Eric Yoffie
On December 16, President Barack Obama delivered a major address to the Union for Reform Judaism, the national umbrella for America's largest liberal Jewish denomination. Obama's speech was a naked appeal for campaign donations and re-election votes, with the standard cant about America's "unshakeable" bond with Israel and the requisite omission of any mention of the Palestinian un-people. Obama also took time to praise the liberal legacy of American Jews, telling his audience, "You helped draft the civil rights act and the voting rights act, you helped liberate Soviet Jews. Without these efforts I probably wouldn't be standing here today."
Obama was introduced with warm praise by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the outgoing president of the Union for Reform Judaism, and arguably the most prominent Reform Jew in the United States. Yoffie is a major Obama campaign surrogate, whose endorsement is featured on a pro-Obama website created by the liberal Zionist Israel lobbying group, J Street.
While Yoffie proclaimed during his introduction of the President, “Our movement stands for openness and embraces pluralism," he has gone on the record in support of ethnic separation.
Earlier this year, Yoffie published the transcript of an argument he had with a right-wing friend who helped him lobby against the Palestinian Authority's bid for statehood at the UN. He entitled the piece, "I prefer to live with Jews."
Yoffie's argument went as follows:
[Yoffie]: I care about humankind, but I love my own group a bit more. I am more comfortable with them. I care more about them, just as I care more about my family than other families. Without a two-state solution, Israel will not longer be a state for my group; it will be a bi-national state without a clear Jewish identity. That is not the kind of place where I, or most Israeli Jews, will want to live.
[Right-wing friend]: Are you saying you don’t want too many Arabs in the Jewish state?
[Yoffie]: Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.
Amidst a wave of mosque burnings and racist, anti-democratic laws aimed at driving Palestinian citizens of Israel out of the country, a key Obama surrogate -- a self-proclaimed liberal, no less -- has declared explicit support for planning and maintaining Israel's ethnic majority at the expense of its indigenous minority population -- something Israeli leaders call "Judaization." "I don’t apologize for my views because I don’t apologize for Zionism," Yoffie stated.
It is not hard to imagine how American right-wingers would react if Obama shared the stage with a black separatist figure like New Black Panther leader Malik Zulu Shabazz. Nor is it difficult to predict what would happen if one of the Republican presidential candidates accepted the endorsement of a white nationalist like Jared Taylor. Not only would liberals go beserk (and with good reason), mainstream cable news channels would devote a week's worth of segments to the relationship.
Meanwhile, Obama is campaigning beside a figure who espouses a philosophy that is not much more enlightened than the extreme views expressed by Zulu Shabazz and Taylor. The only difference might be that Yoffie advocates ethnic separation in another country. "Perhaps someday I will decide to live there," Yoffie said. "And when that happens I want to be living among Jews. Not entirely, but primarily."
This is a crosspost from Al Akhbar English. It went up on Saturday.
“[Yoffie]: I care about humankind, but I love my own group a bit more. I am more comfortable with them. I care more about them, just as I care more about my family than other families.”
Then why the hell doesn’t this man live there?
Well, at least the rabbi told the truth–he prefers Jews not only to Palestinians, but to the rest of humanity as well…
Obama: [and] you [liberal American Jews] helped liberate Soviet Jews. Without these efforts I probably wouldn’t be standing here today.
Soviet Jews put Obama there?
Since he seems ever-ready to live in the (pluralistic) USA, one must wonder if Israel for him represents a place of ultimate rescue/escape (in case of trouble for Jews in USA) or something intrinsically “good” in an of itself without reference to “escape” or “rescue”.
He seems to say, “I want a predominantly Jewish Israel because that is family-ish, it feels-good, etc.” but he is willing to live indefinitely in the USA although it is not “family-ish” and doesn’t “feel good”.
Unless, of course, as I suspect, the USA is indeed “family-ish” and “feels good” to Yoffie as it does to as many Jews as require Israel for a home. In which case, what IS his argument for Israel? (Hint: his job and self-identifications require a “Zionist” front but not a Zionist life).
Maybe this is something really psychologically mixed up, like American Jews suffering for the destruction of Jewish families by the Nazis, even though these were not their own families, and spending time and money and effort to promote Israel because of concern for Jewish families in Israel, even though, once again, these are not their own families — and not families they would feel at all comfortable living with (in either case, perhaps).
So the Rabbi is not a universalist. Why would he be? Universalism is not natural and quite destructive. You cannot raise good children if you love your children like you love all the children in the world. Try telling them that you care about them the same amount as you care about the neighbors’ kids.
PS I have noticed that many universalists are people without kids. They should try telling their mothers that they don’t love them anymore than they love any other women. Let’s see how that goes.
Universalism is a self-congratulatory concept born out of Jewish tribalism.
There’s nothing wrong with Jewish tribalism on an individual level. But, state sanctioned tribalism that seeks to elevate a singular identity above all other forms of identity is clearly a problem. So much more so when juxtaposed against the hypocrisy of pluralistic, democratic neoliberal rhetoric.
No, actually, there is something wrong with Jewish tribalism on an individual level. If someone decides to hire an underqualified Jewish applicant for a job over another qualified non-Jew, then tribalism is a serious problem.
I do have problems with tribalism on the part of individuals, big problems. If someone says ‘You are not of my tribe or race or group, therefore I would rather you went away for some distance and made room for someone like me to be near me’ I wouldn’t like it one bit, for a number of reasons. The sheer irrationality of choosing whose company you like on the basis of something other than character would strike me hard. This would be the opposite of the Martin Luther King Dream. If the basis or criterion is ancestry it would be arbitrary. If the basis is religion then this is religion in its most alienating and frightening form. Furthermore, it would encourage a parallel reaction in me, would in a way threaten to corrupt me. If this person prefers others rather than me I have reason to prefer people other than him/her, to keep my distance. I wouldn’t like to have this sort of idea in my brain.
I think the both of you are viewing the concept of tribalism at its most extreme. Yes, there can be some very unpalatable aspects of tribalism, even at an individual level, as you both noted, in terms of refusing service, or not hiring someone based on race/religion.
However, when I say tribalism, I’m not speaking in terms of the overt manifestation of tribalism as it directly and adversely affects those around you, but rather the very normal, very personal affectations communities may harbor within themselves for their tribe. I’m speaking to the concept of pride. There is a certain and healthy bit of tribalism in all cultures, be they religious or ethnic. Italians extol Italian culture. Catholics extol Catholic culture. There is a certain comfort that is felt when within one’s own ethnic, religious and cultural community. It’s perfectly normal and it is what sustains culture over decades and allows these communities to preserve their heritage over generations, over decades, over centuries. I see no reason why we should hold Jewish tradition or culture to any more stringent standards. But, obviously, I accept and agree with you that there are some unsavory aspects of tribalism that do metastasize in malevolent ways and they should be repudiated both from the outside and from within a given culture.
I have a great affinity for Arab culture, as several of my family members have married Arabs, and I myself am involved with an Arab girl. I’m around Arabs on almost a daily basis. Some embrace me and my presence, some openly do not. In either situation, however, I am never fully comfortable in the environment as it is not the culture I was raised in. There are many similarities between my Italian upbringing and Arab culture, as there are between all Mediterranean societies. However, I will always find myself most comfortable when around fellow Italians. That’s tribalism. That’s normal. That’s healthy.
mhughes: I do have problems with tribalism on the part of individuals, big problems. ……. The sheer irrationality of choosing whose company you like on the basis of something other than character would strike me hard.
i think your rational excludes the possibility the preferential character can be considered by some (like me) as tribal. ethnically, i am white mutt..so many generations american a little bit of everything..as in i don’t really know..but it euro/scots/brits and then some. plus i wasn’t born w/an allegiance or knowledge wrt self identification to any particular sub culture other than things like ‘honesty’ (very high on the list) and concepts like ‘your word or handshake’/integrity matters type stuff.
so, as i make my way in the world those are the people i gravitate towards and it doesn’t reckon in what ethnicity they are. so i do feel like i am part of building a tribe here. i feel like this movement is tribal and the level of dedication means something to me. it’s important to me members of the tribe operate with integrity and honesty and if they don’t i loose interest. we’re an expanding circle.
for an illustrative example visualize eee’s point In the end, the company suffers because it does not recruit the best talent and may generate ill will from its customers. But if they are willing to pay the price, of course they are allowed to hire people they feel comfortable with.
by what measure do we grade ‘talent’ if trust and integrity is our barometer? how much ‘talent’ does it require to be an honest person. i know it requires multitudes of talent to be a good liar and get away with it (madoff etc, corrupt bankers etc..and the list goes on and on) but what if something like honor or loyalty was valued above all else? couldn’t one be part of a tribe based on honor instead of ethnicity?
that is also tribalism and when the shit hits the fan (if it ever does in my lifetime) i will know who my tribe is and i will do everything in my power to make sure we survive.
truth, integrity, honor, none of those things require ‘talent’, they come from the soul of a person..and yes..i not only hire people i feel comfortable with, i hang out with them and empower them and support them etc etc . so it’s all in the character of a person and that can be a tribe too.
Exiled At Home,
There is no such thing as “Tribalism at its most extreme”. By default, the very definition of tribalism is that a member of said tribe puts the tribe and its members above other groups and people.
Tribalism corrupts. In Saudi Arabia, most government officials belong to the same extended family. And like in the Bush administration, they were not put in those positions due to their professional qualifications. They were put there because they were loyal to the tribe. In the Bush administration’s case, they were loyal Republicans. That’s how religious fanatics from the Pat Robertson school of law ended up in high ranking positions within that administration. See the case involving Monica Goodling.
If a group of friends or likeminded people are to be called a tribe, fair enough – though I think that that is not a very common way to use the word. That sort of group – a ‘clique’, perhaps – raises fewer problems than one based on race or religion, tribe in my sense. Even then I think ‘cliquy’ behaviour can be distressing and undesirable, though the distress rarely reaches political significance. But I still think that exclusiveness on the part of groups that are based on race and religion and which do have political significance are dangerous.
Universalist isn’t the appropriate term. Universalism is like reconciliation. I wouldn’t say that it is not natural. It would work if we all started from the same point and from the same system of values and beliefs. In that case it would be natural. Asking to reconcile with something that goes far against your personal morals and ethics is difficult. Seeing all sides is difficult for most people. A different culture has elements that you might personally find so repulsing that if in a position to change it, it is human nature to go about changing it in a dominate way. This is destructive and won’t change anything. So I agree and disagree, but again don’t think it’s the right term at all.
I agree that you cannot raise good children if you love them like all the children of the world. I would like to add you cannot raise good children if you love them like all the children in the tribe. The tribe isn’t your family or even extended family. It’s almost 2012, tribal mentality has no place in this world. The only place it works is if you view all of humanity as one tribe and not in the universalist sense. You can’t tell me with a straight face that all Jews get along with all Jews and wouldn’t hurt one and other. If that were the case, the settlers wouldn’t be attacking the IOF.
Yoffie is holding onto a fading dream that was setup for disaster from day one. If there were a sizable plot of empty cultivable land for the Zionist project, things would be different. The land wasn’t empty and required ethnic cleansing and angry neighbors to accomplish. Israel still has no final international borders, Palestinians are still in refugee camps, and the neighbors are still angry. Saying there is too many Arabs in Israel is not going to help the situation.
Racism and prejudice are redefined to mean ‘I am not a universalist’ (whatever such a vague, feeble word actually means).
“So the Rabbi is not a universalist.”
This issue isn’t whether Mr. Yoffie is a “universalist.” The issue is whether he’s a bigot.
And he clearly is. Because if “bigot” isn’t the proper label for a statement such as “I don’t want too many Jews in the US,” then the word has no meaning.
eee,
So it is ok to have a preferential hiring policy towards non-Jews? ‘Cause hey, I’d rather work with people of my kind, ya know?
Goose-gander -N49.
“So it is ok to have a preferential hiring policy towards non-Jews?”
Of course it is ok. A company can decide on its hiring policies. And they can be stupid or racist or whatever. In the end, the company suffers because it does not recruit the best talent and may generate ill will from its customers. But if they are willing to pay the price, of course they are allowed to hire people they feel comfortable with.
In order to defend the indefensible you’re beginning to say very weird things, eee.
Jews in the West fought for decades for the right not to be excluded from certain country clubs, or from certain law firms.
It turns out that, according to you, it was OK… Those clubs and firms were just composed of people who felt more comfortable with “guys like them.”
eee, like all the Israeli defenders, turns cartwheels in order to justify racism and apartheid as ‘just’ group identity preferences. He is fine with employers discriminating. When it is used against his little group, of course, it is anti-semitism and they go hysterical. But I wouldn’t expect logic or reason from zionists. Just prejudice and the shifting of the goalposts every time it suits them.
“Jews in the West fought for decades for the right not to be excluded from certain country clubs, or from certain law firms.”
A few Jews did, the majority just founded their own clubs and law firms.
Read again the post title. The big problem is not that he’s not a universalist. The big problem is that “too many [fill in with ethnic group]” is an ugly phrase to say, and the rabbi said it.
“Universalism is not natural and quite destructive.”
Natural: Running around naked. Eating small animals raw. Incestuous sex. Fleeing from big cats. That’s about it.
All relevant human behaviour is cultural. Using the term ‘natural’ in this context is a big fat warning light: ‘Here lies thinly disguised social darwinism’.
So let’s get this straight…this guy lives in the US where Jews aren’t the majority but prefers to live where Jews are the majority..so he wants Israel to be kept majority Jewish because he “might” want to move there someday.
Well of course….his every little wish and preference must be indulged. Sickening.
Rabbi Yoffie said:
“I prefer to live with Jews.”
I.e., given he’d faint from the evil if anyone said they’d prefer to live with anyone else, this is just …
Step 1: The Double-Standard, followed by …
Step 2: The Smear, meaning you’re an anti-semite if you don’t support this double-standard, or indeed if you even point out that this is a double-standard, followed if this proves insufficient by …
Step 3: The Holocaust, invoked in any way imaginable.
Lather, rinse and repeat as necessary. Endlessly.
How common is this man’s attitude in the American Jewish community?
And, also, how common is this attitude in the Israeli Jewish community?
Well let’s put it this way, HRK: The one thing that the Palestinians have now done is to have given a test to both the Israeli and American jewish communities, haven’t they?
I.e, they’ve said we won’t negotiate any more unless you stop building the settlements up/stealing our land, right? So, essentially they’ve said “Choose: You want any chance of peace or you support ethnic cleansing and land thievery?”
And what’s been the reaction? A rising up in Israel *or* the U.S. in either jewish community against continued settlement expansion?
And what do we just see today? Israel announcing tenders for 1000 new homes in the WB and J’slem that even Germany says is “devastating” in terms of any peace process.
And you know damn well what the reaction is gonna be here in the jewish community active in Israeli issues.
So lets be done with the baloney that it’s only a few hyper-active U.S. jewish personalities that support the land thievery/ethnic cleansing being done by Israel, and that others who support it gee only support it *otherwise.
It’s that’s part of the jewish community that chooses to have *anything* to do with Israel now that’s in it, right up to its neck.
Not very, judging by the number of American Jews who move to Israel. I get the impression American Zionist Jews mostly tend to belong to the first motorized armchair brigade. As in “it’s great to have a Jewish state but I wouldn’t move there in a million years.”
The notion that Israel, the third rate wannabe Euro satellite is some emergency Jewish reserve is laughable. If I were Jewish I’d take my chances in Galut, TBH. Imagine having the Sephardi chief rabbi size you and your non Hebrew speaking people up.
Funny how it’s fine for Obama to hang around with a Jewish bigot but Rev Wright was way beyond the Pale.
Bigoted Jews are allowed in today’s world because they managed to guilt the West with the Holocaust. Even Christians have been trained well by these feelings of guilt.
And while Jews shoot and cry, they continue to amass more power and borrow deeper into the corridors of power, relying mostly on their tribalism to maintain those connections.
Bingo.
Listen to Mark Bruzonsky’s interview with Press TV discussing Obama. He was in the Zionist bag in the first half of 2008.
“How Zionism infiltrated the US [EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW]”
link to veteranstoday.com
Interesting interview, MRW. It seems like such a hopeless situation as long as the US has their nose in it. The good news is that it is so unsustainable, collapse is eminent. It’s just a question of when. And when it happens, what will the Zionists do? I hope the world tells the US to get their nose out of it and the lobby becomes powerless by defamation via exposing hard facts. Congress will have little to talk about from a foreign policy perspective if that were to happen. They would be forced to focus more on domestic issues and because their domestic issues favor the flawed establishment, a window of opportunity might open for Americans to wake up and rebel against it. To take back our gold and kick out the international criminal bankster syndicate out of the country. Wishful thinking
The Ziobots are going to drag the whole religion down with them. I thought the Reform movement was progressive.
I’ve always wondered why jewish self determination, according to the Zio’s, can only take place without non jews around. It sort of reminds me of play times as a kid, when you would write notes to each other in invisible, glow in the dark ink – and everyone would pile into the closet to read their notes, but the door had to be shut completely, of course – only in complete darkness can you see the ink. Israel is sort of like this – “in order for us to be normal, we first have to create a horribly un-normal society.” Good luck with that, fellas.
It’s not self determination when it requires a superpower veto and a bought superpower congress to function.
i would agree
And the Empire fell on its own splintered axis,
And the Emperor wanes as the silver moon waxes
link to youtube.com
And what are the Ziobots going to do when the empire falls into mediocrity ?
They lean on the wall and the wall leans away
link to youtube.com
And then?
To some, it’s not racism when Jews do it.
That’s why when I’m asked to explain Zionism in 5 words or less, I say, “Think the Klan, but Jews.”
Zionism is badly self-medicated Jewish trauma.
tribalism is, by definition, primitive
we now have lasers and rockets … we have the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution … we have smart-phones, we have probes on other planets … we’ve had the writings of Jung, Freud, Joseph Campbell, Orwell, Aristotle, Einstein …
to quote a brilliant line I saw on another site somewhere:
“we’re going to rely on the wisdom of goat-herders from the Levant 4000 years ago?”
So now Rabbi Yoffie is your target?
We get it Max, you’re an anti-Zionist who believes only Jews should give up their state, and Europe Christians, who live in states more homogeneously Christian than Israel is Jewish, should keep theirs.
Yea because as we all know those European Christians founded their State only 60-odd years ago and displaced the Natives and are carrying out a colonial and apartheid project well into the 21st century!
Aren’t you an AMERICAN anyway? Why are you talking like an Israeli? Oh that’s right, you live in America but you’re an Israeli nationalist.
How about this hoppy – if you want to turn America into Israel, go ahead and try.
Just cut the bullshit and accept that your favorite country is a racist, apartheid, colonial-settler State to be overcome like all the others in the past.
“We get it Max, you’re an anti-Zionist who believes only Jews should give up their state, and Europe Christians, who live in states more homogeneously Christian than Israel is Jewish, should keep theirs.”
This doesn’t make any sense. Why should a country that is populated by 50% Palestinians and 50% Jews, as the land governed by the Israeli state, be, in any sense, “Jewish”?
Phil Weiss wrote of Rabbi Yoffie:
“Meanwhile, Obama is campaigning beside a figure who espouses a philosophy that is not much more enlightened than…”
And that’s the thing: Yoffie is just too obviously smart to not see this equation. So what, the question becomes, does he believe differentiates him? What, in his heart of heart, must he really believe?
Clearly the man just simply believes that he as a jew is unique. That for some reason and in some way jews are unique, that is, and indeed must be recognized as such. That they somehow have the status of not only being judges of everyone else, but occupy a status such that no-one can ever judge them.
Thus, of course jews alone in the world have the right to discriminate, which includes having a state that discriminates against all others, and indeed everyone in the world must recognize that jewish right, but recognize that they themselves do not have that right.
It is then in the final analysis the exact opposite of the universalism that we see people like Yoffie so often say that jews stand for.
It is universalism with a giant asterisk.
” Yoffie proclaimed during his introduction of the President, “Our movement stands for openness and embraces pluralism.”
And then openly, nonchalantly admists that he wants Israel for Jews only.
And Obama , black Afro-American caters to him like a little scared schoolboy???
If Afrikaner said :”our movement in the USA stands for openess and embraces pluralism”, and then he said: “I want South African for Afrikaners only”, would Obama embraced him as a good,generous friend and brag about it all over??
Let’s rewrite this a bit:
And we all know where that ended.
Rabbi Yoffie said:
“Without a two-state solution, Israel will not longer be a state for my group; it will be a bi-national state… That is not the kind of place where I … will want to live.”
And here’s another unmentioned but inescapable implication of what Yoffie said: If not actually a positive distaste of having to rub shoulders with so many of us non-jews living as he does here in the U.S., then at the very least the sense of the … preferability of not having to do so.
Dasn’t point this out though no matter how inescapable it may be however: He can say it, you see, but you cannot comment upon it. It is perfectly okay, says he, to feel this way, but perfectly beyond the pale for anyone to observe it. Essentially, it is the right to maintain a false front.
Lovely to hear from a fellow citizen, isn’t it? Especially one constantly militating to force me to subsidize (the foreign) individuals he prefers rubbing shoulders with.
Are you saying that there are too many Jews in america? Yes, they are threatening American values and way of life.
So what’s the difference between this and that jerk’s statements?
Because as we all know, it is unheard of for people to feel any kinship whatsoever with co-religionists or members of the same ethnicity. It is also unheard of for people to worry about the people in a nation-state in which they claim heritage. Therefore, Greek people never talk about Greece. Chinese people only speak English, never carry over their customs to the new world, and never read Chinese newspapers. Hispanics never worry about their homelands.
No, the Jews are peculiar on this one.
@hophmi
“Because as we all know, it is unheard of for…”
So when the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity Movement in America talk about their “kinship… with co-religionists or members of the same ethnicity,” can we assume that you, as a Jew, are fully supportive of their efforts???
“So when the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity Movement in America talk about their “kinship… with co-religionists or members of the same ethnicity,” can we assume that you, as a Jew, are fully supportive of their efforts???”
America was not founded as a Christian state, the way virtually all of the countries in Europe were. Nor was it founded as an Islamic state, the way 5 dozen other states around the world were.
Moreover, again, a religion that numbers a few million and has a long history of being persecuted is not the same as a religion that numbers in the billions.
Israel was founded as a Jewish state and as a refuge for Jews from Christian states in which they were perpetually persecuted and Islamic states were they were perpetually persecuted, if to a lesser degree. I just don’t see how you can compare what it does to what other much older Western states, whose more pluralistic societies are of very, very recent vintage, made possible by comfortable homogeneity, and under great challenge at this time in history.
That’s the major problem with Tony Judt’s thesis. He calls Israel an anachronism based on a reading of history that is more idealism than truth. Unfortunately, for Judt to be happy, Israel was justified only insofar as it satisfied his idealistic view of history, rather than the true one that exists.
So the comparison is not apt, because Israel is not America, and because we do not live in a world where ethnicities and religions have accepted each other to the point of giving up any perceived societal and demographic advantage.
“Bizarre and disingenuous comparison.”
Only if you think every country is exactly like the US and should behave that way. And I never said Palestinians don’t have a right to complain. I said Jews have a right to feel kinship with other Jews, particularly in a world where there are so few of us.
“America was not founded as a Christian state”
They don’t think so. But, okay, fine. So when the German neo-Nazi Parties in Germany talk about their “kinship… with… members of the same ethnicity,” can we assume that you, as a Jew, are fully supportive of their efforts???
“Moreover, again, a religion that numbers a few million and has a long history of being persecuted is not the same as a religion that numbers in the billions.”
No, but that difference does not give the members of that minor religion the right to discriminate against others or require anyone to overlook the rank bigotry exhibited by members of that minor religion.
“Israel was founded as a Jewish state and as a refuge for Jews from Christian states in which they were perpetually persecuted and Islamic states were they were perpetually persecuted, if to a lesser degree.”
So what? That “intent” does not give them the right to persecute the Palestinians.
“I just don’t see how you can compare what it does to what other much older Western states, whose more pluralistic societies are of very, very recent vintage, made possible by comfortable homogeneity, and under great challenge at this time in history.”
Of course you don’t. You want to excuse the Jews and Israel from being bound by the same rules and norms of human rights and equality that every people, of every kind are and should be bound by.
“And I never said Palestinians don’t have a right to complain.”
They also have a right to not be persecuted by the Jews as they have been for three generations.
“I said Jews have a right to feel kinship with other Jews, particularly in a world where there are so few of us.”
Great. Feel all the kinship you want. But unless you are willing to deny them the right to oppress others in expressing that kinship, you are giveing post-hoc justification to all those who have persecuted the Jews in the past. Because every person’s right to be free of persecution is the same as any other’s.
‘Feeling kinship’ does not translate as giving yourself the right to destroy another country, its inhabitants and its culture. Equating the two is as ridiculous as your inept comparisons. As a litany of Israeli myth-making it is typical, as it seeks to justify dispossession and expulsion on the basis of some victimhood and ‘kinship’ myths.
Bizarre and disingenuous comparison. Palestinian Israelis have every right to complain of the destruction of their heritage and culture by foreign invaders, but you think you think you have the right to remove them from their homes because of a simplistic fairy story. Not the same thing as Greeks discussing Greece, or whatever stupid analogy you list.