We are by now too familiar with the label anti-semite aimed towards all who dissent from the deplorable policies of Netanyahu's right wing disaster. It does not matter if the resistance to Israeli occupation and ongoing collective punishment arises from the actions of Jews, Muslims, aetheists, socialists or any human rights activists. In addition, Jew against Jew has created a deeply disturbing divide that pits Jews against one another and seriously questions what it means to be Jewish within a context of compassion or as a fear reponse to having once been dehumanized and thoroughly victimized. How can this justify the continuous role of Israel as victimizer in the form of an obscene collective punishment, an entire population marginalized, hated, left war torn and homeless without freedom. What is the message to the world after decades of this occupied prison ?
I personally have been called an antisemite and nothing could be farther from the truth. My motives are not-anti Jewish but rather anti what I see as fascism in the form of an extreme nationalistic zionism. This behavior cannot help but destroy the soul of Judaism, a spiritual religion that ascribes to tolerance, compassion, does not kill and has the courage to reflect on its way of life. It is by now known that the Knesset , the core of Israeli government has thrown out a female Arab Israeli member, Hanin Zoabi, who had the audacity to participate in a protest against her country's actions. She witnessed the brutal murder of 9 unarmed activists on the ill fated Mavi Marmara that attempted to break the Gaza siege. She is now threatened with the loss of her Israeli citizenship.
Yes it is me again-- Jewish refugee from nazi Germany shouting to the world, "Never again, not in my name." Every day I am bombarded with news of some other atrocity in the name of protecting the "democratic state of Israel." I want to awaken from this nightmare. I no longer can tolerate to hear, "Palestinians do not recognize Israel and wish to destroy us." How much longer can we hear Netanyahu's mantra (US complicity here) we will never recognize the terrorists Hamas ( legally elected by a majority of Palestinians.) I want to reiterate, those who call others terrorists must reflect on the terrorism within themselves. The US is grossly guilty of similar careless projections of the label "terrorist"while refusing to acknowledge its own use of terrorism. Tragically Israel and the US both suffer from inordinate forms of extreme denial on the nature of their own violent behavior to keep wars and human suffering going and cannot reflect on their egomaniacal political agendas. Other countries aid violence by selling arms and contribute powerfully as destroyers of human life in exchange for exorbitant payments.
Recent news has induced a cringe response. Germany sold a torpedo submarine to Israel, capable of deploying nuclear missiles and firing a nuclear holocaust. How is this possible? Can it be a form of German restitution to assuage unconscious (or conscious) guilt by association with their infamous history when nazi insanity and rabid antisemitism coupled with Aryan delusions of grandeur ruled Germany? I do not claim to know yet recognize the sheer lunacy to send weapons to Israel. Do we need more killings and endless suffering? Where is the resistance, the outrage? I need to hear more, louder, stronger. Does the Israeli agenda now include a nuclear war with Iran? Has Israel completely lost all reality? I can say much the same for the US that would engage mindlessly with Israel, for we are Israel's strongest ally for an exorbitant corrupt price. Is the agenda of Netanyahu's right wing hoodlums to blow up all their neighbors to become the only country in the middle east and the "only democracy?" Let Israel not become victim to its own self fulfilling prophecy by its own hand. Such a nightmare, calling for the destruction of Israel, cannot happen. Israel along with its Palestinian neighbors MUST change political direction. As of now, Israel is drowning in a sea of paranoia and fear. How can a democracy and brutal occupation exist together? How is it so many remain blind? It has happened before in the 30's but this time it occurs with a twist of fate. Racism lives in a different form yet is equally virulent. I am afraid. Left undisturbed, this myth of democracy will support a continuous unending tragedy for both Palestine and Israel. They must, in order to survive, face each other with honest dialogue and sincere attempts at mutual understanding and compromise.
Now I end with some comments on Israel's harsh decision to build a museum over a century old Muslim graveyard. For years Muslims struggled unsuccessfully to prevent this construction. The irony is the "museum of tolerance" is being built to promote coexistence and is a project of the Simon Wiesenthal (nazi hunter) center. Ultra orthodox Jews claim ancient Jewish graves were once located there. Instead of tolerance, one sees arrogance, racism, infantilism, and utter righteousness in action. Can it be this provocative and destructive decision serves to reinforce the tragic rise once again of world wide antisemitism?
Dear Lillian Rosengarten,
You are not anti-semite if you harshly condemn the acts of the government of Israel. No need to for that straw man.
The problem is with anti-zionists who express racist remarks about Israelis and/or Zionists. For example: the slur “Ziofacist” often used by commentors in MW, is anti-semite because it is a slur meant to deligitimize the entire jewish national movement.
I could give you many more examples but theres no need. All you have to do is skim reading MW comments., they are full of racist slurs and hate talk against Israelis , Zionists and Jews.
Tal, can you link to any comments using name calling “Ziofacist? Just one?
While some posters who are also Zionist (one in particular) had shown themselves to hold some heavy duty fascist sentiments and ideas, this is not particular to Zionists. It is everywhere.
But like all nationalist movements, Zionism struggles along the the slippery slope with those within its movement who would bring it down to fascism.
This has nothing to do with Judaism (which is not Zionism) but is one of the problems with ALL Nationalistic movements defining itself around ideas of race, soil, ancient myths, tribalism, etc.
Ellen,
Go to link to mondoweiss.net and search for Shingo’s reply to me. You will also find some anti-Semites slurs regarding Israelis and American money.
You are right about zionism being like any other national movements. In israel I am one of those who are very critical of my govts policies against the Palestinians
“In israel I am one of those who are very critical of my govts policies against the Palestinians”
If you are for immediate transfer or expulsion, or outright genocide and annexation, don’t beat around the bush, just come out and say it, Tal.
No Tal, zionism is like all other “blood and soil” national lebensraum movements, and is distinct from national resistence movements against colonial occupation by foreigners. Israel’s de facto national movement is akin to Nazi Germany’s and the French in Algeria, or apartheid S Africa or old Rhodesia. The Palestinian resistence movement is the anti-thesis to Israel’s conduct.
Tal,
No homework assignments.
Show us exactly where anyone used the term “Ziofascist?” As you claim.
tal, one of the other hasbarists did exactly this same thing the other day, directed us to a thread w/almost 193 comments making an allegation some text was present, it wasn’t. . yours has 193 comments . if you click on the time stamp next to a comment you can direct us to the exact comment. don’t play games w/us. we deserve to see the context, if there even is one.
i’m calling your bluff put up or shut the ….
Zionism is the only national movement that has ethnic cleansing at it’s core. Zionism was based on ethnic supremacy from day 1.
“they are full of racist slurs and hate talk against Israelis , Zionists and Jews.”
Thank you Tal! I don’t know how or where Ms. Rosengarten would get the necessary info to decide these things for herself.
“deligitimize”
Well, if a word has no meaning, it really doesn’t matter how you spell it, so I withdraw my correction.
Is it considered politicly correct in the US to make fun of a non native English speaker’s English?
Is it considered politicly correct in the US to make fun of a non native English speaker’s English?
Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, most people would rank it just above lecturing a “Jewish refugee from nazi Germany” on what is or isn’t anti-Semitism.
But of course, you’re an Israeli, so you know better.
An academic exercise for you to ponder, Tal. Zionism is more than mere Jewish nationalism. Zionism stems from the belief that the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland in Palestine. The problem with this idea, however, is that it first required the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Nationalism seeks to retain what already exists, whereas Zionism seeks to create something entirely novel where something else exists. Nationalism is a continuation, Zionism is a replacement. Nationalism of the Sephardic Jews of Palestine seeking to carve out a small apportionment of land in proportion to their minority demographic in, say, 1890 would be benign and fairly plausible. Ideologues from Europe seeking to encourage mass immigration to Palestine, uprooting the local inhabitants, and replacing everything with something distinctly ‘Jewish’ is Zionism, and it is absolutely indefensible on every level.
A Jewish homeland once existed in the land of israel so you can say that we’ve implemented our right of return. Anyway, the American nation was established on the noble notion of creating a haven in the land which belonged to other people. Still, the American education system praises the founding fathers of america although some of them were slave owners. Of course you also get to hear about their evil sides but Howard Zinn is still considered an alternative pedagogical book.
I think children in israel should be taught about the noble notions in Zionism and at the same time be taught about the Nakba.
Slavery and stealing land are outlawed in the US.
Ethnic cleansing, home demolitions and mass murder have been Israeli policy for more than 60 years and continue to be.
So you see Tal, there is no comparison.
Why only the noble notions Tal? Are you a proponent of brainwashing?
Should they not also be taught that the inventor if Zionism believed that anti Semirism was “perfectly natural” and that Zionism involved embracing and harnessing anti Semitism?
Tal, brotha, landsmann, homey and old pal, you gotta slow down! Yes, it’s good form to rely strictly on the Four Tenets of Israel apologetics. Very commendable! But you’ve used No. 4 (The Whole World Sucks!) and No.3 (You Suck!) all up in one comment! Try to spread it out a little, and be more efficient!
Now, I don’t want to be unfair, and if you were arguing that Israel is entitled to appropriate for itself any atrocity from all of recorded history, and has the right to use these atrocities, I apologise.
A Jewish homeland once existed in the land of israel so you can say that we’ve implemented our right of return.
Israel was a man, not a country. This is in copies of the Bible not rewritten for Western consumption in the last 200 years, and tightened up for world events in the 20th C.
There was no magical land of Israel designated as a Jewish homeland; and if you want to be exact about it, Israel’s tribal land was waaay smaller than current day Israel. Israeli archeological evidence proves this is bullshit as well. link to historykb.com
Anyway, the American nation was established on the noble notion of creating a haven in the land which belonged to other people.
B.S. You’ve watched too many American movies. And your lack of historical perspective and knowledge befits a grade-schooler’s understanding. The land that is currently America was owned by Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, Indian tribes, and various Territories long after the United States formed itself in 1776. The USA was a strip mall located on the NE section of the current land of America.
Still, the American education system praises the founding fathers of america although some of them were slave owners.
They don’t ‘praise’ the Founding Fathers because of slavery, so what’s your point? This manichean viewpoint exhausts those of us who have been on this board a long time. Read the archives. There is exemplary commentary here, and lots of historical information.
==============
BTW, you should be ashamed of yourself for equating criticism of a political nationalism movement to anti-semitism, or waving that sorry-ass “delegimization” construct.
And we’re mostly Americans here, at least the blog owners are, so American values tend to predominate: criticism of our country is protected by law, which is one of the reasons we have no problem criticizing the policies of yours. Especially when we bankroll you.
Tal :
“A Jewish homeland once existed in the land of israel so you can say that we’ve implemented our right of return.”
++++ Here is two problems. That land was allready inhabited, and creation of Israel resulted palestinian expulsion.
“A Jewish homeland once existed in the land of israel so you can say that we’ve implemented our right of return.”
This gap in reasoning, and similar gaps which are evident in almost all zionist arguments, is your true weak spot.
While teaching the children in Israel about noble Zionism and simultaneously teaching them about the Nakba, would there be any connection made between these two subjects by the teacher for his or her students? Or would that remain an ineffable shadow, as in “Between the real and the ideal lies the shadow”?
What lurks in the heart of man?
The Shadow knows…
“The problem is with anti-zionists who express racist remarks about Israelis and/or Zionists”
This is just a muddle. There are Israeli Arabs just for starters, but clearly you mean people who say bad things about Israeli Jews in general. And you’d have a point if you bothered to put it that way–it’s wrong to take a group of millions of people and lump them all into the same category without regards to their actual beliefs and behavior. Some Israeli Jews fight for the rights of Palestinians and others are no worse than people anywhere. Still others are vicious anti-Arab racists and deserve to be criticized. So there’s all kinds, no doubt.
But Zionism? It’s now racist to criticize a political movement that wanted to establish a state for Jewish people in a land largely inhabited by non-Jewish Arabs? Or can we make distinctions here too? For instance, the Judah Magnes form of Zionism was unobjectionable but the kind which actually prevailed involved ethnic cleansing and now apartheid.
For convenience let’s just redefine “racism” to mean “any position that is more critical of Israel than Tal wants to hear”. By that definition you’re right.
It’s not racist to criticize Zionism but it is racist to refer to Zionism and zionists as if their essence is stealing and murdering. Much more people were murdered in the name of Islam and yet I would never dream of equating Islam with racism but I would definitely criticize some aspects of islam like I criticize certain aspects in Judaism
“Much more people were murdered in the name of Islam and yet I would never dream of equating Islam with racism “
Aw shucks, I just did!
tal, you’re making a play on words. as if their essence is stealing and murdering speaks to each an every individual, about what is in their heart. that is something i will not do. but can you acknowledge there is no possible manifestation of zionism within palestine that could exist without stealing and murdering? there’s no conceivable way the vast majority of people who have populated the land for thousands of years are going to walk out and hand it to you on a silver platter. you knew that. so, what zionist can avoid the fate of that? of what was done in their name? it doesn’t mean ‘their essence’ is the stealing and the murdering, it means their essence can not escape, cannot exist without being part of stealing and murdering. unless zionism was manifested in another local, which it wasn’t. zionism is a political construct. thus far there has been no zionism anywhere else, so you can’t act upon it as if it is divorced from it’s manifestation. can you say it? can you even say there was never any possibility for zionism to manifest in palestine without ethnic cleansing. or are you trying to claim there is some righteous form of zionism, a pure form that escape the reality of the way zionism operates? what zionism is that? it does not exist. zionism is not the same as racism because it contains other components. but their is no zionism sans racism. none. it thrives on racism because it cannot exist withour=t the dispossession of the inhabitants of the land, the palestinians. to ignore that is foolhardy.
you might like to imagine your ideological adversaries have an essences who denies your ‘right’ to self determination. but you have no right to rob others for your own self fulfillment. this is absurd. at our essence is justice. justice will come when zionists acknowledge they have stolen and murdered and apologize for their intransigence instead of trying to defend that which is impossible to defend.
“It’s not racist to criticize Zionism but it is racist to refer to Zionism and zionists as if their essence is stealing and murdering.”
I don’t give a crap, and I doubt too many other people (other than Gilad Atzmon, who once had thoughts on it) give a crap about your “essence”. After all, it’s always easier to abide the smell of one’s own flatulence.
No one is talking about your “essence” it’s your actions, over a period of 50 years and more that matter.
I withdraw all of this, of course, if, as you imply (or infer?) in your earlier post, the Israelis have invented a time machine.
Why do you think that Zionism was unable to fulfill itself without dispossessing the Arabs? Imagine the Arabs agreeing to split the land as decided in UN resolution 181 and the Arab militias not attacking the Jews – The war of 48 would have never happened and the Jews would have established their state in part of Palestine.
Can you imagine an American nation without dispossessing the native american Indians? It would be much smaller than it is today but still it would have existed. Could america have thrived without slavery and genocide? I don’t know. That’s for you to answer. Not my business. Unless you make “undoing israel” your business. Then it would be my business to remind you of your nation’s criminal record and why you have no right do demand that Israelis give up their nation state.
tal, we’ve all heard the arguments about what happened here centuries ago. the world’s a different place now wrt international law which was advanced as a result of the suffering of your people, along with others in the holocaust. so, let’s not divert the topic please.
Imagine the Arabs agreeing to split the land as decided in UN resolution 181 and the Arab militias not attacking the Jews –
yes, and let’s pretend the jewish terrorists militias were not blowing up markets and ethnically cleansing whole villages. i’m not really into this imaginings tal. my point is that if the zionist goal had been more nobel you could have found a place oj the globe without a thriving population and home to three main religions. but no, you wanted some of the most coveted real estate on the planet.
you came into this thread accusing the author of a strawman (which she is not guilty of) and then in the next sentence started picking a personal fight. this whole thread has been about you.
“and why you have no right”
I don’t want to shock you, judgment boy, but your ideology renders you incapable of any appeal to conscience or ethics which can’t easily be countered with “Go pound sand!”
And again, if I am wrong and you are admitting that dispossesion is the “essence” of Zionism, and you feel that any atrocity you can think of is yours to use, I apologise.
“Why do you think that Zionism was unable to fulfill itself without dispossessing the Arabs?”
Oh, I don’t know, but gosh, well, (he squirms, writes “Becky” in the sand with his big toe) because that’s what they did??? Because that’s what they keep on doing???? Nah, that couldn’t be it. I know, let’s argue about their “essence”.
Becasue from the day that Hertzl came up with the sick notion of Zionism, it insisted that the dispossessing the indienous people of whaever land was to become Israel would need to be expelled.
As Benny Morris said, ethnic cleasing is in the very DNA of Zionism, so by it’s very definition, Zionism would never have been able to fulfill itself without dispossessing the Arabs.
No need to imagine it. The Zionist forces began expelling Palestinuians on December 1947, 2 days after 181 was passed. 2 days later, Ben Gurion rejected every tennet of 181 in a speech on December 4th.
So to answer your question, it’s esy to imagine what woudl have happened had he Arabs agreeing to split the land as decided in UN resolution 181 – the outcome would have been the same.
And FYI, the Arab militias were not attacking the Jews. After all, between November 1947 and May 1948, the Zionist forces expelled 300,000 Palestinians.
The war of 48 was always going to happen. Ben Gurion wrote in a leter to his son that the partition was only temporary and a stepping stone toward conquering all of Palestine. He explained that if the Palestinians did not allow this to happen, war would be the option.
“but can you acknowledge there is no possible manifestation of zionism within palestine that could exist without stealing and murdering?”
This is at best an unhistorical statement, but probably rather an outright ideological lie, biting ad absurdum in its tail. Nothing new under the (mondoweiss-) sun ……..
We should sic Hostage on you.
“This is at best an unhistorical statement, but probably rather an outright ideological lie, biting ad absurdum in its tail. Nothing new under the (mondoweiss-) sun ……..”
Yeah, I know. It’s obviously based on the completely ridiculous idea that the Palestinians were people. I mean, in order to call it murder or dispossession, one would first have to prove that the Palestinians were equal to Jews, which is prima fascist crazy!
prima fascist
You’re making my day, Moose.
\
I think the word you’re looking for is unhasbrish. Historically it’s right on the money.
It’s a pity that you and your fellows are so little interested in facts, let alone historical accuracy. Palestineremembered, Pappe, Khalidi & Co. should not and never be the only source of (des)information, on pain of triviality of the ideas and language (Mooser docet). To regain some lost ground I suggest a couple essential readings on early Zionism and its attitude towards the Palestinian Arabs. For example:
Shabtai Teveth, “Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War”
or start maybe honestly and without prejudice with Karsh’ article 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians. Your choice to remain ignorant bigots, or open up a bit your horizons.
I think it’s a pitty that you believe everything you’ve been raised to believe and never questioned it.
Shabtai Teveth, “Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War”
Good recommendation, though I fail to see how it suports your argument. Teveth noted that the Zionists got off the boat demanding that the country be turned-over to them lock, stock, and barrel. Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter publicly called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.”
See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.
As Ben Gurion’s biographer, Teveth also admitted that Ben Gurion had made up his mind that the only relationship between the Jews and the Arabs would be a military one and that economic, social, and geographical partition (de facto apartheid) were inherent in Ben Gurion’s conception of Zionism.
See pages 10, 12, 43-44, and 179-184 of “Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs”, Oxford University Press, USA, 1985.
Teveth informs us that Ben-Gurion, inspired by the Peel Report, considered “a Jewish state in part of Palestine as a stage in the longer process towards a Jewish state in all of Palestine.” Lecturing to Mapai activists on 29 October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that the realization of the Jewish state would come in two stages: the first, “the period of building and laying foundations,” would last ten to fifteen years and would be but the prelude to the second stage, “the period of expansion.” The objective in both stages was “the in-gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine.” It is because of these views, Teveth tells us, that Ben-Gurion made no attempt to contact Palestinian leaders after 1936. We also learn from the official history of the Haganah that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN partition resolution, Ben-Gurion ordered the Haganah commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Slikowitz (“Avnir”), to draw up a plan for the military takeover of the entire country in anticipation of Britain’s eventual withdrawal from Palestine expected in the wake of the Peel Report. Despite all of that evidence, you claim that the victims are to blame because they rejected the UN partition proposal, but fail to mention the fact that the Jewish Agency itself rejected the Peel plan and the UNSCOP majority and minority plans and asked for a larger territorial allocation. In any event, the Security Council and the President of the United States stated that the UN Charter did not permit the plan of partition to be imposed on the Palestinian people by force.
The Karsh is synonimous with prejudice are BS. Even Benny Morris has derided the guy as an idiot and a fraudulent hack. As Mssirs pointed out Karsh couln’t even bring himself to admit that Ben Gurion had documented his plans to attack Lydda in his own diaries.
You’re the ignorant biggot, and as it turns out, a clown.
You don’t even read your own material. More anti intellectual hasbara.
Tal :
“Why do you think that Zionism was unable to fulfill itself without dispossessing the Arabs? Imagine the Arabs agreeing to split the land as decided in UN resolution 181 and the Arab militias not attacking the Jews – The war of 48 would have never happened and the Jews would have established their state in part of Palestine.”
++++ Speculations. Without expulsion of arab population from coming jewish state, there wouldnt be “jewish state” of Israel. I am pretty confident that you know, that Nov. 1947 when resolution 181 come out, population demographics were close 50-50. So tell us now, how zionistas manage create a jewish state, if we presume that arabs agreed to res.181, while half of population is non-jewish ? And because we know arab birthrate, zionists would have a jewish state where jewish population are minority.
You fail to see the link because your reading is, as usual, pretty biased and narrow – in the best trivial anti-Zionist cherry picking tradition well-known in your circle. The lack of comprehension you display may be due to ideological blindness or outright intellectual dishonesty – probably both together.
If you would read Teveth ‘s “Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs – From Peace to War” with some accuracy (but obviously you don’t), you would find quotations of Ben Gurion which show an other, more objective view, supported by the same author.
Ben-Gurion stated in 1931 that “The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The Arabs work the land, and will remain.” (page 5-6)
The Zionist leader repeatedly announced that he did not see population transfer as a requisite component of Zionist aspirations when others brought it up: “Like Weizmann, Ben-Gurion believed that the creation of a Jewish majority did not mean ‘the removal of many Arabs from Palestine,’ but ‘the introduction of many Jews through development and industry.’ This was the message Ben-Gurion bore during a four-month swing through Europe, with stops in London, Stockholm, and Berlin.” (page 108-109)
In the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, Article IV. 3 January 1919 is clearly stated: “All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.” The basic idea was to promote the Jewish immigration in Palestine, not to displace the Arab population, on the contrary, the Arab inhabitants and immigrants to Palestine were openly wellcomed to live together and in mutual respect with the Jews.
This is also confirmed by the conciliatory position taken by the Zionist Congress: “”In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.” (Churchill White Paper, 3 June 1922).
Ben Gurion – together with the other Zionist leaders – wasn’t at all in favor of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs, as ignoramuses like you repeat ad libitum like a mantra, but actually in favor of their remaining in the land. Read and marvel:
“… the most important economic asset of the native population is the fellahs … Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging … to them … They must receive help from Jewish settlement institutions, to free themselves from their dead weight of their oppressors, and to keep their land.” (Teveth, page 32)
“… bridges had to be built to the Arab worker who, though still a politically negligible force, would one day emerge triumphant. It was, in fact, the historic mission of Zionism to elevate the Arab worker, without whom it would be difficult for Labor Zionism to succeed, for the fate of the Jewish worker was bound up with that of his Arab comrade.” (Teveth, page 68)
The conflicting statements from Zionist leaders on the issue of possible transfer has a much more pragmatic explanation as you and your fellows anti-Zionist Israel-critics are used to believe and to spread: the Arab hostility against the Jewish community in Palestine. The riots in 1921, the Hebron massacre of the indigenuous Jews in 1929, the revolt against the very Jewish presence in Palestine 1936-1939, the White Paper of 1939, the anti-Jewish policies by the Brits during WWII, implemented under the pressure of Arab and Arab Palestinian leaders, etc. were far more decisive for the formation of certain opposing views within the Zionist movement towards the issue of possible coexistence or instead hostility towards the Palestinian Arabs, but it still was not the mainstream.
As for your reference to Morris to discredit Karsh, well isn’t it so symptomatic for your arbitrary use of the names, concepts and words symply depending on what you need right now to support your erroneus claims: Morris once is ok because it brings into question the official history, and yet again he is the dirty old-Zionist who denies that there was ethnic cleansing. I should not laugh ….
Imagine the Arabs agreeing to split the land as decided in UN resolution 181 and the Arab militias not attacking the Jews – The war of 48 would have never happened and the Jews would have established their state in part of Palestine.
The Security Council actually declined to accept the portion of 181(II) on the plan of partition for action or to implement it by force against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. It called for the second special session of the General Assembly and requested that it recommend a different solution. The General Assembly suspended the work of its own Palestine Commission, and created the Office of the UN Mediator as a subsidiary UN organ to do exactly that.
The Zionist Organization asked for permission to immigrate and settle in Palestine and establish a national home there through free association with the existing inhabitants. The League of Nations never gave the Zionists permission to establish a separate state in Palestine or granted them legal title to any land they had not purchased or obtained through legitimate means. The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations stipulates that
The Survey of Palestine performed for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry reported that about one third of the predominately immigrant Jewish community had never applied for citizenship. Nothing in customary international law permits immigrants to establish a state in violation of the rights of others in order to exercise their right of self-determination. That is particularly true in the case of the Mandate for Palestine. Jews obtained the very same Palestinian nationality in the their new “national home” as the existing non-Jewish communities – and it was “clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
The Palestinian majority were never allowed to govern their own territory. So, they never violated the rights of the Jewish, or other communities living there. In 1949, shortly after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, the International Law Commission noted that
The notion that Israel is being delegitimized is misguided. Israel was provisionally recognized on the basis of its declarations and undertakings to implement the provisions on minority rights and refugees in resolution 181(II) and 194(III).
Very funny.
So it comes down to a transaction, eh?
Jews wanted a state on primarily Palestinian land and stacked the deck in order to get it, and the Palestinian’s refused the deal, and you blame all the unrest since, on the Palestinians for not taking the deal.
Interesting definition of a transaction.
mig, the Jewish occupiers began ejecting the natives 7 months before the partition plan was announced, and 2 days after that UN announcement the Jewish occupiers rejected the partition in toto. And 300,000 natives had been terrorized out of their homes by May of ’48–this was documented here yesterday or the day before on a thread here at MW; it has been documented countless times here, yet you write as if this was not so. I conclude you must be paid to keep repeating hasbara since you’re not a newbie here at MW.
You’re a pathetic joke Jonah,
That might explain your laughter. Hostage already wiped the floor with you on this subject, but it seems you want another round fo punishment.
Not only do you not read your own sources, but you insist that only your own cherry picked interpretation is the objective one.
You deride Palestineremembered.com as a source, clearly ignorant of the fact that it includes copious quotes from Teveth. As for Morris, you’re apparently just as ignorant of his writings – Morris does not deny that ethnic cleansing took place, but that it was pre meditated. In fact, Morris goes so far as to argue that the problems of today stem from Ben Gurion not finishing the job.
More objective because you like the sound of it Jonah?
I have read this book with far more accuracy than you, which is how I was able to cite the pages 10, 12, 43-44, and 179-184 of that very book, where Teveth informs us that Ben-Gurion, inspired by the Peel Report, considered “a Jewish state in part of Palestine as a stage in the longer process towards a Jewish state in all of Palestine.”
Lecturing to Mapai activists on 29 October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that the realization of the Jewish state would come in two stages: the first, “the period of building and laying foundations,” would last ten to fifteen years and would be but the prelude to the second stage, “the period of expansion.”
We also learn from the official history of the Haganah that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN partition resolution, Ben-Gurion ordered the Haganah commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Slikowitz (“Avnir”), to draw up a plan for the military takeover of the entire country in anticipation of Britain’s eventual withdrawal from Palestine expected in the wake of the Peel Report.
Shabatai Teveth and Benny Morris both cited David Ben Gurion’s letter to his son Amoz in 1937, which explained his support for partition. It said that a Jewish state in part of Palestine was only the beginning, not the end of the process. Ben Gurion stated that he was building a first rate military that would enable the Zionists to complete the task of redeeming the entire land and settling in the remainder of Palestine – with or without the consent of the Arabs. Decades later, Ben Gurion selected that letter for publication as a reflection of his thinking on the subject. See Letters to Paula and the Children, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153.
In 1917 Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Zionism’s ultimate objective was to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:
“Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)
How was Palestine to become a Jewish majority without ethnic cleasing Jonah? Immigration was never going to cut it. The same year he made the statement you cited Ben-Gurion alluded that that Zionists were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations (ie. A jewish majority) in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)
Of course, it’s not surprise that your cheery picked quotes end at 1931. As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, Ben Gurion threw away his idealism on the justification that “these days it is not right but might which prevails”.
In April 1936, Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice. Ben-Gurion explained to the Mapai party that
“these days it is not right but might which prevails. It is more important to have force than justice on one’s side.” In a period of “power politics , the powers that become hard of hearing, and respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have no cannons.” In order to survive in this evil world, the Jewish people needed cannons more than justice. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 191)
The problem was that this was BS. Immigration was never going to be sufficient to achieve this aim, certainly not once WWII was under way.
Faisal-Weizmann Agreement clearly stated on the front page (hand written by Faisal as a condition of his agreement) that the Arabs were to be granted full independence. Ben Gurion explicitly rejected this proposal. In 1924 he declared that:
“We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.”
Ben Gurion was already violin the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.
In 1928 he pronounced that :
“The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)
Of course Ben Gurion would go on to deny their rights even to their homes.
This is also confirmed by the conciliatory position taken by the Zionist Congress:
False. The 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the “Jewish state” was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission’s proposal:
“The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan,” Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, “is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)
And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that :
“I don’t regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)
Of course, you’d know all of this if you had really read Teveth’s book.
Clearly you have not.
On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah’s regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :
“Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ….. As for the compulsory transfer– as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)
Rubbish. Ben-Gurion admitted that it was the Zionists who were the aggressors. He stated in the contexts of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1938, :
“When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves —- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.” (Righteous Victims, p. 652)
Who do you think youre kidding Jonah (other than yourself)? As for the Jews of Hebron, if you look at the list of the fewer than 70 that were killed, more than 90% were ashkenazim. They were recent immigrants, and the local Arab leaders gave strict orders (which, it is true, were not followed) that the Sephardim who had always lived there (ie. indigenuous Jews) were spared.
Always the liar. But then again, you’re a Zionist so you can’t really help it.
The policies of the Brits during WWII were anything but anti Jewish. Not only did the British kill 5,000 Arabs during the revolt, but they were the first to introduce collective punishment in the form of home demolitions. The British disarmed the Arabs and smashed their leadership, while allowing Jewish militias to arm themselves to the teeth.
Even the presence of an expired bullet on an Arab property would lead to the home being demolished.
Not a single Jewish home was demolished. So much for Anti Jewish policies of the British, who need I remind you, were there to create a Jewish state, not an Arab one.
Thanks for the comic relief Jonah. Every blog needs a village idiot. Witty is ours, but he can sleep soundly knowing you have his back.
Jonah, your reading of Teveth’s book fails the self-serving test. The fact is, actions speak louder than words to most people. Take this for example: “bridges had to be built to the Arab worker who, though still a politically negligible force, would one day emerge triumphant…” Instead of throwing this quote around, expecting it to prove Ben-Gurion wanted to co-exist with the Palestinians on equal terms, maybe you can explain what he actually did to affect such co-existence. Because Arabs could not live on a kibbutz and couldn’t join the Histadrut, so it sure wasn’t found in the public sector of the Yishuv.
In fact, there was a certain incident in 1927 were Ben-Gurion led a protest in Nes Zioniyya, a first aliyah plantation, against employing Arab workers. This is from ‘The Global Political Economy of Israel’ (Can be found in pdf)
Shingo -
Zionists of the time were not saints (I never said that), but the Arabs and the Palestinians were certainly not better. The ensuing civil war waged and unleashed by the latter, proves it beyond doubt. Remember the lessons of history by Robert Werdine a couple of months ago. Yet you – as the hardened and narrow-minded propagandist that you are – can not help but keep alive your raw world in light and dark, where you still know for sure who are the good and who the bad guys. Good for you and your delusions, but do not expect to be taken seriously.
Have a good day.
The Arabs did what all indigenous pople throuhgout history have done in response to colonialism – they tried to resits it. They had every moral right to do so.
I debunked Robert’s propaganda. The Zionist militias began expelling Arabs right after 181 was passed at the UN (as Ben Gurion had promised in his letter to his son a decade earlier).
Yes, I will lie awake at night wondering how to be taken seriously by a discredit propagandist. How will I ever cope?
Zionists of the time were not saints (I never said that), but the Arabs and the Palestinians were certainly not better.
The Arabs did not flood the Pale of Settlement through foreign immigration and demand the establishment of an unpartitioned Arab Commonwealth or the surrender of the territory and its natural resources as their eternal possession.
The ensuing civil war waged and unleashed by the latter . . .
was preceded by a wave of foreign immigration imposed at gunpoint by a British occupying force. The Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry revealed that a third of the Jews never even bothered to apply for citizenship. By definition it was an international conflict between the indigenous population and an alien force composed of Brits and foreign Jews, not a civil war.
Remember the lessons of history by Robert Werdine a couple of months ago.
I remember that he suffers from denial just like you. I gave him references to reliable published sources which explained that the Avnir plan was the first in a series designed to seize the territory of Palestine after the British withdrawal and expel or subdue the Arab inhabitants; that the Arab intelligence section conducted detailed surveys of towns and villages in preparation for the conquest; and that the Transfer Committee implemented those plans. I cited Morris, Khalidi, and Ben Ami, but you can find the same material on the Village Files starting on page 17 of Pappe’s Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; the evolution of Plans A,B.C, & D on page 28; and the so-called “Consultancy” on page 37.
Even the pro-Zionist Jewish Virtual Library page on Plan Dalet reveals that the text of the plan says that it was based upon three earlier plans, including Plan B from 1945. It called for pre-planned attacks on Arab objectives in the heart of Arab territory in order to ensure freedom of military and economic activity in Jewish settlements that had been deliberately located outside the proposed borders of the Hebrew State.
All of these things were planned long before there was any threat from the neighboring Arab states. The plan of conquest and the requirement for consultation with the political officials in the transfer committee were NOT dependent upon the existence of any Arab resistance:
You and Robert expect us to believe, despite abundant testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary, that more than 400 villages were methodically destroyed and the logistics behind the reception and beddown of thousands of European refugees in hundreds of other Arab villages occurred spontaneously, by accident, without any forethought or pre-planning.
“I debunked Robert’s propaganda.”
This proves once more, as if we need more evidence for the evidence, that you are not exactly in touch with reality. It was clearly theopposite, but you have not even noticed ….
“The Arabs did what all indigenous pople throuhgout history have done in response to colonialism – they tried to resits it. They had every moral right to do so.”
How bizarre that, on the edge of the 1948 war, the words used by Pasha Azzam, the Secretary-General of the Arab League to describe the imminent conflict, evoque so strongly the bloodthirsty spirit of destruction and conquest typical of the worst forms of warmongering colonialism perpetrated in history: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
jonah, the Arabs & Palestinians never waged a “civil war” against the Jews, who were colonial settlers. Your analogy has no legs.
jonah, nothing bizarre about natives resisting colonial oppression. Azzam was trying to rally the troops to support the Mandate natives since the Brits had ended their control & the Zionists were terrorizing the natives off the land.
How bizarre that, on the edge of the 1948 war, the words used by Pasha Azzam, the Secretary-General of the Arab League to describe the imminent conflict, evoque so strongly the bloodthirsty spirit of destruction and conquest typical of the worst forms of warmongering colonialism perpetrated in history
Let’s get our facts straight. The British High Commissioner reported that in the brief period from 30 November 1947 to 1 February 1948 there had been 427 Arabs killed and 1,035 wounded. Nonetheless, you are still pretending that Palestine was on the verge of a conflict in mid-May 1948 long after the Deir Yassin massacre, the sieges of Haifa, Jaffa, & etc. Believe me. No one is buying it.
Even Wikipedia casts doubt upon the authenticity of your quote:
– link to en.wikipedia.org
That last part doesn’t sound blood thristy at all. In fact it sounds much more civilized than some members of the modern-day Israeli Knesset.
Internal US State Department and CIA memos said that the Jews were the actual aggressors against the Arabs, and predicted that they would come running to the Security Council complaining that they were the victims. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 (also cited in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.)
On the contrary. Weridine was simply recycling his failed argument that I had just debunked here link to mondoweiss.net
Imminent conflict huh? Azzam’s statement was made 5 months AFTER Zionist forces had destroyed hundreds fo Palestian villages and expelled more than 300,000 Palestinians.
Seruiosly Jonah, have you no self respect, or do you get some thrill from being humiliated?
That’s priceless Hostage. I just love how you mop the floor with these guys.
How amazing that in both the 1948 and 1967 war, the US State Department said the very same thing when it said:
“Israel alone is to be condemned as an agressor – though surely, in the light of all the events, both recent and long past, that led up to the fighting, it would be neither equitable nor constructive for this organization to issue a one-sided condemnation.”
The ensuing civil war waged and unleashed by the latter . ..
“was preceded by a wave of foreign immigration imposed at gunpoint by a British occupying force.”
Starting with such a demonstrably false argument makes your case pretty desperate, Hostage. It is simply a bad joke, the result of a distorted view of history.
Actually, the British immigration policy in the Thirties and even more during WWII was anything but favorable to the Jews. The initial commitment to the Zionist cause, as written in the Balfour declaration and echoed in the terms of the Mandate, was soon denied and betrayed. The White Paper of 1922 expressed reservations regarding Jewish immigration to Palestine and envisaged its regulation in the fear that it may anger the Arab population (the first anti-Jewish riots had already occurred the year before); besides, it made clear that the British didn’t support a separate country as Jewish nation home.
Confirming their unfriendly attitude, the British split the territory of the Palestine Mandate, by excluding the Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River. That territory, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and assigned to King Abdullah. But even that didn’t satisfy the British and the Palestinian Arabs, which adamantly opposed any Jewish homeland in Palestine (until today, I would add): after the 1929 Arab riots, the Shaw Commission called to re-examine the British immigration policy and the White Paper of 1930 aimed at limiting once more the immigration. In 1936 the Arabs again staged a revolte against the Jewish presence in Palestine and demanded a halt of the immigration as one of their main claims. The British Peel Commission came to meet this demand in 1937, recommending a maximum of 12 000 Jewish immigrants a year for a period of 5 years. More Arab violence led to the White Paper of 1939, in which the limitation of the Jewish immigration was made permanent: a death sentence for countless European Jews. During WWII only few Jewish immigrants managed to come illegally to Palestine, the rest was send back in the Nazi Inferno in Europe or lost their life at sea. In 1946 the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus, approximately 50 thousand people were detained there till 1948. Despite the continuing restrictions on the part of the British and despite the violence coming from the Arabs, the Jewish popolation managed to increase from eighty thousand units in 1922 to six hundred thousand units in 1948, mainly due to illegal immigration to the promised Jewish homeland.
But at the same time, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration to Palestine was unrestricted. British permitted or ignored massive illegal Arab immigration into Palestine from Arab countries, attracted by the better economic conditions as a result of Jewish presence and industry. Churchill noted in 1939 that “far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied.” Their population increased from about six hundred thousand in 1922 to one million three hundred thousand in 1948, thus more than doubling in 26 years.
Summing up, it appears now clear that your comment on the fact that, as you say, Jewish immigration to Palestine was “imposed at gunpoint by British occupying force” is untrue at best. This shatters the anti-Zionist thesis of the much-vaunted Jewish colonialist conspiracy, of which you also make yourself a spokesman.
There is much to say and to fix about your arbitrary interpretation of Plan Dalet too, as well as about the question who started really the 1948 war, but my time on MW has expired and it will therefore be e for another time. Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me the conceptual and cognitive obtuseness of certain rampant anti-Zionism, even apart from the irreparably lost case that is the good old bigoted buddy Shingo.
lol, there are enough holes in that to sink a ship, and i’m not even an expert!
jonas, i suggest you read Britain’s denial of democracy and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Jonah your claim that the British split Palestine has been debunked many times in the past. Here is a link to one of my comments with maps you can download from the UK Archives.
link to mondoweiss.net
Here is a link to correspondence from the Palestine Arab delegation dated 1922 which complained that they were being ruled by force in order to facilitate foreign immigration: link to unispal.un.org
The Delegation observed:
Here is an article that Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote just before he left his position on the Executive Council of the Zionist Organization in 1923: link to danielpipes.org
He said
As early as 1936, Ben Gurion concluded that the only relationship possible with the Palestinians was a military one, since they would not accept unrestricted Jewish immigration or a Jewish majority. See Shabatai Teveth, “Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, Oxford University Press, 1984, page 193.
your claim that the British split Palestine has been debunked many times in the pastHere is a link to one of my comments with maps you can download from the UK Archives.
So, hostage, you grant credit to article 25 of the Palestine Mandate which excludes the territories east of the Jordan river from any Jewish settlement – implemented through the Tranjordanian Memorandum of Sept. 1922 -, but you deny the same credit to the preamble and article 2 of the same Mandate which shall secure the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine. It must be your “British” correctness.
I can not but note that the documents you produce, such as the xenophobic letter (unreasonably, as an in-depth reading of the correspondence shows) written by the Palestine Arab delegation, are just suitable to substantiate your anti-Zionist position and are put together in order to provide half of the picture – not to reveal the truth.
Quite the same goes for your second link. You quote what you want to know and think right, but you leave out what does not fit your propaganda purposes. Indeed why admit that Japotinsky was first of all a pragmatist, as it became also Ben-Gurion, who knew all too well the irretrievable Arab hostility to any form of Jewish political independence, if the image of the cruel Zionist devoted to ethnically cleanse is well-suited to your anti-Israeli cause? In the letter Japotinski does simply recognize the state of things, drawing the necessary conclusions. We read in the introduction: “I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.”
The Arabs rejected the Zionist project in toto and increasingly any presence of Jews in Palestine, the Zionists re-acted accordingly, by defending themselves and settling in the land. What should they have done otherwise? Maybe go back to Europe to be slaughtered by the Nazis, or get killed in Palestine at the hands of their fierce antagonists?
This is the pattern still today, the core of the conflict. Get (over) it.
jonah, would you accept somebody taking over your home because they say they are being hunted somewhere across the sea? At most, you just might allow them to camp on your land briefly, assuming they begged you, saying they are in fear for their very lives–and this assumes they would not in anyway interfere with your daily routine. And what would you do, if the those squatters brought in more of them, and now they were banging on your door, asking if they could “borrow” a room, half your house? Try standing in the shoes of the Palestinian people for once in your life. And what if a giant Man came to your door and said if you didn’t go along with “the program” he’d give the squatters you initially allowed on your property in limited number (for a brief time) BIG GUNS to kill you & take over your home? Tell us, what would you do? We’re all waiting with the proverbial baited breath.
You can sunk all you like Jonah, but the following the 1922 Transjordan memorandum, the area east of the Jordan river became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Furthermore, the is no reference to “Jewish homeland” in the Mandate Jonah. That’s not British correctness, it’s factual correctness.
Funny how Japotinski (who eveb Ben gurion referred to as racist) is referred to as “practical”, while the Palestine Arab delegation is labelled xenophobic. So what did you find xenophobic Jonah, the reference to Jewish immigratnts as alien?
As for Jabotinsky’s letter, the subsequent paragraph goes on to justify why the dessire not to expel or oppress the Arabs would be comprimised.
“Apart from those who have been virtually “blind” since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to “Palestine” becoming a country with a Jewish majority.”
Jabotinsky says he doesn’t want to expel, oppress and disposess the Arabs, but becasue the Arabs don’t have the decency to get up and dissapear, it has to be done.
The aim of the Zionist project was colinization of all of Palestine and the removal of the Palestinian population (to create a Jewish majority). How could the Arabs not reject it, short fo commiting suicide? It is a contradiction to suggest that the Zionists were defending themselves and settling (is. stealing) in the land.
Your argument comes down to a rapist arguing that all he was doing was defending himself while having sex.
In case you need reminding Jonah,you started the debate by insisting we read your sources and analyse your interpretation of them. You failed and your argument is bunk. Having all but admitted to this, all you can say if “Get (over) it”.
Having said, that, the pattern of colinization, ethnic cleasing, and violence by the Zionists has indeed been the the core of the conflict.
citizen, what you describe as reality is in truth nothing but the usual narrative cultivated by the Arab-Palestinian side for nearly a century, since the beginning of the Jewish immigration into Mandatory Palestine. Why was there a Jewish emigration to Palestine? Why, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, people emigrated in British colonial America, giving rise to an extensive colonization of the territory and finally to a nation state? The reasons for the Jewish emigration were serious, as you well know but deliberately neglect to consider. And in Palestine no Arab state called Palestine existed at that time (otherwise why an international mandate?) – nor existed any ever in history – and the Jews were not “squatters”, and they did not “occupy” or “stole”, but they bought legally the land at a high price from the Arab landowners. They had not even the ambition to create a Jewish state, but only the desire to establish a Jewish national home, as written in and promised by the Balfour Declaration, that the British Mandate was called to translate into practice. But while the same mandatory power wasted no time in implementing the creation of Transjordan, it demurred for a long time – even preventing – to implement the right of the Jewish people, sealed in international law, to a national home in the land of their ancestors.
The birth of the Palestinian Arab national consciousness took shape and strength at that time and not before, and arose in clear competition and, I would add, as reaction to the Zionist national aspirations. So, citizen, no feared Zionist “giant Man with big guns to kill you and take over your home”, but actually two parallel and equally legitimate nationalisms toward the same piece of land. Unfortunately, these nationalisms became antagonistic, and I believe in the first place because of the strong and violent opposition by the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world as a whole, which chose conflict and war rather than compromise and share the land with the small Jewish community.
Ergo, your premises are in fact simply wrong and the question you ask me turns back to yourself with a different accent: Why do you not accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East?
I’m waiting with the proverbial bated breath.
Cirtizen,
You have to laugh at the irony over the fact that the very people who are arguing that the Arabs got what they deserved for not allowing their land to be flooded with refugees are the same peope who insist that multi culturalism has failed.
No, it’s actually very simple Jonah,
The reasons for the Jewish emigration were not the fault of the Palestinians, and whether an Arab state called Palestine existed at that time or otherwise does not change a thing.
Yes, they did, and all they ended up with (as of May 1948) was 7% of the land, which they were not satisfied with. Hence they stole more of it.
Don’t be an idiot Jonah. Ben Gurion said in 1917 that a Jewish majority would be required to create a Jewish state within 20 years. He also said that the Arabs had no right to govern the territory. The Zionists were never going to accept the limits of the Balfour Declaration.
There was never any article (other than myths in the Bible) of intentional law grating the Jewish people a national home in the land of their ancestors. Palestine happened to be chosen, not because of any prior civilization (long extinct).
The creation of Transjordan was actually a small token offering ion light of the fact that the British had legally obliged themselves to create a much larger Arab state, which was to include all of Palestine.
True, because Zionist national aspirations involved colonizing the land and expelling the Palestinians.
They became antagonistic because one of them involved taking over the land at the expense of the other. Israel chose war, not the Arabs. The Zionists began arming themselves to the teeth in the early 40′s (with British complicity) while the British were disarming the Arabs and expelling the leadership on their behalf.
Ergo, Citizen’s premises is right on the money.
Why do you not accept the existence of a Palestinian one?
We are seeign today what they would do. The Isrealis are laying land mines in the Golan (which they also stole) to stop Palestinians crossing the border from Syria.
Imagine if the Palestinians had planted land mines throughout the territory ni the early 1900′s to stop Jewish immigration.
So, hostage, you grant credit to article 25 of the Palestine Mandate which excludes the territories east of the Jordan river from any Jewish settlement
No, I happen to know that Transjordan was part of the Arab OETA setup under Feisal according to the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement. It was part of the territory lying to the East of the McMahon-Hussein line (Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo) which was always included in the territory that Britain and France had pledged to recognize as Arab and independent. Even the August 1919 Balfour memo from the peace conference (see the link in my comment above) mentions that the territory East of the Jordan river was not included in Palestine. He also mentions that the French interests in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine were three separate territories. See also the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″ available in the FRUS and in the J. C. Hurewitz collection. Balfour was also present at the ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919 in which Lloyd George advised the French that the McMahon letters were a binding treaty obligation and that the League of Nations Mandate (i.e. the Balfour Declaration) could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
So, Transjordan wasn’t even part of Palestine during the San Remo Conference in April 1920. Article 25 had to be added to the British Mandate when the territory of Transjordan was added to the British Mandate as a result of the overthrow of the Faisal regime a few months after San Remo and an agreement was reached between Abdullah and Churchill during the Cairo Conference. On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, including the territory of Transjordan (for the very first time), was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, “Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921″, Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234
We’ve also discussed the fact that nothing in the Balfour Declaration or Mandate provided for Jewish autonomy or a separate Jewish state. Balfour himself had personally circulated the detailed memorandum and maps to the Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet on December 5, 1918 which said that Great Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that Palestine itself would be Arab and independent. See the reference to the attendees and the distribution of E.C. 2201 in “E.C. 41st Minutes” (CAB 27/24, C372213 ). During the first portion of the meeting on the subject of Syria Lord Curzon, the Chairman, said:
“First, as regards the facts of the case. The various pledges are given in the Foreign Office paper* [E.C. 2201] which has been circulated, and I need only refer to them in the briefest possible words. In their bearing on Syria they are the following: First there was the letter to King Hussein from Sir Henry McMahon of the 24th October 1915, in which we gave him the assurance that the Hedjaz, the red area which we commonly call Mesopotamia, the brown area or Palestine, the Acre-Haifa enclave, the big Arab areas (A) and (B), and the whole of the Arabian peninsula down to Aden should be Arab and independent.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 6).
…
In the second half of the meeting on the subject of Palestine he said:
“The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 16)
E.C. 2201 contained two documents:
Former Reference: GT 6506A
Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
Former Reference: GT 6506
Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
Balfour’s memo from the Peace Conference made it perfectly clear that the UK was betraying the Arabs and had no intention of honoring any of the promises regarding their independence. So if anyone is wasting their time cherry-picking sources for propaganda purposes, it’s dishonest Zionists like yourself.
I accept the existence of a Arab Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security to a Jewish one.
And you, Shingo, can you spell the simple words: “I accept the existence of the Jewish state of Israel”?
Its the giant question.
It is an affirmation of international law for Israel to exist. The challenge now is to create a viable Palestine.
The current actions of expansion east of the green line, are expansion, and greatly hinder the effort for Israel to simply exist.
Israel can defend itself at the green line with or without a treaty. Israel can certainly defend itself in the presence of a treaty.
The current PA is eager to form a treaty, as security is also an important component of their viability. The same logic applies, that borders are defensible with a treaty, and functionally no borders (nor sovereignty) without one.
The two expansionist/denialist efforts hinder that logic from coming into reality.
“I accept the existence of the Jewish state of Israel”?
Well, now you are talking about a final settlement of the 48 War. What is your position on compensation and right of return? A quick check with the UNSCOP report reveals that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian Arab population. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reveals that Israel still is a bi-national state today – whether the Jews living there happen to “accept” that fact or not. Today Israel has 600.000 Jews living in the area beyond the armistice borders.
If you are simply trying to maintain the unsustainable status quo, then no, the rest of the world has no responsibility to help you maintain a state in the Middle East so that Jews can enjoy superior rights or oppress the hell out of everyone else.
I don’t support any state based on religion.
I support either one secualr democratic state (Jewish and democracy are a contradiction in terms) or 2 secular democratic states.
“I accept the existence of a Arab Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security to a Jewish one.
And you, Shingo, can you spell the simple words: “I accept the existence of the Jewish state of Israel”?”
This is racist or bigoted (others can decide which) and I wonder if you can see it. Palestinians originally lived in what is now Israel and would be the majority if most of them hadn’t been forced out. As it stands, 20 percent of them are non-Jewish. Asking anyone to endorse Israel as the “Jewish” state is like asking someone to endorse the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
This has become a new meme and I can’t help suspect that it is meant in part to either sabotage the two state solution by Israelis who oppose it or else to put the blame on the failure of that solution to materialize on the Palestinians. It’s another humiliation imposed on them, to think that they should say “Israel is a Jewish state”. And it’s also an attempt to make the rest of the world (or in this case Shingo) endorse ethnic cleansing. It’s a completely unnecessary demand for someone to make if he or she truly desired a peaceful solution with two states. But it makes sense if it is done out of a desire to blame the Palestinians. It also makes sense if the demand comes out of a strain of narcissistic bigotry.
For myself I think it’s up to the Palestinians to decide if they wish to go for a one state solution or a two state solution. But if Israelis and their supporters want to work hard to make the latter impossible or unworkable, then they are making the choice easier.
Bullshit Witty.
Israel’s existence has no bearing on international law, just as Czekoslovakia’s existence and subsequent desolation did.
>> I accept the existence of a Arab Palestinian state …
Good for you, but no one should have to accept the existence of an “Arab Palestinian” state any more than anyone should have to accept the existence of a “Jewish state of Israel”.
A two-state solution should result in two autonomous, secular, democratic and egalitarian states:
- Israel, the nation state of all Israelis; and,
- Palestine (assuming that will be its final name), the nation state of all Palestinians.
I don’t support any state based on religion.
“Jewish” is not referred only to the Jewish religion but also to the Jewish people. That means the Israel is a nation with a Jewish majority, the same way that for example Italy is a nation with a catholic majority.
I support either one secualr democratic state (Jewish and democracy are a contradiction in terms) or 2 secular democratic states.
Really? But Israel is Jewish (that means with a Jewish majority) and democratic the same way that for example England is Protestant and democratic.
By the way, what makes you believe that a future Palestine will be secular and democratic … In other words: name me one single Arab state with true democracy, thus free elections, free media, true separation of the powers …. etc.
“There was never any article (other than myths in the Bible) of intentional law grating the Jewish people a national home in the land of their ancestors.
Maybe you should lern something about the significance of “A” Mandates unter international law:
link to en.wikipedia.org
The Mandate was obviously the direct offshoot of the international body of the time, the League of Nations. Its text was binding on the mandatory power, which was required to implement it in its fundamentals.
But your friend Hostage does not tire of emphasizing that the committment included in the Mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, did not mean the establishment of a Jewish state, and thus far he’s right. However, the good friend is too stuck to the single treaties and paragraphs based on their significance as propaganda, but he seems to lack the overview of the various treaties, reports, articles of law etc. that he loves so much to enumerate, an overview that knows how to put the documents into their right place in the historical process. Besides, he – as representant for a whole class of inveterate anti-Zionist – uses contingent claims by the Zionist leaders as proof to substantiate the alleged objectivity of his legalistic smoke candles. If I would do the same and take some quotes of Arab Palestinian leaders of the time, I could easily use them to make evident the virulent Arab Palestinian Anti-Semitism, especially toward the Palestinian Jews. But that’s not the point here, even if it directly affected the outcome of the nationalistic dispute.
Instead, we are interested in the question of the legitimacy of the Zionist claim to a Jewish national home as well as of the Palestinian Arab claim to a own national home. The answer is basically very simple. In the first case, legitimacy was given – through a international Mandate – directly from the League of Nations to the mandatory power, that was called to translate it into practice. In the second case, this legitimacy was not given through the Mandate, but was granted to the Palestinian Arabs through modification of the mandatory message, as a result of Arab Palestinian massive protests and violence. In other words, the British – as Mandatory power of international law – took a new stance the british took over few years a new stance regarding the resolution of their Mandate., coming to meet at least partially Arab demands, and at the same time lowering the expectations of the Jews. However, the Arab side was blocked on his starting positions, which excluded in principle any collaboration or sharing of the country with the Jews. There are many examples for this maximalist and uncompromising attitude, one for all:
A noteworthy exchange occurred during Haj Amin al-Husseini’s testimony before the Peel Commission in early 1937. The commissioners asked:
Question: “Does his eminence think that this country can assimilate and digest the 400 000 Jews now in the country?”
Al-Husseini: “No.”
Question: “Some of them would have to be removed by a process kindly or painful as the case may be?”
Al-Husseini: “We must leave all this to the future.”
Not even the last of several White Papers, that of 1939, which – as the genocide of the Jews of Europe was in preparation – limited Jewish immigration to a historic low, was enough to assuage the anger and ambitions of Arab leaders. On closer inspection, the fierce opposition to international law itself was the prevailing attitude of the Arab attitude, any attempt to pacify the parties was rejected – a rejectionism confirmed and sealed by the refusal of the Partition Plan submitted by the new international body of the United Nations.
I think all this should be enough stuff for couple of honest thought, since this pattern is still at work in the present.
Hallo Richard,
I don’t think that the unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would be the solution of the conflict, on the contrary: the Palestinians would still not be satisfied, but they would rather have one more reason to insist that Israel accept millions of descendants of the Palestinian refugees of ’48. Because the real problem remains their refusal to accept a Jewish-majority state of what they consider to be Arab-Muslim land. So the problem must be solved at the root of the conflict, not on the surface, and the root of this conflict lies precisely in the original rejection to recognize (and co-exist with) the existence of Jewish national home in ME.
hallo jonah,
on the contrary: the Israelis will still not be satisfied, they would rather have one more reason to insist that Palestine accept millions of descendants of the Jews. Because the real problem remains their refusal to accept a Palestinian-Jewish state of what they consider to be Jewish land. So the problem must be solved at the root of the conflict, not on the surface, and the root of this conflict lies precisely in the original rejection to recognize (and co-exist with) the existence of Palestinians in what they consider Eretz Yisrael.
the Palestinians would still not be satisfied, but they would rather have one more reason to insist that Israel accept millions of descendants of the Palestinian refugees of ’48.
This from a bunch of low life freeloaders who expect Palestinians to accept descendants of Jewish refugees of 70 A.D. You’ve already lock-up the RW lack of self-awareness award. There’s no need to out-do yourself.
The Mandate was obviously the direct offshoot of the international body of the time, the League of Nations. Its text was binding on the mandatory power, which was required to implement it in its fundamentals.
Jonah the “Mandate” was simply a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations which gave Great Britain full powers of administration and made it the arbiter of its own Balfour Declaration. The PCIJ ruled that Council resolutions were non-binding recommendations in the Interpretation of Article 3‚ Paragraph 2‚ of the Treaty of Lausanne case.
link to icj-cij.org
The Supreme Court of Palestine subsequently ruled that the Mandate was only enforceable in so far as it had been incorporated in enabling legislation or the Palestine Order in Council of 1922. The Court also held that national legislation, like the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance, overrides the provisions of international instruments and conventions. See for example Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) 655
Israel employed the same rationale to claim that, while it had ratified the 4th Geneva Convention, the Knesset has never incorporated it in its domestic legislation and that, in any event, Israel’s national legislation overrides the provisions of international conventions and customary international law. See HCJ Rejects Petition against Holding Detained Palestinians in Israeli Territory [HCJ 2690/09]
I’d suggest that you avoid lecturing on the subject of the mandate.
I don’t believe that any political solution would be a solution. The solution is social and interpersonal, in changing hearts and minds to accept, respect each other, their neighbors.
The substantive basis of the Jewish state is the Jewish people. If Arabs/Palestinians accept that the Jewish people live in Israel, then they will accept that the Jewish people have the right to self-govern rather than be other-governed.
It starts with people (individual and collective). The state is only a shell to protect the people. (It is also the rules by which the self-governance occurs.)
I get that the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians, and possibly the Israeli Palestinians (some at least) feel that they are other governed. They should get the opportunity to self-govern.
But, that should not preclude Israelis from self-governing as well. I personally don’t understand the rejection of that concept by solidarity.
Same thing. Jewish people refers exclusively to those belonging to the Jewish faith. You won’t find too many Jewish Muslims in Israel.
Rubbish. Witty keeps trying to employ that asinine argument and fails just as you have. Italy does not define itself as a Catholic state but an Italian one. That includes Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindu.
How can you be so stupid? The US is a white Christian majority, bit it has never been a white Christian state. Nor is Britain a Protestant state. Neither state defines itself according to any religion because no state can be religious and democratic.
As for Palestine, you asked me what I supported. I have no power to control what a Palestinian state would look like, just like you had no power to prevent Israel becoming an apartheid state which is heading towards a theocracy.
I just did a search and no reference is made to ancestors. Are you ever going to bother reading your own sources, or are you addicted to egg on your face?
Wow, that’s the kind of Orwellian argument that reminds me of the crazy dot com era logic “we lose money on every sale, but we make it up on volume”. Only a Ziocaine induced mind would see nothing wrong with an “overview” that is fundamentally contradicted by the report it puppets to summarize.
You already tried that and failed when you made the false claim that the Hebron massacre targeted indigenous Jews, which I debunked.
Rubbish. As has been explained to you repeatedly, it was granted to them even before the Balfour Declaration.Hostage had already explained that the British dod not take a new stance, but that the original mandate did not include Transjordan and instead was modified to later include it, with the subsequent stipulation that it was nit to be included in the territory that was to accommodate the Jewish national home.
Whatever the Zionist expectations, it was not based on law.
Actually, it was Ben Gurion who in 1918 said that Palestine would become a Jewish majority in 20 years. Unlike Husseini (who was actually in exile at the time he made that quote), Ben Gurion followed through with the threat.
False on all counts. Jewish immigration continued unabated throughout the decade, regardless on the 1939 White Paper, which was never implemented.
4 days after the partition plan was passed at the UN, Ben Gurion gave a speech rejecting it along with the rights of Palestinians to their own state.
And indeed, the pattern is definitely still at work today.
The state is only a shell to protect the people. . . . But, that should not preclude Israelis from self-governing as well.
Richard this is a pretty well worn area of discussion. Israel has violated the terms for establishing a successor state in a territory with an existing population. In particular, it violated the human rights of minority and religious groups that were under UN guarantee from the moment it was established. Then it started a decades-long propaganda and disinformation campaign against the responsible UN organs and Palestinian refugees to conceal that fact. You can read more about that here:
link to mondoweiss.net
The right of peoples to self determination can be satisfied by incorporation in an already existing democratic state, like the proposal contained in the Balfour Declaration and the post-war treaties for the creation of the Mandated State of Palestine. The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations stipulates that
Many countries, including the United States, Italy, Spain, and Egypt had legally recognized the Mandated State of Palestine by the early 1930s.
The State of Israel was established by its own act, not by an orderly transfer of power in accordance with the terms contained in the UN resolutions. In 1949, shortly after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, the International Law Commission noted that
That is exactly what Israel is doing today on the Golan Heights, in East Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and the besieged Gaza Strip.
Hostage -
“The PCIJ ruled that Council resolutions were non-binding recommendations in the Interpretation of Article 3‚ Paragraph 2‚ of the Treaty of Lausanne case.”
What please? What exactly are you speaking about? Can you provide us with a precise link, or quote at least the exact text of the so-called “ruling” by the PCIJ?
And anyway: does the PCIJ “rule”? I thought that its domain was at most to give ‘advisory opinions’ (see also Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations).
And also: What “Supreme Court of Palestine” in 1922 are you talking about? Or do you mean maybe the ‘Supreme Muslim Council’, used by the Husseini family as a anti-Jewish platform?
Until proven otherwise, your points fail quite miserably to convince.
And anyway: does the PCIJ “rule”? I thought that its domain was at most to give ‘advisory opinions’ (see also Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations).
Some, but not all, international lawyers have suggested that in the absence of an express provision, like Article 13(4) of the Covenant, ICJ advisory opinions should generally be considered non-binding, except in cases involving separate compromissory clauses of treaties, & etc. In 1927, the PCIJ established a committee to report on the differences (advisory vs. contentious) in jurisdiction under Article 31 of its own Statute. The committee concluded that so long as there was a dispute between the parties the difference was one in name only and that Members of the League had agreed in accordance with Article 13(4) that they would carry out in full good faith any award or decision rendered.
In Jan Klabbers, “An introduction to international institutional law”, Cambridge University Press, 2002, the author explains that the Covenant of the League of Nations was silent on the topic of the legal force of resolutions. In the absence of an express provision they are generally held to have been non-binding. In the 1931 Railway Traffic Case, the Court used the mundane contract law theory of acceptance and held that, since the parties had participated in adopting the resolution, they were bound by the terms of their acceptance.
link to books.google.com
In the earlier Treaty of Lausanne case, the PCIJ employed the same logic. It said that powers of the Council, in regard to the settlement of disputes, are dealt with in Article 15 of the Covenant, and that, under that article, the Council can only make recommendations. The Court noted that in this case the parties had substituted (by another separate agreement entered into in advance) the power to give a decision rather than the normal powers of the Council to make a mere recommendation. So, by virtue of their previous consent in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Council had the power in this instance to compulsorily settle their dispute. See printed page 27 of Series B Advisory Opinion No. 12 link to icj-cij.org
And also: What “Supreme Court of Palestine” in 1922 are you talking about?
The British Mandatory administration established a judicial system with a Supreme Court that also sat as the High Court of Justice. Israel inherited its judicial system from the British when it retained the applicable mandate era laws and ordinances under its Transition Act. I didn’t mention any 1922 ruling, I said that the Court had subsequently ruled that the mandate was only legally enforceable in so far as its provisions had been incorporated in municipal laws or the Order-in-Council of 1922 – and that national legislation, like the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance, overrides the provisions of international instruments and conventions.
I provided you with a citation to the State Department Digest and a link to illustrate that Israel applies the same dualist legal principles to overrule the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention today. The State Department Digest cites a discussion of the Mandate era High Court of Justice opinions contained in the [British] Annual Digest. The Supreme Court of Palestine ruled on behalf of the mandatory government that the Mandate was not a part of the Law of Palestine. The Digest also notes that, after the termination of the mandate, the Supreme Court of Israel had retroactively ruled that the Mandate did form part of the law of Palestine and that it would entertain inter-temporal arguments that laws conflicting with the Mandate were invalid. The League of Nations didn’t entrust the mandate to the Jewish Agency or Israel, so the Digest and others cited there (e.g. D.P. O’Connell) say that in practice, the provisions for an orderly transfer of sovereignty contained in Article 28 of the Mandate and the UN resolution were never implemented by Israel. As a result, its retroactive rulings don’t really form a valid basis of an international claim for relief. In any event, in CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General the Israeli High Court ruled that rights under the Mandate ended when it was terminated in 1948.
Until proven otherwise, your points fail quite miserably to convince.
FYI, the introduction of the Restatement (3rd) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says “In the United States, the principal resources for research in international law and practice are the successive Digests of International Law – by Wharton (1866); Moore (1906), Hackworth (1940), and Whiteman (1963), and the State Department’s Annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, beginning in 1973.” Whiteman cited the opinion of the PCIJ and the Supreme Court of Palestine as the controlling legal authorities on the matters that I cited. I don’t really care if you are ever convinced.
You are grasping at straws, Hostage.
The “San Remo Resolution”, conferred in 1920 and ratified by the League of Nation in 1922, was a legally binding document. In fact, it was an act of international Law and as such it was incorporated in the Mandate for Palestine. The document of the Mandate prescribed through Article 25 that “In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provision of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions …”. The British were quick to activate this option in the memorandum of September 16, 1922, which was subsequently approved by the League of Nations, making it an integral and binding part of the Mandate. This gave birth to a fourth Arab state in eastern Palestine, Jordan today, but definitely did not affect the rights of the Jews to settle in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Actually, the creation of Transjordan strengthned and sealed the legally binding nature of the Mandate , thus also the fundamental message of the mandate as stated in article 6: ” shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” The September 16, 1922 memorandum is the last modification of the official terms of the Mandate on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor, the United Nations, according to Article 27 of the Mandate that states unequivocally: “The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.”
United Nations Charter (see article 80) recognizes the UN’s obligation to uphold the commitments of its predecessor, the League of Nations. Thus the Mandate is implicitly still valid and I challenge you to demonstrate – convincingly and without captious contortions – that it isn’t also still legally binding today.
You are grasping at straws, Hostage. The “San Remo Resolution,” … was a legally binding document … Thus the Mandate is implicitly still valid and I challenge you to demonstrate – convincingly and without captious contortions – that it isn’t also still legally binding today.
Jonah that is not difficult. In the comment above I gave you links to the decisions of the Palestine High Court of Justice which said that the mandate was not an enforceable law. I also supplied an Israeli Supreme Court decision, CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General, in which the Court itself ruled that rights under the Mandate ended when it was terminated in 1948. So, of course it isn’t still valid today. According to Volume II of the 1963 Yearbook of the International Law Commission the High Court has followed that precedent in subsequent cases, like Sifri v. Attorney-General (see pdf page 125). link to untreaty.un.org
In the 2005 Regional Council, Coast of Gaza v. Knesset of Israel case, H.C.J. 1661/05, the Court dismissed the arguments from the petitioners based upon the San Remo resolution and the Mandate and ruled that there was no legal or constitutional “right” for Israelis to settle in the occupied Palestinian territory – and that Israelis are not protected persons there under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See for example the ICRC extract and synopsis of the report from the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law on the case – or the discussion about it in the Epilogue of Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Henry Holt, 2006, pages 363-364. link to icrc.org
The legal analysis in the 2004 ICJ Wall case contained a finding that the mandate had been terminated in 1948 and that Palestine was a “former mandated territory” (see for example paragraph 162 on pdf page 133). link to icj-cij.org
FYI, in the Status of South West Africa case (paragraphs 141-143) the ICJ said that a Mandatory working with the UN General Assembly had the competence to determine and modify the international status of a territory. link to icj-cij.org
In 1948 the UN and Great Britain terminated the Mandate for Palestine. They did that in response to formal requests to terminate the mandate that were made by the representatives of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab Higher Committee, and based upon the recommendation of the UNSCOP Commission. Nothing in the San Remo Resolution or the Mandate precluded that course of action. In fact, the object of the Mandate was independence, not UN trusteeship, and Article 28 of the Mandate itself indicated that the mandate could be terminated. link to avalon.law.yale.edu
I’ve commented at length on the San Remo Resolution and Article 80 of the UN Charter in the past, e.g. here and here. The Resolution doesn’t mention “western Palestine”, “Transjordan”, or any definite Jewish legal right to settle in either place. What it did was give the Allied Powers the right to formulate the terms of the Mandate and submit them to the Council of the League of Nations for approval. Here is a link to the complete text:
link to cfr.org
The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee tasked with drafting the Mandate said it did not form the basis for any Jewish claim: “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home. — See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100
One of the legal counsels for the Jewish Agency during the UNSCOP hearings wrote a book on the legal case that was presented by the Arabs, the Jews, and the British – Jacob Robinson, “Palestine and the United Nations: Prelude to Solution”, Public Affairs Press, 1947. It cites the request made by Mr. Shertok that the mandate be terminated and that independence be granted (on page 209).
Israel’s acceptance of the terms of resolution 181(II) was cited in the declaration and undertakings mentioned in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) which granted it UN membership. Resolution 181(II) terminated the mandate, and Israel remains bound by the terms of its acceptance.
“Israel’s acceptance of the terms of resolution 181(II) was cited in the declaration and undertakings mentioned in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) which granted it UN membership. Resolution 181(II) terminated the mandate, and Israel remains bound by the terms of its acceptance.”
Hostage, you know better than me that the validity of resolution 181 as legally binding document was dependent on its acceptance by both parties, something that never happened due to the Arab rejection accross the board. It recognized the Jewish right to statehood, which the Jews asserted with the declaration of indipendence, but couldn’t achieve legally binding character. Renowned professors of international law, including Sir Lauterpacht and Professor Julius Stone, clarify that the existence and legitimacy of Israel is not based on resolution 181, that the Arab rejection made void, but on the assertion of independence of Israel against the concerted attack by other enemy states, that means the Arab states together with the Palestinian Arabs.
Is not it absurd and unacceptable that the Palestinians now after 65 years exhume a document in support of a partition that they were the first to refuse, preferring to go to war? And is it not more than strange that the Palestinians refused even in 1999 and 2008 (no denying) generous offers for their own state which were mainly based on the very armistice lines of 1949? Yes, because not only before but even after 1949, with the West Bank under Jordanian occupation, the UN-raccomendation was consequently and bluntly rejected by them. Clearly a stillbirth, despite their and your attempt to give him a life it never had. History, shaped by Arab-Palestinian deeds of aggression aimed at destroying Israel till the present day rather than recognition and negotiation, has overrided its possible legal validity long time ago. Thus, in fact, the legal basis of the establishment of the State of Israel goes back to 1922 when the League of Nations affirmed “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel.”
grammar correction: … overrode its possible legal validity …
When I read trash like this Jonah, there’s a part of me that really feels sorry for your tragic Zionist hacks. It must be a thankless task to man up every day to repeat this garbage, knowing well that the audience you are going to present it to knows is bullshit.
As has been pointed out to you before, the reason the resolution 181 was never made into a legally binding resolution (ie. passed by the UNSC) is because the UNSC members (including the US) didn’t consider is viable and were about to propose an alternative arrangement.
The Zionist leadership and JNF wanted no part of it.
The Security Council declined to accept the portion of 181(II) on the plan of partition for action or to implement it by force against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. It called for the second special session of the General Assembly and requested that it recommend a different solution. The General Assembly suspended the work of its own Palestine Commission, and created the Office of the UN Mediator as a subsidiary UN organ to do exactly that.
*Morris, Shlaim, Rogan, Flapan, and others report that Abdullah and the Jewish Agency negotiated an agreement to peacefully partition Palestine in November of 1947.
Ezra Danin worked in various capacities in the Jewish Agency and the Arab department, “Sherut Yediot”, the “Information Service” of the Haganah. In January of 1948, Danin wrote “I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fait accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it.” See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.
Indeed it is true that the and legitimacy of Israel is not based on resolution 181. The legitimacy of Israel is based on Israel’s declaration of independence (along the borders proposed by 181), but as we both know, Israel has not respected those borders since 1948. As for you BS claim that the independence of Israel was declared “against the concerted attack by other enemy states” that’s even more laughable, seeing as the Arabs forces only invaded Palestine (after Israel declared independence) and attacked Zionist forces in Palestine (not Israel) and that those same had already ethnically cleansed 300,000 Palestinians, and destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages.
BTW. 181 was made void by Israel’s declaration of independence, not the Arab rejection.
Is it not absurd that Israel declared it’s borers in 1948, and insists that it be recognized while insisting that those borders no longer exist?
What is more than strange is that you would be so deluded as to try to present this blatant lie on a forum made up of people that know enough about the Camp David and Olmert offers to know better.
Have you no self respect at all Jonah?
Contrary to your claim about these assertions not being deniable,. Both have been denied by the highest ranks of the Israeli governments that were involved .
With respect to Camp David, Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami said that Arafat was right to reject the offer.
With respect to the Olmert Offer, Tzipi Livni has not only denied that Abbas rejected the offer, but stated clearly that the offer sits on Bibbi’s desk waiting to be approved by him.
In fact, it was rejected by Ben- Gurion as early as December 4th of 1947, when in a speech, Ben- Gurion rejected the creation of a Palestinian state and stated that the borders were only temporary.
Jonah, you would have been netter off saying that you had lost your mind that repeat this absolute bullshit. Israel began the aggression the day after 181 was passed by expelling the Palestinians, and it is Israel that has continued with that policy to this day. It is Israel that has flouted dozens of UN Resolutions, violated 181, and been the aggressor in every sense. The US State Department declared that Israel had been the aggressor both in 1948 and 1967.
As Hostage has explained, this is false. There was never any mention of a State in 1922, San Remo, or Balfour, hence there could not possibly have been a legal basis for a state before 1947.
Hostage, you know better than me that the validity of resolution 181 as legally binding document was dependent on its acceptance by both parties, something that never happened due to the Arab rejection accross the board.
I’ve already debunked that lame argument several times before using primary and secondary sources. See the discussion here and here.
FYI, it is a myth that the Arabs rejected partition and went to war. You can catch-up on your reading about that here, here, here, and here.
I honestly do not feel anymore the need to read a bunch of selected primary and secondary sources in support of legal and historical untruths. Your academic and abstract reading of history and international law, based on a clearly biased anti-Zionist opinion, has little to do with the basic reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It gets certainly a faint echo in a closed environment as MW, or can be useful in the office of the Palestinian delegation to the UN, yet is devoid of factual truth (historical and legal) in the real world, let alone in Middle East.
But anyway I don’t think that it is your fault – it simply reflects the anti-Israel mainstream, popular at the UN in the hands of the non-aligned countries teeming with human rights violators, and in the sphere of the left – militant and deaf to any other argument -, that makes the fight against Israel – as THE phantasmagorical model of alleged modern colonialism and imperialism par excellence (in addition practiced by the Jews) – his favorite hobbyhorse.
Little correction: I mean certain circles of the left, not the left in general, of which I still agree with the fundamental principles.
Thad a boy Jonah – ignorance is bliss.
I honestly do not feel anymore the need to read a bunch of selected primary and secondary sources in support of legal and historical untruths.
Those selected primary sources happen to include the official statements made by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Abba Eban, that completely contradict your claims. He said that Israel had supplied the necessary declaration in connection with the Arab minority rights undertaking and he acknowledged that the minority rights plan contained in the General Assembly resolution was an obligation that was capable of acceptance by Israel alone, and was not at all affected by the attempt by the Arab States to alter that resolution by force.
Let’s read the official “Report Of The Committee On The Exercise Of The Inalienable Rights Of The Palestinian People”, S/12090. United Nations. 29 May 1976, page 7 once again:
“18. It was emphasized that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination could be exercised only in Palestine. Consequently, the exercise of the individual right of the Palestinian to return to his homeland was a conditio sine qua non for the exercise by this people of its rights to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty.
19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, also contained relevant provisions concerning these rights. The States directly involved were parties to this Convention.” — link to un.org
So, unless you can carefully select some other primary sources to support your unofficial and unhistorical narrative, the claim that you made regarding resolution 181(II) has been debunked.
With this response you confirm again, without being aware, the impression that I’ve expressed above: cling to some selected sources that are useful for your claims, obscuring the full picture of reality. (As if the Arabs and Palestinians had ever cared for international law and human rights). But I understand you: it’s not easy to jump over your shadow.
With this response you confirm again, without being aware, the impression that I’ve expressed above: cling to some selected sources that are useful for your claims, obscuring the full picture of reality.
The “full picture of reality” is that you are still coming up empty when you tap your vast reserves of hasbara.
(As if the Arabs and Palestinians had ever cared for international law and human rights).
The Palestinians have always been ready to do their talking in a Court of law. Here is a link to the written statements of the Organization of Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States, the interested Arab States, and Palestine in the 2004 ICJ Wall Case:
link to icj-cij.org
Here is a link to the declaration of the government of Palestine accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the purposes of identifying, prosecuting, and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002. link to uclalawforum.com
Here is a link to the report the Arab League turned over to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. It addresses both Israeli and Palestinian war crimes link to arableagueonline.org
You should read your own sources in full length, Hostage. I’d like to cite some statements by Abba Eban during the FORTY-FIFTH MEETING of the General Assembly on 5 May 1949. I think it’s worthy to remind you the Israeli position at that time, since you are concerned to focus – in one of your comment in another thread – solely on the speech of the Lebanese representative. Eban states the obvious and factual truth about the relevant questions of the time, the truth that you and your friends are so busy to obfuscate:
“Recalling that seven States, including six Members of the United Nations, had undertaken official “military intervention” in defiance of the General Assembly resolution, the representative of Israel stated that without recognition of the initial responsibilities for the war, no single aspect of the situation in the Near East could be properly evaluated. He drew attention to the paradox whereby the only States which had ever taken up arms to overthrow an Assembly resolution by force solemnly accused their intended victim of a lack of concern for Assembly resolutions. If any State’s eligibility for membership should be under consideration, it would be the eligibility of those who consciously selected war as a method of contesting the authority of international judgment. If, as advocated by the representative of Lebanon, compliance with resolutions of the General Assembly should be a condition for membership in the United Nations, Lebanon would not be represented in the Organization. The Arab States had opposed by force the establishment of Israel as well as the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. ”
“In the Trusteeship Council, the Arab States had refused to participate in the discussion of a statute for the City of Jerusalem, whereas Jewish representatives had co-operated fully. Significantly, Arab violence against the General Assembly’s resolution had begun in Jerusalem itself. Reviewing the horrors of the protracted siege of Jerusalem by Arab forces, including the armed forces of Transjordan, Iraq and Egypt, and the failure of any organ of the United Nations to take effective action in assuming the responsibilities to which the Organization was pledged, the representative of Israel noted that rescue of Jerusalem had been effected not by the United Nations but by the people of Israel who were then engaged in a desperate struggle for their own survival. During the ensuing fight, the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City had surrendered amidst the destruction of its Holy Places. The few synagogues not then destroyed had since been laid waste by Arab occupation forces. The Wailing Wall had been barred to worshippers and that situation still prevailed.
The attachment between the Jews of Jerusalem and the Jews of Israel was explained not merely by ties of language, religion, culture and other forms of natural allegiance but also by the link forged in the desperate struggle for the survival of Jerusalem. He recalled how, immediately on termination of the mandate, Transjordan troops had invaded Jewish villages, killed their inhabitants, and laid waste their dwellings. In saving Jerusalem from capture by the combined Arab forces at tremendous sacrifice, the Jews had also kept alive Christian interests in the Holy City. If the assault upon Jerusalem had succeeded, it would have been immediately and irrevocably incorporated in an Arab State which explicitly asserted its undisputed right to wield complete sovereignty over the whole city, including its Holy Places. The current possibility of giving statutory expression to the international interest in Jerusalem derived solely from the success of the Jewish resistance. The Arab position on the internationalization of Jerusalem had been made abundantly clear.”
“Mr. Eban then pointed out that the problem of the Arab refugees had been a direct consequence of the launching of a war for the purpose of overthrowing by force the General Assembly’s November 1947 resolution on partition. No great movements of population would have occurred if the Arab world would have joined with Israel in an attempt to give peaceful implementation to that resolution. Such tragic movements were a familiar accompaniment of any war, and especially of wars affecting countries of mixed populations and conflicting allegiances. The representative of Lebanon had correctly remarked that it had never been the General Assembly’s intention that the Arab population should be driven out of Palestine. But neither had it been its intention that Lebanon and six other States should wage war upon Israel, a war of which the plight of the Arab population of Palestine was a direct sequel.”
“The exodus of the Arab population had already assumed large proportions by the time the Government of Israel had been established. Efforts by that Government to stem the flood of refugees had been unavailing. A vivid account of the circumstances could be found in the April 1949 issue of The Economist of London. The French representative on the Conciliation Commission, who had undertaken a detailed interrogation of Arab refugees, had stated at a meeting of the Commission on 7 April 1949 that it was wrong to describe the refugees as having been driven out; rather, they had fled in an atmosphere of fear, insecurity and danger inseparable from war.”
“So many passions had been aroused by the problem of refugees that the issue of initial responsibility presented itself again and again. That responsibility lay with the Arab States which, by virtue of having proclaimed and initiated the war which had rendered those refugees homeless, were under moral obligation to take a full share in the solution of their problem, even apart from their own ties of kinship with the refugee population.”
“Mr. Eban took exception to the terms of the preamble to the Lebanese draft resolution which implied that the Conciliation Commission’s conversation with the Prime Minister of Israel on 7 April 1949 had proved that the Israel Government’s attitude to the question of repatriation was a negative one. The second progress report of the Commission showed that one of the chief points stressed by the Prime Minister of Israel on that occasion was that the refugee question should be examined and solved in the course of the general negotiations for the establishment of peace in Palestine. That view could hardly be challenged. The rehabilitation of displaced persons could not take place while the countries of the Near East were divided by armistice lines, while peaceful contact was not assured, while considerations of military security were still paramount, while all movements of the population, whether refugee or not, were subject to the restrictions of a wartime régime, and while the economic and social effort required for such rehabilitation was paralysed by mobilization and a war economy. Indeed it was particularly urgent that peace negotiations should be initiated, because only such negotiations could open the way to the solution of the grave humanitarian problem of refugees.”
“1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;
2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours;
3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making. That anxiety proceeded from moral considerations and from Israel’s vital interest in stable conditions throughout the Middle East. Any rehabilitation of Arab refugees in any part of the Middle East, whether in Israel or in the neighbouring countries, involved intricate tasks of resettlement. The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace to internal peace and stability and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions; (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. A study of the economic, irrigation and other potentialities of the under-populated and under-developed areas of the Arab States revealed greater possibilities for a stable solution by the latter method than by resettlement in Israel. Therefore, the Government of Israel contended that resettlement in neighbouring areas should be considered as the main principle of solution. Israel, however, would be ready to make its own contribution to a solution of the problem. It was not yet ascertainable how many Arabs wished to return under conditions that might be prescribed by the Assembly or how many Arabs Israel could receive in the light of existing political and economic considerations. Israel’s first objective at Lausanne would be to reach an agreement by direct negotiation on the contribution to be made by each Government toward the settlement of that grave problem. The extent of the contribution of the Israeli Government would depend entirely on the formal establishment of peace and relations of good neighbourliness between Israel and the Arab States;
4. The Government of Israel had already announced its acceptance of obligations to make compensation for abandoned lands. The entire question of compensation as well as the general question of reparations and war damage might well be settled by negotiations at Lausanne;
5. The Government of Israel reaffirmed its obligation to protect the persons and property of all communities living within its borders. It would discountenance any discrimination or interference with the rights and liberties of individuals or groups forming such minorities. The Government of Israel looked forward to the restoration of peaceful conditions which might enable relaxation of any restrictions on the liberty of persons or property. Now that an armistice prevailed and peace talks had begun, it would be reasonable to expect the Arab Governments to contribute to an improvement in the atmosphere by a similar declaration of willingness to discontinue measures instituted against Jewish citizens in their countries and to restore their full freedom and equality of status. It was to be noted that the Economic and Social Council was so perturbed by the situation of Jews in Arab countries that it had formally submitted an item to the Security Council; 10/
6. Deeply conscious of the humanitarian problems involved, the Government of Israel observed with sympathy the efforts of international, governmental and non-governmental agencies to alleviate the immediate plight of those refugees suffering hardships as a result of the war. The Government of Israel was prepared to lend its assistance to those efforts;
7. The Government of Israel felt deeply that prolongation of that distress without alleviation and final settlement undermined the stability of the Middle East, the maintenance of which was its vital interest.
Furthermore, the restrictive conditions laid down by the General Assembly itself, such as that those who wished to “live in peace with their neighbours”, should be permitted to return to their homes, clearly presupposed a situation of peace and excluded the possibility of a renewal of hostilities. Similarly, the reference in the resolution of 11 December 1948 to the “earliest practicable date” was also a definite acknowledgment of the fact that the restoration of normal conditions was essential to any fruitful discussion on the proportion of refugees willing and able to return, as against those eligible for resettlement and compensation. In stressing the need for a peace settlement as a condition for solving that problem, the Government of Israel was concerned not to postpone a solution but to accelerate the achievement of peace.”
Eban was of course lying. The arab armies did not invade Israel but attacked Zionist forces illegally stationed in Palestine.
I woudl invite you to find any UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine.
Talknic has documented this coprehensively.
The United Nations, Yale Law repository OnLine at link to avalon.law.yale.edu, the Truman Library, Jstor, the Jewish Virtual Library and the Israeli Government website, Hansard. There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.
Rather than any UNSC condemnation of the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine or confirmation that the Arab League had attacked Sovereign Israeli territory, the UNSC resolutions seemed rather at odds with who attacked whom. Even the Arab League Declaration contradicts Eban.
The first item listed at the Yale Law repository, after Israel’s Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel , is the letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15th 1948, informing him of the Declaration and on which the US based it’s recognition of Israel as an Independent Sovereign State.
In particular, it says “..the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. “ Quite at odds with the notion that Israel had never defined it’s boundaries with Palestine in 1948 and the notion that UNGA resolution was irrelevant because the Arabs had rejected it. The first of the fallacies had fallen.
Hansard 27 April 1950 His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.
The British recognized Israel’s sovereignty over territories is bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, not ‘facts on the ground’.
Sovereignty is in law, of the state. The state in law is de jure, regardless of whether the Government in authority is provisional, de facto, or elected, de jure.
The Provisional Government was given de facto recognition by the USA. The Elected Government was subsequently given de jure recognition.
The USSR gave de jure recognition of the authority of the Provisional Government. Israel’s provisional Government was de facto, with authority to elect a Government to the state, which would, in law become de jure when a Government was elected. The USSR gave de jure recognition to this provisional authority.
Israel was a Sovereignty, (the State) recognized de jure, the provisional Government recognized de facto, the elected Government eventually recognized de jure and the British made it clear that Israel did not have Sovereignty over the territories it had captured by war by 1949. They were “occupied”.
Furthermore rather than Jordan’s control over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) being illegal as I’d been led to believe, A) Jordan and Israel signed an Armistice Agreement, whereby Israel AGREED to Jordanian occupation. B) There is no UNSC resolution condemning 1) Jordan’s occupation, as a regional power, protecting the territories of Palestine OR 2) It’s temporary annexation as a trustee was requested by the Palestinians and was demanded by the Arab League, in accordance with the UN Charter covering regional powers and the notion of being a trustee. The Arab League was in accordance with legal procedure.
The refutation of the first fallacy confirmed and three more shredded, in one fell swoop.
What you refer to “obvious and factual truth about the relevant questions of the time is BS.
Thsi is prvably false. 300,000 refugees were been created before any war launched by the Arab States even entered Palestine.
That would explain why Bernadotte was assassinatred by Israeli forces.
A lie. See above.
Israel said it had destroyed the refugees homes by war and claimed it didn’t have the money to resettle them. It proposed to the PCC that it be given Gaza in return for granting the Arabs living there citizenship and possibly a cession of a strip of territory in the Negev to Egypt. When Ben Gurion found out that there were actually 300,000 Arabs living there, and not the 200,000 that he had previously thought, Israel added unacceptable conditions. When Egypt learned of the plan it demanded that Israel resettle the refugees without any territorial gains. The conference deadlocked over the issue of refugees, not cease fire lines.
A blatant lie. Bernadotte was appointed to address this very issue and Israel assassinated him. Those responsible went on to be elected to lead the country.
Eban was of course lying. The arab armies did not invade Israel but attacked Zionist forces illegally stationed in Palestine.
I woudl invite you to find any UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. Talknic has documented this coprehensively.
Talknic isn’t a reliable reference for anyone but you, Shingo. Nor can you find a UNSC resolution condemning Israel for allegedlyattacking the Arab Palestinians or the Arab states in 1948.
And anyway the Arab attack was noticed and even at the UN, the place on earth maybe most hostile to Israel second only to the Near and Middle East: On February 16, 1948, the Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council:
“Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”
This report was confirmed by staements made by Arab leaders. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.”
British commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb:
“Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.”
But you are still in denial of the fact that Arab armies deliberately attacked the newborn Jewish state, with the admitted purpose to deal to it a mortal blow – and and on this utterly false premise you build all the misleading theory that Israel has not complied with international law. At least you’re a recidivist of belief and speech, and in addition in best company.
“There is only primary source information, no citations from the likes of Ilan Pappé, Benni Morris. In fact I’ve never read anything they’ve written.”
“300,000 refugees were been created before any war launched by the Arab States even entered Palestine.”
I think you should at least listen to Morris, who is not just the less informed about the problem of the Arab Palestinian refugees, since the war of 1948 is one of his main areas of research.
link to youtube.com
I wasn’t using Talknic as a souce Jonah, but the links that Talknic provides on his web site, though on this matter, you are unabel to refute ghsi argument anyway.
But you can find internal US State Department and CIA memos that said the Jews were the actual aggressors against the Arabs, and predicted that they would come running to the Security Council complaining that they were the victims.
See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848 (also cited in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.)
How could an Arab attack of Israeli forces illegally stationed in Palestine, which took place in May, have been noticed in February? Furthermore, this does not refute Eban’s lie that the refugees were the consequence of the Arabs armies attacking Israeli forces, becasue Israel had already created 300,000 refugees by that stage.
Seriously Jonah, if you’re going to quote The Jewish Virtual library verbatim, you should at least cite them as your source.
This report was confirmed by staements made by Arab leaders. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:
Irrelevant Jonah. You are still not addressing the fact that Eban lied when he claimed that the refugees were the consequence of the Arabs armies attacking Israeli forces, becasue Israel had already created 300,000 refugees by that stage.
Glubb and the British had concluded a deal with the Zionists that there would be no confrontation between the Jordanian Arab army and the Jewish forces. This is why Glubb later called the ’48 war, “the phony war”.
Again Jonah, you are not addressing the fact that Eban lied when he claimed that the refugees were the consequence of the Arabs armies attacking Israeli forces, becasue Israel had already created 300,000 refugees by that stage.
That’s because they didn’t attack the state of Israel, they attacked Jewish forces stationed in Palestine ie. Outside the borders of the “newborn Jewish state”.
And you still have not addressed Eban’s blatant lie that the refugees were the consequence of the Arab armies attacking in May, when Israel had already expelled 300,000 Palestinians.
I agree, though less than a minute into his speech, Benny Morris makes the false claim that the Palestinians lost their leadership in early 1948, when n fact, the British has expelled the leadership by 1939.
By 1:20, he says the Jews went on the offensive in April of 1948 – that’s a month before the Arab armies were even allowed to enter Palestine. He says the Arabs response was to flee.
Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam is said to have declared:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.[33][34]
However, Joffe and Romirowsky report that this “cannot be confirmed from cited sources”.[35]
Benny Morris, who had previously quoted it in his books, refrained from using it in his book 1948 “after discovering that its pedigree is dubious”.[36] Six days later, Azzam told reporters “We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy.”[37]
link to en.wikipedia.org
Nothing you’ve presented refutes that Eban lied when he claimed that the refugees were the consequence of the Arabs armies attacking Israeli forces, becasue Israel had already created 300,000 refugees by that stage.
As Morris explains in his lecture, there was never any official or systematic policy of expulsion of the Arabs by the Zionist forces. There were thoughts expressed in this direction by some leaders, notably as a result of Arab violence, but that was never implemented in any stage of the war, neither by the Haganah nor by other Jewish militant groups. This dismisses your claim that the Jews committed deliberate ethnic cleansing. And shows your superficial listening of his arguments. The displacement of the Arab Palestinian inhabitants occurred in fact as a direct consequence of the ongoing Civil War first and fullscale war after. Until proven otherwise (since you haven’t provided any stringent concrete evidence for your reiterated claim yet, apart from rumors and speculations, as indeed most of your claims).
That the war was already coming in swing, not just isolated skirmishes, in march/april 1948 becomes clear from the fact that both Jewish and Arab forces on the ground engaged in a fight on some fronts. In “Lashing back” Morris explains:
“The Haganah had a standing, efficient strike force of some 2,000 to 3,000 members, the Palmach, which served as its backbone and shield as it mobilized and, from November 1947 to May 1948, was transformed from a militia into an army, with battalion and brigade formations. By May the Palmach could field 10 functioning, if underequipped and undermanned, brigades.”
On the other side, the “Palestine Arabs enjoyed the support of the vast hinterland of Arab states, who, though in niggardly fashion, sent arms, money and, between December 1947 and February 1948, a 4,000-strong force of relatively well-equipped volunteers, most of them Syrians and Iraqis, known as the Arab Liberation Army (ALA). The ALA had medium and heavy mortars, armored cars, and, by April, half a dozen field pieces.
In addition, hundreds of lightly armed Muslim Brotherhood volunteers arrived in southern Palestine from North Africa.”
And not to forget the Jordan legion
From November 29 1947 to April 1 1948 the main focus point of Civil War was, in addition to many bomb attacks and clashes on several fronts, the battle for the main roads, which the Arab militias could successfully paralize through continuous and very effective ambushing attacks, in the aim to suffocate all supplying to the Jewish communities, namely to Jerusalem with its 100’000 people strong Jewish population. Morris again:
“Evacuations aside, by late March, the situation along the roads had steadily deteriorated, and the Haganah General Staff began to fear a Jewish collapse, at least in Jewish West Jerusalem (which, with 100,000 people, contained a sixth of the country’s Jewish population). Early in the civil war, the Arabs noted the Yishuv’s main vulnerability: the roads that linked the main urban centers to one another and to clusters of rural settlements. On December 31, 1947, Haganah intelligence reported: “The Arabs intend to paralyze all Jewish traffic on the roads within the next few days.” Gradually during the first months of 1948 the Arab militias concentrated their attention on the convoys; by March their firepower and methods of operation had proved highly successful. For the Haganah, the last weeks of March were disastrous, as they lost much of their armored car fleet and dozens of troops.
First came the convoy ambushes, all in the Jerusalem area, at Har-Tuv on March 18, Atarot on March 24, and Saris on March 24, in which a total of 26 died and 18 vehicles were destroyed. Then came two great disasters. On March 27, thousands of local militiamen swooped down on a 50-vehicle convoy heading back to West Jerusalem from the isolated Etzion Bloc—a cluster of four kibbutzim between Hebron and Bethlehem—and halted it, pouring fire on the 186 Haganah. By the following morning, the Jews’ situation was desperate. The overflights of Haganah spotter planes, dropping the occasional grenade on the militiamen, did little good. At last a British armored column got through and negotiated a ceasefire. The Haganah men were forced to abandon all their vehicles and hand over their arms. The Haganah lost 15 dead and 73 wounded, and 10 armored cars, 4 buses, and 25 armored trucks.
An even worse fate befell a smaller Haganah convoy in Western Galilee, heading for Kibbutz Yehiam, on March 27. The convoy was lost to Arab Liberation Army and local ambushers, with 47 Haganah men killed; many of the bodies recovered by the British afterwards had been mutilated. A third convoy, on its way from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, was badly mauled at Hulda on March 31.
The British High Commissioner in Palestine, Gen. Alan Cunningham, understood the significance of what had occurred. “It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Yishuv and its leaders are deeply worried about the future. The intensification of Arab attacks on communications…has brought home the precarious position of Jewish communities, both great and small, which are dependent on supply lines running through Arab-controlled country,” he reported to London on April 3. “In particular it is now realized that the position of Jewish Jerusalem, where a food scarcity already exists, is likely to be desperate after 16th May.…The balance of the fighting seems to have turned much in favour of the Arabs.”
Particularly dramatic was the situation of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and in March 1948 the city was on the brink of collapse.
This situation persisted and worsened, as said above, until April 1 1948, as Ben Gurion and the Haganah decided to counter-attack in order to break the strangling blockade of Jerusalem and other Jewish villages. Starting with Plan Nahshon and after April 15 1948 going over to the implementation of Plan Daled, the Yishuv forces were able to reverse the fortunes of the war and could even resist and eventually defeat the invading Arab armies in the months following the Declaration of Indipendence. There is no doubt that the Arab states didn’t simply came to help their Palestinian brethren, but aimed at far more cruel goals – as the Kfar Etzion massacre and the bombardement of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem by the Arab legion as well as many other rejected attempts to attack Jewish villages eloquently show -, while the Jewish forces gained further territory and repulsed the attacks precisely because they had managed to elaborate a counter-attack plan for the decisive final stages of the Civil War and the shortly after expected invasion by the Arab armies – Plan Dalet indeed. On this subject Morris is also quite clear, he writes in “The birth of the refugee problem rivisited”:
“The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State’s borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. The Haganah regarded almost all the villages as actively or potentially hostile. The plan was neither understood nor used by the senior field officers as a blanket instruction for the expulsion of ‘the Arabs’. But, in providing for the expulsion or destruction of villages that had resisted or might threaten the Yishuv, it constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions. However, during April–June, relatively few commanders faced the moral dilemma of having to carry out the expulsion clauses. Townspeople and villagers usually left their homes before or during battle, and Haganah rarely had to decide about, or issue, expulsion orders…”
Bottom line: The 300’000 Palestine Arabs fled as a result of the war already in progress, and surely not for the reason you love to repeat at libitum without any hard evidence.
This is the ABC of the 1948 war, but you still need to lern how to spell it. Time for some remedial lessons (or a few sessions of detoxification).
You should read your own sources in full length, Hostage.
I always do. In 1946 Transjordan applied for membership in the United Nations, but the Security Council voted against its admission. The President of the Council explained that Transjordan was part of a joint mandate and that the legal procedures for terminating the mandate had not been followed. He stated the intention of his country and that of the United States to delay consideration until the United Nations had addressed the status of Palestine as a whole. See the Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52)
After the massacre at Deir Yassin, and the assaults on the Arab populations of the mixed cities of Tiberias, Haifa, Acre, Safed, Jaffa, etc. the members of the Security Council were well aware of the fact that Israel was altering the demographic balance of the territory and the terms of the plan of partition by force.
The Security Council didn’t view the intervention by Transjordan and the other Arab states as an act of aggression. UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an “act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
Jonah,
You still haven’t addressed Eban’s blatant lie – that the refugees were the consequence of the Arab Armies attacking Israel, when 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled by Israel.
Even if you were to accept Benny Morris’ thesis that the ethnic cleansing was not planned in advance (absurd and debunked), Morris does not deny that this is what the Zionist forces did do. The 300,000 Palestinians fled as a consequence of massacres at Deir Yassin, and expulsions like that of the 1,500 Palestinians from Qisarya Village ( Feb 15), near Haifa and the destruction of the village. During that month, the Zionist forces targeted 5 villages on the coast, as a test, and under the eyes of the British and found out that it was quite easy. There was little resistance and the British didn’t interfere.
Then there was the clensing of Lydda & Ramla
On April 9th the next phase of the Zionist military came into effect. The aim was to expel Palestinians in villages close to Jerusalem, beyond the boundaries accorded under UNGAR181, hence the Deir Yassin massacre.
With regard to Lydda and TRamla, Rabin recounted how traumatic this was even for the young members of the Zionists forces
“Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action.”
(Simha Flapan, p. 101)
Based on Rabin’s personal account of events, the decision to ethnically cleanse the two cities was not an easy one, however, that did not stop him from giving a similar order, 19 years later, to ethnically cleanse and destroy the villages of ‘Imwas, Yalu, and Bayt Nuba. The Zionists developed flame throwers and used them to burn down villages. At dawn (Feb 15) troops from the Haganah the Palmach launched an attack to test their effectiveness in expelling Palestinians from their villages.
General Yitzhak Pundak, a top commander of the Zionist forces, witnessed the expulsion with joy.
“My heart is singing. There were over 200 Palestinian villages here and there are no more. It was necessary to destroy them. Otherwise there would have been here another million Arabs among us………..And after 2000 years of exile, one cannot create a state by using silk gloves”.
To argue that there was no plan to carry out these acts is futile.
The displacement of the Arab Palestinian inhabitants began the day after UNGAR181 was passed. The Civil War came later.
You know there was plan to cleanse Palestine Jonah. Ben-Gurion said that a 60% majority in Israel was not acceptable to assure the existence of the state and a majority was never going to be achieved in Palestine without transfer. On July 24, 1948 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority backed Ben-Gurion’s policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:
“the … transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the most just, moral, and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years.”
(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
Having accepted the partition resolutions, the Israeli forces had no business being in Jerusalem, so the complaint that the Arab militias were conducting ambushing attacks, only goes to underline the overt aggression of the Zionist forces.
The Haganah were already setting off bombs in public spaces and buildings. In the beginning of 1948, there were 2 bombings, one after the other. The first (Jan 4) , a car bomb which destroyed the Old Ottoman House in Jaffa, the Sariah, killing 26. The second in Jerusalem (Jan 5) blew up Semaramis Hotel, killing 20 Palestinians. In a letter (January 6, 1948), the British High Commissioner for Palestine sent a letter to DBG, inquiring if the Haganah had been behind the Semaramis Hotel bombing. 2 days later (Jan 8), DBG sent a letter in response, admitting that the Haganah was responsible.
During the first 3 months of 1948, the Zionists were responsible for dozens of bombings in cities and villages and killings on roads, carried out by Mistaravim (disguised as Arabs). They blew up homes, and planted explosives at night.
None of these actions were about protecting Jewish populations in Jerusalem. They were deliberately aimed at attacking the Arabs population and driving them from their homes.
On Feb 2, 1948, a news report was aired:
“A direct challenge to the United Nations and it’s powers of war prevention comes from Palestine. The definition of legal and illegal forces becomes daily more obscure. Haganah, the force first legally raised for the defence of Jewish settlements, appear to function hang in glove with Irgun Svai Leumi, the outlawed terrorist army. Full scale training is under way in a score of camps throughout the country. There is no shortage of arms or ammunition.”
Britain’s General officer commanding in Palestine, General John Darcy, was asked about the military situation crafty the pull-out of the British forces, he said:
“The Haganah will take over all of Palestine. They could hold it against the entire Arab world.”
By the beginning of 1948, and despite the presence of the British, the Jewish Agency was in practice in military and administrative control of Palestine. The Haganah became an army of 35,000, plus 10,000 more in commando units (ie Palmach, Irgun and Stern Gangs). The British had already smashed the Palestinian Revolution, leaving only 2500 Palestinian fighters., along with 4000 volunteers. That meant that every Palestinian fighter and his crude weapons (old rifle) had to face 6 well trained Jewish soldiers armed to the teeth and backed up by an air force.
As Illan Pappe documented, a small group of Zionist leaders and military commanders, met regularly (on a weekly basis) for over a year (from Feb 1947 to Feb 1948), planning the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. With each week that passed, they became more and more convinced that this was doable and they way forward.
Particularly dramatic was the situation of the Jewish community in Jerusalem, and in March 1948 the city was on the brink of collapse.
Yes, yes, this is all cut and paste verbatim from the same source Robert Weirdine has cut and paste his diatribes from also.
The simple fact remains that the refugees were the consequence of Israel’s program of expulsion of the Arabs. Even the British Army assisted the Zionists in expelling the Arabs. They completed the pull-out from Tiberius on April 18th, after forcing out 5,000 of it’s Palestinian inhabitants. The British forced Palestinians onto ferries and took them from Haifa to Acre.
April 21st, the British army completed it’s withdrawal at noon. On the same day, it was stormed by 500 Haganah. Thanks to the British efforts, were only 500 Palestinians who remained to defend the city, and they were killed (62) or driven out in 2 days. 50,000 were expelled from Haifa.
Bottom line: The 300’000 Palestine Arabs were expelled (s a result of a program fo ethnic cleasing) 5 months before before any Arab armies set a foot inside Palestine.
And the fact still remains that Eban is a liar and you have failed to prove otherwise.
As Morris explains in his lecture, there was never any official or systematic policy of expulsion of the Arabs by the Zionist forces. . . . This dismisses your claim that the Jews committed deliberate ethnic cleansing.
Anyone can read Plan Dalet for themselves and see that there were standing orders to launch unprovoked attacks against Arab villages to probe them for signs of resistance. In cases where the inhabitants defended themselves, they were to be expelled beyond the borders of the Hebrew state. Palestinian and Israeli eyewitnesses, including Yitzhak Rabin, have written about the ethnic cleansing operations. Military historians, like David Tal have provided many documented accounts from the state archives. Morris is simply unconvincing, since he wasn’t an eyewitness and has made contradictory claims. He undermined his own credibility and objectivity when stated that ethnic cleansing was sometimes justified and that Ben Gurion didn’t go far enough.
I’ve pointed-out here in the past that studies about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine are part of the curriculum in most university courses touching on the fields of Middle East sociology, history, and political science. In the recent debates between genocide scholars, there was no dispute regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, only whether or not it constituted genocide. You can read more about that in the links I provided in my comment here. link to mondoweiss.net
“Bottom line: The 300’000 Palestine Arabs were expelled (s a result of a program fo ethnic cleasing) 5 months before before any Arab armies set a foot inside Palestine.”
You are speaking as if there wasn’t any violent actions by the Arab militias from Palestine and neighboring states in the same period, and as if the Arab villages throughout Mandatory Palestine weren’t armed for the battl,e and as if there weren’t massacres of Jewish civilians perpetraded by the Arabs….. But as illustrated above, this is all but correct and balanced view of the conflict. The situation was clearly deteriorating to a full-scale war and the Arab population feared the consequences, therefore most fled.
Eban addresses the question of the 300’000 displaced Palestine Arabs in a proper way, since they left their homes during the months of April, May and June, that means – if you can count – largely as the Arab armies had already invaded Israel.
So you, not Eban, have proven to be a liar – or simply to be unable to do basic math.
they left their homes during the months of April, May and June
‘left’ ? no one disputes they left. it’s under what conditions.
as if the Arab villages throughout Mandatory Palestine weren’t armed for the battle
during the pre israel mandate? why don’t you tell us how well those villages were armed. tell us about the militarized villages why don’t you.
You mean, self defense don’t you?
No, the Arab villages throughout Mandatory Palestine were not armed for the battle. The British smashed the leadership in the 30′s and the Palestinians remained leadersless. The battle for Palestine was lost in the late 1930′s.
The British also went to great lenghts to disarm the Arabs. They inflicted extreme colelctive punishment, introducing the art of home demolition and killing Arabs by the thousands.
Having smashed the Palestinian Revolution, only 2500 Palestinian fighters remained, along with 4000 volunteers. That meant that every Palestinian fighter and his crude weapons (old rifle) had to face 6 well trained Jewish soldiers armed to the teeth and backed up by an air force.
One of every 10 Palestinian males of fighting age was either in prison, killed, wounded or expelled from the country. In 1946, the British continued to confiscate arms from the Palestinians. In the first half of that year, over 300 Palestinians alone were arrested for the possession of weapons.
Shmlomo Ben Ami also documented the fact that the war was lost before it even started.
Eban lied and you haven’t addressed that basic fact. 300,000 refugees were created in the 5 months before the Arabs forces even entered Palestine. And FYI, no Arab armies invaded Israel.
You won’t find any historical report or documentation that Israel was invaded.
That makes Eban a liar and you a liar too.
“You won’t find any historical report or documentation that Israel was invaded.
Of course it would be interesting to look into the state archives of the Arab countries in order to find out what indeed, beyond the mere pretended reasons, were their purposes as they send their armies against the new born state of Israel in 1948. But, as you should know, the archives are – so far and predictably for the time to come – locked up and closed to public access and scientific research. This is deplorable, as the same states should have a very pressing interest in finally resolving the last doubts, or even dispelling any residual trace of criticism regarding the claimed good faith and the “compelling reasons” for the “just war” against the Zionists in Palestine. They should have nothing to hide, quite the opposite, isn’t it? In fact, this close-minded self-protecting attitude appears to be pretty at odd with the average level of anti-Israel propaganda in media and state organs in the Arab world, which would suggest exactly the contrary (namely the exploitation of any available source – let alone primary source – to delegitimize the Jewish state).
“The 300’000 Palestine Arabs were expelled (s a result of a program fo ethnic cleasing) 5 months before before any Arab armies set a foot inside Palestine.”
You still need to provide clear and exhaustive evidence (primary sources, documents) for the claimed allegations, what you until now failed to do – apart from spreding some disconnected quotes, rumors and unverified suppositions, mainly based on highly controversial works by ideologically compromised academics the likes of Pappe, Khalidi and others.
Of course it would be interesting to look into the state archives of the Arab countries in order to find out what indeed, beyond the mere pretended reasons, were their purposes as they send their armies against the new born state of Israel in 1948.
You wouldn’t have to. In a meeting between Ernest Bevine, the Labor Govt’s foreign secretary, and Tafig Abdul-Huda, the Jordanian PM and Glubb, bevine asked Abdul-Huda what he planned to do. Abdul-Huda, said : “we plan to send the Arab Legion to protect and keep the Arab part of Palestine.”
Bevin said that seemed the sensible thing to do, but do not invade the Jewish part. That’s exactly what Jordan did.
On the 2nd of May they met for the last time to find a solution for Jerusalem. They bough maps to show where the Jordanian army would stop and where they stopped is today, the border of Israel and the West Bank, which is how the West bank was created. Glubb ordered the Jodarnian army to leave Lodd and Ramalah.
As are over a million Israeli documents that were supposed to be declassified, but remain locked up due to a decree by Netenyahu on the grounds that their risked was a threat to Israel’s security. Is that also deplorable Jonah?
They should have nothing to hide shoudl they Jonah? Quite the opposite, isn’t it? In fact, this close-minded self-protecting attitude appears to be at odds with the average level of pro-Israel propaganda in media and state organs in the Israel and the West, which would suggest exactly the contrary (namely the exploitation of any available source. Netenyahu clearly believes that releasing these million documents would indeed delegitimize the Jewish state.
Yeah right, Pappe and Khalidi are ideologically compromised while you have no problem citing Benny Morris who said that Ben Gurion should have ethnically cleansed all the Arabs, and wants Iran to be nuked for wepoans it does not have.
BTW. I challenged you to produce any historical reports or documentation that Israel was invaded.
Are you admitting this was a lie?
You have not provided clear and exhaustive evidence that the refugees were created by the Arabs invasion of Palestine, when even Morris admits that refugees were created before any Arab armies set foot into Palestine.
Of course it would be interesting to look into the state archives of the Arab countries in order to find out what indeed, beyond the mere pretended reasons, were their purposes as they send their armies against the new born state of Israel in 1948.
John Baggot Glubb, the commander of the Arab Legion, wrote in “A Soldier with the Arabs that British Foreign Secretary Bevin had given the green light for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state after the Prime Minister of Transjordan explained to him that King Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces. Eugene Rogan says that those petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in the state archives and were published in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. see Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
“I challenged you to produce any historical reports or documentation that Israel was invaded.”
You must be kidding shingo.
You need only to compare the map of the Partition Plan and that of the Arab military “intervention” in 1948 link to en.wikipedia.org
link to mideastweb.org
It was obviously and beyond doubt a full-scale military aggression on a recognized state by five invading armies. This becomes clear when we take a look into some of the military operations launched by the Arab armies.
The Jordan’s Arab legion bombed with heavy artillery the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem between 19 May and 28 May and, after taking possession of the entire the Old City, expelled all Jewish inhabitants. (seems that Jordan wasn’t very subtle about the accuracy of its maps for territorial partition with the Jews)
The Syrian army captured Massada and Merom Hagolan and advanced toward the Galilee.
The Iraki division tried on May 25 to take Netanya but failed.
The list of Arab attacks on Israeli cities and kibbutz is long but
a couple of analysesshould be enough fyi. Go and get your facts straight if you are really interested (I have some doubts).
Arab offensives in the air
Egyptian offensive
As to your accusation that Israel has delayed the opening of its archives for another 20 years, I suggest you read this interview with Morris (yes, him again), who I consider one of the most authoritative researchers, despite some of his utterances were deliberately misinterpreted by evil tongues. There is however no comparison to the almost complete closure ordered by the Arab regimes for their archives. Your parroting of my complaint is insofar simply laughable.
“Will Israel’s New Archive Policy Set Back a Generation of Scholarship?
July 30, 2010, 12:05 pm
By Evan R. Goldstein
“Q: What do you make of the decision to keep security-related documents classified?
A: Every closure of documents, every extension of periods of classification, is against the spirit of an open society. But Israel does live in a particularly difficult environment—and is at war with its surroundings, so more than most societies, there is justification for a tight archival policy. But the truth is that Israel’s archives remain among the most open in the world—far more open than Britain’s and France’s, and, in some respects, the United State’s (for example, the Israeli Cabinet maintains verbatim transcripts of its meetings, and opens them—97 % of the material—to public scrutiny after 40 years. The US doesn’t).
Q: Among the information that will remain classified are documents relating to Israel’s treatment of Arabs during the 1948 War, a focus of your scholarship. Might this cache of classified files deepen or alter our understanding of that event? Or do you feel like the picture is already very clear?
A: Most of the material on 1948 is open, including treatment of Arabs\Arab communities. That’s how I was able to write my books. Here and there, the officials managed to close material on atrocities and some expulsions. But other materials were opened and remain open—so it won’t really affect scholarship on the subject. (Often one finds a specific document closed in one file and open in another—even in the IDF archive itself.)
Q: The opening up of the Israeli archives in the 1980s created an opportunity for you and other so-called New Historians to pursue groundbreaking research into Israel’s past. Are you concerned that this recent decision will set back a generation of scholars?
A: What has been closed completely over the years, and now will remain closed for another 20 years, are the archives of the Mossad (foreign intelligence agency), Shin Bet (internal security service) and the Atomic Energy Commission and Israel’s nuclear program and plants. This means that no one will be able to write and publish histories of these organizations. In France, these files are similarly closed amd in England too. But in England they recently—a major innovation—allowed an outsider (insider), Prof. Christopher Andrew, to see the material for MI5 and use it, but without specficifying document and file. MI6 remains completely closed (except for in-house historians, like with the Mossad, whose work is never published). In terms of Israeli historiography this means that the intelligence and nuclear aspects of its political and military history will remain black holes for another 20 years (at least).
Q: Will this decision provide ammunition to those who advocate an academic boycott against Israel?
A: No, this should have no effect on academic boycotters. If they hate Israel, as most do, they will continue to do so, and have no need of this excuse (the chief boycotters, of course, are Arabs—all of whose archives, if they exist, remain closed to all researchers, being authoritarian societies and regimes. They certainly have nothing to complain about. To them, by contrast, Israel is a wonderfully free and open society).
Q: What are you working on these days?
A: It’s a secret.” —Evan R. Goldstein
link to chronicle.com
“You have not provided clear and exhaustive evidence that the refugees were created by the Arabs invasion of Palestine”
The problem of Arab refugees was created by both the Civil War and the subsequent first Arab-Israel war in 1948, as consequence of the armed conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Not so difficult to understand. The same applies to the displaced one million Jews in Arab lands as retaliation for Israel’s declaration of indipendence, even though that was in truth the real ethnic cleansing. They were the unjust victims of a global Arab-Israeli war, in which – on Arab side – played a role also a strong Jihadist component. link to yale.edu
On the causes and character of the Arab exodus from Palestine you can read Morris’ analysis of declassified documents produced by the IDF Intelligence branch in June 1948, during the first two weeks of the first truce.
link to tandfonline.com
It was obviously and beyond doubt a full-scale military aggression on a recognized state by five invading armies.
In fact, neither the majority of states nor the UN had “recognized” Israel on 15 May 1948. Abba Eban mentioned that fact months later during the hearings on Israel’s application for membership in the UN (see below). The General Assembly relieved its Palestine Commission of responsibility for supervising the transition period under the terms of resolution 186(S2) section III on 14 May 1948. The UN never implemented the plan of partition or appointed the provisional governments. link to yale.edu
The states that you mentioned simply crossed the frontiers of Palestine at the request of the majority of its inhabitants. The former members of the League of Nations and many other states had legally “recognized” the Mandated State of Palestine under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne. For example, in 1926 the Mixed Courts of Egypt recognized Palestinian nationality and ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. See the case of Saikaly v. Saikaly reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, 1929, page 48.
During the hearings on Israel’s membership in the UN, Abba Eban pointed out that the Arab States could not be logically expected to recognize the State of Israel if the United Nations hesitated to do so itself. He said that the Committee should not delay the decisive moment when the Arab world would recognize Israel as a partner in its destiny and in the progress of Asia. See the verbatim minutes in A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949
On the very same day that the UN finally accepted Israel as a UN member state, all of the Arab states signed the Lausanne protocol and accepted the map from UN resolution 181(II) as the basis for negotiation.
You must be kidding shingo.
No Jonah,
Either you’re the one who’s kidding or you were grimacing severely while typing out this pathetic post.
Apart from the fact your links are dead, this would have proven nothing regardless.
Mention any war that has taken place between neighbour states, and it is guaranteed that the fighting has taken place either side of the border. The decade long Iraq/Iran war was an endless series of battles either side of the Iran/Iraq border, but no invasion was actually recorded.
Hostage has already comprehensively debunked this rubbish in his response, so there’s nothing further I need to add.
If you took your own advice and looked at the map of the Partition Plan, or the map fo Israel for the 20 years that followed, you’d know that Jerusalem was never part fo Israel.
In fact, Jerusalem is still not part of Israel. So that’s a big whopping fail.
First of all, you might find that The Galilee was split by the Israeli/Syrian border. The capture of Massada was actually a retreat by Israel from Masada and Sha’ar HaGolan.
The Iraki division tried on May 25 to take Netanya but failed.
It was not an invasion. It was part of a battle to secure Jenin, Nablus and Tularm.
I am still waiting for you to cite any invasion that took place. Please, cite one credible Israeli historian that uses he word invasion with regards to Israel.
As I recall, Germany bombed London without ever nivading Britain.
Not a sinle example of an invasion.
Rubbish Jonah. Morris himself has stated that there are 1 million documents that were supposed to have been declassified by Israel, which Netenyahu has decided not to release on the grounds that they would threaten Israeli security. Morris has written extensively about requests for such documents which have been denied.
No Jonah, you are the clown prince. The comparison is obvious and the closure by the Arab regimes pales in comparison to Israel’s cache that Netenyahu refuses to release.
I have to laugh at Goldstein’s pathetic apologia here, that justifies the “tight archival policy” on the grounds that Israel lives in a “particularly difficult environment” yet Israel’s neighbours somehow do not.
How does Goldstein, who has not seen the classified documents know that “ Most of the material on 1948 is open”? The answer is, he doesn’t, but it stands to reason that even if that were true, the material that remains classified is obviously far more damning and damaging to Israel’s false narrative if 1948.
Mossad, Shin Bet and Israel’s nuclear program didn’t exist in 1948. Goldstein is being either dodging the question of being blatantly dishonest.
Goldstein is clearly in denial and deluded.
Yes, Jonah, we’ve already been through this, but as Hostage explained, Morris has no credibility on this subject given that he claims the expulsion of the Arabs was not planned, yet also criticises Ben0-Gurion for not carrying it out to full completion.
Absolute rubbish.
1.First of all, the 1 million number has been pulled out of the air without any basis in reality
2.The Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews largely deny that they were expelled or driven from their homes. In fact, not only do they take exception to being referred to as refugees, but they insist they migrate to Israel to make Alyah.
3.The myth fo the 1 million displaced Jews in Arab lands was invented by was Yaakov Meron of the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC), which was founded in the 1970s. When Meron propounded this thesis, it was considered the “most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands”. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders – and he termed these policies “ethnic cleansing.” Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases (“Magic Carpet,” “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah”) in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the “fact” that Jewish migration was the result of “Arab expulsion policy.” In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma’abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.
The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”
Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”
In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”
The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC’s political department, asked the organization’s secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.
Also alarmed by WOJAC’s stridency, the Foreign Ministry proposed that the organization bring its campaign to a halt on the grounds that the description of Mizrahi Jews as refugees was a double-edged sword. Israel, ministry officials pointed out, had always adopted a stance of ambiguity on the complex issue raised by WOJAC. In 1949, Israel even rejected a British-Iraqi proposal for population exchange – Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees – due to concerns that it would subsequently be asked to settle “surplus refugees” within its own borders.
link to haaretz.com
jonah, this is not the first time we have had this conversation here. i’ve read a few of them and thus far not one person has ever been able to produce any evidence israel was invaded. and the part about jerusalem is crazy. everyone knows jerusalem was not inside israel! are you accusing arab countries of invading what zionist aspired to be part of israel, this has nothing to do with the 55% of the mandate allotted to israel. get out your partition map and take a look at how deep jerusalem is embedded into the arab 45%.
sheesh!
there’s a really interesting discussion here about the partition.
more at the link of you scroll
Great find Annie,
Thanks
why thank you shingo but we should thank hostage, i just bookmarked it at the time.
shingo, i’m sure you’ve read this essay by Shenhavbut i’ll post it anyway in case others have not.
iow WOJAC was formed to implement a plan that began decades earlier as you mentioned wrt the ‘deal’ w/iraq. there were probably some other deals going on behind the scenes as the english were still active in iraq at that time. i think the iraq gov was a puppet of the english then if i am not mistaken. or something.
Thanks for the link Annie,
Of course, that article fails to mention how Zionist terrirsts were caught setting off bombs in Baghdada against Jewish targets to create a climate fo fear and flight to Israel.
hmm, i thought he alluded to it here:
Very nice to have unknown/hidden history shown here.
Zionism is racism. Your very commitment to the ideology makes you a racist.
You were were delegirimizing yourself from day 1.
Zionism is liberation. Opposition to the idea of kind application of Zionism is racist.
Granted that the current application is less than kind.
Dick Witty is a pro-settler nutbag it turns out.
From an exchange with Dick, that annie wrote:
you’re so full of crap.
on stolen land w/massive gov subsidies
do you hear your hypocrisy? the settlement lands were STOLEN. for settlers you peddle “good faith”, for palestinians you capitalize ‘many’. what kind of friggin double standard is this. settlers can build on stolen land and it is irrelevant because they did it in ‘good faith’? everyone knows this land is stolen you ethnic cleansing excuser. good faith my ass.
palestinians cannot even get building permits on their own land as settlements are being built. get a friggin grip. this isn’t even about the past, it’s about the future and it is decimating any chance for the 2ss you say you support.
—
So, this troll who spams Mondoweiss, leeching off of Phil’s intellectualism, compassion, humanity and success – portrays himself as a ‘mutual humanist’ and ‘peace-seeker’.
You are no different from a settler, Witty. You’re not liberal. You’re far-Right.
You’re not humanist, you’re hypocritical, obscene and racist.
Zionism was an idea, then it became action. Zionism is put into action. We see it daily.
That is the evidence. This story of Israel-Palestine is the evidence.
And from that evidence, Zionism is NOT LIBERATION.
It is profits off of the suffering and dispossession of an entire people and you – having no shame, and no clue – call it liberation.
Zionism is Oppression. When has there NOT been a brutally UNKIND zionism in practice?
It is a GIVEN that the “current application” is brutal and becoming MORE SO.
“Zionism is liberation.”
It “liberates” land from its owners, but aside from that, who is liberated from what?
Would be interested in examples of what you consider to be “kind Zionism”.
Would be interested in examples of what you consider to be “kind Zionism”.
Well there’s always the pie-in-the-sky in the sweet-bye-and-bye variety in which Zion is simply a Jewish metaphor for the world to come. There would also be the Neturei Karta variety which awaits the arrival of a real Messiah, i.e. And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them. . . . A wolf and a lamb shall graze together, and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw, and a serpent-dust shall be his food; they shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount,” says the Lord.
The other forms in which nice people, like Judah Magnes, arrive uninvited and ask the Arab speaking folks to share half of everything in favor of a new and involuntary plan of bi-nationalism don’t really qualify.
I like the NK kind…but not the other kind…where the fantasy grows legs.
“zio-fascist” is perceived as a loaded word for some … I took it to mean zionists acting like fascists – pretty simple … but it seems to be a word that is politically useful to the zionist apologists so I don’t use it anymore since they can then play victim with it
As for Lillian’s piece, she took a lot of words to say this with regard to pressure on israel and zionism:
we sane people are trying to let crazy people know that their paranoia and narcissism and penchant toward violence is putting everyone in their “family” at risk and they need to stop that behavior … we are trying SAVE the crazies from their craziness, believing they can be brought back to sanity
Well Tal….let me admit to using the term zionazi on occasion. Since there’s not any new description or reference for the zionist actions some of us use lazy terms like nazi or fascist just because of what the terms define. If you will make up something that describes current Israeli actions as well as, but isn’t those two words, I will be glad to substitute them. But no matter how much you dislike the term, if it fits some actions, then it fits.
It’s no more anti semitic reflective of Jews than describing Mussolini as fascist is of Italians.
You are trying to claim that no Jew or Israeli or Israeli government could ever be like a nazi or a fascist…and if one does point out some similarity they are anti semitic……which is absurd.
And calling people anti semitic isn’t going to get them to stop talking about what either the US zionist, or Israel are doing.
Many of the components of modern zionism come directly from the faddish new ideology that would soon sweep across europe.
This is another schmaltzfest in the tradition of ‘Jews against Zionism’, the idea that Zionism is harmful to Jews, or even, that current Israeli policies are against its interests. The claim that Judaism is a peaceful religion, and despite what it says in the Tanakh and the Talmud, it is opposed to ethnic violence. The attempt to fuse Israel with the West in general, rather than the effort to show how their interests diverge. The concern that Israel provokes antisemitism – did anyone worry that apartheid might provoke ‘anti-whiteism’? The call for ‘honest dialogue’ between the oppressors and their victims. In short, another exercise in whining that has nothing to offer the Palestinians.
“The claim that Judaism is a peaceful religion, and despite what it says in the Tanakh and the Talmud, it is opposed to ethnic violence.”
Wasn’t your comment supposed to appear before “Tal’s” comment? It’ll be much more effective if you get your timing right.
Mooser: if you look at the times, mine was the first. It took time to be approved.
You have a point about religion. Religions are contradictory, and people read whichever bits they want. Christianity is officially peaceful, but in practice, it has been as violent as the others. Islam isn’t ‘a peaceful religion’ but in practice is no worse than the others. I simply meant to argue against the ‘Judaism is inherently peaceful’ story. But anyone could convert to Judaism, but not to the secular version, and it is the latter which is dominant in Israel and beyond.
The US media frequently mentions Catholic antisemitism, but hardly ever Papist sectarianism toward other religious groups. It mentions Islamic violence, and Sunni sectarianism toward Shiites. There was a lot of news about an evangelist preacher who burned the Koran. They never mention the Talmud’s views on Jesus. They don’t make a fuss about Christophobia on Israeli TV:
link to youtube.com
Jaynot,
<i.They never mention the Talmud’s views on Jesus. They don’t make a fuss about Christophobia on Israeli TV
Good points.
“The claim that Judaism is a peaceful religion, and despite what it says in the Tanakh and the Talmud, it is opposed to ethnic violence.”
Judaism, like any other religion, is whatever we decide to make it. You’re the one who is insisting that Judaism must be what the Zionists make it.
Judaism, like any other religion, is whatever we decide to make it.
Bravo mooser. Now replace Judaism with Zionism and religion with nationalism and you would learn an important lesson about humanism.
Now replace Judaism with Zionism and religion with nationalism
let’s not. and zionism can’t be ‘replaced’ w/nationalism because it is already a form of nationalism. it’s ethnic nationalism at its worst.
Oh really? Please then, tell me how Zionism works without dispossession and Jewish supremacy?
Annie, in order for Tal to understand what you are saying, he would have to conceive of the humanity of others. Nah gonna happen! Hell, you saw the ‘circumcision’s beyond our control’ thread, and that’s their own freakin’ sons!
But really, I should drop it: it’s pretty clear that Tal would prefer anything to a discussion of Ms. Rosengarten’s moving article.
“Now replace Judaism with Zionism and religion with nationalism and you would learn an important lesson about humanism.”
The “lesson about humanism” I’ve always learned from Zionists is how to de-humanise the people who are either in your way or don’t agree with you. And to give credit where it’s due, Tal, they’re experts at it.
“Now replace Judaism with Zionism….”
Thanks for being honest.
I honestly don’t get it. Do you think the Kurds are not entitled for a homeland somewhere in the middle east? How about the Tibetans? Why is it ok for the Arabs to have 22 ethnic Arab states and not ok to have one Jewish homeland? Should the hebrew language become extinct like many other languages of peoples who were left without a homeland? Should the Jewish people become extinct like is happening in america because of intermarriages and atheism?
Now replace Zionism with fascism/aparthrid and that will tell you all you need to know about Zionidm and Israel.
There is no humanism in Zionism.
No. There is no humanism in you
How does the Kurd national movement work without Kurd supremacy? How did Americanism work without dispossession? Oh wait, it didn’t work…
Tal :
“Do you think the Kurds are not entitled for a homeland somewhere in the middle east?”
++++ Right for a self-determination belongs to everybody. Including Kurds.
“How about the Tibetans?”
++++ Also for Tibetans.
“Why is it ok for the Arabs to have 22 ethnic Arab states and not ok to have one Jewish homeland?”
++++ Famous trick. Nobody here is suggesting such a thing that jews shouldnt have a homeland.
“Should the hebrew language become extinct like many other languages of peoples who were left without a homeland?”
++++ Did someone say something about hebrew language ?
“Should the Jewish people become extinct like is happening in america because of intermarriages and atheism?”
++++ Is it illegal to marry non-jews ? Or non-religious person ? What i know, nowhere in the world. Are you then suggesting that jews should marry only jewish person ? I thought that Islam is ( as we hear all the time ) that what is fundamentalist religion. Can we then add in that list another religion ? Yes,no ? Of course not. And as we have seen, person comes here to give nice lessons about zionist humanism, then we scratch the surface, same zionist themes comes up. From word to word. Funny and sad in a way.
“and atheism?”
ROTFL! Hey Tal, you will have to talk to “eee” about that one. As far as I’ve been able to gather from his defense of it, atheism is no bar to Judaism in Israel. In fact, I suspect he thinks atheism is an enabling adjunct to it! We don’t want God getting in the way of our “tribal customs” or messing around with the “club”.
Nobody here is suggesting that Jews shouldn’t have a homeland? Where exactly do you generously offer us to have a homeland? Palestine was as good as any other place on the map. If we tried to establish our homeland in Germany they would have blamed us for trying to steal their land… Errr… Never mind
Did anyone say something about the Hebrew language? No. But but the Hebrew language did not revive before Zionism came to the world and it will die again if israel will not exist.
Did I say it should be illegal to intermarry? Why do you put words in my mouth? I’m just saying that considering the rate of assimilation of Jews in america, one more culture in our globalized world would become extinct.
“Should the Jewish people become extinct like is happening in america because of intermarriages and atheism?”
Gosh, going extinct, and we still manage to send Israel, what it is 3 billion+ a year. Jeez, maybe we should keep some of that money for ourselves, to avoid extinction!
Why do they need a homeland when they are already all citizens of the countries they are living in?
Do the Tibetans want independence? The Dalai Lama never expressed such sentiments.
Why is it OK for Warren Buffet to have 70 billion when I don’t have a billion to my name? Do I have the right to steal it from him? Do you think he’d mind if I did, you know, seeing as he woudl be left with 69 billion?
Who gives a shit? If you want to preserve it, suit yourself.
Intermmariage is leading to jewish extinction?
Tell me Tal, were you given a lobotomy as a gift for your bar mitzvah?
>> Should the Jewish people become extinct like is happening in america because of intermarriages and atheism?
1. “Should” is neither here nor there. What matters is that it does not happen as a result of violence.
2. According to eee, atheism doesn’t extinguish Jewishness. Or…are you suggesting that eee is lying and that he’s no longer a Jew?
leave it to mr ‘crutch’ to make it ad hominem and personal.
“Did I say it should be illegal to intermarry?”
And in Israel, anybody can marry anybody they want to, as long as the Rabbi and the State say it’s okay!
“Nobody here is suggesting such a thing that jews shouldnt have a homeland.” says Mig. Well, I am suggesting such a thing. The West doesn’t tolerate ethnic homelands – EU countries and the USA don’t have the right to become ethnic states. How would you decide which ‘people’ should have a ‘homeland’, and where? Am I entitled to ethnically cleanse a bit of land that some of my ancestors might have lived on five thousand years ago? No, and I don’t want to. But then, I was raised in what the Jewish left calls ‘white privilege’.
“Do you think the Kurds are not entitled for a homeland somewhere in the middle east?” – I think ‘self-determination’ is a recipe for endless ethnic warfare. The only Kurds I have met regarded the Kurdish nationalists as their mortal enemies. Can you imagine the author of this article looking at Zionism like this?
Why is it ok for the Arabs to have 22 ethnic Arab states and not ok to have one Jewish homeland?
Would you please park this substandard idiotic talking point?
There are over 353,954,392 Arabs in those 22 countries, which averages to 16,088,836/per. That’s your answer. They need the space.
Further, a race does not beget a self-proclaimed religious equivalent (especially when that race is denominated in multiple religions itself).
Really? Land without a people for a people with out a land right?
Unlikely, but so what? Hebrew existed for thuosands of years when there was no Israel. Hertzl recommended that the language of Israel should be German anyway.
False again. There was no Israel for 2000 years and Jews did nto become extinct.
So much hasbrab BS, so few facts to support it.
because religions don’t get states the sooner the people of the jewish faith grow up and deal with that fact the better off everyone will be.
Tal :
” Where exactly do you generously offer us to have a homeland?”
++++ Where christians and muslims et cetera have a homeland ? Every place they live.
“Palestine was as good as any other place on the map. If we tried to establish our homeland in Germany they would have blamed us for trying to steal their land… Errr… Never mind”
++++ So instead steal land from palestinians. Thats why we are here and writing this responding your comments and you are mine.
“Did anyone say something about the Hebrew language? No. But but the Hebrew language did not revive before Zionism came to the world and it will die again if israel will not exist.”
++++ Many, many languages has left from this world. But does that have something to do with palestinians ?
“Did I say it should be illegal to intermarry? Why do you put words in my mouth?”
++++ If intermarry is not that bad thing, why you take this up then ?
“I’m just saying that considering the rate of assimilation of Jews in america, one more culture in our globalized world would become extinct.”
++++ And because what is “happening” in America, palestinians needs to suffer from that ? But let me clear one thing, i know quite well what you mean with cultural survival of jewish heritage. Most of relatively small ethnic tribes in the world are fighting with same problems, as you described. But then again, what all of this has to do with palestinians then ? Yes, arabs have 22 independent separate states and at this stage, they continue to foreseeable future to have a separate independent states.
jaynot :
““Nobody here is suggesting such a thing that jews shouldnt have a homeland.” says Mig. Well, I am suggesting such a thing. The West doesn’t tolerate ethnic homelands – EU countries and the USA don’t have the right to become ethnic states. How would you decide which ‘people’ should have a ‘homeland’, and where? Am I entitled to ethnically cleanse a bit of land that some of my ancestors might have lived on five thousand years ago? No, and I don’t want to. But then, I was raised in what the Jewish left calls ‘white privilege’.”
++++ Jaynot, you are quite right on this, but i dont have a answer to that. Nobody has. Right to self-determination is a universal declaration, which doesnt give a universal explanation to all. I have read a hefty number of articles from many scholars who touch this issue, and there are as many opinions as are opinion givers. One thing should stress here, and its that self-determination doesnt mean own State in all of cases. More in links :
link to unpo.org
link to c100tibet.org
link to pum.umontreal.ca
link to unpo.org
Last I looked, there were 500,000 atheists in Israel.
I honestly don’t get it. Do you think the Kurds are not entitled for a homeland somewhere in the middle east?
You are repeating a shopworn piece of propaganda. It was a feeble 19th century attempt to justify turning a non-existent Jewish Nation into another one of the ethnic separatist Nation-States. Those were a figment of the popular imagination at the time. Tony Judt noted that the world has moved on to embrace individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The Kurds do have a homeland, but it has never been an independent Nation State. The Kurds don’t need to organize a state in which they can exercise superior rights, they simply need equal human rights in the states wherever they happen to reside.
The Balfour Declaration mentioned a Jewish national home, not a Jewish Nation-State or “the” Jewish national home. It stipulated that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There always have been many other countries that function as homelands for Jewish people.
the hebrew language become extinct
It already did become extinct once before and nobody died or went to bed without their dinner.
Should the Jewish people become extinct like is happening in america because of intermarriages and atheism?
The “Jewish people” is an abstract and antiquated concept that you’ve constantly employed in your comments here to justify all sorts of criminal behavior. Neither intermarriage nor atheism are fatal to the existence of normal people.
“Please then, tell me how Zionism works without dispossession and Jewish supremacy?”
Ask Witty. He’s talking about “kind application of Zionism”. (Does he mean “rub it on gently”?)
“Do you think the Kurds are not entitled for a homeland somewhere in the middle east?”
What do you mean by a “homeland”, if not “the land where your home is”?
And that makes Iraq the homeland of Iraqi Kurds, Syria the homeland of Syrian Kurds, Turkey the homeland of Turkish Kurds, and Iran the homeland of Iranian Kurds.
But if you mean “an independent state run by and for a majority Kurdish population” then no, they are not entitled to it. No group has that sort of entitlement.
“Why is it ok for the Arabs to have 22 ethnic Arab states”
Actually, they are Arabic-speaking with populations of mixed ethnicities.
“and not ok to have one Jewish homeland?”
Australia is the homeland of Australian Jews. They don’t need another.
“Should the hebrew language become extinct ”
Why not? Lots of languages became extinct when they were no longer needed.
“Should the Jewish people become extinct”
Why not? “Jewishness” is just a story people tell themselves and their children. They could replace it with a better story.
All this rubbish about “peoples’ and “ethnicity” is just an evil denial of common humanity and good sense.
Wonderfully written and thought provoking. This article really hits at the core of the conflict and effectively challenges the ideologies of zionism and the unimaginable consequences if left unchecked.
Apartheid and occupation are two words that can not be associated with democracy. Israel is a democracy……for the Jews. Arabs and non Jews …..not so much.
“Israel is a democracy……for the Jews.”
But some Jews in Israel are, in Orwell’s famous words ” more equal than others”.
I have always regarded the term “anti-Semitism” to be redundant. There is nothing contained within it that adds to the word “racism” except that it applies exclusively (wrongly, strictly speaking) to one ethnicity and (again wrongly) links those accused of it to the atrocities of WWII. The use of the term in today’s parlance, particularly when levelled at Jews, gives rise to some interesting anomalies.
Intriguing comment noted by Gilad Atzmon:
“In Haaretz today Beni Ziper wrote, “I saw on television people shouting against the rich, or tycoons who control the country. Seemingly everyone thinks it’s exciting and daring and nobody reflects on the chilling historical equivalence with the Depression in Germany at the time of Weimar Republic, when the ‘rich Jews who control us’ were targeted by everyone.” Ziper is clever enough to notice a close and disturbing repetition in Jewish history. However, Ziper is also very critical of his countrymen. “So I’m all for protests against the state, but in no way against people or groups of people, be they ‘rich’ or ‘ (Jewish) Orthodox’ or even ‘settlers’. Whoever gives privileges to the settlers in this country and it’s not that the settlers come and rob the cashier at gunpoint.” Whether we agree with Ziper or not, it is clear that he also admits that there is a similarity between the arguments voiced in Israel against the rich, and the German right wing’s anti Semitic attitude towards Jews in the 1920’s-30’s”
link to gilad.co.uk
I certainly think it’s difficult, as Mooser implies, to prove what is the, or what is an, authentic form of a religion. Not only Judaism – I’m currently struggling with something called the Anglican Covenant, which attempts to define the authentic forms of my own religion – not very convincingly as far as I’m concerned.
The claim that authentic Judaism is a warlike religion, encouraging ethnic violence, would certainly provoke anti-Semitism if it were widely believed. Actually it’s not the view of Judaism taken in the New Testament, which has a critique of Judaism though not along those lines.
I stand ready to conform and convert to any form of religion that God tells me is right. Of course, if He would tell all of us at once, that would certainly simplify matters.
I keep on listening for that divine diapason telling me “Mooser, the existence and future of Judaism depends on dispossessing and getting rid of a group of people residing in Palestine, and this is your job!” but you know, somehow I’ver never heard it. Maybe Tal has.
I keep on listening for that divine diapason telling me “Mooser, the existence and future of Judaism depends on dispossessing and getting rid of a group of people residing in Palestine, and this is your job!”
That sums it all up in a small nutshell!
“sums it all up in a small nutshell!”
I think you want this thread. I’m through with that topic. I try not to let, as the saying goes, the bastards grind me down, but that was enough for a long time!
Have Phil and Adam ever considered not enabling comments on certain posts? I sometimes wish they would.
I would like to ask Lillian what, in her view, would have to happen in her Jewish or in my Christian soul for one of us to have crossed the border into anti-Semitism?
So now all the Jewish Israelis want a home of their own, like the lower classes in the USA wanted? In the US, the Barny Franks & Obamas on the left pushed this new version of equality whether one could afford it or not, to lower class fools, and the Wall St crowd on the right packaged it right up and sold it to investor fools of the higher class. Now Israel wants to follow the US into Bailouts? The US is still, after a decade, allowing Israel to borrow on the cheap by guaranteeing Israel’s credit, even now that Israel has joined the big league organization as an economic powerhouse. These US loan guarantees are sunset in 2011. Given the US credit has just been downgraded, will we ordinary Americans see our political leaders say its time to drop these generous loan guarantees to Israel? Yeah, right. link to jpost.com
So now all the Jewish Israelis want a home of their own
No, but we think that our neo liberal economy has gone too far. If we can’t own a house we would at least like to be able to rent an apartment in a decent neighborhood and have a decent public transportation system which would exempt us from owning an expensive car which consumes expensive gasoline.
We want an economy which serves the people and not people serving the economy. What’s the use of living in a rich country if your salary stays the same and you need your parents financial aid even when you both hold to full time jobs.
“If we can’t own a house we would at least…/…. expensive car which consumes expensive gasoline.”
And those damn Palestinians want their houses returned! The nerve of those people demanding so much when Israelis like Tal are suffering!
I agree Tal, there’s no way Israelis will get what they are entitled to as long as those pesky Palestinians are in the way. Such gall they have!
You know Tal, it’s not very nice of me, and I am sure is not the view of the sites owners or of very many other commenters, but I can’t help but almost hope that the occupation and Jerusalem have given the Israeli government some very definite ideas about how to deal with dissent, and that the protesters will be the beneficiaries of this knowledge.
A nasty attitude, I admit.
Yes, poor Tal. The prices of capuccinos on Rothschild Avenue are an outrage.
And, couldn’t Israeli swimming pools be larger if the natives drank less contaminated water?
Tal identifies himself as an Israeli who strongly opposes his government’s policies, and instead of being welcomed by those who share those views, he gets piled on by the usual wolfpack, with their predictable sophomoric vitriol and hatred.
Keep up the good fight, Tal, and ignore these buffoons. Meanwhile, let me suggest that those of us who are regular readers of Mondoweiss but have more nuanced opinions than the crackpots–for example, that Zionism, whatever its faults, however much it has gone wrong, is not necessarily identical to fascism, and may even contain defensible arguments and viewpoints–should also speak up on this site, rather than driving away rational critics of Israel, whether in this country or Israel itself.
Speak up!
“Tal identifies himself as an Israeli who strongly opposes his government’s policies”
Excuse me, but how on earth did he “identify himself”? He gave a mealy-mouthed excuse we’ve heard many times, and proceded to endorse every Zionists bit of bigotry and false history.
Why are we supposed to grovel before any Israeli or other half-Witty who isn’t an outright facist. Why are we supposed to maintain our sentimental illusions about Israel to the bitter end?
mooser, this is a scam. i was just reading a reut report on ‘red lines’ not to be crossed and ‘big tent’ and the tactic of coming supporting israel from the ‘left’ and then trying to call out those who ‘cross the line’. tal uses every single barameoter and then were supposed to kowtow to what reut says are the lines drawn. further more this is EXACTLY the argument clencher was whining to assaf about in the dkos diary , exactly. it’s also jon s’s position. and we’re allegedly full of hate? wtf. i don’t have the energy to hate these people, it’s more like swatting distracting flies who bring the same damn argument time and again in packs. no variety dude. same talking pts and the goal is to set us up as being somehow to blame.
make sure you read down to the are hollowing at any kind of middle ground or cooperative mindset in favor of trench warfare and then look at the aggressive way tal entered this thread. meanwhile, back to the clench. here’s shmeul (not exactly what one might call a ‘hater’):
this is all about staking out territorial grounds around what is and is not ‘reasonable discourse’. according to a plan or maybe it is just a ‘coincidence’. i’m planning to write a post about it. there are obviously efforts to pound this site w/criticism. we’re being targeted clearly. they are not leaving us alone, they come here to pester us in the attempt to make us the problem. we are not the problem.
meanwhile danny dannon is singing all over the AJ article he doesn’t want two states and obviously danny boy has way more power than you or me. are the rallying against the rightwing government they claim to criticize? are they on the rightwing blogs attacking from the left?
no, they are here targeting us, telling us how ineffectual we are but they won’t leave us alone.it’s totally transparent. they should be attacking the right but they do not.
Ah, but “clenchner” at least had a list of Israeli “left” orgs he claimed membership in or activism with. Tal just mouths something about being “critical” of some facet or other of the Israeli regime, and Slater jumps right in to endorse him, like he was Uri Avnery or something.
But I get the feeling they will go as low as they have to, and fling whatever poo they need to, to avoid discussing or dealing with what Ms. Rosengarten say in her post.
And BTW, Annie, I freely admit I don’t know too much about the details of the IP situation (a benefit of being revolted by Zionism from an early age) but it seems to me the main difference between the right and the left in Israel is how many Jews Zionism should be willing to screw to achieve it’s aims. The left seems to think that fewer Jews could be screwed and Zionism still succeed. Which is nice of them, I guess.
nah, tal opened the thread accusing lillian of making a strawman and then launched into a personal vendetta over the term ‘ziofacist’ and has proceeded to highjack the thread dominating the conversation.
Tal identifies himself as an Israeli who strongly opposes his government’s policies, and instead of being welcomed by those who share those views, he gets piled on by the usual wolfpack, with their predictable sophomoric vitriol and hatred.
maybe you should check out the trajectory of the thread because it didn’t happen like that slater. he came into this thread accusing other of hatred (funny you should do that too, seems to be a staple of ‘liberal zionsts’ and glick charaters alike) with barrels loaded calling for a fight armed w/links to back up his allegations from the very first comment.
try harder.
So Annie, do you deny that most people on MW hate Zionism and zionists? Do you deny that they hate israelis and israel?
For God’s sake, be honest with yourself and read how your herd expresses itself in the most vile ways.
tal, you are barking up the wrong tree. i do not travel in hate and i do not accuse others of it either. not you not even bibi. it’s not my game. try again. if you think you are going to engage me in a conversation about the hate on the left you must think i am an idiot.
try having a conversation about policy sans the ad hominem ‘vile’ accusations. you’re making it all about our personality or ‘essence’ and nothing about what we stand for. stop w/the stupid redundant endless tactic. it isn’t working.
Right you are, Tal! People never hate the actions of certain Jews, they hate the Jews themselves, and that’s a no-no! Why didn’t Madoff use that defense in his trial? He’d be a free man today!
In fact, it’s a pretty good bet that if it wasn’t Jews doing it, murder and dispossesion would be lauded the world over. Everybody would be screaming “Oh, please dispossess me, it’s my turn!” “When do I get murdered, damnit, I’ve waited for years!”
“your herd”
You lousy anti-ungulate! Good enough to be Kosher (if somewhat tough and gamy) but not good enough to express an opinion? I won’t forget this Tal. I’d stay out of Northern lake-filled woodlands and marshes if I were you.
Thanks buddy for your moral support. It’s 1 am here and i have to get up for work tomorrow. Now that I know that one decent person exists here, I can hit the sack already ;-)
Aw gee, Tal, you stayed up late enough to tell us what you want for yourself, could you maybe drink some coffee and tell us what you want for the Palestinians?
yeah, tal is trying so hard to bring peace but he can’t drag himself away from ragging on us from the get go. we’re so much more fun to insult than the israeli government or apartheid or occupation or policy.
Now that I know that one decent person exists here
bwwwwahhhhh. maybe tal should go to work on a site with people he can relate to. or spend his much valued time against he real adversary. or maybe that is exactly what he is doing.
poor tal had to enter the lion’s den with only his ad hominems for attack support all day. he managed to survive the thread, just barely..signing off for the night giving gracious thanks to his one defender. scheeew! life’s a bitch for an info warrior, it’s a battle a ragin’ out there!
“Speak up!”
‘Because I would rather talk about anything, anything but what Ms. Rosengarten posted’
Thanks, Mooser. This is the point, isn’t it.
I though Ms. Rosengarten’s post spoke very eloquently for itself, and that’s what scares them. They won’t even come near it.
Yes, he claims to be an Israeli who strongly opposes his government’s policies, but of course, hasn’t the courage to take it up with the crack pots at the JPost and pro Zionist web sites. Of he is sincere, then why is he participating in this forum and not duking it out at Commentary Magazine?
I ell you what Tal, we agree with you. No go give em hell. Let us know how many Zionists you convert.
tal won’t be going to give anyone hell but us. we’re his target. he thinks it makes it better he’s from the ‘left’. walks like a duck talks like a duck. as long as he is attacking me that’s all i need to know. he’s defending zionism. he can’t acknowledge zionsim has never existed without dispossessing others of their land in the name of ethnic (his) nationalism.
tal won’t be going to give anyone hell but us. we’re his target.
Spot on Annie.
Like Witty, they are not inveting any effort in talking sense to their tribe. They simply want to win our empathy and compssion so that we go a littel bit easier and more gentle on their kin.
Even the honourable Prof Slater seems to struggle with that reality. When are they going to accept that you deal with the Zionism you have, not the Zionism you want.
“Zionism, whatever its faults, however much it has gone wrong, is not necessarily identical to fascism”
Sure, okay, and what the hell does that have to do with anything.
Look, Prof. Slater, I’m with you, all the way! I think that Zionism has many redeeming qualities, and a lot to offer to the world! And I am equally convinced that Zionism will start showing all these qualities and offering stuff to the world, the day after the last Palestinian dies, or is out of the way.
Now you may think that Israel can do both of these things at once, and who am I to disagree?
You’re getting ahead of yourself Mooser. There’s Iran and Lebanon still to take care of before that happens.
You’re right, jnslater. I mean why overlook that Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Hitler created the first autobahns, which the US copied? I mean, just look at how Hitler turned the German economy around in just a few years! Keynes is so proud of Adolph. From tons of paper in a wheel barrel to buy a loaf of bread to a solid mark!
Israel exists, accept it already.
It is regarded as a Jewish haven, accept that already as well.
Israel was not founded on the idea of expropriation, but on the idea of settlement and formation of coherent social and political institutions.
It required a state when it became apparent that Jewish settlement was not going to be accepted, as is the basis for its requiring a state now.
The theme that “they don’t belong there” is itself a fascist theme. Look at it in the mirror.
EVERY people migrated. Only some of current Palestinians are “original” whatever that means.
The state of Israel is not substantiated on the basis that Jews used to live there, but its governance is substantiated on the basis of the current majority that do live there.
>> The state of Israel is not substantiated on the basis that Jews used to live there, but its governance is substantiated on the basis of the current majority that do live there.
While the state of Israel is more often than not “substantiated on the basis of the current majority that do live there” (although how that majority came to be is always glossed over by Zio-supremacists), the state of Israel was – and regularly still is – “substantiated on the basis that Jews used to live there”. You are either a fool or a liar – or both – to suggest that it isn’t.
Regardless, neither form of substantiation entitled – or entitles – Israel:
- to expand beyond its 1948 borders;
- to expand beyond its 1967 borders;
- to engage in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; or
- to continue with its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
Some claim that Israel has a right to exist BECAUSE it used to, as some Palestinians claim that all of the land is Palestine because it used to (a hope at least.)
The reason that Israel is and cannot be denied, is in the region that it is a super-majority, a nation.
The land itself is not Jewish nor is it itself Palestinian.
The majority in sections of the land are Jewish and elect to form as a Jewish sovereignty. And the majority in other sections of the land are Palestinian, and prospectively elect to form as a Palestinian sovereignty, on the basis of the democratic principle of self-determination.
And once again, as usual, Richard’s gobbly-gook comes down to: “Might Makes Right”
>> The reason that Israel is and cannot be denied, is in the region that it is a super-majority, a nation.
So, “super-majority” = “cannot be denied” UNLESS someone other than Jews are the super-majority, in which case they can be denied…and ethnically cleansed and oppressed and killed.
You remain a disgusting hypocrite.
Furthermore, nothing about Israel’s “super-majority” entitles it to oppress its minorities or to continue with its ON-GOING, offensive (that is, not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
Nothing entitles anyone to oppress another, either way.
The objection to Israeli (Jewish) self-governance stated in the name of affirmation of democracy, is at least partially hypocritical.
The alternative to two states is a single state or federation of two states. But, those can only be affirmed by revolution (civil war) or by election.
If you want a single state, then form the parties that articulate a single state, and campaign for their election.
If they are radical single state parties, then they will be rejected. If they are moderate/liberal/social they have a chance of participation in Israeli governance.
Elections are where dialog occurs in a democratic society.
Okay. But what does that have to do with Israel?
Seriously, now: Talking about ‘democracy’ or ‘elections’ patently ridiculous when the majority of people affected do not get to vote. Israel is no more democratic – less in fact – than the British Raj in India was.
BUt you will continue to happily support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians either way.
Jews self governance at the expense of the Palestinians is in no way an affirmation of democracy. To suggest it is, is hypocritical.
Do you want a 2 state solution Witty? If so, why aren’t you forming the parties that articulate a two state solution, and campaigning for their election? Or are you simply talking trash to suck oxygen from the debte as you always do?
>> RW: Nothing entitles anyone to oppress another, either way.
>> RW: I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
>> RW: 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.
Hypocrite.
“The objection to Israeli (Jewish) self-governance stated in the name of affirmation of democracy, is at least partially hypocritical.”
Israeli doesn’t mean “Jewish”–many Israelis are Palestinian Arabs. So you just shot yourself in the foot there.
As for democratic, you seem to have in mind a form of government where one ethnic or religious group is privileged above all others, which is why you equated “Israeli” with “Jewish”. Unless it is purely a formal affair of no significance, you endorse a situation where there will be discrimination against people not part of the “right” group.
That is your projection Donald.
Try to live in the real world in which a reality can be two contradictory things.
National AND democratic.
Israel is a state of all its citizens, and they have the opportunity to campaign in open elections on platforms of their own choosing.
Rather than demean that option, you should be encouraging those with political skill to pursue the option.
To impose an outcome, is just that. No fundamental imposition can be considered democratic.
And, it really doesn’t matter that the past wasn’t. It is the present that we live in.
Democracy worthy of the name includes two prominent features:
1. Governance by the majority, majority rule
2. Protection of individual and minority rights
They exist in a tension similar to the tension of national AND democratic, requiring constant reminder of the importance of individual and minority rights in particular, as they are often dismissed by majorities.
ALL political oriented dictums, all movements that require unanimity as the measure of unity, threated to abuse minority and individual rights, as is evident in far right Zionism and in far right/left solidarity activism.
>> Democracy worthy of the name includes two prominent features:
>> … 2. Protection of individual and minority rights
And yet this does not square with your proposal for bureaucratic ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Israelis as a means of maintaining a permanent-majority status for Jewish Israelis:
- RW: I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.
Excising an undesirable demographic of non-Jewish Israelis from Israel – stripping them of their country and their citizenship – does not fall under “Protection of individual and minority rights”.
Must be one of those Zio-supremacist “humanist” things.
“Try to live in the real world in which a reality can be two contradictory things.”
This explains how you can take two contradictory positions and believe them both. I think you mean to say that life is complex, but what you actually said was nonsense. The fact that life is complicated doesn’t mean that “X” and “not-X” can both be true. You believe in contradictions because it’s the only way you can reconcile the actual reality of Israel’s racism with your idealized version of Zionism.
“threated to abuse minority and individual rights, as is evident in far right Zionism and in far right/left solidarity activism.”
There’s always a danger that any movement can go wrong, even those with good intentions. The long run goal should be to get the Israeli Jews and Palestinians to be reconciled with each other. Your approach involves allowing Israelis to keep everything they have taken so far (presumably this will continue right up until the moment an agreement is reached) and putting the blame for all the violence on carefully designated scapegoats–the far right, Hamas, and even “dissent”. That’s not a way to reconcile with anyone. It’s only a way of justifying yourself to yourself.
Israel is a state of all its citizens
One of Israel’s first “acts of state” was to adopt legislation to redefine the nationality of its citizens in order to make the majority of the Arab inhabitants of the territory it claimed for itself “stateless”. The Constituent Assembly (i.e. the Knesset) has always refused to adopt a constitution saying that Israel is a state of all its citizens. It has adopted numerous statutes which say that it is the State of the Jewish people and the Supreme Court has ruled accordingly:
I guess you didn’t understand my criticism of your political presentation.
Its similar to the simplistic criticism that nationalism must be racist.
It just ain’t so. Democracy and nationalism always exist in a tension, in which upon examination BOTH can be true (or not depending on the manner of governance and civic participation).
“The long run goal should be to get the Israeli Jews and Palestinians to be reconciled with each other.”
Good point!!!!
“Your approach involves allowing Israelis to keep everything they have taken so far (presumably this will continue right up until the moment an agreement is reached) and putting the blame for all the violence on carefully designated scapegoats–the far right, Hamas, and even “dissent”. ”
My approach is to encourage dissent to take humane positions. The examples you refer to as “allowing Israelis to keep” I’m sure is about my criticism of the threat removing 550,000 settlers/residents from their current homes.
I don’t conclude that settlers en masse have full title to the land that they reside on, only that to engage in a politically motivated forced mass removal is cruel, abusive, and as it is directed at an ethnic class, a form of ethnic cleansing (stated in the name of fulfillment of law).
Fulfillment of law would be giving individuals their day in court, and having a color-blind court determine most humane remedy.
You know that my remedy assumes that anyone that then chooses to live in Palestine, would renounce their Israeli citizenship, no longer Israeli, but then Palestinian.
I blame Hamas for stopping peace, as I blame likud. They make both the two-state and single state impossible.
Witty, on what basis do you claim National and democratic are contradictory? And on what basis do you claim a tension between national AND democratic that is distinct from Democracy worthy of the name that includes the two prominent features you specify? I don’t see ALL the contradictions and tensions you claim in the USA, but I do see them in Israel. That’s because the USA is not a “Christian and democratic” nation. But Israel is a “Jewish and democratic” nation. The USA is 1st and foremost, a proposition nation; Israel is 1st and foremost, a tribal/ethno-theocratic nation.
Citizen,
There are MANY tensions between national American and democratic. You don’t experience them?
Witty, all Americans are national Americans by definition, and if they participate at all in the governing process, e.g., by voting, they do so as democrats, even Republicans. Any tensions exist because of one’s personal situation, as compared to those of some other Americans, not because of the national and democratic character of the USA.
Democracy and nationalism always exist in a tension
no they don’t. they only exist in tension where you have citicens of the state who are not nationals, ie ethnic nationalities who do not afford everyone with national status. like israel. that isn’t the case in the US.
“I don’t conclude that settlers en masse have full title to the land that they reside on, only that to engage in a politically motivated forced mass removal is cruel, abusive, and as it is directed at an ethnic class, a form of ethnic cleansing (stated in the name of fulfillment of law).”
This is chutzpah, Richard. The settler land thieves are members of an ethnic class who think they have the right to violate international law and live in occupied territory, prospering at the expense of the Palestinians. It’s obscene to talk about them as though they have the right to stay there. (I’m leaving aside for the sake of argument any who might have obtained property in a fair way that didn’t involve some form of injustice–I don’t know if there are settlers who fit that description.) Now if Palestinians are willing to let them stay on the terms you suggest, that’s their decision. To call their removal “ethnic cleansing” is another example of your one-sided moral blindness. If you want reconciliation between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, you need to start with some serious self-examination. But I’m not real optimistic about this–changing you might be a tougher nut to crack than the I/P conflict itself. I hope you’re not representative of most liberal Zionists.
The tension occurs most heatedly during wartime. At times when the US is at war, the question of who is patriotic from who is an enemy emerges.
Us vs them.
In the United States there are periodically efforts to not afford minorities equal due process under the law. And, it takes courageous principled individuals to affirm that equal individual rights are critical for the US to be America and democratic.
It is the identity of America for some, and yet if you remember the Scorsese movie “The Gangs of New York” or the Zinn descriptions of the civil war ear New York, there were “native Americans” (English) and others (Irish).
Newbies are not easily accepted, even if they’ve lived in the states 50 years. (If they don’t speak English in private company, they are called foreign.)
And, yes it is easier to negotiate and execute an eminent domain order on immigrants’, where racist or classist.
A tension is not the same as exclusion.
Dick is pro-ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, who were the legitimate occupants of the land in 48′, 67′, on-going.
Dick is anti-”ethnic cleansing” (he characterizes the removal of illegal Jewish colonists this way) when it is against Israeli settlers.
This is why you’re a troll and a racist.
Nah, Dick is equating again.
All this time he was proclaiming his ‘liberal Zionist’ moniker.
But look, he resorts to ‘some people say’ sort of logic above.
By saying ‘some claim Israel has a right to exist because it used to’.
So basically, he believes Israel has a right to/and Jews are simply ‘returning’ – because of a 3000 year old fictional, abstract land deed.
Then he equates that claim to Palestinians who had been living on the land for thousands of years as well and who are still living there, being dispossessed by Jews from Brooklyn.
Just when you think Witty can’t become more ignorant, idiotic and hypocritical…he does!
The theme that “they don’t belong there” is itself a fascist theme. Look at it in the mirror.
EVERY people migrated. Only some of current Palestinians are “original” whatever that means.
Well said, Richard.
“EVERY people migrated.”
And so did the Jews, and the Jewish religion migrated even further. So why does that give you a right to announce that you have the right to kill and dispossess others to bring Jews back to the Biblical geography of the 19th and 18th Century British Public Schools?
And both you and Richard have no object but to avoid discussing Ms. Rosengarten’s post. Byut don’t worry, I can translate for the half-Witty:
‘ This Ms. Rosengarten has suffered an incredible amount, yet refuses to discard the ethical and moral standards she adheres to as a Jew. This makes me very uncomfortable, very, very uncomfortable. So uncomfortable I’ll do anything to avoid discussing why she feels this way and I feel another, having suffered less.’
As a matter of fact, neither Tal, or “Prof.” (Damn, I shoulda stayed in school, I’d be a frickin’ University Pres. by now!) Slater or Witty has said one word about Ms. Rosengartens heartfelt post.
“I personally have been called an antisemite” from Lillian Rosengarten’s post.
I always post in haste, and have to repent even more hastily. I apologise for saying those guys did not respond to the post. I should have seen that each, in his own way was responding to the post, and saying those people who condemned Ms. Rosengarten were right.
Richard Witty said, ‘Ouch, Mooser. You are right that when Ms. Rosengarten posts sentences like the following it makes me uncomfortable:
‘Even though her personal history is similar to my mother-in-law’s, (whom I site (sic) here regularly), I find her charges against Israel too disturbing. So I won’t try and dialog (sic) with her; I’ll just comment as if she didn’t exist.
‘On the plus side, this new commenter, Tal, sounds like a man of intelligence and reason. Him I can dialog (sic) with.’
North, are you contending or contesting? Wholes or holes? A heel or a healer?
Are you stirred, or shaken? (Oh no, I bet he picks that one up and limps with it.)
“Never Again, To Anyone, and Not by My Hand”, is the moral lesson of the holocaust.
“I am afraid. Left undisturbed, this myth of democracy will support a continuous unending tragedy for both Palestine and Israel. They must, in order to survive, face each other with honest dialogue and sincere attempts at mutual understanding and compromise.”
is also a wonderful statement.
Are you going to criticize her for her aspiration for MUTUAL understanding and compromise?
You’re doing it wrong, Witty. You’re doing that one wrong every time there’s another pogrom by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. You’re doing it wrong every time another apartment block or school or mosque in Gaza explodes under an Israeli dropped (and US manufactured) bomb. You’re doing it wrong every time an unarmed man dies in the Mediterranean from munitions in Jewish hands.
You don’t compromise with murderers, Witty. ESPECIALLY mass murderers.
James North. Loved the sic jokes. ;-)
No, because unlike you, she means it,
“Are you going to criticize her for her aspiration for MUTUAL understanding and compromise?”
I won’t, unless she adopts your approach of saying such things while in practice defending every act of Israeli theft as irreversible. Or unless she condemns Palestinian atrocities wholeheartedly, but always finds an excuse to refrain from condemning Israeli crimes (unless they can be pinned on the far right).
But so far as I can tell, she is nothing like you.
>> RW: Are you going to criticize her for her aspiration for MUTUAL understanding and compromise?
>> Shingo: No, because unlike you, she means it,
And, unlike him, she doesn’t gloss over Israel’s faults:
>> LR: How can a democracy and brutal occupation exist together? How is it so many remain blind? … Instead of tolerance, one sees arrogance, racism, infantilism, and utter righteousness in action.
It’s a wilful blindness, the product of hatefulness, immorality and supremacism.
Chaos,
The “not by my hand” is in support of the angst of harming Palestinians as you say.
It may be necessary to go to war periodically. Likud, Hamas and others sin in making that a permanent state of being.
I have consistently stated that I regarded the attacks on Gaza as excessive, unnecessarily excessive. I understand how they were concluded to be done, but that doesn’t excuse negligence and periodic intentional cruelty.
I differed with the blanket condemnation as war crimes. A crime is specific, not just opportunistic rhetoric.
I would hope that Lillian roundly condemns attacks on civilians by Hamas or others.
I don’t see that I’ve “defended” acts of Israeli theft. If anything, I’ve described them in public as theft, and described the manner by which the theft is rationalized.
I criticize proposed remedy, and formation of argument to infers a political remedy.
I very much value the American and European guarantee of equal individual rights before the law, whether that is consistent or inconsistent with the political notions of the majority (or organized or disorganized minority).
In Israel (as in Palestine, as in the US, as in the blogosphere) ones sees examples of bigotry/dogma and of tolerance.
I like her emphasis on tolerance. It is different than political correctness, in fact the opposite of it. The value of tolerance notes that the discipline required to fight (even a propaganda war) conflicts with the flexibility and depth required of conscience.
Richard Witty said, ‘Look at this!!!
‘I’m insinuating that an elderly female Holocaust survivor needs to be instructed by me, Richard Witty, in how she should think about Hamas!!!’ (What’s that Yiddish word that describes what I’m doing here?’)
(‘Also, I hope Mooser is busy out in the North Woods somewhere. On reflection, I shudder to think what he’ll make of my advice to “Lillian.”‘)
>> RW @ August 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm
>> I don’t see that I’ve “defended” acts of Israeli theft.
Here’s what not defending acts of Israeli theft looks like:
>> RW: I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
>> RW: 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.
>> Chaos4700: Then why was it necessary for Jewish immigrants to ethnically cleanse massive swaths of the Palestinian country side?
>> RW: Currently its not necessary. …
What’s the yiddish word for appreciative commentary?
“I understand how they were concluded to be done, but that doesn’t excuse negligence and periodic intentional cruelty.
I differed with the blanket condemnation as war crimes. A crime is specific, not just opportunistic rhetoric.”
The mention of “intentional cruelty” is actually pretty good, for you. You waffle in the next two lines. “Intentional cruelty” during war would normally imply war crimes, unless some planner were intentionally doing things that could be portrayed by clever lawyers as somehow legal. I could see that–Israel uses heavy weaponry in urban areas in part to inflict harm on the civilian population, but then claims it did this for some legitimate military purpose. That’s pretty much what Israel did in Gaza and the only flaw in their behavior from a propaganda POV is that some of their officials basically stated ahead of time that they intended to do this. But all Israel and its apologists have to do is deny Israeli war crimes, which makes the subject “controversial”, never to be settled, and then attention moves on. You generally argue this way yourself–the acknowledgement of “intentional cruelty” is a step forward, though you immediately walk it back.
But Palestinian terrorism? No controversy about that. A settled fact , something to be condemned by all Western politicians like the great Nobel Peace Prize winner himself.
“I would hope that Lillian roundly condemns attacks on civilians by Hamas or others.”
And there you have it. You want Lillian to do what you won’t do with respect to Israeli crimes. I would guess she does condemn murder no matter who commits it. You don’t–you condemn one side and waffle about the other.
“I don’t see that I’ve “defended” acts of Israeli theft. If anything, I’ve described them in public as theft, and described the manner by which the theft is rationalized.
I criticize proposed remedy, and formation of argument to infers a political remedy.”
When you say that removal of settlers is “ethnic cleansing”, you are endorsing the theft. Your cure is to let them live in a proposed Palestinian state and “perfect their title”, but you endorse their right to live where they had no right to move. You originally claimed that some had acquired their property legitimately (which I don’t know enough to argue about–maybe some did). You then shifted rightwards and claimed they all have the right to stay right where they are. Of course there is no counterbalancing theft that Palestinians can engage in–500,000 can’t move inside Israel proper and even reclaim their family’s land, let alone steal some. At best you’d allow some aging survivors of 1948 to move back.
“The value of tolerance notes that the discipline required to fight (even a propaganda war) conflicts with the flexibility and depth required of conscience.”
I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
Donald,
I just don’t see how one advocating for equal rights could also advocate for the forced removal of 550,000.
The proposed removal of the settlers, is reminiscent of the language used to justify the removal of my in-laws from their homes and property in Hungary. ‘You have no right to live here. The state that formerly granted you title was an ‘illegal’ one’.
The sentence about tolerance is a commentary on the morality of political correctness, the required discipline during solidarity struggle. Right-wing states, and right and left wing militias are each abusers of individual rights and free thought.
Tolerance conflicts with the discipline of solidarity struggle, by definition. It is toleration of differences, not externally imposed discipline to unanimity.
You should drop your judgment of others comments, and appreciate and encourage rather than condemn, and guess.
As the “social” orientation of the tent community, INVITING 350,000 to demonstrate, by contrast with the struggle to get 3,000 to march against the occupation, illustrates the divisiveness of “political” standards of condemnation.
>> RW: I just don’t see how one advocating for equal rights could also advocate for the forced removal of 550,000.
I don’t see how one advocating for the protection of minorities…
>> RW: Democracy worthy of the name includes two prominent features:
… 2. Protection of individual and minority rights
…could also advocate for the bureaucratic ethnic cleansing of minorities:
>> RW: I personally don’t see a conflict with intentionally adjusting boundaries if the demographics change considerably to create a smaller Israel that is Jewish majority.
“The proposed removal of the settlers, is reminiscent of the language used to justify the removal of my in-laws from their homes and property in Hungary. ”
Richard, I know you’re just doing this to win an argument any way you can, but that sounds remarkably like the occasional anti-semitic commenter here who suggests that the European Jews had done something to provoke the Nazi persecution. Your comment makes it seem like the Hungarian Jews had acquired their property by stealing from other people. That’s the only way the analogy works.
Of course you’re not really saying that-you are wrapping the mantle of the innocent victims of the Nazis around the shoulders of the Israeli settlers. It won’t wash, Richard. Just because the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and stole their property in Europe does not mean that Israeli Jews have a license to steal land from Palestinians. But you have this consistently tribal view of morality–somehow, in your view, Jews are the victims of Nazis even when Nazis are nowhere in sight and it is racist Jews who are doing the stealing.
“(‘Also, I hope Mooser is busy out in the North Woods somewhere. On reflection, I shudder to think what he’ll make of my advice to “Lillian.”‘)
You have too much faith in me, James, and I’m very flattered by it, but when Richard did that, in consideration for the moderators, I said nothing. They’ve been very tolerant of me, and I don’t want to give them a post full of vituperative cursing to read.
There was no answer I could make that would accurately express my feelings and still pass the moderators.
Besides, by the time I’d stopped shaking, my eyes had returned to my sockets, and the nausea had passed, others had replied.
The proposed removal of the settlers, is reminiscent of the language used to justify the removal of my in-laws from their homes and property in Hungary. ‘You have no right to live here. The state that formerly granted you title was an ‘illegal’ one’.
Richard that is a lame attempt to compare the victims of Israeli aggression to the Nazis. We’ve discussed this before. The forced eviction of inhabitants as a result of armed attacks or military occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid and genocide are crimes which are not subject to any statutory limitations. The ICJ advised that the Israeli administrative regime in the Palestinian territories is an illegal one. The Justices didn’t mince words over that fact that the regime had transferred parts of its own population into the territory and that the Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Many scholars held that colonists were criminally responsible when they are voluntarily imported into the occupied territory. See “The Problem of the Colonists”, page 45, in Raphael Lemkin’s “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe”, link to books.google.com
The parallel of the Palestinian solidarity basis for forced removal and the Hungarian fascist (not German) basis of dispossession is still apparent.
The individuals that own homes in settlements and in Jerusalem and other suburbs on the east side of the green line, purchased their homes in good faith. The ones that purchased homes in second and third transactions. The children that were born and lived in those homes, are just civilians.
They are neither innocent nor guilty. They just live.
MANY of the Palestinians that were forcefully removed, or prohibited from return, did not own the land that they resided on. Nevertheless, assertions that they were forcefully removed are substantive.
If you regard the slogan “NEVER AGAIN, to anyone, and not by my hand” as substantive, then you will apply it in your own advocacy, in your own actions, and not rationalize that a pendulum swing is justice.
you’re so full of crap.
The individuals that own homes in settlements and in Jerusalem and other suburbs on the east side of the green line, purchased their homes in good faith.
on stolen land w/massive gov subsidies
MANY of the Palestinians that were forcefully removed, or prohibited from return, did not own the land that they resided on.
do you hear your hypocrisy? the settlement lands were STOLEN. for settlers you peddle “good faith”, for palestinians you capitalize ‘many’. what kind of friggin double standard is this. settlers can build on stolen land and it is irrelevant because they did it in ‘good faith’? everyone knows this land is stolen you ethnic cleansing excuser. good faith my ass.
palestinians cannot even get building permits on their own land as settlements are being built. get a friggin grip. this isn’t even about the past, it’s about the future and it is decimating any chance for the 2ss you say you support.
Israel’s latest settlement move is a dagger aimed at the two-state solution.
and what do you do? defend settlers. how nobel of you/not.
The individuals that own homes in settlements and in Jerusalem and other suburbs on the east side of the green line, purchased their homes in good faith.
Here we go again. The Israeli Supreme Court has already addressed that whopper in the Gaza Coast Regional Council Case when it examined the impingement of the human rights of the Israelis evacuated from the Gaza Strip:
While discussing the property right of Israelis evacuated from the Gaza Strip, the Court stated:
See HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al. cited in HCJ 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel; and HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel.
link to elyon1.court.gov.il
link to elyon1.court.gov.il
You are continually inflating the problem as if the Palestinian side had not already agreed to 1:1 land swaps placing the large majority of settlers in Israel proper.
Since I happen to know that you are well informed about this, your inflating of the problem can only be intentional.
Having established that it is intentional, the question remains: Why are you doing this? Let me analyze the possible reasons:
- It’s a scam, and what you actually try to promote is a continuation of the status quo, by insisting on demands that are demeaning, unfair and wholly unacceptable to the Palestinians.
- You are not actually concerned for the majority of settlers, but for the Jewish right to settle anywhere in “Judea and Samaria”, hence you intentionally conflate the hilltop youth, the Hebron settlers and similar thugs who insist on entrenching deeply in the West Bank with the “economic” settlers near the green line.
In short words, your opinions do not at all make sense for someone who is actually interested in a two-state solution. They do make a lot of sense for a Yesha council lobbyist who tries to give their colonialist agenda a vaguely “liberal” paintjob.
This conclusion is further supported by your disingenuous assertion that settlers acquired their land “in good faith”. Again, one might give the “Jerusalem suburb” type of economic settler the benefit of doubt here, at least if they came in pre-Oslo.
But the settlers in the “outposts” and the religious-nationalist settlements not only very well knew that “their” land was – to use the Israeli parlance – disputed. They are also fully aware that they are part of a struggle and believe themselves to have a mission.
Since the “economic settlers” are to be taken care of, in their vast majority, by way of land swaps and since you know this, the conclusion is obvious: Your agenda is that of the ideological-religious racist subsection of settlers.
You support the hilltop youth, the ilk of Baruch Goldstein in Hebron and the water thieves of the Jordan valley. As I’ve analyzed elsewhere, your political agenda is to the right of the Likud.
“The individuals that own homes in settlements and in Jerusalem and other suburbs on the east side of the green line, purchased their homes in good faith. The ones that purchased homes in second and third transactions.”
It’s interesting to me from an amateur psychologist POV just how low you will sink in an argument, how you will make statements that are grounds for banning (more on that in a second) couched in “polite” language. It’s absurd to say that Israelis move into the West Bank “in good faith”. Sure they do, if you assume you can profit off the oppression of others in good faith. As for those who grew up there, we don’t let children live in homes that were stolen. They should be housed at the expense of the Israeli government. But you’re just looking for some reason, any reason, to pretend that ALL of the settlers in the West Bank are innocent.
Comparing them to the victims of the Nakba or for that matter the Hungarian Jews is actually Nakba/Holocaust denial. I think Phil bans posters or at least deletes their comments when they wander into this territory. Well, he bans Holocaust denial anyway, but you’re doing that if you compare the Hungarian Jews with the West Bank settlers.
Re: “…and not by my hand.” That’s because, in Witty’s hypothetical where he’s a fighting Jew in 47-48, he has to use one hand to hold his nose, while he’s waving on his terrorist chums to do what needed to be done to the natives. And he went on to say he might have to do that again in the future, although presently “it’s not necessary.”
Yep, all humans apparently came from Africa at some early point in human history. Does that give everybody living outside of Africa the right to go there, boot current natives from their homes, and take over?
Yes, so at once, Richard believes Jews colonizing Israel have the right to since there was a 3000 year old, blip in history.
And now he says Palestinians today aren’t Palestinians of yesterday, even though the same Palestinians have been suffering for decades in refugee camps and areas that they were pushed off into, redefining themselves as a Stateless people.
Meanwhile, Jews live all over the world, and can colonize Palestine simply because they are Jews.
Palestinians continue to lose their land and homes to Jews who qualify out of being Jews.
This is the guy you awarded a personal article on the blog, Phil? This racist, hypocritical, clown, Richard Witty?
10,000+ posts of pure garbage. Here’s to another 10,000+ more.
Palestinians today aren’t Palestinians of yesterday, even though the same Palestinians . . . .
Blah, blah, blah. . . It is supremely ironic that some Jews have resorted to circular arguments based upon their supposed genetic similarity to the Arabs of Palestine. It’s part of a desperate attempt to prove that they have a remote historical connection to the region. At one and the same time they usually insist that the Palestinian people either don’t exist or migrated to Palestine recently from some other region.
Although States are considered “persons” for the purposes of international law, the one created by the Zionists appears to be a psychopath according to the criteria contained in Chapter V of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) produced by the World Health Organization (WHO); the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA); and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R).
While criticism of Israeli state policies has been described by the Zionists as “antisemitism”, it is really just an autonomic response, much like the normal gag reflex. A sane intellect can only be forced to swallow so much bullshit before an adverse reaction to the overdose sets-in.
“It required a state when it became apparent that Jewish settlement was not going to be accepted, as is the basis for its requiring a state now.”
I think I’ve come across that circular logic before:
“We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.
There is no other morality.”
- Vladimir Jabotinsky,
The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)
“The theme that “they don’t belong there” is itself a fascist theme.”
- yet it is enshrined in the immigration laws of every State.
“The state of Israel is not substantiated on the basis that Jews used to live there, but its governance is substantiated on the basis of the current majority that do live there.”
- and around we go again.
“and around we go again.”
Maybe that’s what the author of Hebrews 13:8 (King James version) had in mind?
cringe response. Germany sold a torpedo submarine to Israel
Lillian, they sold three.
“Lillian, they sold three.”
Isn’t there an old Chinese curse that goes: “May you get everything you want”?
Germany also sold 200 state-of-the-art tanks to Israel. Under German law, no weapons of war are to be sold to any country in a powder keg region, any regions of armed conflict.
Actually, five total by now, will be brought up to six in the next year. Three had already been delivered in the late 90s/early 00s.
could it be that israel’s provacative and destructive actions serve to reinforce the tragic rise once again of worldwide antisemitism?
whereas the you are i, i am you, we are one?
judaism’s soul?
humanity’s soul
& the one about a chosen people?
up for grabs
any & all who come to recognize that the moment has arrived, that securing justice for palestine is the way to go
the spirit that’s to drive said action?
that of those eighteen magical days in tahrir square
justice for palestine changes things how?
irrevocably
& then what sort of world?
won’t it be up to us*?
*us, as in all for one & one for all
One thing that I found upsetting, irritating, was the headline.
I don’t know if that was Lillian’s or Phil’s or Adam’s.
The Jewish soul is not a nightmare, nor is the other implied meaning of the phrase that somehow Zionism constitutes a nightmare. That is either an anti-semitic statement (even if articulated by Jew Lillian, or Jew Phil, or Jew Adam), or an anti-democratic one (in objecting to the clear determination of self-governance by the overwhelming majority in Israeli).
“The Jewish soul is not a nightmare…..”
That depends on whether or not one of your cherished “souls” just dumped white phosphorous on your two year old.
There is nothing democratic about Zionism.
Well, if you actually bothered to read anything other than the headline (and clearly, you didn’t) than maybe your opinion might actually matter.
“That is either an anti-semitic statement (even if articulated by Jew Lillian, or Jew Phil, or Jew Adam), “
Richard, shut up. There’s no need to embarrass yourself further.
There I go again, posting before thinking. So Richard, if you were in fact trying to scrape the underside of the bottom of the barrel in contrived anti-Semitism accusations, I have to admit that was one of the best efforts I’ve seen. I shouldn’t criticise things I can’t do even a fraction as well.
And if you want to argue there’s no nightmare in the Jewish soul due to the actions of Israel and Zionists, go right ahead. After all, what do we have to be bothered about?
“anti-democratic one (in objecting to the clear determination of self-governance by the overwhelming majority in Israeli).”
Yeah Richard, might makes right. You do realise you just neatly justified the Holacaust, don’t you?
The overwhelmingly majority of the pro Israel camp have a tendency to label any and all criticism of the Israeli govt as antisemetic. Regardless if the criticism is legitimate or not is irrelevant. The excessive and mostly unwarranted accusation of antisemetism leads to a complete degradation of the word. Which is absolutely reprehensible considering you’re essentially robbing real victims of antisemetism by “crying wolf” too many times.
As far as the headline is concerned, as with any piece of media/literature, a provocative title is intended to catch the reader’s attention and provoke curiosity. As you continue to read, it becomes quite clear that the article is completely void of any antisemetism. On the contrary, the author seems to be expressing genuine concern for the future of the state of Israel due to the aggressive integration of zionism into Judaism. We all should be concerned
On the contrary, the author seems to be expressing genuine concern for the future of the state of Israel due to the aggressive integration of zionism into Judaism.
She was held in a holding tank and banned from Israel. A 77-year-old Holocaust Survivor.
Or it is a theological one. “Dark night of the soul”, ever hear of it??
I don’t see any real connection between Judaism, the religion, and zionism’s original goal or agenda…..except in some Israeli settler religious fanatics………..someone correct me if I am wrong.
What I do see is that Jews are appealed to thru their religion to support Israel and zionism……and it appears there has been a deliberate effort by the zios to make Judaism and zionism one and the same.
Someone wrote here recently about their or some synagogue(s) flying an Israeli flag…..which is bizarre considering how Jews reportedly have always been against any entangling of church and state as protection against discrimination….but then again this may be another example of exceptionalism where it is fine for religion and Israel to be joined, but not fine for any other state or religion.
This example you will never get a zionist to expound on or
answer because it points out the hypocrisy of what they believe in for themselves but not for others. And if you do get them pinned down on it they will revert to anti semitism and the holocaust as the reason for their double standards.
The whole religion+, vr, – zionism+ Israel is such a convoluted can of worms I don’t see how a sane, logical person could even have a rational discussion on it with the true zionism adherents.
American, I think the most important thing to remember, and the thing which can guide you away from an anti-Semetic interpretation of events is that the Jewish religion is de-centralised. There is no central authourity, and no mechanism by which actions taken in the name of the Jews can be discussed, ratified, or condemned. Whoever has the money or the megaphone can speak in the name of the Jews, and there is nobody who can tell them “no”
Oh yeah…I get that.
Beth Israel Congregation in Ann Arbor displayed an Israeli flag inside: link to dawudwalid.wordpress.com
The issue of displaying the Israeli flag in American synagogues, as well as the singing of the Israeli national anthem in same is not new. Here is an article about it from the Central Conference of American Rabbis–they apparently conclude that the USA is only technically their country and for them the state of Israeli is not perceived as a foreign country & hence it is a matter for each congregation to make their own choice on: link to data.ccarnet.org
“Beth Israel Congregation in Ann Arbor displayed an Israeli flag inside”
I don’t see a problem with that; most Catholic Churches display the flag of the Vatican.
Woody, first of all, most Catholic churches do not display the flag of the Vatican. Second, so you equate the Vatican state with the state of Israel?
Does the Vatican have 200 nuke bombs and a cutting edge military? Does it occupy foreign land? No. A few guards in medieval armor with picks or axes occupy the steps of the Vatican; which is most of the Vatican’s state land.
Citizen,
I’ve been in dozens of Catholic Churches in my life. I’ve noticed Vatican flags in most of them.
Second, regardless of how I might interpret the state of Israel, I recognize that Jews regard it differently and that they are entitled to express that through this expressive activity.
Me too, I was brought up as a Catholic and my family moved around a lot & was an altar boy to boot, so knew the inside of many churches. Do you feel the same about US mosques with Iranian or any Arab muslim state flags inside?
I am not saying they don’t or questioning you…but I went to Catholic schools and Catholic university and had an uncle who was a Jesuit so I attended a lot of masses and church functions and etc. and don’t remember ever seeing a Vatican flag. That was 40 years ago however maybe things have changed.
Geez, where the heck is Dimatok?
He needs to beat some sense into a few people here, maybe lob a coupla tear gas canisters at some frontal lobes.
How dare they use the term “fascist” in the same paragraph as the word “zionist”.
“Geez, where the heck is Dimatok?”
He’s running around Jerusalem, grabbing people by the collar, and desperately shouting: ‘My deed (to his property) is good, right? Right? Good, I tell you! I paid for that house! It’ll stand up, right? Right?’
Lillian,
Where is the resistance, the outrage?
Getting the same anti-semitism and delegitimization labeling that gentiles get.
Does the Israeli agenda now include a nuclear war with Iran?
They want it. (Adherents are too stupid to understand the consequences.) Bibi craves it. Meir Dagan may have killed it this past year by saying there’s no threat, and sacrificing his reputation for the greater good in doing it.
Has Israel completely lost all reality?
Yes. [No less than American political reality right now, but then the same group is leading both countries.]
Is the agenda of Netanyahu’s right wing hoodlums to blow up all their neighbors to become the only country in the middle east and the “only democracy?”
Yes.
Let Israel not become victim to its own self fulfilling prophecy by its own hand. Such a nightmare, calling for the destruction of Israel, cannot happen.
Lillian, my closest friend in Manhattan—dead now, unfortunately—was my father’s age, a brilliant theoretical physicist (Hebrew University promised him the moon constantly, he wouldn’t go), Jewish, one of the most astute judges of character I ever met, great sense of humor, absolutely zany and piercing (Mooser’s sense of humor, when he’s on a roll, reminds me of him).
He was so smart military weapons designers sought him out to solve their problems which he would only do in out-of-the-way restaurants that had white tablecloths, leather booths, and “soft and pretty things to look at” where he could while the night away and laugh (I was there for a few of them.)
When I was in my fawning-over-Israel period, he drew me up short after a year of listening to me carrying on, pulled age-rank, and said, “Listen, you weren’t around for the creation of Israel. I was. You’re buying the myths, you putz. Get it through your head, the entire history of the Jews, all 2,000 years, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They’re gonna fuck it up just like they did everything else.” [He admonished me to spend four weeks in The New York Public Library reading the NYT microfilm to get the real story; he said “Read the reports in the rear where they hid the good stuff.”]
How can a democracy and brutal occupation exist together?
They don’t. That’s the problem: believing they do.
How is it so many remain blind?
They were never not blind. We gave them sight until we regained our sight.
Now I end with some comments on Israel’s harsh decision to build a museum over a century old Muslim graveyard. […] The irony is the “museum of tolerance” is being built to promote coexistence and is a project of the Simon Wiesenthal (nazi hunter) center.
See the previous answer.
Can it be this provocative and destructive decision serves to reinforce the tragic rise once again of world wide antisemitism?
Back to the beginning. Self-fulfilling.
Lillian,
I want to add: you are emblematic of the Flotilla for me this year. Last year, you and Phil did an interview in your house. It was bucolic with heavy topics discussed among Hudson River breezes.
This year you were pictured here while you were in Israel. This year you were banned from Israel, a country created ostensibly to protect you from the kinds of hatred Israel was to protect you from.
It didn’t.
The picture of you on this board (2011) is emblazoned in my mind as what Israel has become. I am so sorry for your disappointment, but mostly, for your feeling of complete betrayal.
“Read the reports in the rear where they hid the good stuff.”
For those who can’t devote four weeks in the library to the subject, here’s a pretty good summation, presented well, with powerful photographs. Don’t fail to read the transcript of the British Colonial office reports .
>> For those who can’t devote four weeks in the library to the subject, here’s a pretty good summation, presented well, with powerful photographs.
Who are all those (photoshopped?) people in those pictures, and why do they hate Israel so much?!
Damn you, Hamas!!!
And trying to pass all those bombs off as Jaffa oranges wrapped in paper! Is there no end to Arab perfidy?
Can the author of the headline, please identify themselves?
Was it Lillian, Phil, Adam, someone else?
why don’t you write phil or adam an email. i don’t know if either of them follows all the comments. (i would imagine not, they would have no time for anything else).
why do you ask?
why do you ask?
Because he’s just accused the headline writer of anti-semitism. It would look like poor taste for him to accuse Lillian of anti-semitism, so he’s hoping to just smear Adam or Phil with that one.
(Note that I used the term “look like poor taste”. Much of Richard’s commentary IS in poor taste, he just likes to wrap it in faux-humanism.)
odd you should find a declaration of conscious being a motivational factor to justify scapegoating, i’d imagine just the opposite. but then you probably have no guilt over actions resulting from the deplorable policies of Netanyahu’s right wing disaster.
thank goodness the world has an abundance of jews like lillian around. i suppose you’d be happier if this was titled “the nightmare of my jewish soul”. that way this ‘scapegoating’ you assert some might justify will be directed at only lillian and her ilk?
in describing the Jewish soul as existentially haunted.
because it doesn’t haunt you does it, that people suffer for decades with no rights and have had their home stolen out from under them so you and yours can have ‘self determination’. it was all worth it as far as you are concerned. i would imagine your position could more likely be used to justify scapegoating but you don’t seem worried about that at all. you’d rather pick on lillian or phil or adam. wouldn’t you?
>> i suppose you’d be happier if this was titled “the nightmare of my jewish soul”.
I was going to suggest changing the title to “The nightmare of the Zio-supremacist soul”, but then I realized that that would only inflame RW’s feelings of intense guilt.
By the way, I must say that I’m quite impressed with how RW has created a distraction by:
- taking Ms. Rosengarten’s clearly thoughtful and concerned article regarding what her co-religionists are doing to Palestinians, Israel and to Judaism itself;
- extracting one word from the title;
- finding the darkest meaning he could for it;
- discarding the article and its substance; and
- using the meaning he has created for the title of the article to justify his existential fear-mongering.
Bravo, RW! Bravo!
it looks like witty’s initial response to me has been deleted but the responses to it have not.
hmm
It was not deleted by me, but by either a moderator or a hacker.
There was nothing in my or any of my posts that warrant censorship.
The gist of my comment was that the title could be construed as an anti-semitic theme, a basis of genocide even historically, that Jews’ souls are tarnished, haunted, existentially so.
The alternative implication is that Zionism, or the conduct of likud Zionism, haunts the Jewish soul, consistent with Phil’s stated theme of desiring to purge the sympathy for Zionism from the American Jewish intellect. (I wish I had the quote.)
I consider both meanings to be harmful, though if the title was referring to Lillian’s experience, that would at least be of a person and not even an implication of some existential depravity.
The consideration of whether a comment is anti-semitic, should be within the range of inquiry for a progressive intellectual community.
To identify wording as anti-semitic, is not to name-call, nor to censor in any way.
It is an opportunity to improve, to not even inadvertently express a threat.
yes, that is what i recall you saying. that someone could justify scapegoating based on this admission of a nightmare wrt i/p. hmm.
oh well, it was probably a glich in the system. can’t imagine why it would have been deleted.
LOL, or it could be a play on the theological concept of the Dark Night of the Soul, given that it is thematically appropriate to what was written here.
Or, I guess, we could go with the whole genocide thing. LOL
Bigfoot Israel!
Richard Witty said, ‘Notice how sly I am with this sentence,
‘Am I really suggesting that Phil, Adam, or Ms. Rosengarten, one of whom wrote the headline, are endorsing a view of the “Jewish soul” that justifies genocide?
‘Of course not. What I’m doing is trolling. I sense — although I’m too afraid to read it — that Ms. Rosengarten’s post is a powerful indictment of Israel today. I don’t pay too much attention to the posts here at Mondoweiss, but I do remember that Ms. Rosengarten, despite being an elderly woman, actually traveled on a ship of peace toward Gaza a year ago, where she and the others were arrested and imprisoned by Israel, and some of her crew-mates were tortured. I also remember that Ms. Rosengarten was told she can never come back to Israel. (So much for “Jewish self-governing.”)
‘I can’t possibly square her experience with my dream castle view of Israel. Unlike Ms. Rosengarten, I didn’t try to go there last year; in fact, I haven’t been there at all since 1986.
‘So instead of engaging in dialog (sic) with her, I’ll attack the headline, and play the old anti-Semitism card.’
I would love if Lillian were to respond to my multiple posts directly.
I expect we’d find much in common.
Why are you again on your harassment campaign?
>> James North August 8, 2011 at 6:49 pm
An excellent summary.
Witty,
I agree. Lillian should be subjected to your bullshit. Then she will understand what others here have understood, at about the moment of your 10th post (out of 10,000).
You hijack threads. You self-talk. None of the people here, who you wish to ‘dialogue’, respect you. Your commentary is thoroughly lampooned because of it’s style and lack of substance.
Even some of the Zionists on this blog have stated they do not understand what you’re saying.
You clearly do not wish for conversation, because any normal person would show some growth, some shame, some measure of adaptation – if their arguments were consistently refuted and/or mocked (for shallowness, for hypocrisy, etc.).
You only come here to leech off of Phil, by talking to yourself, advocating, not establishing dialogue. Go do that on your own blog.
The alternative implication is that Zionism, or the conduct of likud Zionism, haunts the Jewish soul, consistent with Phil’s stated theme of desiring to purge the sympathy for Zionism from the American Jewish intellect. (I wish I had the quote.)
ROTFL! “I wish I had the quote” Hells bells, Witty, that’s never stopped you before! What happened? Losing your pep?
I would love it if you went away and stopped spamming and trolling here. You still seem to be under the delusion that you are some provelaged and highly esteemed contributor to this blog, expecting that you should be addressed directly.
Tell you what Witty, why not post a comment on your own blog and invite Lillian to respond?
“Why are you again on your harassment campaign?”
Usually Richard, at this point I would start off on the old wheeze about Phil and Adam tying you up and forcing you to read and comment at Mondoweiss. Just my way of pointing out that you have no idea what the word “harassment” means, and that you are a chicken-shit hypocrite. But not this time! No sir, Richard, this time I appreciate your predicament!
I mean, it’s pretty hard for you to walk away when you’ve got both feet way in your mouth. And considering where your head is, the contortions needed to get them there preclude mobility entirely.
The gist of my comment was that the title could be construed as an anti-semitic theme, a basis of genocide even historically, that Jews’ souls are tarnished, haunted, existentially so.
There is a natural corollary in the teaching that only a Jewish soul possesses a Divine spark from the Creator. But I doubt that you would ever construe that as a racist theme.
hell no, he sweats bullets of hypocrisy.
And I say this with some authority on the matter… Draaaaama queen!
Damn you Mooser, I just spat my coffee onto my monitor. That was simpy priceless.
You’re a poet.
Another aspect is the Talmudic passages that assert the goyim have “animal souls.” Witty is amazing in his righteous use of a double standard (and use of flimsy historical analogies that are like stools with at best one leg instead of four, such as that the fascist Hungarian regime’s dispossession of Jews in the last century was the same as anyone calling for Israeli settlers in the OT to go back to Israel, or Brooklyn, or wherever they came from).
Mooser, how dare you suggest Mr Richard Witty’s words reflect extreme constipation. That can be painful you know.
“Damn you Mooser”
Hey, I’m just a guy living in a Wodehouse who plays with matches and throws Perelman before swine.
yesterday you had me in stitches 1/2 the morning mooser. i realized i had not laughed that much in a while. it occurred to me now that we have the archives i could just click on your name every morning and start my day w/a dose of you. some mooser with my coffee.
;)
annie, be careful! One or two comments, taken at breakfast, is considered the medium dose for an adult. If laughter persists, see your doctor.
But thanks, I appreciate it. I slave all day over a hot keyboard, coming up with nifties like calling the post on circumcision “the whack-a-mohel thread”. Boffo yoks like that don’t just abound around every blog, you know!
I better send in a contribution to try and make up for them.
;)
luv ya dollface
I don’t think she will. She probably sees you for what you are – a diversion, a vapor.
Not worth wasting time on. You are a dishonest, immoral troll.
I agree because he our she should take a bow for his or her intelligence in referencing the theological concept of “The Dark Night of the Soul.” Even I, a simple atheist, could see that one.
Witty translated: “Can the author of the headline, please idenfify themselves as there’s no nightmare going on in my soul, no crucial conflict at all; why, I sleep very well at night, dreaming of my Zionist heaven right here on good old earth! Whoever the author is, he or she is a banal poet suffering from clinical depression. I can get bottles of zioncain for you wholesale!”
“potentially grossly anti-semitic”
Potentially? FFS now apologists can use not only the actual slur but also label people as ‘potential’ bigots? It’s like the Zionist version of Calvinist predestination ideology – you are all potential bigots but if you work hard enough and grovel enough you might one day be absolved.
this may not be popular, but I can’t join the audience in applauding this essay.
maybe it’s that it reminds me also of Alice Rothchild’s earlier essay that expressed “pain and outrage” that TIAA-CREF would not comply with JVP’s demands that TIAA divest from Caterpillar etc.
If Lillian, and Alice, and JVP, and J-Street, for that matter, are concerned that the actions of the Israeli government and of some very wealthy Jewish people are reflecting badly on the Jewish people as a whole, then it seems to me the approach they should be taking is to target THOSE people, and THOSE institutions.
The names are well known — Phil, Adam, Max Blumenthal have named ‘em and shamed ‘em — Aubrey Chernick, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban among others. Why doesn’t the US Treasury Dept. shut down the Kahane network, which is on the Terror list, with the same efficiency that Tim Geithner threatens any American who would fly on Iran Air (an American company has arranged a tour of Iran, by mostly Americans, scheduled for November; it includes several transits on Iran Air — will we be denied reentry to the US if we carry out the schedule of our tour? Is it a greater hardship that Lillian Rosengarten is denied entry into Israel, or that an American stands under threat of being denied reentry to his home country, because of the punitive measures imposed on ALL, for the benefit and at the insistence of Israel advocates?)
Sorry, Lillian. It’s tough love time. When Americans stop giving Israel, and the Jewish Americans who support Israel, a pass for whatever foul deed Israel cooks up, then we might start to see some changes.
All politics is local.
BDS American Jewish companies that support Israeli apartheid.
TIAA CREF manages pension funds for a whole lot of people, not just Jewish people. imo it is fundamentally unfair for Jewish people to demand that the pension funds of many, many people who have nothing to do with the situation that is Israel, stand at possible risk by the actions of Jewish people who are protesting the actions of the Jewish state. Not when there are more direct avenues of redress available to Jews; avenues which, I might add, are shut off to non-Jews, with the ever-present threat of being called an antisemite.
That Lillian Rosengarten cringes at the prospect of being called an antisemite is regrettable. Ultimately, it’s inside baseball: a non Jew cannot solve her dilemma.
teta mother me, i’m not understanding what part of lillian’s essay reminds you of the earlier essay and why. i’m not sure what part of lillian’s essay you are addressing. could you please copy paste what you are referencing please.
thanks.
Interesting that the concept of “anti-semitism” is inside baseball, played outside. Wasn’t the term itself invented by a German Gentile? What was it before, just “hatred of Jews?” And the derivative “self-hating Jew”–who invented that concept, and was it around before Freud developed his macro-concept of self-hate? I see Dick Witty uses those terms here, although he does not define them. Does he think both terms are self-explanatory, organic?
Are they supposed to be medical or otherwise scientific terms? Those terms always seem to be directed at the messenger, not the message. The message then is deflected by calling those names… and out there, ignoramuses like Christian Zionist Sarah Palin reference messages, hence messengers with medieval label forms of Jew-Hatred such as “blood libel.”
gracias, for such clarity
Teta, I think Ms. Rosengarten has gone further, even if she temporises or rationalises some aspect of it, then she ever thought she would, and as far as she can.
‘Teta mother me’ – I agree. I have no sympathy for Lilian Rosengarten’s anguish – she thinks current Israeli policies are against Jewish traditions, and that Israel provokes antisemitism. Did anyone worry that apartheid might provoke ‘anti-whiteism’? She hopes for ‘honest dialogue’ between the oppressors and their victims. She cannot understand why Germany arms Israel. She fails to distinguish US and Israeli interests. It reminds me of ‘Tikkun’. Self-indulgent whining. Excuse my cynicism.
Nope, and, although Israel was by far the biggest and longest supporter of apartheid S Africa, including as to every form of weapons, and in defiance of both US and UN attempts for regime-change in apartheid S Africa, nobody claimed Israel supported white racism. Here’s a wrap-up, about a decade old it seems, of Israel as importer and exporter in the arms trade, and how Israel, partnering mainly with the US, Germany, and (later) France empower the occupation: link to caat.org.uk
“Nobody claimed Israel supported white racism”. How about South Africa’s support for Jewish racism. I met people concerned that Israel supported South Africa. I never met anyone who complained that South Africa supported Israel. Special pleading…