‘Segregated country’: Israel envisions Orthodox-Jewish-only ‘cities’ in Palestinian area

Harish map
Map from 2009 showing the areas of Wadi Ara to be annexed to the municipality of Harish. The blue outline was the existing municipal boundaries. The blue shaded area shows the Palestinian areas to be moved under Harish’s authority. The Yellow area was the current jurisdiction of Harish.  (Map: dar-elhanoun.org)
atias
Ariel Atias, housing minister

Today the New York Times says Islamists want to take part in the new Egyptian government, and how scary that is. Well, is anyone paying attention to Israel’s new plans for a “segregated” Jewish development in northern Israel, in an area home to many Palestinians? This is actual Judaization, taking place before our eyes. From Palestine Monitor:

The small village of Harish has become a hot spot of contentious debate since plans were unveiled to build an ultra-Orthodox only city in the predominantly Palestinian region.

Harish is a village in the Wadi Ara, a region in northern Israel that falls in the Haifa District and “The Triangle” in Israel. Wadi Ara is home to roughly 120,000 Palestinians and 10,000 Jews.

From Ynet: Minister plans segregated housing: “The conference was held in Jerusalem under the banner ‘Segregated Country.’” More:
 
“Haredim will take over secular neighborhoods if ultra-Orthodox cities or neighborhoods are not planned,” Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias said Tuesday.
Speaking at a conference organized by the Gesher Foundation, which promotes dialogue between seculars and the religious public, the minister added, “I’m in favor of separate housing in separate neighborhoods for haredim. I would not let my children meet with secular youth.”

And hat’s off to us: We got on this minister Atias’s crazy ideas two years ago. “What democratic values do we supposedly share?”

About Phil Weiss and Annie

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, Media

{ 198 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. seafoid says:

    Israel isn’t big enough to manage the haredim. Even with the West Bank. Unless they can shunt the women off into some spinoff.
    Women sing all over Israel. It’s antisemitic.

    • patm says:

      “Haredim will take over secular neighborhoods if ultra-Orthodox cities or neighborhoods are not planned,” Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias said Tuesday.

      The Spitting Jews certainly are on a roll! They may well speed up the downfall of the Zionist state. Is that their plan? Or have I got these folks mixed up with the Jews who aren’t Zionists. (It’s hard to tell the players without a program.)

      ***
      “Women sing all over Israel. It’s antisemitic.” I’m tempted to say, “Good! Carry on.”

      • seafoid says:

        65% of Haredi men are unemployed. The Haredi have the highest birthrate in Israel. Guess how it ends.

        • patm says:

          What on earth do these unemployed Haredi men do all day? Aside from impregnating their wives? There isn’t going to be enough room in ‘postage stamp’ Israel to contain all these people.

          “Guess how it ends.” Badly.

        • seafoid says:

          They study Torah and prepare the way for Moshiach by observing Kashrut. They do all the spiritual work for the non religious Israelis. The Jewish ones.

        • annie says:

          They do all the spiritual work for the non religious Israelis. The Jewish ones.

          is that how it works? they keep the place ‘holy’ so others can be secular? what a racket.

        • patm says:

          Thanks, seafoid.

          Here’s a bit about ‘The Mashiach’ from the website Judaism 101

          The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

          It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person’s lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.

          When Will the Mashiach Come?

          There are a wide variety of opinions on the subject of when the mashiach will come. Some of Judaism’s greatest minds have cursed those who try to predict the time of the mashiach’s coming, because errors in such predictions could cause people to lose faith in the messianic idea or in Judaism itself. This actually happened in the 17th century, when Shabbatai Tzvi claimed to be the mashiach. When Tzvi converted to Islam under threat of death, many Jews converted with him. Nevertheless, this prohibition has not stopped anyone from speculating about the time when the mashiach will come.

          Although some scholars believed that G-d has set aside a specific date for the coming of the mashiach, most authority suggests that the conduct of mankind will determine the time of the mashiach’s coming. In general, it is believed that the mashiach will come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good). For example, each of the following has been suggested as the time when the mashiach will come:

          if Israel repented a single day;
          if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
          if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
          in a generation that is totally innocent or totally guilty;
          in a generation that loses hope;
          in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders;

        • seafoid says:

          One of my colleagues at work is a non religious Israeli with 2 Haredi brothers. They won’t eat at his house. Not kosher. Don’t touch anything on Shabbat.

          The Dude: Walter… what am I going to tell Lebowski?
          Walter Sobchak: I told that fuck down at the league office… who’s in charge of scheduling?
          The Dude: Walter…
          Donny: Burkhalter.
          Walter Sobchak: I told that kraut a fucking thousand times that I don’t roll on Shabbos!
          The Dude: Walter…
          Donny: They already posted it.
          Walter Sobchak: Well they can *fucking unpost it*!
          The Dude: Who gives a shit! They’re gonna kill that poor woman, man! What am I gonna tell Lebowski?
          Walter Sobchak: C’mon Dude, eventually she’ll get sick of her little game and, you know, wander on back.
          Donny: How come you don’t roll on Saturday, Walter?
          Walter Sobchak: I’m shomer shabbos.
          Donny: What’s that?
          The Dude: Yeah, and in the meantime, what do I tell Lebowski?
          Walter Sobchak: Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don’t work, I don’t drive a car, I don’t fucking ride in a car, I don’t handle money, I don’t turn on the oven, and I sure as shit *don’t fucking roll*!
          Donny: Sheesh.
          Walter Sobchak: Shomer shabbos!
          The Dude: Walter, how am I going to…
          Walter Sobchak: Shomer fucking shabbos.
          The Dude: Oh fuck it. I’m out of here.
          Walter Sobchak: Come on, Dude…
          [rolls his eyes at Donny]
          Walter Sobchak: Fucking BABY…
          [Donny nods]

        • kamanja says:

          Ah, you’re a stranger to the laws of purity patm? Impregnating the wife only occupies two weeks per month max. Plenty of time left over for study and at least a part-time job.

  2. pabelmont says:

    Is this village smaller than NYC? Could (and would) all the haredim “fit” into a small city (1/4 the size of NYC)? And how about all the rest of Israel?

    Building up instead of building out?

    That way, the Palestinians could recover most of the land of (Mandatory) Palestine and let the Jews live (in peace and tranquility and SEPARATION) in a ghetto of their own choice, roughly the size of NYC.

    WATER SHARING would be a smaller problem than today, as these Jews would presumably give up their odious agriculture — making the “dessert bloom” with water stolen from the Palestinians who have 100s of years of experience doing place-suitable agriculture.

    • annie says:

      Is this village smaller than NYC?

      i urge everyone to open the Palestine Monitor link. this is really important information because the plan, according to ynet is to put 90,000 people there..for now.

      In 2008, Dahan affirmed that “we want to Judaize the Wadi Ara area … The state wants to put this place in order so that the Arabs won’t rear their heads. 150,000 Jews who will live here will put them in proportion.”

      and it’s also the way in which the village will be shaped:

      State policy here is based on the expropriation of Palestinian land and encirclement of Palestinian communities, in order to keep their numbers from rising.

      Katsir, a neighbouring settlement, originally joined with Harish to make a local council though Harish is now set to become an independent town. The boundaries of the two settlements will still meet, ensuring the fragmentation of the villages.

      This process will lead to the ghettoization of the villages, Mr. Jabareen predicts.

      Take Barta’a, for example. To the east of the village is the Green Line, while on all others will be expanded Harish. Barta’a has tried to expand on surrounding lands but is continuously rebuffed by the national planning commission, which claims this land is too precious and unique for building. This same “natural reserve” is part of the space that will accommodate the new Harish.

      Israel’s national settlement plan is guided by the principle that Palestinian centres of life should never be contiguous, which is achieved by breaking up towns and villages with Jewish municipalities.

      Bimkom, an Israeli organisation for planning rights, noted in a 2003 report that all the spaces between Palestinian communities belong to a neighbouring Jewish regional council.

      This way, Palestinian towns never grow to become cities and acquire the political and social dynamic of urban spaces, effectively keeping this population politically weak and pre-empting development.

      • seafoid says:

        It is despicable. The Orthodox are manipulated by Eli Yishai and the leaders of Shas. It is going to end in a disaster.
        When the ones who can get out leave who is going to pay for Harediland? Most of the men have no employee skills. In Galut Jewish society couldn’t afford to have such a high proportion of non workers. The economics don’t change in Israel.

        Look at what happens to their kids

        link to yadeliezer.org

        And of course Israel doesn’t have a social security system worth talking about.

        Israel can’t afford peace because it can’t afford to replace all that free Palestinian land for all its freeriding Haredim. It’s like some law of nature that is violated. The Haredim have no natural economic predators. So they eat up Israel.

        • annie says:

          i know, it’s horrid. they are duplicating their bantustans plan for palestinians inside israel and guarenteeing it will be explosive by using the ultra orthodox, the ones who continually terrorize palestinians in the west bank.

          and this is an area inside israel where jews and palestinian israeli cohabitate together and peacefully. so of course that must end.

        • seafoid says:

          Orthodox girls. It is really awful to think what they get in lieu of an education.

          link to tabletmag.com

        • annie says:

          yeah, that’s a killer article. everyone should read it.

        • patm says:

          Thanks again, seafoid. This time for “Girls at War: How a group of teenage believers could reshape the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.”

          Elizabeth Rubin’s article illumines very nicely the character and daily lives of these illegal settler girls. Here’s a sampling of Rubin’s prose:

          “As for Tali, so what if it was a rough school and many of her students refused to learn English out of ideological principles? Tali was tough too, and tried to teach them English anyway, using the lyrics of Michael Jackson and Duran Duran, despite Rav Gadi’s disapproval. Her girls would graduate with strong personalities, loving God, and knowing how to do many things at the same time, like having 10 kids and contributing to Jewish life and the life of their communities. Gadi and Nurit themselves are full-time educators and had 10 children. The other English teacher has 10 kids, teaches at two schools, and works as an ambulance driver; they all joke about Tel Aviv mothers who have one child and a dog.

          For their part, it is also no wonder that natives of Tel Aviv express the fear that it’s not Israel that occupies the West Bank but the West Bank settlers who are now annexing Israel, as they pour more concrete and have more children, who are taking key positions in the army, government, and civil administration, which controls everything here from electricity to water to schools. The settlers embody an essential conflict at the core of the state of Israel. The government acts like an erratic parent to its recalcitrant children, the settlers—sometimes berating and even beating them, other times adoring and financing them, for their messianic faith. The longer I stayed, the harder it was to determine who is using whom: the government that allows the expansion of settlements while hoping to use the radicals as a bargaining chip in future negotiations with the Palestinians, or the radicals themselves, who offer the State of Israel the choice between civil war or abandoning them and their children to life in a Palestinian state.

          “Most religious people are not individuals,” Tali told me. “We don’t just want our work and money. We have a different agenda, thinking of Israel and our people.”

          *****

          a killer article indeed, annie.

        • john h says:

          “Most religious people are not individuals,” Tali told me. “We don’t just want our work and money. We have a different agenda, thinking of Israel and our people.”

          Funny that, religious people do have a different agenda, its thinking of the what or who they worship and of the people who think like them.

          Guess that means these ones worship the Land and State of Zionist Israel and its people.

        • seafoid says:

          This article is excellent. From 2009 on the secular hatred of the haredim (ultra orthodox) . Why would Israel want to send them to Galilee ?

          090514
          Gideon Levy / Anti-Semitism is rearing its head in Tel Aviv
          By Gideon Levy

          Anti-Semitism is raising its head. Not in Warsaw, Munich or Paris, and there’s no need for the Anti-Defamation League to wave the evidence around. It’s right here, in our own home, in verdant Ramat Aviv, the most enlightened suburb of Tel Aviv, our most enlightened city. The entry of a handful of ultra-Orthodox Jews to this lovely, modest and tranquil neighborhood has provoked an unlovely wave of racism, tearing the thin veil of openness and liberality from this seemingly left-wing community. If anyone were to behave this way toward Israeli Arabs, the residents might raise a hue and cry, but when it comes to Haredim the gloves are off because attacking the “blacks” is the fashion.

          They stand on street corners – God help us – offering men the opportunity to don tefillin: the scandal. They’ve rented a few apartments to sleep in, and perhaps even to teach Torah: a disaster. A handful among the neighborhood’s secular inhabitants: a takeover, the very image of Beit Shemesh. The jargon of the neighborhood’s “action committee” recalls days best forgotten. Its Web site speaks of finding “apartments rented to Haredim in order to apply pressure on landlords.”

          What kind of pressure, exactly? Why, for God’s sake? Why the fear? Don’t Haredim, like any minority, have the right to live in the neighborhood? No, not when it comes to Haredim, the punching bag of the left. What nationalist Israelis do to the Arabs, the left does to the ultra-Orthodox. There’s no difference. Demonization, dehumanization, scare tactics and the sowing of hatred.

          Hatred of the Other is the same, whether the Other’s name is Mohammed or Leibele, whether he wears a kaffiyeh or a shtreimel. It makes no difference whether the racist is an Arab-hating Kahanist or a Haredim-hating leftist: He is still a racist. Imagine such a committee operating in a European city opposing a so-called “Jewish takeover” of a neighborhood. We would sound a battle cry. But there are already “patrols” in Ramat Aviv by “enlightened” celebrity parents, and heartrending testimony. “Seducing Minors” shouts a headline on the Web site, as though denouncing pedophiles. What’s the deal? That Haredim tried to persuade a 13-year-old boy to put on tefillin?

          This is not a local issue. The attitude to Haredim is nationwide. It is an insular community, conservative and strict, not exactly my cup of tea. Most of them do not serve in the army (in accordance with a law passed by the nonreligious), some of them choose not to work and most live in dire poverty. They “suck the country dry.” We can excoriate them to our heart’s content without being suspected of racism. And so, they are victims of racism. Most were pushed out of formerly mixed neighborhoods in Tel Aviv, remaining only in the Sheinkin Street area, and how lovely the sight: a parent bringing three children to school on one bicycle, heavily bearded teachers, Yiddish as the language of daily life, mutual aid and other traditional customs alongside secularism at its best. Multiculturalism.

          One is not compelled to love them, identify with their odd leaders or admire the political power of their wheeler-dealers. One is compelled to oppose their violence when it occurs, but also to accept them as they are, as long as they obey the law. They are incalculably preferable to the settlers, who are much more violent and who have sown a much worse disaster in our midst, a plague on future generations, yet against whom no such bitter hatred is aimed. You know why? Because the struggle against the settlements and the occupation is not in the consensus and therefore demands courage and a high personal cost.

          Hatred of Haredim is in the consensus. There is no cost to attacking them; that is considered normal behavior. And so the people of Ramat Aviv, my dear neighbors, too cowardly to wage more important and just struggles, have established an action committee against the Haredim. But the Ramat Aviv of this committee is not only pretentiously trendy Ramat Aviv. The issue is not simply a single liberal neighborhood. This is Israeli society as a whole. Until we learn to accept those who are different or exceptional, we cannot call ourselves a tolerant and just society. Hatred of Haredim in Ramat Aviv, or Arabs in Safed, is the same disease. Is the cashier in your supermarket wearing hijab? That’s heartwarming. Next let’s let her wear a hat, or a wig.

        • kamanja says:

          Careful. The ultra-orthodox in the West Bank do not necessarily terrorize Palestinians, ultra-orthodox is not the same as haredi-nationalist. The secular are just as likely to terrorize them, viz articles posted here such as last month’s Anatot-Anata “pogrom” against Palestinian and Jewish activists.

          “Second, and even more important in my view, is the fact that the Anatot settlers are mainly secular, quite ordinary Israelis, whatever the latter term might mean. Many, including some present at the attacks just described, serve in the police. I meet them in classes at the Hebrew University; they see themselves as living in a northern suburb of Jerusalem and, no doubt, as part of the Israeli mainstream and the so-called “consensus” about the political future of the country. Some of these same ordinary citizens turned out to be capable of being transformed, within minutes, into what Elias Canetti called a “pack”—a rampaging, bloodthirsty mob that knows no limits.”
          link to nybooks.com

        • Hostage says:

          Orthodox girls. It is really awful to think what they get in lieu of an education.

          It’s not a new phenomenon. One of the Sages explained that a female Pharisee and a plague of Pharisees bring destruction upon the World. The others devoted a great deal of effort and space to the exercise of qualifying that statement and trying to find some redeeming quality in them. See Sotah 20a – Sotah 22a link to halakhah.com

  3. john h says:

    These are just two of many examples of the dangerous growth of Jewish religious extremism in Israel/Palestine.

    link to haaretz.com
    link to haaretz.com
    link to arza.org
    link to globalresearch.ca
    link to jweekly.com
    link to israelhayom.com
    link to jpost.com
    link to mondoweiss.net

    And it’s been around for some time.

    link to wrmea.com

  4. piotr says:

    “And hat’s off to us:”

    Speaking of hats, Minister Ariel Atias is definitely good looking, but perhaps he would look even better if he were not dressed as Black-hatted “bad gunman” from a Western movie. Perhaps a mariachi costume with a proper sombrero? http://www.visualphotos.com/image/2×4631000/mariachi_band_walking_in_street

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Speaking of hats, Minister Ariel Atias is definitely good looking, but perhaps he would look even better if he were not dressed as Black-hatted ‘bad gunman’ from a Western movie.”

      He looks like a goddamned fool. And he opens his mouth and proves that sometimes you CAN judge a book by its cover.

    • annie says:

      i saw a picture of him at the “segregated country” conference and he wasn’t wearing his hat.

  5. Potsherd2 says:

    Of course they want to ship the haredim off to the Galilee. The secular Israelis will do anything so they don’t infiltrate t heir own neighborhoods.

    It’s like where to locate the sewage plant and garbage dump – dump it on the Arabs.

    • annie says:

      re: “The secular Israelis will do anything so they don’t infiltrate t heir own neighborhoods.”

      potsherd, check this link out from last year

      link to ynetnews.com

      Haredim to get affordable housing in TA?

      Shas councilman promoting motion to provide future haredi residents in south Tel Aviv with rent support, property tax exemption, kindergarten payments discount in order to fight ‘culture of African refugees flooding the city’

      …..

      Councilman Reuven Ladiansky, who opposes the motion, said that the attempts of haredi representatives to change the neighborhoods’ liberal nature is reprehensible.

      “This is a cynical attempt to use the refugee and foreign workers issue to create a new reality in the city. Instead of arranging housing for young residents they are trying to import haredi refugees and settle them in the city.”

      sounds like they prefer refugee and foreign workers in their midst then their own haredi.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Refugees and foreign workers are powerless. They’re likely to be arbitrarily deported. They can be exploited and have no recourse to defend themselves.

        Haredim, otoh, are immensely powerful. They have strong political backing. The secular authorities fear them. Once they get a toehold in a neighborhood, they can’t be dislodged or stopped from expanding.

        Of course the residents would rather have Arabs as neighbors instead of haredim.

    • seafoid says:

      Re the secular israelis

      link to haaretz.com

      And here are various bits from Haaretz about the haredim

      -Support for flights without movies” is the name of a small group that several years ago encouraged Haredi travelers not to take regular flights unless they had cardboard that could cover the movie screens on the airplane seats in front of them.This year the idea caught on that immodest sights may also be a threat outside the airplane – in the airport terminal, for example. So pilgrims are being encouraged to bring scarves along.”In any cloth shop, ask for a thin lycra cloth 70 cm wide (blue, brown or black ) costing about 20 NIS,” reads one instruction. “It needs to be about 1.5 meters long … which is necessary so it will sit well and not flow in the wind.” The leaflet notes that even if people laugh at someone wearing the scarf on his face, those covering their eyes “will be rewarded a thousand fold.”In a telephone interview from Uman, one pilgrim named Avinoam added: “It may sound ridiculous to you, but it has been more successful than expected. I recommend that you try it.”

      - In France, with the biggest Diaspora community after the U.S., and its own rabbinical court, the ultra-Orthodox have nonetheless hijacked conversion, and the whole process has become a nightmare. This is due not only to the rise of missionary movements like Chabad-Lubavitch, but also to the influence of an increasingly Haredi Israeli rabbinate. European rabbis feel its pressure and are wary that if they are too lenient, they will not be recognized by their Israeli peers.

      - Everyone agrees that without studying mathematics, English and history, a person does not have a chance of finding lucrative work in the modern economy. But the Netanyahu-Steinitz government increased funding for the independent school systems run by the two Haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, even though they are not prepared to teach these core subjects. In this way, the government is cultivating and increasing poverty such that it will continue to grow in the future as well.

      - Shas built its power on its voters’ Mizrahi identity, on the exclusion and discrimination they suffered. Shas promised them rectification. To this day, its platform is entitled “Shas – for social justice,” and it lavishes many words on economic and social equality, the value of labor, the importance of education and even empowering women. But the first article in Shas’ platform is “to restore the former glory” of the Sephardi religious tradition. In other words, first and foremost, Shas is an ultra-Orthodox party, which like every other Judeocentric group over the course of 2,000 years of exile that failed to undergo modernization, is afraid of secularism and modernism and builds walls to protect itself from them.
      This is how Shas enlisted masses of supporters and gave them ethnic and class pride while harnessing them to the ultra-Orthodox cause. It achieved sweeping success in its first goal – bringing the masses back to religious observance and vastly expanding the religious education system, from nursery schools to yeshivas.
      But the condition for this success is seclusion and separatism, segregation from Israeli society, avoiding military service, shunning a general education and staying out of the labor market. In other words, increasing ignorance, poverty and social gaps.
      Shas bolsters the very traits that caused the Mizrahi community to be discriminated against and excluded to begin with. It is worsening the community’s plight and then exploiting it to increase its political strength. But it also provides its voters with pride and team spirit. An essential instrument of every community’s self-definition is a perpetual distinction between “us” and everyone who isn’t us. Just as the secular white male hegemony defines itself by turning anyone who does not resemble it into the “other” – for instance, the “Haredi” and the “Mizrahi” – Shas keeps its community within the Jewish-Haredi ghetto by constantly reminding it that there is “us” and “them.”

      - The blame ultimately lies at the feet of Benjamin Netanyahu and the glorious parliamentary democracy that makes Israel increasingly unstable and ungovernable. While it has been established that Litzman did not want to be named deputy health minister (and with the lack of a superior, the acting head of the ministry), the fact is that under the demented Legoland makeup of Israel’s governing system, ministerial seats are assured to those who broker the deals, no matter how horribly ill-suited they may be to the post. Such is the system that produces a government where a party representing a community whose media cannot print the word sex, airbrushes women out of photos, and binds them into a strict second-class status, can be put in charge of the Health Ministry, a ministry legally bound to protect the well-being of all Israelis, regardless of gender, race or religion. How can a man who comes from a community which views as immodest talking about or referring to genitalia, be in charge of issues like reproductive health and gynecology, where he may have to hear or say the word “vagina?”

  6. Avi_G. says:

    Today the New York Times says Islamists want to take part in the new Egyptian government, and how scary that is.

    God forbid Egyptians should actually have a democratic government that is DIVERSE and REPRESENTATIVE of all Egyptians.

    I don’t recall ever hearing someone in the Middle East lecture America on whether evangelicals should or shouldn’t have access to the centers of power in this country, nor do I see the New York Zionist Times lecture Israel about Shas’ inclusion in government coalitions, this despite their spiritual leader — rabbi Ovadiya Yosef — being a bigot who repeatedly incites for violence and terrorism against non-Jews.

    ————————————————————————————

    Incidentally, this just in, the interim Egyptian government has just resigned in protest of the military’s treatment of civilians.

  7. American says:

    Noticed Netanyahu or whatever control agency also shut down a “liberal’ radio station or channel in Israel. Took it off the air.
    And they are still not releasing the Palestine tax money.

    So, 5 years or so from now the US will still be financing and protecting the Israel version of Saddam’s Iraq or Qaddafi’s Lybia or the Taliban’s Afghan?

  8. radii says:

    the racist, anti-muslim purge begun in 1947 goes on … ethnic-cleansing aided and abetted in every way by America – shameful

  9. jonah says:

    On this I agree for once with the “critics” of Israel: the growth of Jewish religious extremism is a threat to the state of Israel and its democratic secular character, comparable to the threat posed to Israel by the Palestinian Islamists. Both parties – the Jewish religious right and Hamas – are now in the Israeli resp. the Palestinian government, and the fact that their influence is growing on the long term, doesn’t bode well for reconciliation and peace in the region. The moderate Palestinians, if there are still some around, should not disdain to deal with Netanyahu today, because tomorrow may be far worse.

    • annie says:

      The moderate Palestinians, if there are still some around

      oh spare us jonah. unlike ‘palestinian islamists’ the ultra orthodox are the fast growing demographic in israel and in case you don’t know they have thoroughly infiltrated the military. scroll down to “Kahane lives “. that is a current new link from 2 days ago. there’s no comparison. hamas isn’t in charge of nukes and bombers.

      The 19 reservist major generals who signed the letter to Chief of Staff Benny Gantz on Monday, warning of extremist religious trends in the Israel Defense Forces, “were in the army long ago,” Rabbi Avichai Rontzki declared this week. Brig. Gen. (res. ) Rontzki, who was chief army rabbi until a year and a half ago, claimed that the veteran officers don’t know what the IDF is like anymore. “Things are different nowadays,” he explained.

      • jonah says:

        I do agree with you annie. For Israel today there is a threat from within the country – the extremist religious forces -, and from outside the country – the Islamist forces that want to destroy the Jewish state. These opposite extremist forces are complementary to each other. Both Netanyahu and Abbas seem willing to give major concessions to their own partners sitting in the governments. On Israeli side, the opposition is to uncompromising to come to an agreement with Netanyahu and create a new government of national unity. On Palestinian side, Abbas and his old Fatah guard are too interested in their political (and real) survival to sit at the negotiating table with the Israeli counterpart and find a compromise for peace.
        The ongoing status quo we witness today on the ground is the direct result of the current political status quo on both sides, a bad omen for both indeed.
        But as is well known, Abbas could not even pass the Rubicon with Olmert, who in 2008 offered him a territory – including land swaps – equivalent to almost 100% of the entire West Bank. So it’s actually more than correct to ask if among the Palestinians there are (have ever been) true peace-willing moderates, and not just on the paper.

        • Blinded by your own prejudice, you don’t have a clue what Palestinians are like, preferring to read your zionist fairytales. Listen to your patronising, racist claptrap about Palestine and reflect on what kind of democratic state with universal civil rights you could have had, if you recognised the nakba and the violence and suffering inflicted on the people whose existence you deny.

        • jonah says:

          So explain me please, jwp, what do the Palestinians want really? I mean, not what you want the Israel could have done if …, but what the Palestinians want – the moderates and all the others. Sure of your answer.

        • Cliff says:

          Hey guess what jonah, I heard a band of fundamentalists ninjas want to destroy the Jewish State! Sound ze alarm!

          You’re hysterical. Hamas couldn’t destroy the Walmart near my apartment on a Black Friday if it’s existence depended on it.

          Everything you say is textbook hasbara nonsense.

          ‘Hamas wants to destroy Israel; see: Charter’

          Yep, look at Israel. Israel IS destroying Palestine. How much of Historic Palestine is left? How are those settlements coming along? Whatever Hamas says it wants to do, Israel actually does. Your concerns are misplaced and fanatical. You put Hamas and this illusion of an Islamist swarm descending upon Israel on a pedestal.

          It’s your own country that is the problem. There is no parallel. It’s you who have been carrying out this occupation and colonization for 45 years. NOT Hamas. It’s you who kills 10 times as many children and 5 times as many civilians in general. ETC ETC ETC

          Get real.

      • benedict says:

        Annie-

        You keep on confusing ultra-orthodox (chareidim) with NR types. The chareidim are not infiltrating the army for the simple reason that very few of them serve in the army. If you want to be able to contribute something meaningful to the discussion of Israeli society why you don’t bother to actually learn the nuances of Israel’s religious community?

        • Avi_G. says:

          benedict says:
          November 21, 2011 at 9:01 pm

          Annie-

          You keep on confusing ultra-orthodox (chareidim) with NR types. The chareidim are not infiltrating the army for the simple reason that very few of them serve in the army. If you want to be able to contribute something meaningful to the discussion of Israeli society why you don’t bother to actually learn the nuances of Israel’s religious community?

          I give this hack until the end of day.

        • annie says:

          You keep on confusing ultra-orthodox (chareidim) with NR types. The chareidim are not infiltrating the army

          maybe i am confused , who are these guys?
          link to ynetnews.com

          The haredi infantry battalion Netzah Yehuda in the Kfir Brigade may undergo dramatic changes next year, which will see the duration of military service extended from two to three years, similarly to other combat positions in the IDF.

          The plan, which was initiated following increasing demands by the haredi soldiers, proposes to add a third year of service that will be dedicated to the completion of matriculation exams, along with routine combat training and operations.

          the other link, the one before said “extremist religious”. so maybe i am getting my extremes wrong. i’ll try to be more accurate in the future.

        • patm says:

          More from the ynet article you cite, annie

          “According to the Manpower Directorate, some 450 haredi combat soldiers joined the battalion in 2011, and an additional 650 haredim were recruited to other IDF positions. The Directorate estimated that the numbers will continue to grow, reaching some 2,400 new haredi recruits in 2015.”

          This Benedict character is a real piece of work.

        • Shmuel says:

          who are these guys?

          annie,

          Relatively few Haredim serve in the army. This particular battalion was founded a number of years ago, and has been approved by the Haredi rabbis only for young men who would not otherwise be studying in the yeshivot – hence the agreement to allow them to complete secular high school studies (generally forbidden in the Haredi community) during the course of their service. They are marginal in the army and do not go on to become officers.

          The National Religious on the other hand (modern dress, crocheted kippot, no hats, no sidelocks) serve in large numbers, are disproportionately represented among the officers, and have become increasingly extreme in recent years. Many grew up on settlements.

          There are also National Haredim (men/boys often wear very large crocheted kippot, sidelocks, and women/girls very covered up) with a large, extreme and violent presence on the settlements, but they tend to do only brief service in the army and do not become officers.

          There have been more splits, especially since the withdrawal from Gaza, and then there is Menahem Froman, who is sui generis :-)

          This discussion is starting to depress me. I have relatives in all of these groups :-(

        • annie says:

          thanks shmuel and i am sorry. i didn’t mean to imply that all ultra orthodox people were extremist, that was my mistake. i was attempting to address the haaretz article . the title and byline are below.
          link to haaretz.com,

          The ultra-Orthodox are changing the face of the IDF

          The former IDF rabbi was right about the reservist generals who have protested what they see as extremist religious trends within the army: This isn’t the army they used to know.

          that was the terminology they used and perhaps it is inaccurate. but either way aside from the people the article addresses i still do not believe everyone who is ultra orthodox is an extremist. and i know there are violent nationalist settlers who are not ultra orthodox and that they are a big problem.

        • eljay says:

          >> There have been more splits, especially since the withdrawal from Gaza …

          Are you able to clarify for MW readers which groups represent “real” Jews, or is this something only e “the Atheist Jew” ee has the power to discern? ;-)

        • Shmuel says:

          Are you able to clarify for MW readers which groups represent “real” Jews, or is this something only e “the Atheist Jew” ee has the power to discern? ;-)

          I’d leave that to 3e, although I hear the Jewish Licensing Board is looking for him – something about impersonating an excommunication squad officer.

          BTW, I’m also an atheist Jew. There are quite a few of us, although we generally don’t go around “de-Jewing” people.

        • eljay says:

          >> BTW, I’m also an atheist Jew.

          I’m still genuinely puzzled by how “atheist Jew” works. By removing the religious element from the Jewish identity, it appears to open up “being Jewish” to pretty much anyone who embraces Jewish culture and community (no religious conversion required).

          And it appears to mean the demise of a religion-based “Jewish state” in favour of a culturally-based “Jewish state”, one to which anyone could belong by, once again, simply embracing Jewish community and culture and, as far as “Jewish state” goes, national loyalty (e.g., Palestinian-Jew (Italian-American); Jewish Muslim (French Muslim)).

          Sincere questions:
          - Is this your take on it?
          - If ‘no’, could you please explain how you see it?

          Thanks! :-)

        • Shmuel says:

          By removing the religious element from the Jewish identity, it appears to open up “being Jewish” to pretty much anyone who embraces Jewish culture and community (no religious conversion required).

          Speaking for myself (and even that is somewhat presumptuous of me), I have by no means removed the religious element from my Jewish identity. I was raised in the Jewish religion, and identify with Jewish religious texts, philosophy, theology and liturgy. I even identify with the Jewish God I don’t believe in, and the commandments I don’t observe. As far as I am concerned, if someone embraces these things as a part of her/his identity with or without undergoing some sort of conversion ritual, that’s good enough for me – although I don’t really feel the need for ironclad definitions and demarcations. After all, it’s just one component of an individual’s unique multi-faceted identity.

          There’s an old story that Irish Jews like to tell about a certain Cohen who was once stopped at a barricade in Belfast and asked whether he was a Protestant or a Catholic. He replied that he was a Jew, and was then asked whether he was a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew. The Irish Jews I know are definitely Catholic. In other ways, most of the Italian Jews I know are Catholic, and most of the English Jews I know are Protestant.

          I don’t know how helpful any of this is, but it’s one Jew’s opinion (maybe).

        • eee says:

          In my opinion, one cannot claim to be a Jew without caring to some extent and being part of Jewish community. Soon, the majority of Jews worldwide will be in Israel. Any Jew will have to accept that Zionism, even though not identical with Judaism, is a major belief Jews hold and will continue to hold. Of course, there can be schisms. Just like Jews for Jesus are not considered Jews by the community, non-Zionist Jews will eventually be disassociated with the community.

          I say, let’s have the schism now, why wait? That is because unlike Shmuel, many Jews, like Phil Weiss, use their Judaism as a tool to advance their political views and not because they really identify as Jews. Phil identifies as a Jew to fight neoconservatives and Zionism, not because he feels part of the Jewish community or cares for it. Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?

        • eee says:

          Viewing becoming a Jew as “converting into a religion” is where most of you make the conceptual mistake. It is not a conversion, it is an initiation into a tribe. What you call “religion” are the customs of the tribe. And you must learn them to become part of the tribe.

        • James North says:

          [[space reserved for Mooser to have fun with this 3e sentence:]]

          Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?

        • eljay says:

          Thanks for your reply, Shmuel. I can’t say that I entirely understand what you’re saying*, but you’ve given me something to consider. Much appreciated. :-)

          —————
          *Examples:
          - What does it mean for an atheist to identify with a god, commandments or dogma he no longer believes in? How does he do it?
          - If “being Jewish” is a cultural thing, as some people claim, then embracing religious elements should not be part of the equation. I cannot be Muslim without embracing Islam, but I can be Canadian or Croatian or Italian without embracing any religion.

          No need to reply to the above…but any thoughts you may wish to spare will be appreciated. :-)

        • patm says:

          What you call “religion” are the customs of the tribe.

          So, Judaism is not a religion. Thanks for this news flash, 3e.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “It is not a conversion, it is an initiation into a tribe.”

          Great… a Jewish volkisch movement. Because the last such movement turned out so well. (How do you say “Hail Victory” in Hebrew?)

        • DBG says:

          I say, let’s have the schism now, why wait? That is because unlike Shmuel, many Jews, like Phil Weiss, use their Judaism as a tool to advance their political views and not because they really identify as Jews. Phil identifies as a Jew to fight neoconservatives and Zionism, not because he feels part of the Jewish community or cares for it. Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?

          Wow you nailed it there EEE.

        • Shmuel says:

          That is because unlike Shmuel, many Jews, like Phil Weiss … Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?

          What sort of a vetting process do you propose? A House Committee on Un-Jewish Activities?

          And what would such a committee ask? Positions on Israel and Zionism alone are not enough, because Phil and I share very similar views. Familiarity with traditional Jewish sources? Not only would most American Jewish Zionists fail miserably, but so would most secular Israelis. Ditto for religious observance.

          Or, you could just accept the fact that there are many Jews, with many different kinds of Jewish identity, whose views you disagree with or even abhor. Nothing could be more Jewish.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          What was the process by which Jews for Jesus were considered non-Jews? There were no committees or such. It was all a bottom up process. Jewish communities, each by itself rejected them from being part of the community. For example, when Jews for Jesus (also called Messianic Jews) attempted to join chapters of Jewish fraternities they were rejected by the members of each specific chapter and not by some decree from above.

          Nobody can stop Phil calling himself Jewish just as no one can stop the Jews for Jesus people from calling themselves Jews. But also, no one can stop the majority of Jews rejecting them as Jews. I think you will see a bottom up movement that will end in a de facto schism. For example, Hillel rejecting JVP and rightly so. It is a wave that cannot be stopped.

          What will be the criteria? Quite simple, you cannot be part of our Jewish community if you are a member also of X or support X. (X could be Jews for Jesus or JVP or some other organization). What X is will evolve through a bottom up process and discussion.

        • Shmuel says:

          What does it mean for an atheist to identify with a god, commandments or dogma he no longer believes in?

          Let’s just say that the fictional God has been around for so long, that He (sometimes gendered and sometimes not, sometimes anthropomorphic and sometimes not) is a part of the family. The analogy isn’t perfect, but have you never identified with a fictional character? Recommended reading: Y. Malkin, Judaism Without God: Judaism as Culture and the Bible as Literature, and Buber’s Moses (especially the introduction).

          The precepts (and to a lesser extent dogma) are what M.M. Kaplan called “folkways”. They are a part of culture, identity, language and consciousness. They may be accepted, reshaped, intentionally discarded or simply ignored, but they are a part of the Jewish heritage. I won’t recommend Kaplan’s Judaism as a Civilisation because it’s long and boring, but there’s an awful lot you can learn from the title.

          If “being Jewish” is a cultural thing, as some people claim, then embracing religious elements should not be part of the equation.

          That’s just it. The religion is an important, possibly dominant part of the culture. It might sound weird to a Canadian, but makes perfect sense to an Italian (once they get over the semantic oddity of a “Jewish atheist”).

        • Hostage says:

          Viewing becoming a Jew as “converting into a religion” is where most of you make the conceptual mistake. It is not a conversion, it is an initiation into a tribe.

          Conversion is really an extra-biblical legal fiction. Converts are not permitted to marry priests, but they are permitted to marry mamzers who are excluded from “the congregation of the Lord”.

          The folks at Aish point out that God only rests His Divine Presence on the families in Israel who possess purity of lineage (Kiddushin 70b). A mamzer can’t marry another Jew, only another mamzer, a convert, or a non-Jew. They claim that there can be no greater violation of a human right in the eyes of a Jew than the removal of the opportunity to be an earthly repository of the Divine Presence and that the Torah forbids the mamzer to marry in a way that would spread his affliction or spiritual defect. link to aish.com

          The rabbinical authorities in Israel have revoked the conversions of people and their children decades after the fact. So the status of any convert is a little suspect.

        • eee says:

          “So, Judaism is not a religion. Thanks for this news flash, 3e.”

          No, Judaism is more than a religion. Being a Jew means being part of a tribe whose customs are the “religion” you talk about. I know it is hard for you to understand, but I find it amusing when non-Jews presume to tell Jews what Judaism is or is not.

        • eljay says:

          >> … I find it amusing when non-Jews presume to tell Jews what Judaism is or is not.

          It’s not nearly as amusing as watching one atheist Jew tell a bunch of other Jews they’re not Jewish (or not “Jewish enough”).

        • eljay says:

          >> Shmuel @ November 23, 2011 at 12:07 pm

          Thanks again for your reply. More stuff to ponder. :-)

        • Shmuel says:

          What was the process by which Jews for Jesus were considered non-Jews?

          Jesus is different. The long-standing, bitter rivalry with Christianity – first with Jewish Christians and then as a minority within Christian societies – is unique. Similar feelings do not generally extend to Jewish Buddhists (“Ju-Bus”) or to Jewish Sufis (some of whom actually refer to themselves as Jewish Muslims). Belief in Jesus – and especially proselytising in the name of Jesus – is the ultimate Jewish heresy, and has been so for most of Jewish history.

          As I have explained before, by equating anti-Zionism with belief in Jesus you are treating Zionism as if it were a religious dogma, and your desire to expel those you have marked as “heretics” (over what is, after all, an ideological, political and ethical dispute) is rather atavistic, to say the least.

          What will be the criteria? Quite simple, you cannot be part of our Jewish community if you are a member also of X or support X.

          “Are you now or have you ever been a member of JVP?” Very ugly. Will we also be asked to “name names”?

        • American says:

          “Soon, the majority of Jews worldwide will be in Israel”…..eee

          Really? where you going to put them?
          You know the Ayran groups would probably support that plan.
          You really don’t have a grain of sense eee.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          You asked about the process, not the ideas that led to a schism. I described the process to you. Why is “are you a member of JVP” an unreasonable question to ask? You want to paint this as some kind of witch hunt but that is not the case. Groups have every right to decide what ideologies they support and which they don’t. Just as Jews have the right to ask someone if he is part of some evangelical community before letting him join their community they have a right to ask if he is part of JVP or the KKK or any other institution for that matter.

          As for Zionism not being a religious dogma, so what? Why should only religious ideas be a basis for schisms in communities? Soon, the majority of Jews world wide will reside in Israel. By rejecting Zionism, a person is spitting in the face of the soon to be largest Jewish community. How can such a person call himself Jewish?

          For all practical purposes the schism is already happening, JVP could not join Hillel. You are fighting a losing battle because you are preaching to disown 50% of the Jewish community (at least those in Israel). Don’t you realize that the result will be the small anti-Zionist Jewish community being disowned as your ideas are dangerous to the unity and well being of the majority of Jews?

        • Cliff says:

          For all practical purposes the schism is already happening, JVP could not join Hillel. You are fighting a losing battle because you are preaching to disown 50% of the Jewish community (at least those in Israel). Don’t you realize that the result will be the small anti-Zionist Jewish community being disowned as your ideas are dangerous to the unity and well being of the majority of Jews?

          Anti-Zionism is not dangerous to the well being of the ‘majority’ of Jews. Jews live all over the world. There are 5 million Jews in the States. If Israel became a State for it’s citizens rather than a State for Jews lording over non-Jews, Jews worldwide would live with exactly the same security. American Jews aren’t living in Israel. They are living in America. Jews in England, Australia, France, etc. are not going to lose their security as a minority because of anti-Zionism.

          It is anti-Zionist Jews being disowned while you play the victim and say Shmuel is ‘preaching’. JVP was refused. Not AIPAC. Not StandWithUs. ETC ETC

          If being Jewish is synonymous with Zionism then antisemitism is a moral imperative.

          You are a fascist Jewish nationalist trying to use Judaism as a human shield because of the political capital associated with Jewish identity. Just more emotional blackmail to cover your tracks.

          You’re about as Jewish as the dentist from Seinfeld.

        • Shmuel says:

          they have a right to ask if he is part of JVP or the KKK

          KKK? Really? Let me know when someone burns an olive wreath on your lawn.

          By rejecting Zionism, a person is spitting in the face of the soon to be largest Jewish community.

          No, by rejecting Zionism a person is rejecting a political ideology.

          How can such a person call himself Jewish?

          Obviously by espousing a view of Judaism and Jewishness that does not entail support for political Zionism.

          you are preaching to disown 50% of the Jewish community (at least those in Israel).

          Lo hayah velo nivra. Seeking to change the nature of the current political system in Israel. Disowning is your hangup.

          your ideas are dangerous to the unity and well being of the majority of Jews

          You took the words right out of my mouth.

        • Hostage says:

          I’m still genuinely puzzled by how “atheist Jew” works.

          The Jewish religious and secular authorities have always held persons of Jewish descent to a different legal standard, without regard to their personal religious beliefs. Despite what eee claims, the legal status of so-called “Messianic Jews” is not always so clearly defined. See for example Court applies Law of Return to Messianic Jews because of fathers

          The scriptures contain psalms about people who had a heartfelt belief that there is no God and accounts of Jews who claimed that God doesn’t really see us. The authors claimed that some of them worshiped other Gods and disrupted the rituals of the Temple cult in order to drive the God of Israel away from his sanctuary. All of these things were attributed to members of the house of Judah.

          There have been legally recognized Jewish ethnic minority communities since the mid-19th century. The Germans prohibited Jews and atheist Jews alike from holding certain official positions in the government or universities. The various communities were seldom recognized as a single people, nation, or religious sect.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          The facts are what they are: 99.9% of Jews in Israel are Zionist. They want to live in a Jewish state with a Jewish majority . Zionism is not a political ideology, it is an identifying property of Jews in Israel. It is a consensus. By rejecting Zionism you are rejecting the Jewish community in Israel.

          “your ideas are dangerous to the unity and well being of the majority of Jews
          You took the words right out of my mouth.”

          I have the support of 99.9% of the Jews of Israel and you have the support of a small group of diaspora Jew. That does not mean I am right, but it does mean you are rejecting the Jewish community in Israel and belittling their ability to decide for themselves. Furthermore, you call Israeli Jews “privileged” and ask them to relinquish their “privileges”. I find that quite disrespectful to the majority of Jews in Israel who are just trying to muddle through. Let’s agree at least that if you are not “disowning” the Israeli Jewish community, you are at the very least alienating it.

        • Shmuel says:

          The facts are what they are: 99.9% of Jews in Israel are Zionist…. It is a consensus. By rejecting Zionism you are rejecting the Jewish community in Israel.

          The vast majority also believe in capitalism and consumerism. Am I rejecting them by rejecting those ideologies too?

          you are … belittling their ability to decide for themselves.

          No, I am disagreeing with them and questioning the state ideology they (and I) have been raised in.

          Let’s agree at least that if you are not “disowning” the Israeli Jewish community, you are at the very least alienating it.

          You have just finished telling me that they are 99.9% of the community. How could I possibly alienate them. More projection?

          Thanks for admitting that you may not be right. Better ban JVP quick, or someone else might come to that conclusion too.

        • eee says:

          “The vast majority also believe in capitalism and consumerism. Am I rejecting them by rejecting those ideologies too?”

          To a large extent yes. But notice the difference, you reject Zionism in a different way. You do not accept the majority decision on this issue.

          “No, I am disagreeing with them and questioning the state ideology they (and I) have been raised in.”

          You are trying to force change from outside and that is different.

          By the way, JVP is already banned, no need to hurry anywhere.

        • American says:

          “To a large extent yes. But notice the difference, you reject Zionism in a different way. You do not accept the majority decision on this issue”

          What majority eee?….all Jews or Jews in Israel? I accept the majority of Jews in Israel embrace zionism…otherwise they wouldn’t be living there.
          But if even, let’s say 51% of Jews outside of Israel embrace zionism, that’s still very small minority compared to the world’s majority view of Israeli zionism.

        • Mooser says:

          “BTW, I’m also an atheist Jew.”

          I tried to be that. And I don’t want to hear any caviling (if that’s the word I want) because I gave it a hell of a try. But I failed at it, failed miserably. Of course, I know that “Well, I tried not to believe in You, but it ended up that I did, isn’t that nice, don’t You think?” is not going to do me much good when the time comes.
          I better get me some asbestos swimwear, if I have my theology of divine condemnation and retribution on straight.

        • Shmuel says:

          We’ve been through this before, American. 3e has some very strange and self-serving ideas about democracy.

        • eee says:

          American,

          What do you care? You disrespect any majority in the US that does not support your views anyway and are for people rising against the system.

          Your assumption that I should care what the majority of people in the world think about Zionisim is amusing. We had already a period of several years where the UN equated Zionism with racism. I am sure also that the majority of people in the world think the US should pay reparations to the Vietnamese and Iraqis. So, are you going to pay? Didn’t think so.

        • eee says:

          “We’ve been through this before, American. 3e has some very strange and self-serving ideas about democracy.”

          Really Shmuel? Which sovereign nation allows the world to vote on its internal issues? Do the Americans or Europeans care what the whole world would vote, or just what their citizens would vote?

        • Mooser says:

          “Jewish Sufis”

          Ah, you’re talking about “Iceberg” the coolest guy on the beach, and besides, who ever heard of a Jewish surfer?

        • john h says:

          I better get me some asbestos swimwear, if I have my theology of divine condemnation and retribution on straight.

          No worries if you’re not taking the mickey; they tell me you might need wings though.

        • Shmuel says:

          Really, 3e. Human and civil rights are not “internal matters”, to be decided exclusively by an artificial ethnic majority with the presumed support of a majority of non-citizen, non-residents of the same ethnicity. To assert otherwise is to have some very strange and self-serving ideas about democracy – and sovereignty.

        • Shmuel says:

          Well, I tried not to believe in You, but it ended up that I did

          Kind of like not thinking of elephants.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          “Human and civil rights are not “internal matters”, to be decided exclusively by an artificial ethnic majority with the presumed support of a majority of non-citizen, non-residents of the same ethnicity. To assert otherwise is to have some very strange and self-serving ideas about democracy – and sovereignty.”

          Tell that to Turkey and India or are they not democracies and sovereign? How is the Jewish majority in Israel artificial?

        • Mooser says:

          “Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?”

          He said, stamping his feet, foaming at the mouth and waving his fists around to show how calm and not hysterical he is.

        • Mooser says:

          “Why should the Jewish community not put an end to this charade?”

          Wait, don’t forget the wood and gas. You’ll want to burn a Star of David on their lawns first, right? Tradition!

        • Shmuel says:

          3e,

          Are you comparing Israel to Turkey and India? That’s not the kind of company Israel usually likes to keep. And no, the claim of sovereignty does not exempt them from international criticism and “interference” either.

          The Jewish majority in Israel is artificial because it is the result of ethnic cleansing, discriminatory immigration policies and gerrymandering.

        • Hostage says:

          But notice the difference, you reject Zionism in a different way. You do not accept the majority decision on this issue.

          See Commentary magazine “BBC Poll: Israel Ranks with Iran, North Korea as One of World’s Most Unpopular Countries” link to commentarymagazine.com

          Didn’t your folks ever ask you what you’d do if everyone one else was jumping off a bridge? . . . Well this is what they were talking about.

        • eee says:

          Shmuel,

          What is good enough for India and Turkey is good enough for me.

          “The Jewish majority in Israel is artificial because it is the result of ethnic cleansing, discriminatory immigration policies and gerrymandering.”

          The white majority in the US and Australia is “artificial” because it is the result of ethnic cleansing, discriminatory immigration policies and gerrymandering. Oh wait, no one calls those majorities “artificial”, but the Jewish one in Israel is. In fact, all three majorities are very real, nothing artificial about them.

        • tree says:

          Human and civil rights are not “internal matters”, to be decided exclusively by an artificial ethnic majority with the presumed support of a majority of non-citizen, non-residents of the same ethnicity. To assert otherwise is to have some very strange and self-serving ideas about democracy – and sovereignty.

          eee’s position would have categorized the Holocaust as simply an internal German affair, with any one opposing it disrespecting Nazi Germany’s right to conduct its affairs as it saw fit.

        • eee says:

          Hostage,

          Who cares about those polls? Jews were not popular before Israel existed also.

          “Didn’t your folks ever ask you what you’d do if everyone one else was jumping off a bridge? . . . Well this is what they were talking about.”

          So you are arguing that because many people in the world have bad opinions of Israel we should also have bad opinions about Israel? Doesn’t that contradict that whole bridge thing?

        • Shmuel says:

          The white majority in the US and Australia is “artificial” because it is the result of ethnic cleansing, discriminatory immigration policies and gerrymandering.

          You forgot apartheid South Africa, and I forgot the word “ongoing”. There are a few other differences, but I’m sure everyone here knows them by now.

          In any event, my original comment was not about the state of Israeli democracy, but about your ideas of that concept – including your reduction of Jewish opinion to the views of a majority of a community that may one day (but not today) constitute a narrow majority of world Jewry, with little or no regard for the roles of minorities, dissent and protest.

        • Hostage says:

          Which sovereign nation allows the world to vote on its internal issues?

          Just about all of them. Lately it has become common practice with the crisis in sovereign debt.

          I suppose that you are not babbling-on about AIPAC trying to influence the US Congress or the BICOM-Liam Fox scandal. You sure as hell can’t be talking about Gaza, Judea, or Samaria because Israel claims that all of those areas are not part of its sovereign territory or jurisdiction. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

        • patm says:

          No, Judaism is more than a religion. Being a Jew means being part of a tribe whose customs are the “religion” you talk about.

          No, Christianity is more than a religion. Being a Christian means being part of a tribe whose customs are the “religion” you talk about.

          No, Islam is more than a religion. Being a Muslim means being part of a tribe whose customs are the “religion” you talk about.

          What’s the difference here, 3e.

        • Hostage says:

          So you are arguing that because many people in the world have bad opinions of Israel we should also have bad opinions about Israel?

          No, I’m saying that your Jewish majority is way too full of itself. That’s especially true if you really buy-in to that Orwellian nonsense you’re serving-up about peace being dangerous to the Zionist state’s well being. If the Information and Hasbara Minister can’t recruit some better spokespersons – for either love or money – perhaps the Jewish state should exercise the right to remain silent.

        • Djinn says:

          “The white majority in the US and Australia is “artificial” because it is the result of ethnic cleansing, discriminatory immigration policies and gerrymandering. Oh wait, no one calls those majorities “artificial” eee(k)

          Um what? I won’t speak for the US as I’ve spent limited time there but the fact that Australia’s white majority is artificial is explicitly recognized and spoken about. Before almost any public function an acknowledgement is given that the land is Aboriginal land that was never ceded, that it is stolen land. While we have a minority of numpties who you’d likely get on well with who might dispute certain issues around the Stolen Generation or black deaths in custody, NO-ONE in Australia would dispute that the only reason this is a country with a northern European majority is because of invasion & land theft. You’d have to be an utter moron to do so. The same goes for the majority in Israel, sadly however there are MANY Israelis (and Israeli supporters elsewhere) who DO question that patently obvious fact.

        • eee says:

          Djinn,

          Does that mean that Australia is not a democracy because its “northern European majority is because of invasion & land theft”? Of course Australia is a democracy, and so is Israel. Do some aborigine councils have veto over the decisions of the elected government of Australia? No they don’t. The majority decides despite how it was formed. That is the same in Israel.

          I am not arguing about the facts. I accept Benny Moriss’ research. Of course there was ethnic cleansing. But that does not make Israel less a democracy than the US or Australia.

        • annie says:

          perhaps you could direct us to some australian or american legislation that privileges one ethnicity over the others eee.

          and let’s not forget neither australia or the US are keeping the relatives of those they ethnically cleansed from their land held hostage for decades. millions in fact. there is simply no comparison, the suggestion is absurd. unlike israel neither the US or australia are ethnic national states.

        • Cliff says:

          Israel is a democracy for Jews, second-class citizen-ship for Palestinians who were not ethnically cleansed in 1948.

          The point about using this word, democracy, is that it is associated with freedom and equality. It’s generally a ‘good’ thing.

          So people object to ‘democracy’ being associated with your racist apartheid State.

          You are anti-democratic. You’re an ethno-religious fascist.

        • eee says:

          Annie,

          In the US class and ethnicity overlap to a large extent. The laws by which education is provided by mostly local budgets and local school districts privileges significantly the whites in the US.

          As for keeping off the land, the US and Australia limits severely the lands to which its indigenous people have access.

          Of course there is no comparison, what Australia and the US did to form their majorities is much worse.

        • American says:

          “But that does not make Israel less a democracy than the US or Australia”….eee

          O.K. that’s does it eee…no Turkey for you!

        • annie says:

          As for keeping off the land, the US and Australia limits severely the lands to which its indigenous people have access.

          i’m just interested in the legislation eee, not your opinion.

          In the US class and ethnicity overlap to a large extent.

          oh please, there are plenty of poor white people. do you have any federal legislation you can point to or not?

        • Hostage says:

          Of course there was ethnic cleansing. But that does not make Israel less a democracy than the US or Australia.

          Don’t be ludicrous. There are no other modern states which are using their neighbor’s territory to warehouse a large segment of the indigenous population and their descendants in order to privilege an ethnic Zionist minority.

        • American says:

          Your assumption that I should care what the majority of people in the world think about Zionisim is amusing.”…eeee

          Yea, Hitler didn’t care about what the world thought of nazism either.
          I am curious about something eee…how old are you? Cause you sound like some young person in the throes of surging hormones or either a self destructive fanatic.
          In this day and age it behooves nations and people to consider what the wider world thinks of them.

        • eee says:

          “oh please, there are plenty of poor white people. ”

          Oh please there are plenty of rich Arabs in Israel.

          What do you mean, is there federal legislation? What is the whole reservation system about? And you forget this important piece of legislation, the Indian Removal Act:
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          It was never repealed and the lands of the Native Americans affected by this law never returned.

        • patm says:

          “I am curious about something eee…how old are you? Cause you sound like some young person in the throes of surging hormones or either a self destructive fanatic. In this day and age it behooves nations and people to consider what the wider world thinks of them.”

          3e is a curious case, American. He’s a former idf soldier, I believe, which has made me think of a recent article in Toronto’s ‘Globe and Mail’ about Canadian soldiers: “Nearly 1 in 4 Afghan veterans suffer from mental illness, study shows”.

          He sure is going a blue streak this week, and it’s all crazy nonsense.

          link to theglobeandmail.com

        • annie says:

          ah, the 1830′s. impressive/not. i heard the Indian Imprisonment Act of 1675 has not been repealed either. yet, unlike israel, in my lifetime i have not ever heard of these laws being enforced. have you?

          Oh please there are plenty of rich Arabs in Israel.

          and how does this support your theory that US class and ethnicity overlap to a large extent. our government doesn’t warehouse millions of people people with no rights or citizenship. the indigenous people here are citizens like me. this whole lie of sharing values is a myth, a myth that will become clearer and clearer as people learn the facts. this video is a perfect example of peoples misconceptions about what is going on over there and believe me this video ( link to mondoweiss.net ) won’t go away during his campaign. he’s a fool who knows nothing about the reality over there. the goi doesn’t recognize any rights for millions under occupation.

          my son’s girlfriend had no idea no charges had to filed against paleastinians, that they could just be picked up and held in administrative detention indefinitely. people will find out all this. israel does not share our values, not in the least. they are an ethnic nationalist state, we are not.

        • Hostage says:

          What do you mean, is there federal legislation? What is the whole reservation system about?

          Those are lands managed by a Native American tribe. There are over 500 federally recognized tribes, but only about 300 reservations. Everyone living on a reservation enjoys freedom of movement and freedom of residence.

          The Federal Statutes have been revised several times since President Jackson’s day. No provision of the 1830 Act “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi” is part of the US Code today. The only mention of the act is in 25 U.S.C. § 174, which requires the President to ensure that the tribes or nations be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever. link to codes.lp.findlaw.com

          There is no legal prohibition against any Native Americans establishing a legal residence east of the Mississippi or anywhere else in the United States. In 1946 a statute was enacted which provided for compensation for expropriated lands, The Indian Claims Commission Act (1946). Can you say the same for residency rights in Israel or compensation for the Palestinian refugees? Some of the members of the Oklahoma tribes and nations did return to their original territory. See for example the web page on the history of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation. link to thomaslegion.net

        • eee says:

          Annie,

          Why are you waffling again? Have the lands taken from the Native Americans by the Indian Removal Act ever been given back? No. Have they ever been compensated for their land? No. Is the perpetrator of this act being honored by being on the most common US bill? Yes. So of course you change the subject.

        • annie says:

          Oh please there are plenty of rich Arabs in Israel.

          and how does this support your theory that US class and ethnicity overlap to a large extent.

          whose waffling eee? i ask you to direct us to some australian or american legislation that privileges one ethnicity over the others and you bring up legislation from our colonizing days that are over?

          listen, if you want to assert modern day israel shares the same values as america did when we were colonizing and ethnically cleansing native american land i’ll join you in that. but we ended that practice as far as i know. the people we stole land from, unlike israel, were offered citizenship (albeit it took awhile). so as far as i know they have the same access to land as everyone else. may not be fair but it’s definitely not zionist. ie doesn’t share out values NOW.

        • Hostage says:

          eee you are overlooking the fact that the so-called “Indian Removal Act” provided federal land west of the Mississippi to the tribes and nations, e.g. See the text of the Act “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi”:
          link to memory.loc.gov
          link to memory.loc.gov

          In 1946 a statute was enacted which provided for compensation for expropriated Native American lands, The Indian Claims Commission Act (1946).

          You also might want to brush up on a few of the other statutes, e.g. The Citizenship Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b) (1924); the Freedom from Federal Supervision Act (1953), 67 Stat. B132 (1953); the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. § 450; & etc.

          There are very few parallels to the treatment of the Palestinian refugees.

        • Hostage says:

          Have they ever been compensated for their land? No.

          Here is a little further reading for you on the various Native American claims settlements for the tribes and nations:
          CHAPTER 19—INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS

          SUBCHAPTER I—RHODE ISLAND INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1701—1716)

          SUBCHAPTER II—MAINE INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1721—1735)

          SUBCHAPTER III—FLORIDA INDIAN (MICCOSUKEE) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1741—1750e)

          SUBCHAPTER IV—CONNECTICUT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1751—1760)

          SUBCHAPTER V—MASSACHUSETTS INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1771—1771i)

          SUBCHAPTER VI—FLORIDA INDIAN (SEMINOLE) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1772—1772g)

          SUBCHAPTER VII—WASHINGTON INDIAN (PUYALLUP) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1773—1773j)

          SUBCHAPTER VIII—SENECA NATION (NEW YORK) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1774—1774h)

          SUBCHAPTER IX—MOHEGAN NATION (CONNECTICUT) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1775—1775h)

          SUBCHAPTER X—CROW LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1776—1776k)

          SUBCHAPTER XI—SANTO DOMINGO PUEBLO LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1777—1777e)

          SUBCHAPTER XII—TORRES-MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA INDIANS CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1778—1778h)

          SUBCHAPTER XIII—CHEROKEE, CHOCTAW, AND CHICKASAW NATIONS CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1779—1779g)

          SUBCHAPTER XIV—PUEBLO DE SAN ILDEFONSO CLAIMS SETTLEMENT (§§ 1780—1780p)
          link to law.cornell.edu

          I’d suggest that you follow the instructions in the Hasbara Handbook and attempt to reframe this debate to focus on a different issue. This one isn’t working out very well for you.

        • patm says:

          “There are very few parallels to the treatment of the Palestinian refugees.”

          The few parallels there are (the past tense is more appropriate) are pretty horrendous: racism, bigotry, and ethnic cleansing are three that come to mind.

        • annie says:

          you keep rocking our world hostage. thanks on this thanksgiving day.

          and thanks to everyone here trying to make the world a better place.

          and a huge should out to the indigenous people we screwed over and i know lots of this legislation is still pending. hopefully we can continue to improve in the coming century. and i’m sorry.

        • MHughes976 says:

          The legal side of the story isn’t everything. Rebecca Solnit in ‘Storming the Gates of Paradise’ writes interestingly of the ‘Indians’. ‘No other ethnic group in the United States’ she says ‘is…certified in somewhat the same way that Old Master paintings are identified’ (p.34). ‘As extras from the Golden Age they are assumed to have faded into the sunset along with the credits’. There is quite a strong analogy with what is happening to the Palestinians, who are being prepared for a role as a museum piece or as characters – savage, intrusive, just a bit picturesque – in the romantic story of ‘how the Middle East was won’.
          Terrible crimes have been committed in the formation of western nations. The Arthurian romances in their way reveal and conceal those committed ‘in the matter of Britain’. If I identified with one of the sets of victims (my Welsh ancestors would probably think of me as a half-breed sellout) I might not think that the western victors had ever fully paid the price. But they have taken the minimum step of full enfranchisement, without relevant exception, of all those subject to their sovereign power. This Israel has not done and will never do.
          WF Albright, the archaeologist/linguist/theologian who did so much to establish what he called ‘the essential historicity’ of the Bible narrative, was highly conscious of the ancient Israel/modern America parallel. He seems to have with most of his mind thought that they were mutually validating stories, with a little of it to have suspected that God would visit the sins of the conquerors on them one day.

        • MHughes976 says:

          All of us here owe a great debt to you too, annie. I’d just like you to know, since you were concerned, that my Bella Freud/Tilda Swinton scarf has now had several outings and been noticed. Some people say they agree with the message, some freeze in a funny way but no one has suggested that I’m cross-dressing, though one person (a priest) did say that it would help my wife to find me in the dark. It is in fact quite unnecessary for that purpose.

        • emanresu says:

          It surprises me that you use the Indian Claims Commission (1946-1978) to distinguish US colonial-settler behavior from its Israeli equivalent. I think that the State of Israel would be perfectly happy to settle Palestinian claims according to that dubious precedent, wherein:

          * The USA assigned to itself, rather than a neutral party, the decision of whether to grant a claim and how much to pay. Moreover, payment was calculated in terms of the land’s value at the time it was taken, irrespective of any increase in the land’s value or the value of any minerals or oil extracted from the land in the intervening time.

          * The Claims Commission was permitted to offset awards by subtracting money expended by the government on police and other public services to the native claimants.

          * The Claims Commission was under no circumstances permitted to return the claimants’ land itself.

          * One of the purposes of the Claims Commission was to clear title to the 35 percent of the continental US that had never even been formally seized from the native inhabitants by “treaty,” but which the US nevertheless claimed as public land.

          * The Claims Commission paid out about 800 million dollars before it closed up shop in 1978–not a bad price for the theft of a continent.

          (See Ward Churchill, Acts of Rebellion: Ward Churchill Reader).

        • Hostage says:

          It surprises me that you use the Indian Claims Commission (1946-1978) to distinguish US colonial-settler behavior from its Israeli equivalent. I think that the State of Israel would be perfectly happy to settle Palestinian claims according to that dubious precedent

          You’d be wrong, because Israel has not granted citizenship or compensation to all of the Palestinian refugees it exiled in 48 or 67. I’ve addressed the issue of compensation for Israeli citizens before, when it was suggested that the PLO was abandoning the Palestinian citizens living within Israel’s green line; that it represents them at the UN; or that the State of Palestine can act as their agent for compensation claims, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net

          Here is what I said: 972 Magazine recently ran an article which said that polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicated 90 percent of the refugees preferred compensation in lieu of the right of return to Israel. Abbas’s comments during the March 2009 meeting (above) reflected that there would be a firm requirement for Israeli compensation of the refugees in any event. Ali Abunimah took issue with the poll because “the question offered a choice between return and compensation as if refugees are entitled to only one or the other.”

          In reality, opting to exercise the “right of return” will undoubtedly work against an individual’s “right to compensation”. Resolution 181(II) allowed the states to expropriate property from the members of ethnic and religious minority groups. It gave the Supreme Courts of the respective states the discretion to decide upon the amount of compensation in such cases. Resolution 194(III) did not alter that situation. So far, Israel has never treated internally displaced Arab citizens as refugees and has never compensated all of those existing “present but absent” Palestinian citizens for the property turned over to the Israeli state custodian. The existing Israeli Supreme Court precedents beginning with CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) have cited Hans Kelsen’s article, “Theorie generale du droit international public, problemes choisis”, in vol. 49 of the Recueil des Cours of the Hague Academy of International Law:

          “In so far as concerns debts due to individuals who become, as a result of territorial changes, citizens of the successor State, here there can arise no question of a legal succession based upon principles of general international law itself. The relations between the State and its citizens are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in question which can therefore, acting in full accord with international law, decide quite freely whether it will take upon itself debts such as these” (p. 329).

          The United States did elect to pay claims for compensation, but in most cases Israel has not.

        • LeaNder says:

          This discussion is starting to depress me. I have relatives in all of these groups :-(

          my impression from reading some of the exchanges with you during the last days make me feel that’s no surprise.

          I’ll cheque Yaacov Malkin, meeting Gertel on the way, pleased there is even a kindle edition.

        • Hostage says:

          The Claims Commission was under no circumstances permitted to return the claimants’ land itself.

          That limitation was only applicable to the 1946 Statute. If you check the Congressional findings contained in Chapter 19 of Title 25, you’ll find that the US Supreme Court has subsequently awarded the title to land to the tribes in several cases and found the US government liable for mismanagement, e.g. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_25_00001779—-000-.html

          (See Ward Churchill, Acts of Rebellion: Ward Churchill Reader).

          I would advise him to read Choctaw Nation vs. Oklahoma (396 U.S. 620), 1970. et seq link to supreme.justia.com and Chapter 19 of Title 25,

        • Shmuel says:

          I’ll cheque Yaacov Malkin, meeting Gertel on the way, pleased there is even a kindle edition.

          OK, full disclosure: I translated the book (as well as other works by Malkin), but I do think that he explains the views of Secular Humanistic Judaism (and secular Judaism in general) quite well. Besides, I don’t get any royalties ;-)

        • LeaNder says:

          looks interesting. Unfortunately I can’t follow all your interesting hints. Bureaucratic duties ;)

        • emanresu says:

          Choctaw Nation v Oklahoma, 397 U.S.620 (1970) did enforce treaty agreements which granted to the Choctaw and Cherokee portions of the bed of the Arkansas River, an area that these tribes actually inhabited when the case was decided. It did not address the question of title or compensation for the lands seized– or from complete expulsion of these tribes– from their historic homelands in Mississippi and Georgia. Consequently, I do not think it would win Ward Churchill’s applause, nor do I think it provides basis to distinguish US colonial-settler behavior from its Israeli equivalent.

          You link to 25 US § 1779 (eff. 2002) (authorizing the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chicasaw Claims settlements, there were other Claims settlement provisions for other tribes), but only to the prefactory findings by Congress. (§ 1779). Read further and discover that the true purpose of the provision is to extinguish tribal claims in exchange for (meager) payments. (§ 1779a-f). Note also: as in Choctaw Nation, we are talking about disputes in regards to the land to which the tribes had been moved, not disputes as their original homelands. Here are some of the highlights of § 1779 :

          * “The purposes of this subchapter are to resolve all claims that have been or could have been brought by the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations against the United States, and to confirm that the Indian Nations are forever disclaiming any right, title, or interest in the Disclaimed Drybed Lands, which are contiguous to the channel of the Arkansas River as of the date of the enactment of this subchapter in certain townships in eastern Oklahoma.” (§ 1779a)

          * Pursuant to their respective tribal resolutions, and in exchange for the benefits conferred under this subchapter, the Indian Nations shall, on the date of enactment of this subchapter, enter into a consent decree with the United States that waives, releases, and dismisses all the claims they have asserted or could have asserted in their cases. . . pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the United States, including but not limited to claims arising out of any and all of the Indian Nations’ interests in the Disclaimed Drybed Lands and arising out of construction, maintenance and operation of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation Way. 25 US § 1779c(a).

          * The total settlement authorized for Cherokee, Choctaw,and Chkickaw claims was 80 million dollars. § 1779c(c).

          * [I]f any party other than a claimant tribe holds transferred interests in or to the Disclaimed Drybed Lands in violation of section 177 of Title 25, Congress approves and ratifies those transfers of interests. §1779f.

        • Hostage says:

          It did not address the question of title or compensation for the lands seized– or from complete expulsion of these tribes– from their historic homelands in Mississippi and Georgia. Consequently, I do not think it would win Ward Churchill’s applause, nor do I think it provides basis to distinguish US colonial-settler behavior from its Israeli equivalent.

          The tribes were given lands in exchange for their historic homelands and they can’t equitably claim both – even if that would make Churchill applaud. Nothing prevents the tribes from selling their lands, and purchasing properties east of the Mississippi.

          that the true purpose of the provision is to extinguish tribal claims in exchange for (meager) payments. (§ 1779a-f).

          All settlements have the purpose of extinguishing claims. The Statute notes that these were adopted “Pursuant to their respective tribal resolutions”. You haven’t provided any evidence that $80 million was a merger amount of compensation for the dry riverbed in question or that Israel has similarly provided lands that it had previously purchased. Israel obviously has no intention of paying compensation in line with a resolution adopted by any group of displaced Palestinian refugees.

        • Mooser says:

          “Mam-zer, how I love ya, how I love ya, my dear old Mamzer…..’
          Oh, sorry, got carried away.

        • Mooser says:

          Hostage, you are apparently not aware that Zionism sits on a stool of basic legal argument, and its two legs are:

          1)All the problems of the Jews must be solved by the world, immediately! Anything else is anti-Semitism.!
          2) Any problems created by Israel or Zionism cannot even be discussed until every other problem in the world is solved. To do otherwise is anti-Semitism!

          I ask you, with two such sturdy legs as that, could the stool of Zionism fail to stand through the ages?

        • emanresu says:

          They cannot equitably claim both, but they can be equitably compensated for both. If a person loses two homes, he or she ought to be compensated for both, not just one.

          I would hardly say that the Choctaw and Cherokee willingly and voluntarily exchanged their vast ancestral homelands in Mississippi and Alabama for much less valuable and spacious land in Arkansas (which, also, forced them to undergo the Trail of Tears, which killed thousands), especially since the US government made its intention to commit ethnic cleansing clear in the run-up to and passage of the Indian Removal Act (1830).

          You say that I have provided no evidence that 80 million dollars compensation was insufficient for the riverbed. However, the factual findings by Congress, to which you link, provided no evidence either, yet cap any potential compensation at 80 million dollars. If the goal was to adequately compensate claimants, there would have been a prior determination of fair market value by a neutral factfinder and no cap.

        • Hostage says:

          You say that I have provided no evidence that 80 million dollars compensation was insufficient for the riverbed. However, the factual findings by Congress, to which you link, provided no evidence either, yet cap any potential compensation at 80 million dollars.

          The evidence you are overlooking is that the $80 million was paid to the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw pursuant to resolutions adopted by the nations and tribes themselves. They negotiated and accepted the offer in exchange for dismissing their pending court cases. That may not constitute an abandonment of all of their claims by the way. The legal status of Native American groups; enforcement of treaties with indigenous peoples; permanent sovereignty of colonial peoples over their natural resources; and international compensation schemes for the victims of the slave trade and other crimes against humanity are the subject of evolving laws and customary state practice. All of those subjects have been taken-up by the UN and the human rights treaty monitoring bodies. For example, I’ve mentioned here in the past that a group of Western Shoshone rejected a resolution involving a $140 million settlement, after it had been accepted by the Tribal Council, and appealed to the UN CERD treaty body:
          *http://www.treatycouncil.org/section_2114421321.htm
          *Early Warning And Urgent Action Procedure Decision 1 (68) United States Of America link to ericmerrill.com

          They cannot equitably claim both, but they can be equitably compensated for both. If a person loses two homes, he or she ought to be compensated for both, not just one.

          a) The Chickasaw actually sold their eastern lands to the United States government, then leased lands in the west from the Choctaws, and created a trust fund that yielded an annual income for their tribe. So, the loss of two homes was not the basis of their claims under these acts.
          b) The federal land allocated in the Indian territory of Oklahoma to the other nations and tribes was part of the total compensation provided to date for the lands taken by various treaties east of the Mississippi;
          c) Beginning in 1881, Congress repeatedly authorized the Court of Claims to adjudicate complaints brought by the Indian tribes, e.g. The Choctaw Claims Act, “an act for the ascertainment of the amount due the Choctaw Nation”, 21 Stat 504 (March 3, 1881).
          c) One of the landmark rulings of the Federal Claims Court was that dismissal of claims after arrangement of a settlement out of court is not necessarily to be construed as full adjudication. See Delaware Tribe v. United States, 2 Ind. Cl. Com. 536; affirmed 130 Ct. Cls. 783 (1955).

          I would hardly say that the Choctaw and Cherokee willingly and voluntarily exchanged their vast ancestral homelands in Mississippi and Alabama for much less valuable and spacious land in Arkansas (which, also, forced them to undergo the Trail of Tears, which killed thousands)

          These settlements did not include claims for any past crimes against humanity, and I’m not aware of any court cases of that nature filed by the tribes. Of course the nations and tribes were moved under duress. Like most colonial-settler societies, the US practiced forced racial segregation or apartheid and in many cases offered dispossession or displacement as the only alternative to persecution or extermination. My point was that, unlike Israel, the United States has ended the practice of forced racial segregation or territorial exclusion, given citizenship and civil rights to the Native Americans, and provided them a legal framework for obtaining compensation.

          FYI, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek did allow some Choctaw to remain in Mississippi. The movement of the remainder of the members was characterized as a “voluntary removal aimed at preserving their freedom or autonomy, since the states and territorial governments were intent upon extending their jurisdiction and annexing the Indian lands in the east. Some members also remained behind on white-owned or privately-owned lands, but they were persecuted and received no protection from the federal government against squatters. There were still a few Choctaw found in Mississippi, Seminole in Florida, Creek in Alabama, and Cherokee in North Carolina.

          Although the presence of Choctaws, Cherokees, and Chickasaws west of the Mississippi is usually attributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, small parties from those nations and tribes were already settling in Arkansas, the Indian Territory (Oklahoma), and east Texas as early as 1807. They migrated west for many of the same reasons that whites were moving west.

        • straightline says:

          I have a feeling of deja vu here, eee, but I should never expect you to read what others say except to make a point. As someone living in Australia, for once I agree with you, eee – yes the settlement of Australia by Europeans involved land theft. I might try to find an excuse by saying that Aborigines were not a settled people but that is just what it is – an excuse. While there is significant political debate about how to help the Aborigines, I have to say that we, on the whole, now respect and understand what we did to them. We acknowledge that we have built on the land of Aboriginal people – in fact at many major gatherings the introductory speech acknowledges that we are on the land of the Wauthaurong people (or whatever tribe are the traditional owners of that land) . Aborigines now have freedom to live anywhere in Australia and take a job anywhere. Of course this is all a myth really – economically most of them cannot afford to live just anywhere in this country with the highest house prices in the world relative to income. We have said we are sorry for what we did to them, we provide them with social services, we do our best (well perhaps not quite our best) to integrate those that want to be integrated and to allow those who want to live in the traditional ways to do so. Some of them own large amounts of land and are farming it. No it is not satisfactory – we could do more – but we do not shoot them any more, we do not dispossess them any more, we do not discriminate against them (well perhaps we do but we are conscious of it and try not to). Not perfect but improving.

          Now coming back to your comparison of India and Israel. As far as I am aware India does not constrain immigration according to (as you would say) tribal membership. I am not sure that Indians would understand the notion of a “tribe” – caste is quite different. India has significant populations of multiple religions – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and even a few Jews none of whom are systematically discriminated against. It does not systematically bomb populations under its control. If only Israel were like India.

    • seafoid says:

      the growth of Jewish religious extremism is a threat to the state of Israel and its democratic secular character, comparable to the threat posed to Israel by the Palestinian Islamists

      It’s worse. Hamas have no access to the levers of power. The orthodox and the settlers are going to tear Israel apart

      Israeli journalists hold urgent meeting on press freedom

      link to haaretz.com

      Self victimising right is misleading the people

      link to haaretz.com

      New rabbinical courts will lead to oppression of women

      link to haaretz.com

      Ultra-Orthodox need not protest Israel, they run it

      link to haaretz.com

      Those are just TODAY’S articles. Israel is in crisis.

      • annie says:

        seafoid, the “New rabbinical courts will lead to oppression of women” link you posted is really important. i’ve been watching this unflod for a few days and it…i think it is some of the most draconian news i have heard about this ‘democracy’ business in a long time. this will make it very hard for women in israel due to the nature of the rabbinical court. i actually tried writing about it but couldn’t explain it. it was a shitty deal made behind closed doors within israel’s bar association, and the extremists in the knesset. plus, it doesn’t stop there. last night some legislation passed which could have serious implications for the supreme court judges.

        link to jpost.com

        this is being reported as a freedom of the press thing but it is a lot more than that. it is what the press is not allowed to see, what is going on behind those back doors, that is the bigger story:

        Significantly, the names of those judges put forward as candidates for the Supreme Court judiciary were not publicly released this year – even though the committee is required by law to do so 30 days before the selection meeting takes place.

        “The public is locked out of this important process of selecting Supreme Court justices,” said Nahon. “If the candidate list had been released to the public, we could have had a process of discussing it.

        Increased transparency would allow a debate about the constrictions and the equilibrium in the Supreme Court.”

        However, since the process went on behind closed doors, with only leaks and rumors slipping through, the public was not given information on important issues related to the judicial selection process.

        “For example, we don’t know how many candidates are women, if there were Sephardi or haredi candidates,” said Nahon.”

        paul mutter wrote a little about this legislation last july. it’s too complicated for me to understand be we can be sure it won’t be covered by the msm here.

        • seafoid says:

          Annie

          The last month has seen a load of very disturbing news come out of Israel and only a fraction gets covered anywhere . The takeover of the apparatus of democracy is well advanced now.

    • Mooser says:

      Jonah says: “the growth of Jewish religious extremism is a threat to the state of Israel and its democratic secular character”

      ROTFLMSJAO!! (Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Skinny Jewish Ass Off!)
      Yeah, you tell ‘em, Jonah! Stand up for them Zionist “democratic secular” values. Yup, with guys like you in the vanguard, Israel can be as “secular” and “democratic” as Germany was “socialist” and “national”.

    • ToivoS says:

      Jonah let’s us know:

      On this I agree for once with the “critics” of Israel: the growth of Jewish religious extremism is a threat to the state of Israel

      I agree and that is why I happen to support the growth of religious extremism. It was a terrible mistake in 1948 and whatever it takes to rectify that mistake the better.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Yes. It’s been clear for a long time that Israel’s fall would be due to internal stresses, not external threats. The process is accelerating rapidly now. No sane person will want to continue living under such conditions.

  10. Kathleen says:

    Oh but Barak just said on Charlie Rose that Israel only builds in “empty areas”
    link to charlierose.com
    25:oo Barak “we build in empty areas”
    “settlements not an impediment”
    “settlements not a problem”

    Not just Netanyahu who is a liar

  11. Kathleen says:

    Are these folks exempt from serving in the Israeli army?

    • Mooser says:

      Wow, those ZIonists are picky! I mean, either you are not Jewish enough for them, or you are too Jewish for them. They’re never satisfied.
      Jeez, a guy would need three changes of kippah, a couple different suits of clothes, just to get through Tel Aviv. Actually the safest way to travel is probably on a buffet cart. They have spit-sheilds, you know?

  12. Kathleen says:

    “And hat’s off to us: We got on this minister Atias’s crazy ideas two years ago. “What democratic values do we supposedly share?”"

    Hats off for sure

  13. annie says:

    in case people have not opened the “What democratic values do we supposedly share?” link from 09 here is what it says:

    Housing Minister Ariel Atias on Thursday warned against the spread of Arab population into various parts of Israel, saying that preventing this phenomenon was no less than a national responsibility.

    “I see [it] as a national duty to prevent the spread of a population that, to say the least, does not love the state of Israel,” Atias told a conference of the Israel Bar Association, which focused on a reforming Israel’s Land Administration.

    The Shas minister referred to Harish, a housing project built for the Haredi community in northern Israel, saying that the Arab population from the nearby Wadi Ara was spreading into the Harish area.

    and once again they are using their religious extremists to carry out israel’s
    “national responsibility” ie “ethnic cleansing”

  14. Kathleen says:

    ot
    Obama says he will veto efforts to undo cuts

    Read more: link to upi.com

    • dahoit says:

      The poser is just trying to position himself as fiscally prudent and trying to capture some of that tea party indignation,but as he spends our tax dollars like the proverbial drunken sailor on war and corporate enabling while eviscerating the social safety net I don’t believe anyone is fooled,except those oxymoronic liberals who aint liberal but neolibcon world destruction enablers.
      Check out how our alleged democratic friends in South Korea forced through the trade pact that is equally hated by our disenfranchised citizens but loved by the banksters. The opposition tried to delay the vote by using tear gas to empty the Diet?But choking back crocodile? tears the traitors to their people voted for it.Another case of big business over the peoples wishes like Italy,Greece and here.

  15. Apartheid, dispossession, denial of an entire people’s right to exist, refusal of equal civil rights, and slow ethnic cleansing. There you have it, all in one representative move – Israel’s claim to be democratic exposed as a hollow scam.

  16. benedict says:

    Annie –

    You have a very confused understanding of chareidi Judaism or of the role of jewish religion in contemporary Israeli society. I don’t blame you for that since the issue IS complicated and even many secular Israelis don’t understand it properly. However as an outsider with a very limited understanding of the inner dynamics of Israeli society I would expect you to show a little more restraint and humility before you barge into topics you know little about. Ignorance doesn’t serve anybody, especially not the Palestinian cause.

    Here are some pertinent points:

    a. Historically chareidi groups where non-Zionistic (agudat Israel), and in some cases anti-zionistic (neturei karta, satmar). In fact, an early chareidi leader, Dr Jacob Dehan, was assassinated in the early twenties by Zionist zealots because of his efforts to reach a non-zionistic understanding with Palestinian leadership.

    b. Until today chareidim typically don’t serve in the army (a source of constant irritation for the general Israeli public, but that is a separate issue) and some chareidi politicians don’t serve as ministers and don’t sit in the Israeli cabinet. Chareidim don’t celebrate Israel’s independence day and usually don’t participate in memorial day events, nether do they stand during the customary 2-minute memorial siren.

    c. Chareidi leadership is very critical of Zionist ideology, especially of its militarism and veneration of force. Until the late seventies the main chareidi party, agudat Israel, didn’t join the ruling coalition (except for a very short time right in the beginning of the state). Chareidi parties are politically dovish: they voted against annexation of Golan heights in the early 80′s, supported talks with the PLO in the late 80′s, supported the oslo program in the early 90′s. The Israeli withdrawal from gaza strip was achieved with tacit chareidi support.

    d. Chareidim are wary about settlement activity in the west bank. Despite a very severe housing problem there are only two chareidi settlements in the west bank – Modin ilit and Beitar ilit – both of them almost exactly on the green line thus providing no obstacle for a future peace agreement with a Palestinian state

    e. Extreme settlers and kahana supporters are not chareidi. They are national religious (NR) and that is something completely different.

    f. Because of there high birthrate the chareidim suffers from a severe housing problem. The only alternative to building more settlements in the west bank is to settle them inside the green line. Charish is not in any “Palestinian area”. It is within Israel proper, just off highway 6, perhaps half an hour away from tel aviv. (the guy claiming charish to be in northern Israel obviously doesn’t have a clue about Israel geography). If building a Jewish town in charish is illegitimate then a can’t think of anywhere else it might be legitimate. Where do you expect young jewish couples to live? Perhaps in the sea?

    • patm says:

      Benedict, can you clear up a question for me about Haredi Jews in Israel.

      I understand—and you state above—that historically the Haredi Jews have not be Zionists. What is their position re Zionism today? Are they Zionists now? Would they be willing to live in a one-nation state with the Palestinians? Thanks.

      • benedict says:

        patm-

        Chareidi attitude towards Zionism did not change, however the reality of Israel becoming the largest community of jews in the world can not be ignored. The concern of modern day chareidim is for the wellbeing of the jewish people, not for the existence of the state per se.

        As for the chareidi attitude to a 1SS – there currently is no conceptual framework for such a solution and very little reason to assume that it will work. At current time 1SS is considered either an unworkable fantasy or a sure fire recipe for a really nasty civil war so nobody takes it seriously.

        • Shmuel says:

          Chareidi attitude towards Zionism did not change

          I disagree. Haredim have become increasingly nationalistic over the years (if not exactly Herzlites), especially due to changes within Shas, the Habad movement, and the factors that have moved the Israeli public in general to the right. You noted that there are only two Haredi settlements – Betar Ilit and Modi’in Ilit – but failed to mention Haredi settlements in East Jerusalem (such as Ramat Shlomo and the older Ramot Polin), and the fact that Betar I. and Modi’in I. are two of the largest settlements in the WB. The fact that so many Haredim today live over the Green Line has also had an impact on Haredi public opinion, shifting it to the right. To the extent that it once existed, Haredi “dovishness” is largely a thing of the past.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Well, it’s hardly any surprise. The Haredi have benefited from the rape of Palestine, maybe not as much as “secular Jewish” militants and terrorists, but still. I guess profit has loosened their moral convictions.

        • benedict says:

          Shmuel-

          One of the unique characteristics of chareidi politics is that the opinions and personal feeling of the individual chareidi voter don’t really count. Chareidi Knesset members are elected by popular vote but once in they are controlled by rabbinical leadership that is still quit rigid and traditional in its opposition to Zionism. The fact that personally charedim might be quit hawkish is irrelevant. To put it bluntly – its not there opinion that counts but their rabbis opinion, and I have yet to see any significant change in charedi rabbis attitude to Zionism.

          The most startling example I can think of was the gaza withdrawal when despite intensive grassroots effort by settlers and chareidi right wingers to sway rabbinic opinion against sharon’s move rabbinical authorities remained stubbornly silent to the point of raising the speculation (that didn’t materialize) of a chreidi voters uprising. And that didn’t happen that long ago. So I think despite everything chareidi dovishnes is still alive and kicking.

          Very few Israelis (including leftist) consider ramot to be a settlement or part of “east Jerusalem”. As I pointed out, all chareidi settlements in the WB are literally borderline, a fact that is not by chance.

        • Shmuel says:

          benedict,

          I don’t know whether you are observing the Haredi “world” from the outside, or trying to present an idealised version of the way things work. Of course the Haredi parties have their respective “councils of sages”, but there are internal intrigues and a far greater responsiveness to “the street” than leaders or followers would care to admit. This is particularly evident in Shas. The Ovadiah Yosef of today is not the Ovadiah Yosef of Oslo, and his sons (and daughter) who largely control the “court” are certainly very nationalistic, both of their own accord and in response to their followers.

          Agudat Yisrael was basically destroyed from within, inter alia because of the very hawkish position taken by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The ramifications within the Haredi community go well beyond Habad’s own (far from insignificant) adherents.

          I was once close to the Haredi “world” myself, and have many Haredi relatives (both Ashkenazi and Mizrahi). The mood on the Haredi street today is not the same as when I was growing up (early 80s) or even the late ’90s. The state and “national” interests are far closer to the hearts of Haredim than ever before, although they would still vehemently deny that they have become Zionists.

          You are right that most Israelis don’t consider East Jerusalem occupied territory, but making the Haredim complicit in the Zionist plan of Judaising the city (“maximum territory, minimum Arabs”) has left its mark. These are not the old Haredim of Ge’ulah, Bayit Ve-Gan or Mattersdorf, and they have an important presence within in the community. (A side issue is the growing Haredi middle class that intermingles with NR and secular Israelis and has been greatly influenced by their Zionism. There is also a growing Haredi subculture, often called the Haredi “shabab”, that is both inside and outside the Haredi community, and tends to nationalism and even ultra-nationalism.)

          As for Betar Ilit and Modi’in Ilit, it’s sucked them into the settlement project, whether they like it or not – all the more so considering a certain rigidity of thought regarding what is “permitted” and “forbidden”. They and their leaders may not be willing to live in the heart of the “wild east”, where there is actual physical and imagined “spiritual” danger stemming from the proximity to Arabs, but it is much harder for them to vote against Ofra or Psagot (or even Katif – although that was a few years ago and I’m not sure could be pulled off again) than it used to be.

          And one more thing that also has a lot to do with the Shas revolution (remember Deri’s “we are the real Zionists”?), and that is the desire to influence the country as a whole, far beyond the old style “religious coercion”. The Haredi parties (and Shas in particular) want to influence public opinion and take part in determining the character of Israeli society. They have thus brought to bear – in cooperation with the parties of the far right – their own brand of religiously-inspired racism, heightened and shaped by the ultra-nationalist chauvinism of many, if not most of their voters. This is more than apparent in the Knesset and in the statements of their leaders.

        • patm says:

          The Haredi parties (and Shas in particular) want to influence public opinion and take part in determining the character of Israeli society.

          Shmuel, thanks for your response to benedict. What follows is an excerpt from the Haaretz article “Ultra-Orthodox need not protest Israel, they run it.”

          “Only a fanatical ultra-religious minority still demonstrate in Jerusalem. The rest of the Haredi community has realized long ago that there is no need for protests when you control all the necessary committees and budgets. And secular mayor Nir Barkat has not changed that situation in any way since being elected in 2008, thanks to a rare intra-haredi split. His coalition is also dominated by the religious parties. The secret municipal committee that censors all advertising publicly displayed in Jerusalem has two Haredi members and a third secular member who hasn’t attended meetings for years. Last week he admitted that he thought the committee had been disbanded.”

        • Mooser says:

          Oh God, this is funny! Don’t I remember another fanatic group, instrumental in moving a country far to the right, which was then eliminated when their antics were no longer felt to be to the government’s advantage, since the regime had its own instruments of repression? Why, I think I do.

          So when is Israel going to have it’s own “Night of The Long Izmels?”

    • Nice lecture.
      Where do you expect Palestinian families to live after they were brutally thrown out of their land and homes by young Jewish settlers and IDF soldiers???
      Perhaps on the moon?
      Or in the Never-Ever/Make-Believe land??

      • benedict says:

        Snarkiness aside, you don’t seem to have any real comprehension of the issues involved. To bad you seem to be happy to push away one sector of Israeli society that might actually be supportive of Palestinian compromise.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Oh, we comprehend. You don’t view the Palestinians as deserving human rights and you think Jewish comfort supersedes Palestinian livelihood.

        • As Shmuel above explained it clearly.
          Them being “supportive of Palestinian compromise ” is a thing of the past.

        • benedict says:

          Of course Palestinians have human rights.

        • benedict says:

          As I clearly explain above, shmuels analysis is not accurate.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Of course Palestinians have human rights”

          Statements by Israeli supporters such as this always seem to have, unspoken at the end, an addendum, “…just not any that the Jews of Israel need to respect. They should be thankful we don’t treat them worse.”

        • Potsherd2 says:

          As Shmuel explains clearly above, your analysis is not accurate.

        • Hostage says:

          Of course Palestinians have human rights.

          The State of Israel contends that they do not have any legal entitlement to human rights:

          a) In the targeted killings case, the Supreme Court accepted the government’s position that a continuous state of armed conflict has existed between Israel and the Palestinian militias operating in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza since the first intifada. See the subsection of the ruling under the heading “The General Normative Framework, A. International Armed Conflict”

          b) Israel has consistently maintained that international human rights covenants do not apply to the West Bank and Gaza based upon the distinction between human rights and humanitarian law under international law. Accordingly, in Israel’s view, human rights mandates cannot relate to events in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, inasmuch as they are part and parcel of the context of armed conflict as distinct from a relationship of human rights. See CCPR/C/ISR/2001/2, para 8 or E/1990/6/Add.32, para 6-7

    • seafoid says:

      “However as an outsider with a very limited understanding of the inner dynamics of Israeli society I would expect you to show a little more restraint and humility before you barge into topics you know little about”

      Is is because annie is female that you insult her like that? Did her picture offend you?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “If building a Jewish town ”

      This is the unstated, assumed racism that is so disgusting about Israel and its apologists. How about just have a town, and anyone who wants to live there can live there. Why do you people have to be such disgusting racists.

      • benedict says:

        Woody –

        Now that’s an interesting idea. Mind telling me how many jews live in the arab towns of Bartea, Um el fahem or arara?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “…the [A]rab towns of…”

          Your presumption that there are “Arab towns” is no less an example of disgusting racism than the notion of their being “Jewish towns.”

        • tree says:

          benedict, you might want to read Susan Nathan’s book, The Other Side of Israel. She, an Israeli Jew, moved from Tel Aviv to Tamra, an Arab town in Israel. She was welcomed by her Palestinian neighbors in the town.

          Susan Nathan had wanted to move to Israel since she was 12-years-old.

          Decades later, after raising her two children and enduring a divorce, the London native followed the Jewish Law of Return and moved to Tel Aviv. Nathan, who was raised as an ardent Zionist, believed that Palestinians only existed in the West Bank and Gaza – and were to be feared.

          Shortly after her arrival, Nathan realized she had not been taught the whole story. She discovered Palestinians lived in Israel, but as second class citizens.

          “I not only came out of my society but I came out of my family…to find this discrimination against Palestinians in Israel. It was a huge shock,” she said. “I realized that Jewish, Israeli life, was built on something fragile. It wasn’t based on reality.”

          Nathan decided to make a dramatic change in her own life. The former AIDS counselor packed her bags and left her comfortable, middle class Tel Aviv home to live in Tamra, a Palestinian Muslim town in Israel. What emerged from her journey was a 336 page book documenting her experiences called
          “The Other Side of Israel, My Journey Across the Arab/Jewish divide.”

          “It’s a very shocking shattering thing, to see everything you believe, your life, the way you’ve built your life collapse before you,” she said.

          But, learning about Palestinians made Nathan’s move to Tamra easier, despite the objections of her friends and family.

          “I didn’t really find that I had a lot to get used to,” she said. “This whole overemphasis in the west…- that their religion is different – is nonsense. It is something that is said to put us in fear. And I think by living here I am showing every day of my life that it’s rubbish.”

          Over the past four years Nathan has become a part of her new Palestian family and now calls Tamra home. But, living with the Palestinian citizens of Israel has given her an insider’s perspective on the lack of equal rights with their Jewish counterparts.

          Tamra, like other non-Jewish towns in Israel, is neglected, says Nathan. The village is grossly overpopulated and there has been no government investment in infrastructure. There are 25,000 residents living on 4,000 dunums (one dunum is a quarter of a mile) of land.

          “This is (like) a refugee camp,” she adds. “Refugee camps don’t have proper sewage…in 58 years of the [Israeli] State there has not been one shekel spent on Arab improvement. Arab homes are self financed.”

          By 2020 420,000 Palestinians are projected to be squeezed onto the same amount of land, while nearby Jewish towns expand into Tamra. Nathan describes the situation as “explosive,” predicting that housing and land ownership discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel means the “next Intifada is only a hair’s breath away.”

          link to imeu.net

          The best thing that could happen to Israel would be allowing Jews, Muslims and Christians to live side by side, as they did for centuries before Zionism, rather than privileging Jews over the others. This privileging of Jews only creates a false sense of superiority among Israeli Jews, and understandable resentment among Christians and Muslims.

    • annie says:

      barge? what do you mean by barge benidict. i printed out the info on the link. the minister is shas is he not? who is Rabbi Yosef Elitzur? isn’t he chabad?

      link to coteret.com

      these people are on the front line of the price tag attacks.

    • Djinn says:

      Because of there high birthrate the chareidim suffers from a severe housing problem. The only alternative to building more settlements in the west bank is to settle them inside the green line. Charish is not in any “Palestinian area”. It is within Israel proper, just off highway 6, perhaps half an hour away from tel aviv. (the guy claiming charish to be in northern Israel obviously doesn’t have a clue about Israel geography). If building a Jewish town in charish is illegitimate then a can’t think of anywhere else it might be legitimate. Where do you expect young jewish couples to live? Perhaps in the sea

      If you can’t find somewhere to house your current 5 kids try not having 5 more. As for Harish not being a Palestinian area, you are deliberately obfuscating or you’re quite dim. In Melbourne the suburbs of East St Kilda and Caulfield are known to everyone as Jewish areas. Obviously they are ALL Australian areas and not officially or legally designated as suburbs for the Jewish community but if someone tried to build a housing development on Balaclava Rd that was explicitly for Seventh Day Adventists it would not only raise a justified hue and cry it would be ILLEGAL.

  17. Potsherd2 says:

    Benedict – what you say is true, but it doesn’t mean that Annie is wrong about the housing and interior ministries using the construction of haredi towns to strangle the Arab towns. The Arab towns are constricted within inflexible boundaries, forbidden to expand, and the land to which they might expand earmarked for Jewish-only housing. “Where do you expect young arab couples to live?”

    • benedict says:

      Arab towns are not forbidden to expand. If I recall correctly levels of private home ownership in arab sector are actually higher then in jewish sector. I don’t think that young arab couples have trouble finding affordable housing ( that doesn’t mean they dont encounter other problems in Israeli society)

      • seafoid says:

        “Arab towns are not forbidden to expand.”

        Here we go again. Nazareth. The Jewish Nazareth illit has all the land.
        Palestinians aren’t allowed to buy in Haredi towns. Why not? Isn’t Moshiach all in favour of coexistence?

      • Avi_G. says:

        benedict says:
        November 22, 2011 at 6:45 am

        Arab towns are not forbidden to expand. If I recall correctly [...]

        No, you do not recall correctly. You’re a Hasbara hack.

        Palestinian locales in Israel have had lands, both private and public, expropriated by the Israeli government. That is exactly what is happening here in the case of Harish.

        Palestinian locales in Israel have been and continue to be ghettoized as part of the historical Mizpim project that seeks to encircle and choke said locales in the process of Judaizing the land.

      • Shmuel says:

        On the reality of “spatial confinement” of Arabs in Israel and the various methods employed to that end, see Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine, esp. chapters 6-7.

        See, for example, the following (pp. 166-167):

        … 50-60 percent of Arab-held land in Israel was expropriated by the state. The Arabs now own only 3.5 percent of the country’s land-mass and control 2.5 percent of the country’s local government areas, yet they constitute 16 percent of the state’s population. Following the transfer of land to the state, more than five hundred Jewish settlements were constructed on that land in all parts of the country.

        The result was the penetration of Jews in most Arab areas, the encirclement of most Arab villages by exclusively Jewish settlements (where Arabs are not permitted to lease land and housing), and the virtual ghettoization of the Arabs. In the process, Arabs have not only lost individual property but have also been dispossessed of much of their collective territorial assets and interests, because nearly all land transferred to the state (ostensibly for public purposes) was earmarked for Jewish use….

        Spatial control has also been imposed on the Arab minority through the planning process. Statutory outline plans have been prepared for most Arab localities by the Israeli authorities, commonly without the participation of the local community. The content of these plans, especially those prepared during the 1970s and 1980s, was marked by restrictions on the expansion of Arab localities. The main planning strategy called for intensification and densification of land uses within Arab localities, as well as encouraging multi-story structures. This was in sharp contrast to the planning strategy for Jewish localities in the same region, which were allocated ample land and encouraged to expand…. In recent years, some Arab municipalities have been expanded, but the vast majority of regional land between Arab localities is still planned and used by Jewish councils, chiefly for the benefit of Jews.

        • benedict says:

          With all respect to yiftachel his is not the only opinion. I have just finished reading a book by dan shiftan presenting I decidedly deferent picture. To me that means that the case for so called arab discrimination is less clear cut then is often presented by partisan publications. Potsherd2 claim that borders of arab towns are “inflexible” is simply not true.

        • Shmuel says:

          the case for so called arab discrimination is less clear cut then is often presented by partisan publications

          That was easy. What part of Yiftachel’s carefully documented information do you disagree with? Has Arab-owned land not been expropriated? Do the Arab local councils have as much land beyond constructed areas as do Jewish local councils? Has land expropriated from Jews or even Arabs ever been used for the benefit of Arab citizens? Are the statutory outline plans (tochniyot mit’ar) for Arab local councils the same as those for Jews in the same area? Is there no policy of “Judaising” areas with large Arab populations?

          Saying it’s complicated, and partisan, and there are different opinions and things are not so clear-cut is nothing more than a convenient cop-out.

        • James North says:

          Avi_G + Shmuel: The Mondoweiss one-two punch against hasbara. I imagine the two of you must get tired of chronically weak competition, but the rest of us learn from your knock-outs.

        • Mooser says:

          benedict says: “the case for so called arab discrimination is less clear cut”

          Oh lord, another comedian has arrived at Mondoweiss.
          Now give this guy a break, it’s going to be very hard for him to accept that ethnic cleasing or spatial containment of “Arabs” is anything other than the natural order of things.
          I just find them so abhorently hilarious. As if they think the air of self-righteousness and expertise, combined with judgements on everybody else’s comments will have us all fawning in awe and declaring black is white and down is up.
          But there’s no denying it upsets the poor dears when their completely fraudelent views are not accepted. I’m sure they worry about what kind of people would have the temerity to do that, and are concerned for us getting the story “right”.

        • Re: James North – Excellent observation.

          That’s pretty much how I see it. When I first entered into the fray, I was always grateful to those who would demolish ridiculous talking points that I had no clue as to the actual facts.

        • Mooser says:

          “that I had no clue as to the actual facts.”

          That really shouldn’t be too much of a hindrance. All you have to do is ask yourself :”What did earlier colonial regimes (the European colonials and many others) and projects do? How did they handle it?” And whatever you find will be a much better guess than anything the hasbaratchniks try to force-feed you.
          And jeez, I hate to say it, but it holds pretty true now for years: All you got to do is look for the opposite of what all the Zio-trolls say, and you’re probably near the mark.

        • john h says:

          You were clued up on the best place to go to find the actual facts; that and common sense made it a done deal.

        • Mooser says:

          Not that I give way to anyone in my admiration and respect for the Mondoweiss commenters who do have the troll-destroying facts at hand, and can write a cogent, reasoned and fact-filled reply so quickly.
          But me, I just string along with the axiom which has served me well for about 40 years now: When a Zionist moves his lips, he’s probably prevaricating, if not worse.

        • Mooser – very true. I was also greatly assisted by my pal Bernie the Attorney (anti-Zionist secular humanist w/ Jewish mother) who explained the “180 Rule” to me where he offered that any pronouncement by Zionists or their stooges could be most readily deciphered by “flipping it”, so-to-speak, to discern the truth.

        • Mooser says:

          Fortunately, it is much easier to get the facts than it used to be, and the blog-roll at Mondoweiss is a good place to start. And here at Mondo are constant reports, on the main page and in the comments, from those living in the midst of this, or directly involved in many ways.

        • Mooser says:

          Lance, you know what they say: Bernie always lays it on the line. Bernie says we sue, we sue.
          Bernie says we sign.. we sign.

        • One other thing Bernie the Attorney pointed out that is clearly in evidence in most all things Zionist related, it’s not who puts forth the most compelling argument, it’s who gets to decide which argument is deemed the victor, and who has control of the echo chamber that reinforces such speciousness.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Benedict – that is just false. Israel restricts land use, building permits and denies recognition of Arab villages. It is constantly demolishing structures as “illegal” because they were built without permits that it refuses to issue. This is in Israel, not just the territories.

      • “Arab towns are not forbidden to expand.”

        That is an outright lie. Just saying it doesn’t make it remotely true. Or don’t you understand how ‘planning’ laws are used as apartheid measures.

      • annie says:

        If I recall correctly levels of private home ownership in arab sector are actually higher then in jewish sector.

        did you open the link in the main article bene? are you crazy. palestinians cannot even get building permits.

        • benedict says:

          not true. of course arabs can get building permits.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Go put on a kheffiyah and try to get one.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Oh hey now, this article might be relevant, I found it while I was digging in my bookmarks file.

          Israel’s Discriminatory Land Policies

          In 1973, former Israeli scholar, critic, and lifelong human rights activist, Israel Shahak (1933-2001), wrote a paper titled, “What is the Meaning of the Jewish State” in which he said:

          “The real situation in Israel is really very simple: Israel is not an ‘Israeli’ state, or a state of its citizens but it is a ‘Jewish state.’” With regard to land, “More than 90% of the inhabited areas of the State of Israel are under the rule of the Jewish National Fund regulations, under which non-Jews cannot rent or buy a house or flat, open a business, in short cannot live. This land is called in Hebrew ‘the land’ saved. The land which belongs to non-Jews is called unsaved not national (meaning Jewish) and by buying or confiscating it from a non-Jew by a Jew, the land is supposed to be ‘saved.’ ”

          It’s only the beginning. Numerous privileges are afforded Jews alone that include:

          * not only the right to the land but to a mortgage or loan to finance it;
          * on confiscated West Bank land, “Jewish inhabitants enter into prepared houses, with water and electricity;” unconnected Arab villages are forbidden to use either; and
          * “A building project for the newly-married applies only for the Jewish newly-married and so forth; to be a Jew in a Jewish state is to be both a privileged being, and to be able to receive a lot of ‘easy’ money a non-Jew can not ever get.”

        • Hostage says:

          not true. of course arabs can get building permits.

          Benedict nobody is impressed by hasbara-based arguments about nonsensical leasing customs in the Jewish community vs. traditional ownership in the Arab sector. The same applies to your comments about building permits. Jews obviously have no problem annexing portions of the West Bank by calling them part of “Jerusalem”. Jews have built dozens of new settlements that way, but the Arabs have not. That situation reflects the fact that there are no seats reserved for Arabs on the Israel Land Authority board of governors, like the seats reserved for Jews, and that Jews determine what construction is, or isn’t permitted, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, not the Arabs.

  18. RoHa says:

    For a moment I thought that was a map of Birobidzhan.

    • patm says:

      “For a moment I thought that was a map of Birobidzhan.”

      RoHa, this comment keeps appearing before my eyes, and each time I recall US Republican candidate Herman Cain’s goofy remark about “the President of Ubeka-beka-bekastan.”

  19. piotr says:

    Of course Palestinians have a much higher level of private home ownership.

    One of the basic tools of keeping housing stock away from Arabs is to prevent private ownership, so most of Jews rent, while Arabs are largerly prevented from renting. From American point of view, Jewish Israeli have a very weird attitude to private property.

  20. benedict says:

    I don’t know where your getting your information from.

    Most Israeli jews own there houses as do most israeli arabs. Ther is nothing that prevents arabs from renting homes

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Yeah, most Israel Arabs (they’re called Palestinians, by the way) that weren’t ethnically cleansed and/or summarily executed in one of Israel’s many wars of territorial expansion still own their houses. Oh but the one’s that have lost their homes to the JNF? We’re supposed to ignore that, right?

      Look, we can already tell you aren’t equipped to argue in this forum. Go spend time on Huffington Post or something, they’re far more tolerant of hasbara, no matter how shoddy.

  21. straightline says:

    I have a feeling of deja vu here, eee, but I should never expect you to read what others say except to make a point. As someone living in Australia, for once I agree with you, eee – yes the settlement of Australia by Europeans involved land theft. I might try to find an excuse by saying that Aborigines were not a settled people but that is just what it is – an excuse. While there is significant political debate about how to help the Aborigines, I have to say that we, on the whole, now understand what we did to them and with few exceptions are keen to make recompense within certain economic limits of course. We acknowledge that we have built on the land of Aboriginal people – in fact at many major gatherings the introductory speech acknowledges that we are on the land of the Wauthaurong people (or whatever tribe are the traditional owners of that land) . Aborigines now have freedom to live anywhere in Australia and take a job anywhere. There is absolutely no legislation that discriminates against the indigenous people of Australia, while there is legislation that discriminates in their favour in an attempt to recompense. Of course this is all a myth really – economically most of them cannot afford to live just anywhere in this country with the highest house prices in the world relative to income. We have said we are “sorry” for what we did to them, we provide them with social services, we do our best (well perhaps not quite our best) to integrate those that want to be integrated and to allow those who want to live in the traditional ways to do so. Some of them own large amounts of land and are farming it. No it is not satisfactory – we could do more – but we do not shoot them any more, we do not dispossess them any more, we do not discriminate against them (well perhaps we do but we are conscious of it and try not to). Not perfect but improving.

    Now coming back to your comparison of India and Israel. As far as I am aware India does not constrain immigration according to (as you would say) tribal membership. I am not sure that Indians would understand the notion of a “tribe” – caste is quite different. India has significant populations of multiple religions – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and even a few Jews none of whom are systematically discriminated against. It does NOT systematically bomb populations under its control. If only Israel were like India.

  22. straightline says:

    Incidentally, eee, the largest “ethnic” group currently immigrating into Australia is Chinese – no longer European. Australia is fast becoming an Asian rather than a “European” country. Do we of European “ethnicity” oppose that? No we do not – well not the vast majority! We have long since acknowledged – post the “White Australia Policy” – that a diversity of immigrants adds to the richness of our culture and society. Chinese people and others from SE and South Asia are buying houses in the richer and the poorer suburbs of our major cities and we welcome it. This country is among the strongest supporters of Israel but almost all of its people would abhor your attitudes. If only they were informed!