Beinart says Israel must give citizenship to Palestinians under occupation

Israel/Palestine
on 146 Comments

A month ago, Peter Beinart, author of the landmark piece on the Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, spoke to that establishment, the Jewish Federations General Assembly in Denver, about Israel’s p.r. crisis with young American Jews. The video of the panel, above, was lately posted.

The highlight is Beinart saying that there is only one state right now between the river and the sea, and Palestinians must have the right to vote in that state or Israel will be impossible to defend.

His comments begin at about 9:40. There’s a “crisis” in American Jewry. “There is not enough space created” in the American Jewish community for those like himself who say that “for me being pro Israel” means a belief in the Israeli declaration of independence which guaranteed “complete equality of social and political rights.”

And that forces me into profound conflict with an occupation that has lasted for 2/3 of Israel’s existence and desecrates those ideals by not giving citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank. … 

Then Wayne Firestone, president of Hillel, says that we just need to invite Israelis to speak to the American Jewish community. Beinart bridles.

I guess the question that comes to my mind… is how you are defining Israeli… The Palestinians of the West Bank have been under Israeli sovereignty since 1967. So to my mind that makes them, whether we like it or not, till we have a Palestinian state, Israelis. There is only one state that has sovereignty and dominion over their lives.. They’re not Israeli citizens, but Israel is the state that controls much of their lives.

Moderator Ami Eden of Jewish Telegraphic Agency asks how Israel can counter “delegitimization.” Beinart says– this is at about 22:

Believe me I want to defeat Israel’s delegitimization as much as anyone in this room. I want Israel to remain a Jewish state for my children and grandchildren… At the core of Israel’s legitimacy is the fact that it was founded as a democratic and Jewish state….and  delegitimization of Israel will rise in  direct proportion to the degree that people believe that Israel is no longer living up to its own founding principles. If Israel can become again a country that offers citizenship to everyone in its borders, irrespective of race, religion, sex annd ethnicity, it will not need PR firms. Because although there will still be hard core anti-Semites and lunatics out there, pro Israel people will be able to go into any room and debate anyone and win. Because democracy is the language of our time, the lingua franca of our time… even in the Arab world. [If the occupation is permanent] and Israel becomes in some fundamental way not  a democratic state, you can get 100 PR firms and you will gradually lose that debate and more and more empower those people who believe that the creation of a Jewish state was a mistake to begin with.

Then later, at about 3o, Beinart makes clear that he is talking about Palestinians in the occupied territories. Though he doesn’t seem to mean Gaza.

When I say Israel, I mean all the territory under Israeli domain. Some parts of which I wish were not under Israeli sovereignty. That is Israel. The people there might not be Israeli citizens, but that’s Israel. We have to take ownership of the fact that until a Palestinian state is created, that’s Israel…

This is pretty close to an endorsement of one democratic state from the river to the sea. Maybe he’s saving that for the publication of his book? Not that when Beinart speaks up for Judah Magnes, Henrietta Szold, Hannah Arendt and Ahad Ha’am, he invokes a tradition of cultural Zionism.

To what do we owe this breakthrough? The royal road of all consciousness-wakening on this issue: It is clear that Beinart has met Palestinians. Apparently through the group Encounter. He says that they are “at root” no different from us. Bravo. He says that American Jews have to talk to Palestinians who have suffered under Israel, including the 20 percent of Israel’s population which is not Zionist because it is not Jewish.

He also throws in all the non- and anti-Zionist Jews; the Jewish community has to start talking to them.

I wonder when Beinart will stop moving on this? He is an orthodox Jew who throws around words like machmir, for kosher stringency. He believes in the need for a Jewish state. He supported the Iraq war, honorably apologized for doing so, and has regularly spoken at AIPAC. And of course he gets a platform at the New York Review of Books, which has done nothing to extend Tony Judt’s brave assertion of eight years ago: one democratic state.

The long session at which Beinart spoke is chiefly remarkable for the disruption that has begun inside the Israel lobby’s ranks. American Jews know that what they are doing is unsupportable– in fact a woman from Encounter says that she meets more and more young Jews who resent the “snowjob” they’ve gotten from the Jewish community on Israel.

Two other incidents. A young Israeli woman named Donna with voice breaking says that she was lied to by the Jewish community about Israel. At the end of the video, the Shalom TV correspondent interviews her about what she means. She cites one of these lies: “How did Israel come to be in the first place. I think a lot of the narrative is distorted.. How did the Palestinians leave palestine. Did they leave by choice or get kicked out?” And then she says she has learned:
“Most of them were forced out.” But the Jewish community told her, “Either they left or they weren’t there in the first place.” To which she responds: “That was a very hurtful point for me… Yes they were there and yes they were forced out.”

The Shalom TV guy interviewing her then argues with her! It’s cruel. That’s at minute 54 or so.

Also, John Ruskay, a warhorse Israel lobbyist, admits at 39 or so that the orthodoxy that Jewish leaders demanded of the community for 60 years is outdated. “For a whole lot of reasons, for the last twenty years, the visuals have been a whole lot more problematic.”

The Israel lobby is splintering. Some of its advocates have met Palestinians! Thanks to Krauss for the tip.

146 Responses

  1. hophmi
    December 5, 2011, 3:08 pm

    Many of us who are actively pro-Israel have met Palestinians. Most of us believe in a Palestinian state. We don’t believe in a one-state solution and a right of return that essentially seeks to reverse 1948 and privilege Palestinian self-determination over Jewish self-determination. We don’t buy Tony Judt’s highly ridiculous thesis that in a world with five dozen Islamic countries and a European continent that spent more than a millenia establishing an overwhelming Christian majority (and today is more Christian than Israel is Jewish), persecuting non-Christian minorites (particularly Jews), and today has a far-right anti-Muslim movement that exceeds in size and scope anything Avigdor Lieberman has ever put together, Israel is the anachronism.

    John Ruskay is not saying anything new when he calls for a more nuanced approach; every mainstream Jewish communal organization who does Israel-related programming knows you cannot ram Israel right-or-wrong down the throats of kids on college campuses.

    Blogs like this undermine people like Peter Beinart. They perpetuate the long-held belief that whatever public criticism one makes of Israel, it will inevitably be distorted by people like you. If Beinart (who is not orthodox but attends an orthodox synagogue in Washington, not that it matters), posted here, everyone would condemn him, as you do me, Witty, Dan Siederski, and others for being liberal Zionists. You’re one of the lunatics Beinart is talking about.

    • Cliff
      December 5, 2011, 3:41 pm

      “a far-right anti-Muslim a far-right anti-Muslim movement”

      That European continent isn’t subjugating and stealing from an entire people.

      The colonialism inherent to Zionism is the context to whatever comment made about Israel’s downward spiral.

      So you can keep comforting yourself (while remaining chained to your seat, viewing Mondoweiss), by issuing superficial comparisons to other anti-Islamic movements but those countries aren’t colonial settler-States in the 21st century.

      Israel, such as it is, is the definition of an anachronism.

      If you believe this blog undermines Peter Beinhart, then by all means, seek discussion elsewhere hoppy. God only knows why you continue to torture yourself in front of us!

      It’s only in your bizaro world, where someone as sensible and fairminded as Phil Weiss is a ‘lunatic’.

      Coming from an idiot like you, who said:

      Let’s remember the context in which I said this: it was in the context of a discussion about the consequences of different political movements, and I mentioned that there were consequences to the Palestinian support of Hitler, which I explained back then was the way the West viewed support for Hitler by prominent Palestinian personalities like the Mufti.

      It is amazing that people who have no qualms about talking of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, as if it was a mainstream project supported by most of the Jewish population in the Yishuv, lose their minds when anyone talks about the Mufti’s relationship with Hitler.

      (The Mufti, who was not supported by the Palestinian people. The Mufti who was viewed as a useful idiot, rather than moderates who Ben Gurion intentionally ignored. ETC ETC)

      Everything you say is a lie. And if it isn’t it’s intellectually dishonest and narcissistic. That defines YOUR movement. A movement that says non-Jewish suffering does not matter because it doesn’t hit the magic number.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      In another thread you said you never commented on the Mufti (Palestinians supported Hitler via the Mufti, according to you) – but clearly your sockpuppet account was being used by your equally idiotic roommate! Or yea, you’re just a liar. (Shocking)

      • hophmi
        December 5, 2011, 4:49 pm

        “That European continent isn’t subjugating and stealing from an entire people.”

        Yes, after a few centuries of persecuting minorities and plundering the rest of the world in the name of gold and Christianity, the Europeans did stop stealing things and killing people. Today, discrimination against Arab immigrants in European societies is pretty rampant.

        “If you believe this blog undermines Peter Beinhart, then by all means, seek discussion elsewhere hoppy. God only knows why you continue to torture yourself in front of us!”

        You’re the one that seems to be going crazy, since you evidently love to the repeat the same few words over and over again about Palestinians and Nazis, no matter what topic is being discussed. There’s no question that this blog undermines liberal Zionists like Beinart.

        “It’s only in your bizaro world, where someone as sensible and fairminded as Phil Weiss is a ‘lunatic’.”

        Outside of Mondoweiss land, a land of political extremists on the right and the left, where websites espousing Holocaust denial are regularly cited in the comments, people question 9/11, and others promote a variety of whackjob conspiracy theories, most people view what is espoused here as extremism.

        • Mooser
          December 5, 2011, 5:14 pm

          most people view what is espoused here as extremism.

          Careful, Hophmi! If you keep on obsessively reading this site, it might rub off on you!
          But what you should do is start a “Mondoweiss Exposed” blog or website, to bring this extremism to public attention.
          And this last comment seems, well, somewhat agitated. You are going to ruin your digestion.

        • Mooser
          December 5, 2011, 5:18 pm

          “There’s no question that this blog undermines liberal Zionists like Beinart.”

          That’s right! You asked Hophmi, who looked it up on Hophmi.

          “most people view what is espoused here as extremism.”

          Ah, Most people? Would that be you, and yourself, and you, and you? Well, that’s a lot, anyway.

        • gamal
          December 5, 2011, 5:41 pm

          yup we went europe no body ever took my house there or my garden or damaged my olive tree, yes its in a pot on a verandah, the olives are the size of peas, i got 30 one year.

          and i was naturalized, in ’74, thanks for the concern for my welfare, oh right its just a weak rhetorical trick to obscure the sewer of filth the holy land has become under zionism, meanwhile look what i found in those inner city ghettos so much better at making something of those ancient words than etiolated ersatz pioneers like you

          milk and honey
          link to youtu.be

          and with daddy u-roy
          link to youtu.be

          keep your sympathy psycho, bring forth milk and honey, you cant convict us of anything except in your paranoid dreams we dont owe anyone the right to colonize us. but your allies in this crime you are right are blood soaked demons its their power you are living on, and boy when they dont need you or lose their sultaniya, where you gonna run, first from nina s then to peter t, the mountians they will be boiling, it could have been so different, you dont represent jews our bretheren, you represent the worst distillation of Europes barbarity, savage injustice. you have the gall to point at the violence zionism caused and claim that by some weird metric it justifies colonization, you are out of your tiny mind, their crimes do not hide yours.

        • Cliff
          December 5, 2011, 6:35 pm

          Hophmi,

          Phil does not censor you, when you call Palestinians, Nazis. He does not censor eee when he lectures us on who is and is not a Jew.

          He does not censor fredblogs, danmazella, yemedad(Torah-thumping settler), etc.

          Any honest person ( you do not qualify ) would take all of this into account when also judging the questionable citations listed by the odd anti-Zionist commentator here and there.

          This blog has gone from no moderation to moderation and it took several years to work it out because this issue polarizes people.

          You are not a moderate. You are not reasonable. People should be judged on their on the validity of their ideas and you are an utter failure and a troll.

          Do you think the Palestinian cause is illegitimate because Israel has more Nobel prize winners? Or because our politicians stumble over one another for the chance to prostrate themselves before the Israel lobby?

          Popularity does not imply honesty, truthfulness, justice, etc.

          You insinuate that MW is extremist but it’s just not part of the mainstream which is a very different designation. And really, it’s just tragic you have been unable to pry yourself away from this webpage. You should call the geek squad.

          Lastly, I’ll keep bringing up your past lies and hatred toward non-Jews. Two-faced liars like you don’t deserve any civility.

        • hophmi
          December 5, 2011, 7:01 pm

          Learn to read. I never accused Phil of censoring anybody.

          You’re in no position to define the term “moderate.”

          LOL. What a joke you are.

        • Bumblebye
          December 5, 2011, 7:02 pm

          Don’t give him ideas, Mooser!
          Or there’ll be a “MondoWatch” site, same as there’s a “CIFWatch” for the Guardian’s Zionist grumblers.

        • pjdude
          December 5, 2011, 7:41 pm

          He isn’t so bad I once came across an Israeli who claimed that since the lehi had a theme song they couldn’t be terrorists

        • Robert Werdine
          December 5, 2011, 8:03 pm

          This means a lot from someone as moderate and reasonable as yourself. Please.

        • kalithea
          December 5, 2011, 11:59 pm

          Your credibility is so compromised by your last-ditch, desperate Palestinian “nazi-connection” argument (if you can call it that) that one can only dismiss your other opinions as extremist exaggerations and attribute them to the warped, contradictory, hypocritical characteristics that define the oxymoron, “Liberal” Zionist.

        • Cliff
          December 6, 2011, 1:37 am

          I am moderate. I don’t support ethno-religious states. I don’t support religious fundamentalism. I don’t support colonialism, or apartheid, or endless war based on existential threats.

          I don’t conflate jews with Zionism, I don’t conflate Jewish identity with Israeli actions.

          You call Palestinians Hitler supporting, and attempt to back the lie up with spurious garbage referring to a political figure who was irrelevant and not supported by any meaningful amount of palestinians.

          And lastly ignoramus, it was you who began selectively citing the unsavory comments at MW without acknowledging that you yourself are continually allowed to spew hate towards non-Jews with your preschool logic. Your idealogical allies here say much worse and it is all documented.

          Any serious inquiry into the nature of the discourse here would conclude it is racist nationalists (in spite of being an American) like you who are far more vulgar, hypocritical and dishonest.

          We can play that game if you want. I already cite your numerous hypocritical and hateful comments so another Zionist or TEN would not be much more work.

        • Cliff
          December 6, 2011, 1:39 am

          This means a lot from someone who pretends to be an Arab Muslim for israel. Who went from Chomsky to pure garbage like Efraim Karsh. From someone who recites Israeli apologetics so effortlessly yet insists on his ethnocred.

          Please, Werdine. You are a circus act.

        • libra
          December 6, 2011, 7:47 am

          Cliff: “Please, Werdine. You are a circus act.”

          Yes indeed, the Amazing Werdine! And what a high-wire performer he is. Truly breathtaking*. Walking the Zionist tightrope as a Prusso-Lebanese American. There’s no safety net if he puts a foot wrong. I’d rather traverse the Niagara Falls.

          * And just try reading one of his usual posts without taking a breath. Thank goodness he delivered a one-liner today.

        • dahoit
          December 6, 2011, 12:15 pm

          Yeah,19 guys with boxcutters defeated the trillion dollar defense leviathan,one of those whackjob conspiracy theories expressed one hour after the deed by the MSM.Or that OBL lived in a cave in Afghanistan with multiple levels and bristling with weapons,and he said he did 911,despite no confirmation by the FBI to this day.Or Saddam had nukes and was gonna use them,and he got Yellowcake from Niger.How about the helium machine that was the aluminum tubes for missiles?And Pat Tillman was killed by the Taliban.
          The list of whackjob conspiracy theories issued by the wackos is endless.

      • Mooser
        December 5, 2011, 4:50 pm

        “Or yea, you’re just a liar.”

        Or it is, I have so often postulated, ziocaine amnesia. And never forget the prime mover of Zionist dialectics, the Costanza dictum: “It’s not a lie if you believe it”.

    • pjdude
      December 5, 2011, 7:38 pm

      We don’t believe in a one-state solution and a right of return that essentially seeks to reverse 1948 and privilege Palestinian self-determination over Jewish self-determination.

      read we don’t believe is recitfying the worlds most heinous crime since world war2 and enforcing an actual right over a make believe right because I can’t get it through my head that religions don’t have the right of self determination. sorry but 90% of jews in “Israel” are there illegally

      • hophmi
        December 6, 2011, 12:26 am

        ” read we don’t believe is recitfying the
        worlds most heinous crime since world
        war2″

        Lol. It’s another for my list of crazy pro-palestinian hyperbole. Get over yourself.

        • pjdude
          December 6, 2011, 1:20 am

          its not hyperbole its the truth. more people may have been killed in other cases but in no other instance was the mechanism designed to protect the weak and the opressed used as weapon against the weak and opressed. zionist used the UN through the UK and US that should have protected the palestinians to deprive them of their most basic of rights.

          And really mister whiny Israeli jew your going to tell someone to get over themselves. I’ll make a deal with you I’ll get over my self when Israelis quit acting like whiny spoiled children

        • Shaktimaan
          December 7, 2011, 5:39 am

          How was the UN ever used as a weapon against the palestinians? How/when did the US/UK deprive them of basic rights? In this narrative you identify the Palestinian Arabs as weak/oppressed as opposed to the Jews who must have then been the strong/oppressors, right? How did you come to this conclusion?

          Incidentally, the UN is routinely used as a tool to disenfranchise minority groups, primarily Israel.

      • Newclench
        December 6, 2011, 9:24 am

        pjdude, that’s a fine example of an extremist statement. What makes it extreme? The Palestinian national movement has reconciled itself to the existence of the Hebrew speaking population of Israel. What makes you ‘extreme’ is standing outside that consensus, accepted by the international community (= the UN, to name one body that affirms the legitimacy of the Israeli state).
        It doesn’t make you incorrect. But definitely extreme.
        Insisting that Jews are only a religious grouping and not an ethnic or national group also makes you an extremist. You see…. Jews, like other nations, have the right to ‘self’ determination. A ‘moderate’ would seek to grant more rights to Palestinians, as opposed to stripping them from Hebrew speaking Israelis and/or Jews.

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 2:56 pm

          “You see…. Jews, like other nations, have the right to ‘self’ determination.”

          And they also have the right to fail at their “self determination”, and turn it into a device for enriching (with political power or materially) for a “choosen” few. No one has ever been able to take that right away from any “nation”, and nobody can take it away from the Jewish “nation”. And like so many others, they will fully excersise it.

        • pjdude
          December 6, 2011, 3:28 pm

          there is nothing extremist about supporting the rule of law, and feeling it shouldn’t be thrown away simply because other have allowed it to tossed in the gutter.

          and the jews aren’t a nation they are religion. I’m not taking away rights from Israelis or jews. I’m simply sating the simple legal fact that what they feel are their rights aren’t at all. the very fact that wanting you know THE RELEVANT LAWS to be followed puts me outside the consenus doesn’t show how bad of a person I am and hoe ” extreme” I am. it just shows how far the rest of you have fallen in bending over backwards for these criminals.

          also I’m will to reconcile myself to the fact that these millions of illegal jewish residents are here to stay but that doesn’t we have to pretend that they are their legally.

        • Hostage
          December 6, 2011, 7:14 pm

          Insisting that Jews are only a religious grouping and not an ethnic or national group also makes you an extremist. You see…. Jews, like other nations, have the right to ‘self’ determination.

          No it doesn’t and no they do not. “Jews” is a term devoid of an accepted legal definition. “Jews”, like “Hispanics”, are simply a collection of related ethnic groups. They are not members of a single nation, religion, or culture. “Israelis”, including the Arab minority, are entitled to self-determination. In international law, the territorial integrity and self-determination norms do not circumvent the prohibitions against population transfer or the threat or use of force. So, the classical definition of a State cannot be used to assert a claim to a well defined territory without including its permanent population or include extraterritorial ethnic groups based upon a flimsy claim of an “historical connection”.

        • RoHa
          December 6, 2011, 11:45 pm

          “Jews, like other nations, have the right to ‘self’ determination.”

          “Nations” (in your weird sense of the word) do not have the right to self determination. Insofar as there is such a right, it is the right of the total population of a territory.

        • Citizen
          December 7, 2011, 4:49 am

          Part of the NAZI Party platform of 1920 demanded the “union of all Germans on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples to form a Great Germany.” It demanded “land and territory (colonies) for the enrichment of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.” All of these, of course, were legitimate objectives if they were to be attained without resort to aggressive warfare.”

          From Opening Statement of America at Nuremberg Trials

        • Mooser
          December 7, 2011, 5:01 pm

          “Insisting that Jews are only a religious grouping and not an ethnic or national group also makes you an extremist.”

          ROTFLMSJAO!! Let us now praise the infinite and subtle fungibility of Jewish identity. Gosh, maybe it dates me (after all, who else would?) but I can remember just a few threads ago (the one on anti-Semitic incidents) when declaring the Jews were a nation and not primarily a religion would be construed as anti-Semitism!

          Okay, have it your way, Clenchner. The Jews are a nation. And having invaded, say, Germany (what else do you call the wholesale movement of one nation into another?) can we possibly blame the Germans for wanting to get rid of them?

    • Bill in Maryland
      December 5, 2011, 10:05 pm

      hophmi: “Blogs like this undermine people like Peter Beinart.”
      Au contraire- if Beinart keeps this up, he is going to undermine the raison d’etre of blogs like this!

    • Charon
      December 6, 2011, 1:50 am

      As you process the sincerity of hophmi’s statements (which are insincere and false) in the first paragraph, your ‘mammalian’ brain processes the second paragraph.

      hophmi’s first paragraph is designed to first render neutral your neocortex, your thinking brain, via the left lobe of your brain. This is where your emotions fire up in the right lobe of your brain while your left side and neocortex are numb from the first paragraph. A trojan horse to instill an idea to play on your emotions.

      So a part of you, the logical part, would be processed hopmi’s position and opinion. The more creative and emotional part is reading the 2nd paragraph’s “Jewish communal organization” and perhaps envisioning sympathy for Jews because of the Holocaust or because of Israel’s rhetoric about their ‘enemies’ firing rockets and pushing them to the sea. The weak minded then read “Israel-related programming knows you cannot ram Israel right-or-wrong down the throats of kids on college campuses” and perhaps it sinks in. They believe it.

      The final paragraph, especially the final sentence which includes the word ‘lunatics’ then takes advantage via a Trojan Horse to that primitive fight-or-flight ‘triune brain’ or reptilian brain, the very primitive portion of your brain and spinal column that is very much black and white, 0 and 1, digital. And depending on your ‘self’ the message just might stick.

      hophmi is a professional, folks. Don’t expect ‘them’ to admit it. This is a professionally trained group of people whose presence here is only to disrupt. Luckily among the comments they are not successful. Can’t say the same for the casual non-commenting readers. That is who hophmi is trying to convince as there is a higher reader-to-comment ratio.

      • CloakAndDagger
        December 6, 2011, 2:11 am

        Impressive analysis, Charon! Thanks!

      • Mooser
        December 6, 2011, 3:00 pm

        “hophmi is a professional, folks.”

        A “professional”? Who can’t help becoming agitated and overbearing and chauvinist whenever he perceives his correspondent here in the comment section might be an “Arab”? That’s “professional”?
        Oh well, every profession has its own standards, I guess.

    • American
      December 6, 2011, 1:47 pm

      “We don’t believe in a one-state solution and a right of return that essentially seeks to reverse 1948 and privilege Palestinian self-determination over Jewish self-determination.”…hopi

      Yeah, we know that, that’s why we don’t like you and zionism. Eveything about zionism says “privilaged at the expense of others”…..not equality for or even compromising with others.

    • Hostage
      December 6, 2011, 3:34 pm

      We don’t buy Tony Judt’s highly ridiculous thesis

      Your thesis broke down when you claimed that secular Europe is somehow Christian and still persecuting Jews. Why don’t you try again and acknowledge the vast Jewish Lobby there, including the EJU and ADL, that waste everyone’s time propping up Israel’s sinking ship of state?

  2. eljay
    December 5, 2011, 3:28 pm

    >> At the core of Israel’s legitimacy is the fact that it was founded as a democratic and Jewish state …

    There is no legitimacy conferred upon Israel by its founding as a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”.

    >> If Israel can become again a country that offers citizenship to everyone in its borders, irrespective of race, religion, sex annd ethnicity, it will not need PR firms.

    As long as Israel remains a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”, with special rules for Jewish Israelis only, it will continue to need PR firms.

    Example: The non-Jewish demographic of Israel threatens the Jewish majority in the “Jewish state” of Israel. Israel adopts RW’s proposal to redraw the borders of Israel in order to excise non-Jewish Israelis from their own country (in other words, to engage in bureaucratic ethnic cleansing) in order to maintain the Jewish majority. Such an injustice – which some Zio-supremacists might term a “necessary” evil and, after the fact, “currently not necessary” – will have to be spun as righteous and noble.

    • seafoid
      December 5, 2011, 4:39 pm

      “As long as Israel remains a religion-supremacist “Jewish state”, with special rules for Jewish Israelis only, it will continue to need PR firms.”

      Frank Luntz can’t find the word combo to make everything okay. Danon is not fixable.

  3. eGuard
    December 5, 2011, 3:29 pm

    Many of us who are actively pro-Israel have met Palestinians.

    hophmi is a plural? And when did they meet Palestinians (sure it was more than one btw?)? In the Army? Border Control? Settler price tagging? And where did you meet: was it on occupied, stolen, confiscated or unilaterally withdrawn from area?

    But alas, I take it as an improvement that you don’t write “Arab” any more.

    • hophmi
      December 5, 2011, 4:51 pm

      Personally for me, I’ve met Palestinians in the United States, people who have been shot in the territories. Most serious Zionists I know of, particularly liberal Zionists, have interacted with Palestinians at some point, whether in private discussion or in a structured setting like Encounter. Guess what. They did not give up being Zionist.

      • Mooser
        December 5, 2011, 5:20 pm

        “have interacted with Palestinians at some point, whether in private discussion or in a structured setting like Encounter. Guess what. They did not give up being Zionist.”

        Well, if you say so. Then it’s back to BDS, or even sterner measures.
        (Gee, talk about undermining Beinart.

      • pjdude
        December 5, 2011, 7:43 pm

        well yeah most people who don’t a damn about others stay that way even when they meet those they have harmed. you have to have empathy to change.

      • john h
        December 5, 2011, 11:43 pm

        Amazing! You actually met Palestinians, even interacted with them at some point! Well, bully for you, aren’t you such a great liberal Zionist. Such a great badge of honor.

        And guess what, you’re still here to tell the tale; that Other didn’t terrorize you into submission, so you’re still a Zionist, and they’re still the also-rans that might get a crumb or two if they’re nice.

        Zzzzzzzzzz

    • Charon
      December 6, 2011, 1:58 am

      Of course hophmi is a plural

      hophmi is an avatar for a paid-Hasbara think tank just as many other ‘usual suspects’

      hophmi uses the typical tricks. Rhetorical questions, taking advantage of any opening, double standards, usual game theory BS

      Noticed recently they use a ‘trilogy’ of tactics which take advantage of the human brain. Start with a statement to tie up the left brain, followed by a statement to take advantage of the right brain while vulnerable, followed by a statement to take advantage of our primitive triune brain, basically the non-brain fight-or-flight brain stem. To those not-in-the-know the message just may stick. hophmi is a professional(s). But we know the tricks and can play the game. With I/P, it works to our advantages with every letter they type

  4. Bill in Maryland
    December 5, 2011, 3:33 pm

    Thank you for the insult hophmi which, coming from you, becomes a badge of honor. If you don’t believe in a One State Solution, why has Israel created one through irreversible settlement expansion on Arab land? Why can’t a Palestinian on the West Bonk vote in Israeli elections, when the machine-gun toting settler living a mile away can do so?

    • hophmi
      December 5, 2011, 5:00 pm

      “If you don’t believe in a One State Solution, why has Israel created one through irreversible settlement expansion on Arab land? Why can’t a Palestinian on the West Bonk vote in Israeli elections, when the machine-gun toting settler living a mile away can do so?”

      I don’t believe the Palestinians in the West Bank have any desire to become Israelis. They want their own state. You can look up the polling. And I don’t believe settlement expansion is “irreversible.” Most settlers live in areas contiguous to pre-67 Israel. Most of what you call expansion is population expansion, not land expansion. I understand that pessimism on this issue is useful to promotion of the one-state solution.

      To the extent that Palestinian do wish to become Israelis, there is little reason not to offer them citizenship as long as they agree to pledge allegiance to the state of Israel, just as new American citizens pledge allegiance to the United States. Here’s the US oath, by the way:

      “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

      • Mooser
        December 5, 2011, 5:21 pm

        “They want their own state.”

        Ah, maybe so, but only so they can use it as a base to attack Israel, right Hophmi?

        • Mooser
          December 5, 2011, 6:14 pm

          “I hereby declare, on oath….”

          You always go back to the principle that the Palestinians are the outsiders there, and must swear fealty to the Zionists. You just keep that up, Hophmi.

        • hophmi
          December 5, 2011, 6:53 pm

          What does this have to do with being outsiders? Become a citizen. Just swear allegiance to the state. Shouldn’t be a problem unless becoming citizens of Israel is not what they want.

        • hophmi
          December 5, 2011, 7:04 pm

          ” Ah, maybe so, but only so they can use it as a base to attack Israel,
          right Hophmi?”

          No, for the same reason Jews wanted a state – most Palestinians want their own political space where they can have control over their own destiny. Those who want to destroy Israel are usually the ones who want one state.

      • petersz
        December 5, 2011, 6:17 pm

        Why does Israel not have a Constitution? Because it would have to abolish itself as a Zionist state. Someone who is not a Zionist but wants to become an Israeli citizen is forced to accept the ideology of Zionism wether they agree with it or not and that’s the difference. What if to become a Russian citizen you had to swear allegiance to Communism or swear allegiance to Capitalism to become an American citizen? Zionism and democracy are not compatible. A Jewish and democratic state is an oxymoron. Tony Judt was right Zionism is an anarchism, a 19th century ideology stuck in the 21st century.

        • eljay
          December 5, 2011, 6:29 pm

          >> To the extent that Palestinian do wish to become Israelis, there is little reason not to offer them citizenship as long as they agree to pledge allegiance to the state of Israel …

          To the secular, democratic and egalitarian state of Israel, or to the “Jewish state” of Israel?

      • lyn117
        December 6, 2011, 1:24 am

        “that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws ”

        Trick answer. Israel doesn’t have a constitution. People in Israel have been prosecuted for stating Israel should be a state for all its citizens, interpreted by the GOI as Israel should not grant preference to Jews. I.e. Israel demands of its non-Jewish citizens that they pledge allegiance to the state of Jewish supremacy. Our constitution, on the other hand, explicitly states that all citizens are equal before the law regardless of religion or place of national origin.

      • Citizen
        December 7, 2011, 5:11 am

        Wiki:
        The Israeli government agreed that a controversial draft proposal, clause 5(c) of the Law of Citizenship of 1952, be brought before the Knesset to be legislated. If passed by the Knesset a newly naturalised citizen of Israel would have to declare that he or she will be a faithful citizen of the State of Israel “as a Jewish and democratic state” and that he or she promises to keep the laws of the state.[2] This is not legislation but a government decision to enact a law (actually to amend an existing law). The proposal if legislated will apply to new Jewish citizens of Israel [3](even though according to Israeli law Jews are not considered to be naturalised citizens but citizens by birth).
        [edit]

  5. john h
    December 5, 2011, 3:51 pm

    a woman from Encounter says that she meets more and more young Jews who resent the “snowjob” they’ve gotten from the Jewish community on Israel.

    Beinart wrote at length about this in May 2010.

    link to nybooks.com

    “Too many years I lived in the warm embrace of institutionalized elusiveness and was a part of it,” writes Avraham Burg. “I was very comfortable there.” I know; I was comfortable there too. But comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication.

  6. seafoid
    December 5, 2011, 4:00 pm

    Beinart says he is a Zionist and anti BDS. I wonder for how much longer.
    The other 2 are in denial. It is not going to turn out okay

    Beinart goes on to says that “the core of Israel’s legitimacy is that it was founded as a Jewish democratic state”
    This is BS. The core of Israel’s legitimacy was lobbying and ethnic cleansing.

    • W.Jones
      December 5, 2011, 8:22 pm

      You claim: “The core of Israel’s legitimacy was lobbying and ethnic cleansing.”

      OK, so the Balfour Declaration, and having a demographic majority in the territory claimed. How were those achieved?

      But still, I think another part of the legitmacy was the UN recognition, as well as recognition by other countries. Lobbying was a tool in the recognition, but other countries were probably motivated by sadness over the Holocaust, as well as each side (ie. the Capitalist and Stalinist governments) hoping it would get support in the Cold War from the new state.

      • seafoid
        December 6, 2011, 7:14 am

        W Jones

        This is a snapshot of the Zionist lobbying effort from 1944. The Arabs were screaming at the US not to give in to the Zionists. They said it would lead to endless war. The Americans lied. The lobby prevailed. The result is the mess we now see.

        link to images.library.wisc.edu

    • chet
      December 6, 2011, 1:34 pm

      As for an early demonstration of the lobby’s power, please recall the (non)response to the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that resulted in the deaths of 34 US seamen and the wounding of 170.

      Imagine the response if the attack had been carried out by the Egyptians at the time.

    • Pixel
      December 8, 2011, 1:52 am

      .
      “Beinart says he is a Zionist and anti BDS.”
      .
      Whether he is or he isn’t, there’s little chance that anyone will listen to anything he has to say, if they don’t feel that he is.

  7. wondering jew
    December 5, 2011, 4:13 pm

    Beinart is right.

    • Mooser
      December 5, 2011, 4:57 pm

      “Beinart is right.”

      We know that, and don’t need you to tell us. Why don’t you tell Hophmi about it? Tell eee and dimadok and Ruthie and Pudzionist, too.

  8. Shmuel
    December 5, 2011, 4:31 pm

    Blogs like this undermine people like Peter Beinart. They perpetuate the long-held belief that whatever public criticism one makes of Israel, it will inevitably be distorted by people like you. If Beinart (who is not orthodox but attends an orthodox synagogue in Washington, not that it matters), posted here, everyone would condemn him, as you do me, Witty, Dan Siederski, and others for being liberal Zionists.

    On the contrary. Without blogs like this – and the current they represent, both within the Jewish community and in its interaction with the wider community – I doubt that Beinart would be where he is today (and he doesn’t seem to be stopping). The entire premise for his ground-breaking appeal was that young Jews were going to places like Mondoweiss, if they cared at all.

    On the whole, Beinart’s position has been welcomed here, by Phil and Adam and most of the commenters. Were he to post here (and I wish he would – it would certainly go a long way to establishing the kind of dialogue he would like to see with non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews, not to mention Palestinians and members of the human rights community), he would undoubtedly be given a hard time by some, but would be welcomed, and hopefully stimulated by the criticism of others.

    You flatter yourself and most of the other Zionists here. There is no comparison between someone like Beinart, who is ready to listen and to change, and those who merely want to deflect and distract and deny. The synagogue he attends is immaterial. Jerry Haber also attends an Orthodox synagogue (or two).

    • hophmi
      December 5, 2011, 5:05 pm

      “On the contrary. Without blogs like this – and the current they represent, both within the Jewish community and in its interaction with the wider community – I doubt that Beinart would be where he is today (and he doesn’t seem to be stopping). The entire premise for his ground-breaking appeal was that young Jews were going to places like Mondoweiss, if they cared at all.”

      I don’t think so. Beinart’s primary audience is the establishment. The more his words turn up here as evidence for why there shouldn’t be an Israel, the less credibility he will have with the Jewish mainstream.

      “You flatter yourself and most of the other Zionists here. There is no comparison between someone like Beinart, who is ready to listen and to change, and those who merely want to deflect and distract and deny. The synagogue he attends is immaterial. Jerry Haber also attends an Orthodox synagogue (or two).”

      I don’t care about the synagogue he attends. I was just pointing out that he’s not actually orthodox as a correction, no other reason. I’ve seen Peter Beinart speak a number of times in person. I am a big fan of his. But he will gain no real traction if his words are used to support a one-state solution. By all means, listen to Beinart. Just listen to everything he says, not just the parts you want to hear.

      • Sumud
        December 5, 2011, 6:26 pm

        By all means, listen to Beinart. Just listen to everything he says, not just the parts you want to hear.

        hophmi, try clicking on the big white triangle in the middle of the picture under the headline. It’s called video. By embedding it in the blog post, it seems fairly obvious that having people listen to Beinart is exactly what Phil wants.

        • Richard Witty
          December 6, 2011, 8:25 am

          Ask Beinart the same question that the repeaters comment here about me.

          Given what you know about the history preceding and the events of 1947 and 48 would you have supported the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it required some actions that you would not normally sanction or do?

          I expect that he would convey similar comments to mine, and be routinely called racist and sought to be silenced.

          Even bother to ask it of Phil already.

        • eljay
          December 6, 2011, 8:37 am

          >> Given what you know about the history preceding and the events of 1947 and 48 would you have supported the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it required some actions that you would not normally sanction or do?

          RW continues to try to convince people that Zionist terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians were anything other than immoral and unjust acts. Sadly amusing for someone who professes to be a humanist; unsurprisingly hypocritical for someone who routinely dismisses discussion of past events as “academic speculation”.

        • Richard Witty
          December 6, 2011, 8:56 am

          I think they were immoral and unjust acts. Have I ever stated differently?

          I think BDS is an immoral and unjust act as well.

          As Beinart pointed out, David Grossman, Amos Oz, others, advocate for a form of BDS (boycott of Ariel university lectures). I expect that they believe that boycott on any basis other than PRESENT behavior is immoral and unjust.

        • Chaos4700
          December 6, 2011, 9:13 am

          Why, pray tell, would you and Beinhart find Palestinian citizenship so onerous, anyway? Why must Israelis have “Jewish” citizenship in a “Jewish state,” not a Palestinian one? Why do you both think that it was necessary to attempt to eradicate Palestine for this?

          Does your American citizenship chafe on you, then, Witty? Do you consider it inferior to your desire for “Jewish” citizenship?

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 12:38 pm

          Richard, that’sa some writin’ pal. So clear! So natcherl!

        • libra
          December 6, 2011, 5:13 pm

          RW: “I think BDS is an immoral and unjust act as well.”

          Richard, what’s your view regarding the morality and justice of sanctions on Iran with respect to their nuclear program?

        • Sumud
          December 6, 2011, 9:53 pm

          I think they were immoral and unjust acts. Have I ever stated differently?

          If someone were to say they thought the holocaust was “immoral and unjust” but that they would “hold their nose” as it was being perpetrated – as you have said you would have done if you were alive when the Nakba of 48/49 was occurring, I think the reality of their views would be fairly clear to all.

          People aren’t nearly as stupid as you believe Richard.

        • Citizen
          December 7, 2011, 5:18 am

          Under Israeli law Jews are not considered to be naturalised citizens but citizens by birth.

  9. seafoid
    December 5, 2011, 4:32 pm

    One of the issues that comes up repeatedly is the unity of the community behind Israel. The dam will not hold.

    “Israel represented the realisation of every value we had” @ 40.35
    What a comedown.

    There is this at 43 minutes

    Grew up in very Zionist home. A lot of everything I was told growing up, then taking middle east pol classes – a lot of it is not true. I feel betrayed reading the news. Haven’t been told the honest truth. What I was told by parents and synagongue not the complete honest truth. We can’t expect change to come from the Bible.
    We need to start being honest with our children and our families!

  10. es1982
    December 5, 2011, 4:59 pm

    Starting at the 16 minute mark, Beinart clearly states that he opposes a one state solution (emphasis mine):

    “For me, Zionism means a democratic Jewish state in some part of the biblical Land of Israel. But I think… and that makes me a political Zionist in the tradition of Theodore Herzl. But I actually think, one of the things that’s interesting and emerging will be very very challenging to the American Jewish community in the next decade or so, if we have essentially the continued march towards a permanent one-state reality between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and the increasing receding of the horizon of the possibility of a Palestinian state, more and more young American Jews will start to say I am actually a cultural Zionist in the tradition of Echad Ha’am, Ha’Shomer Ha’Tzair and like Martin Buber, I believe I can be a Zionist and still support some kind of secular binational entity. Again, that’s not my view, but that view, which has a deep pedigree in Zionist history, will gain traction, precisely to the degree that Israel cannot remain a Jewish democratic state because its occupation of the West Bank becomes permanent.”

    Beinart is warning against what will happen if the two-state solution is not implemented. Cultural/binational Zionism isn’t his vision of what should be. When he says American Jews should listen to Palestinians from the West Bank, and not just to Israeli Jewish Zionists, he isn’t saying they should become Israeli citizens, but that they should be heard, because as long as the occupation continues, they are ruled by Israel.

    • seafoid
      December 5, 2011, 5:33 pm

      Beinart knows the game is already decided. With people like Yishai and Danon in charge there isn’t a hope in hell of YESHA being reversed. He knows the only American Jews who go to Israel are the extremists. He talks about the need for education in the US Jewish community but knows the need is far more urgent in Israel.

      • es1982
        December 5, 2011, 5:48 pm

        While the Likud is still in charge, no, there probably won’t be a two-state solution. But the Likud won’t stay in power forever. Netanyahu is likely to win the next election, but the one after that just might see the return of the left to power. A lot can change in Israeli politics.

        • Mooser
          December 5, 2011, 6:06 pm

          ” but the one after that just might see the return of the left to power.”

          And by six months after that, the IDF will be purged of illegal settlers, the Haredim and Ultra Orthodox will have to give up all their power, the rights of women will be restored, water rights and sewage problems will be justly apportioned, and etc, and etc, etc, and the Occupation will end. And the day after that the Messiah will come.
          Cause all of Israel’s problems are just slight adjustments to be made in an otherwise wonderful Jewish and Democratic State!

        • kalithea
          December 6, 2011, 3:16 am

          Oh puh-leeez, maybe you have the luxury of waiting another decade but please don’t assume Palestinians do and don’t impose further hardship on them. They’ve suffered long enough! Besides the left or what’s left of it in Israel has as much a chance of winning as me the lottery. And don’t pretend to me that Kadima is “left” or will make this happen, because they WON’T.

        • seafoid
          December 6, 2011, 3:25 am

          “A lot can change in Israeli politics”.

          there are fairies at the bottom of my garden

        • es1982
          December 6, 2011, 7:50 am

          I don’t want to wait another decade. I’d rather see a peace treaty signed today, but unfortunately that’s just not realistic.

          Remember that in 2006, just three years before being elected Prime Minister again, Netanyahu lead the Likud to a third-place finish in the elections, with just 13 seats in the Knesset. The party seemed like a gonner. Then, in 2009 it was Labor’s turn to get 13 seats, and they too seemed like gonners. Now it looks like they’re being revived and will be the second largest party in the next Knesset. They will lead the left, not Kadima (which doesn’t call itself a leftist party).

          Now, in a few years, when a real left-wing government is elected, things won’t magically get solved. There will still be a lot of problems and things will take time, but at least there will be more hope for things to get better than under the current government.

        • patm
          December 6, 2011, 8:54 am

          Now, in a few years, when a real left-wing government is elected, things won’t magically get solved. There will still be a lot of problems and things will take time, but at least there will be more hope for things to get better than under the current government.

          Wishful thinking, es1982. Read this article on the deplorable state of education in Israel. There isn’t a hope in hell that the voters will elect a real left-wing government.

          link to 972mag.com

        • Chaos4700
          December 6, 2011, 9:15 am

          You make it sound like things will change for Palestinians under any other regime than a Likud one. They won’t.

          Did settlement activity withdraw under Tzipi Livni’s government?

        • seafoid
          December 6, 2011, 11:56 am

          That is stunning, patm

          There are too many Orthodox who don’t work in Israel but they are a great vote bank for people who don’t care about them

        • dahoit
          December 6, 2011, 12:23 pm

          Labor was just as bad.It sort of like here,where the Dems are as bad as the Reps.

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 12:40 pm

          “but at least there will be more hope for things to get better than under the current government.”

          Yes, for the last few dozen Palestinians left, life will be heaven.

        • patm
          December 6, 2011, 2:30 pm

          “That is stunning, patm.”

          I sure thought so, seafoid. I believe I posted the url to the article in three different threads this am.

          It’s game over for the “only democracy in the middle east.” Or so it seems to me.

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 3:25 pm

          “I’d rather see a peace treaty signed today”

          BTW, you just used one of the most common little “liberal” Zionist subterfuges I see around here. They all want a “peace” but not one of them will say clearly, or at all, what compromises Israel must make, and what price Israel should pay to acheive this peace.
          So if you would like a peace treaty signed today, what do you think Israel should give up to get it?
          And you don’t need to tell me what you think, I won’t be voting on ratifying the treaty. Tell Witty, tell “eee” tell PudZionist, tell Dan, and the rest of the ilk.

        • es1982
          December 6, 2011, 6:11 pm

          BTW, you just used one of the most common little “liberal” Zionist subterfuges I see around here. They all want a “peace” but not one of them will say clearly, or at all, what compromises Israel must make, and what price Israel should pay to acheive this peace.

          Well, I have written details of my preferred solution on Mondoweiss, in other blogs’ comment sections and on my own blog. If it weren’t 1 AM now, I’d write my whole manifesto for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Maybe I’ll do that some other time, but for now, if you wish, you can piece it together by searching my blog and MW profile for terms like “refugees”, “East Jerusalem”, “borders”, etc.

        • Mooser
          December 7, 2011, 5:06 pm

          “Well, I have written details of my preferred solution”

          Magic?

        • es1982
          December 8, 2011, 8:10 am

          “Magic?”

          Why didn’t I think of that before? I’ll look for the peace in the Middle East incantation in my Wiccan guidebook!

    • MarkF
      December 5, 2011, 8:08 pm

      “Beinart is warning against what will happen if the two-state solution is not implemented. ”

      Bingo, pay the man…

      Whether the opportunity has passed, he’s arguing that the current path will not lead to success for Israel. Just a sad, sad situation. The Israelis took advantage of all the money and good will from us American Jews and threw it down the toilet.

      • Citizen
        December 6, 2011, 8:21 am

        I’d add, MarkF, that the Israeli Jews also took advantage of all the money and good will from us average US taxpayers. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in US history. And all sans strings, unlike all our other arms length foreign aid over the years. I think the Irish have the most consistent and best take on Israel, and have it since 1918: link to sadaka.ie

        • MarkF
          December 6, 2011, 9:09 am

          True Citizen.

          I guess my point is similar to what Harry Markopolis said about Bernnie Madoff. Madoff cashed in on the whole, “Trust me, I’m Jewish, I wouldn’t screw my own” thing when he took money from Jews and Jewish charities based on that form of trust. Israel is our Bernie Madoff.

          Beieve me, I know every American man woman and child sacrifices for Israel at their own expense, and I’m deeply sorry for this. No American child in need should sacrifice for a wealthy foreign country.

          Great link about the Irish, a very good read.

  11. MHughes976
    December 5, 2011, 5:09 pm

    B is surely right to say that between river and sea there is one sovereign power and a mass of people subject to it. This really implies that all individuals concerned have the same rights of representation etc. – Locke’s 2nd Treatise and all that. It then follows, as night from day, that Israel, if in the exercise of its sovereign power it refuses these rights to some of its subjects on a racial or religious or group-membership basis, is an illegitimate power.
    B seems to resist this conclusion with all his might, heart and soul. That means denying the premise. His denial is on the basis of saying that there is no permanent refusal to concede the Palestinians their rights, no fundamental bad intention. This is very little different from what Goldstone has been saying in response to the ‘apartheid slander’.

  12. CloakAndDagger
    December 5, 2011, 7:13 pm

    An interesting article over at Veterans Today: link to veteranstoday.com

    “The Duping of American Jews in An Election Year”

    Here is the advisable plan for the US:
    . Reassemble traditional alliances, Jews, Unions, African-Americans, intellectuals and professionals behind democrats
    . Hijack the nomination process, gutting the “dems” who have become nearly as corrupt as the Republicans if such a thing were actually possible
    . Have the Zionist extremists, the PNAC, Koch, Murdoch folks “talked to” about their love affair with what we will call “the Nazis”
    . Reach out to Ron Paul, the only legitimate Republican candidate
    . Recognize that if the AIPAC lobby can buy congress, others can, do and will. The results will not be “acceptable” to any.

    • Citizen
      December 6, 2011, 8:32 am

      Caveat: there is no strong 5th column in the USA in behalf a foreign country other than Israel. No foreign state other than Israel counts its ethnic brethren in every country around the world as basically citizens of its own. Individual jews here and there don’t go along with this, but every significant, influential Jewish organization in all countries around the world, especially in Western countries, the most economically viable countries, have considerable single-focus intensity the non-Jewish elite most always barter with for their domestic non-exclusively Jewish agenda.

  13. W.Jones
    December 5, 2011, 7:30 pm

    I liked Donna at 53:00. When she says she was told A) they left voluntarily or B) weren’t there in the first place, my guess is she was referring to claims like:
    A. They left based just on their own motivation or that of Arab countries, but not from pressure from the Israeli army.

    (I am not sure in how many cases the army showed up and ordered people to leave, but forced evacuation from some places spurned evacuation in other places. So in fact it wasn’t just on their own motivation.)

    B. The Palestinians were to a big extent people who just showed up in the early 20th century looking for work in the Holy Land. (This claim was made by Joan Peters in her book, and rejected by many other scholars based on Palestinian census data and birth rates.)

    The counterargument might try to claim that A) leaving out of fear of the invading army is “voluntary”, and B) that Donna has it wrong, the Pals were there at least at some point, but not for very long.

  14. W.Jones
    December 5, 2011, 7:42 pm

    So I like Donna’s words, except I am not sure that it is really “part of the story”, as she says, that the Palestinians’ governments told them to leave. I understand there are claims and at least second-hand evidence that this happened, but I think some of the “New Historians” like Ilan Pappe disagree with this claim.

    • W.Jones
      December 5, 2011, 7:55 pm

      Also, she says that ideally it should belong to one people, but that it isn’t realistic so it should belong to both. Why not say ideally it should belong to both peoples, since they are both descended to a large extent from the ancient Israelites, and anyway it is both of their ancestral homelands?

      But anyway, it looks like she is trying to be critical and assess her own background teachings.

      • W.Jones
        December 5, 2011, 8:05 pm

        The interviewer says Israelis say they would agree to peace and give up “virtually” all of the settlements if Palestinians could guarantee safety.

        And on the other hand, we find Palestinians saying they would agree to peace if they could get the right of return and East Jerusalem.

        The Pals already have security arrangements with the other side, and don’t prefer war (which they are far outgunned), so the obstacle isn’t really whether one side can guarantee security, it is how much of each side’s demands they are willing to give up to make the peace agreement.

        And then of course you have the “comeback” that Palestinians are incapable of guaranteeing safety 100% even if they wanted to, so they can’t be allowed to have a country. So then one side “has to” occupy the other for a very long time out of “necessity.” And of course the occupied people “have to” be stuck with less civil rights. That’s assuming of course that they would agree to the other side’s demands- it might not be a full state
        “for security reasons”.

        The counter-counterargument is that having a state, like Jordan, that would be at peace would be a better guarantee than occupation, because occupation is causing alot of conflict in the first place.

      • Mooser
        December 6, 2011, 12:29 pm

        “they are both descended to a large extent from the ancient Israelites”

        Oh, please.

  15. Sin Nombre
    December 5, 2011, 7:50 pm

    hophmi wrote:

    “Blogs like this undermine people like Peter Beinart. They perpetuate the long-held belief that whatever public criticism one makes of Israel, it will inevitably be distorted by people like you.”

    A.) Don’t care. (Your point apparently being is that there are only *some* people—jewish only presumably like Beinart—who can have non-distorted criticisms of Israel, which actually strikes me as perhaps lots opposite of the case. After all as regards any and all talk about Israel aren’t jews somewhat … umm … biased?)

    B.) Think of the trajectory of the situation:

    “In the beginning,” so to speak, the Palestinians didn’t exist. (See Golda Meier).

    Then they did, but they voluntarily left their homes in ’48.

    Then, well, some may have been driven out, but they were all terrorists and nobody could talk to their non-representative representative, the PLO.

    Then the PLO was representative and you could talk to them, but there was no way there could ever be a Palestinian state.

    Now there can be. (But never a one-state solution.)

    And at each and every juncture people like you were saying that it was people who write on “blogs like this” that “undermined” things, right?

    Except, it turns out, those people foretold the changes, didn’t they? Essentially … espied the invalid weaknesses in Israel’s positions that were unsustainable, but that cost Israel all kinds of misery until it (finally) realized same.

    So yo, Israel! You might (finally) wanna listen up… The answer might just be blowin’ in the wind. (Of blogs like this.)

    (Or you could just keep listening to yourselves and believing that you can sustain being a little Sparta forever, complete with your Palestinian helots.)

  16. wondering jew
    December 5, 2011, 7:51 pm

    When Hamas or Fatah or both or either declare that they are freeing their people to become Israeli citizens, then Israel will face this problem squarely. The question is how soon will Hamas or Fatah take such a move. This does not mean that Israel or Israel supporters are under no “obligation” to offer the Palestinians (or the future Israeli Palestinians) rights or citizenship until that point, but until that point Israel has an excuse for dithering, but at that point the dithering will need to come to an end.

    (Gaza is still under occupation, because of actions and declarations by Israel and its army. but because there are no settlers in Gaza, the situation is different. On the Gaza front the “only” thing missing is a peace treaty between the people of Gaza and the people of Israel.)

    How long will it take for Hamas/Fatah to make that offer? That remains to be seen. Maybe as long as 20 years. They have some power and some money due to the existence of a Palestinian Authority. When will they be willing to declare the Palestinian Authority a thing of the past and cast their lot with the people living in the West Bank. 20 years or so seems like a decent guess.

    • Shmuel
      December 6, 2011, 2:28 am

      When Hamas or Fatah or both or either declare that they are freeing their people to become Israeli citizens, then Israel will face this problem squarely… This does not mean that Israel or Israel supporters are under no “obligation” to offer the Palestinians (or the future Israeli Palestinians) rights or citizenship until that point, but until that point Israel has an excuse for dithering

      Israel doesn’t need any particular excuse for “dithering”. Beinart’s point seems to be that the onus is on Israel to act, in the realisation that the damage it is causing to itself (with the help of American Jews) is irreparable.

      The Hamas/Fatah divide is serious, but just as Israel has fomented it over the years, it can contribute to creating conditions conducive to reconciliation.

      Beinart is not really proposing a single state, but observing that I/P is effectively a single unit, under a single regime. This undermines the Israeli defence against the apartheid accusation, and makes Israel responsible for violations of Palestinian human and civil rights now. It also means that that negotiations cannot merely treat the conflict as a “dispute” between two more-or-less equal sides. There is an oppressor side and an oppressed side, and the rights of the latter (as opposed to the “generous offers” of the former) must be on the table.

      • kalithea
        December 6, 2011, 3:03 am

        On your last paragraph: Oh, how noble! But there’s a far cry from paying lip service to good intentions and implementation. And just how do you propose to do that? Civil war?

        Hahaha! What an ethical jam you “Liberal” Zionists find yourselves in! One of the wisest sayings ever: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

        Courage to do what is humane outweighs tribal loyalty.

        • Shmuel
          December 6, 2011, 3:13 am

          On your last paragraph: Oh, how noble! But there’s a far cry from paying lip service to good intentions and implementation. And just how do you propose to do that? Civil war?

          I agree, but you’ll have to ask Beinart.

    • dahoit
      December 6, 2011, 12:42 pm

      Sounds like the old,when will the Pals renounce violence, BS.
      When Israel renounces all its provocations,the Palestinians will follow.When the weaker party gives up its only weapons,the stronger party just laughs at their idiocy.

  17. Richard Witty
    December 5, 2011, 7:56 pm

    I didn’t hear a word of advocacy by Beinart of a single state.

    I don’t really have a clue how you could extend his remarks to conclude your headline or comments on his advocacy.

    His presentation is an elaboration of the #and# construction of Jewish AND democratic. His emphasis is even more on the democratic, as it should be.

    Walking and chewing gum amazingly at the same time. Reform.

    • kalithea
      December 6, 2011, 2:49 am

      For once we agree, the title is way too magnanimous to describe Beinart’s true, stingy intentions. Liberal Zionists are so good at cleansing…their conscience, amongst other things, with intellectual discourse on democracy and their virtuousness in this regard.

      Zionists pretend that all the suffering they’ve inflicted on the Palestinians was justified just because they brought with them a glowing example of democracy, Zio-democracy, that’s way too good to share with those heathen Arabs.

    • Mooser
      December 6, 2011, 1:08 pm

      “His presentation is an elaboration of the #and# construction of Jewish AND democratic. “

      Listen, Richard: First of all, ^&) and $@!&. Can you deny that? And what about +{“?!($>? And I haven’t even gotten to the character map yet!

    • Citizen
      December 7, 2011, 5:42 am

      You are correct, Witty. He’s stating that in terms of sovereignty as effective control over the entire populace of all the land in question Israel already is a single state. That fact brings up the fact that not all the population controlled have the right to vote. That, increasingly, will be a big problem for Israeli policy and all its defenders and funders in the USA. Once the American people as a whole are allowed this information on the nightly news, Israel’s privileged position will actually be questioned by, you know, all those Americans scraping by for their daily bread.

  18. DanMazella
    December 5, 2011, 11:22 pm

    Peter Beinart is foolish.
    The 1 state solution was tried by a Kurd named Saladin. Saladin won the wars but opposed a state for his people the Kurds, cause he wanted a 1 state solution with the Arabs, Turks and Iranians. How did that work out for the Kurds?

    A few years ago, there was a play written by a Kurdish writer called “The Trial of Saladin.” In it Saladin is brought back from death to appear in a Kurdish court. Realising what the Arabs, Turks and Persians did to his people, he apologises to the Kurdish nation and commits suicide knowing he was responsible for all the Kurdish suffering by opposing a Kurdish state.
    I guess you can say the 1 state solution didn’t turn out to good for the Kurds?
    Are you listening left wing Jews?

    • CloakAndDagger
      December 6, 2011, 1:19 am

      Yes, you are absolutely right!

      Nobody should ever live together with anyone else unless they are ideologically identical. We should have a different state for every denomination of christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, etc. Moreover, we should also further subdivide by other ideological traits: liberal, conservative, pacifist, war-monger, etc. – you get the picture.

      Thanks for clearing that up for me!

      • RoHa
        December 6, 2011, 2:25 am

        I certainly don’t want to share a state with logicians who use Polish notation. I want to stick with my own kind, using the classical notation.

        How could I live with people who want to write (e.g.) de Morgan’s laws as

        EKNpqANpNq
        and
        EANpqKNpNq

        instead of the decent and proper

        ~ (p . q) ≡ ~ p ⋁ ~ q
        and
        ~ (p ⋁ q) ≡ ~ p . ~ q

        ?

      • Chaos4700
        December 6, 2011, 9:16 am

        Also? Proof positive that Zionist despise American ideals.

    • kalithea
      December 6, 2011, 2:32 am

      Killjoy! Cynic! You’ll find any excuse to deny Palestinians rights.

    • Citizen
      December 7, 2011, 5:51 am

      So, the Kurds came from where, Europe, or the USA?

  19. kalithea
    December 6, 2011, 1:20 am

    You know I really can’t give Beinart any credit for arriving at this “mind-blowing” conclusion after witnessing years of atrocities committed against Palestinians while he practices his orthodoxy fervently. So, suddenly he grew a conscience or is it more like: Hey, my fellow Zionist comrades, I regret to inform you that we’re fighting a losing battle against the truth thanks to the Internet, and the images no longer fit the script that defies all logic, and seriously, we’re starting to look real stoopid, even in these respectable au gust, Zionist gatherings where we pretend to be sooo civilized, and if we don’t start practicing what we professed to become when the state of Israel was created, thanks to Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, we’re going to end up the losers in this “noble” effort to establish the Jewish homeland on stolen property.

    Wake up call: You already look like losers, LOSERS! You have no conscience and you can’t suddenly pretend you want to include Palestinians in your Zio-Democracy when we all know this is mere posturing and lip service intended to make you LOOK HUMAN while the radical minions you plopped down on Palestinian land continue doing your dirty handiwork and make it easier for you to conclude after all that these “bighearted” intentions were hasty and unrealistic and should be put aside as there is no other way out but APARTHEID!

    What Zionists will do with this “earth-shattering revelation” and sudden bout of conscience or excuse to save face defies the imagination.

  20. Charon
    December 6, 2011, 2:10 am

    What is an “Israel?”

    What is this “Jewish State?”

    Because outside Tel-Aviv metro you find a peppering of Jewish colonists living in majority non-Jewish areas. There is no such thing as an Israel. Israel is a paper state much like a paper street. It’s on the map but in reality there is no such thing. Israel is Palestine. Period. The “state” of “Israel” is imaginary and is very much Palestine. There is no Jewish state. In this area of the world, there never will be a Jewish State.

    This is not colonization as seen in the Americas or Australia. This happened in recent history. While our parents were alive. While video and television existed. In many of our lifetimes. This happened right under our noses and was spun by sympathizers to make us feel sorry. Now we are hungover with the reality of the truth. It is all a lie. A lie that can be proven. A lie that users here try to pretend is the truth taking advantage of our conditioning. It’s all lies, spend a few hours researching on even encyclopedic sources to know the truth. Don’t bother talking -at first- with your friends and family as they probably don’t have a clue. Especially if they are even partially Zionist.

    Something is wrong… If you are not convinced in a few minutes of research, the Hasbarists will convince you with their hateful responses to your rational questions. There is not ‘plugging back in’ to this matrix once you have awaken to the reality. It is sickening. It makes no sense. It will change you forever. Israel does not exist. At all. There is no Jewish state, the reality is a fantasy and the dream is just a dream that will never manifest as reality. All the Hebrew and culture starting at Ben-Gurion airport will never change this fact. Israel is an imaginary place which is built on the blood of an existing indigenous civilized people who want their lives back. For as long as the Zionists dwell within their fantasy existence, the Palestinians cannot live a normal life. That will only end badly for the Zionists.

    • hophmi
      December 6, 2011, 7:49 am

      ” There is no Jewish state. In
      this area of the world, there never will
      be a Jewish State.”

      Thank you sheikh husseini.

      • Chaos4700
        December 6, 2011, 9:17 am

        Thank you sheikh husseini.

        Whatever you say, lebensraum hophmi. “Land without a people” huh.

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 12:56 pm

          Charon, when Hophmi says “Jewish” you are supposed to forget about all the ways in which the “State” is inadequate, or worse. To do anything else is, you guessed it, Anti-Semitic.

  21. Charltonr
    December 6, 2011, 2:59 am

    I disagree that Mr. Golub the Shalom TV guy argued with the student Donna Koran. He gave her a chance to add some informative details and to extend her remarks. This is an important — essential — part of this video.

    • Proton Soup
      December 7, 2011, 1:20 am

      I disagree that Mr. Golub the Shalom TV guy argued with the student Donna Koran. He gave her a chance to add some informative details and to extend her remarks. This is an important — essential — part of this video.

      i have to agree. i don’t think he was so much arguing with her at the end. he did pretty good except the last “question” was more like he was trying to put words in her mouth because he wants to end on a conciliatory note. she’s really nervous, so it is painful to watch, but i don’t think it rises to cruelty.

  22. proudzionist777
    December 6, 2011, 7:26 am

    Will the Palestinians be able to vote Hamas into the Knesset?

  23. NickJOCW
    December 6, 2011, 8:48 am

    As an outsider, I have unalloyed sympathy for any people who seek a home and, if they feel the need, a refuge but I have difficulty understanding why it has to be a state. Does Zionism really need a divided political party system, nuclear weapons and international treaties? Surely it is reasonable to have reservations about a mightily armed entity with aggressive territorial ambitions and such a heartless and selective attitude to international law?. Much of the world not under the US heel is, frankly, growing more wary of Israel than Iran. This is not because Israelis are Jews but because they are increasingly seen as a loose canon.

    Would not Zionism flourish better, economically, socially, and culturally in a fully autonomous region within a greater state, and if such an autonomous region is not enough then something like the Vatican centred on Jerusalem. Put another way, why does a home for the Jewish people have to tie itself to the flexibilities necessary to sustain US hegemonic ambitions in our fast changing world?

    • Mooser
      December 6, 2011, 1:03 pm

      “Put another way, why does a home for the Jewish people have to tie itself to the flexibilities necessary to sustain US hegemonic ambitions in our fast changing world?”

      Without those ties (at one time, wasn’t it Russia?) the “Jewish people” would not have the resources to establish and maintain a state. And now, may God curse the Zionists through all eternity, the inability to maintain a state, a burden no religion should have to bear, or should want to bear, will be seen as Jewish failure. But make no mistake, the sucess of the “Jewish State” will spell the end of Judaism faster than the failure.

      • Philip Weiss
        December 6, 2011, 1:19 pm

        Mooser is this your fastball? Wow. That pops! I’m used to the curve, the knuckler, and the eephus
        Oh: thanks, helpful

        • Mooser
          December 6, 2011, 2:37 pm

          Phil, I’m sorry, I’m groping towards something I can’t quite see or express, and I tend to do that out loud, at Mondoweiss, and I thank you as always, for your tolerance.
          The best way I can put it at this time is this: What if Zionism and Israel’s history were analysed without the word “Jewish” entering into it?
          I know that sounds funny, or even stupid but I don’t think it is. To make this as coherent as I can, we allow that word “Jewish” (and of course “not Jewish” or “Arab” or whatever) to set the parameters. I’ve come to think the dividing line is not between Jewish and Arab, but rather, the line resides about say, halfway up the Jewish side.
          Another words, that poor or non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel or in the Diaspora have the same type of relationship with Zionism as “Arabs” do, only it differs in intensity or in details, but not in essentials. That Jewish-nonJewish is a useful dividing line for the Zionists, but not the real one.
          And I wish I could think of a way to find out where the real division is, and show it. Showing where that line really is might be helpful in showing lots of Jews where their interests really lie.
          So I’m thrashing about with this.
          And I thank you for your tolerance, not to mention encouragement.

        • patm
          December 6, 2011, 4:19 pm

          What if Zionism and Israel’s history were analysed without the word “Jewish” entering into it?

          Simple question, mooser. There wouldn’t be a history to analyse. Those daft Jewish Zionists wouldn’t have got project Israel off the ground.

        • Citizen
          December 6, 2011, 4:51 pm

          Mooser, pls fit the standard self-ID of Israel as the “Jewish & democratic “nation into your comment. Thks.

        • Citizen
          December 7, 2011, 6:07 am

          Mooser, while you are thrashing about ferreting out where real Jewish interests lie, maybe you can keep in another pile where American real interests lie too? Who knows, you may see some connections between the two piles you gradually make.

    • Richard Witty
      December 6, 2011, 1:32 pm

      “As an outsider, I have unalloyed sympathy for any people who seek a home and, if they feel the need, a refuge but I have difficulty understanding why it has to be a state.”

      A great question.

      The chain of history compelled the necessity for a state. It was not a necessity as originally proposed, and mostly could have dissolved into just populations living in neighboring towns if the immigrants were accepted.

      • Mooser
        December 6, 2011, 2:42 pm

        “The chain of history compelled the necessity for a state. It was not a necessity as originally proposed, and mostly could have dissolved into just populations living in neighboring towns if the immigrants were accepted.”

        Horse-feathers, Witty. Pure unadulterated nonsense. But you don’t have to take my word for it, take Uri Avnery’s

        • Citizen
          December 6, 2011, 3:55 pm

          Witty must not understand the native American perspective. Keep in mind, that was 19th Century at best, and Israel in 1948 came after two world wars and the principles for guiding nations established at Nuremberg. Witty has no comprehension of the sacrifice of the Allied nations and he does not honor the victims of the Holocaust by not affirming those principles regarding Israel. He is the worse kind of human being imaginable.

    • American
      December 6, 2011, 3:30 pm

      “Would not Zionism flourish better, economically, socially, and culturally in a fully autonomous region within a greater state”

      Depends on what zionism is. It appears that for Zionism today their “self determination” and safe haven actually means domination in, and out of Israel wherever they can impose it.

      We already have a sort of Zionist economic, political and cutural region ‘within’ the US and we see how well that has worked out. Not.

      I can’t see zionism ever being some benign semi -self governing region or community ‘within a greater state’ and not conflicting with it like the Quakers or similar groups have managed to avoid. If we created a seperate zionist state within the US which would remove it from conflict with other countries as it is in the ME, would we still have problems with their exception demands? Probably, unless they were totally prevented from ‘expanding’ their allotment or state and cut off from all participation in and all privilages in US nationally, and were entirely seperate from and independent financially and every other way from of the rest of the nation. And if there were such an arrangement what about Jews who chose not to move to that region? Would there still be Jews outside of that Jewish state within the US that would be dedicated to that particular state within the US states and still lobby for extra privilages, etc. for that Jewish state within the states? Probably fewer as there would be no ‘threats’ to it’s survival they could claim. But still the nature of zionism is what it is regardless of where it is. I do not believe that zionism would settle for Jews being ‘safe’, or that they would settle for being even an independent self determining state within a state because it would limit their power and avenues to power.
      Whatever zionism was or says it is about today, it is really about power and a vision among zionist and the Jews they include, being and being ‘recongized as’ as some powerful entity or people or force on the world stage.

      • Citizen
        December 7, 2011, 6:11 am

        American, I think Witty would say you just don’t want Jews to be visible as Jews.

  24. DanMazella
    December 6, 2011, 8:56 am

    proudzionist777 says:
    Will the Palestinians be able to vote Hamas into the Knesset?
    The left is busted!

    • Mooser
      December 6, 2011, 2:48 pm

      “Will the Palestinians be able to vote Hamas into the Knesset?”

      Sorry Dan, I’m not au courant with the ins-and-outs of Israeli politics. Why would it be so bad for this “Hamas” party to get some seats in the Knesset? Could you explain that to me?

      • Hostage
        December 6, 2011, 4:20 pm

        Why would it be so bad for this “Hamas” party to get some seats in the Knesset?

        It isn’t as if there are no MKs with links to the settlers accused of price tag attacks in the West Bank or the religious parties that back the rabbis who preach it’s okay to kill gentiles.

        In Matar v. Dichter, MK Dichter was accused of “extrajudicial killing, war crimes and other gross human rights violations”. The US Court of Appeals dismissed the case on grounds of foreign sovereign immunity that the Supreme Court has subsequently called into question in the Samantar v. Yousuf decision. Why shouldn’t Hamas have a say in Dichter’s Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People?

  25. American
    December 6, 2011, 2:34 pm

    I see just another Zionist here.

    “The Palestinians of the West Bank have been under Israeli sovereignty since 1967. So to my mind that makes them, whether we like it or not, till we have a Palestinian state, Israelis.
    When I say Israel, I mean all the territory under Israeli domain. Some parts of which I wish were not under Israeli sovereignty. That is Israel. The people there might not be Israeli citizens, but that’s Israel. We have to take ownership of the fact that until a Palestinian state is created, that’s Israel…”

    Berinart is practicing zionist “assumption ownership”. Israel occupies Palestine territory and therefore Israel already owns it. Sure, give the West Bankers a vote so you can claim the right to annex the land because they are all Israeli citizens inhabiting it.

    “I want Israel to remain a Jewish state for my children and grandchildren… At the core of Israel’s legitimacy is the fact that it was founded as a democratic and Jewish state”

    No one is obligated to maintain a second home for American Jews and their children. If the zionist can build it, pay for it and defend it on their own, fine, go ahead. The problem is they can’t do it on their own.

    Another comment of Beinart’s:
    “In a recent essay, Beinart has argued that the tensions between liberalism and Zionism in the U.S. may tear the two historically-linked concepts apart.[9]”

    US liberalism and zionism are historically linked? I don’t think so. What has ever been liberal about zionist exceptionalism? Everything I’ve seen in liberalism, as it bills itself, is all about inclusion, equality, human rights and so forth.

  26. lobewyper
    December 6, 2011, 8:07 pm

    Hophmi wrote:

    “If Beinart (who is not orthodox but attends an orthodox synagogue in Washington, not that it matters), posted here, everyone would condemn him, as you do me, Witty, Dan Siederski, and others for being liberal Zionists. You’re one of the lunatics Beinart is talking about.”

    Sorry, but I never realized that you’re a “liberal Zionist,” Hophmi. Why didn’t you tell us sooner???

    • NickJOCW
      December 7, 2011, 4:52 am

      ‘Liberal Zionist’ is perhaps something you may be called, rather than something to call yourself. It was clear watching the video above and reading through comments here that Zionism has many different meanings, not all of which are comfortably compatible one with the other; Wittgenstein, thou shoulds’t be living at this hour.

      One moment that has not been mentioned here is Wayne Firestone’s evocation of a Jonathan Swift essay in which it is told that while the Temple was burning to destruction, the Jews were killing each other. That undoubtedly derives from Josephus, but does it seem to anyone significant that, albeit bounced off Swift, it should come up again in Denver?

      • Citizen
        December 7, 2011, 12:29 pm

        So, what’s new?

        • NickJOCW
          December 8, 2011, 5:04 am

          You mean all the Palestinians need do is be patient while Zionism implodes? Oddly, that is what the dreaded Ayatollah said when he foretold the ‘Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time’, or words to that effect. Let’s hope it doesn’t take Israel with it.

Leave a Reply