Amira Hass explains why Israel’s U.S. model of ethnic cleansing failed, and why ‘Jewish regime’ will ‘crumble’

It is very common these days to hear supporters of Israel seek to justify ethnic cleansing by saying that You did it– you Americans. Amira Hass has a fabulous piece up at Haaretz that takes on this model head on. She exposes the Israeli desire to defeat the Palestinian people, as the U.S. defeated the Native Americans, and then only have to deal with the “remnant” (a reference to Eastern European Jewry after the Holocaust). And she explains why this is not possible, and why we are now in the endgame of “the Jewish regime” because Israel did not want a two-state solution.

Read this amazing true line: “The question was, and is, how much more bloodshed, suffering and disasters will be needed until the Jewish regime of discrimination and separation, which we have created here over the past 64 years, crumbles.” This is a frankly anti-Zionist piece, written by a child of Holocaust survivors. Amira Hass is thirsting for the DeKlerk to lead her society out of its racist dead-end. I cannot imagine it being published in the New York Times. A sad reflection on our discourse.  

But happily, and to our relief, the Palestinians are one people (unlike the hundreds that were in America ) and the process of Jewish settlement did not wipe them out. We are in a different age and a different region. Thinking big makes us forget that, unlike the model we admire and seek to emulate, we are a minority in the region. And the region is evolving and demanding a change in the rules of the game that have been so convenient for the United States and Israel.

The real question is not whether the solution is “two states” or “one state.” History in any case does not recognize end points – every stage leads to another. Visions are also not lacking. The visions must develop and change during the struggle for equality and justice, otherwise they will become gulags. The question was, and is, how much more bloodshed, suffering and disasters will be needed until the Jewish regime of discrimination and separation, which we have created here over the past 64 years, crumbles.

The Palestinians provided us, the Israelis, a ladder that would have saved us the kind of suffering and loss that we have caused them. A ladder that we could have climbed to a historic rung where we could have been accepted in the region as neighbors who also have roots in this place and rights – not only as aggressive invaders. But successive Israeli governments, with the backing of their voters, have knocked the ladder over. They knew only too well why they must thwart the two-state solution (in its original, pre-1967 borders format ). It would have led to different ways of living together and sharing the land. But the basic logic of these ways of life requires giving up Jewish hegemony and superiority.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Nakba, Occupation, One state/Two states, US Politics

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

  1. Krauss says:

    There is an additional point to be made.

    The comparison with America vis-a-vi Native Americans is something even ‘liberal’ Zionists like Bradley Burston do. He ridicolously compared America at 63 years of age with Israel – despite about 150 years difference. The world was a very different place ca 1840 compared to today. Not a single country allowed women to vote. Slavery was legal. And so on. But apparently this didn’t stop Burston from trying to defend Israel by defaming America.

    The same is true of Native Americans. There simply isn’t a comparison in the modern, Western world to Israel. That’s why it’s supporters have to invent facts or go back 150+ years to find a country of equal footing(and what should that tell you?).

    This doesn’t mean that Western countries discriminate against ethnic minorities, but it does mean that America or any other modern Western state like Canada, Britain, Australia etc don’t control millions who can’t even vote or even access clean water. Or have specific laws which prevent people from certain ethnic backgrounds to marry each other (like the law in Israel which allows settlers in the West Bank to marry a Jew in Israel ‘proper’ but an Arab in Israel ‘proper’ can’t marry a Palestinian under Occupation).

    But again, what’s surprised me is the extent of moral corruption even ‘liberals’ like Bradley Burston, an editor of Haaretz.com no less, are filled with. Same is true of Goldberg. We can’t have a clean, liberal message until the charalatans and posers of liberalism are exposed and excommunicated from the liberal community unless they actually adopt a true liberal position. The longer people hear outright racist comments and comparisons from ‘liberals’ – without getting punished for it – then the more it dilutes the message of genuine liberals, like Max Blumenthal.

    • seafoid says:

      Amira Hass, like Norman Finklestein, was raised by parents who survived the Shoah. They passed on real Jewish and human values to their kids. It takes real courage to speak out against the numb dumb tide of Zionism . And they will both be vindicated.

      • Terryscott says:

        Wait–I thought y’all hated Norm now that he called BS on BDS?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          Nope, hating someone and seeking to destroy them because they disagree with you is a Zionist trait.

        • Eva Smagacz says:

          Terry,

          Wishful thinking. People continue admiring Norman Finkelstein, while allowing him freedom to voice his opinions.

        • the idea people would say that about norm is so off the mark it make me wonder what people like you do here if you’re not reading the threads.

          grow up.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “what is it with zionists constantly ascribing hatred to their adversaries?”

          When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

        • ha! you’re fast woody. as you can see i edited my comment. i’ve said that so many times i didn’t want to sound like a broken record.

        • seafoid says:

          I LOVE this Finkelstein vignette

          “Please shut up. My late father was in Auschwitz. My late mother was in Majdanek. It is precisely and exactly because of the lessons my parents taught me and my 2 siblings that I will not be silenced when Israel commits its crimes against the Palestinians . ”

          link to youtube.com

          If you had any heart in you would would cry for the Palestinians. And that goes for you Terry/Yossi

        • Doctor Pi says:

          @Terryscott Norman Finkelstein is not opposed to all boycotts since he reposted this letter on his web site: link to normanfinkelstein.com

        • ToivoS says:

          Terryscott’s comment is illustrative of a certain kind of rigid thinking that is common among rightwing conservatives. This has been documented in psychological testing. They cannot distinguish critical analysis from partisan opposition. They are obedient to authority and accept their ideology from them. I bet Terry thought his comment was a clever retort. These people also lack a sense of irony and humor in general.

          People on the left are much more independent thinkers less will to accept ideas uncritically. Hence there is usually more disagreements among people who share common values and goals.

          Terry can’t help it either, we think it is a genetic predisposition.

        • It’s a classic hasbara attempt at thread hijack/diversion. Nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Although I have enjoyed the answers to the lame question.

        • libra says:

          Toivos, that’s quite an analysis to read into one line from poor old Terry.

          That said, it would seem from his “y’all” that our Hibernian hasbarist has decamped the Holy Land and gone native somewhere in the Deep South. Though one wonders where he could possibly have found a place to compare to the wealth and sophistication of Tel Aviv.

        • Keith says:

          TOVIOS- “People on the left are much more independent thinkers less will to accept ideas uncritically.”

          Surely you jest.

        • pabelmont says:

          There are also some “leaps of thought” which are taught (in Israel) as being OK-THINK, and people feel free to repeat these — they don’t hear the nonsense of them. IRONY on this stuff doesn’t get far.I’ve seen stuff along these lines:

          Palestinians want to recover their land => this will destroy the Jewish character of Israel => this will destroy Israel ==> Pals want to destroy Israel => Pals want to kill all the Jews => Pals are all terrorists => it’s OK to kill all Pals in self-defence

        • Mooser says:

          “They are obedient to authority and accept their ideology from them.”

          Coupled with wonderfully evasive and self-serving ideas about who the “authourity” is. Their goal is to make doing whatever they please sound like civic and social self-sacrifice. Just thought I would throw that into the tangent.

    • RoHa says:

      “The world was a very different place ca 1840 compared to today. Not a single country allowed women to vote.”

      Technically, not quite true, but there wasn’t a lot of female suffrage around.

  2. lysias says:

    Since Hass seems quite pessimistic about the prospects of a two-state solution at this point, this paragraph amounts to a call for a one-state solution:

    The real question is not whether the solution is “two states” or “one state.” History in any case does not recognize end points – every stage leads to another. Visions are also not lacking. The visions must develop and change during the struggle for equality and justice, otherwise they will become gulags. The question was, and is, how much more bloodshed, suffering and disasters will be needed until the Jewish regime of discrimination and separation, which we have created here over the past 64 years, crumbles.

    • seafoid says:

      It already is a one state solution called Greater Israel.

      • pabelmont says:

        seafoid: Make that There is presently a 1SS which is non-democratic, ethnocratic, apartheid-in-nature, although multi-confessional and multi-ethnic and may be called Greater Israel.

        We all know this, but shorthand is an enemy if there might be newbies around. ANYWAY, question is, what’s next? Expulsion by slow-frog-boiling, fast-expulsion, holocaust, or outside interference sufficient to get Israel’s attention and turn it around?

  3. BillM says:

    Amira gets to the real point when supporters of Israel use the phrases “destruction of Israel,” “existential threat,” “delegitimization,” etc. They are not and never were talking about the physical destruction of the nation or the slaughter of its people. They are talking about, as Amira so perfectly put it, the crumbling of the “Jewish regime of discrimination and separation.” This is very precise language. If you take away any of those elements, you have the “destruction” of Israel, at least the destruction of Israel as it is in currently conceived. That is why supporters of Israel, even while claiming to never support the Occupation or discrimination inside Israel (but only to support the “Jewish” part of that description), never actually take any action to support ending the things they don’t support. They understand on a deep level that the “Israel” they seek to preserve is based on those elements, not just “Jewishness” but also “discrimination” and “separation.”

    • pabelmont says:

      BillM: Exactly. They say the Palestinian RoR will destroy Israel but they mean — as you say — merely (from my POV) that it will reverse the separation of 1948 and it will make discrimination that much harder, especially if the numbers are no longer 80:20 but the 50:50 or 51:49 or 49:51 — which the numbers would have been had there never been expulsions and refusals-to-readmit. UNGA-181 demanded non-discrimination and said nary a word to authorize expulsion or non-readmitance.

      Incidentally, RoR would admit most (or many) Gazans to Israel, for most Gazans came from Israel in 1948. Can you imagine the happy mingling after THAT return, and the Zionist regret and anger for the passing away of their Israel in favor of the Israel the Jewish agency said it accepted per UNGA-181?

    • ToivoS says:

      Bill M accurately says what is basically the inherent contradiction built into the entity known as “progressive Zionism”.

  4. Israeli’s like making comparisons with Amerindians because they know they’ll attract some sympathy in the US. By contrast the Israeli’s reject totally the much more apt comparison with apartheid South Africa, because Americans and most people in the world that regime was pretty much all bad with no redeeming aspects at all.

    The other thing about comparing the plight of Amerindians to Palestinians. Its the closet that zionists will ever come to admitting that ‘project israel’ is an evil enterprise. Zionists can only justify what they are doing to Palestinians by drawing 0n the most controversial and morally questionable acts committed by other states throughout history.

  5. Chu says:

    “They knew only too well why they must thwart the two-state solution (in its original, pre-1967 borders format ). It would have led to different ways of living together and sharing the land. But the basic logic of these ways of life requires giving up Jewish hegemony and superiority.”

    I think the time for pro Israel chest-beating has came and went – one hopes. Netanyahu may be one in a long line of Israeli baboons to come. It may definitely get worse. It’s like Israelis need to show the world how destructive they are to foment their global anti semitism crusade.

  6. pabelmont says:

    Israel has shown no lack of steadfastness for military dictatorship and apartheid, etc. They have mastered the teaching of hatred to their kids (helped by the suicide bombers and others) — but there is no doubt in any Zionist mind — ranging from so-called liberal to Genghis Kahn-like — about the correctness of a Jewish State with very few strangers present in (at least pre-67 territory and more often) as much of Mandatory Palestine as possible. For most of them, the ants at the picnic should be killed, brushed away, poisoned, whatever it takes to remove them. Only Jews are entitled to residency or to “human rights” in this land. The USA supports this.

    I for one do not see the crisis, but it is our job to work to produce one. I suppose Amira Hass thinks so too.

    • piotr says:

      I like puns, but I suggest to be careful with jokes like “Genghis Kahn”

      If you are familiar with Jared Diamond, until relatively recently germs were stronger than guns and steel. Interior of tropical Africa could not be colonized because of Europeans succumbing to germs there, while in Americas and Oceania natives were crushed by their lack of resistance to Eurasian germs.

      Thus even if one agrees that ants should be killed or brushed away, this is not exactly realistic. As someone put it “it is like being a little bit pregnant, it tends to get worse”.

  7. Scott says:

    I cannot imagine it being published in the New York Times. A sad reflection on our discourse.

    Or even on Peter Beinart’s blog.

  8. HarryLaw says:

    Custers last stand involved only a disparity of 3 times the number of Indians to Custers troops, the Israelis are outnumbered by Muslims in the immediate area of almost 50 to 1 . Rather than accepting the Arab peace plan in 2002 based on the 1967 borders and acceptance into the area and good relations with all Muslim Nations they instead opted for expansionist polices which when the surrounding countries get their acts together as they surely will, will mean the end of Israel, at least in its present racist and supremacist make up. Even the sound of that bugle from thousands of miles away in the US will not save them.

    • Chu says:

      That bugle won’t save them, nor will their nuclear arsenal. The more you think about a unified Arab world, the less likely you think of Israel maintaining it’s hegemony there. The Egyptians are choosing a new path and the Turks are ambivalent. Israel should concern itself with its own long-term preservation, as opposed to taking more land from Palestinians.

  9. lysias says:

    Important defense of Günter Grass by Alfred Grosser in today’s Süddeutsche Zeitung: Alfred Grosser über Kritik an Israel “Grass hat etwas Vernünftiges gesagt” ["Grass Said Something Sensible"]>

    Meanwhile, Grass himself in that same journal doubles down, comparing Israel’s entry ban on him to the two others that he has had to face in his life, from East Germany and Myanmar: “Wie bei Minister Mielke” ["Just Like With (State Security Minister) Mielke"]. That piece has a great final paragraph:

    Die DDR gibt es nicht mehr. Aber als Atommacht von unkontrolliertem Ausmaß begreift sich die israelische Regierung als eigenmächtig und ist bislang keiner Ermahnung zugänglich. – Allein Birma lässt kleine Hoffnung keimen. [There no longer is any German Democratic Republic. But the Israeli government, as a nuclear power of uncontrolled dimensions, feels it has untrammeled power and up to now has paid no attention to any warnings. Only Burma allows us to have a bit of hope.]

  10. RE: “The question was, and is, how much more bloodshed, suffering and disasters will be needed until the Jewish regime of discrimination and separation, which we have created here over the past 64 years, crumbles. ” ~ Amira Haas

    MY COMMENT: “Crumbles” as in “vanish from the page of time”?

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel]:

    (excerpt) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel, characterized by contentious speeches and statements, including what many commentators perceive to be calls to destroy the country. . .
    . . . On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), filed a story on Ahmadinejad’s speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Asia, entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, ‘The New York Times’ published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:
    Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

    . . . • Translation controversy
    Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that “Israel must be wiped off the map”,[5][6] an English idiom which means to “cause a place to stop existing”,[7] or to “obliterate totally”,[8] or “destroy completely”.[9] . . .
    . . . Ahmadinejad’s phrase was “بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website.[11]
    The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement “wiped off the map” was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the “regime occupying Jerusalem”. Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, “the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”[12] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as, “the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13] According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian.” Instead, “he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[14] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as “this regime” must be “eliminated from the pages of history.”[15]
    Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime.”[16][17][18]
    Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[19]
    Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – “wipe Israel off the map” – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[20][21][22]
    The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning. . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    • RE: “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – “wipe Israel off the map” – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. . .” ~ Shiraz Dossa (from the above Wikipedia excerpt)

      FROM THE HASBARA HANDBOOK: “Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context.”

      SEE THE HASBARA HANDBOOK (pages 24-25):

      Testimonial [one of the seven propaganda devices]
      Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse an ideal or campaign. [As I see it, testimonials by people who are disliked or infamous can also be used to besmirch an opposing ideal or campaign. - J.L.D.] Testimonial can be used reasonably – it makes sense for a footballer to endorse football boots – or manipulated, such as when a footballer is used to support a political campaign they have only a limited understanding of. Whilst everybody is entitled to an opinion, testimonial can lend weight to an argument that it doesn’t deserve: if U2′s Bono condemned Israel for something that it didn’t do, thousands would believe him, even thoughhe was wrong.
      Enlisting celebrity support for Israel can help to persuade people that Israel is a great country. Obviously some celebrities are more useful than others. Students are probably a little too sophisticated to be affected by Britney’s opinion on Israel, but those associated with intelligence like professors, actors, radio hosts, sports managers and so on can be asked to offer testimonial. A celebrity doesn’t have to fully support Israel to be useful. Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context. [Similarly, a disliked/ infamous person (i.e. a boogeyman) doesn't have to fully threaten Israel to be useful (in besmirching Israel's adversaries). And according to the Hasbara Handbook, the quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be "old or out of context" (or perhaps even incorrectly translated) - J.L.D.] . . .

      SOURCE, RE: “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – “wipe Israel off the map” – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. . .” ~ Shiraz Dossa (from the above Wikipedia excerpt)

      FROM THE HASBARA HANDBOOK: “Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context.”

      SEE THE HASBARA HANDBOOK (pages 24-25):

      Testimonial [one of the seven propaganda devices]
      Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse an ideal or campaign. [As I see it, testimonials by people who are disliked or infamous can also be used to besmirch an opposing ideal or campaign. - J.L.D.] Testimonial can be used reasonably – it makes sense for a footballer to endorse football boots – or manipulated, such as when a footballer is used to support a political campaign they have only a limited understanding of. Whilst everybody is entitled to an opinion, testimonial can lend weight to an argument that it doesn’t deserve: if U2′s Bono condemned Israel for something that it didn’t do, thousands would believe him, even thoughhe was wrong.
      Enlisting celebrity support for Israel can help to persuade people that Israel is a great country. Obviously some celebrities are more useful than others. Students are probably a little too sophisticated to be affected by Britney’s opinion on Israel, but those associated with intelligence like professors, actors, radio hosts, sports managers and so on can be asked to offer testimonial. A celebrity doesn’t have to fully support Israel to be useful. Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context. [Similarly, a disliked/ infamous person (i.e. a boogeyman) doesn't have to fully threaten Israel to be useful (in besmirching Israel's adversaries). And according to the Hasbara Handbook, the quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be "old or out of context" (or perhaps even incorrectly translated) - J.L.D.] . . .

      SOURCE, RE: “Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation – “wipe Israel off the map” – suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. . .” ~ Shiraz Dossa (from the above Wikipedia excerpt)

      FROM THE HASBARA HANDBOOK: “Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context.”

      SEE THE HASBARA HANDBOOK (pages 24-25):

      Testimonial [one of the seven propaganda devices]
      Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse an ideal or campaign. [As I see it, testimonials by people who are disliked or infamous can also be used to besmirch an opposing ideal or campaign. - J.L.D.] Testimonial can be used reasonably – it makes sense for a footballer to endorse football boots – or manipulated, such as when a footballer is used to support a political campaign they have only a limited understanding of. Whilst everybody is entitled to an opinion, testimonial can lend weight to an argument that it doesn’t deserve: if U2′s Bono condemned Israel for something that it didn’t do, thousands would believe him, even thoughhe was wrong.
      Enlisting celebrity support for Israel can help to persuade people that Israel is a great country. Obviously some celebrities are more useful than others. Students are probably a little too sophisticated to be affected by Britney’s opinion on Israel, but those associated with intelligence like professors, actors, radio hosts, sports managers and so on can be asked to offer testimonial. A celebrity doesn’t have to fully support Israel to be useful. Quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be old or out of context. [Similarly, a disliked/ infamous person (i.e. a boogeyman) doesn't have to fully threaten Israel to be useful (in besmirching Israel's adversaries). And according to the Hasbara Handbook, the quotes can work as testimonial, even when they might be "old or out of context" (or perhaps even incorrectly translated) - J.L.D.] . . .

      SOURCE, “HASBARA HANDBOOK: Promoting Israel on Campus”, published by the World Union of Jewish Students, March 2002 – link to scribd.com

    • Fredblogs says:

      “Zionist Regime” is the closest Ahmadinejad comes to saying “Israel”. That’s just a red herring.

      • ToivoS says:

        Well Fredblogs it can’t be a red herring if the comment cannot be found anywhere on this thread. Is this a new hasbara trick? — refuting non-existing arguments.

    • piotr says:

      There is some similarity with translating Russian phrase “we will bury you” as an annihilation threat rather than “we will come to your funeral”, i.e. we will survive longer.

      I was told that another Russian phrase could be more sinister, “there will be holiday on my street” but no leader would say such a thing. The words for “holiday” and “celebration” are the same. The implied context is what a member of a street gang could tell to members of another street gang.

  11. seafoid says:

    Blitzer 20 years ago.

    “There is an Israel today that is not going to disappear. Israel has all of the justifications in the world today to exist.

    Zionism is the national liberation ideology of the Jewish people.

    Why should the Palestinians deserve a homeland if the Jews don’t?

    And they destroyed it . They destroyed their own society for a Messianic fantasy

  12. Sin Nombre says:

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “Amira Hass explains why Israel’s U.S. model of ethnic cleansing failed, and why ‘Jewish regime’ will ‘crumble’”

    I’m sorry, but I must have missed Hass’ version saying why exactly it will crumble.

    Oh, there’s some argle-bargle in there about how “things are different here and now,” but as Hass herself says, it’s been 64 *years* now, and counting. And despite the West’s total immersion now in ideas of multi-culturalism and pluralism and revulsion to ethno-racialism and on and on Israel hasn’t climbed on board with any of that, and seems to care ever less about ever doing so.

    Does anyone really see Israel as having become *more* liberal over the past years?

    Does Hass really believe that Israelis will not eventually go along with ethnic cleansing of some sort, and overlook that same is exactly what it undertook in ’48 and has been doing in slower motion since?

    It’s a mark of how far apart Hass is from the Israeli mainstream that she feels it really wants to be like the U.S. in some fundamental way. Sure, in some ways that mainstream does: It wants our sort of cities and toys and cars and jobs and life and etc. But it don’t wanna rub shoulders with too many non-jews; no way.

    It’s an oldie but a goodie that a big problem in gauging conflicts arises from seeing “the other guy” as fundamentally being just like oneself. Judaism however isn’t just like other more modern religions. And Zionism isn’t just like other modern nationalisms.

    This isn’t to condemn judaism or zionism one whit; just observing that when you hear a Bibi Netanyahu or a Shaul Mofaz or any even relative “moderate” Israeli talk (much less an Ovadia Yousef) you aren’t listening to a person fundamentally coming from a modern Western perspective. They don’t give a damn about that perspective, indeed, adopting that perspective—at least for their fellow Israelis—is precisely what they are fighting against.

    • Mooser says:

      “Judaism however isn’t just like other more modern religions.”

      Gee, Marc, you wouldn’t happen to be saying that Judaism has an inherently malign theology, and is a threat to non-Jews? In order to say that, you would have to have at least a minimal amount of proof that certain definite ideas are formulated, transmitted, and will be acted upon by all Jews. Of course, you can’t do this.
      But gosh, isn’t there another word describing those attributing malign influences to Judaism, a malign influence which is unfailingly and devotedly transmitted to the next generation of Jews?

  13. RoHa says:

    [Off topic]

    Happy Cosmonaut’s Day.

    On 12 April 1961, Yuri Gagarin flew into space and orbited the Earth. He was the first person to go into space.

  14. Matt Giwer says:

    Having read many editorial opinions on haaretz.com and jpost.com and other Israeli sources reading the American-Indian wars I have noticed something very misguided. To a man they appear to believe that today Americans celebrate and are proud of winning those wars. It is like they think 1930s westerns are part of the American ideal. It is an Israeli myth that winning the wars is part of the American myth.

    I was born in 1945. I never heard of such a thing in my life. To the contrary I have only heard regret and tragedy and more recently genocide. For Israel to use the analogy is an admission to genocide.

    That said regardless of what happened in all wars against some tribes other tribes sided with the US. All land acquisitions were based upon treaties regardless of the means of gaining the treaties. Israel has not one single treaty with the Palestinians. And in regard to the treaties the tribes almost always sue for their enforcement rather than for their nullification.

    And in those wars we do not hold the Indians were terrorists in defending themselves. We generally hold they fought well whether or not we like their methods or our methods. Should Israel start a smallpox epidemic among the Palestinians just because the Americans once did it?

    Bottom line, Israel is proud to be as bad as the US at its worst in the 19th c.

    • lyn117 says:

      “For Israel to use the analogy is an admission to genocide.”

      Pro-Israel hasbarists very commonly use the analogy, I don’t know how often I’ve been asked by bloggers if I’d give my house back to the Native Americans. As far as it being an admission to genocide, I agree. Zionists had/have serious intent of committing genocide against Palestinians.

      As far as not holding Indians were terrorists for defending themselves, “terrorist” wasn’t a word in the common vernacular during the Indian wars. People used more common pejoratives like “savage” and I’m sure if the wars were going on today the Native Americans would be called “terrorists”

      The U.S. recognized many native tribes as independent nations, until what, 1920 or so, that’s why they could make treaties with them. Israel still doesn’t recognize Palestine.

      It has been reported that Zionists did use biological warfare in 1948.

  15. Mooser says:

    Endless speculation over how the Jewish religion (such as it is indeed, one “Jewish religion”) and whichever particular tenets of it the author stresses contributes to or should detract from the actions of Zionists is bootless and fruitless.
    Moot the hell out of it, is what I say. Zionists giggle with glee when the discussion goes that way.
    The discussion of what part Judaism as a religion, plays in Zionism, beyond the historical facts of course, is pointless. It’s nothing but speculation, and more than almost anything else, it exposes the author’s misconceptions about Judaism, and in a lot of instances, a pretty malicious bent and the embrace of many anti-Semitic stereotypes.

    It’s sort of funny, really. Are people afraid that if the Jews do happen to hit on exactly the right religious formula, God will stretch out His mighty arm, and do whatever it was the rest of that verse, which I forget, says He was going to do. Oh, I know “R’are up and pass a miracle”, of course! I just don’t get it.