Colonialism and violence

Israel/Palestine
on 174 Comments

As we bear witness to the daily, ever escalating, ever-unprecedented yet routine Israeli collective punishment and cruelty and torment inflicted on the Palestinians—men and women, young and old, boys and girls, children and infants, farm animals, fruit orchards, and olive trees—one cannot but be awed at the utter lack of morality and conscience the Zionist enterprise has wrought. These atrocities, banally implemented, speak more of a society’s character than they do of its victims, whatever Palestinians do or don’t do in desperation and despite all the lies and defamation heaped upon them. The Israeli state has raised, indoctrinated, a generation of young soldier-enforcers who are incapable of relating to the Palestinians’ humanness—literally. Israel clearly is a state that has elevated violence and militarism to a paramount state and societal doctrine. What explains this phenomenon?

The dominant narrative says it’s because of Jewish fear for survival after the Holocaust and determination to not ever let it happen again. Others add that it’s because Israel lost its way, lost a clear political vision and therefore subordinates sound political judgment to military power. I think its application of indiscriminate, absolute violence and force completely out of touch with rational political goals is because its political vision has always been quite clear: the colonization of Palestine. I attempted an answer in Al Ahram Weekly in 2006 (“Rationality and Israeli Violence”). Israel’s essentially colonial-settler origin provides a convincing explanation for its deep and broad violence. Let me get there by starting off, first, with why any plan for authentic Palestinian self-determination in either a state of their own or in a single state is doomed if Israel can help it.

A bi-national or federal or single state, call it what you will and imagine its outlines as you like, is the most humane, liberal, democratic solution to Palestine-Israel, for it makes no sense to separate and disentangle two populations so intimately, demographically, economically, and geographically intertwined. To separate them is to lead to cruel and unjust consequences, especially for the Palestinians, including “population transfers.” This, single state, is a moral, not just political premise, for not only will two states, had this solution become a reality, eventually lead to intimate integration of populations and structures anyway, but also two states implemented on Israel’s terms can only mean an apartheid situation. But we need not worry because Israel has made this impossible. The more important question is what this tells us about the nature and foundation of Israel as a Zionist state. To talk of one or two states is an empty intellectual exercise, not because it cannot happen at some future date, but because Palestine-Israel is not, really, a two-peoples-one land “dispute” nor accurately conceptualized as an age-old civil war. It’s not as if Jews actually had for centuries lived in and constituted one of two dominant ethnic groups in Palestine clashing over exclusive ethno-nationalist visions, say, as in the old Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Quebec, or the Basque country. Political Zionists began to arrive to Palestine in the early 20th century.

So Zionism is foreign to Palestine, and its product, Israel, is a colonial enterprise. This is clear in state structures and institutions, in the continuing dispossession, exclusion, separation, and privileging of Jews over “natives” in Israel itself and in the occupied territories, applying one law to Jews and another to non-Jews. Israel’s reversion to absolute military force and violence is, therefore, not accidental, not because it “lives in a bad neighborhood” or because it’s been in a constant state of war or because it’s fighting for its collective life or because it’s destined to remain under existential threat. The documentary and historical evidence belies these premises. Israel’s recent settlers do too. Consider one of the most rabidly racist segments of Israeli society, the one million Russians, Jews and non-Jews who arrived to Israel, in effect colonizing Palestine. Or the nut jobs from the US—violent racists who fantasize exclusive Jewish dominion over “their” reclaimed ancestral, sacred ground. These exactly represent the previous generation of settlers come to a land to wrest it and its resources from its inhabitants.

To argue Israel was or is corrupted by its occupation of “Judea and Samaria” is wishful thinking and denial on the part of those Jews and Israelis who wish to do good. To suggest that Israeli liberals, much less those such as Livni and Olmert, are motivated by a wish to preserve a democratic Jewish state and concern for Palestinian self-determination is dishonest (notwithstanding a few sincere liberal exceptions). Kadima and Labour, center and “left,” may not see the West Bank in religious terms but in terms of political, economic, and resource benefits; however, it’s still colonization by foreign settlers whose foundation remains a messianic-religious-nationalism called Zionism. Not only is an ethno-religious, Orthodox Rabbinate-defined state inherently anti-pluralist and anti-democratic, but also most liberal (as opposed to true leftists) Israeli Jews are more concerned about mixing and diluting their Jewishness, their politico-cultural life and superiority, with the “Arabs,” their whiteness repelled by the natives’ brownness. Race is in the back of the mind. The idea of a bi-national state is a nightmare to them. Israel is far from becoming a state for all its citizens, though it may some day, if it wants to survive in the region.

Yes, Jews have suffered genocide and anti-Semitism. However, Israel’s behavior is unjust under any moral or logical scrutiny, and its political and military leaders act not involuntarily, because of Jewish trauma, but by their own deliberate agency. Perhaps it’s because of Zionism’s colonial-settler part of its identity, its colonial psychology, that drives its occupation army to sadistically treat the Palestinians like animals, undeserving of human consideration, shooting their children for sport, urinating on them, attacking and incarcerating them to blackmail the adults to quit peaceful protest, extirpating their lives without remorse. Culturally defective, smelly, threatening, shifty, cowardly, savage “Arabs,” including and especially little ones who keep getting born, after all deserve no mercy. Empowered, unconstrained soldiers, acting without consequence, belonging to a military organization that reflects the racist attitudes of the larger society, feel little.

Loss of vision implies a missing moral/political vision towards the indigenous Palestinians, but such a vision—aside from cultural and bi-national Zionists who spoke out during the British Mandate and those who speak out today—was not there to go missing. This and its concomitant, violence, are characteristic of non-organic settler societies. European Jews came to Palestine to take it over and dominate those within it. It explains Israel’s use of sheer violence as its supreme instrument, for it can be the only instrument if its vision is displacing the Palestinians. Zionism has no other goal or vision than despoiling and eradicating Palestine, pushing out and taking away, violence having long ago metamorphosed into a means and an end.

Did Zionism arise only as a colonial movement? No. There was anti-Semitism. There was the romantic notion of return. There was the idea of Jewish labor. But there is the undeniable fact that to achieve its Jewish state it required colonization, and this remains its dominant ideological imperative. Am I denying the legitimacy of Israel? I think its foundation at the expense of the Palestinians is morally wrong. Do I advocate its disappearance? No, not under any circumstances, and not through violence. I advocate its peaceful change into a true democratic state for all its people. Several generations of Israelis are now indigenous to the land too. Zionism has constructed an impressive state, society, and economy—a democracy for people of the Jewish religion only. Also, despite my premises and conclusions, I’m one of a few who still argue that Israel’s Zionist institutions may even become liberally inclusive through an evolutionary process.

I am however, searching for truth, in particular why the Israeli state is so utterly violent against Palestinians. I find truth, for example, in arguing that not just colonialism and imperialism, but Arab political culture explains the dynastic authoritarian origins and tyranny of all Arab regimes, monarchical and “republican”—see “A great change is sweeping Arab political culture.” I find truth in arguing that deeply rooted Israeli violence—physical, psychological, cultural, sociological—is located in the dominance of its colonial-settler origins and institutions. Israeli tyranny and violence against the occupied Palestinians, actually, are morally and practically equivalent to the tyranny and violence of a Qadhafi against his people. Both share a basic inhumanity.

Like an individual or family or institution, a society, a state, cannot last, for such are unjust foundations. Interminable colonization and oppression, aka theft and murder, far from guarantee permanency, but only hasten the day of collapse. Nor do they provide the necessary foundation for a mentally and emotionally healthy society. Zionism has introduced many horrors to Palestine, including terrorism. It is one of the greatest dangers to itself, to the Jewish people, to the region. It has constructed (despite its many morally courageous people, including soldiers, who see the insanity of it all) an unwell society.

(24 February 2011)
 

About Issa Khalaf

Other posts by .


Posted In:

174 Responses

  1. Graber
    February 26, 2011, 11:01 am

    After seeing “Breaking the Silence,” I saw so many parallels between those who I have known in abusive relationships and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

    I wrote a blog post in response to it at: link to phillytravels.wordpress.com

    My basic premise is that the occupation is an abusive relationship, with Israelis feeling as they have the right to dominate Palestinians, and thus go unpunished for their crimes.

  2. bijou
    February 26, 2011, 11:08 am

    A powerful and insightful piece. Thank you for contributing it.

  3. annie
    February 26, 2011, 11:31 am

    i completely agree Mr. Khalaf. but i can see where your logic will be attacked.

    Zionism has no other goal or vision than despoiling and eradicating Palestine, pushing out and taking away, violence having long ago metamorphosed into a means and an end.

    in the next paragraph you speak of the romantic notion of return.
    some will say with all honesty this is the goal, the ideal and for many that may be true but i still think you’re right. it started out as a colonial enterprise and the ‘romantic notion’ was designed later to motivate the masses.

    its political and military leaders act not involuntarily, because of Jewish trauma, but by their own deliberate agency. Perhaps it’s because of Zionism’s colonial-settler part of its identity, its colonial psychology, that drives its occupation army to sadistically treat the Palestinians like animals, undeserving of human consideration, shooting their children for sport, urinating on them, attacking and incarcerating them to blackmail the adults to quit peaceful protest, extirpating their lives without remorse. Culturally defective, smelly, threatening, shifty, cowardly, savage “Arabs,” including and especially little ones who keep getting born, after all deserve no mercy. Empowered, unconstrained soldiers, acting without consequence, belonging to a military organization that reflects the racist attitudes of the larger society, feel little.

    their own deliberate agency.

    • Issa Khalaf
      February 26, 2011, 1:04 pm

      Very good point, annie. Zionists such as Theodore Herzl, its founder, clearly understood that they were colonizing Palestine, regardless of how they romanticized and rationalized “return.” The early Zionists did, after all, consider other places for colonization, including south America and east Africa. The Zionist “revisionist” Vladimir Jabotinsky forcefully made it clear Palestine was being colonized, and Ben-Gurion quietly on so many occasions acknowledged Zionism’s colonial venture. The Dutch Voortrekkers, too, had romantic, pioneering, almost mystical notions about colonizing South Africa, about its land, and took over large tracts of land and threw out its tenants. The same with the French colons in Algeria, taking the best lands along the coast and pushing the Algerians south. Outside kibbutzim, the reliance on Arab labor, on land or in industries, was never completely stopped or severed. This continued after 1967 with Israel’s colonization of the occupied territories. Israel did not have a “mother” country or metropolis, but it created a form of internal colonialism, its support system the world Zionist organizations. I could go on about the issue, but mentioning romantic notions of return (and Jewish labor) and Zionists as essentially foreign settlers is not a contradiction. Anyway, the point here is trying to understand this profound phenomenon of Israeli violence. Israeli employment of absolute violence without apparent political logic or vision or goals and to their own detriment, requires explanation. This phenomenon’s logic is colonization and dispossession, not peace and harmony. It therefore seems to me that the colonial psychology of seeing the natives as animals infused proto-state Zionism and Israeli actions today, offering a glimpse into why the Israeli state behaves as it does.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 26, 2011, 2:20 pm

        We talk about Zionist colonialism alongside European colonialism as though they’re historical outliers, when in critical respects they’re the historical and even the animal norm: The stronger (however defined) tend to overwhelm the weaker.

        If not constrained by extraneous factors (the sames ones that built and sustain the Jewish state), Israeli violence against the Palestinians could have been far more “absolute.” Before annie starts crying “hasbara,” this observation is not meant to excuse, much less to credit, Israeli conduct, but to suggest that understanding this “employment of absolute violence” may inherently require a more “absolute” perspective. On this level, the Islamist and Leftist understandings – Israel as an outpost of the never-ending Judeo-Christian Crusade, simultaneously a project and client-state of the democratic capitalist neo-empire – also have to be considered. The one-state harmonization of Palestinian and Israeli aspirations under a just and democratic, universalist dispensation at some point will have to confront and integrate these narratives, too. In the meantime – and I suspect that this is a perspective that some may be intensely reluctant to accept – the violent oppressiveness of the Israeli state may simply be an expression of its material superiority, a mode of production and related social organization that more or less naturally tends to overwhelm its competitors on all levels, in the Holy Land as once upon a time in the Americas and as just about everywhere else.

        I think that’s also why the recent “revolutions” we’ve been observing, to the extent they deserve to be called revolutions at all, have had the character of seeking harmonization with a universalist or global concept of human rights that also happens to be the flip-side, the democratic human face of Israel – the face that a large majority of Americans still see.

        The historical work on the Palestinian side has in part been attainment of a level of self-organization and social-ideological coherency that enables effective resistance, which may utilize, but is not the same as the “absolute” resistance, symbolized by the suicide bomber. The suicide bomber gains our attention, but not our recognition. The remaining task of resistance would involve the fuller, global meaning of “attaining recognition.” At the same time, for this reason, such resistance isn’t resistance at all, but rather a process of assimilation to a world monoculture or “universal homogeneous state” (state of states) based on equal and inalienable human rights and freedoms.

        If not such assimilation (which would also inherently alter the nature and content of the state of states), then what else possibly could be the concept – the political, legal, and social character – of the “one state”?

      • annie
        February 26, 2011, 3:32 pm

        I suspect that this is a perspective that some may be intensely reluctant to accept – the violent oppressiveness of the Israeli state may simply be an expression of its material superiority, a mode of production and related social organization that more or less naturally tends to overwhelm its competitors on all levels

        yeah, i’m sure posters are going to line up here arguing the violent oppressiveness of the Israeli state is not an expression of its material superiority. not. were you fantasizing we all thought israel was superior militarily because they’re just so naturally superior? israel can pulverize palestinians because we fund it up the gils and pay off the surrounding dictators.

      • Avi
        February 27, 2011, 4:21 am

        CK MacLeod,

        You have a natural ability to say a lot, but in essence say nothing. You sound like witty.

      • annie
        February 27, 2011, 6:34 am

        i totally agree!!! chalk one up for the ‘computer generated narrative’.

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 7:11 am

        Lame Annie.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2011, 8:36 am

        >> You sound like witty.

        +1. Unlike RW, however, CKM uses complete sentences and proper grammar.

        >> … the violent oppressiveness of the Israeli state may simply be an expression of its material superiority …

        Hmmm…so, the more “materially superior” a nation becomes, the more violently oppressive it becomes. Poor Israel, a victim (surprise, surprise) of its own success. :-(

        (Funny how “material superiority” excuses violence, while suffering at the hands of the “materially superior” does not.)

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 12:19 pm

        Hmmm…so, the more “materially superior” a nation becomes, the more violently oppressive it becomes. Poor Israel, a victim (surprise, surprise) of its own success. :-(

        Absolutely. The only alternative to that view, apparently your view, would be to imagine the tyrant, master, oppressor as fulfilled – and simple winners in classic zero sum game. That would mean that a movement to a more just state for others would be a movement to a more oppressive state for them: a resumption of the same cycle of oppression with roles reversed, rather than progress to a better life for the Israeli Jews as well as for the oppressed.

        As for the first part, that does seem to be the pattern historically, up to the point that the weaker party is assimilated or the dominant party encounters either its own material limitations or an equal or greater adversary.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2011, 5:50 pm

        >> The only alternative to that view, apparently your view, would be to imagine the tyrant, master, oppressor as fulfilled – and simple winners in classic zero sum game.

        I don’t believe that’s my view, no, and I don’t see why it is or should be the only alternative view – that is, I don’t accept that “materially superior” nations *must* become more violently oppressive, unless they have gained their material superiority at violently-oppressive expense of others and are continuing to employ their oppression to retain their ill-gotten gains.

        If that’s the case, then it’s a choice, neither pre-determined nor irrevocable.

      • Issa Khalaf
        February 26, 2011, 2:59 pm

        A further point, annie. My goal in this post was not to elaborate colonialism, but the obvious pervasiveness of Israeli state violence and terror at all levels. My preferred title was actually “The violence of Israel,” but Phil saw fit to change it. Actually, I’m uncomfortable with exclusive constructs such as colonial-settlerism because human behavior is far too complex and contradictory to ever neatly fit into theoretical paradigms. I’m not interested in denying Israeli Jewish legitimacy. The idea I’m trying to convey is that Israeli state and society violence, in attitude and behavior, may be due to the foreignness, outsidedness if you will, of Zionist settlement/colonization. The early Zionists saw themselves as outsiders, as people come from foreign lands to dominate another. The “cultural” Zionist Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Ginsberg) talked of the racism, cruelty, disdain, and denial of European Jewish settlers against the indigenous Arabs. Israel today sees itself as outside and above the peoples of the region, as a Western outpost of civilization, a “villa in the jungle” as Ehud Barak had it. Inherent in Zionists is a deep-rooted racism that is the foundation of Israel’s mindlessly (or deliberately?) violent actions. While Israel structurally and institutionally looks a lot like former apartheid South Africa, interestingly, Zionist/Israeli attitudes and behavior, to me, share a striking resemblance to the French colons’ rabid racism and physical, social, and cultural violence against the Algerian Arabs. What does one make of the fact that in Israel it is a crime for a Palestinian to have sex with a Jewish woman—just because he is non-Jewish? I think this reveals a lot. Palestinians and Israelis must live together. But again, as I said before, Israelis must look inward.

      • fuster
        February 26, 2011, 3:05 pm

        —What does one make of the fact that in Israel it is a crime for a Palestinian to have sex with a Jewish woman—just because he is non-Jewish?—-

        “fact” or bullshit?

        the case was decided horrendously but the charge was brought for deception.

      • annie
        February 26, 2011, 4:16 pm

        thank you for your response Mr Khalaf. let me give this violence aspect a little more thought.

        first of all i think the situation 60 years ago was a little different in that societies in general were more racist to begin with, therefore the acceptance of colonial violence was easier explained or justified but still they knew it was wrong or they wouldn’t have gone to such efforts to hide it (still the case).

        behind the veneer of the soft blue myth of israel’s founding was the inescapable violence, always present and cruel. i don’t see any contradiction between the romantic notions of zionism and the violent colonial enterprise (never did) and the two go hand in glove. one careful nurtured and ‘invented’ and it is the power of that invention which is used to brainwash otherwise ordinary people to not only the acceptance of this permanent militaristic way of life but to lull them into an acceptance of the necessity of violence, along with the necessity of settlement.

        so it is two pronged this drive to colonize. one of the romantic (god gave land/destiny etc) merged with one of sheer survival (hence necessitates or justifies violence). this is escalated by the constance brainwashing of the repetitive drumbeat of ‘all the world hates you, all the world wants your destruction, everyone is your enemy’. that is not a message i was raised with. i really cannot comprehend the impact of that kind of brainwashing. i think it is a combination of this cloistered society w/powerful messaging that has allowed them to become so violent coupled with an ingrained (after generations) sense of entitlement and racism.

        it remains to be seen how the full impact of the digital age will alter what’s going on but i suspect it will be radical. violence is best carried out in the dark behind closed doors not out in the open for all the world to see. when that violence becomes exposed efforts will be stepped up not to end the violence but to justify it and explain it. as the process of that revving up takes place it won’t be recognized for what it is because it is designed to brainwash. hence it just increases and increases and increases til you have a militaristic state so radical the world starts going bonkers.

        that’s all i can think of. the people are brainwashed. and why not? some of the best shrinks in the world are jewish. i’m sure much effort , resources and care have gone into efforts to shape israel’s narrative and corral it’s citizenship into obedience.

      • andrew r
        February 26, 2011, 6:22 pm

        “the case was decided horrendously but the charge was brought for deception.”

        It later came out that the incident may actually have been a rape and the man accepted the charge as a plea bargain because the woman didn’t want to testify.

        However, the judge and prosecution made a legal distinction between Jewish and Arab. All things equal, how could they charge him with deception had he really been Jewish? This is an instance of categorizing someone according to race.

      • Shingo
        February 26, 2011, 6:27 pm

        the case was decided horrendously but the charge was brought for deception.

        False. The charge was rape. There was mo deception.

        One would have to go back to apartheid South Africa or ore civil eights days to find a similar case where rape was linked to race.

      • fuster
        February 26, 2011, 8:23 pm

        —-What does one make of the fact that in Israel it is a crime for a Palestinian to have sex with a Jewish woman—just because he is non-Jewish?——

        Not a crime at all in Israel.
        Matter of fact, Jewish/Muslim couples used to be reasonably tolerated amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians.
        Such couples live as man and wife in Israel even if they have to take the trip to Cyprus or elsewhere to get married if both wish to practice their separate religions.

        In which countries of the Middle East are Muslim women permitted to have sex with or marry Jewish men or women, Issa Khalaf?

        Is it generally regarded as a crime for a Muslim woman to have sex with a Jewish man or woman in the states of the Arab League?

        Would a Jewish guy claiming to be a Muslim and having sex with a Muslim woman or women likely be in any trouble in those countries?

      • Psychopathic god
        February 26, 2011, 10:08 pm

        I think we all make a mistake when we date Israel to a point 60 years ago.
        The ideology that is at the heart of the zionist project reaches back about 110 years ago; THAT is when the ideology was constructed, that is when Herzl’s utopian fantasizing converged with opportunity — the imminent breakup of the Ottoman empire with the possibility that Turks would give Palestine to Jews (Herzl AND Jabotinsky lobbied Turks for that grant; Weizman finally closed the deal, but with the British, through a serendipitous lunch with a London newspaper editor).

        Jabotinsky is the father of revisionist zionism which held that the “new Jew” was muscular — not the sickly, unhygienic Slavic Jews that so distressed Jabotinsky and Ruppin, and that, by the way, was Jabotinsky’s image of himself — a scrawny, unattractive-looking creature. In addition to rejecting and rebuilding his self-image — through rigorous exercise and athletic discipline, Jabotinsky adopted Mussolini’s philosophy of perpetual struggle. The “new Jew” in the new Israel would be perpetually militarized, and so it has come to be.

      • annie
        February 26, 2011, 11:54 pm

        pg, i think you are missing an important aspect of the zionist ideology (as we know it today) by zeroing in on ‘Herzl’s utopian fantasizing’ and ignoring the influence of Ahad Ha’am (Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg) Jabotinsky may have been the father of revisionist zionism but Ahad Ha’am is considered ‘ the founder of Cultural Zionism’. Unlike Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, Ha’am strived for “a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews.“[1]

        Unlike Pinsker, Ginsberg did not believe in political Zionism, which he fought, ‘with a vehemence and austerity which embittered that whole period’.[3] Instead, from his very first article, he hailed the spiritual value of the Hebrew renaissance within the Zionist movement. To counter the debilitating fragmention for the Jewish folk-soul of life throughout the diaspora, the idea of assuring unity through an ingathering of Jews into Palestine was not an answer. That is, kibbutz galuyoth was a messianic ideal rather than a feasible contemporary project. The real answer lay in achieving a spiritual centre, or ‘central domicile’, within Palestine, that of Eretz Israel, which would form an exemplary model for the dispersed world of Jewry in exile to imitate, a spiritual focus for the circumferential world of the Jewish diaspora.[4] He split from the Zionist movement after the First Zionist Congress, because he felt that Theodor Herzl’s program was impractical.

        i posit this idea of israel being a ‘spiritual center’ originated from Ahad_Ha’am. not herzel of jabotinsky.

        some of his writing

        “We must surely learn, from both our past and present history, how careful we must be not to provoke the anger of the native people by doing them wrong, how we should be cautious in out dealings with a foreign people among whom we returned to live, to handle these people with love and respect and, needless to say, with justice and good judgment. And what do our brothers do? Exactly the opposite! They were slaves in their Diasporas, and suddenly they find themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that only a country like Turkey [the Ottoman Empire] can offer. This sudden change has planted despotic tendencies in their hearts, as always happens to former slaves [’eved ki yimlokh – when a slave becomes king – Proverbs 30:22]. They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency. Our brothers indeed were right when they said that the Arab only respects he who exhibits bravery and courage. But when these people feel that the law is on their rival’s side and, even more so, if they are right to think their rival’s actions are unjust and oppressive, then, even if they are silent and endlessly reserved, they keep their anger in their hearts. And these people will be revengeful like no other. […]” (quoted in Wrestling with Zion, Grove Press, 2003 PB, p. 15)

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 7:09 am

        This report appeared in Haaretz:

        A poll conducted in 2007 by Israel’s Geocartography Institute found that more than 50 per cent of Israeli Jews thought marrying an Arab was “equal to national treason”. Jews are legally forbidden to intermarry in Israel.

        The Sunday Times reported in 2009 on a squad of “vigilantes” in the Jewish settlement of Pisgat Zeev. The group has patrolled the streets for more than a decade looking for mixed couples.

        And in 2009, the town of Petah Tikva established a team of counsellors and psychologists to “rescue” Jewish women from relationships with Arab men.

        The Israeli daily Maariv reported in February that Tel Aviv had launched a similar programme.

        Gideon Levy, a liberal columnist with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said the “rape by deception” law would have been applied differently if a Jewish man had sex with an Arab woman under false pretences.

        “Would he have been convicted of rape?” Levy asked. “The answer is: of course not.”

        So, bottom line, Americans should know that while in this country interracial sex is a civil right, as is intermarriage, and both are fully protected by law and its equal implementation, while OTH, in America, anyone can tell or suggest in any way any lie about their true identity to attract and/or seduce anyone else into a sexual transaction or relation. While, in Israel, fraud in the inducement of such matters is a legal basis for a legal case, and it’s a crime that will be legally enforced if an Arab man and an Israeli woman are the sexual partners at issue in a sexual seductionor rape case, and ditto when involving an engaged couple in any sort of intended intermarriage. Quite amazing, how America and Israel share common values.

      • Psychopathic god
        February 27, 2011, 9:19 am

        thanks for expanding my understanding, anne — terrific perspective.
        Ah-had Haam’s writing is consistent with statements I heard Gershon Gorenberg make last week at a J Street meeting: Jews in Israel are still functioning on the very same “rules do not apply to us; the only thing that matters is building the state” frame of mind and behavior.

        elsewhere — maybe on this thread — someone quoted Etan Bloom’s dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, also a very important reference.

        people like you — and me–I try to look in the obscure corners and get a picture of the situation that is not a “computer generated narrative — need to make our voices heard on C Span and Diane Rehm, as Kathleen frequently mentions. C Span is still functioning on a knowledge base of zionism that’s right out of the 19th century. I think that situation — the willful ignorance of a media with the presumed credibility of C Span — is as dangerous as Colin Powell’s Yellow Cake speech. I call C Span, “Yellow cake journalism.”

        This morning on C Span Wash Journ, a caller who has lived abroad for many years called and discussed the differing perspective of the US veto of the UN resolution against settlements. The caller said that Europeans have access to many more news sources than do Americans in US; she said that the veto put a stamp on the Obama administration/US: it is now perfectly clear to even those who are paying only marginal attention: US foreign policy is dominated by ultra-zionists. Thus, she said, US is not to looked toward to provide honest leadership.

        I spent a few hours yesterday researching C Span’s programming on zionism — I asked myself, “What do C Span moderators know about zionism?” The (very tentative) answers are not surprising but disturbing: C Span moderators are thoroughly ‘zionized;’ when zionism or Israel or Jews are mentioned at all, it is with an attitude of special reverence tinged with fear; with a definite philosemitic bias that carries an attendant embarrassed/ apologetic anti-Islamic bias; strident anti-Iranian prejudice, and half-hearted anti-Arab tendency. If Palestinians are mentioned at all, the mention is generally in terms of “terrorist” –for example, in a conversation with Glenn Frankel and Jeff Trimble just after 1996 bombings in Israel, Connie Doebele asked if “Iraq supports Hamas.” Trimble said he didn’t know; Frankel said no, Syria sponsors Hamas, with a little help from Iran. He explained that Hamas was “more than just a militant arm; it ran medical services, education, economy, and was generally more organized than PLO,” to which Doebele responded, “When we hear ‘Hamas’ we think, ‘terrorist.'”

        Granted, this conversation was in 1996. I’ll continue the research when I again have free time; I’m eager to find out if- or how Doebele’s attitude towards Hamas/Palestine etc. has changed.

  4. fuster
    February 26, 2011, 12:13 pm

    ——What explains this phenomenon?——-

    The it-always-the-other-guy’s-fault narrative to which both Arabs and Jews in the area (and in this essay) fall prey.

    • VR
      February 26, 2011, 1:00 pm

      fuster, there is no neutrality in colonialism, when are you and others of your ilk going to learn this lesson? You cannot stand by objectively and say that, while someones is being attacked by a home invasion – “well, it is both their faults – one keeps blaming the other one.” It takes a particularly brain dead entity to come up with this explanation, and in any court of law worth its salt, if you as a witness were to propose such a scenario in regard to a home invasion (or colonialism), you would be thrown out as a complete nut case.

    • annie
      February 26, 2011, 4:27 pm

      The it-always-the-other-guy’s-fault narrative to which both Arabs and Jews in the area (and in this essay) fall prey.

      fuster, zionist colonialism is all the zionists fault as was the ethnic cleansing. there’s no parity wrt whose ‘fault’ this is. seriously. of course people are going to resist this colonization, that is to be expected.

      colonialism being the fault of zionism is not a narrative, alleging violence was the fault of those colonized is. iow ‘blaming the victim’ is a narrative.

  5. Richard Witty
    February 26, 2011, 12:34 pm

    “So Zionism is foreign to Palestine, and its product, Israel, is a colonial enterprise. ”

    “Did Zionism arise only as a colonial movement? No. There was anti-Semitism. There was the romantic notion of return. There was the idea of Jewish labor. But there is the undeniable fact that to achieve its Jewish state it required colonization, and this remains its dominant ideological imperative. Am I denying the legitimacy of Israel? I think its foundation at the expense of the Palestinians is morally wrong. Do I advocate its disappearance? No, not under any circumstances, and not through violence. I advocate its peaceful change into a true democratic state for all its people. Several generations of Israelis are now indigenous to the land too.”

    Thank for the acknowledgement, as much as the first paraphraph at least qualifies the second.

    I so wish that you would not disempower and remove from responsibility, the actions and expressions of the Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and radical western solidarity in contributing to the chain of events that led to the current condition.

    There is NOTHING about the current condition that had to be. It was a combination of choices, responses, reactions made by many parties.

    The discussion of racism, and even colonial powers obscures choices.

    The only way that the single state will emerge is by consent of the governed. So long as the proponents of the single state root their arguments in actively anti-Israeli attitudes, it will be experienced as a danger to Israelis and they will not consent.

    In any case, the ONLY way that that consent will emerge, in the real democracy of Israel, is electorally. To state that Israel is a democracy for only its majority is a falsehood. Minorities vote, they have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of enterprise, equal due process before the law (with exceptions that demand reform, constantly).

    There is a very large flaw with the use of the concept of “anti-colonialism” as primary reference. Although in its most benign, it is meant to preserve the rights of indigenous over the greeds of imperialist (in the classic meaning of taking the fruit of indigenous labor), the theme itself nearly always expresses as a reactionary rejection of newcomers, and usually in favor of an old elite, rather than a new democracy.

    Attempting to shift from the current setting directly to a single state is a large gamble. Through the two-state approach, it might be possible.

    • Andre
      February 26, 2011, 1:30 pm

      “To state that Israel is a democracy for only its majority is a falsehood. Minorities vote, they have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of enterprise, equal due process before the law (with exceptions that demand reform, constantly)”.

      Discrimination and racism against minorities is institutionalized in the Apartheid state of Israel. One has to be tragically out of touch with the daily realities over there to even try to downplay this fact.

      • hophmi
        February 26, 2011, 5:36 pm

        “Discrimination and racism against minorities is institutionalized in the Apartheid state of Israel. One has to be tragically out of touch with the daily realities over there to even try to downplay this fact.”

        It’s not an “Apartheid state,” and one has to fundamentally misunderstand what apartheid means to keep making this assertion.

      • Cliff
        February 26, 2011, 5:56 pm

        It is apartheid. South African anti-apartheid activists have even said it’s worse than SA apartheid.

        And even if it isn’t exactly, apartheid, it’s quite bad enough that the language of apartheid is appropriate. Appropriate as a recruiting tool to get people to take notice of what’s going on over there. When they see what’s happening in the territories, removed from your (and fuster, and yonira, and eee, etc.) incessant verbiage and from the blogosphere in general, the truth won’t just be ‘the truth’ – it will be personal for them.

        Anyways, as you were. (Right to exist, right to defend itself, holocaust, antisemitism, racist to single out only jewish state, blah blah blah blah blah).

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 6:27 pm

        It is apartheid. Read Tony Karon.

        He’s a South African.
        He’s a Jew.
        He lived on a Kibbutz before moving here.
        He says it’s worse than apartheid and so do all his South African friends who lived on the kibbutz with him.

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 6:30 pm

        Anyways, as you were. (Right to exist, right to defend itself, holocaust, antisemitism, racist to single out only jewish state, blah blah blah blah blah).

        Right to be more aggrieved than any other group on the planet (because cause and effect do not apply to you). Right to piss (literally) on those you occupy. Right to have your fairy tales accepted unchallenged.

      • Shingo
        February 26, 2011, 6:35 pm

        It’s not an “Apartheid state,” and one has to fundamentally misunderstand what apartheid means to keep making this assertion.

        Hophmi,

        Would you kindly contact Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu and explain what apartheid means?

        Apparently,they lack your expertise and first hand experience on the matter.

        Thank you.

      • Shingo
        February 26, 2011, 6:40 pm

        BTW Hophmi,

        Can you think of another state that requires foreign workers to sign a contract forbidding them to have sec with any if the local citizens?

      • VR
        February 26, 2011, 7:30 pm

        “It’s not an “Apartheid state,” and one has to fundamentally misunderstand what apartheid means to keep making this assertion.”

        There may be some truth to this, but not exactly what you mean hophmi –

        WORSE THAN APARTHEID

        Perhaps apartheid could have been applied during the Oslo years, but not now – it is worse. Now, even the example that Tanya gives of slowly killing, not bombing a whole city is incorrect, in the light of Operation Cast Lead.

      • Andre
        February 26, 2011, 10:21 pm

        Hophmi, I know very well what it means, I helped bringing down the Apartheid regime in South Africa and hopefully I can say the same wrt Israeli Apartheid (which in many aspects I consider to be even worse) in the near future.

        It appears that you have no idea what institutionalized racism and Apartheid (a crime against humanity, btw) means but perhaps the following links may be educational:

        WORSE THAN APARTHEID (PDF)

        Or read the reports from the Adalah (link to adalah.org) , ACRI, etc websites. Here’s another link you may find interesting:

        Institutional racial discrimination in apartheid South Africa and Israel

      • Andre
        February 26, 2011, 10:49 pm

        Sigh, I have no experience using HTML tags :( so here are the links again:

        link to cjpme.org (PDF)

        And:

        link to samora.org

        Hope this works (vBulletin FTW ;) )

      • Avi
        February 27, 2011, 4:24 am

        In the old south African Americans could vote, too.

        But, you wouldn’t call the US a democracy with such a Jim Crow stain, would you?

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 6:45 am

        You absolutely would. One in need of reform, and that accomplished it, rather than rejected the responsibility (for the motive to maintain the status quo, OR for the motive of “its all fucked, we need revolution, to what I don’t have a clue, how I don’t have a clue, the victims be damned).

      • bijou
        February 27, 2011, 9:36 am

        Here is a definitive legal study (by an international legal team based in South Africa) that has examined this matter in depth and determined that in the occupied territories at least, Israel is practicing both apartheid and colonialism.”

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 10:37 am

        Both concepts do NOT serve to formulate its reform is the problem. They are great for vain name-calling, but don’t motivate change that results in mutual good.

        The contrast to anti-colonialism is to help the “colonized” self-govern and thrive. Who does that?

        Is there any acknowledgement that the Jewish people that “colonized” Israel were colonized themselves, worse than colonized?

        Issa does, but then dismisses the importance of its model of emergence from colonized/suppressed to free, preferring to regard Israel as permanent interloper/enemy, rather than as potential peer/friend.

        Israel remains a democracy, defined by the primary features of a free democratic polity.

        Within Israel, there are instances of institutionalized prejudices, mostly in the application of administration, not so much in the law itself. And, some of the features that are condemned, were features that the Arab communities demanded three decades ago (autonomy).

      • Donald
        February 27, 2011, 1:29 pm

        “One in need of reform, and that accomplished it, rather than rejected the responsibility ”

        That word reform–I don’t think it means what you pretend it means.

        The US “reformed” and stopped being an apartheid democracy when it granted that Native Americans couldn’t be confined to reservations, and when it granted that blacks and Native Americans and others all had the same rights as white people. We still have problems in the US, but the basic principle of equality under the law is granted.

        If Israel adopted those principles they’d allow all Palestinians the right of return and there’d be no distinction between Jews and Palestinians in law. There would still be endless practical problems achieving a just society, as there have been and still are in the US, but one major roadblock would have been removed.

        The only reason for advocating a two state solution is a pragmatic one–the Israelis have a vast sense of entitlement and have created so much hatred for themselves and harbor such contempt for the Palestinians it is difficult to see how a one state solution could be achieved. But let’s be clear about the problem–people on top always have great difficulty letting go of their privileges and resent it deeply if forced. I saw this down South when I was growing up. That’s the attitude you’re defending.

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 1:53 pm

        “Accomplish the reform”, rather than self-righteously condemn those that aren’t politically correct to your view, is the message.

        Do it already. Stop the knee shots.

    • eljay
      February 26, 2011, 2:41 pm

      >> There is NOTHING about the current condition that had to be.

      Except for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That, according to you, was “necessary”.

      As for the ON-GOING theft of land and resources, expansion and colonization, destruction and de-humanization, you’re right that none of that had to be or has to be. Sadly, your Zio-supremacist co-collectivists don’t see it that way.

    • RoHa
      February 26, 2011, 7:51 pm

      “There is NOTHING about the current condition that had to be.”

      True. The European Jews could have put their effort into learning how to get on with the neighbours, instead of going to Palestine to make new enemies.

      • Donald
        February 27, 2011, 1:33 pm

        “The European Jews could have put their effort into learning how to get on with the neighbours, instead of going to Palestine to make new enemies.”

        The problem in Europe was anti-semitism, not the inability of European Jews to get along with neighbors. The problem with Zionism is that the ones who ended up exemplifying the movement just adopted the European attitude towards non-Europeans when they came to Palestine. History would have been a lot different if the Zionist immigrants had all been followers of Ahad Ha’am (quoted by Annie upthread).

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 1:59 pm

        Ahad Ha’am was a Zionist. He regarded Palestinians as people, but still sought to “colonize” in the words of anti-zionists.

        And, he likely sought majority and coherence of self-governance. He was not alive following riots in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron in the late 20’s.

        Even so, he did anticipate the large and divisive violence coming.

        To use him as a poster child for anti-Zionism is a falsehood.

      • annie
        February 27, 2011, 2:34 pm

        richard, i did not identify him as an anti zionist, nor would i.

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 2:36 pm

        The problem with Zionism is that the ones who ended up exemplifying the movement just adopted the European attitude towards non-Europeans when they came to Palestine.

        I’d agree, but add that those that led the movement and provided its ideology also adopted anti-semitic attitudes against European Jews and absorbed the Social Darwinism of its age. This is why they talked about the “new Jew” and “muscular Judaism” and “healthy cruelty”, and why they had a selection process in place to weed out those “pioneers” (as opposed to refugees) who were not considered “good human material” and why eugenics was still an accepted field in Israel after it finally came into disrepute elsewhere .

        I’d also add that I think this Zionist concept of “healthy cruelty” is a major factor in Israeli violence today.

        “Healthy cruelty” was a necessary perception for agents in the eugenic field. It asserted that the “new man” must be cruel not because he wants to be cruel but because he must be cruel in order to survive. According to this weltanschauung, cruelty is a magnificent quality because it is ‘natural’ (as opposed to ‘unnatural’ liberal or religious mercifulness), and Man must find a way to release it in order to express his power (Bachrach 1995, 65). These beliefs were common in the eugenic movement, which promoted the idea that the selection process – which seemed to the “non-modern” as cruel – was actually natural and necessary for the existence and progress of the human race and Ruppin had already dealt with this concept in his early works Darwinismus und Sozialwissenschaft and Moderne Weltanschauung und Nietzsche’sche Philosophie. As in many other cases, Ruppin now transferred this concept to the repertoire of the new Zionist identity. According to him, “healthy cruelty” was essential for the building or rather bildung of Zionist identity while mercifulness became, in his weltanschauung, a symptom of the weakness and degeneration of the galut Jews. Thus, the “healthy cruelty” model in the specific Modern Hebrew culture was connected with the erasing or “burning”162 of the image of the galut Jew who was marked by his frightened and excessive mercy.163

        In the same way as anti-intellectualism stood in opposition to the allegedly excess intellectualism of the Talmudic pilpul of the galut and male activism stood in opposition to feminine passivity, so cruelty stood in opposition to the allegedly timid and excessive mercifulness of the galut Jew. Almog describes how this was introduced into the Modern Hebrew repertoire through literature by extracting from the texts distributed by the PO to the Second Aliyah immigrants a model of perception that demanded of the young immigrant that he overcome his pity for his parents in the galut and his remorse at having left them. As Almog notes, the texts he examined were actually propaganda written in simple language for readers who had only just begun to learn Hebrew (Almog 2002, 111).

        ….

        The model of “healthy cruelty” is evident in Israeli culture even today, but during the formative decades of Modern Hebrew culture it was a dominant cultural obligation. To give one example, Netiva Ben-Yehuda169 recounts how she was shouted at by Shaul, a kibbutz member of her parents’ generation, after she expressed doubts and confusion concerning her role in a military incident where she had to kill Arabs:
        “Fool! What will you all amount to? These are the thoughts of a weak, miserable people. Do you want a normal people here? Do we want to stop being miserable Diaspora Jews? Weaklings? So, among other things, we have to invent the Jewish hero…a strong person, free, liberated, who can take a gun in his hand and kill those who want to kill him before they do, do you hear? If you can’t be like this, then you are either a sissy or a damned Diaspora Jewess!” (in: Weiss 2002, 24-25)

        link to tau.ac.il

        One of the base causes of Israeli violence today is this early noxious ideology of “healthy cruelty” instilled in its colonial “pioneers” and culture.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 2:47 pm

        Donald- The problem in Europe was anti-semitism, not the inability of European Jews to get along with neighbors.

        not true at all – the two are very much linked – this is lazy over-simplification – for hundreds of years many Jews in Poland served essentially as something akin to ‘Plantation overseers’ for the nobility, and greatly oppressed the peasantry.

        the descendants of those peasants naturally enough harboured resentment for this, later on. Naturally enough Jewish people saw this as merely ‘Anti-Jewishness’, being like many other group,s unable to admit their ancestors role in that oppression.

        The Jewish people in Europe also in many cases completely rejected social contact with the people they found themselves living amongst, and this obviously further exacerbated the divisions between these groups.

        So in a way what you like to term ‘anti-semitism’ actually has it’s roots in class-division and economic oppression rather than being merely an expression of religious-based-hatred for anyone not part of the same group

        And animosity between these groups was certainly not one-way only.
        ,
        One can argue about the merits of harbouring such resentments for such a long time, but one simply cannot ignore the history and claim to be giving an honest appraisal of the situation

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 3:19 pm

        I think you and many others misrepresent his views. Most importantly, you condemn and ridicule others that have similar emphasis to his.

        At the time of Ahad Ha’am’s death, Ben Gurion was still seeking out Palestinian and other Arab leaders to negotiate co-existence along similar terms to Ha’am’s (clearly not identical).

    • VR
      February 27, 2011, 4:26 pm

      Listen RW, every colonial enterprise has an excuse – foremost persecution, religious freedom, political asylum, famine, some deity gave it to us, etc. It excuses none of it – past, present or future. The fact of the matter is that NOTHING excuses the atrocious behavior, the theft, the demonization of the indigenous population, the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the slow genocide – NOTHING excuse it. It is specifically repugnant with the history and knowledge of what has occurred to this point, it portends no advance in humanity and a throwback to past bloody centuries. So your objections have no validity whatsoever.

  6. Rafi
    February 26, 2011, 1:11 pm

    the original name of the jewish national fund, founded by early zionists, is the jewish colonial fund, calling Israel a colonial-settler state is not someting that should be problematic, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also CS states, the stripes in your flag symbol colonialism, after all.

    “most liberal (as opposed to true leftists) Israeli Jews are more concerned about mixing and diluting their Jewishness, their politico-cultural life and superiority, with the “Arabs,” their whiteness repelled by the natives’ brownness. Race is in the back of the mind.”

    i say it’s still more surviving than diluting.

    calling the 1ss as the most democratic solution is a joke. the entire jewish demos reject it. calling the two populations “intimately, demographically, economically, and geographically intertwined” is delusional, after 100 years of war, you want to force a union here? no way.

    • Issa Khalaf
      February 26, 2011, 3:22 pm

      rafi, it’s good you mentioned other colonial-settler societies, except all the states you mention are liberal democratic while israel behaves as if it’s still the 19th century. i’m not sure what you intend/mean by “surviving than diluting”–whether, in other words, you advocate and justify israeli behavior (racism, exclusiveness, violence) as one of survival. perhaps that’s not what you meant. secondly, i know that’s it’s “no way” among israeli jews for a 1ss. i said that a hundred times. my point is that a sane israel would either get out of the territories or combine with the palestinians. i wonder, though, that giving israel’s frenetic colonization and making two states impossible, whether the palestinians should not brace themselves for deliberately staged war and violence in preparation for another round of zionist ethnic cleansing.

      • hophmi
        February 26, 2011, 5:37 pm

        “except all the states you mention are liberal democratic while israel behaves as if it’s still the 19th century.”

        They are liberal democracies because their colonialism was successful.

      • Shingo
        February 26, 2011, 6:46 pm

        They are liberal democracies because their colonialism was successful.

        False. They are liberal democracies because their colonialism ended.

        Nine were liberal democracies while they were colonizing.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2011, 1:56 pm

        >> They are liberal democracies because their colonialism was successful.

        Gosh, poor Israel. The 1948 borders were not good enough. The 1967 borders were not good enough. It keeps trying, but it can’t quite make its colonialist project succeed! Those damned borders just won’t stay put, that damned Palestinian land refuses to remain un-stolen!

        So, in this 21st Century, how much more aggression, oppression, land theft, colonization, destruction and murder does Israel get a free pass on – how many more years or decades is it entitled to perpetuate its immorality and injustices – before it finally “succeeds” at colonialism and evolves into a liberal democracy where ALL citizens are free and equal under the law?

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 2:47 pm

        So, in this 21st Century, how much more aggression, oppression, land theft, colonization, destruction and murder does Israel get a free pass on – how many more years or decades is it entitled to perpetuate its immorality and injustices – before it finally “succeeds” at colonialism and evolves into a liberal democracy where ALL citizens are free and equal under the law?

        Love ya, eljay, and your ability to cut thru the cr*p!

  7. CK MacLeod
    February 26, 2011, 1:12 pm

    There is NOTHING about the current condition that had to be.

    I’m sorely tempted to attempt to explain why the above statement cannot be true unless its opposite is also true – i.e., that EVERYTHING about the current condition had to be – but I’ll instead suggest as a possibility that the 2-state-solution might survive, and even be sought and implemented, as part useful fiction, part transitional phase, perhaps as we recognize that all of these definitions are always to some extent in play and evolving. The essay points in different ways to the notion that a Greater Palestine already exists as an apartheid state under the name of Israel and in control of a large minority faction. The violence of the present is a desperate effort to ward off recognition of truths approaching inexorably from the future. No one knows the due date.

    The it-always-the-other-guy’s-fault narrative to which both Arabs and Jews in the area (and in this essay) …

    …and non-Arabs and non-Jews everywhere else…

    I was also tempted to push for an adjustment toward greater balance, but I can accept Dr. Khalifa’s emphasis on the oppression and responsibility that runs Israel -> Palestinians, especially since, unlike some mere polemicist, he does openly and clearly acknowledge that the whole truth means accepting the implication in the current situation of “not just colonialism and imperialism, but Arab political culture.” As in the prior “letter to the Zionists” piece, Khalifa seems more interested in morally shaking the Israelis and defenders by the shoulders than in verbally approximating the just/balanced “solution” he points to and briefly sketches.

    • CK MacLeod
      February 26, 2011, 1:26 pm

      (Sorry about getting Dr. Khalaf’s name wrong in the above comment – too late to correct)

  8. MHughes976
    February 26, 2011, 2:16 pm

    How should Zionism be defined? I think it is the belief that only Jewish people have may share by right in sovereignty over the land which is understood from the Bible to have belonged in stable fashion to the Israelite Kingdom of old, though others may have a share by grace and generosity of the true heirs.
    Is this misleading?

    • CK MacLeod
      February 26, 2011, 9:39 pm

      Is this misleading?

      To me, MHughes, the only thing misleading about your definition is that Zionism wasn’t and isn’t just a passive belief in those things.

    • annie
      February 26, 2011, 9:47 pm

      mhughes, the early zionists considered other locations so i don’t think it was initially imperative the project be set up in the holy land. the early zionist colonialists weren’t particularly religious from my understanding.

      • MHughes976
        February 27, 2011, 11:02 am

        Thanks for replies. I agree, CK, that this has proved to be very much a non-passive, highly action-guiding idea. What we encounter is active expression after active expression of this (utterly unjustifiable) basic idea or principle.
        I see, annie, that it would be possible to amend the definition of Zionism so that it reads ‘right to a share of sovereignty in the Bible lands or else in some other specified location’. But the interest in other locations was generally called ‘(Jewish) territorialism’ after the famous debate in the World Zionist Congress, with the term ‘Zionism’ kept for those to whom the Bible lands were essential. And I can see the reasonableness of this way of using words when ‘Zion’ is already the name for a highly biblical location and when it is this form, and only this form, of belief in Jewish rights with which the world has to deal.
        Israel Zangwill, the leading proponent of territorialism, used to say that Zionism was dead since there was no solution of the problems posed by the non-Jewish population of Palestine. But he would have found, I think, that the same basic problem would always arise in any territory anywhere on the face of the earth. Even if a Jewish kingdom had been founded in Uganda or Patagonia it would either have had to claim exclusive rights for Jewish people and thus to maltreat at least some Ugandans or Patagonians or else concede equal rights to the others and so not be more Jewish than the United States or France is.

      • Antidote
        February 27, 2011, 12:06 pm

        annie, the preference for Palestine was not particularly or primarily motivated by religion. And how do you separate history and religion in the case of the Jewish people? Their historic/ancestral homeland was clearly not in South America or Africa. All contemporary national movements looked to restore a state or empire which had ceased to exist decades or centuries ago (cf. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany/Austria). The only plausible choice for Jews along such blood and soil lines was Palestine, and the applicable borders as controversial and contested as in the case of C, P, and G.

      • MHughes976
        February 27, 2011, 4:35 pm

        Yes, I suppose Schleswig-Holstein had been Danish for 400 years before it became the first scene of the increasing triumph of German nationalism to the tune of that famous song about ‘wanting to stay German’ before there was a Germany. So there was nothing to stop the longed-for empire from being imaginary – perhaps especially the Slavophile (anti-Semitic) Greater Russia. But the imagination could not be incongruous or ridiculous in terms of the stories told within the group, as a stone-cold Jerusalem near Tierra del Fuego would have been.
        On the link between history and religion, Anti – have you come across Lesley Hazleton’s biography (I’ll say ‘imaginative’ rather than ‘imaginary’) of Jezebel? She mentions how the Book of Kings is written as a dire warning that the situation of the Israelites was always to have a right to the land but never to be secure in it, owing to the rapacity both of foreigners and Jewish rulers. She’s interesting on the symbolism of Jezebel’s seizure of Naboth’s vineyard.

  9. yourstruly
    February 26, 2011, 2:46 pm

    whatever the zionist rationalizations for colonizing palestine, a colonial venture it is, has always been

    “if your indians demanded the return of manhattan, would you give it back to them? then why should we share ‘our’ land with the palestinians?

    but with the genocide, how could we?

    “exactly!”

  10. Mooser
    February 26, 2011, 4:35 pm

    Gosh, did the Zionists have to “conquer” the indigenous people, or did the Zionists have to conquer the upper strata of England’s society, the strata which could be convinced to turn over the fruits Britain’s victory and Gen. Allenby’s occupation of Jerusalem? And, of course, the Jews in America with their influence and affluence.
    All that stuff about the Zionists “conquering” the Holy Land (or however you want to put it) is just what they feed the poor and uninformed raw meat of Zionism, the brutalised and displaced Jews of Europe, and those Jews with the proper religious mania or ethnic bigotries or combination
    thereof. Makes ‘em feel like they did it them selves, and can actually hold on to the place as other than a remittance state.

    This crazy idea that the founders of Israel were trying to do something for “the Jews” and based their actions, however misguided, on that pretext, creates more confusion than any other thing in debates about Israel.
    Always remember that for a Zionist, “the Jewish State” is much more important that the Jewish people. And, as we see here daily, we still can’t find anybody who can tell us what that is, exactly. Personally, I was convinced that “the Jewish people” is a concoction made up to suit the purposes of the Zionists. (No I am not saying there are no Jews or no Jewish religion or no Jewish communities, just that “the Jews” as used by the Zionists is a completely disingenuous and self-serving chimera. Even a cursory look at Israeli society shows that.

    • andrew r
      February 26, 2011, 5:35 pm

      Yes hell yes, Mooser. I don’t want to hear about the Jewish people when African Israelis live in shanty towns in the desert.

    • hophmi
      February 26, 2011, 5:43 pm

      “Always remember that for a Zionist, “the Jewish State” is much more important that the Jewish people. And, as we see here daily, we still can’t find anybody who can tell us what that is, exactly.”

      The Jewish people are constituted by the Jews of the world. Duh.

      It’s really very simple. Jews lacked any kind of political automony. Thus, collectively, and when we were massacred, we were massacred collectively, we were unable to ensure our own safety on a long term basis. Zionism aimed to change this by establishing what Christian Europeans had – a political state. That there was an element of colonialism in this enterprise does not differentiate it from other attempts by religious minorities in Europe, such as the Puritans, to find safety elsewhere. It also precludes discussion of the founding of such a state in moral absolutes.

      • HRK
        February 26, 2011, 6:35 pm

        But important American Jewish groups fought against American immigration laws which favored European immigrants. Can I ask how you would feel if a group of American European Christians tried to bring them back? Favor or disfavor?

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 6:39 pm

        Jesus Christ, hophmi, read some goddam history. You can do it these days with Google Translate.

        This drivel: It’s really very simple. Jews lacked any kind of political automony. Thus, collectively, and when we were massacred, we were massacred collectively, we were unable to ensure our own safety on a long term basis.

        You can start with 1453 and the Ottoman Empire and figure out who ran that for the Sultans for 400 years. Massacre this, massacre that. This simpleton view of history is getting tedious. And if you think Jews didn’t participate in wars and massacres, you are amazingly naïve. Jews have a lot to answer for throughout history as well.
        link to ynetnews.com

      • andrew r
        February 26, 2011, 9:08 pm

        Okay, you say Jews have a lot to answer for and follow up with a link to that “Stalin Jews” article which is little more than an emotional rant about the Jewishness of Genrikh Yagoda. And upon informing us he was hanged by his successor, follows up with this hilarity: “Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.”

        Sever Plocker’s article is antisemitic. Antisemitic, with a capital anti. He’s writing this to exonerate the political violence of Zionism. There’s no other reason for it. You’re swallowing Zionist apologia hook line and sinker.

        Ironically many of the comments call this out as antisemitic but they don’t know this is how the early Zionist leaders perceived the Jews.

      • annie
        February 26, 2011, 9:33 pm

        Ironically many of the comments call this out as antisemitic but they don’t know this is how the early Zionist leaders perceived the Jews.

        andrew, could you elaborate on this statement? especially the last segment. do you mean the early zionists perceived the jews as described in that article? i’m not sure how that makes sense.

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 10:25 pm

        There are others, andrew r. This idea of the purity of Jewish activity throughout the millennia which got them persecuted just for existing, always and forever— as opposed to what the Holocaust wrought, which truly was anti-semitism — is ridiculous. Jews are human. They are, and were, just as capable of heinous activity as people of any other religion, and for their own self-interest. Just as Etan Bloom’s article detailed. Tony Karon recounts some Polish history here (I don’t have time to write a full-on essay about this):
        link to tonykaron.com

        And as for it being an emotional rant about Yagoda. Tell that to his victims. It happened. I don’t buy that it’s anti-semitic. Why? Because the commenters say so? Because they don’t like that Plocker points this out. [Let me give you my definition of anti-semitism: that someone is persecuted just for being Jewish, for no other reason than being Jewish, the concept of Jewishness is not allowed in the anti-semite's mind. That is vastly different than criticizing someone for their actions, whether he or she be Jewish or otherwise. And I do the latter. If something is true, it's not anti-semitic.]

      • Antidote
        February 26, 2011, 10:32 pm

        “Jews have a lot to answer for throughout history as well.”

        and that would include the time “when we were massacred collectively” (hophmi)

        By whom? Arabs? Obviously not. Many if not most people employed in the actual execution of the Holocaust were non-Germans and Jews.

        “Holocaust historians have shied away from the topic of Jewish collaboration with the Nazis. With very few exceptions, Holocaust survivors are also in denial about this phenomenon. This dark chapter of the wartime history of Jews is one that merits closer scrutiny.”

        Read Snyder’s Bloodlands and this:

        link to internationalresearchcenter.org

      • andrew r
        February 27, 2011, 12:22 am

        annie: That was a vague sentence; Herzl when he tried talking to Russian and German higher-ups played on the belief that socialism was a Jewish phenomenon. He told Konstantin von Plehve, the Russian interior minister, that Jewish emigration would help his revolutionary problems. Winston Churchill viewed Zionism as a counterweight to Bolshevism and the Jewish Agency leaders agreed with him. And some Zionist bloggers still brag they’ve killed less people than the Bolsheviks.

        MRW: I don’t think the answer to Jewish purity is pushing a laundry list of Jewish political murderers. I’ve read Plocker’s article up and down and can’t fit it into any broader purpose except gasping in horror. He said it himself: “I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.” So his basis for history comes from peoples and their exceptional members.

        My definition is close to yours but I’d like to be more specific: Rejecting notions of equality among individuals and suspecting Jews are assimilating to destroy. I don’t think antisemitism can be detached from white supremacy and eugenics. With Zionism being an offshoot of those ideas, Zionist Jews adopted the same tropes only to conclude assimilation will destroy them instead. In other words, you can’t be a weak Pale Jew or you deserve gentile scorn nor can you live with the gentiles — Instead you must emulate their great specimens in your own soil.

        While Plocker doesn’t say it out loud in that article, it contains all the earmarks of someone who thinks that way. Telling us a mass murderer’s wife was Jewish as if that means something. Disparaging leftists as bleeding hearts and Stalin apologists. And of course casual use of “the Jewish people.” Giving in to gentile antisemitism is a cornerstone of the Zionist offshoot and his last remark does just that. Without bothering to read more of him, I’m willing to bet next month’s rent he does not revile Sharon as a mass murderer.

        I hope that unpacked my reaction.

      • MRW
        February 27, 2011, 6:02 am

        Andrew r,

        While Plocker doesn’t say it out loud in that article, it contains all the earmarks of someone who thinks that way. Telling us a mass murderer’s wife was Jewish as if that means something…. I’m willing to bet next month’s rent he does not revile Sharon as a mass murderer. I hope that unpacked my reaction.

        I think the two parts of your point are mutually exclusive. The “Telling us a mass murderer’s wife was Jewish as if that means something” was playing to his audience, and heavily a arutz sheva type as well. [I disagree that he is giving into gentile antisemitism.] As for “revile Sharon as a mass murderer,” I completely agree with you.

        And yes, it does unpack your reaction. You have maintained a moral reaction to all incidents, as far as I can tell — but I am not assiduous in reading every thread on this site. So I should probably be considered derelict in that regard. I have, however, valued your contributions immensely. I appreciate that you prefer the bald-ass truth.

      • Psychopathic god
        February 27, 2011, 12:13 pm

        MRW, the link to Tony Karon doesn’t work.

        Arnaud deBorchgrave reported that Qadafi has a Jewish grandmother and is, therefore, entitled to make aliyeh to Israel. deBorchgrave said it was not likely that would occur.

        I started to prepare a long, finely interpreted critique of this statement in your comment, but I thought Phil would ban me from this forum forevah:

        This idea of the purity of Jewish activity throughout the millennia which got them persecuted just for existing, always and forever— as opposed to what the Holocaust wrought, which truly was anti-semitism — is ridiculous.

        suffice it to say, there is a strong case to be made, on the historical facts, that the acts of Germans against Jews, between 1938-1943, were in response to years of provocations and acts by Jewish people that were intended to harm the German people and which did cause grievous harm to the German people. Moreover, in his Jan. 30, 1939 statement, that has been almost universally denounced as a threat to annihilate the Jewish people but which might more properly be interpreted as a warning, Hitler enumerated those wrongs of Jews against the German people and declared not a threat but a WARNING:

        IF the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

        By the time this speech was given, “international Jewish financiers” HAD imposed and sustained a near-total embargo on the German economy since March 1933, coupled with a relentless propaganda campaign emanating, most powerfully, from the Jewish-owned film studios in Hollywood, California. (Triple irony: 1. Those studio owners had learned their craft from Germans, the gold standard in film making. 2. The German audience had formed a major share of the Hollywood studios’ client base. Upon receipt of massive cash infusion from The Transfer Agreement, Jews in US were able to cut those financial ties. 3. Those Jewish studio heads — Warner brothers and others — essentially stole the technology from Thomas Edison.)

        As historian Norman Finkelstein has observed, Hitler had no desire to go to war; nevertheless, “international Jewish financiers” and their American and British cohort, had pushed and pulled events so that war became inevitable; the contingency that Hitler declared had come to pass, and therefore, the outcome that he warned would come to pass, clicked into place.

        Jews were NOT targeted in Germany “just for existing, always and forever.” Jews were targeted in Germany because they had first declared war on the German economy and thereby the German people; they had been warned to desist or face dire consequences; they did not desist; the consequences ensued.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 2:03 pm

        Jews were NOT targeted in Germany “just for existing, always and forever.” Jews were targeted in Germany because they had first declared war on the German economy and thereby the German people; they had been warned to desist or face dire consequences; they did not desist; the consequences ensued.

        Statements like the above are an embarrassment to this site.

      • annie
        February 27, 2011, 2:36 pm

        do you think the statement advocates or justifies the consequences? i hardly think that is the point.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 3:11 pm

        Statements like the above are an embarrassment to this site.

        why?

        It’s generally acknowledged that prior to WW1 Jews in Germany had full economic and social rights, with the exception of access to High-up Gov’t and military employment, they suffered no particularly egregious discrimination.

        When the Balfour declaration became public, in the middle of the war with Britain, many Germans saw this as a betrayal, presuming (rightly or wrongly) that the declaration had been a reward for Wall Street banker’s, many of whom were Zionist and Jewish, financing of the British war effort.

        After the WW1, with Germany economically being ruined by the cost of reparations, many businesses and much property was bought up at fire-sale prices, often by Jewish businessmen.

        Again many Germans saw this as a very economically threatening development, and many connected the ruinous reparations to the earlier financing by Wall Street (in their minds ‘Jewish’) of the British side in the war.

        In 1933/4 (not sure of the exact date), against the express wishes of most German Jewish organisations, the World Zionist Org declared ‘War’ on Germany, and launched a boycott of all German products. Again many Germans saw this as a direct threat to them.

        So under those circumstances, wide-spread resentment of Jewish people was almost inevitable.

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 3:20 pm

        Worse than an embarrasment.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 4:45 pm

        If I were you Witty, I’d avoid accusing anyone else of being an embarrassment, given the incomprehensible illogical pseudo-intellectual garbage which makes up the majority of you contributions to the comments on MondoW

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 5:03 pm

        Hu Bris…….you continue to have a big opinion and it smells of gas.

        following the Reichstag Fire, Hitler demanded that the German constitution and all civil liberties come to an end.
        He demanded that all power be vested in himself and it did.

        On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

        “Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. ”

        the World Zionist Org reacted in the month following the death of personal liberty in Germany and to the end of any restraint upon Hitler’s power and the end of hope that Hitler would not be able to carry out his threats.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 6:46 pm

        At first it was an embarrassment. Over time it becomes an indictment – though perhaps also a useful object lesson.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2011, 7:08 pm

        >> RW: Worse than an embarrasment.

        …says the man known for his gems of hatefulness and immorality:
        ————————
        >> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.

        >> If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.

        >> “Currently [ethnic cleansing is] not necessary.”
        ————————

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 7:35 pm

        Fluster, you’ll notice if you this time make the effort to use your brain that I made no judgment as to whether or not the WZO were right or wrong to do so. Their reasoning is immaterial to the effect it produced within German citizens.

        Your attempts to cobble together a semi-intelligent refutation by way of simply plagarising various texts of others without attribution, is quite informative though, as to your general lack of knowledge, and all-round lack of ethics and your willingness to be dishonest
        1) 3rd para lifted complete from here- link to google.ie

        2) 4th para lifted complete from here – link to google.ie

        Generally I find that an inability to use any of your own words when replying indicates complete ignorance of the matter under discussion. – you are in effect merely parroting the words and ideas of others, which makes your inane pseudo-intellectual babbling replies all the more predictable and pathetic.

        You ineptly and dishonestly attempt to imply that I have offered some justification, but an objective person reading of what I wrote (as opposed to a lying Zionist sophist like yourself) would have to admit that I offered no justifications for any of the events or opinions of the German citizenry.

        Having studied the period in great detail, unlike yourself I have read material written at the time, the authors of said material being of various political persuasions, Communist, Fascist, Zionist and humanist, so I certainly feel more than qualified to comment, unlike you

        CK MacLeod“At first it was an embarrassment. Over time it becomes an indictment – though perhaps also a useful object lesson.”

        Poor you, it must be hard going through life being so easily embarrassed. Though how anyone could be embarrassed by someone explaining historical events without the lens of post WW2 Zionist-inspired hysteria clouding the discourse is beyond me.

        I shudder to think the effect the majority alternative, non mainstream media must have on your poor little ridiculously-over-sensitive psyche

        that you’d appear be much happier with a 2-dimensional childish view of events is obvious.

        Which causes me to wonder why how you can stand to frequent this website

        I notice that like most pseudo-intellectual airheads, you appear to be unable to offer anything even remotely resembling a refutation of any of the points I made earlier.

        Affecting an air of exasperated superiority on your part does little to dispell the linger whiff off Zio-BS which pervades almost every post you make here.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 7:42 pm

        I’m pessimistic, frog, about your chances of getting to a Nazi apologist with a simple history lesson. But don’t let me stop you from trying.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 7:55 pm

        correction Fluster actually plagiarised the 3rd paragraph of ‘his’ reply from here- link to google.com

      • DBG
        February 27, 2011, 8:32 pm

        Even a historian as flawed as Mr. Finkelstein would read this post and would be disgusted. You are blaming the Jews for the genocide that they endured.

        I don’t understand how a respectable blog would allow such a racist and antisemitic post to be published. These ideas are not new, they are tactics straight out of the protocols.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 9:51 pm

        you airheads are of course free to point out specific inaccuracies in the post I made – that you have not done so tells anyone all they need to know

        I love the pathetic attempt to insert as many Zio-buzz words as you could into a post so devoid of any substance- eg:

        1)’flawed’ <—– the non-specific choice of charlatans everywhere
        2) blaming the Jews – <—- Hahahaha point out where then, please
        3) racist <—- point out where then, please, be specific if you can (which of course you can not)
        4) antisemitic <— the old standard Zio-nonsense. It stopped working a long time ago
        5) the protocols. <— no obfuscationary Zio-nonsense would be complete without that, eh?

        the tendency of you empty-headed Zio-shills to pretend to be 'offended' and 'shocked' all the time, at the most inconsequential of things, while completely ignoring the really offensive and truly shocking actions of the IDF, is hilariously entertaining and sickeningly hypocritical, all at the same time

        And Fluster would of course have to actually know some history rather than dishonestly plagiarizing from others and trying to pass it off as his own, before he'd he able to give any lessons to anyone, even someone as clueless as MacLoed

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 10:25 pm

        and of course the opening line DBG’s silly little attempt at a reply: “Even a historian as flawed as Mr. Finkelstein (shock! horror!!!) ” is a Zionist classic – identical in almost every respect to their pathetic attempts from a few years ago to provide a plausible dismissal of the One State solution eg: ” Even that far-left Anti-Israel lunatic CHOMSKY doesn’t advocate a one state solution!!! (shock horror!!!) ”

        you shills are a joke – surely you can do better than that?

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 10:33 pm

        fuck ‘em all if they seek to depend that Psychopathic Dog comment . if Weiss is content to have this insane bigoted anti-Semitic stuff on his blog, I’ll deal with it.

        If the folks here want to read that there’s

        —-there is a strong case to be made, on the historical facts, that the acts of Germans against Jews, between 1938-1943, were in response to years of provocations ——

        I’m sure that they’ll enjoy having a strong case made that the acts of the Palestinians currently living under the Hamas government that many of them approved merit the type of response that the Nazis provided for their Jewish citizens, none of whom were killing Germans.
        I suppose that perhaps a solution for the Gaza problem will appeal to the Psycho’s sense of proportion.

      • fuster
        February 28, 2011, 12:02 am

        being Hu means never understanding embarrassment.

        couldn’t be Hu if Hu did.

      • andrew r
        February 28, 2011, 4:04 am

        Moreover, in his Jan. 30, 1939 statement, that has been almost universally denounced as a threat to annihilate the Jewish people but which might more properly be interpreted as a warning, Hitler enumerated those wrongs of Jews against the German people and declared not a threat but a WARNING:

        My first take used the f-word too much. So here’s a rewrite: This is the kind of historical discussion that makes me feel I’d lose braincells just hanging out with the person who wrote it.

        Yes, Hitler warned Jewry could be annihilated if they plunge Europe into another war. And who was going to do the annihilation? Hitler. And who plunged Europe into another war? Hitler. So why did I have to read this post, exactly.

      • andrew r
        February 28, 2011, 4:58 am

        Jews were NOT targeted in Germany “just for existing, always and forever.” Jews were targeted in Germany because they had first declared war on the German economy and thereby the German people; they had been warned to desist or face dire consequences; they did not desist; the consequences ensued.

        I skimmed the link in the above paragraph and had enough real fast. This has no place in any critical, factual scrutiny of Israeli hasbara. Here are three examples of how that ‘Jewish Declaration of War’ garbage is antisemitic:

        “It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1.” – Depicting an antisemitic measure as a response to a Jewish action. Not one poster on Mondo except the hasbara patrol would let Israel get away with the ‘we’re just reacting’ excuse. But PG puts up an article that indulges Germany.

        “Thus, the fact – one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject – is that Hitler’s March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. ” – There is not and never was a worldwide Jewish leadership. The writer is using this category the better to treat history as a clash of nations or peoples, with the Jewish people infiltrating other nations and using them in their battles. That is real antisemitism, not the cry-wolf stifle-criticism-of-Israel fake variety. Not to mention the article doesn’t define what exactly makes up the worldwide Jewish leadership. If you’re Jewish you pretty much are the worldwide leadership.

        “The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity – and not even the German Jewish community per se – that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.” – Boycotting Germany = War on Germany. Nice find, PG. StandWithUs couldn’t have done better.

        This reads identically to most Zionist apologia – a legitimate state building project inexplicably attacked by hostile people. I want my historical writing to not indulge in antisemitism and not try to cover it by explaining the ha’avara agreement which is actually something people should know about. This amateurish crap has nothing to do with Etan Bloom’s or Edwin Black’s work.

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 9:19 am

        andrew r.“So why did I have to read this post, exactly.”

        you didn’t – no one forced you too – you’re here by choice, no? No one’s got a gun to your head, have they? while i don’t agree entirely with the post in question, only a sheltered child would demand that they never have to read anything they might disagree with.

      • hophmi
        February 28, 2011, 9:20 am

        “Jesus Christ, hophmi, read some goddam history. You can do it these days with Google Translate.”

        Get some goddamn spelling lessons.

        “And if you think Jews didn’t participate in wars and massacres, you are amazingly naïve. Jews have a lot to answer for throughout history as well.”

        And then there are the idiots here who think that “Jews have a lot to answer for throughout history” as if there’s any comparison to be made between the actions of European Christians, who persecuted Jews throughout history, and the Jews, who were usually the persecuted.

        This is not historical drivel. This is a blind inability (or, perhaps, an absolutely willful bigotry) to differentiate between oppressor and victim. And of course, like all other anti-Jewish drivel here, it throws into question the motives of those who call themselves pro-Palestinian.

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 9:22 am

        DBG’s opening line “Even a historian as flawed as Mr. Finkelstein (shock! horror!!!) ”

        is a Zionist classic – identical in almost every respect to their attempts from a few years ago to provide a plausible dismissal of the One State solution eg:
        ” Even that far-left Anti-Israel lunatic CHOMSKY doesn’t advocate a one state solution!!! (shock horror!!!) ”

        surely you can do better than that?

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 11:20 am

        Flustered“never understanding embarrassment.”

        coming from you fluster that’s hilarious – I’m not the one needs to plagiarise in order to pretend I know what I’m talking about – as I said elsewhere I don’t fully support everything in PG’s post, so I gave my own version – so far you have not been able to refute any of the points I made, preferring instead to pretend you know what you are talking about by dishonestly plagiarising the work of others

        You can’t provide a refutation because not only do you not have a clue and need to copy&paste from others pretending that it is your own thoughts you are posting, but also my version is historically accurate

        If there is anything you know to be wrong in what I posted then do please provide the proof, otherwise you’re just a Zionist shill ineptly attempting to use all the usual zionist nonsense in order to distract from historical events which don’t fit your convenient childish 2-dimensional ‘eternal-victim’ narrative

        I’ve caught you out in numerous deliberate blatant lies, Fluster, too many to mention at this point – so far the only thing you managed to correct me on, was the existence of one Muslim Judge in Zio-land –

        In terms of integrity: you have simply have none at this point – zilch nada zero – you are a liar and a fraud, just like all the other Zio-nauts before you –

        Lies are all you have because the historical truth always shows you up for the morally repugnant degenerate reprobates you all are

      • CK MacLeod
        February 28, 2011, 2:36 pm

        Thank you, andrew r, for your thoughtful and well-informed discussion. In my opinion, you may have over-corrected in the direction of mildness in your denunciation, however. All evidence of an intersection between extreme ideological anti-Zionism and eliminationist racism is a political boon to the Israeli right wing and its American allies. The same could be said for the active denial of such evidence, which latter, unfortunately, is not in short supply – either historically and very concretely, or in statements among Israel’s leading adversaries, including their would-be allies here at this little ol’ corner of the internet. The tactics that some rely on – crying “hasbara” or viciously ridiculing those who point that history out (or excusing unadulterated Nazi apologetics) – might seem effective among the relatively very small number of people who even know what the word “hasbara” means, but it’s typical of tendencies that do tremendous political harm to Palestinian solidarity and allied movements in the real world.

      • andrew r
        February 28, 2011, 2:43 pm

        Hu Bris – Although I ‘disagree’ with the post, that’s not behind my reaction. It’s an insult to my intelligence and the memory of everyone killed by the Nazis, Jewish or not.

        So roll your condescension in a ball and eat it.

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 11:01 pm

        andrew r“It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1.” – Depicting an antisemitic measure as a response to a Jewish action. “

        Well anrdrew, like all others who scream ‘anti-semite’ whenever historical events are discussed, your lack of historical knowledge seems to leave you looking kinda wrong –

        it is simple enough to show that you do not know what you are talking about, which isn’t a great surprise anyway since most of yuor reply just consists of various ways of ignoring all that was written in favour of chanting antiSemite at every opportunity.

        23rd March, 1933 – hitler takes power

        24th March, 1933 – London Daily Express prints the headline “Judea declares War on Germany” – see image here link to jewsagainstzionism.com Source: Jews Against zionism

        I’ll just C&P the rest from JAZ since in between screams of ‘Anti-Semite’, C&P seems what you lot prefer

        The Daily Express (London) published an article on March 24, 1933 announcing that the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and described
        a forthcoming “holy war”. <———– [Sound familiar, andrew?]

        The Express urged Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and demonstrate against German economic interests.

        The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry….In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”

        The article went on, “worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations.”

        On March 27, 1933 the planned protest at Madison Square Garden was attended by 40,000 protestors (New York Daily News headlines: “40,000 Roar Protest Here Against Hitler”).

        Similar rallies and protest marches were also held in other cities. The intensity of the Jewish campaign against Germany was such that the Hitler government vowed that if the campaign did not stop there would be a one-day boycott in Germany of Jewish-owned stores.

        Hitler’s March 28, 1933 speech ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership.

        Looks like a reaction to me, andrew, since it comes AFTER the declaration of ‘an economic crusade’, by ‘Jewish businessmen’ from ‘London, New York, Paris and Warsaw’ –
        check the dates, andrew, whydontcha? or are the very dates themselves now to be considered ‘Anti-Semitic,’ because they refuse to line up the way you want them to, andrew?

        and while I’m at it: ‘Jewish businessmen’ from ‘London, New York, Paris and Warsaw’ looks kind of WORLDWIDE-ish to me too, andrew

        Btw: I was wrong earlier to say that the WZO organised the boycott – seems like it was organised by the American Jewish Congress, based in New York, (home of Wall street, andrew :) – the WZO were the ones that actually broke the Boycott, andrew

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 11:27 pm

        “– crying “hasbara” or viciously ridiculing those who point that history out (or excusing unadulterated Nazi apologetics) – might seem effective among the relatively very small number of people who even know what the word “hasbara” means, “

        I don’t know why I even bothered reading the yawning chasm of verbose empty-headed nothingness which is the usual fare served up by the fatuous MacLeod, but anyway CK, here ya go – someone else posted a link elsewhere on MW which explains it all fer ya, so I don’t have to bother
        hasbara:

        Hasbara is the noun form of the Hebrew verb ‘to explain’, in the sense of advocating a position. ‘Propaganda’ might seem the obvious translation but that might not do justice to the intensity of feeling that lies behind it. A Ministry of Hasbara was first created in 1974, with Shimon Peres in charge; in 1975 it was disbanded and hasbara became a multi-ministerial task. Since then, the importance of hasbara has come to the fore every time Israel has been involved in a major conflict—the 1982 war, the 1987 intifada, the 2000 intifada. In March 2009, two months after the invasion of Gaza, Israel re-established the Ministry of Hasbara; the current minister is Yuli Edelstein.
        The hasbara aspect of the Gaza operation was put in train several months before the invasion. In May 2008 four French-speaking Israelis were selected by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization, to visit Switzerland, France and Belgium, where, as the Jewish Agency spokesperson put it, they were to ‘deliver the messages that our official diplomats cannot’. ‘Stick to your personal stories,’ they were told, ‘do not be drawn into political discussions. There will be people who irritate you and say that you are occupiers … do not go there.’ Similar, English-speaking delegations set out for Britain, Ireland, Holland, Denmark and the US. German speakers went to Germany. On arrival, they gave interviews to the local media; they met members of parliament, members of the Jewish community and local bigwigs and spoke, as instructed, of their own experience—the constant shelling, the effects on their families, their businesses, their daily lives. .. . . . .

        In February this year, the government’s Masbirim website (masbirim: ‘those who explain’) drew up a set of instructions for Israelis traveling abroad. The website, which according to the Ministry of Hasbara had 130,000 hits in its first week, aims to ‘provide information to counter criticism that might be experienced abroad’. It details Israel’s achievements in technology and agriculture, as well as suggesting ways to ‘encourage visits to Israel’, ‘to dispel myths about Israel’ and to deal with political criticism. Visitors to the website are advised, when arguing with ‘people of other cultures’, to ‘maintain eye contact … if you look away it might be seen as lack of attention and your argument will lose its force,’ and ‘to keep generally still … rapid movements can create nervousness and confuse.’ The same advice is being broadcast on Israeli television. Further afield, to ensure that the Israeli tourist is comprehensively brainwashed before landing in London or Rome, the Ministry of Hasbara distributes its brochures to passengers about to board El Al flights, and the TV campaign is beamed to aircrafts’ in-flight entertainment systems. There is no running away.
        When Israel sent 200 soldiers to Haiti to set up a field hospital on a football pitch in Port-au-Prince, the Israeli media crowed. ‘What do you think about that, Goldstone?’ was one headline. ‘Israeli Delegation to Haiti Makes All Others Pale,’ said another. ‘Well Done Us,’ said a third. But the most disturbing was: ‘The Haiti Disaster: Bad for Them, Good for the Jews.’

      • annie
        February 28, 2011, 11:28 pm

        here’s an article from the nyt dated march 27th by frederick t. birchall “special cable to the nyt” from berlin.

        The National Socialist party announced tonight that it would conduct a counter-boycott against Jewish business concerns in Germany if Jews in the United States and England continued their boycott and atrocity propaganda

        later on they reference the jewish boycott as ‘high treason’ and also “This agitation is carried on primarily by Jews abroad who used to live in Germany”.

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 11:47 pm

        I think that kinda settles the not at all controversial issue of whether the Nazi boycott was a reaction to the Jewish declaration of ‘holy war/crusade’ against germany, as far as I can see

        Or will we be treated to the delighful experience of another bout of the empty-headed running around with their hands over their ears and chanting

        “Naah naah, I can’t hear you”

        and

        “All facts are Anti-Semitic!!!’

        andrew? MacLeod? Fluster? . . . anyone?

      • Hu Bris
        February 28, 2011, 11:54 pm

        “Here’s an article from the nyt dated march 27th by frederick t. birchall “

        The NY times OBVIOUSLY printed that article because they too are all anti-Semites no, andrew?

        Maybe the desire to be historically accurate is in itself anti-semitic, andrew. what do you think?

      • andrew r
        March 1, 2011, 12:21 am

        Well anrdrew, like all others who scream ‘anti-semite’ whenever historical events are discussed

        This is off the bat a display of selective illiteracy. Although I’m calling antisemitism as I see it, some of my posts in this thread deal with the myth that the Zionist colony in Palestine was built to rescue Jews from persecution. Pointing to an event is value-neutral. Forming a narrative from those events will inevitably show some sort of bias. There’s no such thing as an objective narrative. Some narratives are more unsavory than others. And taking the view that Germany was under attack by the worldwide Jewish leadership is antisemitic on the face of it.

        or are the very dates themselves now to be considered ‘Anti-Semitic,’ because they refuse to line up the way you want them to, andrew?

        Very cute. The evidence of Nazi plans for Jews in Germany and the expanded Reich is legion. Anyone who looked at the 25-Points would know well before 1933 what the party thought of Jews. Again, to draw a parallel with Zionist apologia, the few Israel defenders who admit the nakba to one extent or another place the blame on Palestinian and/or Arab attacks without mentioning the litany of evidence, be it Herzl, Weizmann or Ruppin that Zionist leaders knew decades in advance the Palestinians would have to be transferred for a Jewish state and acts of transfer from individual villages starting in the Ottoman period.

        So while it might be convenient to depict the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses as a reaction, either in historical discussion or the Nazis’ own propaganda, anyone who is not a Nazi apologist would know something would be done against German Jews regardless of what any Jewish person in or out of Germany did. And since you like cause-and-effect so much, the SA attacked Jews and leftists before 1933.

        Deconstructing Nazi-apologia isn’t very rewarding and something one shouldn’t have to do on Mondoweiss. Like the hasbara trolls aren’t enough.

      • annie
        March 1, 2011, 1:21 am

        23rd March, 1933 – hitler takes power

        24th March, 1933 – London Daily Express prints the headline “Judea declares War on Germany”

        that was news to me, they didn’t waste any time about it.

      • annie
        March 1, 2011, 1:36 am

        Pointing to an event is value-neutral. Forming a narrative from those events will inevitably show some sort of bias. There’s no such thing as an objective narrative. Some narratives are more unsavory than others.

        i agree

        And taking the view that Germany was under attack by the worldwide Jewish leadership is antisemitic on the face of it.

        andrew, to back up just a touch, re Hu Bris February 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm :

        When the Balfour declaration became public, in the middle of the war with Britain, many Germans saw this as a betrayal, presuming (rightly or wrongly) that the declaration had been a reward for Wall Street banker’s, many of whom were Zionist and Jewish, financing of the British war effort.

        andrew, since you mentioned “Pointing to an event is value-neutral” do you think it is possible wall street was financing the british war effort? and during that era were many of those bankers jewish?

        i am asking you because i don’t know. do you think the last blockquote is anti semitic or ‘ value-neutral’.

      • andrew r
        March 1, 2011, 4:05 am

        annie, sticking to what I’d call common sense, wall street couldn’t finance any war without govt. say-so. I don’t know what % of wall street bankers were Jewish; however, if Jews were disproportionately successful relative to other immigrant communities, that would merit more serious research and to what end who knows. As much as Hitler and co. didn’t like Jewish financiers, the real bogeyman for National Socialism was Jewish Bolshevism and that doesn’t go into their views on Christianity; nazi antisemitism darted around like a spider on crack. Deconstructing every little facet is a non-linear chore I’d rather not undertake. Taking just one facet and giving it some pseudo-historical merit is too tedious for words. Mondoweiss used to have a poster named Ed who did the same thing with Jewish Bolshevism.

        That paragraph isn’t antisemitic by itself although Hu Gass really dropped the pretense in his last message to me.

        What we should bother to remember in all this is that taking a fresh look at the Nazi boycott and asking ourselves if the Jews might not have been innocent targets delivers a propaganda coup to StandWithUs etc. so much we might as well start holding Juden raus placards at BDS events.

      • Hu Bris
        March 1, 2011, 9:23 am

        yep – just another bout of the empty-headed running around with their hands over their ears and chanting “Naah naah, I can’t hear you” and “All facts are Anti-Semitic!!!’

        you see Annie, although andrew r pretends that “Pointing to an event is value-neutral.” he doesn’t really mean that at all – what he means is “try it and I’ll scweam and scweam and scweam”

        all his replies can be summarised in a few words “Facts are AntiSemitic, as are dates”

        “sticking to what I’d call common sense, wall street couldn’t finance any war without govt. say-so~”

        oh dear – not ‘common sense!!’ – Run!

        whenever I hear someone claiming to be using ‘common sense’ they usually make some astoundingly stupid nonsensical statement, and sure enough andrew r is no exception

        What if gov’t were being heavily influenced by Finance Capitalists, andrew?

        andrew has obviously never heard of, or is pretending that he has never heard of, Colonel House.

        Nor it appears has he heard of the Federal Reserve. One of the reasons it was set up, besides giving the private bankers complete monopoly on the supply of US currency, was so that the major Wall Street banking houses could provide credit to the British to run their war against Germany. The size of the credit required was much much too large for the major banks to risk going it alone, so creating the Fed helped them cover their risks by securing for them an income stream from their monopoly on US currency supply

        andrew will probably consider that a very contentious statement, but then andrew has already shown he does not know what he is talking about- his whole view of history is severely clouded by ideological blinkers

        there are few here that would argue that currently the US Gov’t is not largely in the pocket of Finance Capitalists, so for your ‘common sense’ to be in any way sensible one would have to believe that this Financial control of the Gov’t is a very recent development and that there is no way such a thing could possibly have been happening way back One hundred years ago – personally I look at that proposition as the very opposite of common sense – experience would indicate that it is likely that the US Gov’t was always largely in the pocket of the Financiers –

        you can run around scweaming “Naah naah, I can’t hear you” and “All facts, and even dates themselves, are by their very nature Anti-Semitic!!!” all you want andrew, but to demand that every one else, not willing to behave so childishly, is an anti-semite, is just moronic

        “I don’t know what % of wall street bankers were Jewish; however, if Jews were disproportionately successful relative to other immigrant communities, that would merit more serious research and to what end who knows”

        A complete cop-out from poor little andrew r, Annie. A look at the major banking houses of the period would supply that info quite easily – andrew already knows this though, so he avoided answering

        he doesn’t like direct questions, Annie. That should be obvious by now – unspecific rants and ad hominem are all he’s got

        Because andrew is unable to approach anything without his biases clouding his vision he is unable to conceive that any one else may be able to behave differently

      • Hu Bris
        March 1, 2011, 9:35 am

        “if Jews were disproportionately successful relative to other immigrant communities, that would merit more serious research and to what end who knows”

        and of course no way is little andrew going to do any of that research because his little mind is a well-trained little mind and little andrew isn’t going to upset any of the pre-programming by actually attempting to think for himself – he’s spent his time in education being told what and how to think and by golly he is going to demand that everyone else think and act with the same sort of craven closed-mindedness that he spent years learning to perfect .

      • Shingo
        February 26, 2011, 6:43 pm

        Zionism aimed to change this by establishing what Christian Europeans had – a political state.

        What’s the name if that state Hophmi and how has it prevented Christians being victimized?

      • andrew r
        February 26, 2011, 6:46 pm

        hophmi, you are sadly mistaken if you think the late 19th/early 20th century colonization of Palestine aimed at creating a safe haven for Jews. The abstract desire for this may have existed among the European delegates to the Zionist congress. However, when an autonomous leadership grew in Palestine and actually implemented a practical policy, the safe haven turned out to be a house of cards. The Palestine Office, headed by Arthur Ruppin, did not care about rescuing Jews from pogroms. They wanted Palestine to be populated with physically-fit ubermenschen. This is from Etan Bloom’s thesis on Ruppin, p. 292:

        In his Sociology of the Jews (1930) Ruppin wrote that, contrary to the Europeans, “the Jews have never engaged in a ‘self-cleansing’ of their race, but have rather allowed every child, be it the most sickly, to grow up and marry and have children like himself.” He suggested that “in order to keep the purity of our race, such Jews must abstain from childbearing.”170 In accordance with this tenet of Ruppin’s, the PO, and later the Jewish Agency, adopted a policy that championed immigration of only those Zionist elements who were healthy in body and mind and capable of assisting in the building of a future state. At the same time, the Jewish Agency prevented the immigration of others who did not meet the Zionist criteria (Shvarts, Davidovitch, Seidelman & Goldman 2005, 9).171 In order to secure its own goals, the Palestine Zionist Executive instituted a medical certification process. Naturally, young, healthy applicants who could best enhance the effort to bolster Jewish presence in Israel received preferential treatment. However, the medical selection process did not end with the immigrants’ arrival. If a young immigrant was discovered to be ill, the Secretariat for Health Matters of the Jewish National Committee in Israel, (the body that provided self-governance among Jews in Mandate times) together with the Jewish Agency, undertook to return the individual to his country of origin. In this manner, the cost of treatment was saved and the immigration certificate could be passed on to an able-bodied young person. It is interesting to note that, at least according to our current historical knowledge, no open debate was found regarding the issue of medical selection by the Jewish Agency during the British Mandate (ibid., 9-10).

        The PO/Jewish Agency’s obsession with good human material made Zionism irrelevant to saving Europe’s Jews. There may or may not have been the possibility of saving them through the western powers, however, I remain to be convinced Zionism manifested any initiative to make sure European Jews would be safely out of the way of the Nazi rampage, even a failed one. Their initiative was for a select subset of Jews.

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 9:08 pm

        This is what happened to my brother’s European Jewish wife’s family. They wound up in a camp because Zionists wouldn’t help them, even after they begged. They barely survived. The hatred and derision, now, towards Zionists and Zionism is incalculable, and I listen to the dripping criticism they heap on American Jews for believing what they call war fantasies, and swallowing made-up myths.

      • Potsherd2
        February 26, 2011, 10:21 pm

        iirc, the Zionist authorities sent people back from Palestine to Europe if they became sick or infirm, even in the 1930s.

      • Psychopathic god
        February 27, 2011, 2:18 pm

        I’ve learned that when I hear an author who tends to the polemic, say, “It’s complicated,” that’s a code word for, “Jeebus, that’s as embarrassing as hell, why in the world did you have to ask that question?”

        In a discussion of his very polemical (and historically inaccurate) “The Transfer Agreement,” Edwin Black had to deal with the fact that Jews who were transferred in to Palestine were NOT admitted on a first come-first served basis but had to demonstrate the right qualities to revitalize Jewish stock — and the right bank account balance.

        And as Etan Bloom explains in the same dissertation, much of the second aliyeh was a failure, with over 40% of the Jewish migrants in that cohort returning to their lands of origin. The subtext in that explanation — that cohort included black Jews — Yemenis, iirc, who did not fit into the kibbutz kultur.

      • yonira
        February 26, 2011, 7:27 pm

        I think Hophmi makes an excellent point here. The Jews of Europe used Zionism as a political tool to get what the wanted. They thought collectively as a people and decided they were sick of being oppressed. They moved to, bought, bartered, and fought for land which their beloved their ancestors lived in and were ‘promised’. not just by God, but also by the British :) Any other oppressed minority would have jumped on such a situation, the political climate following the Holocaust wrote the check.
        Europe had just witnessed one of the biggest bloodbaths of history and not a small percentage of those killed were Jews. They felt a certain obligation to relocate them, why not let them move to their claimed ancient homeland?

        The Palestinians got the short end of the stick, no doubt. I hope these newly democratic Arab countries will put more pressure on the two groups to help solve the issue without bloodshed.

        It worries me to say, but if there were to be any sort of revolution in Israel, where the Arabs/Islamic States decide to united against the state of Israel, the bloodshed would make the current death toll following the Arab’s revolutions pale in comparison.

        Would it be worth such a death toll just to get the Jews out of the ME?

    • MRW
      February 26, 2011, 6:35 pm

      Gosh, did the Zionists have to “conquer” the indigenous people, or did the Zionists have to conquer the upper strata of England’s society, the strata which could be convinced to turn over the fruits Britain’s victory and Gen. Allenby’s occupation of Jerusalem

      Heggzackly.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 12:29 pm

        Yes, heggzackly. The Zionists who eventually put their project to the top power group in England represented by Lord Balfour envisioned their most realistic prospect to be within an area in or adjacent to anywhere in the world over which England had control enough to already have a living English colonial settlement. For a time, Uganda/Kenya looked most promising, and most expedient to those Zionists who wanted an immediate save haven from pogroms in the Russian Czar’s lands rather than in Egypt or the former mandate land in the Middle East. Obviously, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the international mandate given to England to control and administer Palestine reduced the Zionist need for parasitic use of England’s concern for its settlers in Africa, English settlers who loudly made it known
        to England’s elite that they did NOT want Jews streaming over to be their culturally unique colonial neighbors basking also in the power of the British Crown. And in England itself, nobody liked the Zionist project idea & they shouted so, again–except the most powerful elite class. Obviously, the Zionists had something to offer, a quid pro quo package, in return to the English oliarchy, especially after WW1 bled England white, and with
        enormous debt; and this brings up why the offer to implement a Jewish homeland was made to Lord Rothschild, of that iconic international banking family, made in 1917 when the Brits were close to collapse–and suddenly–here comes…. the American doughboys! It pays to have a diaspora, ” a nation within a nation,” with immense financial and economic clout, and ever more so as barter ceases to be the order of the day and fiat money suddenly appears, and, in the USA, over the Xmas holidarys of 1913, the Federal Reserve System cabal, along with the IRS. How things change, yet remain the same.

      • Psychopathic god
        February 27, 2011, 2:32 pm

        Citizen wrote: Obviously, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire

        We are told that Herzl’s motivation for creating zionism was the Dreyfus affair.
        Think about that for 5 minutes.
        It makes as much sense as, “the cause of the first world war was the assassination of archduke Ferdinand.”

        Neither event was a “cause” of the outcome that came after.

        Herzl’s motive was cupidity: the Ottoman empire was breaking apart; many states were forming nations — Ireland was engaged in a nationalist struggle, fer pete’s sake — Herzl wanted to play in the Big Game. He and later Jabotinsky both appealed to the Turks for a piece of Palestine where Jews could create a nation. The Dreyfuss affair was less a motive and more a Wolfowitzian 9/11 motivator to do something that certain people were eager to do all along.

        Even the Russian pogroms are somewhat exaggerated. Best information I can find says that 91 Jews died in Russian pogroms before 1914. And nowhere (in Jewish sources, anyway) is it explained that “Jewish” pogroms occurred in the context of widespread unrest among Russian peasantry in conflict with the Russian nobles and wealthy — in other words, it was a class conflict, haves vs have nots, and Jews in Russia tended toward the haves class.
        It makes as much sense to call those pogroms “outbreaks of antisemitism” as it would to call loud denunciations of George Soros and predatory capitalism engaged in by Bernanke, Goldman Sachse, etc. “antisemitic.” Both can be seen as instances of have nots finally becoming aware of the manipulative tactics of unscrupulous money men –haves–, a majority (but not all) of whom are Jewish.

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 7:21 pm

        endless psochopathic babbling bullshit.

        the arsewipe farts out

        ——Best information I can find says that 91 Jews died in Russian pogroms before 1914.——

        a single Russian pogrom in Kiev in 1905 killed more than 2,000 Jews.

      • annie
        February 27, 2011, 9:44 pm

        The Kiev pogrom of October 18-October 20 (October 31-November 2, 1905, N.S.) came as a result of the collapse of the city hall meeting of October 18, 1905 in Kiev in the Russian Empire. Consequently, a mob was drawn into the streets. Among the perpetrators were monarchists, reactionaries, anti-Semites, and common criminals, proclaiming that “all Russia’s troubles stemmed from the machinations of the Jews and socialists.” The pogrom resulted in a massacre of approximately 100 Jews.[1]

        According to William C. Fuller [2],

        There ensued the horrific Kiev pogrom of October 18-20 (October 31-November 2), an orgy of looting, rapine, and murder chiefly directed against the factories, shops, homes, and persons of the Jews. This riot claimed the lives of between forty-seven and one hundred people and resulted in serious injury to at least three hundred more as well as the destruction of between 10 and 40 million rubles of property. [3] This pogrom and the others that swept southern Russia at approximately the same time were so annihilative that, in the words of Simon Dubnow, taken together they amounted to ‘Russia’s St. Bartholomew’s night’.[4]

        Kiev Pogrom (1905)

      • Schwartzman
        February 27, 2011, 10:00 pm

        PG,

        you should really check your facts, spouting this type of nonsense makes you look BAD.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 10:06 pm

        This riot claimed the lives of between forty-seven and one hundred people and resulted in serious injury to at least three hundred more

        so not the ‘more than 2000′ jews killed as claimed by Fluster, then – dear oh dear fluster – how many lies can one man tell in one night?

      • RoHa
        February 27, 2011, 10:09 pm

        “made in 1917 when the Brits were close to collapse”

        There was no prospect of military collapse in 1917. Do you mean financial collapse?

      • Hu Bris
        March 1, 2011, 5:57 am

        “There was no prospect of military collapse in 1917. Do you mean financial collapse?”

        Actually there was – essentially the Germans had beaten the British militarily by 1916. Britain was exhausted financially at that point and had it not been for the entry of the US would most likely have had to admit defeat.

        by 1916 the Germans had soaked up the worst the British and French combined could throw at them and German troops were at that time better armed and better supplied than their British counterparts.

        Military defeat was merely a matter of time under those circumstances

        The Brits had borrowed massive amounts from US banks, in order to finance their war. Massive lines of Credit were made available to them in order to purchase US armaments and other supplies. This created a boom in the US economy, one which the financial class were reluctant to see disappear, should the British lose

        This formed the basis for the case being made to Wilson for US entry into the war.

        US entry into the war was in effect a method for Wall Street bankers in particular, and US Industry in general, to ensure the British won, so that they could recoup their investment

        When the war was over the bill came due – and it was the Germans that had to pay it through thew economically ruinous reparations demanded by the winners off the war.

        In fact the bill for WW1 was so massive that it was only paid off just a few months ago, in Oct 2010.
        Germany finishes paying WWI reparations, ending century of ‘guilt’“Few people in Germany noted the country’s final $94 million WWI reparations payment on Sunday. “

  11. HRK
    February 26, 2011, 5:13 pm

    “Consider one of the most rabidly racist segments of Israeli society, the one million Russians, Jews and non-Jews who arrived to Israel, in effect colonizing Palestine.”

    For those such as myself who are out of the loop, what’s the low down on Israelis who emigrated from Russia, anyways? I’ve heard the same types of comments intimated about this group in previous essays/posts. I just ask for curiosity’s sake. Does anyone have an explanation or a theory about why they tend to be more racist, if that is in fact the case?

    Is it because Russian Jews are products of Russian society and that society (comprised of both gentiles and Jews) tends to be somewhat backwards in terms of how they think of non-Europeans, or is it because relationships between gentiles and Jews in Russia is tense and so each side tends to harbor “anti-” feelings about the other (anti-Semitism on the part of ethnic Russians and anti-gentilism on the part of Jews)? Or both? Or neither?

    I honestly don’t know. (So what’s the word on the street?)

    • fuster
      February 26, 2011, 6:42 pm

      they were brought up in a real bad place. in the personal identification papers which all Soviet citizens carried (the internal “passport”), Jews had to list their nationality as “Jewish”.
      the USSR was also a place where Muslims were widely hated.
      the Eastern Church cared for neither Islam nor Judaism.

      • RoHa
        February 26, 2011, 7:56 pm

        In the Soviet Union (“a real [sic] bad place’) , ‘Jews had to list their nationality as “Jewish”.’

        Whereas in Israel…

      • fuster
        February 26, 2011, 8:45 pm

        they don’t have to register as Soviet.

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 3:40 am

        …they don’t have to register as Soviet.

        If Israel considers the individual Russian immigrant Jewish, then his or her nationality is recorded as “Jewish”. If the individual is not considered Jewish by the state, his/her nationality is recorded as “Russian”. Israel lists no “Israeli” nationality. Its the same as what fuster describes for Russian ID cards, except that the “Jewish” identity card holder is privileged in Israel.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 12:50 pm

        Hey tree, did that dual Israeli identity system exist before the mass immigration of subject one million Russian Jews? If so, that system can’t be blamed on that flood of newer immigrants to Israel. And so too, the mentality at issue, unless those immigrants were simply reared in Soviet lands to be less subtle?

      • Antidote
        February 27, 2011, 12:58 pm

        “they don’t have to register as Soviet”

        and there is no difference whatsoever between the registration of Jewish and Arab Israelis, right? Including their license plates and I.D.s. They’re all just Israelis, with equal rights and privileges.

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 3:01 pm

        Citizen, I hope I’m understanding your question. Israel differentiates between citizenship and nationality. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, its citizens have been classified in official documents and IDs according to a separate “nationality” category, with over 130 different classifications.

        From Jonathan Cook:

        In official documents most Israelis are classified as “Jewish” or “Arab,” but immigrants whose status as Jews is questioned by the Israeli rabbinate, including more than 300,000 arrivals from the former Soviet Union, are typically registered according to their country of origin.

        link to mrzine.monthlyreview.org

        I’d recommend reading the whole article as it goes into more detail of Israeli citizenship vs. nationality.

        I hope that answered your question. If not, let me know.

      • RoHa
        February 27, 2011, 8:03 pm

        “Israel differentiates between citizenship and nationality.”

        Proof positive of the insanity of Israel.

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 9:13 pm

        USSR was also a place where Muslims were widely hated

        Are you an idiot or are you just plain dumb?

        The USSR was half-Muslim. Muslims weren’t hated. No religion was even tolerated in the USSR, neither Orthodox Christian, Jewish, or Muslim…so that part of your grandiloquent statement can be verified by cracking a book. Where do you think they got the design of the onion domes of St. Petersburg from?

        You seem to forget, fuster, that in a pre-zionist world the jews and muslims were closer than christians were to either one of those groups.

      • fuster
        February 26, 2011, 10:06 pm

        MRW,

        don’t even know what you’re thinking about. maybe I’m too stupid.

        tell me about the Tatars and the Chechens.

      • MRW
        February 26, 2011, 10:59 pm

        Fuster,

        The Tatars slaughtered more than just the Jews. They slaughtered Muslims and Orthodox Christians.

        This business of dividing Russia/USSR into religious factions is not supported historically.

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 12:05 am

        MRW

        and what happened to the Tatars afterward?

        and to the Chechens?

        did or did not the Soviet regime keep a tight control on Islam, particularly through the Directorate of Muslim Peoples and particularly the Muslim Board for Central Asia?

        being iggorent and all, I probably never much heard of Geoffrey Wheeler, but if I had I might guess that he posited that the Russians were mostly in heavy conflict with the Turks and Iranians and the entirety of Central Asia from the sixteenth century on and that things didn’t really get a bit better under the Soviet Union.

        Some folks even think that under Stalin, it got worse.

        Course, I wouldn’t know much bout that, it being like book learnin and all.

        what I guy like me knows is that Russians like to call the people of Central Asia, including their former comrades…..”blackasses” and other such really not nice things.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 1:20 pm

        Whatever, fuster. It’s a fact that the Christians were oppressed too under the communist regime. Religion remained the official opiate of the masses until the collapse of the USSR. Today Russia officially recognizes the three major religons from Abraham. Another key matter is that Muslims have been native to significant areas of the former USSR for many centuries–compare Muslims in Europe are comparatively very recent immigrants.
        Today their population in Russia has been increasing, while the population of Russian Christians has been declining, due to both the fact of many Russians individually casting off Christianity as an expression of their westerized individuality and their higher mortality rate due to alcoholism. Muslims don’t traditionally use alcohol. In a half century, Russia will definitely be different if the trends continue.

      • VR
        February 26, 2011, 10:34 pm

        Registration is not quite the first thing that has be recognized regarding former Soviets fuster, the first order of business is recognizing that are large portion of them are not even Jewish. In fact they were brought in because they were white, because if you recognize it or not there is s strong strain of white supremacy in the Israelis. Approximately 350,000 (it could be greater) are being pushed into “converting” in greater numbers.

        The reason why there is a greater thrust for colonizing Palestinian land among Russians is because of their wonderful experience under the new capitalism in Russia. The “white knight” of capitalism swooped in and suddenly there was a 80% attrition rate into poverty when everything of value was raped and given to the few. So why not go in and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population, it becomes an act of desperation. You pit the poverty stricken against the indigenous population, arm them, and tell them everywhere the sole of their foot touches can be theirs.

      • fuster
        February 26, 2011, 11:03 pm

        VR,
        I’ve some fair grasp of why the Israelis pulled in all those folks and you’re quite right that they knew that the influx was not “kosher”, in any sense.
        I do differ a bit as to what they were looking for. It wasn’t as much white as it was non-Arab and non-Islamic (and, for some, also a fair amount of non-ultra Orthodox).

        The Israelis wanted numbers to offset a disparity in birth rates and it was a very questionable deal that brought them a bunch of very shady folks in the larger mass.

      • VR
        February 26, 2011, 11:56 pm

        I should have said 80% attrition rate from living fairly well into poverty

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 1:25 pm

        That’s a good supplemental point fuster.

      • Psychopathic god
        February 27, 2011, 2:10 pm

        if Jeff Blankfort pops in he might mention that Israel was also eager to pull in thousands of very highly trained Russians, for whose education Israel did not part with a shekel.

        US taxpayers ponied up about $200million to ease Israel’s burden of taking in all those Russian ragamuffin/PhDs.

      • Hu Bris
        February 27, 2011, 3:30 pm

        If Jeff Blankfort pops in he might mention that Israel was also eager to pull in thousands of very highly trained Russians, for whose education Israel did not part with a shekel

        many of them with military training and experience.

    • MRW
      February 26, 2011, 8:46 pm

      HRK,

      or is it because relationships between gentiles and Jews in Russia is tense and so each side tends to harbor “anti-” feelings about the other (anti-Semitism on the part of ethnic Russians and anti-gentilism on the part of Jews)?

      I don’t know the answers to the rest of your questions, but Americans and Europeans make a gigantic mistake applying divisive western issues on the Russian psyche. Russians unite by geography, not religion. If you and I come from the same Russian village or town, then we are united; we are loyal to each other, we are of the same stock, so to speak. This is particularly true among the less-educated class.

      The size of Russia created this. Up until last year, Russia was 11 time zones wide (they reduced it to nine for business reasons), more than two times the width of the US, which in distance is 1500 miles more than the distance from Bangor ME to Hawaii. Put another way, it’s the distance from Santiago, Chile to Melbourne, Australia, or the distance from Seattle to Tehran. Imagine that: one country extending from Seattle to Tehran. That’s Russia. So religion doesn’t come into it. Geography does.

  12. RoHa
    February 26, 2011, 8:02 pm

    On this topic, here is an interesting interview with Atzmon.

    link to mycatbirdseat.com

    “I would argue forcefully that Zionism has a long time ago moved from the “promised land” narrative into the “promised planet” nightmare.”

    • crone
      February 26, 2011, 11:34 pm

      RoHa… excellent article! Thanks for linking…

      “Silvia Cattori: What differentiates Gilad Atzmon from those who say, “I am a Jewish anti-Zionist”; “We are Jews for peace”, etc, yet always highlighting their tribal identity?

      Gilad Atzmon: It is very simple: for me, the fight for peace is a fight for a universal cause. For me, to support the Palestinians is an ethical necessity. And if it is a universal cause and an ethical necessity, I do not see any reason to fight it “as a Jew”, “as a man”, or “as a jazz artist”. When I come across those who call themselves “Jews for peace” and “Jews for justice”, I stand up and say “what do you really mean by calling yourself a ‘Jew’? Are you religious?” When a Torah Jew says he identifies as a Jew I know what he refers to. When Torah Jews say “we are religious Jews and we support Palestine in the name of our faith”, I say “go ahead, you have my support”.

      But when secular Jews tell me that they work for Palestine in the name of their Jewish values, I must ask them “What are your ‘Jewish secular values’”? I have studied and carefully considered the subject, and, as embarrassing as it may sound, there is no such thing as a “Jewish secular value system”.

      Those who refer to such ideas are either lying, misleading others, or even misleading themselves.

      Silvia Cattori: If I understood well, those who identify themselves as “anti-Zionist Jews” or “Jews for peace” believe that this makes their voice louder than others’ voice.

      Gilad Atzmon: For sure, and that is a valid point. But again, I still have some reservations, because if I say “I am a Jew for peace,” and I believe that this is enough to make my voice more important than yours, what it really means is that I am still consciously celebrating my chosen-ness. And isn’t that exactly the problem we have with Zionism?

      So, fundamentally, Jewish anti-Zionism is still just another manifestation of Jewish tribal supremacy. It seems peculiar that peace activists, who claim to be universalist leftists, end up operating in racially oriented cells.

      Silvia Cattori: Is this consciously a way to humiliate non Jewish people?

      Gilad Atzmon: That is possible; but I do not think that Jews who succumb to Jewish tribal politics are really conscious of the effect it has on others.”

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 11:00 am

        crone,
        this is sheer brilliantism!!!
        marvelously wrought, and yea it does turn out that if a Jew has any opinion about anything at all, it’s a manifestation of nothing other than a Jew thinking that he or she has a right to have an opinion.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 2:06 pm

        Crone, thanks for sharing. Phil Weiss, for one, has spoken here about his continuing struggle to actually trust any Gentile (at least, other than his wife); he feels “more comfortable” working with MOT, even where Gentiles hold views otherwise more similar to his, in terms of tactics and/or universal values.

        He says off and on here he’s gradually changing, and he attributes his on-going struggle as due to his up-bringing, the early conditioning he received in the sheltered community of his youth, the same one his regular adversarial commenter here, Richard Witty grew up in–both Phil and Richard have sometimes written things on this blog that I, as a non-Jew, for one, have found ignorant if not downright insulting. It always has amazed me generally how Gentiles, at least in America, have to constantly monitor what comes out of their mouth or pen to avoid inadvertently pricking even the most fanciful Jewish sensibilities. I imagine black Americans must feel this emotional irony even more than I.

  13. lyn117
    February 27, 2011, 2:11 am

    “Did Zionism arise only as a colonial movement? No. There was anti-Semitism. There was the romantic notion of return. There was the idea of Jewish labor. ”

    Think of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, …” This is was written during the height of 19th century colonial movements, in support of one of the biggest ones (the colonization of America). It’s absolutely true that many Europeans at the time suffered from all kinds of political and religious oppression, as well as lack of economic opportunity. I’d be hard put to come up with a settler-colonial movement that didn’t use oppression in the original land as a means of attracting colonists.

    P.S. I think you’re wrong in not advocating Israel’s disappearance – Israel, the state (not its people) should be abolished and replaced with a state in which there are equal rights regardless of creed. Of course, an honest peace with perhaps the bi-national state you envision would accomplish that in the long run so long as Israel got completely out of the occupied territories, but I don’t see that happening. Israel just is a colonial state, it can’t change.

    • Richard Witty
      February 27, 2011, 6:43 am

      Lyn,
      You illustrate the poverty of the anti-colonial theme, and particularly the willingness of partisans to fit a square peg into a round hole to argue it.

      “Give me your tired, your poor”, was the OPPOSSITE of colonial enterprise, literally. It was already past the period of manifest destiny in the US. It was the invitation of the suffering, or refugees, to an opportunity, a possibility.

      Those that took advantage of that invitation included/includes at the time: Germans, Poles, Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Turks, Russians, Ukranians, Armenians, Jews ….

      Learn.

      • Donald
        February 27, 2011, 1:49 pm

        “It was already past the period of manifest destiny in the US. It was the invitation of the suffering, or refugees, to an opportunity, a possibility.”

        More bizarre nonsense from Richard. The wars against the Native Americans took up most of the 19th century–the last massacre was at Wounded Knee in 1890. Teddy Roosevelt among many others had nakedly racist, near genocidal attitudes towards Native Americans. The US then turned its eyes overseas, and the same racist ideas that justified “Manifest Destiny” were used to justify the massacres involved in crushing the Filipinos after we took the Philippines from Spain.

        The refugees from Europe were the unwitting beneficiaries of this racism. They themselves were looked down upon by the dominant WASP culture of the time (I am allowed to criticize WASP culture without fear of being called anti-Wasp, I suspect). In that respect it’s different from Zionism, in that the same ethnic group fleeing persecution in Europe became the persecutors in Palestine. The history of Zionism is more like the history of Massachusetts (and contrary to Witty, there’s less of a distinction between the Pilgrims and the Puritans than he imagines. There was a minority of people in both communities who wished to treat the Native Americans fairly, but like Ahad Ha’am, they turned out not to be typical.)

        “Learn.”

        Pompous as always.

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 8:12 pm

        The last Indian war was in 1889, no?

        “Give me your tired, your poor” was after. It was the high point of American democracy, what made the American dream the American dream.

        The Spanish American War was imperialist and had NOTHING to do with immigration. The US did not take over Cuba and the Phillippines to have more land.

        You are knee-jerking again Donald.

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 11:43 pm

        The last Indian war was in 1889, no? “Give me your tired, your poor” was after.

        The Statue was erected in 1886. The Lazarus poem (“Give me your …”) was written in 1883. Wounded Knee was in 1890. All these data points were already brought up in others’ comments and still you make this factual faux pas. You really need to read and comprehend better, Richard.

      • Chaos4700
        February 28, 2011, 12:52 am

        Witty was blatantly wrong?! Gee, what a shocker.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 2:30 pm

        The Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886, when world population was little more than one billion and the U.S. population was 60 million. Many do not realize that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the U.S. from France, with the title, “Liberty Enlightening the World”. The statue and its symbolism had nothing to do with immigration, but rather hope that the rest of the world would adopt Democracy. The Emma Lazurus plaque (it is not chiseled in the base), “send me your huddled masses” was added ten years later during the immigration peak of that age.

        The sonnet, “New Colossus”, was written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 as part of a literary campaign to raise funds for the completion of the Statue’s pedestal. Not much attention was paid to it until the tide of immigration surged at the turn of the century. Proceeds that were raised from its auction were used to complete the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. This plaque memorialized the sonnet in 1903 and the plaque was originally placed on the inner wall of the Statue’s pedestal.

        Since then, U.S. LEGAL population has expanded by 4 1/2 times. The U.S. is the world’s highest-consuming (and most wasteful) nation, and is no longer in need of settlement. (Americans will do any job for a somewhat reasonable wage for anyone born and raised in the USA–the companies who take advantage of illegal workers rely on the much lower cost of living in Mexico. The buried issue is the minimum wage issue, and the fact that business corporations are chartered to maximize profit for their shareholders, not to further the interests of the nation’s general population.

        The overall numbers of legal (Government mandated) immigrants we’ve been admitting into the U.S. are dramatically higher than at any time in the past, and are many times our historical average of approximately 350,000 per year. Historically, for only 6 years have we had immigration levels as high as in 1996. Since 1987, we have admitted more into the U.S. than in the previous 50 years. This trend is continuing, as the 1990 Immigration Act increased overall legal immigration by 40%. And that’s only legal immigration, folks, doesn’t count the flood of illegals that have crossed the Mexican border, say, since 1998.

      • lyn117
        February 27, 2011, 3:45 pm

        RW:

        So you’re using the poverty and disenfranchisement of the “masses” in Europe as a justification for the mass murders, forced conversion to Christianity and land grabs carried out against the Native Americans – half of it after those words were written (1865 or thereabouts) ? I’m not surprised actually.

        The Pilgrims originally settled in what became the U.S. because of religious persecution in England. I recall right, puritans and other non-Anglican sects were at various times subject to prosecution and imprisonment for their religious beliefs, as a side note I don’t think Jews were so persecuted in England at that time. The South African Afrikanners have expressed similar motives. In both cases, they were racist against the native people and grabbed their land and resources when they had the ability to do so. Using various legalistic and military stratagems. While I don’t particularly blame anyone for wanting to escape persecution, to go to someone else’s land and take it over and persecute them on the basis of their race or religion is entirely blameworthy. The Zionist leadership fully and consciously intended to do just that, in particular in 1948, they set on a deliberate campaign of mass murder and terror against the native people of Palestine.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 6:21 pm

        as a side note I don’t think Jews were so persecuted in England at that time

        That may be because the Jews had been officially expelled from England in 1290 by King Edward I, and were not re-admitted except in very small numbers under semi-legal status until well after the Puritans had arrived in the New World. The way this thread is going, I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone come along to take Edward’s side.

      • fuster
        February 27, 2011, 7:27 pm

        King Edward I was a marvelous fair and sweet ruler and the people of Scotland consider him a gift from heaven.

        Edward Longshanks was the hero of a Mel Gibson movie. Mel is said to be very impressed with the official expulsion.

      • lyn117
        February 27, 2011, 7:54 pm

        @CK, why do you think anyone in this crowd would defend the medieval persecution of Jews by European monarchs or dictators of any kind?

      • Richard Witty
        February 27, 2011, 8:17 pm

        Wierd interpretation of my post Lynn.

        And, interesting revision of history to fit your square peg. The motives of the 95% (the residents) were irrelevant, so the residents, the civilians, should be punished.

        Democracy demands consent of the governed. You want the land to be a single state, convince the Jewish Israelis that that is better for them.

        I doubt you’ll be able to. Not because they are racist slugs, but because it is dangerous, more than undesirable.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 27, 2011, 10:34 pm

        @CK, why do you think anyone in this crowd would defend the medieval persecution of Jews by European monarchs or dictators of any kind?

        Open your eyes, lyn. “This crowd” includes people who are happy to parrot Nazi propaganda, others who bend over backward to defend the parrots , and others who write as though the long and peculiar history of anti-semitism was made up by Zionists and other Jews (see for example comment #78 above and following). Why? Because blinkered ideological commitments – in this case to anti-Zionism – tend to produce moral blindness and worse. It probably starts out for many as a desire to correct for having been manipulated in the past. A symptomatic tendency is always to assume, when in doubt, that an uncertain case in question will re-confirm their bias: A constant marginal shading of the truth that eventually detaches entirely from any standard of truth (and frequently of decency). Some ardent ideological anti-Zionists end up saying things about “the Jews,” and saying them in certain ways, that would cause them to lash out, if not explode with accusatory rage, if somebody else did the same thing, or anything approaching it, in relation to their adopted replacement victims.

      • lyn117
        February 28, 2011, 3:16 am

        RW, you’re the one who says that living in equality with the native people of a place is punishment, not me. I say it’s not a punishment. I don’t see why you think living in equality with Palestinians is a punishment, unless you’re a racist. Palestinians seem like perfectly good people to me, tolerant, positive and generous in so far as I’ve met them, and not at all hostile to Jews.

        My main, with respect to Khalaf’s post, is that persecution in the place of origin of the settler-colonists is often an aspect of the settler-colonial syndrome, for example the puritans were very much colonists. Attracting settler-colonists by means of promising better fortune and freedom is even more a part of the settler-colonial syndrome, and perhaps I didn’t go into the bit about those colonists being used in sweatshops, mines, for cannon fodder in wars and for building railroads, or that the immigration authorities would turn away people who weren’t healthy or fit, which apparently the Zionists did as well. All too often, the “freedom” being promised is freedom to confiscate the land of the native people. The mass immigration during the 1800s and sentiments expressed on the statue of liberty go hand-in-hand with the colonization and confiscation of native American lands regardless of whether the words were actually written in 1883 and when the exact date of the last Indian war was. For that matter, colonization and land grabs didn’t actually stop with the last Indian war.

        As for it being dangerous, if you go to some else’s home and kick them out and abuse them and terrorize them, it just takes so much gall to then claim it’s dangerous to live next to them. Institute a system of fairness, and you’ll be as safe as anyone.

    • bijou
      February 27, 2011, 9:49 am

      Israel, the state (not its people) should be abolished and replaced

      Just as a matter of precision of language, perhaps this is better conceptualized (and conveyed) as follows:

      Zionism, the political ideology, should be abolished and replaced with a new, all-inclusive political ideology that confers equal rights on all who presently reside in the Land of Israel, whatever its eventual name becomes.

      One could also add, “…and allows for those who have been forcefully displaced from it against their will and currently have no other bona fide citizenship to enjoy those rights as well.”

      I really think we need to STOP talking in terms of nation states and effect a paradigm shift to start talking in terms of people living in a land (and who were violently displaced from that land) who are entitled to have their universal human rights fulfilled. This passage is a good starting point for thinking about this:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      (Needless to say, we would update the concept to include women and children as well.) :)

      This standard should be the one and only litmus test against which we measure any proposed political configuration in that land.

      • tree
        February 27, 2011, 1:39 pm

        Great comment, bijou. Right on.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2011, 2:07 pm

        >> I really think we need to STOP talking in terms of nation states and effect a paradigm shift to start talking in terms of people living in a land (and who were violently displaced from that land) who are entitled to have their universal human rights fulfilled.

        I don’t see a problem with nation-states as long as all people within that state are free and equal members of it. Let Israel be Israel and Palestine be Palestine and let them both be democractic and egalitarian states that obey international laws and uphold human rights.

        No Judaism-supremacist states, no Islam-supremacist states, no Christian-supremacist states. And if Zio-supremacists want to argue that Israel can be “culturally Jewish”, I’d like a clear explanation as to:
        – what the hell that even means (can a gay Muslim Israeli be “culturally Jewish” and, if so, how?); and
        – why, if “Jewish state” is nothing more than a “cultural veneer” that has no bearing on the democratic and egalitarian essence of the state and the equality of all people before all aspects of the law, does the attribute “Jewish state” even matter?

      • lyn117
        February 27, 2011, 3:55 pm

        I like your comment as well, bijou, except I would state that ALL who have been forcefully displaced, or whose immediate ancestors have been forcefully displaced since 1947, regardless of citizenship, have rights to citizenship in Palestine, including those parts that became Israel (and it isn’t really a matter of what you call it), regardless of creed.

        The Israeli government, the Zionist government (as you might call the Zionist Congress until Israel was established) and the British Mandate before them were clearly destructive to the Life, Liberty and Happiness of the population of Palestine and were instituted by force and against the consent of the governed.

    • MHughes976
      February 27, 2011, 11:56 am

      These things are complex, I guess. There can be a mixture of ferocious assertion of homegrown values – the aggressively Catholic Spanish colonists, the British who went to South Africa in the time of Cecil Rhodes and Henry Rider Haggard – and a gnawing discontent with homeland conditions. The same all the way back to the Greek colonists, the main result of whose activities was Hellenism, a massive insistence, powerful to this day and hour, that Euro is best.
      It’s banal but I suppose true to say that economic incentives are important and that there are few incentives stronger than the appeal of the unexploited soil, ready to turn impoverished people into landowners, on the understanding that it will be for the benefit of the native peoples (if they matter at all) in the end.

      • Citizen
        February 27, 2011, 2:47 pm

        Is there any land mass left to be so exploited besides Antartica? And a tad of supplemental information, lots of the world, including in the USA, don’t own any land–they rent. Our bipartisan key political leaders decided all Americans should own their own home, and one side worked
        locally, with the special help of governmental agencies such as the Two FANNIES and local banks, and the other side worked on Wall St and with Big investment “banks,” packaging and selling the completed real estate transactions. Look what we got. And Obama’s fringe reforms insure a repeat process–with some new creative twist, and the same
        little families will pay for it all.

  14. Mooser
    February 28, 2011, 12:09 pm

    Is there any more weaselly, amorphous, reductive, and self serving bit of bamboozlement in the mouth of a Zionist than the expression “the Jews”?
    Me, as one Jew, I have about the same reaction to someone who claims to represent of be working in the interests of “the Jews” as I do to someone who claims to be working in the interests of “the white race”

    Well, time for breakfast. We’re having a nutritious mixture and Witty inspired the name for it. We call it “the human mush” After all, you are what you eat.