Charting the ‘peace process’

Israel/Palestine
on 174 Comments
Peace process
Peace process

From Yousef Munayyer, who says he rejects a return to the vaunted peace process:

In the 24 year period from 1967 (when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip) to 1991, when the Madrid Peace Conference was held beginning the “Peace Process,” Israel colonized the West Bank through the illegal transfer of its citizens beyond the green line. By the end of this period, some 250,000 Israeli settlers or colonists lived beyond the Green Line. As the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the American Congress in 2011, the number of Israeli colonists beyond the Green Line reached 650,000.

174 Responses

  1. Parity
    December 1, 2012, 11:52 am

    Israelis will tell you that the Geneva Conventions prohibit FORCED transfer and that since Israeli citizens are going to “Judea” and “Samaria” willingly, it’s OK. How does one get around that argument?

    • Koshiro
      December 1, 2012, 1:27 pm

      By pointing out that it is wrong?

      “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

      The ‘forced’ transfer is mentioned earlier in the same article and refers to inhabitants of the occupied area. Naturally, Israeli is also guilty of that.

      • Hostage
        December 1, 2012, 4:31 pm

        The ‘forced’ transfer is mentioned earlier in the same article and refers to inhabitants of the occupied area. Naturally, Israeli is also guilty of that.

        Absolutely. Thousands of Palestinian prisoners have been transferred out of the occupied territory and are being held illegally in Israel.

        The UN General Assembly resolution which upgraded Palestine’s status mentioned the prisoners. It also removed any remaining lingering doubts about the validity of Palestine’s accession to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols.

        Abbas announced last year that those prisoners would be his top priority and that he would go to Geneva after the UN bid and call for implementing the Geneva Convention on Palestinian prisoners so as to be treated as war prisoners with the entailing basic human rights, in accordance with the applicable international law and resolutions. He can also take the matter to the Hague, since the practice is a war crime covered by Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute.
        link to untreaty.un.org

      • pabelmont
        December 2, 2012, 6:28 am

        The International Court of Justice told the world in 2004 (in the opinion about the wall) that the settlements in the occupied territories violate the Convention.

        120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49,
        paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

        In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

        The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied
        Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established
        in breach of international law.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 1, 2012, 1:35 pm

      parity, you inform them the people removed from their land (palestinians) to make room for the settlers were and are unlawfully being transferred. this is how article 147 reads:

      link to icrc.org

      Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

      link to icrc.org
      ARTICLE 147 — GRAVE BREACHES

      ‘ Unlawful deportation or transfer. ‘ — This refers to breaches of the provisions of Articles 45 Database ‘IHL – Treaties & Comments’, View ’1. All treaties \1.2. Articles’ and 49 Database ‘IHL – Treaties & Comments’, View ’1. All treaties \1.2. Articles’.

      this is from 49 Database ‘IHL:

      link to icrc.org

      The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

      hopefully one of the pros will come along and provide more clarity. but it does not reference ‘forced’ transfer of its own civilian population.

    • Shmuel
      December 1, 2012, 1:46 pm

      One could cite a whole slew of acronyms (ICRC, ICJ, UNCHR, EU, US, UK …) who disagree with this self-serving Israeli “interpretation”, but I think the following United Nations Security Council resolution should suffice (emphases mine):

      SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted at 2203rd meeting - unanimously]

      Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

      Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

      link to asp.alhaq.org

    • Hostage
      December 1, 2012, 4:09 pm

      Israelis will tell you that the Geneva Conventions prohibit FORCED transfer and that since Israeli citizens are going to “Judea” and “Samaria” willingly, it’s OK. How does one get around that argument?

      Here is the commentary that accompanied Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

      PARAGRAPH 6. — DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO OCCUPIED TERRITORY

      This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
      The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words “transfer” and “deport” is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
      It would therefore appear to have been more logical — and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) — to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of “deportations” and “transfers” in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

      link to icrc.org

      • Shmuel
        December 1, 2012, 4:40 pm

        It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.

        Israel’s apologists often cite only the first part of Pictet’s commentary, conveniently leaving out “or … to colonize those territories”.

        • Hostage
          December 2, 2012, 5:31 pm

          Israel’s apologists often cite only the first part of Pictet’s commentary, conveniently leaving out “or … to colonize those territories”.

          Yes, it’s also important to note that the commentary was written in the decade before the Six Day War and are considered an authoritative source of military law, e.g. link to loc.gov

        • Hostage
          December 2, 2012, 6:11 pm

          P.S. that should be the commentary was written in the decade before the War and the four volumes are considered an authoritative source of military law. link to loc.gov

  2. seanmcbride
    December 1, 2012, 12:03 pm

    The “peace process” was designed by “liberal Zionists” from the very beginning to serve as a stalling tactic while Israel moved forward with its longstanding plan to build Eretz Israel.

    Until “liberal Zionism” is thoroughly deconstructed, and its true agenda exposed, this program will continue to proceed apace with no effective opposition from the American government.

    • Mooser
      December 1, 2012, 2:11 pm

      “Until “liberal Zionism” is thoroughly deconstructed, and its true agenda exposed”

      Are you trying to say liberal Zionism is a front for Judaism? Not sure I understand.

      • seanmcbride
        December 1, 2012, 6:57 pm

        Mooser,

        Are you trying to say liberal Zionism is a front for Judaism? Not sure I understand.

        No, Mooser — I am saying that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between left-wing Zionism and right-wing Zionism — in fact, settlements have increased at a faster rate under left-wing than right-wing Israeli regimes.

        Zionists are Zionists, period — they subscribe to an innately racist ideology that will inevitably produce discriminatory policies that will offend and alienate the modern Western democratic world. If you are a Zionist, you are a racist, and no amount of doubletalk, hasbara or pilpul will erase that truth.

        Right-wing Zionists are honest and forthright about their agenda. Left-wing Zionists lie through their teeth. “Liberal Zionism” has been an entirely fraudulent enterprise based on outright deception and manipulation from the word go. Most of us know that by now. (It took me a long time to come to this conclusion — I actually believed in the “peace process” for several years.)

        There is nothing controversial about my views on Judaism:

        1. I mentioned earlier that I include Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism among my four favorite religions — along with Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism. (I am a theosophist myself, without a formal attachment to any particular organized religion.)

        2. Modern secular Zionism and Jewish ethnic nationalism are firmly grounded in the messianic Jewish ethnic nationalism of ancient Judaism — most leading Zionists have made this claim themselves, often with considerable stridency.

        3. The contemporary worldwide Jewish religious establishment — including Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism — has been swallowed whole by Zionism and Israeli patriotism — and with very little resistance.

        Seriously: are my views a bit too controversial for the free-thinking Mooser? :) Feel free to disagree with them, of course. I feel capable of defending them.

        • seanmcbride
          December 2, 2012, 11:27 am

          Mooser,

          More on Judaism:

          Judaism seems to get along best with the world at large when it is most open, progressive, forward-looking, universalist, inclusive, optimistic, etc. And it is in strongest conflict with the world at large when it is most closed, reactionary, ethnocentric, xenophobic, backward-looking, exclusive, paranoid, etc.

          The more that Zionism and Judaism have merged into religious Zionism, the more the latter negative traits mentioned above seem to have come to the fore — particularly in the attitudes and behavior of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories.

          What think you?

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 11:45 am

          “What think you?”

          I think anybody who would reply (twice!) to a completely (and obviously) nonsensical comment like mine, has a screw loose. But thanks for proving it.

          And remember Sean, I don’t care what anybody tells you. Don’t let them frighten you! I give you my personal assurance (and I am sure many, many people will add theirs) : If you don’t like Judaism, or being Jewish, you are free to leave the religion, or culture at any time. Or deal with it at any remove which pleases you. I mean, it’s not like you’re a Palestinian or something, who don’t have much choice about the matter.

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 11:56 am

          “(I am a theosophist myself, without a formal attachment to any particular organized religion.)”

          Cool! Feel free to materialise at Moosehall any day (except Sunday, we sleep late, or Thursday, I work.) after 9:00 am. I’ll make some coffee, oil up the ol’ Ouija and we’ll get in touch with Madame Blavatsky and smoke a bowl. I won’t even count the lighters after you leave.

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 12:07 pm

          “Seriously: are my views a bit too controversial for the free-thinking Mooser? :)”

          When did I ever claim to be a free-thinker? I’ve been married 22 years and never claimed any different. I am not involved in any poly-laundry relationships.

        • Taxi
          December 4, 2012, 12:52 pm

          Hey Mooser, I LIKE that Madame Blavatsky! Dione Fortune too – the white magic Agatha Christie – her books are wonderful theosophical adventures when you got no TV to watch and it’s raining outside.

        • seanmcbride
          December 4, 2012, 1:25 pm

          Mooser,

          Cool! Feel free to materialise at Moosehall any day (except Sunday, we sleep late, or Thursday, I work.) after 9:00 am. I’ll make some coffee, oil up the ol’ Ouija and we’ll get in touch with Madame Blavatsky and smoke a bowl. I won’t even count the lighters after you leave.

          I am a theosophist in this sense: my mind is wide open to exploring imaginative esoteric and gnostic belief systems. I will roll them around in my mind, savor them and absorb insights from them without believing in any of them in a doctrinaire way. I even have a strong interest in cabalism (via Gershom Scholem and Frances Yates). Much of the best Western art is saturated in theosophical ideas. Even Isaac Newton and Frederick Law Olmsted were theosophists.

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 1:26 pm

          “Hey Mooser, I LIKE that Madame Blavatsky!”

          Taxi, for reasons hard to fathom (but probably closely related to the fact that our local library gets most of its books from unclaimed storage units) we have been positively immersed in that era (say 1840-60s to WW1 and the tween years) mostly in England.

          Speaking of Agatha Christie and rainy days, have you read any of the “No 1 Ladies Dectective Agency” books by Alexander McCall Smith? Read one or two of those and tell me you don’t want to retire to Botswana.

        • Taxi
          December 4, 2012, 2:45 pm

          Mooser,
          I first learned about Madame Blavatsky (doncha just love that name!) when I was a student in London in the late 70′s, buying second hand books from street book vendors in Camden Town and Swiss Cottage markets. These street vendor dudes would show up with trunks full of new second-hand acquisitions – a heckalotta stuff printed at the turn of the 20th century: poetry books, obscure one-hit-wonder novels, books on early Victorian sciences, out of print books on alchemy, folktales, philosophy, world history (written by Victorians!), critiques of the classics, high academia, low academia, Anglo-saxon paganism, European romances, eccentric cookery books and books on the occult and occultists throughout recorded time, also books with great quirky titles but nothing interesting in them, Victorian underground art books (oolala risqué) and much much more that amuses and educates. Needless to say, I made friends with them book vendor dudes over a span of some ten years and they would put certain books by writers I’d be exploring at the time aside for me. My real educators eh! I’d go visit them religiously on saturday mornings, usually in the rain (it always rains in England), buy up the week’s reading materials and yeah I had no TV at the time so I just read when I got bored of people. I ‘discovered’ Madame Blavatsky and her society of like-minded friends in one of the vendor’s trunks. Hahahaha maybe my book vendor dude is selling to your local library now!

          I will most definitely get ahold of “No 1 Ladies Detective Agency” – I love that kinda sh-t. I’m a simple mammal: I eat, I sleep, and I like a good old fashioned yarn every night.

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 5:36 pm

          Thanks for telling me that about your book purchasing and reading, Taxi. Sadly the used bookstore (heck, the bookstore itself) is going extinct in America.
          The “No. 1 Ladies Detective” books were also given an deservedly affectionate treatment in an HBO series starring <a href=" link to hbo.com; Jill Scott

        • Antidote
          December 4, 2012, 8:36 pm

          some videos for you that feature Madame Blavatsky


          link to youtube.com

          enjoy

        • Taxi
          December 5, 2012, 3:02 am

          Thanks Antidote!

          Mooser too!

        • Taxi
          December 5, 2012, 3:23 am

          Will watch vids later.

        • Taxi
          December 5, 2012, 8:58 am

          Jesus crumbs antidote! I watched your first link and it’s just preposterous to link Madam Blavatsky’s esoteric tenets with the birth of nazism! They did the same with Nietzsche’s ‘Superman’ pontifications:
          “His sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche acted as curator and editor of Nietzsche’s manuscripts during his illness. She was married to a prominent German nationalist and antisemite, Bernhard Förster, and she reworked some of Nietzsche’s unpublished writings to fit her husband’s ideology, often in ways contrary to Nietzsche’s opinions, which were strongly and explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism (see Nietzsche’s criticism of anti-Semitism and nationalism).”
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Here’s a little on Balavatsky’s ‘recognized’ life:

          “Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Russian; 12 August 1831 – 8 May 1891) was a scholar of ancient wisdom literature who, along with H. S. Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala, was instrumental in the Western transmission and revival of Theravada Buddhism. In 1875, Blavatsky and Olcott established a research and publishing institute called the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky defined Theosophy as “the archaic Wisdom-Religion, the esoteric doctrine once known in every ancient country having claims to civilization. Blavatsky’s extensive research into the many different spiritual traditions of the world led to the publication of what is now considered her magnus opus, The Secret Doctrine, which collates and organizes the essence of these teachings into a comprehensive synthesis. Blavatsky saw herself as a missionary of this ancient knowledge and one of the main purposes of the Theosophical Society was “to form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color”. Blavatsky’s other works include Isis Unveiled, The Key to Theosophy and The Voice of the Silence. Blavatsky is a leading name in the New Age Movement.”
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Just goes to show you how you can so easily twist words to fit an agenda – an evil agenda for that matter.

          The other dude mentioned alongside Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley – yeah well that dude really is a twisted so-and-so. I’ve read a few of his books in my youth, including his first book, a book of poems called ‘The White Stain’. Well that was before he sold his soul to the devil and worse.

          Madam Blavatsky was a universalist who explored and reported on the esoteric side of life, she was not a committed racist nationalist. The documentary outrageously and unfairly makes her out to be the ‘mother’ of nazi ideology.

          I simply will not accept that false charge against her.

      • Castellio
        December 1, 2012, 11:11 pm

        Isn’t he suggesting, rather, that Liberal Zionism has been a willing partner with Jabotinsky Zionism to create Eretz Israel?

        • Sibiriak
          December 2, 2012, 2:09 am

          Rather like Liberal interventionism being a willing partner with Neoconservatism in U.S. imperial projects.

        • Keith
          December 2, 2012, 5:20 pm

          Sibiriak- Liberal interventionists and neoconservatives are essentially two sides of the same coin. They appeal to different constituencies, hence, rely upon different pretexts for the same imperial aggression. Neoconservatives claim to defend us from WMD even as they spread democracy. Liberal interventionists perform humanitarian interventions in accordance with R2P. This is why liberals view George W. Bush as a lying warmonger, but laud Obama as a great humanitarian for implementing the neocon war plans.

          “…in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…. (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).
          link to globalresearch.ca

        • Sibiriak
          December 2, 2012, 8:04 pm

          Sibiriak- Liberal interventionists and neoconservatives are essentially two sides of the same coin.

          Yes, that was my point.

    • Sibiriak
      December 1, 2012, 9:57 pm

      seanmcbride:

      The “peace process” was designed by “liberal Zionists” from the very beginning to serve as a stalling tactic while Israel moved forward with its longstanding plan to build Eretz Israel.

      Yes, it’s not that the “peace process failed”–there never was a peace process. It was always a sham.

      I would ask, though, if “liberal Zionist” is the right term to label folks that duplicitously designed Oslo etc., what is right term for Zionists who really do want to see a two-state solution based on 1967 borders etc. and don’t want a “Greater Israel”–Uri Avnery, for example, and many U.S. Jews?

      • Stephen Shenfield
        December 2, 2012, 11:53 am

        Most people want peace. The trouble is that they want it on their own terms. The Zionists are all in favor of peace, but what they mean by it is that the Palestinians stop resisting and peacefully accept any arrangements Israel may decide to make for them. Then it would no longer be “necessary” (please note inverted commas) to shoot, bomb, beat, starve or torture them and there would be peace. If peace is simply an absence of overt violence, who can say the Zionists are not sincerely in favor of peace?

        A just peace — that would be an altogether different matter. But the “process” bears the label “peace” not “justice.”

      • seanmcbride
        December 2, 2012, 11:53 am

        Sibiriak,

        I would ask, though, if “liberal Zionist” is the right term to label folks that duplicitously designed Oslo etc., what is right term for Zionists who really do want to see a two-state solution based on 1967 borders etc. and don’t want a “Greater Israel”–Uri Avnery, for example, and many U.S. Jews?

        Probably the fate of “liberal Zionism” as an absurd oxymoron is irreversible. The issue is not that a few Zionists perhaps sincerely believe in the two-state solution. The issue is that Zionism at its core is an anti-liberal blood and soil ideology that is the product of the same cultural currents in Europe that produced fascism and Nazism.

        Can you think of any messianic ethnic nationalist movement in history that was “liberal”? Rational and universalist?

        One can’t appreciate just how anti-liberal Zionism is until one reads the words of the minds and personalities who created Zionism — Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Abraham Kook, etc.

        Some folks who come to mind when I hear the phrase “liberal Zionist”:

        1. Aaron David Miller
        2. Abraham Foxman
        3. Al Franken
        4. Alan Grayson
        5. Ann Lewis
        6. Anthony Weiner
        7. Barney Frank
        8. Bill Maher
        9. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
        10. Dennis Ross
        11. Eliot Spitzer
        12. Harry Reid
        13. Haim Saban
        14. Hillary Clinton
        15. Jane Harman
        16. John Kerry
        17. Madeleine Albright
        18. Martin Indyk
        19. Nancy Pelosi
        20. Shimon Peres
        21. Steny Hoyer

        They strike me as being increasingly strange, the more they insist on trying to reconcile militant Jewish ethnic nationalism (Likudism, the dominant ideology in Israeli political culture and the official face of contemporary Zionism) with modern Western democratic values and Enlightenment liberalism.

        This game is nearing its end.

        • Sibiriak
          December 2, 2012, 8:47 pm

          seanmcbride,

          The issue is not that a few Zionists perhaps sincerely believe in the two-state solution.

          I wasn’t raising an “issue”, but just asking what label could be used for those genuine 2-SS Zionists.

          But never mind, not important.

        • seanmcbride
          December 3, 2012, 11:40 am

          Sibiriak,

          I would label sincere two-state Zionists as naive and delusional. I was once one myself. In fact, some part of me still clings to the dream of a fair two-state solution.

          But we now know for a certainty that the two-state solution as promoted by most “liberal Zionists” (like Dennis Ross) was a gambit, a stratagem, a stalling tactic all along. Most “liberal Zionists” are really Likud Zionists, or, more simply, Zionists, who are firmly committed to the messianic program of building a Greater Israel in which most non-Jews (especially Palestinians) will be removed or eliminated.

        • seanmcbride
          December 3, 2012, 11:46 am

          Sibiriak,

          Let me be clear: as a matter of political strategy, I think critics of Israel should bear down especially hard on “liberal Zionists” in the Democratic Party — even much more so than on Likud Zionists in the Republican Party.

          “Liberal Zionists” have succeeded in providing a fig leaf of respectability for Israel that it doesn’t deserve. Rip off the fig leaf — peel away the “liberal Zionists” by ridiculing their hypocrisy — and perhaps some progress will begin to be made in solving an Israeli/Palestinian conflict which has consumed much too much American attention, energy, resources and wealth for more than six decades now.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2012, 11:57 am

        “what is right term for Zionists who really do want to see a two-state solution based on 1967 borders etc. and don’t want a “Greater Israel”–Uri Avnery, for example, and many U.S. Jews?”

        “Idiots” will do. Or, if you don’t want to be harsh “useless dreamer” will do. But if you get really mad, just give it to ‘em right in the kishkas and say “You liberal Zionist”…. I can’t think of a more hurtful appelation.

      • Antidote
        December 5, 2012, 11:00 am

        “Uri Avnery, for example, and many U.S. Jews?”

        Uri Avnery is the perfect example of the point Keith made (“Liberal interventionists and neoconservatives are essentially two sides of the same coin. They appeal to different constituencies, hence, rely upon different pretexts for the same imperial aggression.”)

        link to zope.gush-shalom.org

        Interventions Past: Getting the Record Straight
        April 5, 2011 by Tom Gallagher

        The jumbled accounting of the 1999 events in Kosovo that respected Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery musters in support of the current Libya bombing campaign illustrates just how far the fog of war may extend. In reviewing the recent history of what he considers humanitarian interventions, including NATO’s in Kosovo, Avnery writes:
        Slobodan Milosevic was committing an act of genocide – driving out a whole people, committing barbarities along the way.
        Leaving aside the question of the appropriateness of the word “genocide,” Avnery describes things accurately enough. In his book, Kosovo: War and Revenge, journalist Tim Judah wrote:
        In the end almost 850,000 were either deported or fled Kosovo and hundreds of thousands were displaced inside.
        The problem is that Judah here describes events that actually happened after the start of the NATO bombing campaign that Avnery thinks was aimed at stopping them.

        link to demockracy.com

        What does the extreme Left say?

        link to bolshevik.org

  3. Ramzi Jaber
    December 1, 2012, 12:11 pm

    We’ll start to reverse this at the ICC. criminal colonialist settler thieves will be afraid to travel outside.

  4. Les
    December 1, 2012, 12:13 pm

    The aptly titled “piece process” is the Sudetenland solution the US has been pressing the Palestininians to accept.

  5. American
    December 1, 2012, 12:30 pm

    There has never been any peace process as we all know. I have been trying to figure out how Palestine could actually get it’s land back in this comment…link to mondoweiss.net

    I am beginning to think like Taxi that some kind of war between Palestine and whichever ME states are willing to join them–or actually fight in their behalf– against Israel to reclaim their land, would be necessary even if Palestine were to take Israel to the ICC on the Rome Statute war crime of transferring their population onto occupied territory and Israel was found guilty. Which they would be of course because the ICC has already issued opinions that the settlements and the Wall are all illegal.

    But there is no enforcement entity for the ICC to use against the ‘State’ of Israel, as in sending any kind of military force to remove the settlers and re establish Palestine ownership and jurisdiction. What would basically come out of the ICC is a legal right for Palestine (and partners/allies) to use force to reclaim Palestine land.

    • Mooser
      December 1, 2012, 2:16 pm

      “I am beginning to think like Taxi that some kind of war between Palestine and whichever ME states are willing to join them–or actually fight in their behalf– against Israel to reclaim their land, would be necessary”

      Well then, the thing to do (and I am sure you are exceeding this) is start watching your weight, working out, get plenty of target practice, make sure your passport is in order and arrange to leave at a moment’s notice and join the anti-Israel army of your choice. Without any doubt, you will be mentioned favorably in dispatches from the front.

      • Taxi
        December 2, 2012, 12:18 am

        No need for American to join the liberation army, Mooser. There are enough trained and armed Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian freedom fighters to wipe the floor with the idf using guerrilla warfare etc.

        Listening to Nasrallah’s last speech a few days ago: “We are ready to send thousands of rockets and missiles, thousands and thousands to the land between Kiriat Shamona and Eliat.” He’s also several times alluded to the hizb’s readiness to liberate the whole of the Galilee – that clearly means putting boots on the ground. You just might also be surprised how many volunteers from other Arab and muslim countries would jump to liberate Jerusalem come the time.

        You may dismiss this man and his fighters all you like. But I don’t.

        Israel’s nukes are useless against it’s immediate neighbor, Lebanon and in occupied Palestine.

        War is the only language that israel seems to want to speak in. No problem: many people in the region can fluently speak the same language too.

        Yes of course ‘peace negotiations’ should always be taking place, but only a fool would believe that israeli policies, since its inception, is willing or capable of returning an inch back to the Palestinians.

        What’s gained by force, will be returned by force.

        Israel’s made it so that there’s no other way but war.

        • Mooser
          December 2, 2012, 12:04 pm

          “No need for American to join the liberation army, Mooser. There are enough trained and armed Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Palestinian freedom fighters to wipe the floor with the idf using guerrilla warfare etc.”

          That’s good to know. That’s the spirit! And I might add, will allow “American” to get off the treadmill.

        • Mooser
          December 3, 2012, 1:53 pm

          “No need for American to join the liberation army, Mooser.”

          No matter how useless, or even troublesome, they turn out to be, you don’t think it would have (“The Obama Brigade?”, no, since they’ll all have smart-phones, the “Link-up Brigade”) tremendous psychological and propaganda benefits for Americans to be fighting alongside Palestinians?

      • OlegR
        December 2, 2012, 7:15 am

        Oh come on Mooser don’t mock the guys
        maybe they aren’t a couple of impotent couch generals and actually
        have a pair to actually go join some anti Israeli army.
        (That would be the day)

        • Taxi
          December 2, 2012, 10:27 am

          And you think being in the idf means you gotta “pair”?

          Sure all them unarmed civilians you hack down give you a glorious “pair”, right? But when it comes to fighting the armed occupied like hamas and hizb, yeah right dude we really saw you showing some cahoooonaz there!

        • Mooser
          December 2, 2012, 12:07 pm

          “Oh come on Mooser don’t mock the guys
          maybe they aren’t a couple of impotent couch generals and actually
          have a pair to actually go join some anti Israeli army.”

          Yeah, in Israel, you don’t get that choice, they draft you. Do they ask God which Jews should get killed and which survive? Or is that your job, OlegR, being that your family always worked for CHEKA

        • OlegR
          December 3, 2012, 6:36 am

          / Or is that your job, OlegR, being that your family always worked for CHEKA/
          That’s funny i am used to hear this bit from Russian nationalistic
          antisemites but i guess no one is immune to it from time to time.

      • American
        December 2, 2012, 9:24 am

        Well Moose……if not military force…
        Exactly how do you envision Palestine getting their land back even if they go to the ICC?
        Thru that and/or the already issued ICC opinion that the settlements are illegal?
        Thru the UN already calling the settlements illegal in 259 resolutions against Israel?
        Thru the US calling them ‘not helpful”?
        Thru BDS?
        Thru another 40 years of ‘peace negotiations”?
        Thru Zionist becoming Born Again Jews and having a change of heart?
        I want to know HOW they get the land back if not by forcefully taking it back.
        I’m all ears, somebody tell me anything else that hasn’t been tried that will make Israel give up the settlements and move out their settlers.

        • ddi
          December 2, 2012, 10:48 am

          “Well Moose……if not military force…
          Exactly how do you envision Palestine getting their land back even if they go to the ICC?”

          And what use is bringing up an utterly unrealistic military option?

        • Mooser
          December 2, 2012, 12:10 pm

          “I want to know HOW they get the land back if not by forcefully taking it back.”

          Okay, AMerican, back on the treadmill, and don’t forget to drop and give my fifty push-ups, and you know, I assume, what Kipling says about the long-distance run and the unforgiving moment. Language study would be a good idea, too, if you intend to lead, not just follow.
          BTW, American, what size suit do you take? We may need to fit you for a vest.

        • Stephen Shenfield
          December 2, 2012, 12:18 pm

          Suppose the pro-Palestinian shift in world opinion continues and reaches a point where the foreign governments on which Israel relies are forced to stop supporting it (as has happened in the case of Turkey). No more aid from the US, no more submarines from Germany, etc etc. What happens then? One possibility is that Israel will start to make serious concessions. If Israel turns out to be too irrational to take that path, it might collapse from within. Or in an effort to avert that Israel may resort to war. As it will be greatly weakened by this time, Israel is likely to lose. But it might be possible to avoid war in this scenario.

        • Taxi
          December 3, 2012, 12:32 am

          ddi,

          “utterly unrealistic military option”.

          Wow. You really need to read up on the amount of firepower now available to EVERYBODY in isreal’s neighboring countries.

          You think the hizb’s victory over the idf in 2006 was an “utterly unrealistic military option”?

          You don’t think that by now, some six years later, with even drones in their arsenal, never mind their missile range – you don’t think that by now the ‘resistance’ can perform a realistic military option and succeed? You think israel is that powerful and it’s enemies are that stupid and cowardly?

          Like it or now, a war of justice is coming right around the corner. You’re welcome to wear earmuffs and blinders till then.

        • American
          December 3, 2012, 9:56 am

          Mooser says:
          December 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm
          “I want to know HOW they get the land back if not by forcefully taking it back.”

          Okay, AMerican, back on the treadmill, >>>>>>>>>

          Do you have a serious answer/opinion on HOW Palestine gets it’s land back or just jokes?

        • American
          December 3, 2012, 10:03 am

          “No more aid from the US, “……..Stephen

          That won’t happen without overthrowing Washington and Israel is irrational. If other countries seriously sanctioned Israel and hurt them economically the US would do like we did in the 80′s (when we gave them 10 billion in economic aid) and give them billions to make up for it. As long as Washington feeds the monster with US taxpayer money it will continue to be a monster.

        • Taxi
          December 3, 2012, 10:28 am

          ddi,

          It’s been an “utterly” realistic military option since israel’s military defeat to hizbollah in 2006. Didn’t you hear? Three thousand Lebanese resistance fighters out-fought and out-smarted thirty-five thousand idf-ers.

          Don’t underestimate the firepower or the current ‘mood’ of the people of the middle east.

        • Sibiriak
          December 3, 2012, 11:02 am

          Taxi, I’m not following you. What military forces are you saying can defeat the combined military forces of Israel and the U.S.?

        • Taxi
          December 4, 2012, 3:04 am

          Sib,

          All of israel’s neighbors have resistance groups that are increasingly gaining in popularity and fire-power. Israel has some sensitive sites, like the Daimona, Haifa’s chemical depots etc. And the most powerful weapon the resistance has: is the fear inside the israeli heart – thanks to decades of israeli governments’ politics of fear.

          All the resistance needs is to attack specific sites and cause a huge fretful exodus out of israel – mindful here that within Historic Palestine, there is an armed resistance there too to fight from within.

          The USA will think twice about getting directly involved in a mideast war, especially one started by israel, and one where China and Russia would stand to gravely lose influence if israel wins – that is, if it can win against an a-symmetrical enemy, which, judging by the idf’s performance against the hizb in 2006, seems highly doubtful.

          The Palestinians are not alone. And israel is increasingly isolated.

          The 21st century fight for Palestine is NOT the same as the 20th century fight for Palestine. It’s a whole new game in town. The old chessboard pieces, the old configurations, are all truly dead and buried.

          Even as I write this, new recruits are joining the regional resistance, new and more powerful arms are landing in their hands. These people are prepared to die fighting, every single one of them. How many israeli serving in the armed forces are prepared to die for israel? Defend, yes – but die? They are not refugees from the holocaust and “pioneers” of a new land, they are not their grandfathers. The are spoilt, entitled, dumbed down by their over-reliance on USA weapons.

          In a fight to death, my money’s on the guy who’s willing to die, not on the guy who just wants to live.

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 11:49 am

          “But it might be possible to avoid war in this scenario.”

          Stephen, do you have information that Israel has stopped maintaining its nuclear arsenal? If you do, please, let us know. It would relieve a lot of worry.

        • Antidote
          December 4, 2012, 5:22 pm

          Stephen -

          If Israel “collapses from within” and can no longer rely on US – EU – Nato support (diplomatic, economic, military) we’re talking 1SS and an Arab majority. That means the entire military arsenal of Israel, including nukes, will be controlled – by whom? Against whom?

          By or against Iran? Or: by or against “The Great Satan” and his disciples in Europe and elsewhere?

          Everyone who believes the US needs to be coaxed by some powerful anti-Arab Israel Lobby to maintain an interest in protecting the “Zionist entity” is in serious need of a reality check.

    • NickJOCW
      December 2, 2012, 4:40 am

      Perhaps the answer is the subtle use of threats to pursue these resolutions and conventions. They are a proud lot and may be more concerned to avoid the potential indignities of relentless public laundry sessions at the ICC and elsewhere than the moral ambiguities of military engagement.

    • ddi
      December 2, 2012, 6:21 am

      A state’s military will only perform as good as the rest of its institutions, as it is ME states are barely functioning let alone being capable of waging such a war.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2012, 12:13 pm

        Generally, I try not to advise people to do what I am not willing to do myself. Or even worse, am incapable of doing. Of course, I don’t know American, for all I know, he makes his living as a mercenary or soldier of fortune.

  6. HemiFaulk
    December 1, 2012, 12:58 pm

    Sounds about right, then again it smells wrong, that odoriferous, no-no that is wrong, that odorous content which wafts over the Middle East like Death <a href="link to youtube.com;
    itself, encompassing all who dare to venture into its fiery depths, literary and otherwise.

    Peace sounds like a good idea for all involved, especially those fisherman and farmers who continue to be shot at and\or arrested.

  7. Mndwss
    December 1, 2012, 1:10 pm

    Reading books (in Norwegian) about the Indians and the white man (and the big chief in Washington) when i was young, i remember the Indians always said something like: White man speaks with 2 tongues or a split tongue (like a snake). Or something like that.

    Always promising something and always breaking their promises.

    I guess that was the same type of ‘peace process’.

    • MHughes976
      December 1, 2012, 6:24 pm

      ‘Forked tongue’ is the conventional term, I think.

      • Antidote
        December 4, 2012, 5:27 pm

        MHughes –

        the conventional term is ‘perfidious Albion’, I think. ‘Forked tongue’ is a Native American trl of the same idea ;)

    • Taxi
      December 2, 2012, 12:23 am

      Mndwss,
      “White man speaks with forked tongue”.

      • Egbert
        December 2, 2012, 6:12 am

        I think the white man has been outclassed in that respect by the Zionists

  8. yourstruly
    December 1, 2012, 1:12 pm

    re: that so-called “peace process”

    how to make it real?

    & what lies ahead

    the way it’ll be

    palestine
    liberated & free
    with equality
    where one equals one
    the guiding light?
    those magical eighteen days in tahrir square
    its very essence?
    love

    one joyfully wonderful & blessed day after another

    • yourstruly
      December 1, 2012, 1:57 pm

      ditto re: egypt

      only easier
      its people almost got there on the first try
      this time for sure

      • yourstruly
        December 1, 2012, 2:10 pm

        in a nutshell?

        putting both present & future first

        & the past?

        never forgetting it

        but it doesn’t rule

        • yourstruly
          December 1, 2012, 6:46 pm

          based on?

          this here forward ever
          backward never
          turnabout
          changing the world?
          assuming the time is right
          now or never?
          that too

  9. Avi_G.
    December 1, 2012, 3:35 pm

    In 1991, Yitzhak Shamir, then Israel’s prime minister, was furious that the Bush administration pushed Israel to attend the Madrid peace summit.

    When Shamir returned to Israel, he told the right that Israel will negotiate and negotiate and negotiate while it continues to build colonies in the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At the time, the term, “Facts on the Ground” had already been coined.

    That same year, in a desperate effort to stop Israel from building on stolen Palestinian land, the Bush administration withheld housing loan guarantees.

    In Congress, Chuck Schumer led a relentless campaign denouncing the Bush administration’s actions claiming that they undermined Israel’s security. Within days, and under immense pressure in the media, the administration relented and reinstated the loans.

    • seafoid
      December 2, 2012, 4:59 am

      That strategy lasted 20 years but has now ended. As long as it seemed that Israel would allow a Palestinian state Europe stayed schtum.
      Everything has changed now.

  10. seafoid
    December 1, 2012, 4:22 pm

    Jewish settlers will bring down Israel. And I, frankly, won’t miss it.
    Israel could really have been a great country.
    But they chose another path.

    And I wish them well with the sanctions

    • unverified__38kfd0de
      December 1, 2012, 5:45 pm

      I agree with the fact that the settlements in the territories occupied in the 1967 war are a bridge too far for Israel. However the majority of the Jewish population of Israel doesn’t see it this way. They are convinced that the occupation can go on forever against the will of the Palestinians and the neighbours of Israel. As long as this majority cannot be convinced that the settlements threaten the existence of the state of Israel, nothing will change.

      • seafoid
        December 2, 2012, 5:00 am

        The 90% of Israeli Jews who supported operation defensive cloud are the ones who think the status quo is sustainable. They also like their standard of living.

        It looks like a sweet spot

    • jewishgoyim
      December 1, 2012, 9:31 pm

      I don’t think it will be brought down altogether and I don’t wish it but but let’s organize to boycott the whole damn country until they go back to the 1967 borders. Until then, let’s not forget that:
      “Palestine has the right to defend itself.”

      Also before any negotiation to stop the boycott, I suggest we impose on Israel that they recognize Palestine within the 1967 border. And Palestine “as a Muslim State” for good measure. And let’s never forget that:
      “Palestine has the right to exist.”

      Oh and let’s use US military might to topple any Arab countries too friendly to Israel during the boycott.

      Let’s get on with it, enough talk.

      • sardelapasti
        December 2, 2012, 1:30 pm

        “boycott the whole damn country until they go back to the 1967 borders. ”

        What 67 borders?
        The colonialist GA partition recommendation borders had been overrun and canceled by the Zionist entity in its 1948 aggression.
        There haven’t ever been any borders.
        There has never been an armistice or peace treaty with the invaded and expelled population, except if you want to consider the Oslo farce of a treaty with the Israelians’ own Native Police the PLO.
        Invaded and aggressed people have the right to defend themselves. Meaning, no one has the right to suddenly impose some “67 borders” which they never had an opportunity to accept.

      • unverified__38kfd0de
        December 2, 2012, 6:16 pm

        “let’s organize to boycott the whole damn country until they go back to the 1967 borders. ”

        “Let’s get on with it, enough talk.”

        Sounds good, but this has been tried before. And so far ALL ATTEMPTS HAVE FAILED! Do you have any game changing ideas?

    • Mooser
      December 2, 2012, 12:25 pm

      “Israel could really have been a great country.”

      Why, cause Jews are smarter and better than anybody else? How can a country with no diversity, and a crypto-facist-theocracy ever be a “great country”?

      Wow, you must hate America, with all those Afro-Americans and Mexicans and Asians and all the other riff-raff. Yup, a nice, well regulated monoculture is what would have made America great! I see no reason to concede anything to Zionists, just as I would not let another person stab me in the gut because we were both Jewish, and he felt like doing it.

      Seafoid, what is happening to you? You seem to be so upset by Israel’s latest actions you are retreating into fantasy. Why are you insisting, here and in other comments, that Israel “could have” been “great”? Okay, even if that is true (and it’s not) what possible difference does it make?
      Zionism was a fraud from the beginning a criminal fraud, which we got taken in by. What do you have invested in Zionism that you must, even now insist that it could have been great?

      No, Israel could never have been anything but what it is…. Wait, gosh darn it, I’m wrong again! I forgot that Yonah Fredman can go back and “fine tune the past” for better results in the present.

      • seafoid
        December 3, 2012, 4:29 am

        Israel could have been a bridge between the West and the East. It could have been like Singapore.

        Only if Buber strangled Jabotinsky though.

        • Mooser
          December 3, 2012, 1:59 pm

          ” Israel could have been a bridge between the West and the East. It could have been like Singapore.”

          What was the title of that old John/Yoko Lennon album?

          Well, I suppose you could call Singapore a bridge for something.

        • sardelapasti
          December 3, 2012, 7:43 pm

          “Israel could have been a bridge between the West and the East. ”

          If you can believe that racist bs for a split second, I got a lot of other bridges to sell you.

  11. Taxi
    December 2, 2012, 12:25 am

    I disagree, seafoid,

    Right from the getgo, israel was NEVER gonna be a “great country”.

    • NickJOCW
      December 2, 2012, 6:28 am

      Taxi, Israel was born on a wave of Western optimism and hope. Many believed these oppressed people, starting from scratch, would demonstrate how Man could live in an ideal state whose example would restore the principles of freedom and humanity to the bruised and disillusioned post-war world. Silly them.

      • Roya
        December 2, 2012, 7:09 pm

        Many believed these oppressed people, starting from scratch, would demonstrate how Man could live in an ideal state whose example would restore the principles of freedom and humanity to the bruised and disillusioned post-war world

        Excuse me? Zionism was founded in the late 1800′s, well before humanity got “bruised” and “disillusioned” from any world wars. This remnant of hasbara doesn’t cut it here.

        Zionism always was, and still is, a colonial project. Nothing more.

    • Mooser
      December 2, 2012, 12:28 pm

      “Right from the getgo, israel was NEVER gonna be a “great country”.

      Look at Seafoid’s comment archive. He seems to have grasped this slender “could’a been a contenda’” reed lately, as a compensatory device to keep from facing the truth. I wonder why? It’s a mystery to me, cause I never had anything invested in Zionism, I, like many Jews, despised it from the beginning.

      • seafoid
        December 3, 2012, 6:12 am

        Mooser

        I think it’s doomed. But it wasn’t maktoob, written in stone, that it had to end like this. They always took the wrong option. But they had other options they ignored. They brought a lot of interesting ideas to the region. I still think Israel was a mistake and that 1948 was also a nakba for Judaism but it didn’t have to end with a Lieberman.

        • Mooser
          December 3, 2012, 2:08 pm

          “They brought a lot of interesting ideas to the region.”

          ROTFL! Now, don’t mind me. Get in touch with Yonah Fredman, and you guys can “fine tune the past” so it all comes out right. Just don’t step on any bugs while you’re back there, it’ll play hell with evolution.

        • seafoid
          December 3, 2012, 3:49 pm

          Mooser

          Ask the Palestinians. I know a few ghazzawis who are impressed by phenomena such as pensions and social security.

          But ultimately Bibi says more about them than their social setup.

        • seafoid
          December 3, 2012, 4:37 pm

          Mooser

          Look at what Jews could do in the past

          “The Yiddish word schmaltz comes from German for “rendered animal fat.” Schmaltz was made by Jews in Eastern Europe from either goose or chicken and was a substitute for butter and lard in cooking and frying, allowing the Jews to keep the kashrut laws. To produce the schmaltz they would slowly cook little pieces of the goose or chicken skin at low temperature, sometimes with an onion to add flavor, until the fat is released. The melted fat was then strained through a fine sieve and was kept for months. The crispy skin pieces and onion bits that were left at the end of the process were a delicacy on their own, known as gribenes.”

          That incorporates dignity and innovation.

          Would you like a latke?

        • yonah fredman
          December 3, 2012, 4:49 pm

          Mooser- Pinsker was a great man and a clear thinker. The Jews needed an army, which required a territory, which required a national effort. If we agree so far, then we can talk about the next step after Pinsker.

        • Hostage
          December 4, 2012, 3:21 am

          Pinsker was a great man and a clear thinker.

          He wrote a lot of racist propaganda which claims that anti-semitism is an incurable hereditary disease. He needed an army to keep sane people from getting hold of him and locking his paranoid *ss away in a padded cell.

        • RoHa
          December 4, 2012, 5:06 am

          “The Jews needed an army … ”

          What did “the Jews” need an army for? Australian Jews have the Australian Army, US Jews have the US Army, British Jews have the British Army, etc. Are their national armies not enough for them?

        • OlegR
          December 4, 2012, 6:49 am

          And german jews had the german army,oh wait…

        • eljay
          December 4, 2012, 8:06 am

          >> The Jews needed an army, which required a territory, which required a national effort.

          “The Jews” wanted a territory, which required a national effort, which meant they needed an army. Without one, it would have been considerably more difficult to successful undertake large-scale ethnic cleansing, and to establish and maintain an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

          Now that “the Jews” have got theirs, it’s the Palestinians’ turn to need an army, only in their case it’s to bolster their national effort to regain the territory stolen and colonized by “the Jews”.

          >> And german jews had the german army,oh wait…

          Yes, German Jews had the German army. And the German Jews were horribly betrayed by their army. I guess it’s a shame that German soldiers, the German army and the German state were never held accountable for any of the crimes that were committed. Oh, wait…

        • Sumud
          December 4, 2012, 8:45 am

          OlegR – you make an excellent argument for Palestinians having an army, since [Palestinians have the IDF], oh wait…

        • Woody Tanaka
          December 4, 2012, 9:08 am

          “And german jews had the german army,oh wait…”

          So the unfortunate suffering of European Jews somehow justifies the rape of Palestine, the theft of the land from its rightful owners, ethnic cleansing and the generations-long Nakba??

          Would not the proper course of action have been to correct the situation in Germany rather than turning the israelis into the victimizers?

          Or is it only Jews who you care about?

        • eGuard
          December 4, 2012, 9:42 am

          OlegR: And german jews had the german army. Indeed, during Pinskers time. I dunno exactly what German Jews were into in the First World War though.

        • justicewillprevail
          December 4, 2012, 10:00 am

          And Palestinians had the IDF, oh wait…

        • Eva Smagacz
          December 4, 2012, 10:12 am

          Who are ghazzawis?

        • American
          December 4, 2012, 10:49 am

          “The Jews needed an army, which required a territory, which required a national effort.”

          Well you better get a bigger army…………93.2% of all the nations within the United Nations just voted they don’t like you.

        • Taxi
          December 4, 2012, 12:59 pm

          Eva,
          I think it’s a version of Gazaeans, Gazans/Ghazza = Gaza etc.

        • MHughes976
          December 4, 2012, 7:29 pm

          I think that Lissauer, the poet who wrote the Hymn of Hate Against England and was decorated for it by the Kaiser, was Jewish – and also a very patriotic German. Hitler’s commanding officer was Jewish also.
          These days I’m sure that the Jewish citizens of Germany expect the German armed forces to do their best to defend them, like all other German citizens, against invaders and marauders and that the German armed forces fully intend to keep faith with them should need arise.

        • yonah fredman
          December 4, 2012, 9:25 pm

          Hostage- If you indeed are thinking of Pinsker, please include links that demonstrate such comments by him.

        • yonah fredman
          December 4, 2012, 9:27 pm

          Roha- Pinsker lived in Czarist Russia. To compare the US and Britain and Australia with Czarist Russia circa 1881 is very faulty reasoning. Fraudulent reasoning in fact.

        • seafoid
          December 5, 2012, 3:47 am

          People who live in Gaza. Ghazza is the arabic for Gaza and Ghazzawis are the people.

          Like Iraq-Iraqi
          Or Saud- Saudi

        • Hostage
          December 5, 2012, 4:30 am

          Hostage- If you indeed are thinking of Pinsker, please include links that demonstrate such comments by him.

          LOL! I already have. One of his polemical propaganda quotes tops my list of the most stupid remarks ever posted to Mondoweiss:
          link to mondoweiss.net

          *Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind, … Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable. … Judaism and Anti-Semitism passed for centuries through history as inseparable companions. Like the Jewish people, the real wandering Jew, Anti-Semitism, too, seems as if it would never die. He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred. No matter how much the nations are at variance in their relations with one another, however diverse their instincts and aims, they join hands in their hatred of the Jews; on this one matter all are agreed. The extent and the manner in which this antipathy is shown depends of course upon the cultural status of each people. The antipathy as such, however, exists in all places and at all times, whether it appears in the form of deeds of violence, as envious jealousy, or under the guise of tolerance and protection. To be robbed as a Jew or to be protected as a Jew is equally humiliating, equally destructive to the self-respect of the Jews.

          Having analyzed Judeophobia as an hereditary form of demonopathy, peculiar to the human race, and having represented Anti-Semitism as proceeding from an inherited aberration of the human mind, we must draw the important conclusion that we must give’ up contending against these hostile impulses as we must against every other inherited predisposition. This view is especially important because it should persuade us that polemics are useless and that we should abstain from it as a waste of time and energy, for against superstition even the gods contend in vain. Prejudice or instinctive ill-will is not moved by rational argument, however forceful and clear. These sinister powers must either be kept within bounds by force like every other blind natural force or simply evaded.
          – Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation
          link to mideastweb.org

          I’d venture to say that many people would claim that Zionism is nothing but a sinister power that must either be kept within bounds by force like every other blind natural force or simply evaded.

        • Hostage
          December 5, 2012, 4:43 am

          P.S. That should have read: I’d venture to say that many people would claim that Zionism is nothing but a sinister power that must either be kept within bounds by force like every other blind natural force or simply evaded.

          The only reason the Jews needed an army is because there are too many *ssholes like Pinsker who have declared war on the rest of the human race.

        • MRW
          December 5, 2012, 6:49 am

          The only reason the Jews needed an army is because there are too many *ssholes like Pinsker who have declared war on the rest of the human race.

          Great answer.

        • MRW
          December 5, 2012, 7:00 am

          And ethical.

        • yonah fredman
          December 5, 2012, 4:40 pm

          Hostage- Pinsker’s rhetoric gets carried away, I admit. And to take him literally as you are doing, is to point out his weakness. But the fact is 60 years after Pinsker wrote this, a demonic force was leashed upon the Jews who lived on the very spot where Pinsker wrote those words. I believe that viewing the Khurban through the demonic lens does not help us at this point in history. But for Pinsker from his point in history, to view the evil of Jew hatred as a demonic force was clear viewing- clairvoyant.

        • Hostage
          December 5, 2012, 7:31 pm

          But the fact is 60 years after Pinsker wrote this, a demonic force was leashed upon the Jews who lived on the very spot where Pinsker wrote those words.

          All that suggests is that Pinsker and the leaders of similar European blood and soil national political movements unwisely advocated and used force against their fellow citizens. That’s hardly a universal rule that applies to the entire human race – and 40 million people with armies perished anyway.

          But for Pinsker from his point in history, to view the evil of Jew hatred as a demonic force was clear viewing- clairvoyant.

          Pinsker’s claim that Jews had never been granted equal rights wasn’t even true when he wrote Auto-Emancipation. Even back then, Russian Jews enjoyed equal rights in Canada, the United States, and much of Latin America. The Jews of the American states have enjoyed a much more secure and peaceful existence than Pinsker’s disciples in Palestine.

        • RoHa
          December 5, 2012, 7:47 pm

          “Pinsker lived in Czarist Russia. To compare the US and Britain and Australia with Czarist Russia circa 1881 is very faulty reasoning.’

          So he didn’t know much about the rest of the world, and assumed that his prescriptions, based on his local circumstances, would apply for all Jews everywhere? Very faulty reasoning. Fraudulent reasoning in fact.

        • yonah fredman
          December 5, 2012, 8:55 pm

          Hostage- I do not think that Pinsker is much help when discussing how America’s Jews in 1881 or today should react to Judeophobia. I think he is very helpful in understanding the situation in which European Jews found themselves in 1881 through 1945 (Stalin’s persecution of Jews, actually means that I should say 1881 through 1953 and in fact, Jews who suffered under the Soviet Union’s attitude towards Jews and Judaism would extend that date to 1985 or so, the year when Gorbachev took the reins of power).

          I think idealizing a post nationalist feeling as predominates among the liberal classes in Europe and America today is fine, unless it blinds us to the fact that nationalist feelings have not disappeared. Nor is it ultimately useful in trying to assess history.

          You wish that all people would have adopted a post nationalist feeling in 1881, but in fact it was not so and Pinsker was reacting to the facts as he felt them, saw them, smelled them and knew them and he said, in essence, don’t expect to overcome these before the catastrophe comes. He termed them as demonic and hereditary and in fact I do not believe that they are immutable, but they are certainly not as amenable to change as we would wish.

        • yonah fredman
          December 5, 2012, 9:00 pm

          RoHa- Read autoemancipation, if you are interested in discussing Pinsker’s views intelligently. I believe he wrote in sweeping terms, that in fact were not relevant to the entire globe, but in 1881, what percentage of Jews in fact lived in the area that was relevant to his terms: 70%? And what percentage of Jews lived in Australia, the US and Britain in 1881- 10%? So his remarks were spot on for the vast majority of Jews and your comments were misleading.

        • RoHa
          December 5, 2012, 10:51 pm

          So Pinsker, this wonderfully clear and correct thinker, says that, except for him and a few of his mates, everyone in the world is crazy with a form of craziness that makes them hate Pinsker and a few of his mates.

          Gee!

          When I tell people the world is out to get me, they don’t say, “You need a territory and an army of your own”.

          They say, “Take your pills.”

        • Annie Robbins
          December 5, 2012, 11:23 pm

          . He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred. No matter how much the nations are at variance in their relations with one another, however diverse their instincts and aims, they join hands in their hatred of the Jews;

          omg, what a paranoid fruitcake.

        • Annie Robbins
          December 5, 2012, 11:28 pm

          So his remarks were spot on for the vast majority of Jews

          but he wasn’t speaking of jews, he was speaking of the rest of humanity. the surety/blanket statements are absurd.

        • Hostage
          December 6, 2012, 1:26 am

          what percentage of Jews in fact lived in the area that was relevant to his terms: 70%? And what percentage of Jews lived in Australia, the US and Britain in 1881- 10%? So his remarks were spot on for the vast majority of Jews and your comments were misleading.

          Eastern European Jews ignored Pinsker’s advice and flocked to the Americas by the millions. A few thousand went to Palestine, but many of them quickly departed for more favorable destinations in the western world as well. Even during the mandate era, the Jewish Agency usually had unused immigration quotas.

          So his remarks were spot on for the vast majority of Jews and your comments were misleading

          Only if they were also paranoid delusional racists. The fact is that the entire world has never been part of a grand conspiracy that hated the Jews and planned to oppress us.

        • Hostage
          December 6, 2012, 3:41 am

          I think that Zionist have flogged the Russian pograms of the 1880s for all they’re worth. The Israelis stole an entire country. In the process they’ve killed an order of magnitude more Arabs and destroyed or expropriated a lot more Arab private and state property than the Czarists Pinsker complained about.

          Like Hitler, Joseph Stalin is credited with killing tens of millions of non-Jewish “enemies of the state”. 600,000 Jews emigrated to the US during the 70s and 80s. Many of the Russian Jews that emigrated during the Gorbachev era opted to settle in Canada and Europe – including Germany – rather than Israel. About a 100,000 left Israel and returned to the Soviet Union. link to nysun.com

          So Pinsker’s message is still considered pretty irrelevant by the same Jewish communities that you’re discussing.

        • MRW
          December 6, 2012, 8:34 am

          @yonah fredman,

          Jews who suffered under the Soviet Union’s attitude towards Jews and Judaism would extend that date to 1985

          No they wouldn’t. How would I know? I asked them. I was there 15 years before then. The communists did not permit practice of any religion. Period. No Russian Orthodox. No Zoroasterianism. No Catholicism. No Islam. Zilch. Even though they did it quietly in each others houses, no public display of religion was permitted.

          Any Jews who were jailed were jailed for political not religious reasons. My aunt was responsible for Amnesty International’s Soviet Jewry program worldwide in the 70s and 80s, Gal Ackerman’s attempt to create his own false narrative notwithstanding. My aunt brought out Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky on her own by trading a geopolitical bargaining chip that she had the power politically to pull off internationally. Sharansky owes his freedom to her. He was her specific charge. You will never know her name. In addition, she ran one huge UN organization by herself, and she was second in command of another.

        • eljay
          December 6, 2012, 8:44 am

          From Auto-Emancipation:
          >> Judeophobia is a psychic aberration. As a psychic aberration it is hereditary, and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years it is incurable.

          Judeophobia: An hereditary psychic aberration and an incurable disease. Huh.

          >> If the experts find in favor of Palestine or Syria …

          Palestine. In 1882. Huh.

        • American
          December 6, 2012, 10:34 am

          yonah,

          I want you to consider something regarding anti semitism.

          “”The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come ‘true’. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.””

          In other words, a positive or negative prophecy, strongly held belief, or delusion – declared as truth when it is actually false – may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.
          The term “self-fulfilling prophecy” (SFP) was coined in 1948 by Robert Merton to describe “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true” (Merton 1968: 477).

          Merton concluded that the only way to break the cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy is by redefining the propositions on which its false assumptions are originally based

          *The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology, ed. Peter Bearman and Peter Hedström, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 294-314

        • yonah fredman
          December 6, 2012, 5:50 pm

          Hostage- I assume that if you found yourself in Pinsker’s position you would propose postnationalism as the cure to the evils that threatened the group that was the center of Pinsker’s concern. Fair enough. In 1881 not all people were honed in on the postnationalist idea and in fact the postnationalist idea gained a foothold only after WWII. (Read Judt on Postwar and you will realize that it didn’t happen immediately after WWII and read the newspapers and realize that its foothold must be nurtured if its foothold is to carry on into the future.)

          I think Pinsker’s thrust was a desire to help the survival of his people. I think that thrust was spot on. I do not endorse the inevitability of Judeophobia. But to some people 70 years might look like forever and so from Pinsker’s point of view, what he saw clearly was that the progressive countries and the progressive spirit would not save his people. And it did not. To point out that the Zionists did not save as many people as the emigration to America saved is valid, but does not disqualify Pinsker’s words from serious consideration.

          Nationalism in certain forms is toxic. Pinsker’s nationalism came from a good place- a desire to help his group survive.

        • yonah fredman
          December 6, 2012, 5:53 pm

          American- The idea that the Jewish perception of Judeophobia caused Hitler’s slaughter of them is offensive to the nth degree. Maybe you weren’t referring to 1881 or to 1939 but to 2012. In which case I agree that one should not be locked in to preconceptions.

        • yonah fredman
          December 6, 2012, 5:56 pm

          annie robbins- If you were a Jew in 1881 Russia, with all you know today. What would you write in your pamphlet?

        • RoHa
          December 6, 2012, 7:01 pm

          “The fact is that the entire world has never been part of a grand conspiracy that hated the Jews and planned to oppress us.”

          We don’t need a grand conspiracy for that, Hostage. We are genetically preprogrammed to hate and oppress you.

        • RoHa
          December 6, 2012, 7:03 pm

          “No they wouldn’t. How would I know? I asked them….”

          Way to spoil a good whine, MRW.

        • Donald
          December 6, 2012, 7:30 pm

          “If you were a Jew in 1881 Russia,”

          I don’t know anything about Pinsker except what I’ve read here, but it couldn’t have been easy being a Jew in Russia in 1881. That would be like being a black person living in Mississippi around the same time. Some blacks, such as those in the Nation of Islam, have reacted to the long history of white persecution by fantasizing that all whites are demonic or inherently cruel or whatever. That’s a racist theory, but understandable given the circumstances. However, it would be a bad idea to support a nation building effort led by people with that sort of viewpoint. It probably wouldn’t turn out well.

        • Hostage
          December 6, 2012, 7:48 pm

          Hostage- I assume that if you found yourself in Pinsker’s position you would propose postnationalism as the cure to the evils that threatened the group that was the center of Pinsker’s concern.

          Yonah, I assume that Jews killed many more of their own brethren between 1821 and 1881 than the fewer than two dozen deaths some sources attribute to the Russian pogroms during that same period. The latter certainly amounted to crimes against humanity and resulted in widespread and systematic destruction of Jewish property too.

          A quick review of the homicide rate in Israel indicates that Jews still bear the responsibility for far more murders of their fellow Jews than the few deaths of Jews attributable to the Palestinians.

          I also assume that David Ben-Gurion’s behavior, robbing wealthy Polish Jews at gunpoint, was typical of the behavior of organized gangs of local “self-defense” organizations that were established in response to Pinsker’s propaganda pamphlets. Those were published in the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian Empires. Pinsker wasn’t necessarily advocating either co-existence or emigration to other lands. He was simply looking for a place that could easily be conquered and put to use by the Jews:

          The national consciousness which until then had lain dormant in sterile martyrdom awoke the masses of the Russian and Roumanian Jews and took form in an irresistible movement toward Palestine. Mistaken as this movement has proved to be by its results, it was, nevertheless, a right instinct to strike out for home. The severe trials which they have endured have now provoked a reaction quite different from the fatalistic submission to a divine condign punishment.

          If we would have a secure home, give up our endless life of wandering and rise to the dignity of a nation in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world, we must, above all, not dream of restoring ancient Judaea. We must not attach ourselves to the place where our political life was once violently interrupted and destroyed. The goal of our present endeavors must be not the “Holy Land,” but a land of our own. We need nothing but a large tract of land for our poor brothers, which shall remain our property and from which no foreign power can expel us. There we shall take with us the most sacred possessions which we have saved from the ship-wreck of our former country, the God-idea and the Bible . It is these alone which have made our old fatherland the Holy Land, and not Jerusalem or the Jordan. Perhaps the Holy Land will again become ours. If so, all the better, but first of all , we must determine — and this is the crucial point — what country is accessible to us, and at the same time adapted to offer the Jews of all lands who must leave their homes a secure and indisputed refuge, capable of productivization.

          So what exactly do you think all of those hot headed 19th Century European ethnic nationalists were going to think when the Jews started talking about the impossibility of assimilating Gentiles into their own societies and arming themselves with the view of establishing their own national home in any country that was readily accessible to them?

        • American
          December 6, 2012, 8:04 pm

          yonah fredman says:
          December 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm

          American- The idea that the Jewish perception of Judeophobia caused Hitler’s slaughter of them is offensive to the nth degree.>>>>>>

          Ask yourself why you would leap to the conclusion that I was implying that…….which I wasn’t….believing someone doesn’t like you is not inviting them to kill you…duh…can’t believe I have to state that.

          I am looking at the self fulfilling prophecy phenomenon as a possible explanation for why anti semtism or the idea of it has ‘persisted’ thru out centuries.

          Where Merton says this …..”may sufficiently influence people so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.”….it applies to both Jews and their antagonist.
          Iow, at some point Jews saw themselves as victims…..when they were on the losing side of some conflict or when victims singled out and persecuted in other instances. The persecuted reputation was established—then the ‘others’ looked at Jews as persecuted by some for some reason—except—-some of the others then think, well if these people keep getting persecuted no one must like them and there must be something suspicious about them. Then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy on both sides…….. victim- hostility ‘meets’ suspicion of these constant victims-hostility and that becomes how they act. Their victimhood becomes like a ‘truism’ for Jews, the “truism” for the other becomes what’s wrong with them that they keep getting hated.
          You may want to believe anti semitism is some unexplainable eternal thing, like actual anti semites want to believe Jews are evil and always were and will be, but I think there had/has to be some ‘dynamic’ that took hold long ago like a self fulfilling prophecy created by Jews and a twin one created by Others and they had to be acting in tandem for this to have existed for this long.

        • yonah fredman
          December 6, 2012, 9:36 pm

          Hostage- The opinion being expressed here that occasioned my citing of Pinsker was that Zionism never had any basis in historical “good”. Because Pinsker is well known as one who advocated territory other than Palestine, I thought that he would be a good starting point as someone whose instincts were in fact good.
          I thought that given our point of view regarding European Jew hatred and how it ultimately turned out, that we might be able to reach a common conclusion that the desire for an army or a territory for the Jews was a natural urge and since it was an urge towards life it was a good urge.

          You have focused upon the impractical aspect of the urge towards territory. Even though your objections are based upon European ethnic nationalists and are therefore irrelevant to Pinsker’s practical plans of America or Asia, this is besides the point. The point I was trying to make was that Pinsker’s urge was an urge towards survival and pride.

          If we can’t even agree that Pinsker’s urge was good and you insist on calling him a “blood and soil” nationalist, which he obviously was not (blood, maybe, but soil, definitely not, since he had no distinct soil in mind, only soil as a means towards an end). Then we really don’t have anything to discuss.

        • yonah fredman
          December 6, 2012, 9:53 pm

          RoHa- Yes, MRW is a well known expert on Soviet Jewry. Or maybe he is, if he would tell us his real name. Meanwhile Gal Beckerman has told us his real name. So who should we take more seriously Gal Beckerman or the anonymous MRW and his anonymous aunt?

        • Annie Robbins
          December 6, 2012, 10:12 pm

          we might be able to reach a common conclusion that the desire for an army or a territory for the Jews was a natural urge and since it was an urge towards life it was a good urge

          notice how this statement assumes an urge for an army is a natural urge and therefor an urge towards life?
          notice how this statement assumes an urge for territory is an urge towards life?

        • eljay
          December 6, 2012, 10:39 pm

          >> notice how this statement assumes an urge for an army is a natural urge and therefor an urge towards life?
          >> notice how this statement assumes an urge for territory is an urge towards life?

          Notice how both women and homosexuals have been persecuted – and, yes, even killed! – for centuries and yet neither group has expressed any interest in an armies or territories?

          What’s wrong with women and homosexuals – don’t they want to live?!

        • RoHa
          December 6, 2012, 11:09 pm

          You are right, Annie.

          To start with, there is the question of which urges are natural and which are not. I’m pretty sure that my urge to drink beer, my urge to correct other people’s grammar, and my urge to [ahem] “associate” with attractive young women are all natural urges. I’m not so sure about some of my other urges, though.

          And of course, not all natural urges are good.

          But that’s not all. Aside from the assumptions, there is the amphiboly. When he refers to “life” he means not just (a) life as we know it, Jim, but also (b) the continued existence of Jews as a separate group. Teasing out these two components opens up serious cracks.

          (a) The Jews could have ensured their lives simply by stopping being Jews and assimilating with the people around them. (And the urge to assimilate with the society one lives in seems to be at least as natural, and as good, an urge as any other.)

          (b) Assuming (and I think it is a pretty dubious assumption) that there is a natural urge reject assimilation, and further assuming (even more dubiously) that such an urge is good, it still does not imply having a territory and an army. It may just as well lead to finding a way of maintaining the difference while still getting on with the neighbours.

          (I know that yonah will be highly offended by any hint that the behaviour of Jews could possibly contribute to anti-Semitism, but his feelings are not the touchstone of reality.)

          And, given what armies do, it seems a bit of a strain to think that an urge to an army can be an urge to life.

        • talknic
          December 6, 2012, 11:32 pm

          People often chose a pseudonym to protect their identity, it doesn’t change the substance of their views. Rationale/logic/factual information and truth stand regardless of who conveys them.

        • Sibiriak
          December 7, 2012, 12:10 am

          Annie Robbins:

          notice how this statement assumes an urge for an army is a natural urge and therefor an urge towards life?

          notice how this statement assumes an urge for territory is an urge towards life?

          No I don’t, actually.

          Yonah fredman wrote:

          given our point of view regarding European Jew hatred and how it ultimately turned out, that we might be able to reach a common conclusion that the desire for an army or a territory for the Jews was a natural urge and since it was an urge towards life it was a good urge.

          He was making a point about a specific group of people in a specific time and place.

          He wasn’t assuming that a desire for territory is *always* a urge towards life; he wasn’t asserting any general principles like that, as far as I can tell.

          notice how this statement assumes an urge for an army is a natural urge and therefor an urge towards life?

          Yonah fredman wrote that the desire for an army or territory for the Jews (specific situation) was a natural urge AND that it was an urge for life. I don’t see any “therefore” in his statement.

          He did say that an urge for life is necessarily a good urge. That’s a debatable point, possibly, but many people would agree with it.

          He also wrote that:

          Pinsker’s urge was an urge towards survival and pride.

          Personally, I totally reject Pinsker’s notion of an inherited, demonic antisemitism.

          Nevertheless, I think yonah fredman’s main point stands, for now at least–that Pinker’s desire for a defensible territory for Jews arose from a life-affirming urge toward survival, pride and productivity, and that it did not did not involve any urge to destroy life or harm others.

          Of course, the path to hell is often paved with good intentions.

        • Hostage
          December 7, 2012, 12:39 am

          I thought that given our point of view regarding European Jew hatred and how it ultimately turned out,

          “European” is an awfully broad generalization. After all, France had a Jewish Prime Minister before Israel did. UK Prime Minister Disraeli famously quipped that “Yes, I am a Jew. And when the ancestors of the right honorable gentlemen were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

          Pinsker was a blood and soil nationalist because he insisted that Jews have their own country all to themselves and he ruled out assimilation of Gentiles. In 1919 there were 3 million Eastern European Jewish immigrants who had obtained citizenship in the US, when the Zionist Organization claimed that the rights of citizenship were not good enough and that they needed the assistance of the Great Powers to settle several millions more than that in Palestine. Ussischkins claimed that he represented 3 million in southern Russia alone. The notion that European powers had the resources available after WWI to move multitudes of Jews to Asia or the Americas was a pipe dream. In the meantime, the Jews who were organizing and arming themselves were not served very well by spokesmen who published paranoid rants about universal Gentile hatred of Jews due to hereditary mental illness.

        • Sibiriak
          December 7, 2012, 12:53 am

          RoHa:

          When he refers to “life” he means not just (a) life as we know it, Jim, but also (b) the continued existence of Jews as a separate group.

          That’s a crucial point. When individuals think of their “life”, they don’t necessarily think only of their physical existence, but also of their personal *identities*.

          (a) The Jews could have ensured their lives simply by stopping being Jews and assimilating with the people around them.

          That’s true, assuming it was psychologically and sociologically possible for an ethnic/religious/cultural group like the Jews *in those circumstances* to abandon en masse their group identity.

          Baruch Kimmerling writes in “The Invention and Decline of Israeliness”:

          Herzl’s first thought was a collective and honorable conversion of world Jewry to Christianity. His second was to find a place in the world for an ingathering of Jews and establish an independent Jewish state. Inasmuch as he was a completely secular product of the late European colonial world, he envisaged this state in political, social, and economic terms. Among other places, he considered Argentina, with its abundance of free land, natural resources, and good climate.

          Later, he also considered the British protectorate of Uganda in East Africa, which was politically convenient. Initially, he thought Palestine inappropriate owing to its lack of resources and harsh climate.

          However, as Herzl grew closer to his fellow Jews, he discovered the sentimental and symbolic appeal of Jerusalem and Eretz Israel, which most Jews continued to regard as their fatherland.

          I don’t think it is helpful to talk about “natural urges” in this regard–the term “natural” is too fraught with definitional problems, even apart from the dubious equation of “natural” and “good”.

          Kimmerling:

          In 1896, Herzl published his manifesto Der Judenstaat (“The State of the Jews”-Herzl was fully aware of the implications of not calling it “The Jewish State”). In this, Herzl argued that assimilation was not a cure, but rather a disease of the Jews.

          The Jewish people needed to reestablish their own patrimony, with well-to-do western European Jews financing the proletarian Jews threatened by pogroms in eastern Europe. Herzl’s preferred regime, in this utopian pamphlet, was modeled on the enlightened and liberal Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and, if not at a monarchy, he aimed at least at an aristocratic republic.

          In the state of the Jews, everyone would be equal before the law, free in his faith or disbelief, and enjoy mild social security rights, regardless of his nationality. This pamphlet was followed in 19o2 by the utopian novel Altneuland (“Old-New Country”), in which several Arab characters enjoy full rights of citizenship, indicating that, contrary to the usual assertions, Herzl was well aware that the Holy Land was not “empty.”

          I don’t think it is possible to make any *general* value-judgments about assimilation. Should indigenous tribes in Brazil just give up their struggle for group self-determination? What about Tibetans? And so on.

          Hostage has powerfully argued for the validity of the concept of “cultural genocide”. That concept posits a clear value in cultural identities (some at least). Assimilation might then be viewed as a form of cultural suicide, which also might be viewed in a negative way, at least in some cases.

          RoHa :

          I know that yonah will be highly offended by any hint that the behaviour of Jews could possibly contribute to anti-Semitism, but his feelings are not the touchstone of reality.

          I agree. That’s a very sensitive topic, of course, as shown by the reaction to Shahak’s writings, for example.

        • gamal
          December 7, 2012, 2:58 am

          ” I know that yonah will be highly offended by any hint that the behaviour of Jews could possibly contribute to anti-Semitism, but his feelings are not the touchstone of reality.

          I agree. That’s a very sensitive topic, of course, as shown by the reaction to Shahak’s writings, for example.”

          It is of course well known that white racists never deride those undeserving of derision, what could Jews or anyone else do to generate racism? As far as i can see thats not how the world works nor is it what racism, which is a well developed ideology, is. Those who harboured prejudice against Jews were engaged in awesome global slaughters and policies of impoverishment directed at the generality of peoples, white and all other flavours of humanity, no one excepted, not even the masses of white people, Jews are nothing special in that regard, just look at Israel and her hoards of hungry Jewish children and distressed men and women, nationalist ideologies are garbage.

        • Woody Tanaka
          December 7, 2012, 10:36 am

          “UK Prime Minister Disraeli famously quipped that “Yes, I am a Jew. And when the ancestors of the right honorable gentlemen were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.” ”

          LMAO. Cute quip, as if the “priests in the temple of Solomon” were any more or less “brutal savages” as those in other lands. Disraeli’s bigotry may be understandable, but it’s still bigotry.

        • Hostage
          December 7, 2012, 7:21 pm

          LMAO. Cute quip, as if the “priests in the temple of Solomon” were any more or less “brutal savages” as those in other lands. Disraeli’s bigotry may be understandable, but it’s still bigotry.

          Certainly, and Solomon’s Temple was probably just a work of ancient popular fiction. But it does indicate that Great Britain had a Prime Minister who many viewed as Jewish, long before Israel ever had one.

        • yonah fredman
          December 8, 2012, 2:33 pm

          american-I agree that there are elements of self fulfilling prophecy in Judaism and its relationship to the nations. I think it is a tangled web of causes and effects. I will give a longer response later, if not on this thread, on some other thread.

        • yonah fredman
          December 8, 2012, 2:35 pm

          talknic- personal “factual” information, as in My aunt knew elie wiesel or my aunt sponsored natan sharansky, is a bunch of phoney baloney coming from anonymous sources. Widely established facts conveyed by anonymous sources are fine. Ideas that stand or fall on their own are fine from anonymous sources. But personal information from an anonymous source, tell me the journalism school that gives that any value.

        • Mooser
          December 8, 2012, 4:46 pm

          “The only reason the Jews needed an army is because there are too many *ssholes like Pinsker who have declared war on the rest of the human race.”

          There are assholes like that, everywhere. What’s tragic is that so many people are brutalised enough and ignorant enough to follow them.

        • Mooser
          December 8, 2012, 4:53 pm

          “Would you like a latke?”

          Yes, I would, very much, with applesauce and/or sour cream. And I use chicken fat in cooking and use that process and enjoy these pieces of crisped chicken skin and onions, and I must admit, did not know what they are called until now.
          You got something against cooking and eating? Become a breatharian.

        • yonah fredman
          December 8, 2012, 4:54 pm

          hostage- I think Pinsker’s insistence on Judeophobia as a hereditary mental disease is not one of the most appealing parts of auto emancipation. If we take the role of Jews of 1881 in Russian controlled Europe, they had a number of options. 1. Emigration to America or other safe spots. (Judeophobia was not so bad in America, Britain and South Africa at the time and those who emigrated there would survive the rise of demonic Hitlerian Judeophobia.) Those who escaped to France or Italy were not so fortunate, mostly due to Hitler’s military advances and also partially due to French Judeophobia and Mussolini’s wavering attitude towards Jews. But emigration was the best bet.
          2. Emigration to Palestine. This is considered horrible because of the suffering of the Palestinians, but in fact hundreds of thousands were saved by Zionism, had they instead chosen
          3. sitting in place.
          Sitting in place could include promotion of Soviet post nationalism, or Kerensky democratic ideals for the new Russia or they might have included no political ideas, other than day to day survival.

          I accept that choosing Palestine was detrimental to the Palestinians and thus the good done for the Jews resulted in deficit to the Palestinians. Pinsker was trying to avoid the permanent war situation in which Palestinian Zionism finds itself. And that’s why I introduced him rather than because I particularly like his demonic explanation for Jew hatred. I think the proposal of the need for a homeland was natural, given the Jew hatred that he felt. I think that just as Snyder in Bloodlands feels that describing the genocide of Jews in 41 to 45 cannot be fully understood without appreciating the genocide of Ukranians that occurred between 1930 and 1933, I think that isolating Czarist Russia’s aggressive attitude towards its Jews, should be viewed in the context of 1881 to 1945 and the results.

          On a point that RoHa was making regarding assimilation. Czarist Russia came into control of territories at the end of the 18th century. Before that, it had very few Jews in its domain. Russia knew how to “assimilate” the Poles. Just ask the Poles how they feel about Russian assimilation. Russia did not know how to assimilate the Jews without persecution. The Jews were there before Catherine the great came into control of the territory. Russia had no right to demand assimilation. It was a colonialist conquering power.

        • Mooser
          December 8, 2012, 4:59 pm

          “He must be blind indeed who will assert that the Jews are not the chosen people, the people chosen for universal hatred.”

          Gosh, hard to understand why everybody hasn’t converted to Judaism. Yes sir, a line like that ought to bring them stampeding into the Temples. Who doesn’t want to be hated?

        • Mooser
          December 8, 2012, 5:06 pm

          “I agree that there are elements of self fulfilling prophecy in Judaism and its relationship to the nations. I think it is a tangled web of causes and effects. I will give a longer response later, if not on this thread, on some other thread”

          Oh, spare us!

        • Mooser
          December 8, 2012, 5:15 pm

          “But personal information from an anonymous source, tell me the journalism school that gives that any value.”

          Yonah, are you under the impression you are reading a newspaper? Do you often have these hallucinations?
          I believe her. She at least comments as a real person, not a bunch of pathetic pretenses and evasions predicated on our acceptance of your aggressive victimhood (cough, cough, I didn’t say nothin’)
          I find her pretty believable, tell me Yonah why would she say that is it wasn’t true?? You wanna tell us?

          Yonah, you can’t write one honest word. What’s so sad is that you think you will never have to, not even now.

        • Hostage
          December 8, 2012, 9:42 pm

          Yonah, the pity is that many people felt sorry for Sharansky and thought that he was just being persecuted for simply being a Jew. But since his arrival in Israel, it has become painfully apparent that the Russians probably apprehended the right suspect if being “an enemy of the people” means willing to commit race-based crimes against Gentiles.

          I just hope that all of his work as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Minister of Housing and Construction, and Minister of Industry and Trade come under the scrutiny of an international criminal tribunal someday.

        • yonah fredman
          December 10, 2012, 5:20 pm

          MRW- I have no firsthand experience with Soviet Jewry and personal experience helps but cannot change certain facts.

          Did the Soviet Union list Jew’s nationality as Jewish on their passports. Was this done to anybody else that did not have a soviet socialist republic on which to base that nationality.

          Would you tolerate listing nationality on your passport? Why do you forgive the Soviet Union for doing so? Do you really expect me to believe that listing Jew as nationality did not reflect a deep seated problem that the Russian Soviet Union had with Jews?

          I assume when the Soviet Union disbanded and was replaced by Russia that the practice of listing Jew as nationality ceased.

        • RoHa
          December 11, 2012, 11:04 pm

          “When individuals think of their “life”, they don’t necessarily think only of their physical existence, but also of their personal *identities*.”

          And a lot of daft ideas they have about them, too. But the point remains that an urge to life is not the same as an urge to maintain a particular group.

          ” Should indigenous tribes in Brazil just give up their struggle for group self-determination?”
          Yes, if they want to. Why not?

          “Assimilation might then be viewed as a form of cultural suicide, which also might be viewed in a negative way, at least in some cases.”

          But the term “cultural suicide” is misleading.

          The literal meaning of suicide is that of self-inflicted literal death of an individual person. Literal death means that the person’s body stops functioning and becomes smelly and unfit for consideration. We don’t know what happens to that person’s stream of consciousness.

          We have very strong moral concerns about literal death.

          When literal death is not involved, “suicide” is just a metaphor, but the use of that metaphor can improperly invoke the moral concerns we have about literal death. This can lead us astray in our moral thinking.

          It far better to describe precisely what is happening.

          And what is happening is that a group discards some cultural practices and adopts others.
          This happens all the time, and is often urged as a means of making life better for everyone. At various times groups have been urged to abandon the cultural practices of racial segregation, seclusion of women, and making war on the surrounding tribes.

        • Sibiriak
          December 12, 2012, 3:29 am

          RoHa:

          ” Should indigenous tribes in Brazil just give up their struggle for group self-determination?”

          Yes, if they want to. Why not?

          And if they do not? (And they don’t–that’s the point.)

        • Sibiriak
          December 12, 2012, 4:18 am

          RoHa:

          But the point remains that an urge to life is not the same as an urge to maintain a particular group.

          It can be, if one identifies one’s “life” with something larger than one’s individual body or “ego”.

          It seems to me that you are *assuming* an ontological individualism/materialism, which is not in any way self-evident.

          And from a psychological perspective, an”urge to life” ( the so-called instinct for self-preservation and growth) can be transformed and sublimated in innumerable ways into supra-individual values. In fact, one could say that such transformation and sublimation is what human “life” is all about.

          We have very strong moral concerns about literal death.

          “We” also have very strong moral concerns about various other kinds of “deaths”.

          When literal death is not involved, “suicide” is just a metaphor, but the use of that metaphor can improperly invoke the moral concerns we have about literal death.

          I think most rational people can distinguish between the death of an individual and the death of a larger group, a cultural reality, a system of ideas etc. Would you argue that “cultural genocide” is a metaphorical expression, and, therefore, misleading? Are all metaphorical expressions misleading? I don’t think so.

          At various times groups have been urged to abandon the cultural practices of racial segregation, seclusion of women, and making war on the surrounding tribes..

          True, but that’s only part of the picture. At other times, groups have been urged to abandon cultural practices such as a sustainable relationship with nature, egalitarianism, non-patriarchal spirituality, a unique and beautiful collective-artistic vision etc.

          And what is happening is that a group discards some cultural practices and adopts others. This happens all the time, and is often urged as a means of making life better for everyone

          Ah, the religion of “progress”–itself a cultural practice that perhaps needs to be discarded.

          The point is really simple: Not all change is good; *some* cultural practices are *worth preserving*, and pressures for assimilation can threaten those valuable cultural practices. (In other cases, change and assimilation can be a very good thing.)

        • RoHa
          December 12, 2012, 8:45 am

          “if one identifies one’s “life” with something larger than one’s individual body or “ego”. ”

          In such a case, it becomes questionable whether such an “urge to life” is a good urge.

          “We” also have very strong moral concerns about various other kinds of “deaths”.

          But using the “death” metaphor opens the door for mistakenly applying the concerns about real death to the metaphorical deaths.

          “Would you argue that “cultural genocide” is a metaphorical expression, and, therefore, misleading?”

          Yes, insofar as the term “genocide” sounds as though it refers to real deaths in the way that “homicide” does. I know that the legal use of the term does not necessarily imply any real deaths, but I think it is a bad choice of term.

          “Not all change is good; *some* cultural practices are *worth preserving*, and pressures for assimilation can threaten those valuable cultural practices. ”

          I say that cultural practices are worth preserving if they lead to flourishing human lives. Noble savage romanticism notwithstanding, I don’t think any cultural practices have any value other than an instrumental value, and human beings should not sacrifice their own or their children’s lives or wellbeing simply to “preserve a culture”.

          “(In other cases, change and assimilation can be a very good thing.)”

          You will note that I said that it seems to me that an urge to assimilate is at least as good as any other.

        • RoHa
          December 12, 2012, 9:01 am

          “And if they do not?”

          Then it would probably be wrong to force them. But they will have to work out how to live with the rest of the world.

    • Mooser
      December 4, 2012, 1:33 pm

      Taxi, they are all doing it, and I can’t say I blame them. When you have to face up to something this shameful, it’s only human to retreat into fantasy. Phil does it, too, by positing that Zionists can have a”conversation”.
      It’s been my experience that once someone has a couple of crimes under their belt, especially crimes for which their is no statute of limitations, honesty about anything becomes impossible, since any honesty means exposure of the crimes.

      • Taxi
        December 4, 2012, 4:07 pm

        Mooser!

        “It’s been my experience…”

        Say it isn’t so!

        • Mooser
          December 4, 2012, 5:48 pm

          “Say it isn’t so!”

          Sadly, it is so. I shoulda remained silent.

  12. Peter in SF
    December 2, 2012, 5:48 am

    I don’t think this graph is useful. It hides so much, it makes a reasonably sophisticated reader wonder what the person who made the graph is trying to hide. For example, if there was minimal settlement activity in the initial years after 1967, but then it suddenly ramped up to an all-time peak in 1990-1991 and then actually decreased thereafter, then the numbers could look as shown in this graph. I hasten to add that I know that that’s not actually what happened, but the point is that the information given in this graph is compatible with settler population growth for every year during 1991-2012 being lower than during the immediately preceding period.

    If you were simply trying to be informative, you would show the settler population by year, or perhaps the change in the settler population by year. Wikipedia has an example of the first kind of graph, although only up to 2007, here:
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    Either this graph, or a graph of settler population growth by year, with the peace-process era marked, would get the point across better.

    • eGuard
      December 4, 2012, 10:46 am

      Obfuscations only, Peter in SF. What questions you raise are not answered by the very wikipedia graph you link to? And if you think that would “get the point across better”, how come you did not understand the point yourself?

  13. iResistDe4iAm
    December 2, 2012, 6:46 am

    If Israel wants a two-state (or any other NEGOTIATED) solution, then why does it use 650,000 Jewish settlers as human shields by placing them in subsidised settlements on stolen land deep inside occupied enemy territories?

    • NickJOCW
      December 2, 2012, 8:36 am

      They provide a buffer. Under the most ‘regrettable’ circumstances they would become dispensable, a classic military tactic to wear the enemy down.

      • Mooser
        December 2, 2012, 12:01 pm

        “Under the most ‘regrettable’ circumstances they would become dispensable, a classic military tactic to wear the enemy down.”

        I’m sorry NickJOCW, but I cannot let your contention stand, or rather, stagger around, without comment. Are you saying that one Zionist Jews would use another Zionist Jew in that fashion? That Zionist Jews would build their redoubt from the corpses of their fellow-Jews?
        How dare you!

      • iResistDe4iAm
        December 2, 2012, 9:42 pm

        Using a nation’s own civilians beyond the front lines of war is NOT “a classic military tactic to wear the enemy down”. Rather it’s a land-grabbing colonial tactic to conquer, dispossess and steal. Although colonialism has a long past, Israel is the only country still practising large-scale colonialism in the 21st century. So far, more than 10% of its Jewish population is located in enemy territories beyond its recognised borders (note that the enemy territories are still technically at war).

        By deliberately placing civilians in potential future war zones (future battles are more likely to be fought in the West Bank and/or Golan Heights than in Tel Aviv), Israel is using its own settlers as human shields.

    • eljay
      December 5, 2012, 10:14 am

      >> If Israel wants a two-state (or any other NEGOTIATED) solution, then why does it use 650,000 Jewish settlers as human shields by placing them in subsidised settlements on stolen land deep inside occupied enemy territories?

      Israel wants a settlement based on “facts on the ground” (as well as mytho-religious “history” and, of course, the Holocaust), so the more it steals, occupies and colonizes, the more it can “negotiate” to keep.

      To use the pizza analogy: Israel has already sliced up and eaten most of the pizza. Any settlement with the Palestinians involves “negotiating” how to consume the rest of the pizza. In exchange for the parts laden with toppings – into which it has already sunk its greedy, Zio-supremacist fingers – Israel is willing to spit up a few chunks of well-chewed crust to the Palestinians.

  14. atime forpeace
    December 2, 2012, 6:17 pm

    The Piece process, which sole purpose was to appropriate Palestinian land one piece at a time under the guise of a peace process.

    There is no confusion as to which is which.

Leave a Reply