again, your point? This was a country that was about to go to war.
“PBS portrayed Moshe Shertok as the agent of the Jewish Agency who met Joel Brandt and turned him over to the British authorities for detention and questioning. The New York and the London Times both reported that the Jews-for-trucks deal was rejected by Zionists as well as the Allies.”
Again, your point? Are you trying to say that political movements are not perfect? That Zionists actually had nation-building concerns in addition to refugee concerns?
Are you denying that whatever Zionist policy at the time, during the war, the vast majority of world refused to open its door to European Jewish refugees?
all those of those caused more damage. none of those the world claim as justice. the mere act of proclaiming Israel as justice is what makes it the worst because to any rational mind its not. if you have a complaint over my beliefs perhaps you should ask the why for them.
Hophmi,
Reliable sources say it was precisely because of the policy pursued by Zionist organizations that the world closed its doors. If that doesn’t concern you, then I have to turn the tables and ask “So what?”, when you question the motives of the modern-day government of Lithuania.
The Zionists also set up the Ha’avara Trust and Transfer Office Ltd. It helped breakdown the effectiveness of a worldwide boycott movement against the Nazi regime, while cutting the Zionists in on a piece of the proceeds they skimmed-off the Jews that departed Germany by purchasing asylum in Palestine. In Der Judenstadt, Herzl had proposed using anti-semitism as the engine of Zionism and claimed oppressive governments elsewhere would enjoy an economic windfall from the immovable property left behind as a result of Jewish emigration.
Holocaust survivors living in Israel have long complained that they would have been better off financially if they had returned to Germany. The government of Israel repeatedly delayed making payments to them. Bank Leumi is the successor of the colonial era bank of Palestine. It was the central bank of Israel that handled the transfers of the refugee assets from Germany and the Arab countries. The Israeli government is still the largest shareholder. The bank charged the refugees an exchange rate of 30 percent. There are government reports which say the bank also concealed deposits that belonged to the estates of holocaust victims for decades, and that it dragged its feet on making restitution to family members. In the meantime, Israeli officials spent billions of dollars subsidizing the settler movement and supplying it with roads and other infrastructure at the expense of its own communities in Israel.
hostage, your time magazine ‘Jews-for-trucks deal ‘ link was published in 61′, the same year as ben hecht’s perfidy about the kasztner trial where joel brand testified for 3 days. it’s horrifying. he was kidnapped by the jewish agency. the trial riveted the nation. the book has over 30 pages of reference notes. hecht is not an impartial author, he’s a seethingly angry rightwinger. until i read the book i never realized the political competition and divisions between the zionists during that era. it is a good but devastating read. but politics aside, the book follows the trial. it all came out in the testimony..sharett’s decision to send him to cairo and prevent him from going back to budapest. the letter from weizman..apologizing and begging forgiveness for..the delay.
it’s awful.
Plocker’s article is Zionist antisemitism of the vintage kind. He’s writing this to assert the moral superiority of Zionism. There’s nothing insightful or informative about name checking Jewish apparatchiks.
Anyone else getting nauseous chasing the Zionists around in circles as they try to justify ethnic cleansing, wholesale? I know I am.
Zionists (by definition those that support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state), are also quite nauseous to be chased around because we desire that Jews self-govern rather than be governed by external politically motivated coercion.
Anti-Zionism is a form of racism you know.
Another comment on the original headline.
One very large theme of concerned Zionists like Einstein, was that of racist backlash against all Jews because of Israel. That comprised actually the majority of their statements concerning the state of Israel spawning fascism.
“Anti-Zionism is a form of racism you know.”
Basically every Palestinian is a racist because they are born in opposition to Jewish self-government, that is Jewish self-government seeks to remove them from their land. You want every Palestinian to sign a sheet of paper authorizing their own removal because they’re supposed to understand your need for self-government.
It shouldn’t matter to you if you’re governed by used car salesmen like Obama or blowhard thugs like Netanyahu. What crime do the Jewish leaders of Israel have to commit before you realize Jewish self-governing is just another round of rape and pillage by self-appointed great men?
That’s interesting eee. Was there any other time in history when ethnic cleansing was performed out of “the greater good”, particularly when Jews were the target of it?
In other words, Witty, you yearn for a government that is ethnocentric to Jews and Jews alone.
Why do you reject American multiculturalism?
hostage- After the end of WWII the refusal of certain countries to take Jewish refugees was “caused” by Zionist politics. But before and during WWII the refusal of countries to take Jews had little or nothing to do with Zionism; its primary cause was the depression and domestic unemployment. (And of course during wartime countries are suspicious of outsiders and thus unwelcome to immigrants.)
So, WJ, you feel justified in treating refugee Palestinians (who want to come back home) the same exact way that Europe and the West in general treated refugee Jews before WWII? Why do you want to undo progress?
Except that your idea of self-governance involves imposing external politically motivated coercion on the Palestinians.
No one rejects American multiculturalism. Not every country is the same.
So Witty isn’t American, hophmi? And which are you, out of curiosity?
“Jewish self-governing is just another round of rape and pillage by self-appointed great men”
related Gideon Levy article
link to haaretz.com
There people do.
3:00
MB: So would you sear loyalty to the christian state of the US?
Jewish Girl 1: The US is not a Christian State.
MB: But if they asked you.
Jewish Girl 1 & 2: If they did ask me, it wouldn’t be the US.
MB: Why not?
Jewish Girl 1: Because the Us is freedom for all, freedom of religion.
MB: So if you were a Palestinian, would you sear loyalty to the Jewish State?
Jewish Girl 1: If I agreed with what I had to say, if not, then I’d move.
3:28
Girl 1: You have to understand that it’s a Jewish state.
MB: Exactly, like if America made the Jews swear loyalty to a Christian state because it’s predominately Christian
Girl 1: America is like a bad example, because they promote all this multiculturalism
MB: But here it’s an ethnocracy.
Girl 1: exactly.
link to youtube.com
wondering jew,
In 1938 thirty-two countries held a conference in Evian, France, regarding the resettlement of the victims of Nazism. Morris Ernst was discussing the failure of that undertaking, not the post-war world.
The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing… We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.” See Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
Yes, we’re all familiar with Max. As I said, Israel is not America. Not every country has to be like America. And there are plenty of Americans who reject “multiculturalism.”
Yes I agree Hophmi. The whole trope about Israel sharing common values with America, or being a democracy is a ruse isn’t it?
Actually, he’d have been working for US interests so I expect he’d get the same under-the-table deal that Mubarak and al-Bashir get. Guantanamo is reserved for torturing political undesirables, say for instance Uyghurs.
Nice Chaos, please don’t question my allegiance or anyone elses allegiance to the USA. You consider the person who orchestrated the deaths of over 3000 Americans as simply ‘politically undesirable.’
My friends in the IDF consider the mass murderer KSM, much more than ‘politically undesirable.’
New low Chaos.
yonira – does your allegiance to the US extend to Madeleine Albright, who found the death of 500 000 Iraqi children in the wake of US sanctions ‘worthwhile’, or do you find her ‘politically undesirable’? What did Iraq, let alone its children, do to the US and its citizens? And if the spread of democracy, freedom and human rights is guiding US foreign policy in the ME, please explain why nothing is done to liberate the Palestinians from Israeli expansion and oppression?
Your friends in the IDF are too busy torturing fifteen-year-old Palestinians in East Jerusalem, though, apparently, to be torturing fifteen-year-old Afghanis in Guantanamo. Or maybe the idea of being near the Uyghurs disgust you all? I mean, they’re all “Moooslim” and “slanty-eyed.” You don’t see to much of either in the Dakotas, huh?
What is your obsession w/ racial epithets? I would figure you to be more tolerant of others races (well maybe not, your Nazi obsession is quite disturbing).
By the way, people who call them ‘the Dakotas’ are the most backwards hicks in the US. With that being said, I haven’t lived in South Dakota for 10 years.
Anyways, glad you have zero allegiance to America, stay classy!
you have made your loyalty to the state in question when you want a person with the blood of over 1500 american intell opertives on his hands go free.
It’s funny how much the moderators love yonira, apparently, and hate me, that he can attack me without restraint and half the time, my replies are bounced.
pjdude, first off, I have never said I wanted Pollard free, he is a spy who deserves the death sentence. Secondly, 1500? the anti-semite Gordon Duff said 150, which is totally ridiculous because Pollard was not in a position to know anything about American CIA assets in Russian, he was a contracted civilian in the Navy.
150 americn( in nationailty) were what died because of pollards actions the total number killed because of pollards actions was 1500 including informents and their families. and why is telling the story of the people that died because of his actions make someone an anti semite.?
Isn’t antisemitic. Just isn’t accurate.
Please be specific about those other countries, and ensure they were “legitimately” recognized by the global community.
We’re talking acts of terrorism; not war, although I see many acts committed in war as war crimes; but, terrorism is different; this was terrorism, plain and simple.
dick cheney
There’s often a very fine line between the two. Many families destroyed by missiles from aircraft or drones in Pakistani tribal regions or in Afghanistan might have a hard time making this rather fragile distinction. One could say that Cast Lead was a massive act of terrorism, for example ; and an Israeli spokesperson could offer up that same distinction to justify it as NOT being one. Just saying.
Whoever makes excuses for Begin; and attempts to spin this has just shown their true colors and double-standard here.
No one is making excuses for Begin. But you read this letter and you see what you want to see. You see people condemning Begin, but you miss the reference to the overwhelming condemnation of Deir Yassin from the Jewish Agency and the Jewish diaspora.
No one need spin this letter. One need only read it to show that what I and others here have argued is the truth: Deir Yassin was not something the Yishuv supported or was proud of. Massacres are unfortunately common in ethnic conflict; they were committed by both sides.
“One need only read it to show that what I and others here have argued is the truth: Deir Yassin was not something the Yishuv supported or was proud of. Massacres are unfortunately common in ethnic conflict; they were committed by both sides.”
There were dozens of massacres committed by the Israeli side and they were an indispensable element in creating a Jewish state. eee endorses ethnic cleansing above and so has Witty. Their position is morally despicable, but honest to that extent. On the other hand there’s the historically false position people have taken, sometimes in honest ignorance and sometimes not, that Deir Yassin was some sort of aberration, to be blamed on the Irgun, but not mainstream Zionism. But it wasn’t an aberration. (RW, of course, has taken both positions–the Irgun were an aberration and ethnic cleansing was necessary.)
There were also massacres committed by the Palestinian side and if there is ever to be a just solution both sides are going to have to be honest about the crimes committed in their name. But the Israelis can’t seem to admit the worst of theirs, because if the Nakba hadn’t happened there wouldn’t be the Israel of today.
Palestinians did NOT go and invade and move in on someone else’s country. The Zionists came from Europe and bombed their way to a state. Palestinians fought back. Wouldn’t you??
Donald,
Morally despicable is your opinion. My position regarding ethnic cleansing is a very moral one. Sometimes evil needs to be done in order to facilitate a greater good. A great example is dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman is considered by most people a great president for doing the right thing and saving hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives. It is cowards like Chamberlain who try to avoid evil at all cost that bring about the death of 40 million people.
“Palestinians fought back. Wouldn’t you??”
Hopefully yeah, though maybe I’d just cower someplace instead.
I don’t really get this need to pretend that atrocities are justifiable. It’s not morally right and it’s not even pragmatically right in the case of the Palestinians, who haven’t benefited from any massacre committed by their side. The Palestinians have a just cause, but even people fighting in a just war sometimes commit atrocities. EEE has to do it, because his “Jewish state” wouldn’t exist without the commission of crimes against humanity and he’s fine with anything that protects his group.
“Sometimes evil needs to be done in order to facilitate a greater good.”
And, of course, the powerful gets to decide what constitutes “a greater good” and what constitutes “a lesser evil” right???
Congratulations. You’ve just excused the fucking Holocaust. Idiot.
“Sometimes evil has to be done to non-Jews to faciliate a greater good for Jews.”
You left the “im” off immoral, eee.
A great example is dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman is considered by most people a great president for doing the right thing and saving hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives.
What?!?
Declassified Soviet and Japanese documents now show that it was a surprise attack of over one and half million Soviet soldiers that August that decided the surrender, more than the dropping of bombs. The Emperor was waiting for diplomatic peace feelers he’d put out to the Soviets late in July and they responded by sending troops into Japanese strongholds in Eastern Asia and attacking them.
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
A few reviews:
Wonderful comment, Woody.
Here’s an extended quote from The Myth of the Good War by Jacques R. Pauwels.
This makes more sense than silly platitudes about confronting evil, at any rate.
No your position on ethnic cleansing is vile, disgusting, completely amoral, and an affront to anyone resembling a half way decent human being. if something requires evil to be done than it is not good. as much as it seem people don’t like hearing and label anti semitic you are living proof of the statement that anything is ok if it benefits Israel. no crime is to great to be justified. your a twisted individual. people like you are the reason Israel needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
It does make a lot more sense. Funny how few people realize today that Hitler wasn’t the only one who invaded Poland in 39, that ‘Uncle Joe’ invaded from the East as Hitler invaded from the West. The British (or other Western powers) were not willing to protect the Czechs in 38 the same way they gave security guarantees to Poland. Had the Western powers drawn a clear line at the annexation of the Sudentenland, Poland may never have been invaded. Instead, the plan seems to have been to have Hitler and Stalin butt heads at the expense of the Chechs, and deal with whichever evil empire was left later. Eventually, that’s what happened, of course but not exactly as planned by the Western Allies. Even though they had created Czechoslovakia after WW I, they didn’t recognize the Czechs or Slovaks as a sovereign people like the Poles. Similar situation in the ME: Israel was forced to return the Sinai to Egypt, but not (yet) the OPT to the Palestinians.
The Zionist Executive obviously approved of the theater & hotel bombings and other terror operations (e.g. Deir Yassin) that were carried out inside the Corpus Separatum in the waning days of the Mandate.
During the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, Ben Gurion was disparaging the IZL and taking credit for averting the danger to the State posed by the Altalena and for putting down the armed insurrection in Jerusalem, when a secret agreement with the Revisionists was mentioned by some of the other MKs. Finally, the former commander of the Hanganah, Moshe Sneh, interrupted to say that Ben Gurion had personally sent him a cable which instructed him not to harm IZL!
Ben Gurion and his colleagues told Sneh and the others “not to threaten us with publication”. Of course, Ben Gurion was both the PM and Defense Minister and could prevent publication through the good offices of the military censors. See Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Volume 2, University Press/JCPA, page 445.
hostage, someone here linked to Prof. Yehuda Lapidot the other day. (maybe it was you?) his recollections seque w/your text. here’s his bio
according to him:
more at the link
Deir Yassin was not something the Yishuv supported or was proud of.
a memorial might be appropriate, as a way of saying ‘i am sorry’.
Perhaps one day, when there is a peace agreement, there will be a memorial. These things take time.
let’s hope sooner than later.
“Deir Yassin was not something the Yishuv supported or was proud of. ”
The Yishuv didn’t restore Deir Yassin; they didn’t compensate the victims; they didn’t beg forgiveness; they perpetuated the evil of which Deir Yassin was but a symptom, during and after the Nakba. Pretend all you want, but that is support. That is pride.
ah yes.
That the Yishuv is “not proud of” the massacre at Deir Yassin is forever commemorated by the fact that Yad Vashem is built so that visitors emerging to view with pride and triumph the “new Israel” gaze out on – - – Deir Yassin.
… and the only Palestinian commemorated at Yad Vashem is, of course, the Mufti (as discussed here at length the other day). No balancing mention even of the fact that thousands of Palestinians fought on the side of the British against the Nazis, and were “not proud” of the Mufti-Hitler alliance either.
So which do you want? You want Palestinians not to be involved in the Holocaust, but you want the Holocaust museum to have a display on Palestinians?
My objection is not that the Mufti makes an appearance at YV, but that he is the only Palestinian mentioned there. That’s the curatorial logic one would expect in a museum on WW I affected by Nazi propaganda: there would be no mention of German Jewish soldiers and patriots fighting and dying for their country ( In fact, the Nazis erased the names of Jewish soldiers from WW I memorials), just as there’s no mention at YV of Palestinians siding with the British forces against Hitler. Jews would only be mentioned in connection with the Versailles treaty, and as Zionists promising to get the Americans into WW I in order to save the British from defeat, and obtain the Balfour Declaration in return. Doesn’t really provide you with an accurate or balanced picture.
Deir Yassin was something that got into the news, so Ben Gurion had to give lip service to repudiating it. In fact, it was just what he wanted.
“Deir Yassin was something that got into the news, so Ben Gurion had to give lip service to repudiating it. In fact, it was just what he wanted.”
It’s nonsense. It was repudiated by Ben-Gurion and just about everyone else.
…and then the people who did it were treated as heroes and given government posts in Israel. Fancy that.
Ben-Gurion had the habit of saying one thing in public and another in private. This is readily apparent to anyone who has studied his biography.He was also the one who was so bold as to make a radio broadcast the day after General Ariel Sharon led a the Qibya massacre by IDF troops, in then Jordan, and falsely claim that not a single armed soldier was involved in the attack. (They were all sleeping in their beds according to Ben-Gurion.) He had ordered the attack and had absolutely no compunction about publicly proclaiming such a bald-faced lie.
Ben-Gurion himself was responsible for ordering the expulsion of the Palestinians and he was well aware of the utility of massacres in accomplishing the ethnic cleansing. He, and the Consultancy had ordered the blowing up of houses and the killing of men, women and children in the months prior to the April 1948 massacre at Deir Yassin (starting in December 1947) so its quite logical to posit that Ben-Gurion was putting on a false public face when he condemned a massacre similar to others he had approved.
The fact of the matter is that Begin received 14 seats out of 120 in the First Knesset. Even if you think Begin is a fascist, Le Pen’s party in France and other right wing parties in Europe receive similar support nowadays (they have less representation because the Israeli system is proportional and more fair to small parties). But again you single out Israel. What else is new?
As for Einstein he founded the ultimate Zionist symbol, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, AND left it all the rights to use his name. Every time anyone licenses an Einstein picture, text whatever, the Hebrew U receives money. And of course he left the Hebrew U all his papers.
link to bfhu.org
This is all from a will made in 1950, 2 years after Israel was founded. In his last act Einstein proved he was a strong Zionist.
Why is it always about money? Seriously? The worst anti-Semites are Zionists.
As a matter of historical perspective, Johannes Kepler had to literally steal astronomical data from the estate of his late mentor, Tycho Brahe, because Brahe’s family refused to make the research material available to Kepler. (And without that, we wouldn’t have had the mathematical model that was the foundation of Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation.) I dare say there is precedent for a scientist’s work being put in unscrupulous hands for purely political reasons.
“because Brahe’s family refused to make the research material available to Kepler.”
Not quite. Kepler had been assisting Brahe with the data for years, and refused to let the family get their hands on it. His claim was strengthened by Brahe’s express request that Kepler finish the work on the Rudolphine Talbes.
Technically speaking, since Brahe had started collecting data while he was a student, gathered a great deal more when working on the Royal Danish space program at Uraniaborg, and then worked for the Holy Roman Emperor, one would think that the Danish Crown and the HRE would have a claim as well as Brahe’s family.
I knew it was contested and that Brahe’s family tried to prevent Kepler from finishing his work. To be fair, I didn’t know the finer details. From what I understand, though, Kepler took it upon himself to keep the data and deliberately rebuff legal maneuvers by the family to take the data from him.
“But again you single out Israel. What else is new?”
I haven’t checked to see if Israel has committed any new atrocities in the past hour or so, so I can’t answer that.
As for France, they were pretty horrible in Algeria, but that occupation ended decades ago.
Donald,
Begin has been dead 25 years or so and Phil is highlighting a letter from over 60 years ago. What gives?
At the time the letter was written the French were in Vietnam and Algeria. They got the Americans involved leading to 2-3 million Vietnamese deaths and in Algeria they murdered about 1 million Arabs. But thank you for singling out Israel anyway for trying to survive as a state in a hostile region.
This sites cause isn’t dedicated to Algeria. It’s dedicated to Israel and understanding its foundation and direction.
Dont try the ‘oh poor us’ bit. That is stale and tasteless, and shows the desperation. It invalidates any cogent argument you may have in the future.
It’s always fascinating to see how some Israeli defenders become such harsh critics of Western crimes when Israeli crimes are brought up. Having come to this issue by way of Chomsky I always thought of Israel as just one part of a larger phenomenon of Westerners thinking they have the right to steal whatever land they want. I fully agree that France’s record as a colonial power was utterly despicable and so was the US record in Vietnam. That “singling out” that you mention is an artifact of where we both happen to be typing. In case you hadn’t noticed, this is a blog about the I/P conflict, not a site for the general discussion of all atrocities committed in the long history of Western imperialism. I agree Israel is just a footnote–you guys should have done all your settler colonializing back in the 1800′s when all the cool countries were doing it.
i don’t think it is about begin so much as those who represent his sentiments today in the current state of affairs.
The desperation is shown by someone recycling a 60+ year old op-ed against a person dead for 25 years to prove a point presumably about something today. Oh, and for what’s it worth, the person being demonized in the op-ed received the Nobel peace prize later in life and proved himself to be a pragmatic peace seeker unlike anyone you support.
my brain is a tad fuddled this morning but this rings some bells about countering the ‘delegitimization threat’ i read recently, probably here on this site. maybe someone else recalls.
it was to point out how all the other countries have done it and we’re bigots for focusing on israel..or something to that effect. i think it was number 2 on their list. or maybe number one.
Donald,
I am not criticizing Western practices in my comments, just your double standards in evaluating different aspects of history. What Western countries did or didn’t is not relevant to this blog. What is relevant is the double standards employed in this blog, especially when it comes to Israel.
” am not criticizing Western practices in my comments, just your double standards in evaluating different aspects of history. ”
You must be relieved to know that I condemned France and the US then. I read Alistair Horne’s book on Algeria (which was too kind to the French IMO) many years ago, and a biography of Fanon several years ago, and random bits of info about that war here and there. The French were barbaric. And so was the US in Vietnam, not to mention many other places, including places where we supported our allies doing horrible things. Places like Israel.
“What Western countries did or didn’t is not relevant to this blog. What is relevant is the double standards employed in this blog, especially when it comes to Israel.”
This is incoherent. The blog is about the I/P conflict. There’s no double standard in having a blog which focuses on this conflict. And you’re the one who brought up what other Western countries have done.
What’s funny is that the vast majority of Americans who are critical of Israeli brutality are also critical of American brutality and would also condemn French brutality in Algerian. This little hasbara ploy of yours (which I’ve seen elsewhere) only makes sense in one political context–if you were speaking to a group of jingoist French or American types who couldn’t stand to listen to criticism of their own country and could be swung over to a pro-Israel position by saying “Hey, we all kill Arabs and Vietnamese and other inferior types, so what’s the big deal?” Trying to use that argument here just makes you look stupid. Not that I should be giving lessons in how to use hasbara, but I do so hate to see people doing a bad job.
eee, it’s freedom of the press. Phil, Adam or any other person can freely post this information and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Since it does expose that early fascist hobgoblin right at the creation of the state, I can see you becoming sensitive and will predictably complain. Your not to blame personally, but it actually did happen in the pages of history.
But, why defend it? Today, do you and many other Jews of similar philosophy, feel guilty for the crimes of Deir Yassin? This is something I try to understand, but have not had a response from anyone.
>> What Western countries did or didn’t is not relevant to this blog. What is relevant is the double standards employed in this blog, especially when it comes to Israel.
A faint glimmer of common sense…and then it was gone. What Western countries did or did not do is not relevant to this blog site because this blog site is not about what Western countries did or did not do. What Israel did and continues to do IS, however, perfectly relevant to this blog site.
Ethnic cleansing is never “necessary” and it is never moral. At all times – past, present and, inevitably, future – it is unjust, immoral, selfish and hateful.
Tarting it up by adding the self-congratulatory “it made possible Israel, ‘a good in the world’” doesn’t make ethnic cleansing any less unjust or immoral. It just makes the people who say that sort of stuff sound very hateful and stupid.
Donald,
You miss the point. The vast majority of Americans, perhaps even you, understand that whatever the US did to the Native Americans or the French to the Algerians, it is not a reason for the US or France not to exist. However, when it comes to Israel, the conclusion is quite different on this blog.
oh, the ‘not to exist’ trap. yeah..i think that was in the advise manual (countering delegitimization) too. it would be much more compelling if there were lots of supporting posts here calling for israel not to exist. you do realize that don’t you.
Annie,
You do realize that you fool no one when you say Israel can exist but as an Arab state? That is the same as saying Israel cannot exist.
There will not be peace until the Palestinians accept a Jewish state in the middle east. Not a state for “all its people” or a “one state” or whatever other euphemism you can think of to say that Israel should not exist but be able to deny saying that (while fooling no one).
“it is not a reason for the US or France not to exist. ”
Actually, it is a reason for the US not to exist as a country that confines Native Americans to reservations.
You do realize that you fool no one when you say Israel can exist but as an Arab state? That is the same as saying Israel cannot exist.
eee, shhh..maybe know one will notice i never said that. ;)
try the copy paste function the next time you try a strawman, whoops..their nothing to copy!
The reason Israel does not deserve to exist is that it keeps doing it
>> Donald,
>> You miss the point. The vast majority of Americans, perhaps even you, understand that whatever the US did to the Native Americans or the French to the Algerians, it is not a reason for the US or France not to exist.
eee, you miss the point of your own argument. Neither the U.S. nor France exists as a “collective”-supremacist state with special status for that particular “collective”.
If you’re going to try to deflect attention off Israel by making comparisons to other nations, at least try to make those comparisons relevant.
The French used to say the same t hing about Algeria. Guess what – they don’t live in Algeria anymore.
“There will not be peace until the Palestinians accept a Jewish state in the middle east. ”
There should not be a Jewish state (or, for that matter, a state based on an ethnicity) anywhere, regardless of whether is was established by an act of ethnic cleansing or not.
The difference being that if we were to change history, or revisit it and prevent those crimes against the Native Americans, all of us would, without a doubt.
You on the other hand, would do it all over again, wouldn’t you eee?
Firstr of all, no state in the world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, so why demand that of the Arab States?
In any case, the Arab states have already made that offer in 2003, and Israel has rejected it.
Did that offer being peace?
No.
Your theory just went up in smoke ee.
At least Pots doesn’t beat around the bush. Hey man, where are the Israelis gonna live once they “don’t live in Algeria anymore.”
They own America, they’ll probably come here. And kvetch about missing their socialist entitlements.
because a. its immpossible to reverse what happened to the native american without inflicting great harm. b. no who was there was alive. in other words its dead memory purely history rather than something people still living expierenced. and c. there was nothing prohititing such things in that era. when Israel commited its crimes they were rocanized as crimes in that era. there is no double standard just you trying to use anachronism to defend ISrael
Einstein and some of the other mandate-era Governors of the Hebrew University disliked the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The Chancellor, Judah Magnes, was an outspoken advocate of a bi-national/single state solution.
In 1938, Einstein said “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state… My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power… I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.”
When he was employed by Zionist ghostwriters to obtain India’s support for the partition of Palestine, he was completely ineffective. Nehru was troubled that, despite all of the professed benefits of Jewish settlement, the Zionists had failed to gain the goodwill of the Arabs. See Benny Morris, Einstein’s other theory
The right wing parties in France are not engaged active fascism and murder of women and children, like we witnessed in Cast Lead.
I’m not sure that Einstein and Arendt showed such great perceptiveness here. Most arguments that proclaim ‘another Hitler!’ are a bit facile, I think. The trouble with Begin was not that he aimed at a ‘Leader State’ but that he believed in a state based on racial supremacy. A state based on racial supremacy might well be keen to take decisions by means of free and fair elections within, or dominated by, the dominant group. Why should anyone who belongs to the sacred group, with its blood in its veins and its culture in his heart, be considered unworthy of a vote? Of course the same logic means that the franchise of those outside the sacred group has to be severely limited by whatever expedients, including very violent ones, come to hand. This leads to illegitimacy for reasons explained by Locke some centuries ago.
Well, in fairness to them, this was written in 1948, where the connection between a racist state and a fascist state (which is explicitly non-democratic, even for the “sacred group”) was probably more visceral than it is sixty years later. Once the identification of Begin’s party as a racist one was made, the conclusion that it was or sought to be a fascist one (and thus, a “leader state”) was probably, to them, a reasonable extension.
Someone said Native Americans are confined to reservations. Not true, they can live where ever they please.
Two cultures cannot exist in the same space. The Palestinians saw what was coming.
link to digitalgallery.nypl.org
“Someone said Native Americans are confined to reservations. Not true, they can live where ever they please.”
No one said that. I said that the US shouldn’t exist as a country that confines Native Americans to reservations, which does not mean that the US still confines Native Americans to reservations. It used to, and when it did that would have been an argument against the US “right to exist”.
Donald, Here’s is a direct quote: “Actually, it is a reason for the US not to exist as a country that confines Native Americans to reservations.”
Past tense would have been clearer.