Editor's note: Yesterday we posted Sylvia Schwarz's account of an October 16 forum she participated in in Minneapolis, titled "Seeking Israeli/Palestinian Peace: Varied Voices from the Jewish Community." The post got a lot of comment and we asked Schwarz, a member of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, for the text of her prepared remarks. That follows. And below her text is a short response from Schwarz to the many comments.
I would first like to thank all of you for coming, and thank the Central Lutheran Church for hosting this panel. Especially I want to thank and commend Chuck Lutz for putting together this historic forum. I’m grateful for the opportunity to engage in honest discussions about the range of Jewish perspectives on Palestine, so thanks to my fellow panelists also.
Before I can address the topic of how the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network envisions peace in Palestine, including the State of Israel, I first have to talk about our name. Specifically: why “international,” why “Jewish,” and why “Anti-Zionist?”
We are an international organization with chapters in North and South America, Europe, and Israel. We work with like-minded individuals and organizations in Australia, New Zealand, India and North Africa. I don’t want to overstate our numbers; we are small, but we represent many more anti-Zionist Jews than there are members of IJAN and we are growing both in membership and in influence.
Why Jewish? We in IJAN believe we have a unique role to play in this issue. For more than a century Zionist Jews have claimed to speak for us, and through various tactics, the Zionists have convinced most people that all Jews think alike, that all Jews agree with Zionist ideologies and the actions of the State of Israel, and that any different perspective is evidence of anti-Jewish hatred, even when the different perspectives come from Jews.
We also feel that we have a special responsibility to speak and act in joint struggle with Palestinians as an oppressed people, first of all because Zionists have insisted that there is a dichotomy between Jews and Palestinians and that Jews must be privileged above non-Jews. We believe that this special status is racist.
As important and historic as this panel is, it also privileges Jewish voices above Palestinian ones, furthering the notion that some voices are more important than others.
Secondly, most of us grew up in Zionist households and were indoctrinated with Zionist ideals. For many Jews it is a cultural norm to contribute money to the Jewish National Fund. What many Jews do not know is that the JNF facilitates the expulsion of Palestinian people from their land and covers the crimes of ethnic cleansing with non-native trees. This is what the JNF calls “making the desert bloom.” As Jews of conscience, we feel a special responsibility because of our past participation in and contribution to organizations like the JNF.
Why anti-Zionist? It’s important, first of all, to understand what Zionism is. Modern Zionism is a political nationalist movement that seeks to grant a homeland to Jews. In the late 1890s, after a millennium of hatred, violence and expulsion of Jews in Europe, the young journalist Theodor Herzl came to the conclusion that the only way to “solve the Jewish question” or to keep Jews safe from persecution, was to separate them from non-Jews and allow them to attain upper class status in a state of their own. Through Herzl’s influence and supported by European imperialist aspirations, Jews began migrating to and colonizing Palestine.
By the 1930s immigrating Zionists had purchased less than 7% of the land of Mandate Palestine, and although Zionists were still a minority in the land, their political power was great. A British Labour leader at that time, Herbert Morrison said, “The Jews have proved to be first class colonizers to have the real good old empire qualities...”
The Zionists’ intentions were clear from the beginning. Ben-Gurion, in a 1937 letter to his son said, “We will expel the Arabs and take their places.” Joseph Weitz said in 1940 “there is no room for both peoples together in this country…The only solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine without Arabs…And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left...” These quotes are just two of hundreds that show the early Zionist intention to ethnically cleanse the non-Jewish Palestinian people. Nothing less than complete control of all the land, with none of the non-Jewish Palestinians, would satisfy them.
There is no way to encourage people to abandon their homes voluntarily. Violence had to be used. What Israel calls the War of Independence, Palestinians call the Nakba or Catastrophe, when more than 750,000 Palestinians were violently expelled from their homes.
I am a Jew ---- married to a Palestinian man who was three years old when he was forcibly expelled from his home in Jaffa, now in Israel. He grew up in Beirut, Lebanon, but he, like the other refugees and their descendents yearned to return to his former home within Israel. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed and ratified by Israel) is clear that it is an inalienable right for people to return to their homes. Yet in Israel, in order to keep a Jewish majority, this right is denied.
It is denied through a series of laws in the Israeli legal system. As I talk about these, try to imagine analogous laws in the US system privileging one ethnic group over another. In 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed the Law of Return, which says that any Jew, anywhere in the world has the right to come to Israel. Non-Jews do not have this right. In 1952 the Citizenship Law was passed, giving Jews from anywhere in the world the right to citizenship in Israel. Again, non-Jews do not have this right. The Jewish National Fund’s charter says that it holds land in perpetuity for Jews only. The JNF is a quasi-governmental agency, which owns outright 13% of the land of Israel, and administers another 80% through the Israeli Land Authority. This means that I, as an American Jew, any time I want, can go to Israel; I can become a citizen, and I can purchase or rent the property that my father-in-law was expelled from, yet my husband who was born there and left involuntarily, can never go back. Needless to say, he cannot become a citizen and he cannot rent or own property there.
Since the Law of Return and the Citizenship Law, numerous laws have been written in Israel privileging Jews over non-Jews. Palestinian Israeli citizens are denied educational opportunities, restricted in whom they may marry, and in where they may live. Palestinians in the occupied territories are denied the right to movement, to sufficient water, to free speech, and even to receive visitors. The age of majority, the age at which a child can be considered an adult, for Palestinians is 12 and the age of majority for Israelis, living only a few meters away, is 18. Think about that. A 12-year old boy’s voice hasn’t even changed. Yet he can be held as an adult in prison, and many are as is reported in a recent study by Defence for Children International.
When one ethnic group is given special privileges above other groups, this is racism. Racism is not just peripheral to Zionism, it is a central property of Zionism. When it is a legalized system of racism, it is apartheid. I challenge anyone here to fashion a legal structure that gives rights and privileges to one ethnic group only, and yet simultaneously does not take away those rights and privileges from other people. It cannot be done.
IJAN opposes Zionism because its central core tenet is that of colonialism, racism, and oppression. IJAN believes that members of an ethnic group should not be granted special privileged status under any law, that colonizing land and ethnically cleansing people from it is unjust, immoral, and illegal. We believe that the Holocaust and 3000 years of oppression against Jews do not justify oppression of another people. We condemn all types of racism, including anti-Jewish, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic racism, and we do not ally ourselves with people who espouse racism or hatred of any kind.
We support the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until Israel complies with international law. The call demands three things: 1. The end of the occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, which means also the dismantling of the illegal separation wall, 2., recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality, and 3. respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
It should be clear that we are demanding nothing more than the inalienable rights of all human beings. Because these rights are inalienable, they are not subject to negotiation, and therefore any peace deal which does not incorporate and affirm these inalienable human rights is bound to fail. Yet I remain optimistic that we will see peace with justice in Palestine because, as Theodore Parker said though it was often attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr., “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Response to commenters:
In 1975 the UN General Assembly voted that Zionism was racism. This was revoked in 1991 after considerable pressure. Nevertheless, Zionist philosophy, institutions, and Israeli law elevate Jews' status above that of non-Jews. If one ethnic group is elevated in status and privilege above another group the non-privileged group is the victim of racism.
“After considerable pressure.”
We all know about that.
You made some important points, the one that I find most true is “I challenge anyone here to fashion a legal structure that gives rights and privileges to one ethnic group only, and yet simultaneously does not take away those rights and privileges from other people. It cannot be done.”
You describe it as only applying to how Zionists treat Palestinians. The motive for Zionism was that in locale after locale after locale after locale, that principle was NOT applied to Jews, Jews living in community, not the anonymous urban masses that we are familiar with.
And, the fear is that in a democratic Israel/Palestine, particularly if a majority Palestinian maximalist definition of the right of return is applied, that that would repeat.
What we engender in our efforts to make social change is important, not only what we seek to change.
“The Zionists’ intentions were clear from the beginning. Ben-Gurion, in a 1937 letter to his son said, “We will expel the Arabs and take their places.” Joseph Weitz said in 1940 “there is no room for both peoples together in this country…The only solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine without Arabs…And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left…””
This was not “the beginning”. This is after just settlement (not expropriation) was harrassed violently, organized, even many many attacks on civilians that had legally purchased land. (Until 1948 no or very very limited forced dispossession occurred.) It was also after Ben-Gurion and others had made decades of overtures to Arab leaders for a confederation approach, also entirely rebuffed.
I think these questions are fundamental. They change the math of the need for a state from a utopian settlement with some speculation as to the need for a state, to an actual need.
And, as hard as it is, the 30′s and 40′s European suppression and genocide of Jews that extended beyond just German, Austrian and conquered lands. It also included client and allies, Hungary, Rumania, vichy France, Italy, Spain, and had already been effected in Russia and its empire.
90% of Europe lived under fascist or suppressive rule, and conspicuously directed that suppression, then genocide, at Jews.
Following WW2, only in very few locales were Jews invited back, a slightly larger number were accepted, a majority wished they just weren’t there, a large minority they were harrassed, a very small minority continued genocidal efforts.
Zionism was necessary. Even to make the judgment that it wasn’t necessary, but chosen in some opportunistic way, requires assessing history accurately, in context.
A 1937 and 1940 quote of Zionist “beginning” is INNACCURATE, materially misrepresentative. A quote from a Herzlian fantasy novel is misrepresentative. It would be analagous to me quoting Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia as binding on all regional ecogically oriented governance/economy movements. It is interesting, but only interesting.
RW :
That really wasnt beginning. Let see AGAIN to year 1919, and King-Crane commission report :
“The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.”
“The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the programme. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions requiring armies to carry out are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of serious injustices. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered. ”
link to unispal.un.org
Can you find this more interesting ?
The Zionists’ intentions were clear from the beginning . . . This was not “the beginning”.
In the 17th century, an Oriental Jew, Shabbetai Zvi, told his militant followers that he would confront the Sultan of Turkey to reclaim Palestine, and roughly half of the world’s Jews believed him. Afterward, the Ottoman Sultans issued firmans that prevented the Oriental and other Jews from emigrating to Palestine. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration to Palestine. For example in 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:
The legal status of Jewish immigrants remained dubious and they behaved like militants. Their charters spoke of the need of all male members to learn the use of firearms and they formed their own armed settlement militias. Ben Gurion used colonization of Palestine as an excuse to extort money from wealthy Jews at gunpoint before he ever arrived in the country See The Israeli-American connection: its roots in the yishuv, 1914-1945, Michael Brown, Wayne State University Press, 1996, page 198 link to books.google.com
Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter 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.
One of the members of the original Palestine Commission, Sylvain Levi of France, warned about the attitude of the Jewish immigrants during the Versailles Peace Conference:
The King-Crane Commission summed-up the problem:
— “First publication of King-Crane report on the Near East, a suppressed official document of the United States government.”, Editor and Publisher, December 2, 1922. link to books.google.com
The Palestinians had already dispatched a delegation of representatives to Great Britain in February of 1922 to complain about “the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews”.
So, Sylvia is talking about a situation that existed from the very beginning. Why do you work so hard to conceal the facts Witty?
The term “immigration” is not the same as expropriate.
There were many that hoped that the British had the authority to just transfer title, and definitely some misinterpreted the Balfour declaration, San Remo agreement, and others to that effect.
VERY VERY few assumed that that demographic threat would be attempted or realized in a short period, and most that arrived in the land doubted that it would happen at all by either conquest or by settlement.
The majority of the yishuv sought primarily a home in their historic sentimental home, and sought to purchase land.
Whatever motivation you ascribe to the strategy of leaders, the means of purchasing land was a legitimate and valid legal basis of settlement.
The strategy employed to prohibit legal immigration and legal title, boycott, was less than just, in fact prejudicial, racist.
The reality is that history happened. You are still asking that history unhappen. It doesn’t do that.
Its asking to be unborn. It just doesn’t happen that way.
Again, the only period in which anything other than purchase was the means by which settlement occurred, was during and following all-out war.
The remedy is not to attempt to undo the tragedy to Paletinians, the nakba, but to proceed from the present to redeem the lives.
“The majority of the yishuv sought primarily a home in their historic sentimental home, and sought to purchase land.”
And how many of them sought to make common cause with the Palestinians, to be good neighbours and members of the community into which they had come?
How many of them supported the wicked Zionist plan to create a Jewish State?
Stop trying to peddle this idea of innocent immigrants. It just doesn’t ring true.
Whatever motivation you ascribe to the strategy of leaders, the means of purchasing land was a legitimate and valid legal basis of settlement.
Give me some of that stuff you’re smoking. Rothschild and his foreign agents normally purchased property through local Jews who were Ottoman subjects. Jewish land ownership still didn’t confer any entitlement for alien Jews to violate the prohibition against mass immigration and settlement in Palestine.
There were many that hoped that the British had the authority to just transfer title, and definitely some misinterpreted the Balfour declaration, San Remo agreement, and others to that effect.
The declassified documents establish that the Zionist leadership knew better and simply lied about the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo resolution, and the Mandate. The 1939 Royal Commission that looked into the McMahon-Hussein correspondence & etc. admitted that the British Mandate did not authorize the British government to dispose of the territory of Palestine without the consent of the non-Jewish communities.
“The strategy employed to prohibit legal immigration and legal title, boycott, was less than just, in fact prejudicial, racist.”
It would never occur to Richard that if you argue that it was wrong to keep Jewish immigrants from coming to Palestine, it’s even more wrong to keep Palestinians from coming back to Palestine.
It would be wonderful if you started your comment with “It was wrong to prohibit Jewish immigration to Palestine on the basis of ethnicity.”
Then, you might have a point.
No it wouldn’t becvasue it would be a lie anyway. Immigration to Palestine was not prohibited on the basis of ethnicity, it was prohbitited on the basis that mass immigration into a territory already inhabited by a population is guranteed to lead to violence and chaos.
I think that Sabatai, when he took over the synagogue at Smyrna in ?1665, distributed titles to his followers, one of whom became ‘Roman Emperor’. At that rate his ambitions stretched beyond Palestine!
I believe that Sabatai’s father had business dealings with England and so might have heard of Sir Henry Finch’s 1620s idea of a ‘Great Restauration’ in which a renewed Jewish Kingdom would bring in a messianic era for the whole world.
Perhaps Finchism was behind the use of the name ‘Salem’ in the New England colonies, though I haven’t found a way of tracing the link.
Great speech. I just joined International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and sent a small check.
Can’t say how impressed I am with Sylvia.
This is exactly the way zionism should be explained and talked about.
Concise, factual, honest, plain spoken, no equivocating, no excusing.
Of course Zionism is racism. Regardless of the repeal of the 1975 resolution Zionism still meets all of the requirements under the 1965 Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, not to mention the 1973 Convention on the Crime of Apartheid. BTW, the claim that Israel practices apartheid is not new. I found a book published by the PLO office in Beirut in 1970 making the argument through a comparative history of Palestine, South Africa, and Rhodesia. It was evidently based on an earlier PhD dissertation done in Khartoum.
BTW, the claim that Israel practices apartheid is not new.
Wikipedia notes that Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, said in 1961 that “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961) Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.
Shimoni also noted that the UN representative from Iraq leveled the charge against Israel during the 1961 debate over South African apartheid.
“Of course Zionism is racism.”
Otto, baby, I look forward with you to Palestine’s future of multiculturalism, diversity, reparations and affirmative action.
fckin mooser! haha – hes got otto on the run!
Or, I could be running myself into an embarrassing dead end, too. I guess time will tell. I didn’t make a comprehensive study before jumping to a conclusion, like I usually do.
They use apartheid, but it’s more like a simmering slow war where they strangle Palestinians into banustans, with the hope that the world doesn’t react, as the US has been the sole enabler of these decade long crimes.
Zionism as Racism
Maybe we ought to be discussing why zionism, if it wasn’t originally, has become racism. I don’t think we can doubt that zionism is racist now, in the sense of supremacy of one group.
Anyone got any research on other groups seeking ‘separateness’ that weren’t overly racist and aggressive toward others? Quakers? Buddhist?….who?
Bound to be some.
Is it the zionst sense of superiority or plain psychopathy that makes them racist and violent toward others?
I think zionist would be just as violently racist toward gentiles, Europeans , any non Jews, as they are Palestines and Arabs if they thought they could get away with it.
why is zionism racist? where has colonialism not been racist?
Colonialism is too mild a description .
Colonizing is some foreign power going into another country and controlling the population and the resources to enrich the foreign power.
Israel isn’t just colonizing, it’s goal is to turn Palestine “into” Israel, “replace” it with Israel.
The biggest historical colonizer, Britain, didn’t ” make India into Britian”, they didn’t get rid of the natives.
Great speech. Thanks.
“When one ethnic group is given special privileges above other groups, this is racism. Racism is not just peripheral to Zionism, it is a central property of Zionism.”
Ok, the 7 million Jews in Israel are racist and the millions of Jews in the Diaspora who are Zionists are also racist. Now, what do you want to talk about?
Since this claim is so obviously ridiculous, it doesn’t allow any room for compromise. Zionism is not racism just as any other form of ethnic nationalism is not racist just because it favors one ethnicity over another. Is the Turkish state a racist one because it favors Turks over Kurds? If yes, then you are basically for the abolishing of all national states. Call me after Turkey is abolished then and we’ll see what to do about Israel.
“Ok, the 7 million Jews in Israel are racist and the millions of Jews in the Diaspora who are Zionists are also racist.”
I understand that you’ve been burdened with Hebrew as a native language, but, in English, saying “Zionism is racism” is not the same as saying “Zionists are racists,” let alone “All Zionists are racists.”
What does “Zionism is racism” mean? It means that a person that supports this ideology is a racist. It is quite simple to understand. So yes, by saying that Zionism is racism you are calling millions of people racists including most American Jews.
You don’t understand what the term ‘ideology’ means, or you wouldn’t make this colossal error and use it as an excuse. Please also look up the differences between ethnic cultures, nationality and religion, since you typically mix them up to suit yourself.
So yes, by saying that Zionism is racism you are calling millions of people racists including most American Jews.
You didn’t hesitate to label the millions living in the American South racists: “Occupation is not apartheid. There is no comparable treatment of Israeli Arabs to Jim Crow in the south.”
link to mondoweiss.net
BTW, the shoe fits, so wear it.
Where did I label millions in the south as racist? All I am saying is that the laws in Israel and the US South during Jim Crow are different.
What you know about Israeli laws ?
Look at Israeli laws in action :
link to hamoked.org
link to acri.org.il
link to gisha.org
link to yesh-din.org
But one thing is certain, you dont read these.
Look at Israeli laws in action :
That’s a good list, but don’t forget:
*Physicians for Human Rights-Israel link to phr.org.il
*The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah) link to adalah.org
*Public Committee Against Torture in Israel link to stoptorture.org.il
*Al Haq the Law in Service of Human Rights link to alhaq.org
*B’tselem the Israeli Information Center of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories link to btselem.org
*Addameer Prisoners’ Support and Human Rights Association link to addameer.org
*Kanon The Palestinian Organization for the Protection of Human and Environmental Rights link to reliefweb.int
link to elyon1.court.gov.il
“Ok, the 7 million Jews in Israel are racist and the millions of Jews in the Diaspora who are Zionists are also racist. Now, what do you want to talk about?”
The other couple of million who aren’t racist. And the several million in Israel who could be persuaded away from racism, but have been under the rubric of sociopaths and bullies like you. And non-Jews. (yes, we would sink that low) Leaves a lot to talk about, don’t you think? And think of the many contributors to Mondoweiss who once embraced racism, by their own admission, but learned to be better than that.
However, if you don’t think these are relevant or productive things to talk about, navigate to another website. Even if there are filters on your system which keep you from your preferred pederasty sites, you should be able to find something. Consult the “Help” menu for instructions in web browsing.
I find it a bit unusual that you seem to be unable to access any other website, and must monitor a website which you find displeasing. Why on earth is that?
Mooser,
The point you of course miss is that Zionists are not racist at all, only in your imagination. The moment you label the 7 million Jews in Israel as racist because they are Zionists, you are making a fool of yourself.
Unlike you, I enjoy being on sites where people disagree with me. What is the fun of having people agree with you? The question for you is why are you wasting your time here instead of trying to persuade people to your opinion on other sites? Which Jewish congregation do you belong to and how many of them have you convinced?
And by the way, we have a special prayer for Jews like you that want to gang up non-Jews against their fellow Jews. You should look it up.
“And by the way, we have a special prayer for Jews like you”
Wow! And it’s even effective when it’s prayed by an atheist! Now that’s what I call muscular Judaism.
I have a special prayer for guys like you, “eee”, but the moderators I suspect, are atheists too, and won’t print it. But it ends with the word “yourself” and starts with “Go”. I pray it for you every time I read your comments, and I’m pretty sure I could lead a congregation in it. Can I get a witness?
So now I’ve had a self admitted Israeli Atheist disparaging my commitmient to the Jewish religion. If I wasn’t familiar with your sociopathic passive aggresiveness, I might even be proud of it. But I’m sure it doesn’t make me special, you probably say that to all the boys.
“Unlike you, I enjoy being on sites where people disagree with me. “
You betcha, “eee” baby! Your every single comment is chock-full of the Zionist delight in fair and reasoned debate, with strict logic always tempered with human compassion and decency. Yes sir, you’re dripping with it!
For God’s sake, “eee” your Mother, who taught you not to….Oh, sorry, I forgot, you were raised in Israel, weren’t you? Forget I mentioned anything about lying.
Mooser,
One day, when you understand what Judaism is all about, you will fathom that prayer is a community activity and not a means of talking to God. So even a Jew that does not believe in God, like me, should know how to pray.
So, which congregation do you belong to, and how many minds have you changed?
Mooser,
As for compassion, you have shown none to your fellow Jews. You are not willing for one second to understand the case of the millions of Jews living in Israel and the millions of Jews in the US supporting them. Isn’t that symptoms of a sociopath, a person who preaches about compassion but cannot apply it to his own community?
“As for compassion, you have shown none to your fellow Jews.”
You know, “eee” your comment reminds me of one of the first jokes I ever learned, over fifty years ago:
He: “This photograph doesn’t do me justice!”
She: “It’s mercy you want, not justice.”
The other one was the one about a woman who tries to leave a parking space, hits both cars, and then runs up on the curb. She tells the officer: “Don’t be silly, who would give me a license?”
Funny, the persistence of memory. I’m sure I remember those, because in both cases, I had memorised the jokes, my delivery (as always) was terrific, but I didn’t learn what the jokes meant for a couple more years.
Okay, the delivery wasn’t that good, either.
“Isn’t that symptoms of a sociopath, a person who preaches about compassion but cannot apply it to his own community?”
Oy! You found me out, “eee”! I’m another Madoff!
“And You Shall Tolerate Your Comunity’s Intolerance, and Make it Your Own” Yeah, isn’t that the Eleventh-and-a-half Commandment?
OBTW, “eee” you must tell us someday how God disappointed you, what He failed in, to forfeit your belief. I’m sure your standards are high but not unreasonable, so I will give them due consideration.
“And by the way, we have a special prayer for Jews like you”
‘Oh dear God, the Holy One, Praised be He, help us all to get the address right, and guideth our feet to the right house. And make our cudgels strong, and our blows straight, that the harvest should be few marks on the body and a host of internal injuries. O Great Jehovah, let the local Police be slow in coming, strew tacks on the road in front of their tires, and Dearest Lord, make the Police Chief a Zionist!’
Yeah, I damn sure bet you do!
Mooser,
So, you are still evading the question: Which congregation do you belong to and how many people have you convinced?
I am building the impression that you are nothing but a coward who is afraid to address fellow Jews face to face. Hey, I am sure your really funny jokes will be a great hit. Give it a try instead of cowering on a blog. Go out into the real world and see what your fellow Jews think of you.
Can I get a witness?
Amen! Any commentator who invokes that Talmudic drivel proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are discussing old fashioned racist tribal loyalty, be it right or wrong.
And by the way, we have a special prayer for Jews like you that want to gang up non-Jews against their fellow Jews. You should look it up.
Here is an example from the Jung Welt
link to watchingamerica.com
link to haaretz.com
Here is an explanation:
— link to halakhah.com
Just about everyone knows by now that people like Dershowitz and eee are terrible liars and that there is no miracle that can conceal that fact from the gentiles.
But eeeeees an atheist, so it’s just a bunch of words he knows won’t work. I think you might be safe from him.
Hostage,
I really did not want to point this out, but since you did, don’t you find it strange that this guy “Mooser” actually calls himself a “moser”? Either he is really uninformed about Judaism or he is very proud about what he is doing?
As for your explanation, it is of course not the correct one. There are plenty of validated historical examples and there is no need to go to the Talmud. By the way, how would you define a Jew with no compassion whatsoever for the millions of Jews in Israel? Mooser is not a bad way to do so.
Bumblebye,
Praying is not talking to God. It is a community function. That is why you need 10 Jews to pray. Mooser is certainly safe from God, but not from the opinions of his fellow Jews. And for a Jew, that should be important because there is no Jew without a Jewish community. And if you don’t understand that, you understand nothing about Judaism.
“One day, when you understand what Judaism is all about, you will fathom that prayer is a community activity and not a means of talking to God”….eee
Well..er….who are you’ praying to’ in these community prayers?
Why have these ‘community prayers’ if you aren’t praying to a God?
Why not just play poker or do yoga together.
Remember this is eee we’re talking about! The secular Jew with a God-given right to Jerusalem!
As for your explanation, it is of course not the correct one.
LOL! The passage from the Talmud that I cited and quoted, Ber. 58a, speaks for itself. It doesn’t really require your endorsement. Here are a few authorities that cite the passage in connection with an informer-betrayer:
*Stephen Passamaneck, Institute of Jewish Law Staff, The Jewish Law Annual, Taylor & Francis US, 1991, page 68 (footnote 144) link to books.google.com
*David Golinkin, Responsa in a moment: halakhic responses to contemporary issues, Institute of Applied Halakhah at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2000, page 90:
*Journal of halacha and contemporary society, Issues 43-44, Yeshiva Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, 2001, page 38.
That is why you need 10 Jews to pray.
You actually don’t need 10 Jews to pray, just one righteous one would (supposedly) do. Ta’anit 8a explains that R. Ammi said: A man’s prayer is only answered if he takes his heart into his hand, as it is said, Let us lift up our heart with our hands.
[But it is not so. Surely] Samuel appointed an amora to act for him and his exposition ran thus: But they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue. For their heart was not steadfast with Him, neither were they faithful in His covenant; and yet, But He being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity etc.? — This is no contradiction. The one refers to the individual, and the other to the community (The prayers of a community are accepted even if they do not come up to the higher standard set by R. Ammi).
Mooser
Here’s one told me by a Jewish publisher.
Man struggling in lake: gevald! , gevald!
Man walking by: Yiddish you know, swimming you should have learned.
Plenty of validated historical examples, but none that you can cite of course.
The same as the Jews in Palesine who had no compassion whatsoever for the millions of Jews in Gemrnay in 1939, beginning with Ben Gurion.
Exactly my thought.
eee, saying Zionism is not racism is very hard to take seriously coming from a racist
Zionism goes well beyond ethnic nationalism. Nationalism is stupid. If the US can be a melting pot, so can the entire world including the ME which was far more diverse in the 19th century prior to the creation of Zionism and WWI. Sectarian violence is real to a degree, but not like the Anders Breiviks claim. Minorities always get shafted no matter where they live including the US. How many Ilan Grapels have there been throughout the years baiting sectarian violence?
Kurdish nationalism was probably promoted by a bunch of Ilan Grapels. Turkey’s response is not unlike the US response to the Confederacy seceding from the union. It’s a poor example. Ottoman Turk was not an ethnicity, Kurds were technically Turks too. It was in the 20th century after the empire fell that they rejected it. Yeah it sucks their providence was split into four, but nationalism is even worse and only serves as a tool to create tension between different nations for the purpose of economic manipulation, war, etc.
eee is just raggin on Turkey cause JINSA, AIPAC and all the Ziocons are trying to get the US to kick Turkey out of NATO since Turkey broke up with Israel.
eee will be assailing Saudi next week cause Saudi and Iran, despite the hullabaloo about their differences, are colluding on oil supplies to keep prices for the West where both Saudi and Iran want them. He will be talking about the Saudis betraying Israel for oil money and how they will regret it when Iran nukes them. LOL
zionism is racist because it’s a latter-day rendition of the colonial days of yesteryear, with idf-backed gun-slinging settlers chasing away the indians, er, palestinians. let me get this straight, according to the b’nai b’rith’s anti-defamation league, it is racist to priviledge african-americans (so that they get a chance to catch up from the lingering handicaps of slavery) by way of affirmative action but not racist (because of so much jewish suffering down through the ages) to priviledge jewish settlers in occupied palestine? double standard again?
The subject “privileging Jews is racism” is sure to connect including with the people I send her message. Her brilliant phrase is another serious step forward to intensify and spread the dialogue. Imagine how Ethan Bronner would respond to that during his upcoming talk at the Y.
i would be interested in hearing a bit about her personal history, particularly about how her relationship with her husband came about. not that it’s any of my business necessarily.
Joseph Weitz said in 1940 “there is no room for both peoples together in this country…The only solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine without Arabs…And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left…”
what’s this then? arabs in palestine? palestinians, maybe? i thought such a thing didn’t exist, except in the minds of anti-zionists.
the task of ethnic cleansing outlined by joseph weitz hasn’t gone to completion yet, that’s all.
Herman Cain speaks.
Sylvia Schwarz never mentions the real apartheid regimes in the Middle East are Arab countries that privilege Arabs over non-Arabs and which mandate Islam as the state religion. No non-Arab can become a citizen of an Arab country. Freedom of religion is non-existent in the Arab World.
In contrast, Israel’s naturalization law is liberal in that non-Jews can become Israeli citizens. The Jewish State moreover is history’s affirmative action answer to millenia of homeless, dispossession and genocide. Yes, Jews are privileged in Israel but this is to correct past discrimination and persecution and such preferences are allowed under international law.
Finally, Israel is the only free country in the Middle East. Its neighbors are all governed by dictatorships of one stripe or another – including the Palestinians who are ruled by unelected autocracies. That is already a moral and factual difference.
History will judge the Jewish State quite favorably.
Being Jews means of course that Israelis’ ethnic cleansing and occupation of the Palestinians will be sanctified as opposed to others who have committed the same crime of ethnic cleansing but receive condemnation. NormanF assumes “privileging Jews is racism” doesn’t apply to himself.
No non-Arab can become a citizen of an Arab country.
You are overlooking mixed married couples that the Israeli Courts have been exiling to the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 2003 and Jews like Daniel Barenboim or Uri Davis who hold Palestinian citizenship. Jewish women occasionally marry into the Nablus Samaritan community too.
In contrast, Israel’s naturalization law is liberal in that non-Jews can become Israeli citizens.
I see. Whatever planet you are living on hasn’t gotten the word yet. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (the CERD) took action under its “early warning” and “urgent action” procedures because families and marriages were adversely affected by the blatantly racially discriminatory Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) of 31 July 2003 which has been renewed and extended to prevent Palestinians from immigrating to Israel. You probably already know, but Jews from anywhere in the world, including the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, have the right to marry Israelis and move to Israel.
Nice piece of desperate spin Norman, but you’re completely off mark. You cannot have apartheid without colonialism, because ultimately, apartheid requires racist segregation and rule by colonists over indigenous people.
Israel has mandated that the Jewish religion is the national identity.
The few token exceptions in Israel does not change the fact the Israel is an apartheid state. There is only freedom for 50% of those living under Israeli rule, which is applied by sheer military force.
What’s more, is that during the Arab Spring, it was openly revealed that Israel relies on those dictatorships you deride to maintain the status quo. That makes Israel not only worse than the lot of them, but a clear reason for why those dictatorships even exist.
Nice piece of desperate spin Norman, but you’re completely off mark. You cannot have apartheid without colonialism, because ultimately, apartheid requires racist segregation and rule by colonists over indigenous people.
The Jews are an indigenous people. In the absence of colonialism, there can be no apartheid.
Israel has mandated that the Jewish religion is the national identity.
The Jewish people are more than the sum of their religion. You present a reductionist argument. Zionists have never claimed Israel is the homeland of the Jewish faith.
The few token exceptions in Israel does not change the fact the Israel is an apartheid state. There is only freedom for 50% of those living under Israeli rule, which is applied by sheer military force.
Arabs in Israel have the right to vote, to own property, to worship and to travel freely. Rights that only exist theoretically in the Arab World.
What’s more, is that during the Arab Spring, it was openly revealed that Israel relies on those dictatorships you deride to maintain the status quo. That makes Israel not only worse than the lot of them, but a clear reason for why those dictatorships even exist.
Again, Israel has not interfered in the right of Arab peoples to chart their own destiny. This makes Israel far better than the lot of Arab dictatorships, that have used hatred of the Jewish State as a diversion from their own illegitimacy and failure to develop their own societies for the benefit of their own people.
No Norman, SOME Jews are indigenous. Most are recent immigrants.
Within the legal borders of Israel yes.
Of coure they have. They claimes that Jerusalem is where Judaism was born. And FYI, without religion, there is no Judaism.
Irrelevant, they still live under segregation, legalized descriination and as 3rd class citizens. They are only permitted to build on 3% of the land in Israel and their political parties are banned from forming coalitions, thereby ensuring they have no policitical influence.
Hence apartheid.
Of corse they have. Through Washnigton, Israel sets the terms for much of the Arab world. Any leader that wants to deal with Washington has to go get Israle’s approval.
Israel has mandated that the Jewish religion is the national identity.
No the majority of its Jews are secular, not religious. However, there will be a rush to emigrate and abandon the place if it turns into an ultra-orthodox ghetto, e.g.
Secular group [pelted with bottles and diapers] marches against Mea Shearim segregation
link to jpost.com
The gap is narrowing between IDF and ultra-Orthodox customs
link to haaretz.com
Fine Her She’s a Witch!
link to 972mag.com
No, a woman’s voice is not “pubic” – the song must go on
link to 972mag.com
Musical protests planned to counter taboo on female singers
link to haaretz.com
History will judge. Yes, in between bouts of “affirmative action”.
To which countries are you referring in particular? Lazy broad brushstrokes, the staple of Israeli Hasbara, don’t cut it.
That’s factually false. Besides, there are more than 20 Arab countries. So, again, to which are you referring?
False, again. And I reiterate, to which Arab countries are you referring? You want to portray yourself as a tolerant, open person and yet you shovel your propaganda wholesale without a hint of an understanding.
False.
I’ve heard that shtick before.
That must be the same international law to which Israel ‘adheres’. Besides, affirmative action — as you call these apartheid policies — should not privilege one group over another group that has had no hand in the oppression of Jews. But since Israel and Zionists don’t dare hold Germany or Europe accountable for the Holocaust, they vent their anger at Palestinians, convenient scapegoats.
Free indeed. Normally, people buy land. Israel stole it. So it’s free.
And when the people of the region attempt to depose those dictators, Israel exerts enormous pressure on the US to keep those dictators in place.
There must be a shift change at Hasbara Central, or your mother’s basement, whichever applies to you.
I’m sure it will. The Likes of Michael Oren, Alan Dershowitz and their minions will rewrite history — as they already have regarding 1947-1949, 1967 and even 2006 — and as a result, history will judge “The Jewish State” favorably. You also missed the irony of calling Israel a “Jewish State” and then complaining about those evil Arabs imposing Moslem Sharia law, and in the same breath, you implied that Israel was a democracy. Right. So, it’s democratic and Jewish. Thanks for a good laugh.
“israel’s naturalization law is liberal in that non-Jews can become israeli citizens”
except if one happens to be an ethnically cleansed palestinian forced to reside outside palestine and seeking to return to her stolen homes in her occupied homeland.
yes, jews are privileged in israel but this is to correct past discrimination and
persecution and such preferences are allowed under international law”
occupying another people’s homeland is permitted under international law? you must be joking
“israel is the only free country in the middle east”
it ain’t free for palestinians nor for jewish israelis who support justice for palestine
“history will judge the jewish state quite favorably”
contrariwise, history already is judging the zionist entity extremely unfavorably
I am eager to hear Sylvia’s response to the contention that anti-Zionism also contains racism in its credo, that it includes the denial of self-governance, in addition to the opposition against oppression.
“I am eager to hear Sylvia’s response to the contention that anti-Zionism also contains racism in its credo, that it includes the denial of self-governance, in addition to the opposition against oppression.”
I bet you are! And I am eager to hear when you stopped beating your wife!
“I am eager to hear Sylvia’s response to the contention that anti-Zionism also contains racism in its credo, that it includes the denial of self-governance, in addition to the opposition against oppression.”
She may have better things to do than reply to a loaded question from someone who can’t be honest about the subject. However, I don’t. Anti-Zionists aren’t opposed to Jewish self-determination. Personally I don’t give a damn about any group’s self-determination, but if a group of people want to call themselves Numenoreans and set up a little kingdom on some uninhabited island in the Atlantic that’s fine with me. Same for foot-washing Baptists, Quakers, Hindus, Jews, whatever. The problem comes in when the foot-washing Baptists move into some land that is already inhabited and declare their intention to make it a Baptist state (actually, until the past few decades Baptists were big on the separation of church and state, but times have changed.) There’s a similar problem when a bunch of Christians landed in Massachusetts a few centuries ago. And then we have Zionism. It has that same problem. I’ll let you figure that one out.
I just put that out there for anyone interested. I can’t imagine why they would be, since it’s all so blatantly obvious and anyone with two functioning neurons could have figured it out for himself.
When someone declares “Zionism is racism”, they are declaring, to my understanding, that they desire that the state of Israel not exist.
Perhaps you mean something else by anti-Zionism. Perhaps Sylvia means something else.
She can explain her meaning.
Yes, Witty. They are stating their rejection of ethnic cleansing by European Jews.
The vast majority of Israel’s Jews have lived in the Middle East for centuries. They have come home and what happened was a population exchange. There have been countless instances of them throughout history.
When someone declares “Zionism is racism”, they are declaring, to my understanding, that they desire that the state of Israel not exist.
No we are usually just pointing out that Israel has prevented any Palestinian state from ever coming into existence. I believe that I’ve explained in the past that the justification for a Jewish state in Palestine is no more compelling than the justification for a German one in the Sudetenland.
Yes, and the last time a “population exchange” was done prior, the people who did it went up for war crimes at Nuremberg.
Face it, Norman. You and your family are bandits with guns stealing land and lives. That’s all. The majority of Jews in Israel are European and Russian in ethnicity, and back at Israel’s founding, it was a VAST majority. Israel is the product of colonialism.
you are right Norman, 70% of Jews in Israel are Sabras. and the majority came from Arab countries following their ‘population transfer’ from Arab countries.
The vast majority of Israel’s Jews have lived in the Middle East for centuries.
not in palestine they haven’t. not by a long shot. besides, ‘israel’s jews’ haven’t lived longer than the average person and nobody lives for centuries.
“nobody lives for centuries.”
I thought Jews lived for thousands of years. That’s how it’s possible for them to suffer for a thousand years and then to return to Palestine.
They have come home and what happened was a population exchange. There have been countless instances of them throughout history.
They were already at home before they set-out for Palestine. What happened was the Nakba. It was a singularly unique event, like the Holocaust.
That’s Zionist paranoia for you. Some Zionists would listen to the Vagina Monologues and conclude that the subtext attacks Israel’s right to exist.
In your case, you know that Zionism is racism (being a blantant racist yourself), but knowing that defending racism itself is losign strategy, you throw in a non sequitir about Israel’s right to exist. when that fails, you dead enders then resort to labelling their opponents Holocaust deniers.
While the majority of Israeli Jews are Arab or African, they are not a VAST majority at all. If you took away those that came from african, you’d have a minority.
There was no ‘population transfer’ from Arab countries. They migrated to Israel of their own accord or were lured there and used as cheap labor.
Hostage,
I posted this in the other Sylvia post. It bears repeating.
“I’m not going to deny my own community’s experience, nor am I going to deny the experience of Palestinians.
And, in the present, the legal question of right to a day in court for aggrieved Palestinians is a no-brainer to me, even if many Israelis would make that difficult or impossible.
However, ANY political expression that takes the current form of urging mass forced removal, or mass suppression of legal rights, in a pendulum swing, is a current evil, using a past experience as a rationalization.
Lets make our stand be about getting to the real, improving the present, and not about a fight of which rationalization is the better one.”
Lets make our stand be about getting to the real, improving the present, and not about a fight of which rationalization is the better one.
Unfortunately, if an individual openly murders someone that person stands a better chance of sparking public outrage and being convicted than if a “state” openly murders 1,400 people.
So, many of us have made our stand a fight about ending criminal impunity through the enforcement of existing laws. We are not going to be satisfied with mere rationalizations.
I am sorry but that i just isn’t true. Jews were forced to leave the Arab countries both before and after the creation of Israel.
If your contention is Jews left Arab countries willingly, then my contention is Arabs left Palestine at the behest of the Arab countries @ war with Israel. Both are inaccurate of course, but if you can re-write history, why can’t we?
“No we are usually just pointing out that Israel has prevented any Palestinian state from ever coming into existence. ”
Perhaps you haven’t read of my advocacy for a Palestinian state.
link to liberalzionism.wordpress.com
“So, many of us have made our stand a fight about ending criminal impunity through the enforcement of existing laws. We are not going to be satisfied with mere rationalizations.”
And, you’re not concerned that in fighting oppression, that you will do or encourage others to impose a pendulum swing of oppression in response.
Specifically either the forced removal of hundreds of thousands or more from their homes, or the denial of self-governance to a community that desires it?
And, you’re not concerned that in fighting oppression, that you will do or encourage others to impose a pendulum swing of oppression in response.
I don’t know about you, but a “color-blind court” would have no trouble concluding on the basis of the evidence that Israeli officials and settlers are already guilty of committing acts of terror and the crime of persecution – with absolute impunity. The problem is the failure to combat the on-going oppression and hold those responsible criminally accountable.
Specifically either the forced removal of hundreds of thousands or more from their homes, or the denial of self-governance to a community that desires it?
Once again the right to self-determination is a corollary to the territorial integrity norm. The citizens of the occupying power vote in Israel, not the Palestinian territory. The settlers knew they were engaged in an illicit enterprise when they built their homes beyond the Green Line.
We already know that you’re opposed to the very notion of justice Witty, becasue you know very well that the Israelis are on the wrong side of history. Don’t pretend that justice is oppression.
You mean as in the Nakba, which you said was nevecessary, and may be necessary again in the future. You’re a racist extremist and you been busted again Witty.
Nobody would dislike or concern themselves with Zionism if it concerned itself with the dealings of its own state.But it does not.Just as the world wouldn’t hate US if we dealt with our own state.But we do not.
Still going with the ‘self-governance’ schtick Richard?
We all know you use that as a code for jewish supremacism in mandate Palestine; that in your fantasy zionist state only jews are granted self-governence, and Israeli Palestinians are detritus not even granted basic rights like citizenship, or rather, that they are – but when they feel like it Israeli jews may unilaterally strip them of their Israeli citizenship and ethnically cleanse them.
How do we know this? Because you’ve told us a number of time now about your shining vision of ‘self-governance’, which is even more extreme than that of Avigdor Lieberman.
I am eager to hear Sylvia’s response to your fake-liberalism.
And just in case you still don’t understand Richard, you are seeking to privilege Israeli jews over other Israelis; a textbook example of what Schwartz is talking about.
You are advocating apartheid, you are a racist.
Sumud,
The options relative to a community that desires to self-govern are to:
1. Affirm it (and oppose extensions into suppression of others)
2. Deny it (and support extensions into suppression of Jewish Zionist Israelis)
Richard are you still shreying about “self-governance”? We’ve been over this ad infinitum. The territorial integrity norm is a corollary of the self-determination norm. You can’t self-govern territory inhabited by others or ask third parties to recognize and assist you in maintaining an illegal situation. Israel is/am/are/was/were/be/being/been illegally interfering with the exercise of the right of self-determination by Palestinians, not vice versa.
The UN still considers Israel to be under a binding legal obligation to allow the refugees to return and share in the exercise of self-governance over the territory of the former mandate. Palestine had an organized Arab population that outnumbered the Jewish population by a margin of roughly 2:1 when the mandate was terminated. Jewish “self-governance” outside of the 7% of the territory of the former mandate where the Jews were the lawful inhabitants can’t be attributed to the right of self-determination.
According to both the League of Nations and the UN, acceptance of a minority rights treaty obligation was a condicio sine qua non for the termination of a mandate regime or the cession of sovereignty over any territory. The boundaries proposed in the UN partition plan would have resulted in a slight Arab majority in the polity of the (so-called) “Jewish state”. However, the permanent armistice lines of demarcation that were subsequently adopted encompassed additional territory that had been allocated to the inhabitants of the proposed “Arab state”.
Israel acknowledged its acceptance of the terms of the minority rights undertaking after it had signed the armistice agreement. The rights of the Palestinians cannot be modified without the consent of the UN General Assembly.
And, in the present, Israeli Zionist Jews comprise the super-majority within the green line and desire to self-govern.
Its simple.
You want to claim that there are contending views of what is just, that comprise a tension, that is wonderful.
The reiteration of the “historical injustice” invocation as if history doesn’t change reality, is reactionary, anti-democratic.
So, I take it that you oppose the PA petition and the Hamas definition of accepting the green line as boundaries of Palestine, on the basis of international law?
The reiteration of the “historical injustice” invocation as if history doesn’t change reality, is reactionary, anti-democratic.
Richard take your “contending view” to the General Assembly and ask that it alter the rights in resolution 181(II) that were placed under UN guarantee.
The criminal justice system is still pursuing WWII criminals at the behest of major Jewish organizations. The reality is: that history does not change the illegal situations that the State of Israel has created.
I’m not aware of any “PA petition” or “Hamas definition” that doesn’t contain a reaffirmation of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel in accordance with resolution 194(III) and international law. Giving Israel a veto or the right to drive its Arab inhabitants into another state would, by definition, be anti-democratic. It would also violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those other states without their consent. So we are discussing an on-going injustice.
So, I take it that you oppose the PA petition and the Hamas definition of accepting the green line as boundaries of Palestine, on the basis of international law?
No you are the one who refuses to end the occupation that began in 1967 and send the settlers back to Israel.
Hostage,
The appropriate question on the right of return is the form of it.
If you’ve read my posts, you will acknowledge that I advocate for the renunciation of the three laws in 1949-51 that institutionalized the prohibition from the right of return. I don’t know their names, but the content prohibited immediate physical return, then established a short period for courts to review contested title claims (in the setting of refugees not being permitted to physically be present to argue their claims or present evidence), then a law converting all “abandoned” lands to state property.
The physical right of return in international law is not meant for the purpose of multi-generational ethnic based right. It is not meant to allow the claim of a people exiled in 1400 from war, to return to an area even if they retained their coherent ethnic identity. There is then implied a statute of limitations, and some definition of specific evidence required (both as regard to title and to residence).
The maximalist “every descendent of anyone that ever resided in Palestine has the right to return to anywhere in Palestine” is not the law. It is a political slogan, extending the law.
And, you are right that I am not the best person to argue for this, as I am not sufficiently versed, nor interested to get sufficiently versed to argue the question.
I just have a cognitive dissonance detector on the assertions.
“No you are the one who refuses to end the occupation that began in 1967 and send the settlers back to Israel.”
Some of the settlers held legal title to land in the West Bank prior to 1948, and were legal residents. Most of the settlers are beneficiaries of state-sponsored expropriation and should not be regarded as criminals, and afforded the right to residence (so long as the title is perfected). Any politically sloganish alternative would be a collective punishment of beneficiaries.
“They should have known.” Or, “they did know”, is cute but would have to be accurate in 100% of the cases to be even prospectively “justice”.
The appropriate question on the right of return is the form of it.
Richard the rules that the UN applied to the refugees of the 1948 civil war in Palestine are the same ones that were adopted by the High Contracting Parties to the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949. That convention has been universally ratified. It has long since been recognized that it reflects customary international law and is binding upon all parties that engage in armed conflicts. The official commentary on “Article 8. Non-renunciation of rights” explains:
link to icrc.org
The physical right of return in international law is not meant for the purpose of multi-generational ethnic based right. It is not meant to allow the claim of a people exiled in 1400 from war, to return to an area even if they retained their coherent ethnic identity.
The UN Refugee Convention stipulates that family unity is a refugee right. FYI, there aren’t any Palestinians refugees claiming a right of return based upon a war in 1400. Hopwever, the mythical 2000 year long exile is still employed by the Zionists to justify their automatic right of return. Here is an except from a YNet article by Chris Gunness of the UNRWA about passing refugee status through the generations:
link to ynetnews.com
Under the guidelines developed by the Palestine Conciliation Commission, in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV), the UNRWA is responsible for making the legal determinations about refugee status.
Some of the settlers held legal title to land in the West Bank prior to 1948, and were legal residents.
The JNF was a chartered public state institution of Israel. There were 17,000 Jewish refugees from Palestine registered with the UNRWA. Most of them did not hold actual title to kibbutzim that were located on JNF-owned land, e.g. the Etzion Bloc. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Most of the settlers are beneficiaries of state-sponsored expropriation and should not be regarded as criminals, and afforded the right to residence (so long as the title is perfected).
Lemkin wrote about the penal responsibility of colonists who assisted in acts of illegal dispossession in “6. The Problem of Colonists” – “Axis rule in occupied Europe”, 1944, Carnegie Endowment, page 45. One of Israel’s Supreme Court Justices expressed a similar view when he served as the State’s Attorney General. See A-G: New Hague court may indict settlers for war crimes. Ignorance of the law might be a mitigating factor that should be taken into consideration before imposing punitive measures, but it wouldn’t prevent forfeiture of misappropriated property.
Ho hum. Very boring. You left out *your* fantasy idea of ‘self-governance’:
3. 1. Affirm it (and advocate extensions into suppression of others)
The suppression you advocate is the permanent institution of Palestinian Israelis as second-class semi-citizens who may have their Israeli citizenship revoked at the whim of jewish Israelis
You’re still a racist, still advocating apartheid.
It would be wonderful if you actually considered the thesis of my posts, Hostage, particularly, that the form of right of return is the substantive question.
Maximalist, “any descendent of any former Palestinian has the right to ‘return’ to anywhere in Palestine” (whether her family moved in 1935 or 1948, or intermarried, or lived three generations in Lebanon while Lebanon afforded all others born on its territory citizenship while denying it to Palestinians).
Or, legal. “Any individual born in the land of Israel may be an Israeli resident and citizen, and/or any individual that can demonstrate prior title claim to land may settle in their land (if unoccupied) or may be considered for return.”
I guess that if 20 people were descended from any original owner of 20 dunams and he/she had declared in a legal will or other evidence of intent to transfer equally to all descendents that that would construct a right of title.
A court, a fair political process, will consider those limitations, as well as the affects on CURRENT living people, in their determination of what is justice, even if it conflicts with exagerated expectations and sloganish advocacy of law for us, but not for you.
Straw men alert!
Your ‘Maximalist’ definition has no relation to reality. Palestinian refugees are all registered with UNRWA. If a Palestinian left Palestine in 1935, they aren’t a refugee.
Again, no relation to reality. You can’t just re-write international because you happen to like to outcome of Israel’s 60+ year campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Again, you can’t wish away international law because you don’t like it.
Ground your thesis in reality Richard – instead of jewish supremacist fantasy – and perhaps you might not find Hostage’s substantial posts quite so perplexing.
There is this nutter named Jim Fetzer. He’s into conspiracy theory. He writes in a way where he comes off as a representative to whatever community he is referring to. For example: “As us (insert conspiracy theory community) all know and is undisputed, (insert something ridiculous nobody believes)”
He follows all the major conspiracies along with spending an unusual amount of time denying consciousness. He also has a military background, talks greatly about disinformation (ironically), and has taught university course on subjects such as mind control.
The fourth paragraph made me think of him because the Zionists use the exact same tactics. Saying they speak for all Jews convinces people that it is true. Just like all the propaganda and lies that make up their history. Brainwashing. As soon as they arrived in Palestine they were told they are only safe here, that the goy are waiting for the opportune moment to cause another holocaust, that a holocaust is the price for losing Israel, etc. Scared the heck out of them into believing it. As a result we have eee and DBG.
To claim that Zionism is racism is like saying that the state of Israel itself is racist. This argument, however, is obviously extremist and it follows the patterns of anti-Israeli propaganda so dear to the sworn enemies of Israel.
If this statement was true, there would not be such a large Arab minority in the country, and the state of Israel would not be the first guarantor of the welfare of this minority. The Arab population enjoys the right to vote, the right to work and the benefits of a welfare state as well as medical care. It would not have these rights in any other country in the Middle East. If there are some forms of discrimination against Arabs, it’s comparable to forms of discriminations that exist in all Western countries, and the Jewish state commits itself as best it can to improve the condition and status of its large minority, for instance in education. A couple of current examples for the blissful ignorance:
link to haaretz.com
link to israel21c.org
I can only shake my head reading the absurd theories and allegations uttered by a Jewish woman against the alleged racism of Israel, while she is silent on the real true racism – that is anti-Semitism – widespread in the neighboring Arab countries, not to mention in the Palestinian territories, promoted and istigated by various local and national authorities.
It seems quite obvious that her (not even so hidden) intention is to dismantle the only existing Jewish state. This position is simply indefensible.
Oh shut up. You have NEVER lived through a pogrom. Pogroms against Jews are a thing of the past — meanwhile, Palestinians endure pogroms EVERY WEEK.
That’s what Zionism has turned the Jewish people into — the people who commit pogroms.
Ah yes…. if only that was true about Zionism! The Syrian regime mows down unarmed protesters every day of the week. That is what Arab nationalism has turned Arabs into – people who mass murder their own people.
Zionism has never made the Jewish people do anything like that to their own people!
And you have the chutzpah to talk about pogroms!
What’s going on Syria for months has been going on in Palestine for DECADES.
You have the chutzpah to COMMIT pogroms. Don’t lecture me, thank you.
you aren’t reading the almost daily reports on mw which list the atrocities committed against palestinians, the beatings, the olive trees chopped down, the tear gas cannisters hurled at peaceful protesters, the idf foreys into gaza. and, yes, for some of us the struggle for palestinian liberation, delegitimazation of the zionist entity is the answer to the i/p conflict.
The Syrian regime mows down unarmed protesters every day of the week. . . . Zionism has never made the Jewish people do anything like that to their own people!
Remember that Israelis were all Palestinians according to the law, until 1950. In any event, DNA studies reveal that many Jews and Palestinians share common ancestors. Last summer we all watched videos of Zionists killing unarmed Palestinian protestors.
link to richardsilverstein.com
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
How is the inter-communal Palestinian conflict between Jews and Arabs different than the Syrian inter-communal between the Alawites, Sunnis, and etc?
No, but they certaily made them do it to other people.
There have been numerous reports that what is going on in Syria is not non violent,but Israeli weapons supplied.(And US)Be careful that the American puppet Assad(who keeps the Israeli peace)will be replaced by some justifiably angry reactionaries,ala Libya.(Libya is far from Israel)
Then Israel should open its borders to let Syrians escape.
Zionism has never made the Jewish people do anything like that to their own people!
The para-military Jewish terrorist groups in Mandate Palestine, Irgun and Lehi, were known to attack and/or rob from those Palestinian Jews who did not support them, or, in their minds, did not support them sufficiently. Ben Gurion himself, and other early leaders, made numerous statements urging others NOT to contribute to efforts to save European Jews lest they take money away from Zionist “state-building” in Palestine. Zionists also opposed numerous efforts to help European Jews, before, during and after the war when the results would mean less Jews to Palestine. And Zionist leaders in the displaced persons camps physically threatened and beat Jews who refused to “volunteer” to serve in the Zionist/Israeli army in Palestine.
And then of course there were Jacob de Haan, Chaim Arlosoroff, Rudolph Katzner, and Emil Grunszweig, all killed for political reasons by other Zionist Jews.
And just last week,
link to haaretz.com
Please peddle your false memes about Zionist Jews elsewhere. We aren’t buying them here.
“violence that has erupted between two ultra-Orthodox sects … a group of Hasidim brutally attacked Avraham Hirschman,…“They said we’ll murder you,”…. a violent dispute between members of the large Hasidic Gerrer dynasty and the fanatic Sikrikim group”
or
“Thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews demonstrated … and many prayed for Hirschman’s recovery.”
Help me out, here. Which are those traditional Jewish values people keep referring to?
Sworn enemies of Israel;Yeah,I was sworn in by Hitlers illegitimate son in my mothers basement age 3.My God,are you a comedic writer?Talk about paranoia and conjecture.
Listen up sir,even the most rabid antisemite prays daily for Israels existence.as it would be a magnet for the allegedly hated Jews to make Aliyah and remove the alleged hated from America.And I am not rabid or hate anybody,I am just pointing out reality but logic fails some idiots who need a fairy tale to keep them warm and cozy in their idiocy.
Yeah the presence of black people in America is proof that America has never been a racist state.
Oh…
Idiot
Racism/racist, are words too broad for any but circular debate. Many individuals are internally and selectively racist, like those who would not want members of this or that race living next to them, but there’s no reason why anyone else should bother or even know so long as they don’t do anything about it. Indeed, such antipathies are often broader than race, extending to those whose lifestyles jar their more refined sensitivities.
It doesn’t seem to me reasonable to use the word to describe a group antipathetic to the whole of the rest of humanity, even when their broad view hones in on a particular subsection that happens to be commanding their more immediate and proximate distaste. A better definition might be collective misanthropy.
If the belief that those who are of a certain race deserve significant privileges isn’t racism, what is?