The Mondo crew hosts WBAI’s ‘Beyond the Pale’ to discuss Ron Paul, Dennis Ross and the myth of Obama’s ‘Jewish problem’

btp
Beyond the Pale on WBAI 99.5 in New York City.

Before there was the blogosphere, the chat-room, even television, there was radio, the original demotic medium, the one with the ability fracture falsehoods and elevate truths with a single, swooping bold-pitched note. This past Sunday, we had a rare chance to take to the airwaves as co-hosts of WBAI’s “Beyond the Pale.” We were filling in for Esther Kaplan, journalist, author, and one of the show’s longtime hosts, who was kind enough to entrust us with her show while she is on leave. It was a heady, thrilling, and wildly fun experience, and we’re hoping to reprise it in March.

(For those of you who are so excited by the mere prospect of hearing our dulcet tones that you want to go straight to the tape, you can click HERE to connect to the show. For those who might need more inducement, read on.)

We began our show with – what else? – a conversation about Ron Paul, the anti-war, anti-government cross-over candidate who’s been stirring up the left almost as much as the right (case in point: the readers and writers of Mondoweiss). For twenty minutes, we probed the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Paul candidacy with the help of The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates and the left’s (how else do you describe her?) Phyllis Bennis. Though both readily acknowledged the positives of Paul’s run — “I get a thrill up my leg too,” joked Coates, quoting Chris Matthews — the overall take-away was, beware the false messiah, no matter how great his foreign policy pitch might sound. Bennis warned:

“[W]e have to separate support for positions from support for candidates. Ron Paul comes with a commitment to ending wars, but he also comes with a commitment against economic injustice, for states’ rights, for economic policies that are completely skewed toward the rich and away the poor, he opposed the United Nations, would pull the US out of the United Nations, would not allow any level of foreign aid. So the notion that he stands against current wars is hugely important … but the idea that somehow that by itself given all of the other negatives is enough to support a candidate — I have a huge problem with that.”

As for Coates, he took the positives in the very mixed Ron Paul grab-bag and molded them into a challenge for progressives. “Why don’t we have people on our side saying this? Why don’t we have people on our side aggressively pushing these issues? Why are they off the table?” His answer, at least in part, was for progressives to take a page from the abolitionists’ playbook and recommit themselves to the long, hard, retail work of organizing.

We’re sorry the segment lacked of a strong Ron Paul voice, and we had in fact lined up Salon’s Glenn Greenwald to provide this perspective. Unfortunately, the radio gods saw fit to scramble our plans, and our heart-rates, by making it impossible for us to reach him due to technical problems on our end. Thankfully, both Coates and Bennis didn’t miss a beat when our line-up changed seconds before going on the air. (You can watch this bloggingheads discussion between Greenwald and Katha Pollitt to get an idea of what he might have shared.)

In the next segment, we zipped from Tehran to Jerusalem (or, Jerusalem to Tehran) with political scientist John Mearsheimer – he of the The Israel Lobby and the University of Chicago – for a discussion about Dennis Ross. Ross, of course, is the veteran Israel-lobbyist-cum-peace-negotiator who spent more than 20 years guiding US policy toward Israel-Palestine before resigning his post in the Obama administration this past November. To listen to Mearsheimer, it is not a resignation we should mourn.

“By almost every account, he is the central player on the American side. And of course what’s happened here is that he’s failed, or at least the administrations that he has served have failed. The fact is that Dennis Ross has not even come close to making peace happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

Another fact? Both during his days in government and after, Ross has been one of the big pro-Israel boosters of the “military option” against Iran.

Finally, in our last segment we made our way back to the States – from the edge of war with Iran to the alleged war for Jewish votes and money in the 2012 presidential election. If you’ve opened a newspaper or turned on the TV news during the last few months, you’ve probably come across a story claiming that American Jews are fleeing President Obama over his Israel policies and hurtling breathlessly, desperately, into the embrace of the Republican Party. With headlines like “Why Obama is Losing the Jewish Vote” or “Obama’s Jewish Problem,” the story takes Obama’s plummeting Jewish support as fact – and then go on to suggest that he’d better change his “anti-Israel” ways or risk losing the whole election. The only problem, as our Guest Greg Sargent explained, is that the story isn’t entirely true.

“A lot of this has to do with trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If these folks push the idea that Jewish voters may be abandoning Obama then people say to themselves, wait, is there a reason we should be? And so the idea is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the thing they’re predicting actually happens.”

We pressed Sargent on whether pressure to retain Jewish votes and money is helping direct the administration’s policy in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he didn’t believe it was. You can draw your own conclusions.

And so we came to the end of our first show. To date, no one has called to offer us our own program on MSNBC or to suggest kicking Limbaugh from the air once and for all and replacing him with a left-listing, Klezmer-themed program. But we look forward to the day when words like Palestine, social justice, Israel lobby, failed peace process, and Iran war-mongering become as common in mainstream radio as Tea Party, deficit reduction, bomb Iran, and Tim Tebow.

About Lizzy Ratner and Adam Horowitz

Lizzy Ratner is a journalist in New York City. She is a co-editor with Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss of The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict. Adam Horowitz is co-editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Iran, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East

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

  1. radii says:

    the more outlets for the correct message(s) the better – kudos

    as for Ron Paul – he was useful in getting a much-needed audit of the Fed and he can be useful if he can awaken the neanderthal chest-thumpers on the right that real conservatives favor non-intervention not endless war (ultimately for israel’s regional super-power goal) – but on the latter his message seems to fall on deaf ears on the right and only embolden the left

  2. Good presentation.

    You were too softball on Ron Paul though.

    Phyllis Bennis had a good point in stating that the anti-war features of his prospective foreign policy spun directly and completely from his libertarian worldview.

    The libertarian worldview is one that appeals to those that hold that individual property rights are supreme, not one in which compassion or goodness has any merit in any foreign or any policy.

    Also, Mearsheimer was very restrained in condemning Ross. Specifically, identifying the obstacle to a two-state approach being Israel.

    My thesis is that the Israeli electoral effort is the NUT of social change in Israel/Palestine and that the US may not intervene in any substantive way, which is a rational approach.

    I think its noteworthy that Prof Mearsheimer does agree that the enrichment program is the problematic issue and that it is in the US interest that Iran doesn’t pursue that.

    • Shingo says:

      The libertarian worldview is one that appeals to those that hold that individual property rights are supreme, not one in which compassion or goodness has any merit in any foreign or any policy.

      That should appeal to Zionists, who endorse this very ideolog when it comes to Israel.
      It’s a potty Greenwald wasn’t able to participate. He would have destroyed Bennet’s pathetic arguments.

      My thesis is that the Israeli electoral effort is the NUT of social change in Israel/Palestine and that the US may not intervene in any substantive way, which is a rational approach.

      Yes Witty, you are opposed to anyone intervening in Israeli humanitarian abuse of Palestinians -we get it.

      I think its noteworthy that Prof Mearsheimer does agree that the enrichment program is the problematic issue and that it is in the US interest that Iran doesn’t pursue that.

      Given that Leon Panetta stated this week that Iran is no making nukes, it’s not noteworthy at all.

      Why is it you try so hard to revive the lies about Iran nukes Witty? M spite if the overwhelming evidence the apis no weapons program, you cling desperately to every morsel to revive this carnard.

      • Shingo,
        Did you hear Mearsheimer’s descriptions?

        Very similar to mine.

        • Shingo says:

          Yes I did hear Meareshimer’s description and nothing. Like yours.

          Meareshimer offered no opinion. His analysis was strictly based on explaining the positions of Israel and the US. You simly heard what you wanted to hear.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          I’m guessing Witty didn’t even actually listen at all. How many times have we caught him making comments before he’s even READ anything?

        • Proton Soup says:

          did mearsheimer say enrichment was “problematic”? i do remember him talking about it, but i’m not sure he shares the fear of it.

          in any case, i think it is true that enrichment is the most technically difficult element required for building nukes. if you want to build a Hiroshima-sized fission bomb, then it’s just a matter of amassing enough U-235 so that it goes boom when you compress it with high explosives, but small enough it doesn’t go critical on its own. the higher yield stuff is probably much harder, but the old-fashioned bombs aren’t technically sophisticated.

          but the bigger “problem” for israel isn’t fear of being wiped off the map. everyone knows it would be mutually-assured destruction with israel exercising the Samson Option. no, the bigger fear is the world in general, and USA in particular, seeing a thriving, technologically-advanced, cultured people in the M.E. that is not israel. the PR value of such a thing would be devastating.

        • Shingo says:

          did mearsheimer say enrichment was “problematic”? i do remember him talking about it, but i’m not sure he shares the fear of it.

          No he didn’t. Witty just wishes Meareshimer had said that.

          in any case, i think it is true that enrichment is the most technically difficult element required for building nukes

          Not necessarily. The detonation/implosion system is at least as difficult. Then of course, the delivery systems.

        • Shingo says:

          I’m guessing Witty didn’t even actually listen at all.

          Either that or he did and is trying to sneak one of his phones arguments index the radar and hoping no one calls him on it.

          Of ourselves, he is lying yet again. The only statement Meareshimer made WRT to Iran’s enuchmrnt program, is that Ross was opposed to it and is Israel and Washington.

          He did NOT say the enrichment program posed any problem.

        • I’m listening again.

          There is one point about Ross that I disagree with, that is that he attributes the Clinton policy on the middle east to Ross, then concludes that the Clinton administration failed, but the Oslo Accords happened at that time.

          One may say that the job wasn’t completed, but not that it “failed”.

          “It looks to ME that Iran has not decided to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran has decided to develop a nuclear enrichment capability. The administration does not want Iran to … because its a short step to weaponization. The Iranians can get very close to having a nuclear weapon without breaking the rules of the game. And this has the United States and Israel very worried.”

          Is that descriptive statement the US’ policy, or Mearsheimer’s agreement?

        • Citizen says:

          My memory must be very bad. I recall that Mearsheimer said (in aggregate) that Iran had a right (under the NPT it signed) to enrich, and that was a problem (only) because– how would we know if the enrichment was being turned to making nuclear weapons without occupying Iran?

        • Shingo says:

           There is one point about Ross that I disagree with, that is that he attributes the Clinton policy on the middle east to Ross, then concludes that the Clinton administration failed, but the Oslo Accords happened at that time.

          One may say that the job wasn’t completed, but not that it “failed”.

          Wrong.

          Setting aside that Oslo was not a recipe for peace, Camp David and Taba were definitely failures and they were failures because Ross acted as Israel’s lawyer.

          Is that descriptive statement the US’ policy, or Mearsheimer’s agreement?

          Caught lying again Witty and true to form, you respond with a question.

          This quote is Meareshimer’s understanding of the US policy position. Nowhere does Meareshimer say that he believes Iran’s enrichment program is a problem in his mind.  

          He definitely makes no reference to Iran enriching to higher levels than needed for nuclear power, so you clearly made that up too.

          I knew you were lying before I even had time listen to the interview. You’re so very predictable Witty.

        • Proton Soup says:

          Not necessarily. The detonation/implosion system is at least as difficult. Then of course, the delivery systems.

          maybe. but they are also acquiring the basic science for controlled shape charges and such via their legitimate nanodiamonds project. doesn’t mean they will build one (and i happen to think it’s their right to do so), but they are acquiring all the know-how.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “The detonation/implosion system is at least as difficult.”

          Is it? I wouldn’t think so. I mean, conceptually it is not terribly complex a set up (but it is an ingenious idea) so I would have thought that with performace data on the HE, that determining the shapes would fairly straight forward. (Although, the mechanics of simultaneous detonation might be a separate issue.)

          I guess I just figured that since the implosion method has been used by every nuclear power since Hiroshima and no one has developed uranium “gun”-type weapons, which are so much less taxing, engineering wise, then an implosion design must not be that difficult. (Although I suppose it could be a weight issue.)

      • Shaktimaan says:

        That should appeal to Zionists, who endorse this very ideolog when it comes to Israel.

        That’s funny. Individual property rights are basically nonexistent in Israel. Almost all of the country’s land is owned by the government. No one is allowed to purchase land outright.

        • Shingo says:

          That’s funny. Individual property rights are basically nonexistent in Israel.

          Only when it comes to Arabs.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          No, the law is the same for everyone. Your statement reminds me of that common criticism of Israel, “Arabs are not allowed to buy land in Israel.” While it is technically true it omits a key piece of information… that NO ONE is allowed to purchase land in Israel, Jews and Arabs alike.

        • Avi_G. says:

          Shaktimaan says:
          January 29, 2012 at 11:29 pm

          No, the law is the same for everyone. Your statement reminds me of that common criticism of Israel, “Arabs are not allowed to buy land in Israel.” While it is technically true it omits a key piece of information… that NO ONE is allowed to purchase land in Israel, Jews and Arabs alike.

          Methinks, thou doth protest too much.

          It’s not surprising that someone who claims to care about key pieces of information manages to omit a far more important piece of information.

          It’s a tendency among Israel’s propaganda spinners.

          The fact of the matter is that while Minhaal Mekarke’ay Yisrael – Israel Land Administration — owns most of the land in the state, the agency sells AND leases land ONLY to Jews. Palestinians in Israel who privately own land accomplished that by holding on to whatever land they owned prior to 1948.

          That’s how land expropriation has worked in Israel; the ILA took over land, whether privately or publicly owned, and offered it to its Jewish citizens who subsequently either purchased lots or leased them from ILA.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          I’m going to ignore your obnoxious accusation that I’m arguing dishonestly by means of omission and focus on your content, that the ILA doesn’t lease land to Arabs. It’s totally ridiculous.

          If the ILA doesn’t lease lands to Arabs then how are the Arabs getting houses, apartments and other places to live? They ARE buying houses. Who else do you think is leasing places to live in Rahat? Jews?

          Now, the ILA doesn’t actually own any land itself. It is just in charge of managing the land, most of which belongs to the government. A small percent, 12 or 13, belongs to the JNF and I know that THEY have been in court a whole bunch over their attempts at refusing to lease land to Arabs. But they’ve lost every single time. The court constantly rules that any form of discrimination wrt land leasing on the part of the government is totally illegal.

          Beyond this, any land belonging to the government can not be sold. It’s actually one of Israel’s Basic Laws. So the ILA isn’t selling any land to anyone, Arab or Jew. That said, I’ve never heard of any issues related to the ILA discriminating against Arab citizens unless it was part of a JNF situation.

          I find it difficult to believe that these cases regarding discrimination from the JNF are these HUGE things with tons of media coverage, while the entirety of the land is off-limits anyway due to discrimination from the ILA, (thus making the court cases pointless as Arabs still wouldn’t be allowed to rent houses anyway.)

          Lastly, I am aware of some affirmative action programs to encourage Arab home ownership by the ILA that offers favorable terms to Arabs seeking homes (over Jews.) I’m not sure how the ILA could both select Arabs as the recipients of affirmative action rates while simultaneously never renting land to them.

          What do you think? Does your argument still make sense to you in light of this logic? If so, do you have some evidence to support your assertion?

        • Shingo says:

          Shaktomaan,

          If you’re going to demand evidence, you might want to provide your own.

            93% of the land is held in trust by the Jewish National Fund for the use of Jews wherever they may be in the world.  That means the Palestinians (20% of the population) are only entitled to use  3% of the land.  No provision are made to accommodate natural growth, thus hone extensions ions means building upwards.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          That’s fine. You do realize that you neglected to offer any yourself, right? I can tell because your figures and facts are both imaginary.

          The JNF owns 13% of Israel’s land. Not 93%. And all of the land, regardless of whether it is government or JNF owned is open to be used by any Israeli citizen. Discrimination is prohibited by law.

          And here’s that proof you mentioned.

          link to forward.com

        • Cliff says:

          Which is a dishonest point that you make Shankitmaan.

          Jews who can’t buy land? Who gives a damn. The point is that they aren’t disenfranchised. They are the majority (through war and ethnic cleansing and mass immigration and the Jewish Law of Return).

          It is quite literally a superficial truth that you state that both groups cannot buy land.

        • Cliff says:

          Discrimination is not prohibited by the law (Israeli law; don’t try to insinuate that Israeli law is something we can all generally relate to here in the US).

          Discrimination is PROTECTED by Israeli law.

          Palestinians who marry Israelis cannot live in Israel permanently or gain citizenship. On land that is owned by that Israeli. Jews from anywhere in the world, and without possible ties to the land, can at the drop of a hat – move to Israel and claim citizenship.

          The end.

          Next hasbarist, please?

        • Shingo says:

          The JNF owns 93% of the land and only Jews are allowed to own or build on it. Discrimination is explicitly written into over 20 Israeli laws.

          link to middleeastmonitor.org.uk

          link to electronicintifada.net

          link to hrw.org

          link to articles.latimes.com

        • Tuyzentfloot says:

          It’s worth looking closer at those numbers. Here link to jkcook.net Jonathan Cook points out that the 3% in palestinian hands are severely constrained in other ways. To put it plainly, it’s yours but we don’t allow you do do anything with it.

          At least 70 per cent of the minority’s land has been confiscated since 1948. Along with the property of the Palestinian refugees in exile, these lands have been taken by the state or transferred to the Jewish National Fund, to be held in trust for the Jewish people worldwide. Today, 93 per cent of Israeli territory is “nationalized,” for the benefit of the Jewish nation, with only about 3 per cent owned privately either by individual Palestinians or by their communities.

          Even much of this 3 per cent has been taken out of the control of its Palestinian owners and their elected local representatives. Outside the tightly defined limits of Palestinian communities, land in rural areas like the Galilee falls under the jurisdiction of regional councils, established to empower the hundreds of scattered and exclusively Jewish communities implanted next to Palestinian towns and villages. They ensure that Palestinian land cannot be developed for the benefit of the community or to meet the growing demand for housing, but remains as private smallholdings, usually cultivated as olive groves.

          In addition, Israel has not built a single new Palestinian community in six decades, despite the minority growing eightfold in the meantime. It has also strictly enforced a policy of house demolitions against Palestinian citizens who build illegally, which most must do because the planning authorities refuse to approve the master plans needed to legalize the expansion of Palestinian communities. Instead Palestinian towns and villages have become tightly contained ghettoes. This approach to the Palestinian minority contrasts starkly with the state’s determination to satisfy the “natural growth” of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank by endlessly building new homes there.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Excuse me shingo but I already disproved your absurd claim that the JNF owns 93% of Israel (it is 13%) or that they are allowed to discriminate against who leases it, (as ruled by the courts in Israel several times.)

          Those links are lovely but they do nothing to support either claim or your new one that “discrimination is explicitly written into over 20 Israeli laws.” I personally know of only one, (which you linked to), which, while odious, is temporary and will hopefully expire soon.

          I did see this: “Zahalka said the admissions-committee law will effectively prevent Arabs from living in 70 percent of the country…”

          Now, if Jews are only allowed to own or build on 3% of the land like you said then how come this guy is worried about Arabs being excluded from 70% of the country?

        • Shingo says:

          You’re excused Shaktimaan, but you haven’t proves a damn thing other than make vaccuous claims.

          I personally know of only one, (which you linked to), which, while odious, is temporary and will hopefully expire soon.

          No it won’t expire.

          I know of 20 and the list would be longer and far more insidious if one were to take the occupied territoroes into account. And before you jump in an argue that they are not part of ISrael, they are clearly regarded such by Israel.

          Here is a few that come to mind:

          1. 93% of the land is held in trust by the Jewish National Fund for the use of Jews wherever they may be in the world. That means the Palestinians (20% of the population) are only entitled to use 3% of the land. No provision to accommodate natural growth.

          2. ID papers coded to differentiate Jews from Muslims

          3. Intense airport security, where all items are removed from the cases of Arabs

          4. Routine demolition of Arab homes

          5. Refusal of permits to rebuild them

          6. Prohibitions on Arab land purchases and the resulting overcrowding in Arab towns

          7. Re architecting roads and bridges so that only Jews can travel on them

          8. Gross neglect of infrastructure and services such a water, electricity, clinics and schools, especially in the Negev.

          9. Exclusion of Arab workers from wealth generating sectors of the economy

          10. Firing workers who speak Arab rather than Hebrew

          11. Diverting or manipulating water supplies

          12. Erasure of Arab presence and history by building parks and forests over Arab villages

          13. Desecrating a Palestinian cemetery to build a Museum of tolerance

          14. Removing former Arab place names from maps and roads.

          15. Arab school curriculums are rewritten to remove Arab history and replace it with the Zionist history.

          16. The ethnic cleansing of Bedouins in the Negev

          17. Prohibitions on Arab political parties from forming coalitions

          18. The Israeli marriage law, which blocks Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens or resident

          19. Denial of right of return of Palestinian refugees

        • Shingo says:

          BTW. Here’s a few more racit laws/policies

          1. The State has laws which prevent marriages between Jews and Arabs.
          2. The public state bodies of Israel have systematically carried out home demolitions and have expropriated property of the Palestinian citizens.
          3. They have denied Bedouin children enrollment in nearby schools.
          4. The Courts have prevented any Arab list of candidates from participating in the political life of the country if they deny that Israel is the State of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. See Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272.
          5. The State has deported Palestinians from East Jerusalem and transferred thousands of Bedouin citizens from their ancestral lands into isolated ethnic enclaves.
          6. Publicly funded schools have refused to enroll Bedouin children.
          7. The state has used “Green Patrols” to destroy Arab crops. It also has destroyed wells, pumps, and cisterns used to supply Arab citizens with water. 8. The State has refused to investigate and prosecute serious crimes committed against Arabs.
          9. There are many statutes that are designed to prevent Arabs from participating in the political, economic, and social life of the country.

          It outlaws every political party that denies that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (and only the Jewish people) and it defines Jewish peoplehood to exclude all of its national minorities. So yes, Israel conditions equal political participation on the basis of Jewish ethnic characteristics and accordingly excludes lists of candidates who disagree with that policy and practice.

          76,000 Bedouin citizens in 45 villages have lower priority than trees in the Israeli national and regional development plans. They have no representation in local councils or in planning and administrative bodies. They are subject to home demolitions, destruction of their crops by “green patrols”, land confiscation, or transfer to reservations that function as concentration camps.

          FYI, Apartheid is defined as inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

          The constituent acts of the crime of apartheid in connection with the refusal to recognize Beduoin citizens and afford them equal representation:

          Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups

          Israel uses legislation and ministerial regulations to systematically oppress and dominate its Arab citizens as a matter of policy and practice. For example, one-man-one-vote has nothing whatever to do with the seats reserved for the representatives of the JNF on the Israeli Land Commission, settlement admission committees, and other statutory bodies used to manage and control the Arab sector. Here is a link to a list of other discriminatory statutes and regulations:

          The UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza noted that the apartheid system in the occupied territories was simply the result of applying the laws used against Arabs in Israel:

          The application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation.

        • Cliff says:

          From Wiki, citing the US State Dept.:

          In 2009, the US State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor released a report critical of Israel’s tolerance of ethnic and religious minorities. The report claims that 300,000 immigrants who are not considered Jewish under rabbinical law are not allowed to marry and divorce in Israel or be buried in Jewish cemeteries. The report recognizes the 1967 law on the protection of all areas of religious significance but “the government implements regulations only for Jewish sites. Non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection under it because the government does not recognize them as official holy sites.” All 137 of the recognized holy site are Jewish whilst Muslim and Christian sites are neglected. The report claims that Israel discriminates against Muslims, Jehova’s Witnesses, Reform Jews, Christians, women and Bedouin.

          Shank is a bad hasbarist.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          How many links do you require before you will admit that the JNF has 13% of Israel’s land and has lost every case in Israeli court regarding its attempts to discriminate?

          Look, here is the freakin electronic intifada giving the 13% statistic.

          link to electronicintifada.net

          These are hardly disputed facts I’m citing, you know? This isn’t like a competing narrative situation. You can just look this up. No one is in disagreement.

          I can address those other points you made later, but first I think we need to conclusively decide this. If we are unable to come to an agreement on pre-determined facts that are not under dispute then we probably will be wasting our time by continuing any discussion. So can you just take a sec and look this stuff up? The court cases were in 2000 and 2005, to name two of them. Go check it out for yourself.

        • Tuyzentfloot says:

          I can address those other points you made later, but first I think we need to conclusively decide this. If we are unable to come to an agreement on pre-determined facts that are not under dispute then we probably will be wasting our time by continuing any discussion.

          Actually this is an outright dishonest statement and nothing more than a debating trick in order to score points. Whether the JNF has 93% direct ownership or only 13% has little impact on the overall picture. I’m not going to spell out the details. It wouldn’t even be necessary that it controls the 93% – which it does. The main point is that 93 is carefully monitored to remain under full jewish control, and everything is done to make it grow.

        • Shingo says:

          How many links do you require before you will admit that the JNF has 13% of Israel’s land and has lost every case in Israeli court regarding its attempts to discriminate?

          I never said the JNF owned the land, I said it held it in trust. Your own link to electronic intifada explains that the JNF has 6 of the 13 board of directors on the ILA, but is the central pillar.

          In other words, they still allow 93% of the land for Jews ONLY.

          BTW. The article refers to this land management as process of outsourcing apartheid , so I take it you agree?

          You are splitting hairs to obfuscate the fact that Israel only allows Palestinians to build on 3% of the land.

        • Shmuel says:

          The 93% figure refers to land managed by the Israel Lands Administration – including state land, Development Authority land and JNF land (about one sixth of pre-67 land area). The JNF, however, controls about half of the seats on the ILA board – with most of the other seats going to representatives of the Jewish agricultural sector (kibbutzim and moshavim).

          To the extent that the Kaadan case was ever anything more than a dead letter, it has basically been put to rest by the new Admissions Committees Law.

          The bottom line – as a direct result of discriminatory legislation (including the ILA Law of 1960 and the Admissions Committees Law), policy and enforcement – is that Israel’s Arab citizens are unable to purchase or lease land in most non-urban Jewish settlements, the jurisdiction of which covers about 80% of Israel’s land area.

          “Jews and their relatives” – as some demographers have begun calling those eligible for full citizenship rights in Israel according to the Law of Return – thus enjoy far greater access to property and residential areas than the country’s native-born Palestinian citizens.

          For a list of Israel’s discriminatory laws see: link to adalah.org

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Actually this is an outright dishonest statement and nothing more than a debating trick in order to score points.

          I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. What points?

          Whether the JNF has 93% direct ownership or only 13% has little impact on the overall picture.

          I disagree. Where it matters is in our discussion. See, this isn’t a point that has any real importance attached to it. It is merely a fact. But since it is one that Shingo (and yourself) happen to have gotten wrong I am using it as a test to see how willing you are to admit to an error. Basically, if no one is able to admit to even the smallest, most inconsequential error, (like this one right here), then any hopes of having an honest debate regarding more serious topics go right out the window. After all, unless everyone is willing to be forthright, and place honesty above both pride and even support for one’s personal ideology, then how can a worthwhile discussion ensure? In short, it can not.

          On a different note, I have noticed a willingness on this site to believe in some of the most outrageous propaganda regarding Israel along with an almost unparalleled bias against any aspects of Israeli society that one might deem “positive.” I admit to being curious as to just how deep this antipathy runs. I expected that people would immediately start attributing negative motives and crazy theories to me, despite a distinct lack of supporting evidence. But will it really go so far as to refuse to admit a simple error such as this? I guess we’ll find out.

          So, I provided two links thus far. Everything else I look up supports my statistic of 13% (Or 13.5% sometimes.) Where is your 93% derived from and why does no one who has any credibility whatsoever seem to agree with you?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Actually, you said both. See, here’s a quote of yours…

          “The JNF owns 93% of the land and only Jews are allowed to own or build on it. ”

          Regardless, the JNF does not hold the land in trust for use by Jews alone either. That statement is just as untrue. The ILA manages the land in question, which in no way is held to be exclusively for Jewish use. Israel’s Supreme (superior?) Court has ruled on this several times consistently upholding the line that discrimination by government offices against Arabs is not legal. Do you require links to these?

          If 93% of Israel’s land is not ever leased to Arabs then where exactly do you suppose any of them live?

        • Cliff says:

          You are splitting hairs to obfuscate the fact that Israel only allows Palestinians to build on 3% of the land.

          EXACTLY.

          Thank you Shingo (for cutting through Shank’s b.s., and Shmuel for elaborating on the ILA/JNF/etc.).

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Regardless, the JNF does not hold the land in trust for use by Jews alone either. That statement is just as untrue.

          There’s plenty of documentation that THAT is patently false. Nice try, though.

        • Cliff says:

          Shank says:

          I disagree. Where it matters is in our discussion. See, this isn’t a point that has any real importance attached to it. It is merely a fact. But since it is one that Shingo (and yourself) happen to have gotten wrong I am using it as a test to see how willing you are to admit to an error. Basically, if no one is able to admit to even the smallest, most inconsequential error, (like this one right here), then any hopes of having an honest debate regarding more serious topics go right out the window. After all, unless everyone is willing to be forthright, and place honesty above both pride and even support for one’s personal ideology, then how can a worthwhile discussion ensure? In short, it can not.

          This entire paragraph of yours is a signal of your defeat.

          The point is that your original assertion was a superficial truth.

          The term, ‘for all practical purposes’ aptly describes Shingo’s and Shmuel’s rebuttal.

          You could only reiterate the 13% statistic. That’s great. Congrats on spamming the discussion with intellectually dishonest verbiage. We have see that plenty of times from pro-Israel ideologues.

          You have not been able to respond to the rebuttals and the point being made that your statistic belies the ‘facts on the ground’ as it were.

          NEXT!

        • Cliff says:

          Where is your 93% derived from and why does no one who has any credibility whatsoever seem to agree with you?

          Who has credibility? Whoever agrees with your editorial of the 13% statistic?

          Do Israeli Arabs have the same land ownership rights as Israeli Jews?

          Simple question.

        • Cliff says:

          Read this Shank.

          The city of Rahat is the one new Arab city that has been established since Israel was created in 1948. In January 2010, a bill proposed by Ahmed Tibi, an Arab Member of the Knesset, that called for land to be allocated equally to Jews and Arabs was rejected by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. The bill was designed to provide counterbalance to a bill passed two weeks earlier that states that reception committees of Israeli communities can exercise discretion as to who may reside in their towns. According to Haaretz, “One consequence of that [the latter] bill is that Israeli Arabs would not be able to live in those towns if the reception committees decide so.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Israel rejects bill allocating equal land to Jews and Arabs

          link to haaretz.com

        • Shmuel says:

          More on the ILA and the “legal” theft of Palestinian land within the Green Line:

          G. Forman and A. Kedar, “From Arab land to `Israel Lands’: the legal dispossession of the Palestinians displaced by Israel in the wake of 1948″

          link to out-of-place.haifa.ac.il

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Do you have a link for this? I have a feeling that there is much more to the story than this snip is letting on.

          Israel’s most discriminatory rules are those related to marriage due to a complex series of reasons. Essentially there isn’t any civil marriage in Israel, which uses the laws that were in place from the Mandate Period for political reasons. Essentially every sect is in charge of its own marriage rules and is free to be as strict or lenient in their enforcement as desired. While on paper this seems like the fairest thing to do in a nation with three main, distinct religions (and many smaller ones), in practice it results in a lot of people being discriminated against or underserved.

          So while I don’t doubt that 300,000 immigrants are being discriminated against, I also think that the full story is probably pretty different than what is implied here.

          Shank is a bad hasbarist.

          You know, even using that word implies a certain level of insecurity wrt evaluating someone’s position based on their argument as opposed to their identification as a Zionist. Its a cheap way to dismiss someone’s viewpoint as worthless regardless of what it is… just accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being on Israel’s payroll.

        • Cliff says:

          No, I am not saying you’re on a payroll.

          I’m saying you are a bad propagandist for Israel.

          How could I be insecure of your views in this exchange between yourself, Shmuel and Shingo (with me commenting from the side-lines)?

          I already summed you up accurately. You kept haranguing Shingo on the 13% statistic as if it were an open and shut case.

          Now, you are asking for more information because you don’t think it’s so simple?

          Oh the irony!

        • Cliff says:

          So while I don’t doubt that 300,000 immigrants are being discriminated against, I also think that the full story is probably pretty different than what is implied here.

          K.

          Then go find us the full story. Or do you lazily expect us to keep responding to someone who doesn’t believe a word of our arguments?

          Your ‘non-rebuttal rebuttals’ are desperate and unintentionally funny. Keep it up!

        • Cliff says:

          New Israeli laws will increase discrimination against Arabs, critics say

          Israel’s conservative-led Knesset adopted two controversial laws Wednesday that critics warned will worsen discrimination against the nation’s Arab minority and make it easier to prevent Arab citizens from moving into hundreds of Jewish towns and villages.

          One law legalizes the practice of using “admissions committees” in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social “suitability,” a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

          The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel’s Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians.

          link to articles.latimes.com

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Smuel, thanks for your response. It makes considerably more sense than what some other posters had been insisting on. 93% makes sense regarding the ILA. Though I had mentioned it before the JNF argument began we somehow got sidetracked.

          The new Admissions Committees Law hardly restricts Arabs from living on only 3% of the entire nation as some people are suggesting. It gives communities of less than 400 households the ability to restrict who lives there based on certain criteria. So while it DOES say:

          The admissions committee will not refuse to accept a candidate for reasons of race, religion, gender, nationality, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political-party opinion or affiliation.

          I don’t think there’s any question that it is intended to be used for means of discrimination. How it will play out remains to be seen. I have pretty decent faith in the ability of Israel’s court system to rule against proven discriminatory practices. In the past it has not hesitated to do so.

          But in the meantime, this new law will hardly restrict Arabs from buying on 80% of Israel’s land. And from a legal standpoint, denying them property based on their ethnicity at all is still illegal. (The premise of my argument.) The fact that this subject is the target of so much debate in the media reinforces my assertion that Israel does not allow Israeli Arabs the right to rent/buy/build on only 3% of the land.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Really? Then by all means show me.

          The JNF owns 13% of the land in Israel. That is the only land it holds in trust for use by Jews. The remainder of the 93% is owned by the government or the Israel Development Authority. But it is all managed by the ILA.

          In other words, it is not in a trust for use by Jews held by the JNF.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Credibility is from any organization that is known to be somewhat credible. I see how you might find that statement meaningless, but for all practical purposes I’m pretty reasonable regarding credibility. Newspapers, major media outlets, etc., are all good. Hard right or left wing blogs are not acceptable sources for sole examples.

          Do Israeli Arabs have the same land ownership rights as Israeli Jews?

          As far as I know, under the law they do. That isn’t to say that they are not discriminated against. But legally I certainly think that they do with the exception of affirmative action cases, like with the Bedouins (and perhaps some others), getting favorable terms for leasing property.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Yes, I saw it before. What about it?

          Guaranteeing the allocation of equal land for Arabs and Jews is not the same thing as having equal ownership rights.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Cliff, it’s your story. You posted it. Is it really too much to trouble you for including a link?

          BTW, your constant attempts at insulting me don’t do much to advance your argument. Re: my rebuttal… your point in this post seemed to be that I was a bad Hasbarist. Which I wasn’t really attempting to rebut. In any case it is untrue. I’m not a Hasbarist of any kind, making it unlikely that I’m a very bad one.

          Why is it that some people feel the need to label people based on some perceived ideology that may not even be accurate? What do you gain by assuming that I am some kind of shill for Israel?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          You are splitting hairs to obfuscate the fact that Israel only allows Palestinians to build on 3% of the land.

          Hardly.

          All of the recently fought laws in Israel center around the fact that their passage would allow greater discrimination against Arab citizens WRT housing. The worst case scenarios state that this could potentially restrict Israeli Arabs from 65% of housing. 65% is greater than 3%

          That said, here is a related quote:

          The State Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement saying “the attorney general’s opinion, as it was presented to the JNF, is that the Israel Lands Authority must adhere to the principles of equality, and is forbidden from discriminating against people based on their nationality, even when the land in question is owned by the JNF.”

        • Shmuel says:

          Shaktimaan,

          You are quibbling. The inequality in access to land is enshrined in laws specifically designed to appear egalitarian and democratic, so that apologists such as yourself may come and say things like “Guaranteeing the allocation of equal land for Arabs and Jews is not the same thing as having equal ownership rights”.

          I presume you are familiar with the pig in the midrash, who extends exquisitely split hooves and says ‘Look, I’m kosher!’

        • Shingo says:

          Newspapers, major media outlets, etc., are all good.

          Really? Newspapers, major media outlets printed all the garbage that led to the Iraq war, so hey are not all good at all. It was teh blogs where the facts appeared.

          Hard right or left wing blogs are not acceptable sources for sole examples.

          Unfortunately, not all the news that’s fit to print appears in mainstream news sources.

          As far as I know, under the law they do.

          So you’ve walked back your claims to “as fas as you know”, and that you “cerainly think”. I listed nearly 20 cases of laws being used to descriminate against non Jews in Israel. You haven’t commented at all abotu those.

          AS for teh bedoins, they are being driven from their propoerties and into ghettos. How can that possible be favorable terms for leasing property?

        • Shingo says:

          All of the recently fought laws in Israel center around the fact that their passage would allow greater discrimination against Arab citizens WRT housing. The worst case scenarios state that this could potentially restrict Israeli Arabs from 65% of housing. 65% is greater than 3%

          The debate is about where Arabs are allowed to build (which is 3%), not access to housing.

        • MLE says:

          Its a common technique in property law. If the government owns the land, the Palesinians that used to live there have no legal right to claim it. If, however, the land belongs to a private citizen, the Palestinians can use the papers that they have prior to 1948 to claim ownership of the land.

          Is uggest you look very closely at land ownership laws in Israel. If the land leased to the property owners or is it outright sold? I have a feeling it’s probably leased because that is the only way to you could effectively banning the sale of land to Palestinian families. It also ensures if the land is abandoned, it goes back to the government, and Palestinian families could not squat on the land and claim ownership via that method.

          I’m not a lawyer in property law, but I had a friend explain to me how foreigners “buy” land in Egypt. If there are any lawyers, who have access to Israel property law codes, they should settle this debate.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Okay, let’s address some of those, shall we?

          1. I don’t know how many times or ways I can possibly disprove this before you’ll accept it. Tell me, what do you need to see before you’ll abandon these imaginary figures? That Arabs are only allowed to build on 3% of the land doesn’t even make any sense.

          2. This is true, but you can request papers without any designation. I have an acquaintance (an Arab who was adopted by Israelis and grew up in a kibbutz), who did so. Regardless, this isn’t an example of racism in and of itself.

          3. Israeli airport security uses a pretty sophisticated method of profiling that doesn’t focus on race. Arabs are surely given more scrutiny than Jews. But this isn’t a law or even a policy.

          4. Not a law. Arab homes are demolished only when they are built without a permit. Jewish homes are as well.

          5. Not a law. Not even true. Are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow Israeli policy to deny Arabs building permits? Give me a break.

          6. Not even true. Name a single prohibition on Arab land purchases.

          7. This doesn’t even make sense. How does one “Re architect roads and bridges” so that they only accommodate Jews? What happens if an Arab goes over one of these bridges? Does a kipot sensor go off and collapse the bridge or something?

          8. This is true and a sad example of severe discrimination against the most disenfranchised minorities within Israel. But it is not a law. I’m more than willing to criticize Israel on legitimate grounds such as these but let’s refrain from hyperbole.

          9. There’s a law that excludes Arab workers from wealth generating sectors of the economy?

          10. I’m sure discrimination like this occurs and it is to be condemned. But it’s not an example of a discriminatory law.

          11. Diverting or manipulating water supplies where, to do what? This isn’t a law either.

          12. Where are they building forests over Arab villages? And what law is being referred to here?

          13. OK, this one is my favorite. The cemetery you’re referring to has actually been a parking lot for the past 50 years. In 1945 the Supreme Muslim Council had plans to build a “six-storeyed building to house the Supreme Muslim Council and other offices, a four-storeyed hotel, a bank and other buildings suitable for a college, a club and a factory” there. Somehow a Muslim can park his car on top of a gravesite without desecrating it but when a Jewish organization decides to build a Museum of Tolerance there it is considered a violation of international human rights law. Why do you think that is?

          14. Not a law. Not even racist, really. Just possibly controversial. Maybe insensitive depending on the site?

          15. Can you provide more information about this? I haven’t heard of it. Regardless, it isn’t an example of a law.

          16. OK, this is a fucked up policy and a stellar example of truly odious discrimination that is occurring. I’m entirely in agreement with you here in opposing this action. I disagree with your referring to it as ethnic cleansing. It IS possible for an action to be morally wrong without rising to the level of a war crime you know.

          17. I haven’t heard of this. Was this legislation that was passed by the Knesset?

          18. This is a pretty gross law and I’m not a supporter of it by any means. That said, it isn’t really an example of racism. It only applies to non-nationals, not Israelis. And it was implemented because of the current state in the conflict, not as part of a larger plan to oppress Israeli-Arabs. It’s a new law and was only intended to be temporary as evidenced by its expiration date.

          19. This is an issue that’s a bit beyond the scope of our discussion here. It’s impossible to talk about it without discussing the dozen or so other issues that are directly impacted by it. That said, I think we can probably at least agree that the concerns surrounding Right of Return for Nakba refugees extend beyond it merely being an example of just another “anti-Arab law established by Israel.”

        • Shaktimaan says:

          How is it a dishonest point? I made the point in reference to the criticism that “Arabs in Israel are not allowed to buy land.” When this criticism is made without giving any context, the logical assumption that other groups ARE allowed to buy land in Israel (and that the Arabs’ inability to do so stems from discriminatory laws), is inherently deduced.

          My point in making this statement was to clarify that Arabs’ inability to buy land is based on a comprehensive rule that affects all ethnicities equally, as opposed to a discriminatory law targeting Arabs alone.

          There are plenty of legitimate examples of Arab discrimination that exist. There is no need to imply fake ones for dramatic effect.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          The example you are giving here is a temporary law that was passed during the height of the second intifada and only affects non-Israeli Palestinians. So right off the bat you are talking about a policy strictly targeting non-citizens, which has an entirely different set of rules than laws affecting Israeli citizens.

          Beyond that, this law doesn’t discriminate against a specific ethnicity, race or religion but a nationality. One that Israel is currently engaged in a violent conflict with. Also, this law was only passed in the wake of several terrorists using the marriage laws as a mechanism by which to enter Israel and execute attacks.

          Despite this Israel does offer exceptions on a case by case basis, open to about 1,000 families a year. So it isn’t an absolute decree that all-but-forbids cross border marriages. It does make it a chancy proposition though.

          That said, I’m not personally a fan of this law. I think that any usefulness it may have had has long since passed and it should have been allowed to expire. I’ve heard the argument that it doesn’t discriminate against Israeli-Arabs because it forbids the immigration no matter if a Jew or an Arab is marrying the Palestinian. This argument is sort of like that Anatole France quote, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

          But I think there was validity to it during the intifada. It is impossible to judge actions like these that are taken during wartime to protect the population with equivalent legislation passed in peacetime. The reality is that a conflict does exist between Israel and Palestine. Ignoring this reality while debating the validity of these laws would be intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

          Yes, Jews are allowed to move to Israel under RoR. That’s the point of Israel’s creation. No, Palestinians do not have this same right… the result of 100 years of ongoing conflict. This makes perfect sense to most people.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          So you are specifically referring to Arab’s ability to build structures, no lease land, buy houses, etc.? Your original argument was that Palestinians are only allowed to USE 3% of the land.

          Just clarifying the terms of our discussion.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          MLE,

          In Israel the land is primarily owned by the government. 93% belongs to one of several government groups and is managed by a central organization. That land is only ever leased to people who own houses, apartments, etc. The remaining 7% is privately owned land purchased before 1948. 3% of that land is owned by Palestinians.

          Land owned by Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 was essentially stolen by the state via the “absentee property law(?)” or something similar sounding.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Yeah, everyone gets some stuff wrong. What I look for regarding credibility is a system that at least aspires towards impartiality. Papers like the NYT and the WashPost are going to make mistakes and have occasional scandals. But that doesn’t mean that sites like rense.com, ifamericansknew.org or whatreallyhappened.com are somehow more trustworthy.

          I don’t have a problem using blogs if the information in them can be verified across several of them. But preferably, (if we’re using issue-blogs that support a specific agenda), facts would be cited by sources on both sides of the issue.

          WRT the bedouins, the existence of discrimination does not disprove the existence of affirmative action programs. In America redlining exists alongside economic opportunities that are exclusive to certain minorities.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Shmuel,

          I’m not sure how you expect anyone to respond to a statement like that. I actually disagree in that I think the majority of laws that intend to restrict Arab access to property is pretty blatant. Consequently the courts consistently rule against them in equally obvious ruling that outline the illegality of discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, religion, etc.

          The law that most closely resembles what you are describing is the new Admissions Committees Law. While it forbids outright discrimination all a community needs to do is find another reason to pin on the applicant in order to reject them. So it is obviously intended to be used for discriminatory purposes. Which is why it is being challenged so vigorously. In the past laws like these have always been killed eventually. Once some evidence accumulates this one surely will be too.

          That said, your argument is essentially that the appearance of egalitarianism belies a law’s discriminatory function. Which is a stance that’s logically impossible to refute. But I’m curious. Do you think that bill proposing the guaranteed allocation of equal land between Jews and Arabs was a fair bill that would have stood a chance at becoming law in any capitalist country?

        • Beyond that, this law doesn’t discriminate against a specific ethnicity, race or religion but a nationality. One that Israel is currently engaged in a violent conflict with……Arabs’ inability to buy land is based on a comprehensive rule that affects all ethnicities equally, as opposed to a discriminatory law targeting Arabs alone.

          no, it does not effect all ethnicities equally, because the goi doesn’t consider anyone but jews (qualifies as ethnicity)israeli nationals. the law privileges only one ethnicity,jews. the law discriminates, as you pointed out, wrt nationality. what kind of country doesn’t consider their fellow countrymen their own nationality? israel, that’s who.

        • yikes. nakba denial alert.

        • Avi_G. says:

          Shaktimaan says:
          January 30, 2012 at 3:02 am

          I’m going to ignore your obnoxious accusation that I’m arguing dishonestly by means of omission and focus on your content,

          This seems typical to Zionist apologists; they throw around accusations, but the minute they are the target of identical accusations, they throw a temper tantrum.

        • Avi_G. says:

          WRT the bedouins, the existence of discrimination does not disprove the existence of affirmative action programs.

          1. They’re not “Bedouins”, they are Bedouin.

          2. You keep hawking this affirmative action nonsense as though it actually exists.

          3. In the Naqab, the Bedouin have had thousands of acres confiscated and crops destroyed by the state under the guise of various laws and technicalities, meanwhile, you continue to peddle the latest Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hasbara talking point.

          4. Clearly, you are new to Mondoweiss. I suggest you read through the comments history and familiarize yourself with members here, especially since you seem to think you have found the Torah in the Sinai and are doing everyone a favor by spreading the lord’s prophetic word.

          5. On another thread, you claimed that Palestinians in Israel can buy land and your proof was that they clearly live on some land and build homes there. Otherwise, you rhetorically wondered, where else would they build?

          In my response to your false claims, I clearly stated that Palestinians who live in Israel, live on land they have owned before 1948 — a detail you conveniently ignored — for which each have had a DEED, known as Tahbo, since Ottoman times.

          I don’t think that is too difficult a concept to understand.

          Incidentally, for a Palestinian in Israel to get a land deed from the Israeli government, he or she must pay close to 20,000 shekels ($5,300 USD) to register a measly 1/8th of an acre (half a dunam).

        • Shmuel says:

          Shaktimaan,

          The courts don’t “consistently rule against” “the majority of laws that intend to restrict Arab access to property” (what about the minority?); they uphold those laws. The High Court of Justice (HCJ) is periodically called upon to rule in cases of policy and legislation and, despite a number of landmark decisions (such as the Kaadan and Zubeidat cases), rarely overturns executive or legislative decisions. To the extent that it does, its decisions are often ignored or circumvented – often by new legislation, sometimes called “HCJ-bypass” laws. On the whole, the HCJ has upheld the discriminatory structure of Israeli land policies on both sides of the Green Line. Your purported faith in the courts is thus profoundly misplaced.

          The Admission Committees Law is merely an attempt to restore the legal status quo prior to the Kaadan case – which was the de facto situation even after Kaadan (the Zubeidat ruling notwithstanding). Considering the HCJ’s reticence to overturn explicit legislation, the government’s restriction of the law to the Negev and Galilee, the court’s new “non-activist” president (effectively appointed by the extreme right) and new members (such as Noam Solberg), it is highly unlikely that the Admissions Committee Law will be overturned. And even if it is, the ruling will be almost impossible to enforce, due not only to the decisions of individual settlement committees, but to the entire ILA-managed system – specifically designed to promote Jewish-only settlement and the “Judaisation” of the land (the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouin in order to favour both individual [tokhnit ha-havot] and collective Jewish settlement in the Negev being an extreme case in point).

          Your question regarding fair allocation is disingenuous, because the forces at work are not only capitalist (there are those too) and passively discriminatory, but built on an entire structure of ethnocratic legislation and practice that has resulted in a system of unidirectional expropriation and allocation – from Arabs to Jews (“and their relatives”).

          Assuming you are actually interested and not merely acting as an Israeli apologist, I suggest you read Yiftachel, Kedar, Peled and others (I can give you more names if you like).

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Nakba denial?
          Surely you don’t mean me?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          You lost me. Nationality has two different meanings. You seem to be bouncing between them here while discussing the two laws.

          what kind of country doesn’t consider their fellow countrymen their own nationality?

          In this contact? Every country that’s made up of several different nationalities.

        • Shingo says:

          In this contact? Every country that’s made up of several different nationalities.

          Stop playing dumb. In ever country but Israel, nationality and citizenship are one and the same.

          Israel has defined a nationality (Judaism) that has nothing to do with citizensip and uses this to enact it’s racist laws.

        • Shingo says:

          Okay, let’s address some of those, shall we?

          Suit yourself, but the debate began with your denial that there were racist laws in Israel, and to your credit, you’ve admited that a good number of those I mentioned are indeed racist laws.

          That Arabs are only allowed to build on 3% of the land doesn’t even make any sense.

          Of course it does. It means that the total amount fo land set aside for Arabs to build is set at 3%

          Regardless, this isn’t an example of racism in and of itself.

          Of course it is. Any indentification that identifies one’s ethnicity is clearly an example of racism, seeing the state has deemed racism to be of relevance to the identity of individuals. No other state in the world does this – certainyl none that claims to be a democracy.

          4. Not a law. Arab homes are demolished only when they are built without a permit. Jewish homes are as well.

          Yes it is. The law has been created to specifically target Arab commnities. Homes that predate the creation of Israel are targetted as not meeting building standrds and demolished. Thus, the number of Arab homes demolished far exceed Jewish ones.

          The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices[171] notes that:

          “Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government’s policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth.”
          “Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged as discriminatory the 1996 “Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel,” which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee’s Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab towns.”
          “According to a 2003 University of Haifa study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail.”
          “The Orr Commission of Inquiry’s report [...] stated that the ‘Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,’
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow Israeli policy to deny Arabs building permits? Give me a break.

          Absolutely.

          Israel’s Arabs are forced to build illegal housing due to the government’s refusal to recognize many of their communities as official towns or to grant them permits for legal construction, according to a study released by the Dirasat – Arab Center for Law and Policy.

          link to haaretz.com

          6. Not even true. Name a single prohibition on Arab land purchases.

          Yes it is true. The ILA policy prohibit Arabs from buying, leasing or using land exclusively reserved for Jews.

          How does one “Re architect roads and bridges” so that they only accommodate Jews?

          Quite simple really. Roads that service Jewish settlements only accommodate Jews, since no Arabs are allowed to live there.

          There’s a law that excludes Arab workers from wealth generating sectors of the economy?

          The racist laws allow this practice.

          But it’s not an example of a discriminatory law.

          It will be if Arabic is removed as an official language.

          Diverting or manipulating water supplies where, to do what? This isn’t a law either.

          It’s a policy.

          12. Where are they building forests over Arab villages? And what law is being referred to here?

          Get real. It’s no secret that ISrael is diverting the acquifers from the West Bank to suplement Israel’s needs.

          In 1945 the Supreme Muslim Council had plans to build a “six-storeyed building to house the Supreme Muslim Council and other offices, a four-storeyed hotel, a bank and other buildings suitable for a college, a club and a factory” there.

          Really? Do provide a link if you would.

          14. Not a law. Not even racist, really.

          Not to a racist no.

          I haven’t heard of it. Regardless, it isn’t an example of a law.

          link to haaretz.com

          17. I haven’t heard of this. Was this legislation that was passed by the Knesset?

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          That said, I think we can probably at least agree that the concerns surrounding Right of Return for Nakba refugees extend beyond it merely being an example of just another “anti-Arab law established by Israel.”

          Only insofar as it is the mother of all anti Arab laws in Israel.

        • Shingo says:

          The example you are giving here is a temporary law that was passed during the height of the second intifada and only affects non-Israeli Palestinians. So right off the bat you are talking about a policy strictly targeting non-citizens, which has an entirely different set of rules than laws affecting Israeli citizens.

          That’s a dictinction without a difference. Israel rules over these Palestinians while denying them citizenship.

          Beyond that, this law doesn’t discriminate against a specific ethnicity, race or religion but a nationality.

          It does by default. The violent conflict that ISrael is enganged in is due to ISrael’s ethnic cleasing and land theft of Palestinians after all. Short of wholesale genocide, you can’t get more racist than ethnic cleansing.

          It is impossible to judge actions like these that are taken during wartime to protect the population with equivalent legislation passed in peacetime.

          Irrelevant. There has never been a peacetime througout Israel’s existence and there likely never will be. Teh conflict didn’t just happen, it was cfreated by Israel’s ongoing desire to take land belonging to someone else.

          Yes, Jews are allowed to move to Israel under RoR. That’s the point of Israel’s creation. No, Palestinians do not have this same right… the result of 100 years of ongoing conflict. This makes perfect sense to most people.

          No it does not, in fact, it’s completely beyind reason. Not least of which because much of the land inhabited by Jews movign to Israel is not even in Israel. Zionism is racist to the core.

        • Shingo says:

          93% belongs to one of several government groups and is managed by a central organization

          And the JNF happens to hold 6 of the 13 seats on the organization.

        • Shingo says:

          But that doesn’t mean that sites like rense.com, ifamericansknew.org or whatreallyhappened.com are somehow more trustworthy.

          These sights are not news reporting sources, they are news agregators. With the exception of rense.com, the others merely link to other nes sources that contradict the narrative provided by the NYT and the WashPost.

          WRT the bedouins, the existence of discrimination does not disprove the existence of affirmative action programs.

          That might be true, but the discrimination is winning.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Isn’t it funny how “israel’s racist laws” eventually becomes “racist policies” and then intimately “racist actions taken by individuals acting outside of any authoritative role.”?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Actually, that is how it works in every country that we can define as an ethnic nation.

          In ever country but Israel, nationality and citizenship are one and the same.

          That’s just not true. That’s how it works in places like America and Canada. But what about Ireland? There is an Irish nationality that is distinct from having a citizenship of Ireland. So while you could meet an ethnic Chinese man who holds Irish citizenship and is a member of the state of Ireland, in the ethnic-national sense he remains Chinese.

          This isn’t an attempt at justifying racism. Recognizing different ethnicities and celebrating a common identity formed around shared experiences, history, language, culture and/or religion is not a bad thing. There are positive and negative sides to nationalism just like most things in life.

          Why are you so hung up on proving that Israel is distinct from all other states in some odious way? If you can show that their very ideology is racist then will it make their policies and actions steeped in racism too, allowing us full permission to heap scorn and ridicule upon them? Or something else?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          That 3% is just the amount of land that is privately owned by Arabs in Israel. Israeli Arabs have the same rights to develop (or not develop) any of the other land that they lease. There are no differences in the laws regarding Arab leased land and Jewish leased land. It’s the same.

          Regardless, this isn’t an example of racism in and of itself.
          Of course it is. Any indentification that identifies one’s ethnicity is clearly an example of racism, seeing the state has deemed racism to be of relevance to the identity of individuals.

          Fine, I challenge you. Find me a law that states how Arabs are not allowed to build on any land allocated for Jews. Find me something that outlines a distinction in the legality of what Arabs can use land for versus Jews. Because nothing like that exists.

          Both Jews and Arabs can use 93% of the land for the same things as each other. There are no restrictions based on ethnicity. Those are illegal.

          #6. What land are Arabs restricted from using? You keep insisting that this is an actual thing that Arabs are being discriminated against with but the Israeli courts ruled against it. There is no land that is legally allocated just for the Jews.

          If there is, then FIND IT! Go on! Show me where. Where can an Arab not lease land in Israel because he’s an Arab?

          It’s like those Fox hosts who keep going nuts about the war on Christmas! If there are so many legitimate grievances in the I/P conflict then why would you feel the need to keep inventing false ones?

        • Shingo says:

          But what about Ireland? There is an Irish nationality that is distinct from having a citizenship of Ireland.

          The Irish nationality is based on the fact that a country called Ireland exists. In the case of Israel, there is the unique notion of natioality being defined according to Judaism.

          So yes, you are attempting to justify racism.

          Why are you so hung up on proving that Israel is distinct from all other states in some odious way?

          Because it absolutely is. Granting the right of return of people who’s never even been to Israel, whiel dening to those who were expelled from Israel is the empitome of insanity. It beggars belief that anyone with a bain could justify it.

        • Shaktimaan, are you familiar with the neighborhood committees? the ones with representatives of the jnf?

        • Shingo says:

          Isn’t it funny how “israel’s racist laws” eventually becomes “racist policies” and then intimately “racist actions taken by individuals acting outside of any authoritative role.”?

          Maybe you find it funny, I don’t. Individuals acting outside of any authoritative role will only get away with it so long if the state does not agree with those actions.

        • Shingo says:

          That 3% is just the amount of land that is privately owned by Arabs in Israel.

          You mean, the land that hasn’t been stolen right?

          In any case, Israeli Arabs do NOT have the same rights to develop any of the other land that they lease, because they are denied from leasing it.

          Both Jews and Arabs can use 93% of the land for the same things as each other. There are no restrictions based on ethnicity. Those are illegal.

          No they cannot. Arabs are not allowed to build on the 93% of the land. Journalists picked this argument up from academics. The Washington Post’s Barton Gellman reported that because

          the Zionists devised formal and informal mechanisms to prevent Arabs from acquiring Jewish land that persist today … [the Palestinian death—penalty law] is not without parallels, penalty aside, in Israel.9

          New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis expained this:

          In Israel today most land is still held in trust by an agency devoted to furthering the Jewish homeland. As a practical matter, land used by Israeli Jews for home or business or farm is hardly ever sold to Arabs. So the idea of Palestinians wanting to keep what land they have is not unusual.

          Arabs cannot have access to that land that’s owned by the Jewish Agency. They can keep land they have privately owned before the State of Israel was created. There’s a small amount of private property that can be traded and Arabs can buy that as well as Jews, but most land is held in trust for the Jewish people, so yes there is a legal basis for what we would flat out call discriminatory practices.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Of course he’s familiar, Annie, he’s just imagines we don’t know how apartheid works inside Israel as well as out in the Occupied Territories.

          Shakey: Have European Zionists taken land owned by non-Jewish Arabs, by gunpoint, since 1947? Yes or no question. Answer it.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Feel free to clarify your position on the Nakba, by the way, Shakey. You know, just because. ;)

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Sure I do. But they’re not really applicable. Shingo said that there was specific land allocated to Arabs that they could build on and everything else was poff limits. So I’m looking for some kind of verification of that.

          Is there a map put out showing the areas that Arabs are allowed to build? Or some kind of law that outlines the land usages that Jews are allowed to use but Arabs are not. Basically just something that backs up this idea that Arabs can only build on 3% of the land AND can’t rent/lease/live/whatever on land that’s designated for Jewish use only, which I believe was pegged at 93% of all the land in Israel?

          Yeah, I’m just looking for some kind of verification for this absurdity.

        • patm says:

          If there is, then FIND IT! Go on! Show me where. Where can an Arab not lease land in Israel because he’s an Arab?

          Here you go, Shaktimaan, get your head around this article. And then stop your thread-jacking.

          LAND USE PLANNING AND THE PALESTINIAN MINORITY IN ISRAEL: A COMPARATIVE REGIONAL STUDY

          “ABSTRACT: This paper examines the political motivations and legal justification for the Israeli government’s ongoing efforts to acquire and settle land in two peripheral regions of the country: the Galilee in the north and the Negev in the south. This study also seeks to uncover the impact of these policies on the indigenous minority populations of these regions, the Palestinian communities in the Galilee and the Palestinian Bedouin communities of the Negev desert.

          This research examines the political motivations and legal justification for the ongoing efforts of the Israeli government to develop and settle two regions of the country, the Galilee in the North, and the Negev in the South. The study seeks to further uncover the impact of this settlement pattern on two minority populations in Israel, the Palestinian minority in the Galilee and the Bedouin Palestinians of the Negev desert. Following the formation of Israel in 1948, the newly established state sought to strengthen and consolidate Jewish presence throughout its territory, particularly in targeted areas such as the Galilee and the Negev. One of the most formidable instruments used by state authorities to accomplish this aim of Jewish settlement is land use planning. Israeli control of land use resulted in policies that strengthened Jewish presence throughout the newly established state. These policies remain controversial because of the way in which they place Palestinians and Palestinian Bedouin communities in systemic cycles of under-development and under-representation. One of the most critical mechanisms enabling the state to carry out this policy was the law.” (my bold)

          link to prospectjournal.ucsd.edu

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Oooh, so now Zionism is racist to the core, huh?
          Racist against whom exactly? Oh wait, you explain down there.

          It does by default. The violent conflict that ISrael is enganged in is due to ISrael’s ethnic cleasing and land theft of Palestinians after all.

          Let me get this straight… The law that singles people out based on their being Palestinian is racist because the conflict that necessitated it was caused by ethnic cleansing by Israel. And since ethnic cleansing is always racist then it stand to reason that the law itself is racist too. Have I got that right?

          Anyway, I was looking at this…

          It does by default. The violent conflict that ISrael is enganged in is due to ISrael’s ethnic cleasing and land theft of Palestinians after all. Short of wholesale genocide, you can’t get more racist than ethnic cleansing.

          and I thought of something. You know I have never heard your beliefs on what initiated the entire conflict. (Presumably ethnic cleansing?)

          Whose fault you ultimately think it was… when and how did it start… and how should we (and IF we even should), incorporate those things into helping to forge a viable peace accord?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Hi Chaos.

          Of course they have. During the war pod Independence for example, but a better example would be during ’67 since the entire sinai was taken. Surely some of that area was owned by an Arab guy or two. He got it back so maybe it’s a bad example.

          Let’s go with East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was definitely taken at gunpoint and there was certainly an Arab who owned some of it and it is currently annexed by Israel. (non-recognized.) Is that the kind of thing you mean?

          What about it?

        • patm says:

          My chutzpah and I are going to go take a quick nap before work.

          Shakmeister, you made the above statement today January 31, 2012 at 7:05 am on the Security expert thread and here you are still commenting at 11:25 am.

          Mmm…. Answer: hasbara trolling is your work.
          ***
          Oh yes, and don’t forget to reply to the article on Israel’s land use policies.

        • Ellen says:

          Neighborhood Committees! OMG, that is the same thing as Gau Leiters. Ok,what was that? A Gau was like a little alley way, small section of neighborhoods in Berlin or Desden or Frankfurt, and each Gau had a Committee with a Leiter, a Leader.

          Ask a German about Gau Leiters and watch their eyes roll.

        • Cliff says:

          Really? Give us examples Shank.

        • Cliff says:

          Zionism = racism.

          Zionism means a Jewish State. A Jewish State means a Jewish majority.

          And there IS NO JEWISH MAJORITY without getting rid of the indigenous Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Nationality is (and always was) defined by whatever criteria the nation in question sees fit. Sikh people also base their nationality around religion. But that is always a single aspect. There’s also shared history, language, culture and so on.

          The concept of nationhood far predates the invention of nation-states (countries.) The Jewish nation USED to have a homeland before the diaspora called Israel. Israel now exists in a modern form today.

          Now how in the world is any of that racist? We’re not even discussing race.

          Because it absolutely is. Granting the right of return of people who’s never even been to Israel, whiel dening to those who were expelled from Israel is the empitome of insanity.

          No one from Israel is denied the ability to return. The Palestinian refugees from the nakba were never Israelis, nor did they leave Israel. No one is preventing their return to their own state, Palestine, which will surely have some kind of RoR themselves. It is a sad fact that the conflict brought about a population transfer between Arab and Jewish areas. But it did occur, and Israel has already absorbed and assimilated the million or so Jewish refugees expelled by Arabs and Palestinians. Nakba refugees wishing to return will have to settle for living a few miles away from the places they left 65 years ago. The decision to make war comes with inherent risks should you lose. In this case the Palestinian refugees will be forced to live down the street from the house they grew up in instead of the exact same spot. It’s sad but it happens. I was once evicted from my apartment when the neighborhood gentrified out of my price range. Life goes on.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Lovely, thatnk you.

          But this does nothing to support Shingo’s assertion that Arabs are not allowed to use 93% of Israel’s land, essentially anything under the administration of the ILA (which he calls the JLF for some reason.) This doesn’t say anything about Israeli law preventing Arabs from leasing any land but the 7% that’s specifically allocated for such a use. (Weirdly, since he’s saying that Arabs can only lease land that isn’t part of the 93% controlled by the ILA, that includes all of the private land in Israel owned by Jews as well as Arabs.) So there’s the 3% Arab owned land that he said is the only area Arabs are allowed to build on. And then there’s the ILA administered land that he says Arabs aren’t allowed to live on. Leaving the 4% owned by Jews which is I guess what he thinks that the majority of Arabs live on.

          Anyway, if any of these totally insane assumptions had an iota of truth to them it would probably be pretty easy to find some evidence saying so. An academic paper that focuses on increased Jewish settlement and influence in 1948 via policies that sought this effect is not really meeting the level of proof that I’m accustomed to. All of the evidence that DOES exist is much more recent and exists in abundance. It unfortunately all supports the opposing stance, my own, that all of this stuff that Shingo insisted was factually accurate is actually the inverse of that… specious and imaginary.

        • watch Real News Video: JNF ‘Judaizes’ expropriated land

          link to mondoweiss.net

          then check out the thread starting around here:

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Shingo says:

          Nationality is (and always was) defined by whatever criteria the nation in question sees fit.

          Rubbish. What a group or tribe calls themselves is their concern, but the concept of nationality is recent invention. Sikh people do not refer to their nationality, but their enthnicity. That is where history, language, culture come from.

          The Jewish nation USED to have a homeland before the diaspora called Israel. Israel now exists in a modern form today.

          The two have nothing to do with one another. The Jewish nation referred to in the fictional Bible was based on myth.

          No one from Israel is denied the ability to return.

          Stop being a complete idiot…if you can manage it. Israel came into exitence only 64 years ago and you know very well that 800,000 Palestinians were deliberately expelled in order to secuyre a Jewish majority within the territory assigned to the Jewsih partition by the UN. The land that belonged to them was subsequently seized by the Israeli government.

          It is absoluetly irrelevant that the Palestinian refugees from the nakba were never Israelis. A change of sovereignty never effects private property ownership under international law. Religious and minority group communal property rights were also specifically protected in both of the proposed states under the terms of the UN plan. A UN Palestine Commission was tasked with appointing a provisional government and with supervising elections for the Constituent Assembly that was tasked with adopting a democratic constitution. There were actually slightly more Arabs living in the proposed Jewish state than Jews. So, it is highly unlikely that the voters would have turned-over state lands to the Jews.

          No one is preventing their return to their own state, Palestine.

          There is a state called Palestine? It seems that in cpite of the oh so polite and moderate tone, you are indeed a cheap hasbrat and Zionist propagandist. The refugees are entitled under international law, to return to their property, regardless fo what state it resides in.

          It is a sad fact that the conflict brought about a population transfer between Arab and Jewish areas.

          There was no population transfer between Arab and Jewish areas. That is a cheap myth that the Likudniks came up with iun the late 70′s to allevaite their culpability and responsibility for the ethnic cleasintg that they carried out in 1947/1948

          Israel has already absorbed and assimilated the million or so Jewish refugees expelled by Arabs and Palestinians.

          Absolute rubbish. There were nothig like a million Jewihs refugees expelled by Arabs and Palestinians. This was debunked by Haaretz in an articel entitled
          Hitching a ride on the magic carpet by Yehouda Shenhav Any
          link to haaretz.com

          The story was inveted by WOJAC (World Jewish Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) in the late 70′s and was unanimously rejected by the Mizrahi population in Israel who insited they were not refugees.

          Nakba refugees wishing to return will have to settle for living a few miles away from the places they left 65 years ago.

          That’s up to the Nakba refugees to decide, not a racist supremcist like yourself.

          The decision to make war comes with inherent risks should you lose.

          Abnotehr repugnant lie. Israel had expelled 300,000 Palestinians by the time the Arab armies set foot inside Palestine.

          I knew that under that polite facade resides a racist, Nakba denier.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          I called it that Shakey is a Nakba denier. By the way, Phil, why do you tolerate people like this? You’d never tolerate Holocaust deniers.

        • Citizen says:

          USA:
          All US citizens are also US nationals[; however, some US nationals are not US citizens.
          The term "national of the United States" is defined in Section 101(a)(22) of the INA [8 USC § 1101(a)(22)] as “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States”.
          Section 308 of the INA [8 USC § 1408] says (more or less) that a person born in an “outlying possession” of the US — or a foreign-born child of such a person — is a US national, but not a US citizen. At the present time, the only “outlying possessions” of the US, as defined in 8 USC § 1101(a)(29), are American Samoa and Swains Island (in the South Pacific)].

          Ireland:

          Irish nationality law is the law of Ireland governing citizenship.[1]
          ^ In Irish law the terms “nationality” and “citizenship” have equivalent meanings.
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Israel:
          Israel’s nationality law defines the terms through which one can be granted citizenship of the state of Israel. (BUT:) It also includes the Right of return for Jewish diaspora. Israeli law also follows jus sanguinis as the PRIMARY mechanism through which one may obtain citizenships, rather than jus soli. link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “It is a sad fact that the conflict brought about a population transfer between Arab and Jewish areas…. The decision to make war comes with inherent risks should you lose… It’s sad but it happens. I was once evicted from my apartment when the neighborhood gentrified out of my price range. Life goes on.”

          “Population transfer”??
          Again, THIS is Nakba denial. Why isn’t this person being banned?? What use is new rules if they are not enforced?

          Would someone last if they referred to the Holocaust as merely some “unfortunate deaths” and implied that the Jews started the conflict that ended with the crimes against them, and then, after comparing it to some dopey irrelevancy in their lives, said, essentially, “oh well, so sad. But life goes on”?? Really? Can someone deny the Holocaust like that on this site?? Because that’s the equivalent of what this post is.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Now how in the world is any of that racist? We’re not even discussing race.”

          The truism, “Zionism = Racism,” is not expressing that Zionism is an example of an exercise of bigotry based on race. Rather, it is expressing that Zionism is the equivalent of, and equal to, racism. Morally, functionally and practically. In other words, the purile and disgusing bigotry which is an inherent part of the Zionism project and ideology in practice is no less base and foul than any form of racism.

          So you hasbara-trolls pointing out, “we’re not talking about race,” only succeeds in making you look like ignorant fools, because it is the odious and horrific discrimination and bigotry that is the issue (which, by focusing on the race element, you implicitly admit), not the particular characteristic that the bigot focuses on.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Thanks for writing all of this down. I found it very interesting. After looking through it I have one question to ask you.

          A common way of understanding this conflict is through the lens of conflicting narratives. Since most people want a fair solution for everyone involved, the initial impulse is to figure out what “fair” looks like, and we mostly do that by looking at and interpreting past events. So for each side there is a lot resting on ensuring that people interpret those events in such a way that makes them sympathetic to their people. So competing narratives exist.

          I have probably read about 20 books on the conflict and read countless articles. While some of these books would be considered extremely pro Israel and some would fall firmly into the pro-Palestine camp, the majority of them were pretty mainstream and strove to eliminate bias as much as possible. It was these books which were mostly written by big name historians and journalists, all of them considered credible, that were less about establishing a chain of individual events and more on the different ways of looking at the larger aspects of the conflict. But they all discussed these same events. Their differences were relegated to matters of framing them and how to proceed in the coming years. Eventually books or articles began to immediately stand out as suspect if their timeline of key events differed greatly from the one that’s already been established. The one that’s already been researched to death, critiqued, revised and pretty much accepted by the historical community at large. Mostly these authors’ dishonesty would take the form of omitting important events, leading the reader to incorrect deductions without having to tell any outright lies. But sometimes someone would really go out on a limb and begin making historical claims that I had ever heard before. It was these “facts” that were always the ones suspiciously lacking in evidence.

          Now you and I clearly ascribe to different narratives. I generally ascribe to the same one that forms what could be thought of as the “mainstream” understanding of what happened and why. The history that you presented to me here is mostly made up of assertions that I can honestly say I have never even heard before. You did throw in the occasional “denial via omission” (such as when you said that 300,000 Palestinians were evicted before any Arab states even invaded Palestine, conveniently omitting the fact that the war was begun by the Palestinians six full months before that event. Not that any other part of that sentence you wrote is considered true by anyone anyway. I’ve never seen anyone make such assertions before or estimate such crazy numbers. But whatever, who cares.)

          You and I clearly accept very different narratives about the start of this conflict. But I never came close to denying the occurrence of the Nakba or the harsh realities it imposed on the expelled Palestinian diaspora. I’m pro-Palestinian and I support policies that I think have a chance of ending the conflict an an equitable way. My beliefs are actually pretty moderate. I used to be extremely pro-Palestinian until I began reading more about the conflict, which fostered a change in my understanding of the conflict.

          Anyway, here’s my question. What is the point of trying to label me as racist, a hasbarist, a nakba denier, a (my favorite) racist supremact, etc.? Is that something that you actually believe? Does everyone who disagrees with your “interpretation” of the events have to be a racist nakba denier? Or is that a designation you picked out special for me? (I have a funny feeling that lots of people get called that around here.) It doesn’t bother me, you clearly believe in lots of crazy stuff. Thinking that I’m a racist isn’t even that weird comparatively because for all you know it actually COULD be true. It’s not of course, but for all you know I might very well be a humungous racist! While there is ZERO chance that an International Law exists that guarantees anyone’s private property. But that doesn’t stop you from believing in it to the extent that you ACTUALLY tried to use it as evidence supporting your argument!

          So you clearly have the rare ability to believe in just about anything if it appeals to you. Which is why I think that you really might think that I’m a racist. It makes a lot of sense you know… from your perspective I mean. If I’m a racist then everything I say can be easily disregarded right off the bat. I absolves you of any responsibility for attempting to refute my arguments on their merits. More importantly it saves you from the need to consider my points, maybe even look them up one day and discover that they were correct, and then have to alter your worldview on account of it. That is a lot of work, and along the way there is no shortage of people who won’t refrain from calling you a racist when your ideas differ from their own.

          It’s like that whole thing about your assertion that Israeli Arabs are restricted from living on 93% of Israel’s land. You continued to believe this even though no evidence for such a law exists, even though the JNF’s attempt to restrict their land from use by non-Jews was already ruled as being illegal, and despite the fact that Israeli-Arabs can be seen living ALL OVER Israel, in areas whose total is clearly greater than 7%! But this actually makes sense to me now. Of course you continued to believe that absurd 7% thing was true, You NEED it to be true, don’t you? I can’t say why for sure, but my first guess would be that it has something to do with needing to have a legitimate reason to justify all of this anger and hatred you clearly have towards this state and its people. Are you aware of the psychological term “projection?” (I just learned it last month. My girlfriend is a psychologist.) Anyway, it is basically the practice of taking aspects of yourself that you hate and putting them on some other person or group of people, accusing them of embodying this very same quality, and then attacking them, essentially as a proxy for this quality within yourself that is the actual thing you want to attack and excise. You see it a lot with homophobes and gay-bashers for example. If you doubt my initial hypothesis just look at how often you accused me of being a racist or supremacist in that last post. It’s clearly a hot button issue for you. But I’m not going to speculate any further than that.

          In any case, I guess I answered my own question. Feel free to respond to this if you like but I don’t see much to be gained by continuing this discussion, so I probably won’t respond. It WAS nice chatting with you though. I found it really informative.

        • Shingo says:

          A common way of understanding this conflict is through the lens of conflicting narratives.

          Another is throught historical records and evidence.

          I have probably read about 20 books on the conflict and read countless articles.

          So have we, and long before came along to try and sell your wares on this forum, many others have come and gone. We’ve heard all the BS from ther best you Hasbrats could offer.

          Now you and I clearly ascribe to different narratives. I generally ascribe to the same one that forms what could be thought of as the “mainstream” understanding of what happened and why.

          The the “mainstream” narrative became “mainstream” because it was sold to the West by the parties that had the means to best deliver and distribute it. But like all lies, the narrative has begun to fall apart. For example, in 2002/2003, the mainstream narrative was that Saddam was armed with WMD and was about to attack the United States. That too was false.

          The history that you presented to me here is mostly made up of assertions that I can honestly say I have never even heard before.

          Which goes to show that you haven’t read anything like 20 books on the conflict, let alone countless articles.

          such as when you said that 300,000 Palestinians were evicted before any Arab states even invaded Palestine, conveniently omitting the fact that the war was begun by the Palestinians six full months before that event.

          It’s hardly a fact, but a demonstrable lie. The day after UNGAR181 was passed, the Zionist militias proceeded to expell the Palestinians. What Zionist propagandasist slike to refer to as a war, was nothing of the sort.

          Not that any other part of that sentence you wrote is considered true by anyone anyway.

          False again. Your ignroance it truly astounding.

          The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.

          “The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established, about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN. Now it’s then that Israel was attacked by its neighbors – in May 1948; it’s then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, not before.”
          p132 Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

          You and I clearly accept very different narratives about the start of this conflict. But I never came close to denying the occurrence of the Nakba or the harsh realities it imposed on the expelled Palestinian diaspora.

          Blaming the victim of an agenda that had been in place for over a decade is indeed a text book case of Nakba denial, not to mention your flippant disregard for the humanitarian cost.

          You are no more pro-Palestinian that Netenyahu or Liberman. You are a repugnant, racist liar. You may consider yourself pretty moderate by mainstream Zionist standards, but that doesn’t change the fact that you subscirbe to a fascvist apartheid philosohy.

          I used to be extremely pro-Palestinian until I began reading more about the conflict, which fostered a change in my understanding of the conflict.

          Oh and haven’t we heard that one before? The best thing you’ll be telling us is that you are from an Arab Muslim background.

          What is the point of trying to label me as racist, a hasbarist, a nakba denier, a (my favorite) racist supremact, etc.? Is that something that you actually believe?

          What possible reason could there be not to refer to you in such terms, when the description is so obvious? The terms definiting Holocaust denial include any diversion form the agreed versio of events. The same standrds apply to Nakba denial.

          While there is ZERO chance that an International Law exists that guarantees anyone’s private property.

          A stupid argument indeed. International Law doesn’t guarantee anything.

          If I’m a racist then everything I say can be easily disregarded right off the bat. I absolves you of any responsibility for attempting to refute my arguments on their merits.

          That’s arelady been done by myself and others. Your points have been considered. As I expained above, we see fly by might commenters like yourself visiting this forum all the time, and laying out the same tropes and propaganda. The fact that you happen to be a racist is besides the point, but certainly worth mentioning.

          It’s like that whole thing about your assertion that Israeli Arabs are restricted from living on 93% of Israel’s land.

          Which has been demonstrated to you, if not by me, then by others. In adition to this reality, you’re understanding about he Symington Ammendment, the exuistence of racist laws in Israel has also been corrected.

          In any case, I suspect we won’t be seeing you on this forum for much longer. Being an Israeli propagandist and prtending to have the interests of the Palestinians at heart usually results on burn out for trolls like you.

          When you report back to your Hasbra motehr ship, at least you can say you tried.

        • Shingo says:

          Why isn’t this person being banned?? What use is new rules if they are not enforced?

          It seems that in oder to attract more ahem “moderates”, Phil and Adam are prepared to be flexible.

          They woul dhave been better off not even bothering with the new rules.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Bullshit, Shakey.

          You are using the same exact practice as those “boo hoo poor little white boy me!” fellows over at Stormfront and other related blogs.

          Whose children are going to grow up being taught to set fire to olive groves in the West Bank, Shakey? Ours? Or yours?

        • patm says:

          A common way of understanding this conflict is through the lens of conflicting narratives. Shaktimaan

          Another is through historical records and evidence. Shingo

          Carry on with your fiction-writing, Shaky. It’s what zionist trolls do. You’ll find it an arduous task on mondoweiss, and you’ll need to lay off the Nakba denial garbage. Trolls perform a useful service in allowing the site’s knowledgeable old hands to inform newcomers of the true facts. Enjoy.

        • The goi?

          yep, it’s a common acronym. here’s an ’05 wikileak, see if you can figure out what USG stands for:

          E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/14/2015
          TAGS: PARM PREL MNUC KNNP EU IR IS GOI EXTERNAL
          SUBJECT: C-NE4-01083: ISRAELI INTENTIONS REGARDING THE
          IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM

          REF: STATE 26053

          Classified By: Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer; Rea¶1.

          (S) SUMMARY: Israel sees Iran as the primary threat to
          its security and sees the enrichment cycle as the “point of
          no return” for Tehran’s nuclear weapons program. The GOI
          believes that diplomatic pressure with teeth, such as
          sanctions, can affect Iranian behavior, and is lobbying the
          EU-3 and IAEA on details of a permanent suspension agreement.
          The Israelis support a unified international front but are
          concerned that the USG may move toward the EU position.
          Despite the GOI’s focus on the diplomatic track, public and
          private speculation about possible Israeli air strikes
          continues. In weighing the military options, the GOI is
          aware of significant differences from its successful strike
          against Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981, including an
          uncertain and dispersed target set, the presence of coalition
          forces in Iraq and the Gulf, Iranian capabilities to
          retaliate through Hizballah and terrorism, and the changed
          strategic environment. END SUMMARY.

          now you’re ‘in the know’. it’s also used to reference the gov of india sometimes.

          link to maxajl.com

        • Nakba denial?
          Surely you don’t mean me?

          yeah, i do:

          You did throw in the occasional “denial via omission” (such as when you said that 300,000 Palestinians were evicted before any Arab states even invaded Palestine, conveniently omitting the fact that the war was begun by the Palestinians six full months before that event. Not that any other part of that sentence you wrote is considered true by anyone anyway. I’ve never seen anyone make such assertions before or estimate such crazy numbers. But whatever, who cares.)

          can you be more specific wrt exactly ‘what isn’t regarded true by anyone’? have you read our comment policy:

          2. No Nakba or Holocaust denial. We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise, a form of Holocaust denial we want no part of. Similarly, this policy includes Nakba denial as well, and efforts to blame the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 on Palestinian actions.

          i am going to take one of your statements and replace the words ‘this conflict’ with holocaust and see how you like it:

          A common way of understanding the holocaust is through the lens of conflicting narratives. Since most people want a fair solution for everyone involved, the initial impulse is to figure out what “fair” looks like, and we mostly do that by looking at and interpreting past events. So for each side there is a lot resting on ensuring that people interpret those events in such a way that makes them sympathetic to their people. So competing narratives exist.

          sure shak, competing narratives exist. you’re a denier.

        • patm says:

          Nice work with these last two posts, annie.

        • Citizen says:

          RE: “A common way of understanding this conflict is through the lens of conflicting narratives.”

          You mean like the Nazi narrative and the Jewish narrative back in the days of Hitler? Or the Imperial Japanese narrative and the American narrative at the same time? Johnson’s narrative versus his Vietnamese opponents back in the days of the Vietnam war? The Brit versus the German narrative in the months leading up to WW1? The union versus the confederate narrative before the firing on Fort Sumpter? Common narratives are those pushed by common folks, yes? As Bush Jr said, paraphrasing, ” They’re evil doers, I’m a doer–you fellas can come along after & write up whatever you want.”

  3. American says:

    Mondo on the Radio!
    This is great!

  4. pabelmont says:

    Paul is said, by some. to be the only Rep candidate (or should I simply say only candidate) who sounds like he really believes the stuff he says? A drink of cold water is rare in politics and the kids love it as we loved Adlai.

    On another point, sure, we on the left don’t like a lot of his stuff, but do we really LOVE Obama’s 2 wars, drone attacks, assassinations, continuation of all the Bush offal without any prosecutions (because, presumably, what goes around comes around), imposition of the BIG-BANKs uber alles, etc? Not I. (Dumb jerk auto-pilot Dem, I.)

    • I hope it was clear that while there were criticisms of Paul, no one was suggesting (at least not Lizzy or I) that people should support Obama. I don’t.

      • Shingo says:

        That’s all well and good Adam,

        But in reality, no matter how you spin it, opposing Paul means supporting the status quo.

        • Oscar says:

          Shingo — exactly right! But praising Ron Paul’s end-the-wars-now platform while feeling comfortable rejecting him because other progressive values are not represented by his candidacy is passivity that will tolerate the status quo.

          It amazes me that after all that Obama has done to amplify the wars and the killings, so called progressives will hold their noses and vote en masse for this neocon in sheep’s clothing. Like the morons who voted for George W’s second term because he had unfinished business.

          Glenn Greenwald would have probably confirmed that Ron Paul as president could end the wars the day after inauguration. Dismantling social and entitlement programs so beloved by liberals would never happen during his presidency — it would be gridlocked endlessly in congress.

          To be clear, the immediate cessation of permanent war and stopping the draining of our nation’s blood and treasure is my only criteria in voting for a candidate this term. Those who vote for Obama again are as ideologically rigid as GWB’s second term supporters. And you play sheeplike into the hands of the neocons.

        • Les says:

          The status quo of course being the junior high school (or is it grade school) notion that Democrat versus Republican is as much sophistication as the US media can comprehend.

      • You should.

        You should continue to criticize and suggest alternatives, but he is clearly the most effective candidate comprehensively, and on Israel/Palestine questions.

        You think Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney, or even Ron Paul would achieve anything resembling Palestinian rights?

        • Shingo says:

          You think Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney, or even Ron Paul would achieve anything resembling Palestinian rights?

          Has Obama achieved anything resembling Palestinian rights?
          Given the content of you 11,600 comments here (which have consistently rejected Palestinian rights), do you reaslly expect anyone to believe you care on iota about Palestinian rights?

          The only reason tyou love Obama, is because he maintains the status quo, but sugar coats in the facade of liberalism.

        • Citizen says:

          The question for Americans is which candidate best achieves US best interests, not who would aid Palestinian rights the most. Besides, aiding Palestinians to get full rights is in US best interests. Ron Paul is the best option available. Here’s a Jew speaking to you, Witty, re why he’s best for Israel too:
          link to communities.washingtontimes.com

        • You know that I think you are duped in supporting Ron Paul because he has no prospect of delivering his promises even if elected.

          1. ‘The expenditure of money for campaigning and for lobbying is protected free speech.’
          2. The role of the president to a constitutionalist is to execute the legislation passed by Congress (those subject to the free speech of money in lobbying).
          3. Treaty modifications or removals require 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

          The reason that the majority of his proposals would not get through Congress are similar to the reasons that his proposals won’t result in the republic nomination, that the republican party is the party of strong arm of defense, in defense of interests, not of sovereignty.

          Relative to Israel, he renounces influence on Israel, is the sum total of his foreign policy.

          You are betting on the wrong man to represent your perspective in this case.

          As President, he could neglect his constitutional responsibilities to enforce the legislated laws of the land, including administrative agencies. But, then he’d be impeached, likely cause the US to go into some actual economic spinout, rather than the deferral of that.

          Those that are invested in gold and silver would do well.

        • Oscar says:

          Right again, Shingo. Obama is the Dennis Ross of American presidents . . . His mandate is to run out the clock. Wait until Mondo fans see what happens to the Palestinians in another 4 years of an Obama presidency.

        • A few weeks ago the orange machine that wishes it could be MW grappled with this aspect of the Paul candidacy — Why is there no one on the Left that is enunciating those aspects of American policy that so many people like about Ron Paul, but who is not so, you know, Ron Paul?

          A good essay concludes with a solution, and this essay proposed Alan Grayson as the solution.

          The diarist said his man has been all over the world and discovered that ALL people like falling in love, like children, like taboos on violence. All the things that make a candidate likeable, and that Ron Paul probably likes, too. Like Paul, Grayson criticizes imperialism.

          The diarist concludes his essay by pointing out one teensy tiny (parenthetical) difference between Paul and Grayson:

          “Alan Grayson has potential. He’s not just an economic populist but also a critic of imperialism (even if he’s been unwilling to criticize Israel’s imperialism.) [In the attached video, he critiques imperialism in the context of the war in Afghanistan.]“

          (emphasis added)

  5. Citizen says:

    So, nobody really got down and dirty to explain why Ron Paul’s foreign policy thinking is not represented by anyone on the left or in the Democractic camp? I really question how much MW chiefs even know about the nuance of Ron Paul’s positions on anything, whether domestic or foreign policy, but especially as to our current bipartisan welfare-warfare state, spearheaded by the Fed Reserve/Treasury/Wall St elite.

  6. mhuizenga says:

    I just listened to a bit of the Paul segment. So glad to hear you guys and this subject on the radio. As a former progressive, I confess I feel disoriented sometimes as a new Paul supporter. Just goes to show how the 2 party paradigm is shifting. I think this is just the beginning, and I have a lot of faith in the millennial generation to eventually get this all right and forge a new coalition for justice and peace.

  7. Proton Soup says:

    these fears of Ron Paul’s economic policies seem a bit skewed to me. first of all, as Smedley Butler realized nearly a century ago, War is a Racket: link to warisaracket.org

    America has been in a state of near-continuous war since WWII, and how does that play out on the economic justice argument? i’d say your only way to get something out of that if you’re on the bottom tier is to join the army – a typical way out for minorities. but as Butler points out, your chances of losing your life, body, mind, and cash are all extremely high with this strategy. you’ll also be saddled with a lifetime of debt to pay back in taxes, and unless you’re someone like Mitt Romney, your fair share will be a lot higher than 15%. so, let’s be honest here, war is the exact opposite of economic justice. war is corporate welfare for the elites.

    Ron Paul is also for ending the federal war on drugs. is the war on drugs economic justice? i don’t think so. it certainly does lock up a lot of minorities, who, with criminal records (often felonies) will be locked out of economic opportunities for the rest of their lives. heck, even prisons are corporatized these days, making the drug war yet another corporate elite welfare system.

    then there is the Federal Reserve as was mentioned before. what bigger scam is there than this to steal money from the public? most people seem to think it is part of the government, but it is a private institution. and Ron Paul is the guy leading the fight in Congress to audit them and keep them accountable. heck, we don’t even need them, as the U.S. Treasury has all the authority needed as granted in the Constitution to print money and control the supply.

    but let’s say you don’t buy any of that. then remember, Paul is running for President. his authority would be executive, not legislative. he simply won’t be able to come in and pull the rug out from under the poor if that’s your fear. but as chief executive, what can he do? he can keep us out of wars. and he can rein in much of the abuse of executive authority domestically that is turning us into a police state.

    i’m sorry folks, but Chris Hedges is right. liberalism is dead, they’ve all been bought. all that we have left now is fascism in democrat and republican flavors. economic injustice has only increased, with no discernible difference between Bush and Obama. this is why Paul is demonized by both sides, he threatens the elite status quo.

    • Citizen says:

      Proton Soup, I agree with your general picture of Ron Paul’s ideas. Further, anyone listening to him detail his stance on the current social welfare net knows he envisions a transition period of adjustment that does not cut aid to those nearly or currently dependent on the system, especially young mother’s and seniors. His goal there is to make the system more a matter of choice for newer generations, and on the corporate side, of course, he is totally against corporate welfare and cronyism.

      He also is totally against the morphing of our country into a police state under the banner of the war on terrorism.

  8. In an earlier post, I accused a poster for being a “one-issue commenter”. I fancy that I am not what I accuse him/her of being. However, there is one issue that I become very tunnel-visioned on: the end to our militarism around the world.

    As far as I am concerned, no progress on any front is possible without the end to our military adventures. Until we bring this greatest of issues to a close, no other issues can see the light of day – or only superficially so.

    Regardless of the disagreements I have with some of Ron Paul’s positions, the fact that he would bring our troops home from all our 900+ bases across the world and end our special relationship with Israel, thus saving thousands, perhaps millions of lives, so trumps all other issues, that I, frankly, get quite disgusted with “progressives” who, from the comfort of their arm-chairs, have the luxury to pontificate on why they won’t vote for or support Ron Paul.

    It is your Obama who lamented the sacrifice of the good for the perfect. I would have some sympathy for your position if you were able to muster a single candidate (and Obama’s fake campaign promises don’t count) who could rally the masses under the anti-war/anti-special-relationship banner and be counted on to not be bought off by corporate donors if they were to ever take office.

    Here is a man before you, who represents our only hope for salvation from ourselves, who has managed to wage a campaign that is not funded by corporate interests but by $20 – $50 contributions from common Americans, who never listens to a single lobby – Israeli or otherwise, who never takes zio-pandering trips to Israel funded by AIPAC, who has no compunctions about laying out the bare truth to the consternation of the corporate-owned media, and the excuses that I hear for not supporting him are for his views on issues, that frankly, the president does not have the power to affect, while ignoring the very real power he does have as commander-in-chief to affect our military adventures, with control over the Department of State to affect our relationship with all countries of the world, including Israel and Iran.

    So, what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you what you did to stem the encroaching darkness that threatens to annihilate this country? Will you tell them that you did not help thwart the dark forces by electing the only viable candidate for real hope and real change because of your ideological purity – even though your adherence to this purity would never realize itself in change because the root cause of most of our problems are based in our militarism and our special-relationship fostered by Israel’s complete control of our Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary?

    Perhaps your grandchildren will forgive you – I won’t.

    • Citizen says:

      CloakandDagger, well said. Forest and trees.

    • Shaktimaan says:

      Wow, you really think that, “our special-relationship” is “fostered by Israel’s complete control of our Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary?”

      Like, you honestly believe that?

      And you think that this relationship has caused most of our problems too?

      • Cliff says:

        Our problem is campaign financing. Mega-rich donors like Sheldon Adelson who will play both parties.

        Our problem is congress, the military-industrial-complex, Christian Zionism, the political economy of the mass media, Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism in our society.

      • Shingo says:

        Wow, you really think that, “our special-relationship” is “fostered by Israel’s complete control of our Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary?”

        Wow, you really dispute that?

        Like, you honestly believe otherwise?

        And you think that this relationship has caused most of our problems too?

        Quite a few yes. Take 911 for example.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          What role do you believe Israel played in any of the events/issues surrounding 9/11?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          WARNING WARNING WARNING Straw man alert.

          You Israelis are going to keep exploiting the victims of 9/11 for political capital at every turn, huh Shaky? No wonder Netanyahu said that 9/11 was good for Israel!

        • Shaktimaan,

          “Bin Laden: Palestinian Cause Prompted 9/11″

          link to cbsnews.com

          The 9:40-minute audio by bin Laden showed an old photo of his face over a brown graphic and included the title, “A Message to the Peoples of the West: From Sheik Osama bin Laden,” with the subheading: “The Reasons for the Struggle on the 60th Anniversary of the Creation of the Occupation State of Israel.”

          Bin Laden began his message by telling listeners that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has always been the primary cause for friction between the West and the Muslim world – a struggle which he said was getting more difficult due to European policies biased in Israel’s favor.

          “The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies,” the al Qaeda chief said.

          and i think there’s been senate testimony by petraeus alleging our relationship with israel causes animosity towards our interventions in the ME. i don’t really think that is in much dispute.

          other than that, have you checked out our new comment policy?

          “7. This is not a site to discuss 9/11 theories. “

  9. this is really good. i’m listening to Mearsheimer now..talking about ross/abrams/oren.

    you guys all sound great.

  10. Scott says:

    I’m still on the first segment, hearing that it’s “very dangerous” that Paul is being supported by “young white men.” It reminds of the 70′s, of what prompted my voting shift from McGovern to Carter to Reagan.

  11. Citizen says:

    It’s interesting how white males have been singled out as the problem with Ron Paul’s support base. Gentiles, that is, because Jews were treated separately.

    • Oscar says:

      You mean the same “young white men” who lifted Obama into office. Sheesh.

      Mondo, conrgrats on the radio show, looking forward to more. But next time, get a Paul advocate like Doug Wead on to explain the other side. Don’t fall for neocon talking points.

  12. Again,
    A critical question to you guys.

    What do you propose should be the US foreign policy relative to Israel/Palestine?

    Specifics please.

    • Shingo says:

      What do you propose should be the US foreign policy relative to Israel/Palestine??

      The immidiate cesstion of diplomatic ties to Israel until Israel complies with UN242 and Un194.

    • Scott says:

      Richard, My answer you want. Lay out a public vision of a two state solution on ’67 borders, shared Jerusalem, perhaps land swaps with Nato security guarantees for both countries. Talk about it publicly, educate the American people about why this is a moral and strategic interest. Israel will either elect a leadership which goes along (likely, I think) or resist. If/when they resist, begin slowly cutting aid, not wielding the UN veto. Then wait for the Israelis to elect a new leadership. If they don’t, begin to organize BDS on a global scale.

      • Citizen says:

        Mearsheimer said on that radio show covered in another article here recently that Israel has never wanted a viable Palestinians state, and no US regime can do anything about it because of the Israel Lobby. Even Dennis Ross could never have done anything about that, Mearsheimer said, even if he had chosen not to be Israel’s (de facto) lawyer.

      • Scott,
        Thanks for the sober and specific reply.

        I think Obama is proposing similarly (excepting BDS), though has demands on Palestinians as well (PA, Hamas, and “civil society”).

        It’s an important question really for every poster and commenter here.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Obama isn’t proposing that at all, Witty, and you know it. Obama doesn’t oppose the settlements — US aid to Israel’s settlements, whether official government “foreign aid” and “loan guarantees” or money people like you send (that still earns you tax breaks!), Obama supports the settlements. Just like you do, rather vocally, by your choices and after the first mealy-mouthed lie you usually start your posts with about how you oppose the settlements that you refuse to see removed or defunded.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Israel does not receive any aid in the form of money though. And any loan guarantees are not allowed to go towards settlement construction as per US law. If someone buys imported fruit they might support the settlements. But generally the US stays away from any kind of support for them. They’re toxic.

        • Shingo says:

          Israel does not receive any aid in the form of money though. And any loan guarantees are not allowed to go towards settlement construction as per US law.

          False on both counts.

          1. Israel receives it’s aid in a lump payment at the beginning of the financial year, meaning that it also gets to acrus the interest on the aid.
          2. US law has always been bent with reagrd to Israel. After all, the Symington Amendment should bar Israel from receiving any aid entirely.

        • Citizen says:

          Shingo, yes, that’s correct: all US aid to Israel in whatever form is fungible once it gets to Israel. Besides, why is Obama extending US underwriting of Israel’s debt when Israel has a higher credit rating than the US? Even the Israelis were surprised at this. I imagine he will do much more for Israel before the (re)election campaign is over, vying with the GOP candidate(s)–except for Ron Paul–to show who loves Israel more. Before the campaign is over, I’m betting Israel will take his flickering-green light in hand and attack Iran, giving Obama a few hours advance notice. Probably near summer’s end, or as Fall begins–appropriately seasonal, eh?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Shingo,

          1. Israel currently only receives military aid from the US of which 75% must be spent on US goods. It is given to Israel but it’s spent within the US. The remaining 25% is allocated towards specific Israeli military tech projects. Again, the money is spent on purchasing weapons and equipment. I don’t now what the restrictions are regarding money derived from interest payments. I do know that US law prohibits US aid to Israel from being used on settlement construction. Regardless, we are talking about a fraction of the whole. The vast majority of the money spent is used to purchase American products and the rest for Israeli products and R&D.

          2. The Symington Amendment, subsection b clearly states that the President has the authority to continue providing aid to any state that would otherwise be ineligible for aid due to the terms in subsection a. So it isn’t violating the law at all.

        • Shingo says:

          Shaktimaan,

          1.

          Israel currently only receives military aid from the US of which 75% must be spent on US goods. It is given to Israel but it’s spent within the US.

          False. In addition to the official aid allotment, there are sumplementals and the biggest item if all, loan guarantees, which are loans that Israel doesn’t repay,

          On top of this, there is the absurd trade agreement between Iarael and the US that is so biased in Israel’s favor that it has been described by the GAO as effectively a US$10 billion annual grant.

            The remaining 25% is allocated towards specific Israeli military tech projects.

          Again, you are omitting the knterest Israel collects from receiving the money as a lump sum at the beginning of the year, but in any case, the remaining 25% is spent on whatever the Israeli government wishes to spend it on – that includes funneling back to the US to lobby Congress.

          I do know that US law prohibits US aid to Israel from being used on settlement construction.

          In aids settlement construction either way. If not directly, then by financing the occupation which in turn provides the military muscle to facilitate it.

           

          The vast majority of the money spent is used to purchase American products and the rest for Israeli products and R&D.

          And to steal US jobs. See Janes weekly on the deal Lockhed struck with Israel to outsource some of the construction if the F35 do that Israel could buy all 20 without using up the entire military aid budget for that year.

          2. The Symington Amendment, subsection b clearly states that the President has the authority to continue providing aid to any state that would otherwise be ineligible for aid due to the terms in subsection a. So it isn’t violating the law at all.

          Correction. Subsection b states that the president has to inform Congress of this decision in writing, including his explanation as to how the exception would further US security interests.

          This has never been done with regard to Israel, so yes it is violating the law.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          What? Where in the world did you read that Israel does not repay it’s loans guaranteed by the US? That’s totally absurd. As is the vast majority of what you wrote here.

          The remaining 25% is spent on in-country military weapons and research, not whatever they want. The interest gained on the account is used to pay down debt that Israel owes to the US. Regarding US jobs, the entire 75% that Israel gets to spend with US firms is a form of corporate welfare. If you want to discuss the economic impact of US policies regarding Israel we can. But it is somewhat off topic to do so here. Generally speaking though the US’s relationship with Israel has been to our economic benefit.

          You mentioned supplemental loans or aid or something which I have never heard of. But nothing that you mentioned has any real validity here. Except perhaps the idea that any support of Israel supports the settlements since it
          helps their military which is used in policing the settlements.

          And I’ll admit to not knowing a lot about the Symington Amendment. But is it true that the president never notified congress of his intention to suspend it? And is Israel even considered an official nuclear power by the US as it would relate to this amendment?

          Point being, the US does not send aid to Israel to support settlements and the only aid we do send is specifically allocated to be used on military goods, either US or Israeli, which was my original point in posting.

        • Shingo says:

          Where in the world did you read that Israel does not repay it’s loans guaranteed by the US? That’s totally absurd.

          Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel’s often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel’s annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

          link to wrmea.com

          The remaining 25% is spent on in-country military weapons and research, not whatever they want.

          They spend it however they want. There is no condition planced on them as to how they are to spend it. AIPAC’s predecessor was caught funelling that money back to the US to bribe Congress. No doubt, they are still doing it.

          The interest gained on the account is used to pay down debt that Israel owes to the US.

          False. The interestes is used to buy US treasuries, which yield even more interest.

          Regarding US jobs, the entire 75% that Israel gets to spend with US firms is a form of corporate welfare.

          Obviously not. When Lockheed outsourced some of the manufatuign of teh F35 to Israel, that sent jobs to Israel. Hundreds of them.

          Generally speaking though the US’s relationship with Israel has been to our economic benefit.

          No it’s not. It’s a liability every way you look at it.

          And is Israel even considered an official nuclear power by the US as it would relate to this amendment?

          The fact that every member of Congress and the White Hosue knows Israel has nukes, but plays dumb is irrelevant. Israel still efuses to sign the NPT.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Before I talk about the other aspects of this post, can I quickly point out an example of why wrmea is such a biased and dishonest source? Really, you should never use them. They wrote this:

          Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel’s often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan.

          This makes it seem as though loan guarantees are the same thing as US loans to Israel. They are totally unrelated. A loan guarantee is just the US guaranteeing a loan taken out by Israel from some other source which says that they will pay in the event Israel defaults.

          So while some US loans have been forgiven by the US to Israel, the US has not been paying the loans that it acted as a guarantor for. The US does this for Israel to secure them a lower interest rate. Thus far Israel has never defaulted.

        • Shingo says:

          Before I talk about the other aspects of this post, can I quickly point out an example of why wrmea is such a biased and dishonest source?

          Not interested. Stick to teh debate, don’t waste your time flaming the source.

          This makes it seem as though loan guarantees are the same thing as US loans to Israel. They are totally unrelated.

          It’s a distinctionw wihtout a difference. Israel does not repay either one.

          So while some US loans have been forgiven by the US to Israel, the US has not been paying the loans that it acted as a guarantor for.

          True, the US simply adds this to it’s debt.

          The US does this for Israel to secure them a lower interest rate. Thus far Israel has never defaulted.

          As the articel points out, Israel can technicalyl lciamit has never defaulted becasue the loans become a debt for the US.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          “It’s a distinctionw wihtout a difference. Israel does not repay either one.”

          Untrue. Can you give me an example of when Israel has not had to repay a loan that America guaranteed?

          “As the articel points out, Israel can technicalyl lciamit has never defaulted becasue the loans become a debt for the US.”

          The article referred to US loans when it said this. It never said such a thing about loans to Israel that were merely guaranteed by the US. You are saying that the US decided to take on Israeli national debt owed to third parties and just pay it itself? And where have you read that such a thing ever occurred?

        • Citizen says:

          U.S. Government Pledges $3.8 Billion In Loan Guarantees To Israel
          Wednesday January 25, 2012 11:00 by Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies :

          In a meeting on Monday between U.S. State Department and Israeli officials, the U.S. officials promised to extend loan guarantees to Israel for the next three years. The $3.8 billion in loan backing is in addition to the $3 billion a year in aid given to Israel by the U.S. government.

          US and Israeli flags at US Capitol (image by Marcovilla.instablogs.com)

          Israel is the only recipient of U.S. foreign aid and loans that is not considered a ‘developing’ nation, with an annual GDP of $235 billion ($29,800 per capita). In contrast, the next biggest recipient of U.S. aid, Egypt, receives less than half of the amount given to Israel and has a GDP of $6,200 per capita. Every other recipient of US aid has a GDP that is below that of Egypt.

          The U.S. Congress recently approved a guaranteed $30 billion in aid to Israel over the next 10 years. This aid, unlike assistance provided by the U.S. government to other countries, has no requirements, and is provided without stipulation as to how it should be used.

          Reporter Richard Curtiss, with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, pointed out in an article on U.S. loan guarantees to Israel that these loans, made by international financial institutions and backed by the U.S. Treasury, are not actually required to be repaid.

          Curtiss writes, “Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants.”

          He continues, “On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.”

          The announcement by the State Department officials on Monday included a promise that the loan guarantees would soon be approved by the U.S. Congress.

          An Israeli Foreign Ministry officials told reporters with the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, “We consider the loan guarantees as preparation for a rainy day”.

          The U.S. Congress has received criticism in recent months for its continued aid to Israel, at a time when social programs around the US are being cut due to federal budget cuts, and states have been forced to spend down their own ‘rainy day’ funds to avoid excessive deficit spending during the ongoing economic recession in the U.S.

        • Shingo says:

          Untrue. Can you give me an example of when Israel has not had to repay a loan that America guaranteed?

          The link I provided listed several.

          The article referred to US loans when it said this.

          No, it referred to both. It explicitly mentioned loans and loan guarantees.

          You are saying that the US decided to take on Israeli national debt owed to third parties and just pay it itself?

          That’s what it does very time it pays aid to Israel anyway.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          No, it referred to both. It explicitly mentioned loans and loan guarantees.

          Nope. I just went through the entire link with a fine toothed comb. It never said anything about the US covering Israel’s 3rd party loans beyond acting as a guarantor for them.

          In the past the US has refused loan guarantees promised to Israel in order to force it to alter its policies regarding settlements in the Occupied Territories. This happened under George Bush (the father.) And the US has never paid out to fulfill Israel’s loans.

          History of US aid to Israel

          Loan guarantees are a promise to make payment if the responsible party, in this case Israel, defaults. The US has never had to pay out on a loan guaranteed for Israel, but sets aside money for that eventuality. The Congressional Research Service says such guarantees typically cost the US about 4 percent of the value of the loans, so the cost for a $10 billion guarantee program is about $400 million

          The US Agency for International Development puts US military and economic aid to Israel since its founding at over $154 billion, most of that since the start of the Kennedy administration. Congress also exempts Israel from the usual requirement that all its military aid be spent on US hardware. The exemption, which allows Israel to spend about 25 percent of US military aid within its own defense industry, has helped make Israel one of the largest arms exporters in the world.

          link to csmonitor.com

          This clearly states that the US has set money aside in case Israel defaults (which it would obviously not be doing if it was paying the loan itself.) Do you have any links that clearly refute this? That state Israel’s loan guarantees have always been paid out by the US?

          —–

          The loan guarantee program is seen by US Jewish organizations and American diplomats alike as a highly successful and efficient way to aid Israel at no cost to US taxpayers.

          link to jpost.com

          You should read that link carefully. It says “no cost” very clearly. If the US was paying Israel’s 3rd party debts itself then it would not be without cost.

          ——-

          The current loan guarantees arrangement was reached by the two countries in 2003, when current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel’s finance minister, and essentially provides a U.S. guarantee to vouch for loans Israel takes abroad. The U.S. only pays out on the guarantees if Israel fails to repay its debts.

          link to latimesblogs.latimes.com

          Here it states that the US only pays if “Israel fails to repay its debts.” There was no mention of how the US IS paying out the guarantee anyway. Because it isn’t happening.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          The fact that every member of Congress and the White Hosue knows Israel has nukes, but plays dumb is irrelevant. Israel still efuses to sign the NPT.

          Right. Not signing the NPT is why Israel isn’t breaking any laws by owning nukes. If it signed the NPT then it would have inspectors come who would probably take their nukes away. Why would they sign?

          Oh, btw… re: The Symington Amendment…

          —–

          Generally speaking though the US’s relationship with Israel has been to our economic benefit.
          No it’s not. It’s a liability every way you look at it.

          <blockquote cite="Only a fraction of the aid given stays in Israel. By far the largest share remains with American defense contractors. Peter McPherson, former administrator of the Agency for International Development, estimated that every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States.

          Compared to the $2.0 billion yearly military aid to Israel, the U.S. contributes more than $130 billion(!) every year to the defense of Europe and more than $30 billion to the defense of Japan, Korea, and the Far East. Over 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed with NATO and over 30,000 U.S. troops in the Far East. In contrast, not one single U.S. soldier needs to be stationed and put at risk in Israel. U.S. military analysts estimate that the U.S. would have to spend the equivalent of $150 billion a year in the Middle East to maintain a force equivalent to Israel’s.

          link to factsandlogic.org

        • Shaktimaan says:

          Thank you for that article supporting my argument. I appreciate it. Here, I pulled a relevant paragraph from it…

          “On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.”

          Since US aid to Israel has never even come close to dipping below what Israel owes on its outstanding loans the issue has never come up thus far. The whole point of these guarantees is that they provide a way to help Israel without spending any money ourselves. In just about every case Israel has refrained from using something like 75 or 80% of the available cash.

        • Ellen says:

          Shaktimann, by NOT signing the NPT, although Israel hold extensive Nukes, makes Israel a Rouge Nation., acting outside of the world community.

          Maybe that helps feed the “everyone hates us!” meme, but not good for Israel at all, making the world fearful of a rogue nation with Nukes.

          Does that help Israel in anyway?

        • Shingo says:

          Right. Not signing the NPT is why Israel isn’t breaking any laws by owning nukes.

          You simply don’t get it do you? Israel is not bound by US law, so clearly it cannot be violating eh Symington Amendment – the US government is the one braking the law.

          Oh, btw… re: The Symington Amendment…

          Stupid Israeli propaganda argument. If every every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States, then surely the US government could create 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States without giving the money to Israel in the first place. There’s no magic that happens to a US dollar once it’s been giiven for Israel to spend.

          The fact that the US wastes so much money on military aid to other recipients doesn’t make the money wasted on Israel a better investment. Oh, and the argument that no U.S. soldier needs to be stationed and put at risk in Israel U.S. is also garbage. As the report to the JCS pointed out, Israeli policies are endagering the lives of Americans around the world.

          911 was evidence of that.

        • Shingo says:

          Since US aid to Israel has never even come close to dipping below what Israel owes on its outstanding loans the issue has never come up thus far.

          Which makes a joke of ISrael’s claim that it has never defaulted on a loan

          The whole point of these guarantees is that they provide a way to help Israel without spending any money ourselves.

          Not when the loans are forgiven.

          In just about every case Israel has refrained from using something like 75 or 80% of the available cash.

          Yeah right, so the available cash is so plentiful that they can make that stupid claim. It’s just a clever accouting trick really. Israel’s true cost tot eh US has been estimated to be well over a trillion.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          I get it, you merely misunderstood. I wasn’t worried about Israel breaking the Symington Amd. I was saying that should Israel sign the NPT it would immediately then be in violation of it because of the nukes it already possesses. So by NOT signing the Treaty Israel refrains from breaking it. A bit obvious I suppose, but whatever.

          If every every billion dollars of aid to Israel creates 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States, then surely the US government could create 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in the United States without giving the money to Israel in the first place.

          Sure, we COULD. An even better was to spend it would be to use it to build bridges, or even just to GIVE it away to poor people who would then spend every last cent stimulating local economies. There are lots of ways to spend 3 bil that would directly help the US economy rather than give it to Israel as military aid.

          But that’s besides the point. We give aid to Israel for reasons unrelated to stimulating our economy. That said, the aid we do send helps fund research and collaborations that have resulted in technology that benefits both nations in ways that reach beyond equipping our armed forces.

          There’s no magic that happens to a US dollar once it’s been giiven for Israel to spend.

          Nothing magic, no. But the collaborative research and testing that Israel does with the US brings benefits whose value outweighs the initial investment. I know that you dislike Israel so it is probably difficult for you to reconcile with the fact that a lot of important, cutting edge technology and research is coming from there. Israel has more companies traded on NASDAQ than all of Europe, India, China and Japan combined, leads the world in patents for medical equipment, and has more Nobel Prizes per capita than any other nation. Any money spent collaborating with them is money well invested. And if most of it ends up coming back in the form of weapons purchases from US companies then all the better.

        • Shaktimaan says:

          What do you mean “a rogue nation?” What is that other than just being an insult one uses against countries they dislike?

          Israel has every right to refuse to sign the NPT if it would prefer to own nuclear weapons. That just means that it does not get to enjoy any of the benefits that signatories of the treaty get. Israel is not acting outside of the international community any more than a state like India is.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Two words, buddy:

          Samson Option.

        • Shingo says:

          What do you mean “a rogue nation?”

          Nations that violate dozens of UN Resolutions, International law, and who attack other states – as Israel has done since 1948.

          Israel has every right to refuse to sign the NPT if it would prefer to own nuclear weapons.

          But no right to insist that anotehr state who HAS signed the NPT should be denied it’s rights under the NPT, let alone reserve the right to attack that state.

          That just means that it does not get to enjoy any of the benefits that signatories of the treaty get.

          In Israel’s case, it does, thanks to it’s ability to corrupt and subvert foreign governments through money and balckmail.

          Israel is not acting outside of the international community any more than a state like India is.

          India does not deny it has nuclear weapons and the last time I looked, is not demanding that any other state be denied the right to nuclear power.

        • Shingo says:

          There are lots of ways to spend 3 bil that would directly help the US economy rather than give it to Israel as military aid.

          Which means there is no evonomic benefit to providing that aid to Israel. A benefit implies that by giving the money to Israel, it provides a grater benefit than would otherwise be achieved by using it directly to stimulate the US economy or improve infrastruxture.

          That said, the aid we do send helps fund research and collaborations that have resulted in technology that benefits both nations in ways that reach beyond equipping our armed forces.

          Absolte rubbish. The technology is almost entirely based on US patents and ideas that Israel has stolen.

          But the collaborative research and testing that Israel does with the US brings benefits whose value outweighs the initial investment.

          No that it a myth. There is no evidence that the US could not produce this technology domestically without input from Israel. In fact, most fo the collaboration simply comes down to Israel stealing US patents and intellectual propoerty and repakcaking it. One aread in which Israel has taken this to an art form is in the pahrmaceutical industry, where Israel routinely reverse engineers US patented medicines and exports a cheaper version.

          I know that you dislike Israel so it is probably difficult for you to reconcile with the fact that a lot of important, cutting edge technology and research is coming from there.

          Not really. This is largley hyped. Hasrabts like you having been telling us for years not that were it not for Israel, we wouldn’t have mobile phones, computers or that Microsoft wouldn’t have an operating system. It’s baloney.

          Israel has more companies traded on NASDAQ than all of Europe, India, China and Japan combined, leads the world in patents for medical equipment, and has more Nobel Prizes per capita than any other nation.

          Again, irrelevant. All of the most important and key technlogies we enjoy today were produced by multi-national compoanies not Israelis ones.

        • Shingo says:

          Here it states that the US only pays if “Israel fails to repay its debts.” There was no mention of how the US IS paying out the guarantee anyway. Because it isn’t happening.

          Israel’s credit rating is actually higher than that of the US, so there is actually no benefit to Israel for the US to guarantee the loan, as this would mena Israle pays a higher interest rate.

          Thus, for the US to continue to guarantee the loans, it must have agreed to incur the debt.

    • homingpigeon says:

      Thank you for this question about US foreign policy relative to Israel/Palestine.

      Answer: (1) an unconditional ending of all US government funds transfers (i.e. tax money of citizens) to any regime or entity between and including Morocco and Iraq with no exceptions, including Sesame Street.

      (2) an unconditional cancellation of all military alliances with every nation between and including Morocco and Iraq with no exceptions.

      (3) withdrawal of US forces from all nations between and including Morocco and Iraq with no exceptions.

      (4) an end to all military sales to all nations between and including Morocco and Iraq with no exceptions.

      (5) issuing immigrant visas and welcoming deserters from all armed forces from all nations between and including Morocco and Iraq with no exceptions.

      (6) free trade, unsupported by US government intervention, subsidy, or protection, with all nations between and including Morocco and Iraq without exception.

      It’s a good policy for the whole world, but you only asked about Israel/Palestine.

      On an individual level, vote for libertarian candidates for everything from President to dog catcher.

    • Citizen says:

      The US should establish an arms-length relationship with Israel, no more, no less, same as it does with all other countries, even the ones we actually have a mutual defense treaty with–we do not have such with non-oiled Israel.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Just as soon as you tell us specifically how many schools in Gaza the IDF should be allowed to blow up. You have never been willing to put a number on that and that question has been hanging out there for YEARS now.

    • lyn117 says:

      The U.S.’s foreign policy
      1. The U.S. should support a complete end to all occupied territories and the formation of a Palestinian state in those territories,
      2. The complete and full right of return to what’s now Israel of all of its indigenous people, that is, the Palestinian Arabs
      3. Equal rights for all people regardless of creed in all territories formerly know as Palestine
      4. Israel should give up its nukes

      Towards implementing this, the U.S. should give up ties and sanction Israel until it complies

      • Shaktimaan says:

        So Israel would have to choose between US sanctions and the practical death of Zionism/Israel as a Jewish state.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Considering how many features Zionism shares with other fascist ethnocentric political movements that have actively used ethnic cleansing as a tool of dominance, would that really be a bad thing? Why do Muslims and Christians need to be relegated to a lower caste in Israel?

        • Shaktimaan says:

          OTHER fascist ethnocentric political movements, huh? OK, I’ll bite… WHAT other fascist ethnocentric political movements does Israel resemble, and WHICH features are shared between them?

          Why do Muslims and Christians need to be relegated to a lower caste in Israel?

          Excellent question. In the simplest terms possible, they don’t. There is no reason whatsoever to relegate Christians or Muslims to a lower caste than Jews in Israel. Luckily, they aren’t! All of Israel’s citizens regardless of their religion have equal rights under the law. No caste system exists, either institutional or informal.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “There is no reason whatsoever to relegate Christians or Muslims to a lower caste than Jews in Israel. Luckily, they aren’t! All of Israel’s citizens regardless of their religion have equal rights under the law. No caste system exists, either institutional or informal.”

          We had a conversation a while back as to what “Nakba denial” looks like… This is it.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Then why can’t Arabs in Israel marry Arabs in the Occupied Territories? Jews in Israel can marry Jews in the US.

          How come Jews have more money spent on their education by the Israeli government than Arabs?

          How come Arabs have their freedom of movement to the Dome of the Rock restricted?

          How come Jewish communities have the legal recourse in Israel to ban non-Jews?

          Answer your own question: When was the last time a government in Europe decided it was OK to invade other countries and strip whole ethnicities of their property, their rights and, often times, their lives?

        • Shingo says:

          No caste system exists, either institutional or informal.

          Of course it does, which is why Israle is an apartheid state. There’s no dispute about it anymore.

          Apartheid on Steroids
          link to thenation.com

          Heading toward an Israeli apartheid state
          link to haaretz.com

          Apartheid Israel-style Law to keep Jews and Arabs apart
          link to globalresearch.ca

          Segregation of Jews and Arabs in 2010 Israel is Almost Absolute
          link to haaretz.com

          Israel’s Large and Small Apartheids
          link to original.antiwar.com

  13. Shingo says:

    Phillis Bennis is incredibly dishonest and comes off as a left wing version of Dana Bash. Like Dana, she’s nervous that Paul is stealing the base from under her and relegating ineffective blowhards like herself to the sidelines.

    She deliberately misrepresents Paul’s views. Here is a small summary of her deliberate lies:

    1. Paul has never referred to himself as an isolationist as she suggests, in fact, Paul maintains that teh policy of unilateral militarism is what isolates the.
    2. She claims that Paul’s freign policy would mean no respect for other states. In fact, Paul has consistently said the US should be friends with all states and trade with them.
    3. She tries to argue that he’s anti war becasue he comes from a libertarian point of view, as though that in itself is supposed to be a criticism. Bennis needs to be brought up to speed over the fact that libertarians used to refer to themselves as liberals befor liberals highjacked the name.
    4. When attacking him on his so called oppositon to civil rights, the deliberately tries to mislead the audience over the fact that
    5. She asks what Ron Paul would do about US paid mercenaries in Iraq, as though Paul has been vague on the issue. On the contrary, he’s very clear. The mercenaries are paid by the US government, so if those programs are defunded, then that takes care of this issue in an instant.
    6. She tries to imply that Paul’s support for Iran bombing Osirak is contradictory to his Israel policy, but she’s demonstrating her own limitation. If the US takes a policy with Israel that does not oppose their militarism, but also insists that Israel is on it’s own, that is perfectly consistent. Ultimately a contry that has to be accountable will behave far more conservatively in that regard.
    7. She says his policies would support the rich and oppose the poor, yet doesn’t explain how this squares with his opposition to the bailouts and TARP.
    8. She attacks him for his opposition to the civil righs and voting rights act, but omits that civil liberties shodl already include these.

    The other area in which Bennis reveals her own hypocrisy if the her argument that we can somehow reform Obama to be more anti war and pro civil liberties, yet attacking Ron Paul’s anti war stance on teh grounds that a Ron Paul presidency would not be able to ring all the troops home. So what’s her point? That there’s no point hoping that will ever happen, or that it’s easier to buy the delusion that Oabam could do it but not Paul?

    Her argument that we have to sperate support for position from support for candidates, but that is also dihonest, becasue Paul is the only candicate from eitehr party that is taking the anti war position. There isn’t anyone even close to adopting it.

    So let’s take a page out of this so called liberal and say that she wold rather hundreds fo thousands fo people in other countries continue to be murdered by the US military, rather than give up welfare. Like she said, we have to be careful about what people say, right?

    • Citizen says:

      The radio show itself introduced Ron Paul as racist and anti-civil rights. Not as some say, but as fact that was “problematic,” (like the support of “young white males”). Ron Paul’s actual nuanced stances on the issues discussed were not even mentioned.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        I’m so thoroughly disillusioned with the liberal left in the US right. Obama proved to me what idiots most of our movement’s leaders actually are. (Not because he can rightly be considered a leader of the liberal left, but that he’s manage to bamboozle so many on the left into believing that while he continues to etch every single Bush era policy thoroughly into the flagstones of DC.)

  14. Ramzi Jaber says:

    All of this is part of the criminal zionist regime’s modus operandi. It’s what I talked about in past posts where it took me years to really believe my parents and grandparents when they would tell me about the deviousness, callousness, cold-blooded, calculated way zionists do things.

    So, they blackmail Obama…
    1- You’re a moslem. Prove you are not. To prove you are not, you must kiss our ass and do exactly what we tell you to do.
    >>> It’s OK, keep building settlements.
    2- We’re not going to give you money for re-election. Remember 2010. We can do the same to YOU in 2012. Do exactly what we tell you to do.
    >>> It’s OK, our bond with israel is “unbreakable” and “unshakeable”.
    3- We will bomb Iran without tour support and without even telling you. We’ll let you deal with the mess after.
    >>> It’s OK, we’ll impose illegal but crippling sanctions on Iran and destroy the Iranian nation (who never attacked you) just for Israel.

    What hope remains to the hopeless… sad. Very sad.

  15. homingpigeon says:

    Regarding “liberals” who give higher priority to their concerns with libertarian domestic ideas than what should be their agreement on issues of war and peace abroad, I am reminded of a psychology test I took in my youth.

    At the beginning of my training as a Naval Aviator I was given a thorough test. Before they send us out to drop white phosphorous, napalm, cluster bombs, and nuclear bombs on people they want to make sure we pilots are stable. It was a test similar to what many have taken, with choices, word associations and so on. Does “breast” make you think of a chicken or a woman? etc. One question was so weird I never forgot it. “Would you rather have a door slam on your thumb or vomit on a crowded bus?” Years later I found out that the obvious question was whether you would rather punish yourself or other people. Would you rather pay extra for your gasoline or kill a bunch of people abroad? This I believe is a major question for our society, and the answer given by individuals shows their final stance on questions of war and peace, especially when weighed against their own personal comfort.

    When people shy away from the chance to vote truth against the empire, and when they hesitate to withdraw consent from the artisans of death of the Washington regime for fear that their favorite domestic social programs might be harmed, I think they really don’t have a deep understanding of the horrors the war machine inflicts on the planet.

  16. piotr says:

    In the context of GOP primaries, libertarian Ron Paul is an angel. I agree with Witty that libertarian have wrongly exalted view on ownership rights that exludes more collective perspective on general welfare, but how that differs from the rest of GOP? There are two types of differences: minute and for the better.

    One can object that on welfare and regulation of business libertarian are more radical, and in wrong direction, then Republicans, but the rhetoric of the other candidates is as radical as libertarian. Except that Ron Paul tries to be logically coherent.

    Paul is the only politician who may get mainstream press to advocate sane foreign policy. The rest, and the supporting think tank apparati, are wedded to status quo. However rational, if policies are supported by less than 5% of population they are branded “extreme” and the establishment cuts the discussion at this point. Libertarians so far were in that zone, as well as progressives like Kucinich. Now one cannot argue that 20% of 1/2 of the electorate is “extreme” just by percentages. This is the boob of Pauls candidacy.

    If nominated, I would probably oppose him, although this is very hypothetical. But in the “war of ideas” he is an ally like Stalin was an ally during WWII (actually, he is nowhere as repulsive as Stalin). Picking fights to assert our supremacy when our economy lost competitive edge to China is wrong in so many ways that an ideologue who illuminates this wrongness from a non-progressive perspective is an important ally.

  17. “we look forward to the day when words like Palestine, social justice, Israel lobby, failed peace process, and Iran war-mongering become as common in mainstream radio as Tea Party, deficit reduction, bomb Iran, and Tim Tebow.”

    I look forward to the day when you don’t have to be Jewish fearlessly to speak those words on mainstream radio.

  18. RE: “For twenty minutes, we probed the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Paul candidacy…” ~ Ratner & Horowitz

    MY COMMENT: Because I like to “leverage” my vote, I plan on voting for Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary here in Georgia on “super Tuesday” (in March). I will be voting by mail so that I do not have to endure the humiliation of publicly requesting a Republican ballot at the polling place. Needless to say, we have “open” primaries.
    I anticipate voting for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party or Jill Stein of the Green Party in November.

    Interview with Rocky Anderson; Justice Party Presidential Primary Candidate, by Rob Kall, Op-Ed News, 01/18/12
    TRANSCRIPT – link to opednews.com
    AUDIO – link to opednews.com

    ROCKIN’ WITH ROCKYlink to voterocky.org

    Matt Rothschild interviews Jill Stein
    AUDIO – link to progressive.org
    Peter B. Collins interviews Jill Stein
    AUDIO ($5/mo registration) – link to peterbcollins.com

    JILL STEIN FOR PRESIDENTlink to jillstein.org

  19. seafoid says:

    the Yiddish music from the link is so heartbreaking. All that culture ditched for Hebrew and an untreated mass pyschiatric condition masquerading as a state. Plus they had to take in all those Sephardim to make it work and look what they have done to them.

    • Shaktimaan says:

      By Sephardim do you mean Mizrahim?
      I think they are probably doing significantly better than they would have, had they remained in Arab states.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        That’s an outright lie. Or at least, it’s only true because they moved from a society where they were a protected minority to a society where they get to steal property as an ethnocratic majority.

        • Ellen says:

          Chaos4700, After going through this thread, Shaktimaan has shown himself to be a crazy person and racist to boot. Part of the condition perhaps.

          No offense meant, Shak, but I think you need some serious help. And I do not mean that as an insult but that maybe you should get some counseling or medication. Seriously, and my best wishes to health in the future.

  20. seafoid says:

    Bennis was good on what is changing

    - new Jewish groups challenging the status quo wrt Israel
    - Methodist and Presbyterian churches discussing divestment
    - the lack of fear in challenging Israel in the media , unthinkable 5 years ago
    - general media change with increasing anti Israel pieces

    These are all trends that are going to continue and increase in impact and Israel hasn’t been able to neuter any of them.

    I came across an interesting business quote by the former head of GE. “When the pace of change on the outside exceeds the pace of change on the inside the end is near”

    link to goodreads.com

  21. kalithea says:

    I cannot believe this site is still harping and whining over Ron Paul when Gingrich, that philandering Neocon lunatic, is starting to emerge as the Republican favorite and will steer Obama even further to the right to compete for Zionist “love”, ARGH!!

    I’m so angry with this site; I could spit! Are you bliiiiiiiiind? Ron Paul is it! He’s the best we’re gonna get! All this whining is motivated by pure hypocrisy! Can you cough up someone better? You can’t! So, you’re not part of the solution; you’re part of the problem!

    I’m starting to believe you don’t want the situation in Israel to change so you can talk it to death while people suffer and die!

    • Citizen says:

      The only way Obama can get to the right of Newt on foreign policy is to green light Israel’s attack on Iran–Newt stated in a public debate Palestinians were an “invented” people.

      And, as for Mr Mearsheimer, he is Caroline B Glick’s sample target to explain to us all that the new litmus test to succeed in US politics today is to be anti-Semitic by saying bad things about Israel: link to jpost.com

      Ms Glick directly equates Walt & Mearsheimer’s book, The Israel Lobby, with The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. This is interesting since the 500 plus footnotes supporting the text of M & W’s book are mostly from mainstream Jewish American sources. How many supporting footnotes does The Protocols have, and what are their referenced sources?

      Glick also has ignored the fact all candidates for POTUS are on public record as rabidly Pro-Israel (except Ron Paul, who states the fantasy Israel should be treated at arms length, same as we do all other foreign countries, even those we have a mutual defense pact with). And she has ignored all those congress critters who made the free pilgrimage vacation to Israel last year, and the annual genuflection of two-thirds of our congress critters at the AIPAC convention each year, not to mention the standing ovation of Congress for Bibi N, larger than for Obama.

      That Glick can get away with turning reality on its head by blatently ignoring what is, and has been, the very real litmus test for a career in US politics [Israel is always all good for US, and any enemy of it (e.g., latest Hitler, Iran)] shows why Ron Paul is so important.

    • Charon says:

      Don’t listen to the media. Gingrich cannot win the Republican nomination and neither can Santorum. I mean, it’s technically possible but the odds are significantly against him. As in, Gingrich would require about 66% of the delegates he is eligible for to win the nomination instead of 50% like Paul and Romney. Gingrich and Santorum are not on the Virginia ballot and Virginia does not allow write-ins. That is 49 delegates they are not eligible for. Gingrich is also not on Missouri’s primary ballot (but to be fair this primary is non-binding) which is up to 52 delegates. Santorum is not on DC’s ballot (19 delegates). Both only have partial signatures of TN, IL, and OH’s combined 193 delegates.

      Add that to the fact that Gingrich and Santorum do not have proper campaigns for caucus states where Ron Paul has major support and the MSM and sheeple have no say. All the mega campaign contributions from people like Adelson cannot change this. Santorum has no money anyways and Gingrich’s campaign is fake. It’s phony. A fraud. Even that thing about his ex and the debate and his angry response was probably fake. Fake, fake, fake. SC voters threw their votes away because they drank the MSM kool aid.

      Gingrich and Santorum are ineligible for over 500 delegates out of 2286. 1144 are required to win the nomination. It is not impossible for Gingrich to win but it is highly improbable. This is a game and the MSM is in on it. Gingrich and Santorum have almost no chance of winning, so why is the MSM parading Gingrich and why are they still running? Because they take the focus off of Paul. The masses are ignorant. Romney and Paul are the only serious candidates in this, but if the MSM confuses the public into believing Gingrich has a shot, the public will ignore Paul. When it gets to a certain point, Gingrich and Santorum pull out and back Romney.

      Paul’s campaign team is also playing a game. They are ignoring the winner-take-all states they don’t have a shot in and focusing on strategically important states proportional primary and caucus states.

      The media is also playing with numbers to fool the politically ignorant. For example, we won’t know Iowa’s delegate stats until June. This allows the MSM to distort the delegate total and keep RP’s guestimated delegates low and Romney’s high. This also has an impact on public opinion.

      The GOP is manipulating the masses via the MSM into believing that Gingrich has a shot but unless a miracle occurs, he doesn’t. His campaign is a fabrication by the corporate and media apparatus. His Super PAC backing proves that. Gingrich and Santorum are being used to wane public interest on Paul. The difference is Paul’s voters are not interested in anybody except Paul, Paul’s campaign knows this. They won’t back down and neither will Paul. Eventually this will be clear and the establishment will have to change their game. We’ll know in only a few weeks from now.

      The race will be between Romney and Paul, the establishment will have to find a new strategy to smear him. This one is superficial and only works temporarily. It’s too risky. Every smear strategy against RP has failed and every time it fails he gains support.

      The Republican process is a cluster and that’s the reason why the MSM can influence the masses, they don’t understand how it works. Here is a good link:

      link to thegreenpapers.com

      • patm says:

        The greenpapers.com chart is mind-boggling. Could the US primaries system be any more complicated? (Rhetorical question)

      • Chaos4700 says:

        Hmm. I actually pegged that Gingrich has a better chance than Romney. So many Republicans absolutely HATE Romney, whereas Gingrich merely makes them shift uncomfortably.

  22. dahoit says:

    Amazing that Ms.Bennis didn’t mention that every policy that’s been enacted by the antiPauls has destroyed our economic security and sent US into recession and depression already,but what’s reality but perceptions anyway.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      You know, that’s something I had to confront rationally too. I disagree with Paul’s economic policies, but what we have is a mess that keeps getting heavier. I can’t ignore the possibility that Paul’s answers are a way forward, at least now. I think they would have been the wrong answer ten years ago, but things have changed, drastically, since then.

      I don’t want them to be the right answer, and I know full well there will be consequences, but the consequences we have now are worse in my opinion.

      • Charon says:

        I have faith in Paul’s economic policies yet understand why people do not. I tell people to look at Paul as a means of an end to the status quo, and a foundation to build on and clean up (or try to clean up) the policies which have destroyed our economy. Starting point for real change. If he were POTUS and nothing changed after four years, then we would know 100% for sure that change is hopeless and rebellion would likely ensue.

        The elite went on strike against the middle class. That’s what the bailout was. They basically said “if you don’t bail us out, the domino effect will destroy the economy” which was a lie. The truth was if we didn’t bail them out, only the invested elite would have suffered and not the economy.

        Anti-Paul’s use his government non-intervention toward corporations as a negative. But this is mostly because the elite have willed the idea upon the masses. Government involvement means taxpayers will pay for it. The middle class bailed out the elite and the elite went on business as usual while we still suffer to this day. Anti-Pauls fear that allowing corporations to run wild is a bad idea. Not really, they already run wild. If they became too big and corrupt for their own good, it’s a house of cards. It will collapse. But not if the government steps in to save the day. It’s a radical policy, but radical policies are necessary. Paul’s policy would not protect or hurt the elite in theory. It would remove government protection and involvement which act as peace-of-mind for corrupt corporations. The status quo is what makes corporations immortal and unaccountable. Removing government involvement would make them mortal.

        Obama and especially Romney are not going to change the status quo, only enforce it and our Orwellian security laws which Paul has consistently been opposed to.

  23. Congrats on the show, even if it was a one-time thing.

    “As for Coates, he took the positives in the very mixed Ron Paul grab-bag and molded them into a challenge for progressives. “Why don’t we have people on our side saying this? Why don’t we have people on our side aggressively pushing these issues? Why are they off the table?””

    That’s the million dollar question. You have people, like Dennis Kucinich. So the question is, why does the left base not support him and others?

    The answer is this: The same forces who try to keep down Paul on the Republican side (foreign policy establishment, interventionist, tank manufacturers, bomb builders, airplane manufacturers, Zionists, bail-out banksters, the fed, the corporate media) are also keeping down the few good people on the Democratic side.

    The left base needs to confront these forces.

  24. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Hey if I dennisrossify the title it becomes Beyond the Pail. Chew on that! Buying the Pail? No, that would be overstretching.