The liberal Zionist inability to confront the right of return

Israel/Palestine
on 134 Comments
aidagate
Entrance to the Aida Refugee Camp with a key signifying the right of return that says
“Not for Sale.” (Photo: Reham Alhelsi)

The noted liberal Zionist writer, Bernard Avishai, has a longish piece on the Palestinian right of return in this month’s edition of Harper’s Magazine (no online version yet). Before I discuss its content, I believe it crucial to note one general aspect of this piece. We must ask ourselves why an openly Zionist thinker who happens to be a Canadian immigrant is writing about Palestinian right of return without a Palestinian counter article. His penmanship of the article speaks volumes about the ability of the press in the United States on the ability to allow Palestinians to speak for themselves. His voice might be an important one, but the absence of a Palestinian view on an issue of such weight such as the right of return should be taken as a sign of how far the American press must go in changing the way it covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Avishai’s article is exhaustive and draws upon a variety of interviews, both from high level officials and intellectuals. While his recollection of history tends to be grounded, it is in the current debate where he gets into hot water. Curiously absent, however, from Avishai’s piece is any discussion of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, one of the primary Palestinian civil society vehicles in fighting for the right of return as specified in UN Resolution 194. Also absent is any discussion with rank and file Palestinians living in the West Bank, a mere twenty minutes’ drive from Avishai’s residence in the formerly Arab Baka neighborhood of West Jerusalem. Although to his credit, Avishai does cite anonymous “friends in Ramallah” at points in the piece in order to bring in necessary but vague Palestinian voice in the West Bank.

While narrowly exhaustive, Avishai’s article is potholed with images of Israeli-Palestinian symmetry that do not exist. His choice of imagery carefully conforms to the accepted Western narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which effectively adopts the Israeli understanding of events on the ground. Namely, that the conflict, thought to be fought between two relative equals, is about peace and security. Take this sentence, which comes three paragraphs from the end of the piece, as an example:

The populated areas of Israel and Palestine together are about the size of greater Los Angeles. The peoples share not only a business ecosystem but everything from water sources to the telecommunications systems. Neither side can set up a 4G network, neither side can manage even wastewater, without the permanent cooperation of the other.

You see, it is all so simple. Everyone is sharing and cooperation is crucial to lasting peace. Wait, what about the occupation, you ask? Could it be that Palestinians share a business ecosystem with Israel because Israel is occupying their land and using them as a captive market? The power of the Israeli narrative lays in its ability to ignore these factual components of reality.  Given Avishai’s inability or unwillingness to interview Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan or even in the Qalandia refugee camp seven miles from Jerusalem, his reliance on the Israeli narrative is not surprising.

The piece offers an upbeat and almost pleasant outlook. Perhaps, this is only made possible by ignoring the viewpoints of representative Palestinians. Recently, Gershom Gorenberg, one of Avishai’s ideological peers and a fellow North American living in the same formerly Palestinian Baka neighborhood of West Jerusalem, recently noted the following about diaspora Palestinians in the United States, in a piece in the American Prospect:

Diaspora Palestinians with their own overdone nationalism and a small coterie of Jews whose express their disappointment with Zionism through mirror-image anti-Zionism—as if denying Jewish rights to national self-determination were somehow more progressive than denying Palestinian rights. But realistic, moderate progressives always face the challenge of portraying a more complex reality than extremists recognize.

Clearly, Gorenberg does not share the unbridled optimism of Avishai, but the sentiments he expressesd above can certainly be found lurking in between the lines of Avishai’s text. This is especially clear in their shared authoritarian understanding that as Western liberal Zionists living in Israel they are the true “realistic, moderate progressives” who will solve the region’s problems. Avishai’s hopeful look to the future, however, is welcome, due to the cynicism prevalent in Israeli and Palestinian society, but it also precariously borders on the naïve. In the piece, the major sources of Avishai’s hope are the Israeli tent protesters. Those brave revolutionaries provide Avishai with confirmation that Israelis are ready and able to think outside the box and approach the systemic problems of Israeli society with new vigor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Had Avishai broached the idea of the Palestinian right of return to any of the test protesters at the peak of their social justice movement back in July, the issue would have likely been labelled “political” and thus dismissed. In fact, other than the handful of protests which took place in mixed cities like Haifa, attended by both between Palestinian citizens of Israel and Israeli Jews, as well as one “1948″ tent in Tel Aviv, the tent protests was a movement not interested in Israeli-Palestinian political issues, let alone the Palestinian right of return. On the surface, the reason given for this was the horrible polarization which exists in Israeli society over these issues. But something else was at play.

Arguments over this issue were featured on this website. Many of these  arguments  are a testament to the fact that while Israelis desperately want to have their society to be understood as “normal,” they are simply unable or unwilling to challenge prevailing attitudes concerning Palestinians. These attitudes help maintain a system of occupation and outright  institutional  discrimination  which has lead to an international consensus that Israel is far from a normal country, but rather one engaged in a form of ethnic racism similar to Apartheid or Hafradah.

The widely-held argument that the tent protesters offer a space inside Israel to negotiate issues like the right of return is at best hopeful naiveté and at worst, an effort to portray Israeli society as something it is not. At its peak, the protesters were able to draw 500,000 Israelis (the proportionate equivalent of 17 million Americans) on to the streets to demanding social justice without any mention of the occupation or the rights of all under Israeli rule. It is hard to interpret this as anything other than the fact that Israel is not ready to end its occupation by itself given the overwhelming support for the protests and their continued reticence on Palestinian issues. If the tent protesters were unwilling or unable to talk about the occupation, why would anyone argue that they are ready to confront the much more difficult issue of the right of return, and or Israel’s culpability in creating the Palestinian refugee problem?

In 1948, Ben Gurion’s nascent army attempted to put the Zionist dream of separation from the natives into practice by forcibly removing as many of Palestine’s native inhabitants as possible and thus creating the Palestinian refugee problem. The 1967 war of conquest continued the trend and the current Kafkaesque occupation of a bureaucratic permit system has made life as hard as possible for West Bank and Gazan Palestinians, driven with by the misplaced hope that they will simply leave.

The 2011 Palestine Papers– secret minutes from the 2008 negotiations process between Israel and the PA released by Al Jazeera– confirm that “transfer” remains a driving component of Israeli policy towards native Palestinians. In the papers, Kadima MK Tzipi Livini is quoted in meetings with senior PA officials as negotiating the terms of transferring Palestinians citizens of Israel into the West Bank in the case of a final status agreement.

The West Bank Separation Barrier is perhaps the most concrete confirmation of the Zionist separation principle in action. Its effect, both physically and psychologically, has been profound for Israeli society. Ironically exemplified in the Israeli tent protests, young Israelis no longer have connection with Palestinians outside of their army service in which they are thrust into a position of military power over occupied Palestinians. This has resulted in, among other examples, an Israeli public able to demonstrate for social justice while ignoring the rights of all under Israeli rule.

In order for Avishai to avoid these sober developments in Israeli society as it pertains to the settlement of the right of return issue, he must warp the situation on the ground through the creation of basic symmetry between Israelis and Palestinians. His reliance on interviews with Israeli and Palestinian politicians ensures that voices on the ground dealing with the separation principle in action remain invisible. Add ambiguously hopeful language which confirms the Western discussion narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one is left feeling as though peace and reconciliation is just around the corner. It is not.

Quoting Ramallah- based political thinker Sam Bahour at the end of his piece, Avishai ultimately draws attention to the absence of equality and partnership between Israelis and Palestinians. In my estimation this is the core problem concerning the right of return issue. Avishai hints at the issue of rights by quoting Adam Shatz’s important piece in London Review of Books. While Shatz’s piece was a thoughtful addition to the discourse, I am unsure why Avishai, a resident of Jerusalem, did not go an interview the same or similar people that Shatz did. Why rely on irrational hope when you can go out and interview people on the ground who possess deep insight on this complex issue? Perhaps Avishai’s (and Gorenberg’s) form of Liberal Zionism can no longer function without a heavy dose of hope and clear contempt for overt Palestinian nationalism, grounded in the notion of the right of return as an inalienable right.

This post originally appeared in +972.

About Joseph Dana

Joseph Dana is a writer and journalist based in the West Bank. His work has appeared in The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, London Review of Books, The National (UAE), Monocle, Al Jazeera English, The Forward, and The Mail & Guardian among other international publications. Dana is an associate producer of Just Vision's new documentary Home Front: Portraits from Shiekh Jarrah. Before devoting himself full time to journalism, Dana studied Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Central European University in Budapest.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

134 Responses

  1. Newclench
    November 28, 2011, 8:36 am

    “he must warp the situation on the ground through the creation of basic symmetry between Israelis and Palestinians.”
    “Avishai ultimately draws attention to the absence of equality and partnership between Israelis and Palestinians…”
    I’ve heard Avishai talk. Pretty sure he knows that Palestinians society under occupation and in exile isn’t the equal of Israeli society in terms of power. For this reason, his critiques are most aimed at Israelis.
    That said, Joseph, do you not see how expat communities are often an engine of extremism and conflict prolonging behavior? Why would this be different in the Palestinian case, when it was and is so clearly present for the Irish, American/French Jewish support for occupation, Kurds, Basque and others?

    Israeli society has had some very open conversations about the Nakba in the late 90s, during the heyday of the New Historians. Part of the reason was the peace process. It might be that an active peace process is a precondition for advancing this issue, instead of the other way around.

    • Chaos4700
      November 28, 2011, 9:22 am

      I think you suggesting that Israeli society is less extreme and more forward thinking is a laugh.

      In Palestine, Palestinians are taught about the Holocaust. In Israel, it’s against the law to commemorate the Nakba.

      In Palestine, they don’t check what religion you are before you get married. In Israel, they do.

      Israel killed the peace process. Not Palestine. Israel has a fleet of armored bulldozers and a flock of pogrom-waging colonists who are at work right now.

    • annie
      November 28, 2011, 11:06 am

      “he must warp the situation on the ground through the creation of basic symmetry between Israelis and Palestinians.”
      “Avishai ultimately draws attention to the absence of equality and partnership between Israelis and Palestinians…”

      are you implying these two statements contradict eachother clench? and i am not sure what your point is in the next sentence. Pretty sure he knows that Palestinians society under occupation and in exile isn’t the equal of Israeli society in terms of power. For this reason, his critiques are most aimed at Israelis.

      there’s nothing that particularly stands out in the blog post that directs the reader to assume “his critiques are most aimed at Israelis”, at all. if there is please direct us to which segment that might be. i have not read the article behind the firewall.

      wrt “Quoting Ramallah- based political thinker Sam Bahour at the end of his piece, Avishai ultimately draws attention to the absence of equality ” check out the comment section over @ 972, commenter Sinjim:

      Avishai really doesn’t understand Palestinians. Over at his website, he’s claiming that without Zionism, we would be indistinguishable from the other Arab Muslims and Christians of the Fertile Crescent.
      .
      This guy lives in a bubble of Jewish privilege in a house stolen from a Palestinian family. He speaks to businessmen like Sam Bahour, who is probably the most cited Arab in his articles, and declares their views the “moderate” Palestinian position (i.e. most palatable to the Israeli status quo) and everyone else who disagrees is a part of the problem. No wonder he buys into such ethnic chauvinism as declaring that another people’s identity depends on his own.

      because avishai ‘draws attention’ to this one palestinian it actually supports the notion of avisha’s channeling symmetry.

      here’s bahour’s wiki page.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      do you not see how expat communities are often an engine of extremism and conflict prolonging behavior? Why would this be different in the Palestinian case

      could you give us an example of a palestinian expat community you perceive as “an engine of extremism”. anything analogous to aipac? or zoa? what are you saying? that there’s some group of UK or US palestinians responsible for prolonging the conflict?

      pleeeease.

    • Mooser
      November 28, 2011, 11:29 am

      “Israeli society has had some very open conversations about the Nakba in the late 90s…”

      Whoopee! That takes care of everything, don’t it, Newclench! When I think of the openness of those discussions, my heart leaps with hope, or maybe it’s just my arrhythmia acting up.

    • Avi_G.
      November 28, 2011, 1:07 pm

      Israeli society has had some very open conversations about the Nakba in the late 90s, during the heyday of the New Historians. Part of the reason was the peace process. It might be that an active peace process is a precondition for advancing this issue, instead of the other way around.

      Israeli society had no such “open conversations” as you claim. Not only does the Nakbah remain a taboo topic in Israel, but the scholars who dare discuss it openly and honestly are chased out. Ilan Pappe didn’t leave Haifa University and move to Britain for the weather.

      Your posts repeatedly read like some Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release.

      That’s a symptom of the hypocrisy that which attorney Hasan Jabareen — the director of Adalah (The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) — described in his recent article when he wrote:

      The disingenuity of the government’s international comparisons is evident when one compares politicians’ rhetoric for audiences within Israel with the diplomatic discourse they employ abroad. At home, this government harshly criticizes the Supreme Court; abroad, the Foreign Ministry boasts proudly that Israel has the world’s strongest high court. While officials criticize former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak’s rulings regarding Palestinian cases, the Foreign Ministry hands out a booklet at conferences abroad listing these same cases as evidence that Israel is committed to the rule of law and democratic values. While right-wing lawmakers incite daily against Arab Knesset members, Israeli officials support their argument that Israel is not an apartheid state by raising the fact of Arab Knesset representation.

      link to haaretz.com

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 1:24 pm

        Does liberal Zionism have an atomic weapons program? The way they spin, I sometimes suspect they are trying to manufacture heavy water.

      • Newclench
        November 28, 2011, 2:08 pm

        I remember reading Ilan Pappe in Haaretz, along with Avi Shlaim and many others, though of course not enough Palestinian voices. Interestingly, I remember the hysteria against the new historians….. hysteria that could only exist precisely because the new historians were getting their ideas out there.
        Perhaps your definition of ‘open conversation’ requires far more than getting on the op-ed pages of Israel’s NYT repeatedly.
        Of course, I didn’t meet Ilan on the pages of a newspaper. It was when he ran as the #5 candidate on the Hadash list for Knesset. It’s really a shame he didn’t get in.

      • Avi_G.
        November 28, 2011, 4:24 pm

        Newclench says:
        November 28, 2011 at 2:08 pm

        Of course, I didn’t meet Ilan on the pages of a newspaper. It was when he ran as the #5 candidate on the Hadash list for Knesset. It’s really a shame he didn’t get in.

        I actually knew Moses himself, not through the pages of the Torah, but I was the one who helped him down the mountain. So, my appeal to authority trumps yours.

        Let me know when you decide to grow up.

        By the way, did they serve coffee at the Hadash party office? I bet there was a home appliance store down the street from there. Those Tadiran fridges are the best, aren’t they? I used to fill mine with ice pops…mmmmm. The strawberry flavored ones were my favorite.

        Yeah. That’s how your post reads, like some evasive, irrelevant nonsense.

      • Newclench
        November 28, 2011, 8:23 pm

        So…. I guess you take back your assertion that there was never an open conversation about the Nakba, eh? Never discussed in public? Completely shut out of academia, the press and tv?

      • andrew r
        November 28, 2011, 10:32 pm

        Morris couldn’t even get a job in the mid-90’s without the intervention of Ezer Weizmann. And only after an interview where Weizmann flat out asked if he supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. I skimmed through ‘1948’ and while the material on Deir Yassin from ‘Birth’ is outright recycled, details like the Haganah raids on Balad as-Sheikh and Wadi Nisnas with orders to kill adult males didn’t seem to be in there. No big surprise.

      • Chaos4700
        November 29, 2011, 12:23 am

        Are there any laws in Israel that make it illegal to actually openly discuss the Nakba in the Israel? Think hard before you answer, that might sound like a trick question but it really isn’t.

      • Newclench
        November 29, 2011, 12:57 pm

        There is a nonprofit called ‘Zochrot’ that discusses the Nakba all the time. So I don’t think there are any laws….
        That said, there are probably efforts to restrict how the issue is discussed in public schools, and a political party that added RoR to it’s platform might be barred from running. But if there is a law that does what you describe – I’d love to learn about it.

      • Avi_G.
        November 29, 2011, 4:33 pm

        Newclench says:
        November 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm

        So…. I guess you take back your assertion that there was never an open conversation about the Nakba, eh? Never discussed in public? Completely shut out of academia, the press and tv?

        False, again. A discussion would require an open and frank debate, whether in academia, in the mass media or in Israeli schools.

        You wrote:

        Israeli society has had some very open conversations about the Nakba in the late 90s, during the heyday of the New Historians.

        An open conversation implies frank and free exchange of ideas. There was no such thing. There was a shouting down and threatening of those who dared bring up the Nakbah.

      • Avi_G.
        November 29, 2011, 5:07 pm

        When I write, “There was a shouting down and threatening of those who dared bring up the Nakbah,” I am referring to a select and small group of individuals among whom this “discussion” took place.

        And including Israeli society as part of your assertion is an outright fabrication of reality.

      • LeaNder
        November 30, 2011, 9:09 am

        “There was a shouting down and threatening of those who dared bring up the Nakbah,” I am referring to a select and small group of individuals among whom this “discussion” took place.

        Whom exactly are you referring to, Avi?

      • American
        November 30, 2011, 12:42 pm

        “So…. I guess you take back your assertion that there was never an open conversation about the Nakba, eh? Never discussed in public? Completely shut out of academia, the press and tv?”

        No need to take it back. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out the Israelis intentions in anything they do.

        ‘A few weeks ago, Amendment 40 of the Budget Principles Law came into effect in Israel. More popularly known as the “Nakba Law,” the amendment calls for the “reduction of state budgets or support for activities that stand in opposition to the principles of the State.” According to the amendment, the Minister of Finance can employ various grounds to impose monetary sanctions on any organization or body receiving funding or support from the state. Among the actionable grounds are if the body “makes an expense which, in essence [...] marks Israel Independence Day or the day of the establishment of the State as a day of mourning.”

        Today, academic bodies, educational and cultural institutions, local councils, and other entities supported by the government find themselves considering whether or not to include any reference to the Nakba in their events, as even mentioning its occurrence could possibly expose them to reduced budgetary support under the provisions of the “Nakba Law.” These doubts are likely to lead to self-censorship, causing damage to freedom of speech and to the shrinking of democratic discourse in Israel. Known as the “chilling effect,” this phenomenon has already begun to take effect with the enactment of the law, even before a mechanism for enforcing the law has been established.

        It is not for us to try and imagine the quandary of a University Department Head deliberating whether or not to hold a particular academic conference, or to put ourselves in the place of the Programming Director at a cultural institution debating whether or not to produce a cultural event. We can not presume to replace the careful consideration of a Local Council Head considering whether or not to fund a particular activity, or the discretion of a school principal in deciding whether to stage a particular play or host a particular author.

        However, we at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and at Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, do feel it is our obligation to bring to your attention our position concerning the “Nakba Law.” It is our hope that in the context of all the relevant considerations that decision makers will need to weigh, you will also be aware of our current work on this matter.

        It is our opinion that the law in question represents a gross and outrageous violation of the right to equality in Israel, as well as the right to freedom of political expression and artistic expression; that the law significantly harms personal dignity and collective group dignity as well as other constitutional rights. It sets a new record in the restriction of basic civil liberties, utilizing unprecedented grounds as its justification. Throughout the legislative process we repeatedly expressed this position, which received broad support from many groups, but to our deep dismay the Knesset ultimately chose to pass this amendment into law, albeit with a different version from that which was originally proposed. It is impossible to view the law in isolation from its context – a rising tide of anti-democratic legislation introduced in the Knesset often aimed at harming the rights of Israel’s Arab citizens.’

  2. Nevada Ned
    November 28, 2011, 9:45 am

    Many Israeli Jews support the Right of Return….For Jews.
    And only for Jews. Not for Palestinians.

    And yet, Israeli Jews are annoyed when accused of racism.

  3. Shmuel
    November 28, 2011, 10:16 am

    Great article. I guess I’ll have to wait to read Avishai’s piece. In my own experience, the process of coming to terms with the ROR (involving listening to a lot of Palestinians – especially those with little interest in “dialogue” of the peace industry variety) was crucial to changing my entire perspective. It also changed my mind about who the “realistic, moderate progressives” really were.

    • Mooser
      November 28, 2011, 11:32 am

      “In my own experience, the process of coming to terms with the ROR”

      The process you came to at your own speed, in your own time, without having it forced on you by dispossession or oppression? That process?

      • Shmuel
        November 28, 2011, 12:21 pm

        The process you came to at your own speed, in your own time, without having it forced on you by dispossession or oppression? That process?

        That’s the one. Your point?

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 1:16 pm

        “That’s the one. “

        That’s what I thought. Someone like “eee” who has to fight the “Arabs” every day hasn’t got time for those philosophical niceties.

    • eee
      November 28, 2011, 12:13 pm

      Shmuel,

      In your opinion, what is the minimum that the Palestinians you talked to would accept regarding the right of return? My feeling has always been that this is going to be the toughest nut to crack in the peace process.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 12:29 pm

        “In your opinion, what is the minimum that the Palestinians you talked to would accept regarding the right of return?”

        Wait, let me guess! If the “minimum” is anything more than helotry, you start screaming “They want to destroy the Jewish State!”
        But don’t you worry, “eee”, Jewish history shows us we don’t need to give up nothin! All we gotta do is stay strong, and the world will come crawling to us!

      • Shmuel
        November 28, 2011, 12:44 pm

        In your opinion, what is the minimum that the Palestinians you talked to would accept regarding the right of return?

        The right, in principle, of all registered refugees from areas under Israeli jurisdiction to return to Israel should they choose to do so, and to receive compensation. Rate (staggered over a number of years) and modalities of actual return to be negotiated, taking economic, social and other factors into consideration.

        Most did not believe that many would choose to go to Israel, if offered other options (full integration in current countries of residence, “return” to an independent Palestine, or resettlement in a third country), but insisted on the right of all to do so.

      • eee
        November 28, 2011, 1:24 pm

        Shmuel,

        Can’t you be more specific? The following is quite vague:
        “Rate (staggered over a number of years) and modalities of actual return to be negotiated, taking economic, social and other factors into consideration.”
        What are the numbers Palestinians want to achieve?

      • Shmuel
        November 28, 2011, 2:17 pm

        Can’t you be more specific?

        Speak to ordinary Palestinians and these are the answers you will get – recognition of their rights and negotiation in good faith. It’s hard to be more specific without knowing how many refugees we are talking about and the conditions on the ground if and when return becomes feasible. Academics such as Abu Sitta have addressed issues such as absorption capability, but such discussions are necessarily theoretical at this point.

        The PLO has stated its position s follows:

        The Palestinian side proposes to develop, in coordination with the relevant parties, a detailed repatriation plan that includes modalities, timetables and numbers for a phased return of the refugees. This plan must ensure the safety and dignity of return in accordance with international human rights norms.(Cited in Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Sharing the Land of Canaan, p. 195)

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 3:56 pm

        “Can’t you be more specific? The following is quite vague:”

        What a fool I’ve been! There it is, right in front of me. “eee” fully accepts the right of Palestinian return, he just has a few quibbles over the terms on which they will return.
        I’ve got that right, don’t I, “eee”? You fully accept the right of Palestinian return, but just want to smooth out the process and make it fair for everybody, right?

      • eee
        November 29, 2011, 5:29 pm

        Unlike you, I am a pragmatist and for peace. And if the Palestinians are happy with 1000 returning per year, I wouldn’t stand on the principle.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2011, 6:55 pm

        “I wouldn’t stand on the principle.”

        Which principle, eee? You may not stand on a principle, but you put your foot in it, every time, as you just did.

      • Shmuel
        November 30, 2011, 3:22 am

        And if the Palestinians are happy with 1000 returning per year, I wouldn’t stand on the principle.

        That’s mighty generous of you. Any weight limit?

      • LeaNder
        November 30, 2011, 9:23 am

        And if the Palestinians are happy with 1000 returning per year, I wouldn’t stand on the principle.

        Is there an Israeli discussion about this topic? What would an expert associate with the number: 1.000?

      • patm
        November 30, 2011, 10:10 am

        “What would an expert associate with the number: 1.000?”

        A hasbara expert might use the number 1000 “to specify an indefinite quantity.”

        link to membre.oricom.ca

      • Shmuel
        November 30, 2011, 10:33 am

        What would an expert associate with the number: 1.000?

        I’m not an expert, but I would say that it is an empty “offer” meant to make the offerer look good (“I am a pragmatist and for peace”) and the other side look bad (“if the Palestinians are happy with …”). As a number, it is small enough to be insignificant – particularly since it seeks to shift focus from rights to alms – but large enough to create the impression of generosity and willingness to compromise.

        Many Israelis are willing to discuss numbers of return (but not rights), and the number 1,000 is actually the lowest I’ve ever seen.

      • eee
        November 30, 2011, 10:54 am

        “That’s mighty generous of you. Any weight limit?”

        The fact of the matter is that it is up to the Palestinians to put forward the number they are willing to compromise on. And perhaps there is no way to agree. But I have not heard a concrete number. Why are you afraid to put one out there?

        Rejecting negotiations is so easy, isn’t it? If only that would also help the Palestinians in some way, but it doesn’t. The refugees of 1948 will all die before you are willing to negotiate seriously.

      • patm
        November 30, 2011, 11:23 am

        While you’re waiting for Shmuel’s reply, please answer the question I pose below. A question you conveniently ignored.

        “No, Judaism is more than a religion. Being a Jew means being part of a tribe whose customs are the “religion” you talk about.” eee November 23, 2011 at 5:30 pm

        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.**

      • eee
        November 30, 2011, 11:53 am

        Patm,

        I ignored your question, because it has been answered many times. Jews have self determined themselves as a nation. Being Jewish is like being French or Hungarian, not like being Catholic. I am an atheist Jew. Shmuel is an atheist Jew. There are no atheist Muslims or Christians.

      • Shmuel
        November 30, 2011, 12:07 pm

        3e,

        You are not an Israeli negotiator, and I am certainly not a Palestinian negotiator. The PLO position I cited above (“develop, in coordination with the relevant parties, a detailed repatriation plan that includes modalities, timetables and numbers for a phased return of the refugees … in accordance with international human rights norms”) strikes me as perfectly reasonable, and it is in fact the Israelis who have consistently refused to discuss Palestinian ROR beyond a token number (at best, several tens of thousands over a number of years, through the mechanism of “family reunification”), with no recognition of the principle of right of return.

        Reducing the entire refugee issue to a dispute over numbers is in the Israeli, not the Palestinian interest. As with every other issue supposedly under negotiation however, Israel insists on determining the framing of the issues as well as their content. The entire process is thus sterile, denying Palestinians “dignity, humanity and self-determination”. You want to argue over the number of angels on the head of pin? Be my guest. The Palestinians have better things to do.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 30, 2011, 1:29 pm

        “Being Jewish is like being French or Hungarian, not like being Catholic.”

        And yet for a non-Jew to become a Jew one goes through a process similar to that which a non-Catholic goes through to become Catholic, but something absolutely unlike what a non-Frenchman or non-Hungarian goes through to become French or Hungarian.

      • eee
        November 30, 2011, 1:54 pm

        “And yet for a non-Jew to become a Jew one goes through a process similar to that which a non-Catholic goes through to become Catholic”

        Not at all, to become a Catholic or a Muslim it is very simple. A baptism makes you Catholic and saying a sentence three times makes you a Muslim. To become a Jew is much more complex and takes months and years. You have to learn the customs of the nation, its language, its history, its holy texts. It is like being initiated into a tribe.

      • eljay
        November 30, 2011, 2:00 pm

        >> eee: Being Jewish is like being French or Hungarian, not like being Catholic.

        Here we go again. One can immigrate to France or Hungary and, bureaucratically, become French or Hungarian. One cannot immigrate to “Jewish state” and, bureaucratically, become Jewish. Until that happens, being Jewish is not at all like being French or Hungarian.

        >> eee: Shmuel is an atheist Jew.

        Congratulations, Shmuel. It wasn’t too long ago that eee stripped you of your Jewishness. Nice of him to give it back. ;-)

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 30, 2011, 3:49 pm

        “Not at all, to become a Catholic… it is very simple. A baptism makes you Catholic… To become a Jew is much more complex and takes months and years. You have to learn the customs of the nation, its language, its history, its holy texts. It is like being initiated into a tribe.”

        LMFAO.
        All you are showing is that you are woefully, disgustingly, gloriously, absolutely, and completely ignorant of what it takes to convert to Catholicism. In order to baptised as an adult, one undergoes enormous amounts of study about the Catholic community, its litergy, its history, its dogma and its holy books, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. The process, itself, lasts over a year.

        So, in other words, it is similar to the process to that which non-Jews become Jews. (Which is to be expected, as they are both religions.)

        Surprisingly, the process which non-Israelis become Israelis is simiar to the proces by which non-Frenchmen become French and non-Hungarians become Hungarian. Interesting how that works…

      • MHughes976
        November 30, 2011, 4:18 pm

        Yes indeed, patm – some people have claimed to be ‘Christian atheists’ or at least have accepted that label. Philip Pullman being perhaps the best known at the moment. They tend see a way of life marked by the kind of love for others described in I Corinthians as the sole defining characteristic of Christianity. I think most of them would think that they belong to a group rather than a tribe, because ‘tribe’ has connotations of kinship.
        Richard Falk sometime ago offered a definition of ‘Jewish’ which was solely in terms of professed loyalty to certain ideals – he did not specify that these ideals be actually practised or conveyed by Jewish ritual or preaching. I am Jewish, I think, under that definition.
        Others would not use the words ‘Christian’, ‘atheist’ and ‘Jewish’ in the same way, of course. But then we may define words as we wish, so long as we make ourselves clear.
        But it doesn’t seem to me that any group gains political rights simply from how it defines itself or is defined by others.

      • patm
        November 30, 2011, 7:07 pm

        But it doesn’t seem to me that any group gains political rights simply from how it defines itself or is defined by others.

        Absolutely, MHughes. This is where the Zionists go completely off the rails.
        It is a ludicrous presumption they have made.

      • Shmuel
        December 1, 2011, 3:11 am

        Congratulations, Shmuel.

        Thanks, eljay. I’m wondering whether I’m really back in, or on some kind of probation.

        Seriously though, 3e has been beating this dead syllogism for quite some time now: Jews care about other Jews; Jews who oppose Zionism don’t care about other Jews; Jews who oppose Zionism are not Jews.

        Historically, of course, Jews have had no qualms about screwing other Jews, and factionalism is practically our middle name. Zionists have certainly shown very little respect, to say the least, for the “voices and interests” of Jews who have disagreed with them. Oddly enough, many anti-Zionist Jews actually care deeply about their fellow Jews, particularly those in Palestine. Apparently, we also have somewhat of a masochistic streak.

      • LeaNder
        December 1, 2011, 7:30 am

        Rejecting negotiations is so easy, isn’t it? If only that would also help the Palestinians in some way, but it doesn’t. The refugees of 1948 will all die before you are willing to negotiate serious

        if I may add my own anecdote to the first two sentences. We can in the process decide if I misunderstood?

        The first sentence is the status quo, Arafat rejected. We are still with the Israeli perspective in the assumption, that it didn’t help the Palestinians. Concerning now, the basics are clear, no?

        The Palestinian Sumaya Farhat-Naser told a German audience once, had Arafat accepted the offer, he wouldn’t have remained leader of the Palestinians. He may have looked like a dictator but it seems the limit to his rule was Palestinian public opinion.

        Concerning the last sentence, I can see that this is the only glimpse of hope from an ethnological theocratic perspective in the guise of hope for the Palestinians to very, very, very slowly return over the next couple of centuries. …

      • MHughes976
        December 1, 2011, 10:03 am

        As to Christian atheists, Jewish sceptics and all that, the poet Joseph Brodsky defined himself as Jewish, I think, but also as ‘a Christian by correspondence’ whatever that means. These poets are sometimes obscure. He died in NY but had himself interred in a plot belonging to the Anglican Church in Venice – good taste, I’d say.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 1:23 pm

        how can you learn the customs of the nations when jews aren’t a nation but a religion?

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 11:10 pm

        except you can’t self determine yourself as a nation. you either meet the definition of the concept or you don’t. hint jews don’t. they are religion. the jewish nation ended 2 millenia ago deal with it.

      • pjdude
        December 2, 2011, 2:00 pm

        your neither pragmatic nor for peace you just don’t want the palestinians getting their legal mandated rights

      • American
        November 30, 2011, 12:19 pm

        “In your opinion, what is the minimum that the Palestinians you talked to would accept regarding the right of return?”……eee

        Same things the Jews got after their holocaust. Right to reclaim their land and property, reparations for damages, right to x amount of financial aid from Israel for Palestine and refugee survivors same as Germany had to pay Jews and Israel.
        What’s your problem with that?
        You’re the agressor and guilty party in this deal.
        Pay up.

      • eee
        November 30, 2011, 1:55 pm

        What about the property of the 3.5 million Jews of Poland? Was that returned? That should be about 20% of the real estate in Poland. Please pay that up if you demand equal treatment.

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 30, 2011, 3:55 pm

        “What about the property of the 3.5 million Jews of Poland?”

        What about it? (Beside the obvious, lame attempt at redirection.)

        They should have the same rights under Polish law as anyone else who has a property claim, without regard for their religion.

        But given the fact that the Soviet Union took half of the country at the end of the war, many of these people should be addressing Ukraine and Belarus with their claims, not Poland.

        And, further, given the nationalizations during the Communist days, the right is fairly tenuous at this point, anyway.

      • American
        November 30, 2011, 5:10 pm

        “What about the property of the 3.5 million Jews of Poland? Was that returned? That should be about 20% of the real estate in Poland. Please pay that up if you demand equal treatment.”

        eee do you ever actually do any research on Jews before and after the holocaust? I mean really know the details, demographics, difference in Jews from Eastern and Western Europe and conditions of Jews before the war?
        How many left prior to WWII, the conditions of their leaving, how many stayed, which ones and so on? I know you don’t bother with details so that’s a foolish question.
        But every time zionist talk about what the Jews lost, in term of property, they generalize and exaggerated.
        The Jews of Poland were among the poorest Jews in Europe, unlike German Jews. They spoke Yiddish, lived almost strictly among themselves . 90% of Eastern Europe’s Jews were not rich by any means, most were near poor or a little better. They were not owners of extensive or expensive property or business and certainly not priceless art and jewels.
        Germany was bit different, Jews were more well off and educated there but even in Germany, the bulk of them before Hitler evicting them from government jobs, were government workers, teachers, merchants and professionals like doctors with good livings but not great wealth.
        The Jews who had made a great deal of money in Germany and those that had even lesser, but enough means to, got out long before 1939. Out of 500,000 some Jews in Germany all but 200,000+ left long before nazis ever started rounding them up. Any Jew during those years prior could sell their homes or business or whatever and take their proceeds with them, although they paid a ‘tax’ upon leaving in the later emigration days.
        The point is the poorer Jews were the ones who remained behind for the most part in whatever country they were in because they had no resources with which to get out.
        The claims we see all the time “generalize” about all the priceless valuables stolen by the nazis from Jews. This actually applies to very few Jewish families. The country ‘most’ looted by the nazis was France and it was not mostly or strictly from Jewish families. The Russians looted the Germans and others during and after the war and claimed a lot of priceless art they said was looted from Russia by the Bolsheviks when they fled Russia for Germany and the east European countries.
        Also for someone who lives and breaths the holocaust you are seriously ignorant about the “right of Jews” to reclaim their homes after liberation. In Germany for instance Germans occupying any home or property that a Jew could show ownership of was thrown out by the US military police and the home turned over to the rightful owner. A lot of homes and property were destroyed by the allies bombing so some were out of luck. If you think Germany should have paid for the Jews destroyed homes then Germany should have also paid for the UK, French, Russian , etc. other destroyed non Jewish property. The Jews have gotten more than any other victims on earth, ever, they were the only victims to get anything out of WWII, most victims of war don’t get anything, they are lucky to escape with their lives.

        The Jews and Israel have gotten more than a hundred billion in todays dollars in reparations and that’s just surface money.
        I would suggest Israel and the zionist settle up with Palestines and Palestine
        before it gets to the point where someone comes in and makes them.
        I could give you several links for this information but you would call them all anti semitic so go the Holocaust Museum and look up ‘Jews before WWII’, it will tell you the same thing.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 12:57 am

        American,

        You really know nothing. The Polish Jews lived predominantly in the cities before WWII. They were quite well off relative to the population.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        “In 1938, Krakow’s Jewish population numbered over 60,000, or about 25% of the city’s total population.[57] In 1939 there were 375,000 Jews in Warsaw or one third of the city’s population. Only New York City had more Jewish residents than Warsaw.
        The major industries in which Polish Jews were employed were manufacturing and commerce. In many areas of the country the majority of retail businesses were owned by Jews who were sometimes among the wealthiest members of their communities.[58] Many Jews also worked as shoemakers and tailors, as well as in the liberal professions; doctors (56% of all doctors in Poland), teachers (43%), journalists (22%) and lawyers (33%).[59]”

        First up, we would like 1/3 of Warsaw and 1/4 of Krakow. Then we can discuss the rest. So what if the communists nationalized it? Israel nationalized the Palestinian land also, do you therefore claim that the Palestinian claims are “tenuous”? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

        The Poles and Palestinian should keep us out of this. I hereby give up my claims to my family’s land in Bialystok (where Jews were 50% of the population) and instruct the Polish government to compensate the Palestinians directly. My family had a textile factory both in Bialystok and Lodz before WWII. My grandfather went to Europe after the war to search for survivors, but there were none from my family. Only the people who came to Israel before the war survived.

      • Cliff
        December 1, 2011, 8:44 am

        Actually, eee, it’s YOU who know nothing.

        HENCE why you keep quoting Wikipedia! You have done no original research so you Google your argument and it’s almost always from an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

        Pathetic!

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 9:19 am

        “First up, we would like…”

        Who’s “we”? Do you have a rat in your pocket? If you have a claim, go to Poland and press it like everyone else. But don’t complain if you have to follow the same rules and are only able to get the same relief as everyone else.

        “So what if the communists nationalized it? Israel nationalized the Palestinian land also, do you therefore claim that the Palestinian claims are “tenuous”? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

        Compare like and like. If the evil filth that founded your shithole state had stolen everyone’s land, Jew and Palestinian alike, then your point might resemble sensible. (It wouldn’t actually BE sensible, but it might look like it.) But because that filth were racist supremecists like you are, they did not, they only stole the Palestinian’s property. So, no, Palestinians fighing you bastards are not in the same position as the Jews with claims in Poland, because everyone who professes claims to property in Poland is in the same boat, Jews, Germans, Poles, everyone.

        “The Poles and Palestinian should keep us out of this.”

        That is just another example of your lack of any moral reasoning ability whatsoever. The fact that you claim to be owed something from one person does not permit you to inflict loss on another, nor does it permit you to extinguish a debt you owe by pointing to a debt owed to you.”

        “My family had a textile factory both in Bialystok and Lodz before WWII.”

        LMAO. Sure they did. I’m sure you had priceless paintings on the walls, bank accounts stuffed with cash, and trunks overflowing with gold and diamonds. And hundreds of acres, too. LOL.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 10:06 am

        What do you want to bet eee himself is editing the Wikipedia articles he keeps quoting?

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 11:01 am

        So eee. …you don’t go the great Holocaust source, the Holocuast Museum as I suggested specifically because it should be a source you have to accept…you go to wiki? Wiki? I don’t have time but I bet if did use your wiki link and looked at the citations the author was using, if he used any, I would find all of them are sources and books written for the Ho$caus$ funding raising industry.
        Anyone can write anything on wiki, that’s why there such controversy about it. Anyone using it has to look at the author’s sources for he is saying or claiming.
        You are just a smoke and mirrors clown, you don’t do the work for the truth.
        Cause you don’t want the truth.

      • LeaNder
        December 1, 2011, 11:03 am

        American: Any Jew during those years prior could sell their homes or business or whatever and take their proceeds with them, although they paid a ‘tax’ upon leaving in the later emigration days.

        The immigration tax actually existed since the Weimar Republic, was created in the times of depression, the idea being that “German capital” should have slight troubles “to leave”, or to keep at least a little something; but yes it was twisted and used probably with a little raise for Jewish immigrants.

        Jewish dispossession no doubt was thorough and systematic, but yes in the East the returns seem to have disappointed the diverse government departments concerned.

      • annie
        December 1, 2011, 11:19 am

        we would like 1/3 of Warsaw and 1/4 of Krakow.

        who is we? ‘the jews’? ‘the zionists’? israel? which ruling body? are you going to take your creeping, thus far ever expanding, ethnic nationalism and plop it down in other locations and carry your apartheid with you where ever you go? what about jordan? and what about constantinople?

        what place and period in history is not important for the jewish people? tell us what part you will not be interested in claiming. haven’t they been everywhere thru the centuries? maybe we should draw a new map and chart the jewish people thru history and then you could go back to each one and claim the rightful land, carve it from the area and judaize it. fun huh.

        are you aware the mormons baptise people after they are dead so they have millions of dead they speak for now.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 11:41 am

        Annie,

        It is ok, we just want compensation for all the real estate taken from the Jews of Poland, just like the Palestinian refugees want compensation for their property. But we are not asking for the ROR. It is not as if the stealing from and murdering of the Jews of Poland happened in the distant past. It happened just a few years before the Nakba. So of course, if you address one, you need to address the other. Together of course with all the property of Jews which was confiscated in Arab countries. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • LeaNder
        December 1, 2011, 11:45 am

        If the evil filth that founded your shithole state had stolen everyone’s land, Jew and Palestinian alike, then your point might resemble sensible.

        Woody if you react to this: The Poles and Palestinian should keep us out of this. I am with you. I am not with you concerning the “filth” and “shitholes” in earlier contexts.

        Keep in mind that the National Socialists adopted their program of “getting the Jews” out of Germany in 1919. … One of my handicaps is still to read their screeds, I have to admit that I find them repulsive. But I really get more and more interested in their genesis.

        One thing feels true. If there wouldn’t have been WWI there probably wouldn’t have been the disaster of WWII, and yes in that context the Jews are the Nazi’s central scapegoat. What I would like to look closer at is the writings and activities of both sides during this time.

        I am struggling with Anton Kuh at the moment. Kuh in the early 20’s rightfully (it feels to me) rejected both assimilation, whatever that may be, and Zionism. But if I trust Anton, who is only remembered in Kafka studies, a paradigm shift must have happened as a result of WWI, I am still struggling with the fact that I am not quite up to his audience concerning minor allusions. Zionists published him, although he wasn’t on their side, but they felt that his “anti-assimilation” position could mean nothing but support for their side: You are either with us or against us. Maybe it was like that then, but is it now?

      • annie
        December 1, 2011, 11:52 am

        we just want compensation for all the real estate taken from the Jews of Poland, just like the Palestinian refugees want compensation for their property.

        just like the Palestinian refugees want compensation? eee, if you want to go back to poland and have citizenship and get your mothers corner lot back, go. if you want the right of return go. just go.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 11:52 am

        American,

        I was at Yad Va Shem many times and did my own research. Tens of thousands of Jews from Bialystok were documented as murdered. Yet, you want to deny this. Search any city in Poland and you will see that Jews were the percentage of the population as the wikipedia article reports.

        Here is the web site:
        link to yadvashem.org

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 11:54 am

        “just like the Palestinian refugees want compensation? eee, if you want to go back to poland and have citizenship and get you lot back go. if you want the right of return go. just go.”

        Hasn’t Shmuel been telling us that many if not most of the Palestinian refugees want to stay where they are? Same for me. I want to stay where I am, I just want the compensation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • annie
        December 1, 2011, 11:57 am

        and you didn’t answer my question. who is we? you and your brother? or all you speaking for ‘your people’, which needless to say doesn’t include all your people. in fact 1/2 your people live in the US, so should the US get 1/2 of warsaw? the rest of the world isn’t ethnic nationalist, so are you asking to take your ethno rules with you? seriously , the world isn’t trending in this way except where the neocons set their sites. i would be all in favor of israeli jews, bother from the ME and europe of picking up and going back home, if you want. i’m in favor of individuals going wherever they want. i am not in favor of ethnicities claiming land as a collective. the reason this is still going on in palestine is becasue israel wants the rest of palestine and we still have a stateless people. so now that 1/2 of palestine is stolen you want to ‘balance’ more land in europe to set a standard for ‘giving up’ the other palestinian land you don’t have yet? this ‘as a people thing’ gets really old, especially since the people you displaced are homeless. are you homeless eee. are there any other homeless jews who need warsaw? ir are you just into claiming more ‘jewish land’. will we then be required to recognize warsaw as ‘jewish’ too. or just the land god gave you?

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 11:57 am

        The fact is, eee, you have right of return, and you CANNOT deny the Palestinians right of return.

      • LeaNder
        December 1, 2011, 12:01 pm

        So of course, if you address one, you need to address the other.

        this is a standard techniques. Obviously I do not know about Israel’s or every other state’s laws in this context, but I would assume that there is no connection between the issues you would like to combine here.

        Basically you are saying: leave to us what we have now, and we will leave you alone demanding payments for what “we” have lost.

        But law usually has “direct” plaintiffs and defendants, which in our case means that you cannot sent the Palestinians to Poland or Germany, but have to in fact confront their claims yourself. They know what and why things happened beyond their history, it’s part of world history.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 12:02 pm

        American,

        Here is direct evidence about Bialystok:
        “City in northeastern Poland. Before World War II, 50,000 Jews lived in
        Bialystok, representing more than half of the city’s population.”

        link to www1.yadvashem.org

        We can go city by city if you want. Here is Warsaw:
        “Capital of Poland and site of the largest ghetto in Europe during World War II. An important Jewish center, 375,000 Jews lived in Warsaw just before the war (constituting almost 30 percent of the city’s total population).”

        link to www1.yadvashem.org

        So now that you are proven wrong, what do you have to say?

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 12:08 pm

        Annie,

        “We” are the survivors and the remaining relatives of the 3 million Jews who were murdered in Poland, it does not matter where we live.

        It is not realistic to return to Europe, nor do we want to. Many Palestinians view the ROR in the same way. However, if Palestinian refugees are compensated, so should we.

        My demands are strictly against the ROR demands, not demands about the West Bank. I think a two state solution based on the Clinton parameters is a fair historical compromise. But if you don’t and want to throw in the ROR, then of course I will add my demands. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • annie
        December 1, 2011, 12:18 pm

        Many Palestinians view the ROR in the same way.

        do not use palestinians in your rationale. nothing is ‘in the same way’, it is only your view of what they want to fit your rationale for taking warsaw.

        However, if Palestinian refugees are compensated, so should we.

        iow, not only do you get to displace palestinians and take israel for the trauma, but you want your old claims back as well. you are sounding very greedy sitting there on stolen holy land leveraging how to take parts of poland. you want more and more when your eating your just deserts. it’s unpleasant discussing it with you. i’m done talking to you. take the last word.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 12:23 pm

        Look, we only want 1/3 of Warsaw, why is that greedy? :)
        Of course it is unpleasant for you to understand that the Palestinian demand for ROR is like Jews demanding 1/3 of Warsaw. It just shows how unreasonable the demands for the ROR are after 60 years. And this is what I was trying to show you.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 12:56 pm

        LeaNder,

        My position is simple: Everyone has a right to the full exercise of their human and political rights and to have full equality. There is, to my knowledge, nothing in either the Zionist theory or practice which intended to do anything in Palestine other than to wrest the land from its native inhabitants and to put, in its place, a foreign power.

        Those Europeans who were targeted and discriminated against for their religion were done a great crime, without question. However, their remedy did not lay in going to a foreign land and inflict oppression on another people. It just didn’t.

      • Shmuel
        December 1, 2011, 1:03 pm

        Same for me. I want to stay where I am, I just want the compensation.

        There are some lawyers and associations in Israel working on such claims (my sister wanted us to file one for the bakery our family owned in a small town now in Ukraine). I hope your endeavours are successful.

        Now what has that got to do with Palestinians?

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 1:03 pm

        “Basically you are saying: leave to us what we have now, and we will leave you alone demanding payments for what ‘we’ have lost.”

        LeaNder,

        eee is full of crap and he knows it. In fact, if he were serious that what he proposes is just, he would also have to face the fact that the payouts and payoffs that the Jews received from Germany, the German companies, Swiss Banks, etc., etc., etc. shoudl have been simply turned over to the Palestinians in full. Because if he feels that it is proper that the debt one is owed should go to pay the debt one owes, then that is an unavoidable concluison.

        Good for the goose, etc.,

        But he is only using this argument as a cynical ploy to try to deflect his own debt owed to and crimes against the Palestinians by using the dead Jews of Europe, and the evil done to them, as nothing but ammunition. He should be ashamed of himself.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 1:26 pm

        those who you know made a legit provable claim did. though typical of you to blaim fellow victims of the holocaust in a red herring comment than admit jewish crimes.

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 1:30 pm

        What the Germans have already paid is something that should of course be taken into account when we even the ledger and take into account Palestinian property in Israel, Jewish property in Europe and Jewish property in Arab countries. What the Germans have paid so far is a drop in the bucket relative to the real estate the Jews owned in Poland. But by all means, let’s take it into account. My argument is simple, if you want to compensate people for property taken from them 60 years ago, let’s do it for all involved. I think it is stupid and backward looking, but if this is what you want, so be it, what it good for the goose is good for the gander. There is nothing cynical about it. It is just common sense.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 1:32 pm

        sorry EEE but whining and saying you lost something doesn’t entitle you to anything you have to proove you owned it. you ;like the palestinians can. and the poles didn’t take real estate from jews the russians did. if you think it was the work of the poles in the post war poland you have zero understanding of world war 2 history and polish history.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 1:32 pm

        This is stupid. I can’t believe eee is allowed to complain about the ethnic cleansing and compensation for it AT THE SAME TIME he proclaims that he has every right to ethnically cleanse and deny others compensation.

        Censorship sucks. Letting eee run roughshod on the blog while people who stand up to him are silenced is EXACTLY why we don’t have comments from more Middle Eastern voices. The blog is biased against non-Jewish comments. To be quite frank. How else does eee get access to say what he wants to say no matter how heinous it is?

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 1:32 pm

        You haven’t proven me wrong eee.

        We were talking about reparations for Palestines and you were demanding more reparations for Polish Jews. I gave you an accurate snap shot of Jews in Poland before WWII…..including that fact that there were more Jews left in Poland than Germany at the outbreak of war.
        So you using population stats does nothing but confirm what I was saying.
        It does nothing for your claim that Polish Jews lost untold riches and should be given more money.
        You want ‘to pretend’ that all or most Jews were rich, that all of them lost huge fortunes and assets..and it simply isn’t true.
        If the Jews had been as big holders of wealth or industrial importance in Germany or Poland or any other countries they would have had much more impact on nazism and those countries politics in defeating Hitler.
        You want to believe that most Jews were the richest, most accomplished in the countries they lived in because it’s part of your superiority myth…. that they were at some ‘pinnacle’ of the world and had it taken from them so now they should be given the world. The fact is for huge numbers of Jews killed they were too poor to be able to get out, didn’t have the money or professions or contacts to be able to get into other countries like the richer Jews did.

        This…..”I just want the compensation…”…… shows what it is about for you.
        You want money. Well, if your claim to have lost property in holocaust, had it seized by the nazis was true and you could prove it you would have been able to get compensation. But evidently you didn’t get any money or enoough to satisfy your greed or couldn’t prove it or it’s a lie.

        You don’t have the first freaking idea of how repulsive you are in claiming that because x numbers of Jews were killed that “you personally” should get some money out it. Sick.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 1:37 pm

        um because you didn’t own 1/3 of warsaw and had nothing to do witht he cities founding. but once again you demand jews begiven what other people have worked for. and the palestinians demanded the right to return right away. you cannot compare you thinking jews should get parts of poland now to palestinians being denied their right to return to their homes for 60 years. all you should is how big of an ass you are. palestinians were prevent from returning at gun point. the pals demanded the ROR in 49. just because greedy people like you prevented them from returning home for 60 years doesn’t make it absurd.

        also I’m sick and tired of you getting away with your blatent bigoted paintings of the polish people. you have repeatedly painted them as hand in hand with the nazis when in realty they were next in line for the gas chambers.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 1:40 pm

        If “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” eee, then we’ll see you at the Nuremberg trials when we hold them again.

        And why are you surprised, pjdude? Zionist racist driveling gets through moderation here ALL. THE. TIME.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 1:49 pm

        Of course it’s cynical, because the only reason why you would connect two separate and wholly unrelated sets of claims, in a blatently ad hoc fashion, is because you think that it gets you a rhetorical advantage in your attempt to avoid the debt you owe.

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 2:00 pm

        “then we’ll see you at the Nuremberg trials when we hold them again.:

        Should have already. Maybe you have to kill or collectively punish 4 million instead of 1/2 or x million to qualify….or maybe the US has to be removed as a power to get them there.

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 2:12 pm

        “blog is biased against non-Jewish comments. To be quite frank. How else does eee get access to say what he wants to say ”

        I wouldn’t say it is biased against non Jewish comments maybe it’s sensitive to some generalization comments because Phil is Jewish after all and this is his effort to save the Jews from themselves.

        But let eee say whatever he wants…all the better to know his kind’s mentality by. And his frequent disinformation does bring out a lot corrections and facts from others here. I’m for no censorship except for the obviously putrid kind.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 2:29 pm

        “I wouldn’t say it is biased against non Jewish comments maybe it’s sensitive to some generalization comments because Phil is Jewish after all and this is his effort to save the Jews from themselves.”

        I have been known to use some very salty language and cannot complain about being censored. Any posts that were struck by the mods were, in retrospect, ones where I probably stepped over the line.

      • Hostage
        December 1, 2011, 3:17 pm

        But by all means, let’s take it into account. My argument is simple, if you want to compensate people for property taken from them 60 years ago, let’s do it for all involved.

        But you Zionists have already been giving Jews property in East Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc based upon disputed claims of ownership dating back farther than 60 years and your World Jewish Restitution Organization has been bringing “political and economic pressure” to bear on Poland through the US and other governments — “tactics that have proven successful in the past in persuading European governments to live up to their Holocaust-era responsibilities.” link to thejewishweek.com

        So why shouldn’t the Palestinian Solidarity Movement bring the same “political and economic pressure” to bear on Israel?

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 3:34 pm

        “So why shouldn’t the Palestinian Solidarity Movement bring the same “political and economic pressure” to bear on Israel?”

        Who is stopping them?

        “But you Zionists have already been giving Jews property in East Jerusalem and the Etzion Bloc based upon disputed claims of ownership dating back farther than 60 years”

        So? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Palestinians are still demanding the ROR.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 3:38 pm

        I think it’s a damn shame our country allowed itself to be maneuvered into so thoroughly getting in the way of justice too, American. We were destined for far greater than to be Israel’s human shield and willing hostage, to be thrown under the oncoming wheels of the bus with the sign indicating it’s on its way to Justice.

        I suppose there is still a chance for us to grab something to stop our fall, I’m pretty sure we’re already over the cliff at this point.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 3:45 pm

        So? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Palestinians are still demanding the ROR.

        Then GO BACK TO POLAND! You have as much right to do that as the Palestinians do to return to their homeland, eee. That’s the whole point!

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 4:03 pm

        Let me expose you and holocaust industry further eee.

        And it’s easy to do by showing how they just say whatever they want to say, make up figures, leave out figures, don’t even bother to care that what they claim they can’t support because population figures of Jews they cite don’t hold up to the claim that Jews lost untold wealth. Some, the few among the rich that didn’t leave in time lost some wealth but others didn ‘t have any to lose.

        For instance the latest biggest claim is that the Jews lost assets was worth 15 billion in the 1940’s and now should be worth 145 billion allowing for inflation. They don’t even bother with the math or try to explain which Jews these are because their purpose is just to extract more money, not return anything to the exact Jews who lost it….because if every Jew got exactly what he lost it wouldn’t be much for 90% of them.

        If 11 million, all the Jews at the time , had 15 billion in wealth they would have had a worth of a little over a $1,000 each at the time about $14,000 today.
        If even 6 million had a collective wealth equal to 15 billion then that is only around $2,000+ each at the time, or $20,000 some today.
        You can up the amount of individual Jewish wealth lost only by reducing the number of Jews who actually lost any. That presents quite a problem for the holocaust industry and why their methodology is not really any kind of methodology that would pass a smell test. They can’t use real evidence for what they claim because it would effect and contradict other claims they make like the number of Jews who were survivors or affected. They won’t include or subtract the billions Jews who indidivually recovered their assets and or sued Tom, Dick and Harry’s bank, insurer or company have received

        I guarantee most Jews who have received reparations payments for 50 years have received way more than they lost.
        If the Jews who actually lost more haven’t recovered it after 50 years of hunting and suing whoever they could then they never will recover it.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 5:12 pm

        Well, American, execpt for the Holocaust survivors that got bilked by Israel, because Israel funneled reparations into their nuclear arms program and settlement colonization enterprise instead, and have been reduced to eating cheap canned dog food to survive. Didn’t I read somewhere that there are still Holocaust survivors living in poverty? That the poverty rate in Israel alone (Holocaust survivor or not) is at least one in five people? And this is AFTER billions harvested from just the United States and Germany, each?

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 6:08 pm

        actually jews have a much better chance at returning to poland and getting any lost property back provided solid proof ownership( amittedly harder than it should be I have no doubt due to the fact the communist puppet government being willing to destroy information of their misdeeds) than any palestinian every has of returning to occupied palestine(Israel) and getting there property back.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 7:49 pm

        EEE is more concerned with distorting history to slander the polish people than anything resembling facts

      • RoHa
        December 1, 2011, 8:23 pm

        “You want to believe that most Jews were the richest, most accomplished in the countries they lived in because it’s part of your superiority myth”

        And that ties in to the anti-Semitic stereotype of the rich Jew cunningly manipulating the country for his own ends.

        Is eee a closet anti-Semite?

      • American
        December 1, 2011, 8:27 pm

        Yes Chaos….I should have phrased it….most Jews who have received reparations payments for 50 years ‘Would’ have received way more than they lost…IF the money paid for them hadn’t been skimmed off by Israel.

      • pjdude
        December 2, 2011, 2:06 pm

        EEE its perfectly realistic for the jews to return to Europe that you don’t want as you would have to abide by the rule of is not in doubt. that you think a 2 state solution based on the clinton parameters of lets just try and legitimize the left of 75% of palestine is fair says alot about you. the ulitimate goal should be one palestinian state in palestine where everyone is treated equally.

        and EEE you and your family has the right of return to poland as well as the right of theft as confered to you by the Orwellian named law of return.

  4. annie
    November 28, 2011, 10:41 am

    for anyone who is interested bernard avishai has a post on his blog about his article. link to bernardavishai.blogspot.com

    he starts out:

    In many ways, the sides are closer than ever to sensing what a modus vivendi feels like, as the institutions and economy of a Palestinian state gradually take shape, and the parameters of an initial deal become more widely understood by the international community. For the younger generations, who live more and more in cyberspace, the issue of land per se seems less and less relevant to quality of life. And yet I cannot remember a time of relative calm when the sheer hatred between the two sides has been more palpable, and the ultras on both sides are on the ascendancy, enjoying (and fueling) the resulting polarization.

    i sense the balancing act. even the term ‘modus vivendi’ does not address the imbalance of power. dana nails it :

    While narrowly exhaustive, Avishai’s article is potholed with images of Israeli-Palestinian symmetry that do not exist.

    also, i highly recommend checking out the comment section for this article @ 972. dana enters into the thread repeatedly including a choice comment on liberal zionism and a response to witty’s first comment of the thread.

  5. Mooser
    November 28, 2011, 11:26 am

    As far as I can see (which, as everyone knows, is a very short distance) Mr. Dana’s article is the perfect complement to Mr. Avishai’s. They both comfort the reader with the idea that the Jews are on top, will always be on top (and implicit in that is the “special” US-Israel relationship) and Palestinian gains will only come about as a result of Jewish largess. The idea that they could, or should come about any other way is absent.
    Yes sir, Jewish power is here to stay, and all we need consider is how gracious we will be to those who cause us any inconvenience.

  6. Avi_G.
    November 28, 2011, 12:55 pm

    We must ask ourselves why an openly Zionist thinker who happens to be a Canadian immigrant is writing about Palestinian right of return without a Palestinian counter article.

    Because the discussion remains one between so-called liberal Zionists and so-called right-wing Zionists. It’s an inter-tribe conversation where the people who are actually living under occupation are seen as inferior subjects, not worthy of participation.

    Alas, it’s not exclusively the fault of the US press. There is a duality in the way Israelis discuss the conflict when they are in Israel and in the way they discuss the conflict when they go abroad. Israelis repeatedly balk at the prospect of Palestinians speaking about Israel’s history or the history of Zionism. It’s OUR history, goes the argument. Only we, the Jewish people, have a right to discuss it. Mingle enough in Israeli academic circles at one conference or another and you will quickly see this hypocrisy.

    • Mooser
      November 28, 2011, 1:13 pm

      “Because the discussion remains one between so-called liberal Zionists and so-called right-wing Zionists. It’s an inter-tribe conversation where the people who are actually living under occupation are seen as inferior subjects, not worthy of participation.”

      Oh, don’t be so rigid about it! Look, “eee” had the courage to ask an ex-Jew what he thinks the Palestinians want.

      • eee
        November 28, 2011, 1:31 pm

        You are the ex-Jew (if you ever were one), not Shmuel. Shmuel is still a Jew in my book because he truly cares about the Jewish community in Israel. In the end, Shmuel may decide to leave Judaism and join your group, Jews for Palestinians or whatever you want to call yourselves. That will be a pity, but the sooner we establish these boundaries the better. You cannot be wishing harm to 50% of the Jews (those in Israel) and still expect to be part of the Jewish community.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 3:18 pm

        “(if you ever were one),”

        Oh God, shot through the heart! And you’re to blame, “eee”. You give love a bad name!
        “eee”, this wondrous ability of yours to determine who is a Jew, is this something all Israelis have, or do you have to attain a certain IDF rank, or graduate from a specialised yeshiva to get it? Do you do kashrut inspections, too?
        But don’t worry, pal, I am awed and tremendously frightened at your power to alienate God from me. A few words from your mouth (chew a Certs first, m’okay?) into God’s ear and it’s all over for me!
        I’m glad Shmuel meets your approval, tho. It’s a comfort to me to know that. But I could’a swore you “de-Jewed” him a couple days ago. I guess that was just a sort of “hint” and it brought him round, huh? Not that I blame Shmuel, you got to know (as the song says) “when to hold ‘em (when to hold ‘em) when to fold ‘em (when to fold ‘em) when to walk away, and when to run.”

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 3:23 pm

        For those not au courant with Jewish culture, the quoted words are from an old Yiddish folk song.

        I’m telling you, the Gentiles steal all our culture, like the other Jewish folk song that began: “Shtetl for sale or rent…”

      • Shmuel
        November 28, 2011, 4:03 pm

        I could’a swore you “de-Jewed” him a couple days ago.

        I thought so too – over there on that Spinoza thread. We were getting together a minyan of the damned and all.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 5:33 pm

        Well, so long Shmuel. Guess you’ve been reinstated. Sure, we had a nice couple of days, wailing, gnashing our teeth, and cursing the darkness, but I knew it couldn’t last.
        And anytime “eee” wants to come up with the comments in which I advocate harming the Jews of Israel, why I’m sure it’ll be enough to get me banned. But “eee” is nothing if not a liar, and for him, that isn’t even a very big lie.

      • eee
        November 29, 2011, 11:11 am

        “And anytime “eee” wants to come up with the comments in which I advocate harming the Jews of Israel”

        Are you not for sanctioning the Jews in Israel? Is that not harming them?
        Are you not for forcing them to be a minority in an Arab country against the will of 99% of them? Is that not harming them? Do you not support Hamas who are trying to hurt Jews? Do you not support Hezbollah who want to get rid of Israel?

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2011, 5:35 pm

        You are making those things up, “eee”. Where I come from they have words for people like you. But “liar” is just one the words in the middle, and the rest wouldn’t pass the moderators.
        You are, as usual breathing prevaricating right through your cheap Israeli dentures..

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2011, 7:02 pm

        “your cheap Israeli dentures..”

        You know the ones I mean. They always break when you’re out there in the darkness, wailing and gnashing. One good gnash and they fall apart.

      • American
        November 30, 2011, 12:06 pm

        “Shmuel may decide to leave Judaism and join your group, Jews for Palestinians or whatever you want to call yourselves”

        Huum…7 billion rejected humans against x number of eee-z zionst.
        I’ll take those odds.

      • eee
        November 30, 2011, 3:27 pm

        Mooser,

        Why don’t you stand in front of some Jewish community and say clearly what you want to see happen in Israel? Then you will get direct feedback that will show you once and for all that what you want is to harm Israel’s Jews.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 11:59 am

        You know, American Jews can easily look through your comments and see how much you HATE the diaspora — how much you hate them, eee, for not being good little soldiers for the “Jewish state.”

      • eee
        December 1, 2011, 12:29 pm

        Chaos,

        American Jews can clearly see from your and Mooser’s comments how much you hate the Jews in Israel. I really do not understand your comment because the vast majority of diaspora Jews support Israel.

      • Chaos4700
        December 1, 2011, 1:34 pm

        The vast majority of diaspora Jews would haul you up before the courts and prosecute you themselves if they saw what sort of awful atrocities you are doing on the West Bank and Gaza. Don’t you dare accuse American Jews of being as vicious and brutal as you are, eee.

      • pjdude
        December 1, 2011, 1:40 pm

        so only jews get to create states against the will of the majority? Israel’s jews majority is irrelevant as to any sane reasonable person it was gained illegally.

  7. NormanF
    November 28, 2011, 1:35 pm

    Israelis don’t feel guilty because they consider the price of establishing the state acceptable. And they are bemused by criticism from countries that wiped out native peoples to make way for the newcomers. Israel may be the only country on earth to which Arabs willingly sold land to Jews to allow them to create their own state. It would be more accurate to say the Jews did not force themselves on the Arabs, who fled rather than share the country with the Jews. The problem is not Zionist thinking, its Arab thinking that sees the conflict with Israel in terms of a zero sum solution. And as long as the Arabs think in this way, there will be no two state solution and no peace.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 28, 2011, 2:21 pm

      “Israelis don’t feel guilty because they consider the price of establishing the state acceptable.”

      A lot of former SS men felt the same about the Holocaust. Have to break a few eggs if you’re going to create a proper Aryan fatherland. Nothing to feel guilty about.

      “And they are bemused by criticism from countries that wiped out native peoples to make way for the newcomers.”

      Yeah, because you can NEVER learn from someone else’s mistakes…

      “Israel may be the only country on earth to which Arabs willingly sold land to Jews to allow them to create their own state.”

      I was going to discuss this theory with my great uncle, Ahmad, but he was murdered at Deir Yassin when some Jews “bought” his home.

      “It would be more accurate to say the Jews did not force themselves on the Arabs, who fled rather than share the country with the Jews.”

      Silly Arabs, every knows that when Jews point their guns on you, they’re only KIDDING, not KILLING.

      “The problem is not Zionist thinking, its Arab thinking that sees the conflict with Israel in terms of a zero sum solution. And as long as the Arabs think in this way, there will be no two state solution and no peace.”

      Wow, Einstein, that zero-sum thinking explains why the Arab Peace Plan has sat unaccepted by the Israelis for near a decade… Oh, wait, no, it doesn’t.

    • Mooser
      November 28, 2011, 3:52 pm

      Norman, I can’t remember when I’ve seen all the sociopathy and ethical pathology of Zionism so neatly compressed into one paragraph. And that neat turn-around, “Arab thinking”! Don’t be discouraged! You have some stiff competition here, but I bet you could join some of the others in getting it into one sentence!

  8. kalithea
    November 28, 2011, 1:54 pm

    First of all, there is no such thing as a “Liberal” Zionist. A Liberal Zionist is like a bulimic who purges repeatedly so he can still keep indulging in the forbidden fruit or worse indulge in it in secret every chance he gets.

    Second, while many people have taken up the cause of ending homelessness, Zionists have made generating homelessness official state policy.

    • Richard Witty
      November 28, 2011, 4:42 pm

      A liberal Zionist is one who walks and breathes at the same time, maybe even thinks as well, and even maybe speaks to a friend.

      It is an #and# construction, congruent with the Israeli declaration of independence and constitutional basic laws.

      Jewish #and# democratic. (Hopefully more emphasis on the democratic, say like England, or France.)

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 5:48 pm

        “and constitutional basic laws.”

        Oh please, Richard, tell us more about Israel’s “constitutional basic laws”

        Yes sir, that Israel constitution will tug at all true-blue American heartstrings. They will, in point of fact, go “zing”!

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2011, 7:52 pm

        “Jewish #and# democratic. (Hopefully more emphasis on the democratic, say like England, or France.)”

        I hope you are not trying to sneak in that silly idea that “Jewish” is equivalent to “French” again. It has been exploded so often on MW that it would take immense powers of wilful ignorance to keep using it.

        (Incidentally, since there is no elected English government, and England is under the control of the British Government, it could be argued that England is not quite a democracy.)

      • Chaos4700
        November 29, 2011, 12:25 am

        A liberal Zionist is one who walks and breathes at the same time, maybe even thinks as well

        Gee, I mean, I guess it’s a remote possibility, I just wish I could see some tangible evidence, you know?

      • pjdude
        November 29, 2011, 1:52 pm

        liberal zionism isn’t. zionism is fundementallly incapatble with true liberal ideas.

  9. Richard Witty
    November 28, 2011, 4:46 pm

    One grave irony of Joseph Dana’s characterization of Bernard Avishai in particular, is that he articulates that the right of return is reconilable, acceptable to Israel.

    And takes a lot of heat for it.

    Liberal Zionism is not a definition of “those bad settlers ruin our democracy” (though that is true, as the few hundred articles here attest). It is a definition of the combination of Jewish #and# democratic.

    A simultaneous appreciation and commitment.

    • Mooser
      November 28, 2011, 5:42 pm

      Oh Gawd! Here he is again. And he’s discovered that pressing “shift” and the “3” key gives you a “#” sign. And he seems so vindicated! But then, I’d be overjoyed, too, if I had discovered the character which both explicates and solves the I-P equation. Yes, if only the world would come to know the sublime significance of the “#” in the I-P issues, all would come clear!
      I bet tens of Kabbalah numerologists are gnashing their teeth, smacking their hands to their foreheads and crying “Oy Gevalt why did I wait so long to get a computer?”
      But I’m like all the rest of you, I’ll be waiting with bated breath to hear from Richard concerning the “,” and the “.” and the “*”. I only fear he’ll lose me when he gets to subtle concepts like “^” and “@” as they relate to I-P issues.
      As for the “$” in I-P issues, well, that gets covered pretty thoroughly here.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Richard, press “start” then “all programs” then “accessories” then “system tools” and finally “character map”. You should find everything you need there to explain things to us. Just keep it open, and whenever mere words can’t express the ineffable cogency of your analysis, you’ll have an “Φ” or “╕” or “Ә” right there to make things clear to us.

      • droog
        November 28, 2011, 6:25 pm

        !^%-** tears running +{:};?
        #~!.*{}’ ^$#mooser | ,,;}{. !.

        -*&…
        ,
        ;
        :
        !
        is it just me, or does there always seem to be some balance at work in nature?, always, it seems.

    • Woody Tanaka
      November 28, 2011, 5:57 pm

      “Liberal Zionism is not a definition of ‘those bad settlers ruin our democracy’ (though that is true, as the few hundred articles here attest). It is a definition of the combination of Jewish #and# democratic.”

      Except that liberalism is about the individual and not the group. So when one element of your combination is “Jewish” (except in a nominal or apolitical sense) then you don’t have liberalism. You have something else.

  10. yourstruly
    November 28, 2011, 10:02 pm

    too much concern for the excuses that so-called liberal zionists throw out to cover up the racist nature of their apartheid entity, and not enough to growing the bds movement and other actions which challenge the zionist occupation & apartheid regime. discourse alone has proven to be minimally helpful in other apartheid regimes of this cenrtury, notably, french occupied algeria and dutch/british occupied south africa. seems words alone don’t matter much when the task is to smash colonial enterprises, because in both those instances it took native resistance backed by international pressure (bds in the case of s. africa), to bring about a breakthrough. and to the very end, remember, the colons in algeria and their dutch/british counterparts in south africa clung to their racist beliefs and regimes. same thing’s going to happen in regards to palestinian liberation, bds, bds, bds + flotillas + additional creative endeavors, prn. until the zionist regime decides “no mas, no mas, no mas.”

    • yourstruly
      November 28, 2011, 10:19 pm

      ….same holds for the struggle against apartheid in the u.s. of al, with essentially no progress in either turning racists in the south nor ending apartheid there, until the combination of african-american resistance + civil rights movement = breakthrough.

  11. American
    November 30, 2011, 11:58 am

    “Diaspora Palestinians with their own overdone nationalism and a small coterie of Jews whose express their disappointment with Zionism through mirror-image anti-Zionism—as if denying Jewish rights to national self-determination were somehow more progressive than denying Palestinian rights. But realistic, moderate progressives always face the challenge of portraying a more complex reality than extremists recognize.”

    More convoluted bull.
    “Diaspora Palestinians with their own overdone nationalism”….and the zionist don’t have overblown nationalism?——-ROTFLMAO

    “as if denying Jewish rights to national self-determination were somehow more progressive than denying Palestinian rights”——–as if demanding the return of people’s stolen land and resources was somehow more progressive …..ROTFLMAO

    “But realistic, moderate progressives always face the challenge of portraying a more complex reality than extremists recognize.”——-but realistic progressives always face the challenge of pretending it is more complex than religious/ tribal supremacism, occupation, surpression of another’s rights and confiscation of their land and resources……ROTFLMAO.

    Dose anyone any but the true believers themselves actually fall for this inside out crapola?

    • Mooser
      November 30, 2011, 2:20 pm

      “Dose anyone any but the true believers themselves actually fall for this inside out crapola?”

      Are you kidding? Haven’t you seen the site-meter on Witty’s blog?

  12. Sand
    November 30, 2011, 6:41 pm

    This discussion is still going on over at +974

    Monday, November 28 2011|Joseph Dana
    +972 readers weigh in on Zionism debate
    link to 972mag.com

    h/t to The Magnes Zionist after reading his post.
    link to jeremiahhaber.com

    This Joseph Dana guy is razor sharp.

Leave a Reply