‘Lincoln’ is an argument for equality in Israel and Palestine

I saw Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” last night, with screenplay by Tony Kushner, and saw it through an Israel/Palestine lens. I feel justified in this by Lincoln’s last delivered dialogue in the film, when he says to his wife in a carriage that he wants to travel to the Holy Land and– after a considerable pause– “Jerusalem.”

The theme of the film (which is pretty good) is that it was worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands including Lincoln himself to make a global example of democracy as a progressive social arrangement. And the conflict in the film is between the expedient, who favor the tolerance of slavery in the name of peace, and the idealists who insist that a peace must include slavery’s abolition. The idealist faction is led by Lincoln, and they win with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in January 1865, followed by the south’s surrender.

The film’s premise is best, and most mockingly, expressed by the scenes in Congress involving conservative Democratic congressmen who oppose the passage of the 13th Amendment. Among their arguments for tolerating slavery are:

–Abolition will affirm a human equality between black and white that does not exist;

–It will lead to blacks voting and to intermarriage;

–It will lead to women being allowed to vote;

Even as these arguments are advanced earnestly, the viewer is of course against them. We know better. We are on the right side of history, thanks to Lincoln and his friends– and Susan B. Anthony too, and Barack Obama…

The arguments that cut some ice in the film have to do with the consciousness of the South. Yes, slavery is wrong, says one congressman, but an entire region is behind it out of the belief that blacks are inferior. The South won’t know what to do with itself if slavery is abolished. Abolition will destroy its way of life and its economy, its spirit.

In one of the best scenes of the film, Lincoln says softly to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens that slavery is done and you will just have to adjust your way of life, you don’t know what positive fields of engagement this will open up to you (paraphrasing, New Agedly).

All these arguments have their parallel in the Israel/Palestine conflict, as Tony Kushner (who co-edited a landmark book on Jews overcoming Zionism) knows. Israelis and their American friends are utterly indifferent to Palestinian human rights… They are as backward in these beliefs as the American South was… History is about to leave them by the side of the road, in the growing global affirmation of the principle that all people are created equal, including Arabs. 

But then there is the consciousness of Jewish Israelis. They believe that they should have the land, they believe that they need a Jewish state with a government dominated by Jews. Supported by American Jewish organizations, they will never abandon these beliefs. Spielberg and Kushner want us to take Lincoln’s ideas to Jerusalem, and explain that their way of life is premised on inequality, and Israelis must let go of it, without forcing a massive bloodletting.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

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

  1. pabelmont says:

    Phil: From your movie review to Israeli/Zionist ears and consciences. I think Marx or Engels or Stalin, you know who I mean, spoke of the inevitability of history. Well, erm, it don’t look very inevitable to me, and the ziozealots think their total takeover is inevitable.

    There is still work for us. Thanks for sumud with this web-site.

  2. tokyobk says:

    Kushner, certainly.
    Spielberg? Probably not. Spielberg probably just wanted to make a great film that was financially and artistically rewarded.

  3. OlegR says:

    Since you are comparing us to the old American south and we all know how that story ended i would only urge you Philip to be as idealist as Lincoln was
    pack your stuff and move from cozy NYC to our neck of the woods (not really important where to) so you can really be a part of the final resolution …
    (With or without the massive bloodletting)

    • Antidote says:

      “Since you are comparing us to the old American south and we all know how that story ended”

      As far as I can tell only the Americans needed a bloody and destructive civil war to abolish slavery. Nobody else did. The British just abolished it by legal reform.

      So obviously there were other issues in play here. Secession and independence. Lincoln made it quite clear that his primary objective was to save the Union, at any cost, not to abolish or not abolish slavery. Just happened to be one of the most divisive economic issues, dressed up as a humanitarian crusade in the name of Christian values. It was not intended to extend equal rights to Black Americans, and certainly did not achieve any such thing until more than a century later. Were Blacks better off after the Civil War?

      Slavery as it existed in the South is not the only kind of slavery.

      Wiki:

      “Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by many societies; in more recent times slavery has been outlawed in most societies but continues through the practices of debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage. There are more slaves in the early 21st century than at any previous time but opponents hope slavery can be eradicated within 30 years.”

      Perhaps a bit optimistic.

      At any rate, Lincoln was as much of a racist as the Southern slave owners, and not just wrt to Blacks. To cite Lincoln as a model for dealing with the I/P conflict is outright bizarre. I’m sure the Israelis, in view of the ‘special relationship’, are well versed in Mount Rushmore philosophy re indigenous people:

      ________

      The founding fathers on that rock shared common characteristics. All four valued white supremacy and promoted the extirpation of Indian society. The United States’ founding fathers were staunchly anti-Indian advocates in that at one time or another, all four provided for genocide against Indian peoples of this hemisphere.

      George Washington…
      In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, “lay waste all the settlements around…that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed”. In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected”. (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

      In 1783, Washington’s anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: “Both being beast of prey, tho’ they differ in shape”, he said. George Washington’s policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois “from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings”. Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation’s first president as “Town Destroyer”. Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

      Thomas Jefferson…
      In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with “the hatchet”. Jefferson continued, “And…if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, ” he wrote, “we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi.” Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, “in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them”. (Ibid)

      In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians “with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains”. One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must “pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach”. (Ibid)

      Abraham Lincoln…

      In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)

      Theodore Roosevelt…
      The fourth face you see on that “Stony Mountain” is America’s first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America’s extermination of the Indians and thefts our their lands “was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable”. Roosevelt once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth”. (Stannard, Op.Cit.)

      link to greatdreams.com

      • i pray one day a native american will be president of this country. not beholden to the lobby, of course. turtle island still lives.

        • MarionL says:

          Well, well. Annie Robbins and I agree on something, in addition to both of us being against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. We also agree that it would be great if one day the United States has a Native American president. However, I don’t know which lobby she is referring to in this case. Perhaps she would care to elaborate, then again, perhaps she would not. It does not matter much either way.

        • Antidote says:

          “not beholden to the lobby”

          and then he or she will free Palestine? How?

        • antidote, my comment about the lobby wasn’t meant to imply he or she would free palestine. it just meant he or she wouldn’t be beholden to the interests of another country at the detriment of our own.

          as an aside, i think we’ve had decades of playing ‘broker’ and should stand out of the way.

        • Antidote says:

          “i think we’ve had decades of playing ‘broker’ and should stand out of the way”

          More like “a century” and longer. I think you should have stayed out of WW I and WW II would never have happened

        • lysias says:

          Barack Obama’s mother was part Cherokee on her grandmother’s side.

          Sally Thompson Coolidge, Calvin Coolidge’s great-grandmother, was part Native American.

  4. Scott says:

    Yes, you’re right. I had wondered about the Jerusalem bit, whether it was a kind of Christian Zionist messaging. But it’s not that at all, it’s liberationist messaging, to be taken to Jerusalem.

  5. Ellen says:

    There was another concern that rings of the same concern Zionist have over Palestinians: Population.

    As in some parts of the South, (i.e. South Carolina) the white population was smaller that the African American/black/slave population. The fear was what would happen to them if they found themselves equal to a majority population they had so brutally suppressed and treated?

    That is a real Zionist fear and no different to the supporters of slavery.

    It is what fed the establishment of the KKK and Jim Crowe, etc. You know….to make sure former slaves knew their place regardless of laws.

    Laws were not enforced until the 60′s and only then under great pressure.

    So even if the Zionist enterprise folded, it will still be a long road to Justice in Jerusalem.

    • jonrich111 says:

      “That is a real Zionist fear and no different to the supporters of slavery.”

      That comparison is historically inaccurate, misleading, and offensive. Where to begin? First, white slave-owners were a privileged elite group who owned human beings as property solely out of desire for economic gain and racism towards the minority group. White slave owners were not in danger of disappearance as a distinctive group, nor was one out of every three living white Southerners murdered in an act of genocide. White Southerners were not exiled from their homeland and chased from country to country throughout the world with no place to be safe.

      Jews, on the other hand, came to Palestine fleeing for their lives from oppression, searching for a homeland and desiring the right to security and freedom through self-determination. The occupation of Palestinians is a tragic consequence of the ongoing dispute over the right of Israel to exist and denial of Jewish sovereignty and claims to national determination within the land. The conflict is a dispute between two groups of people both claiming rights to self-determination on the same location. To equate the very real security concerns of the Jewish people with the blatant racism of slave-owners is a beyond the pale. You clearly do not understand the psychology and history of the Jews. Not at all.

      • Antidote says:

        “That comparison is historically inaccurate, misleading, and offensive. Where to begin? First, white slave-owners were a privileged elite group who owned human beings as property solely out of desire for economic gain and racism towards the minority”

        When did slavery in the colonies begin? Not all slave-owners were white, not all black slaves were owned for live in the early colonial period either.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Nor was (or is) privilege or the desire for economic gain restricted to white people. Nor feelings of racial superiority:

        ______

        The question of how Massaquoi came to be raised in Nazi Germany is one he has been asked “millions of times.” Grandson of the Liberian consul general to Hamburg, Mr. Massaquoi was born in 1926 to a well-to-do African father and a German mother. His early life was one of privilege, befitting the grandson of a diplomat.

        “I associated black skin with superiority, since our servants were white,” said Mr. Massaquoi. “My grandfather was ‘the man,’” he joked.

        His circumstances changed dramatically when his father and grandfather returned to Liberia in 1929. Refusing to expose her sickly son to a tropical climate, Mr. Massaquoi’s mother chose instead to raise her son in Germany as best she could on her meager wages as a nurse’s aide.”

        link to loc.gov

        As for tropical climates: There may well be a genetic component (malarial resistance) to the development and persistence of African slavery in the American South

        link to malaria.com

        So maybe white slave owners did feel “in danger of disappearing” (dying of malaria) vis a vis the more robust Africans?

  6. sydnestel says:

    “Spielberg and Kushner want us to take Lincoln’s ideas to Jerusalem, and explain that their way of life is premised on inequality, and Israelis must let go of it, without forcing a massive bloodletting.”

    Kushner – maybe.

    Speilberg, I don’t thing so.

    • Citizen says:

      @ Antidote
      I would say, from my decades of research on the matter, that Hitler’s conviction indeed was, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Jews are dead Jews, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

    • Citizen says:

      @ sydnestel
      I agree re Spielberg; he’s got a jewish juvenile mind; don’t know enough about Kushner.

  7. joemowrey says:

    link to canada.com

    Phil’s analysis of the parallel’s between the two situations is fine by me. But, just for the record, here is a link to an article which provides some perspective on Lincoln. Albeit, the author is a libertarian (more or less), but he reminds us that our school-book mythology about Honest Abe, much like Spielberg’s film, bears little relation to the actual facts of history. Like all expressions of U.S. exceptionalism it should be taken with a grain of salt. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I do understand that it is intended to be entertainment, not a strict documentary.

    • Citizen says:

      @ joemowrey

      In the USA, Hollywood films operate as suggestive history, as documentary, as both instigators and peddlers of (too often ignorant and/or manipulative) moral trends, doused with trendy sentimental fire. It’s actually much worse; e.g., US history magazines (35 million subscribers) peddle hasbara–noted on another recent thread in this blog.

  8. I wonder what the Israeli equivalent dynamic would be to LBJ telling George Wallace to get on the right side of history and support civil rights (and LBJ using his considerable persuasive power to make it so).

    • Citizen says:

      @ LanceThruster

      I doubt it would result in the cover-up of an intentional American attack on an Israeli ship and crew that sailed too close to what America was doing anyplace in the world. Sometimes tribalism has clear advantages over Enlightenment policy, which can be played as a mask for, e.g.,Johnson’s blatent individual selfishness.

  9. Elliot says:

    The other dimension of the Jerusalem reference is Christian Zionism. Mark Twain traveled to Jerusalem just two years later followed in the 1870s by the German Templars and the beginnings of the American colony in Jerusalem.
    If Abraham Lincoln did speak of Jerusalem it would have been as the movie presents it, as a fond, perhaps, mystical, connection.
    Tony Kushner, on the other hand, would likely read Lincoln’s statement the way you did.

    • irishmoses says:

      Elliot,
      Mark Twain’s (or Lincoln’s) interest in Jerusalem had nothing to do with Judaism or promoting Palestine as a homeland for the Jews so it was not a form of early Christian Zionism. Twain and Lincoln’s interest derived from their Christian roots. After all, Jerusalem and other sites in Palestine are holy to all three Abrahamic religions. Unlike Jewish Zionism, the modest Christian attempts to return and have colonies in Palestine were never intended as some sort of modern crusade to return the holy lands to exclusively Christian inhabitants. Pre-Zionist Jews lived without problem in Palestine until the advent of the Zionist waves when it became clear to the Palestinian inhabitants that this new group of Jews wanted Palestine all for themselves.

      I haven’t seen the film yet so I can’t comment on intent.

      • Elliot says:

        IrishMoses –
        Early forms of Christian Zionism necessarily did not have the full-fledged program of political Zionism. Yet Christian Zionism has been traced as far back as the readmission of Jews to England under Cromwell.
        In Lincoln’s time, critical aspects of Zionism were already present in the Christian community in Jerusalem. The attitudes of disregard for the natives were part of the mid-19th century influx of Protestants to the Holy Land. The community of Protestant missionaries held Jew and indigenous Christians in similar contempt. They tried to convert whoever they could. Had there been enough Western Protestants, they, no doubt, would have used their power to enforce their form of Christianity on all of Palestine.

        • irishmoses says:

          Elliot,

          I think we have a definition problem. The desire (or commandment) to spread the faith by Protestants and Catholics, whether in China or the Holy Land, had nothing to do with Judaism or its aggressive Zionist offshoot (which was in its infancy in the late 19th century). Palestine was not seen as some exclusive redoubt for the Jews that Christians felt compelled to defend. They were crusaders for their own faith, not Judaism. You seem to be attaching the label Zionism to any Christian attempt to return to the Holy Land.

          Perhaps you could define what you mean by Christian Zionism. You seem to be equating it with any religion’s urge to return to the Holy Land which would mean we could also have Islamic Zionism. Wikipedia treats Christian Zionism as a modern phenomena associated with some evangelistic Christian groups who support Israel solely because they think it will be the cause of the final confraglation resulting in the End of Days they yearn for. They may be on to something.

        • seanmcbride says:

          irishmoses,

          Wikipedia treats Christian Zionism as a modern phenomena associated with some evangelistic Christian groups who support Israel solely because they think it will be the cause of the final conflagration resulting in the End of Days they yearn for. They may be on to something.

          This would be a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, accomplished by utter morons.

          Christian Zionists salivate over the prospect of a global thermonuclear war. Many Christian Zionists occupy high positions in the military-industrial complex. Many influential Jewish Zionists (including Jewish neoconservatives) have been egging on Christian Zionists in their dangerous delusional fantasies.

          They may well succeed in triggering a global conflagration that will bring enormous misery on the human race — and with no reappearance of a magical Jesus to make things right.

        • Elliot says:

          Wikipedia treats Christian Zionism as a modern phenomena associated with some evangelistic Christian groups who support Israel solely because they think it will be the cause of the final confraglation resulting in the End of Days they yearn for. They may be on to something.


          The reason the US is inextricably bound up in Zionism is not because of Pastor Hagee, so perhaps Wikipedia’s definition is too narrow and not helpful to getting to the root of the problem. Read Angela Clarke’s comprehensive work on the 400 years of Christian Zionism.
          The Westerners, including Americans, who massively support Israel are Christian Zionists in the same way that America, including most of Jewish America is, secularized Christian. The concepts cross over without the faith in God, Jesus and the rest of the religious dogmas.
          The origins of America’s enthrallment with Zionism is Christian (per Clarke). In the same way Christmas (or Hanukkah) shopping/presents are Christian even though they betray traditional, religious values.
          You don’t have to be an evangelical Christian to instinctively support the Zionist immigrants to Palestine.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Elliot

          I think Bernays covered this subject well (and Goebbels studied him). What’s a poor natural evergreen tree to do? It fall in the forest (cut down?) and nobody knows, so it does not, for all practical purposes.

    • Ellen says:

      Elliot,

      Neither Twain nor the American colony had nothing at all to do with Christain Zionism. Zip!

      Twain was an athiest and the founders of the American colony were simply devout Christains from Chicago who after a terrible family tragedy decided to dedicate their lives and energy and resources to their faith in Jerusalem.

      In fact the American colony, a very apolitical group, distanced themselves (and continue to) from the Zionist movement.

      Geeesh, this revisionist history spouted about is nerve wracking.

    • Ellen says:

      Elliot,
      Neither Twain nor the American colony had anything at all to do with Christian Zionism. Zip!

      Twain was an atheist and the founders of the American colony were simply devout Christians from Chicago who after a terrible family tragedy decided to dedicate their lives and energy and resources to their faith in Jerusalem.

      In fact the American colony, a very apolitical group, distanced themselves (and continue to) from the Zionist movement.

      For some reason the Hasbara crowd is now working hard on revisionist history in an attempt to emotionally connect the United States with the Zionist colonial enterprise.

      That is another reason why the mythical Lincoln quote at the end of Spielberg’s myth-making movie comes across as really really creepy.

      • MHughes976 says:

        Christian Zionism goes back at least to the early seventeenth century (well before Cromwell) and its first book-length exposition in English that I’ve heard of is Henry Finch’s ‘Great Restauration’ of 1621. By Lincoln’s time the idea of Jewish restoration to Palestine was generally regarded by educated people in the Anglo-American world as fairly reasonable even if not immediately practical. The strongest expression of this is George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda. It goes with the general idea that not all indigenous peoples can have complete control of their affairs and indeed with the form of anti-Semitism that says that Jewish people in the West are somewhat in the wrong place.

        • American says:

          “By Lincoln’s time the idea of Jewish restoration to Palestine was generally regarded by educated people in the Anglo-American world as fairly reasonable even if not immediately practical. ‘… Hughes

          That was not a topic of interest among anyone in the Colonies except some religious fringes, just like the fringes of today.
          The mistake both writers in a specific subject and then their readers make, is taking a small set or abnormality and applying to the general population as a whole…as in finding one religious figure of some era or some group and then saying it was representative of the ‘general’ society or the ‘general’ sentiment.
          I would like to suggest to you all one more time…..go to the mountains of papers of the founders, ordinary citizens, pamphlets of the time, history archives of various colonies/states..for your information. Do not reply on what any one author says or his interpretation of what people thought. You will be misled most of the time if you do. Dont’ be lazy, do the real research.

        • MHughes976 says:

          I’m not saying that the Restoration of the Jews was a majority concern. I think it had by Lincoln’s time gained increasing traction among the educated minority, though even those people had many more pressing concerns. In England the leading philanthropist of the 1830s, Lord Shaftesbury, pressed the idea on the government and the Times newspaper in one of its editions of August 1840 indicated that the matter was at least being considered. In the United States the Blackstone Memorial of around 1890 collected about 400 signatures for ‘Israel’, mainly Protestant ministers. It’s even more significant, I think, that there was no pushback from anyone (that I know of) saying that the idea was outrageous and unjust, which you and I know that it was. That’s why I say that it was treated as a reasonable idea. The Jewish community of the time was not very interested, presumably thinking that the basic intention was to get rid of them from the western world.

      • American says:

        “For some reason the Hasbara crowd is now working hard on revisionist history in an attempt to emotionally connect the United States with the Zionist colonial enterprise.

        That is another reason why the mythical Lincoln quote at the end of Spielberg’s myth-making movie comes across as really really creepy.”…Ellen

        Yea they have always tried to revise American history and insert themselves and Israel into it.
        I don’t know which they are worse at, revising our history or making up their own. I can’t tell you the loads of crazy way out stuff I’ve seen that they have made up about zionism and America.

        I’m guessing that was Spielberg’s aim and or ploy in this Lincoln movie also.
        rotflmao…if there’s one thing I’v learned about the zios it is they know nothing about American history….they make up such fantastic stories any student of history would die laughing. I think all they study is their zio myths and Jewish history then run and look for something in US history that they can twist around or just plain lie about to make it fit their purpose of saying…”Zionsim and America were born together!!
        ”We’re Twins”!! Vomit inducing.

        • Citizen says:

          @ American

          This is astute; Spielberg gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets richer and lays a claim to moral righteousness, both as a Jews and as an American.
          Not bad for a guy who’s worst experience growing up in America is an elbow bruise he suffered when he fell off his Hot Wheels trike.

    • elliot, there’s a long discussion on christian zionism in this thread and what spurred the current movement:

      link to mondoweiss.net

  10. hophmi says:

    This is another post that sums up all of the problems with your thinking. It combines inappropriate historical analogies with ignorance of the sheer hypocrisy of your position.

    Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence. There was no rash of Northerners killing Southern children and glorifying the violence by dancing in the street. Israeli fears are legitimate. And they are not about voting rights. They are about safety and security. Israelis are not invested in oppressing Palestinians in the way Southerners were invested in owning slaves. Israelis want nothing more than to live in peace with the Palestinians, but not at the expense of their own society and security. You would like to force a solution on the region that is against the consent of governed. You’re no Lincoln.

    And the Palestinians are not progressive abolitionists either. There is little in the common between the religious conservative views of most Palestinians, the authoritarian manner in which the Palestinian Authority and Gaza is governed, or the Palestinian vision of the future, that finds an analogue with Lincoln’s vision of a popular Union free of slavery. The Palestinians mostly simply want to reverse the effects of 1948, when, had they won, they would have subjected the Jews to far worse than anything they have ever been subjected to themselves.

    • Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence.

      southerners didn’t want to give up their privilege. they benefited financially from slave labor as jewish israelis benefit from land theft and resources. the decades long occupation does not exist because of israeli fear and if you want to argue it does all i have to say is ‘so what, get over it’. no one need live is constant oppression to assuage jewish fear. that’s absurd.

      • hophmi says:

        “the decades long occupation does not exist because of israeli fear ”

        When you say things like this, it reminds me how little you understand people. You discount Israeli fear and Palestinian malevolence at the same time. Thank G-d you do not make policy. You’d end up killing a lot of people.

        “if you want to argue it does all i have to say is ‘so what, get over it’”

        You get over it. Stop denying Jews their right to self-determination.

        “no one need live is constant oppression to assuage jewish fear. ”

        No one lives in constant oppression because of “Jewish fear.” Ugh. The Palestinians are responsible for their own mistakes, and many more people besides Jews are responsible for their predicament.

        • Same old tripe. Carry on apartheid and bonecrushing oppression because we are terrified of living with equal rights and equal access to resources for all, regardless of their parenthood. ‘We’ have awarded ourself rights that others cannot have because they have the wrong grandmothers, and every crushing humiliation and deprivation we heap on the indigenous people of this region is all their own fault, oh and maybe some unspecified others, but nothing to do with us, since we discount the copious evidence of Israeli malevolence. We just turned up and helped ourselves to their houses and land, the result is someone else’s problem. Yep, some ‘right’ you have there. Why isn’t that a universal right, and where was it ever established that you had such selective, self-aggrandising, exclusive, proprietal ‘rights’ over others?
          Maybe you’re right, it’s not an exact replica of the American South, although plenty of parallels. It’s far worse.

        • eljay says:

          >> Israeli fears are legitimate. … They are about safety and security.

          And what better way to achieve safety and security than for Israelis to refuse to end a brutal, decades-long occupation, to remove themselves from occupied lands and to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

          >> Israelis want nothing more than to live in peace with the Palestinians, but not at the expense of their own society and security.

          How would Israeli society and security be compromised by Israelis living in peace with Palestinians? Oh, wait, you don’t mean Israeli society, you mean surpemacist “Jewish State” society.

          I do like how you made it sound all sincere and benevolent, though.

          >> Stop denying Jews their right to self-determination.

          Jews in Palestine – along with non-Jews in Palestine – had and have a right to self-determination as the people of Palestine. The result of that self-determination is a nation-state – for fun, let’s call it Palestine – in which all people of that region, along with, say, emigrants up to half a dozen generations removed from that region, are guaranteed equal rights.

          The right you’re demanding – that Jews from around the world be allowed to move to Palestine, colonize and cleanse it, and set up a supremacist state of and for Jews – should not exist. It is immoral and unjust.

        • Mooser says:

          “The Palestinians are responsible for their own mistakes”

          Yeah, you tell ‘em, Hophmi! With an entire goddam world diameter of 8,0o0 miles, those paskudnyaks chose to live there! How much more evidence of malevolent intent do you need? They waited thousands of years to ambush the Zionists!
          And don’t tell me I’m wrong, you anti-Zionists! I just looked it up, 7,926 mi. to be exact. You can’t argue with facts!

        • eljay says:

          >> The right you’re demanding …

          Correction: The “right” you’re defending …

        • jonrich111 says:

          Eljay,

          “Jews in Palestine – along with non-Jews in Palestine – had and have a right to self-determination as the people of Palestine. The result of that self-determination is a nation-state – for fun, let’s call it Palestine – in which all people of that region, along with, say, emigrants up to half a dozen generations removed from that region, are guaranteed equal rights.”

          This is a bait and switch tactic; pretending to assuage Jewish fears with promises of “equal rights,” while simultaneously setting the stage for Jewish persecution. For Jews to be free, we need self-determination as Jews, not as “the people of Palestine.” Jews are a cosmopolitan, globally dispersed people who have been exiled from country after country for thousands of years. We remember the nations of the world closing their doors to our people during the Holocaust. Our experience teaches us that not having a safe haven to run to can have life or death consequences. Self-determination through a Jewish state is necessary not just for the Jews living in Israel, but for those living in diaspora. And keep in mind that a Jewish state is entirely consistent with equal rights for minorities living in that state.

        • chinese box says:

          Well look who crawled out from under a rock…sadly, people with your mindset do “make policy”.

        • You get over it. Stop denying Jews their right to self-determination.

          ohhhh! so that’s what your ‘jewish fear’ is eh? your ‘right to self determination? or did you mean the decades long occupation was your ‘right to self determination’?

          it sounds to me like you can’t argue what i said without using a bunch of crutches to thwart my meaning.

          we are not discussing the region of palestine/israel during lincoln’s time, we’re discussing it in present day. and no amount of jewish fear justifies the atrocity of the occupation and nothing you say will change that. if the zionist occupation of palestinian is required for your ‘self determination’, it is against international law. there is no recognized right of self determination thru the oppression of another people.

        • Mooser says:

          .” there is no recognized right of self determination thru the oppression of another people.”

          Annie, don’t you remember the international plebiscite which included almost every Jew on earth, from every denomination of the faith, in which political self-determination in the form of a Jewish State taken from the Palestinians was almost unanimously voted to be the only thing worth pursuing, and well worth throwing the Jewish religion under the bus for? So doesn’t that trump international law?
          It was in all the papers.

        • RoHa says:

          “Stop denying Jews their right to self-determination.”

          On this site we have repeatedly offered detailed arguments against such a right. You have never, as far as I can recall, responded to those arguments. Therefore, it is sheer intellectual dishonesty on your part to blandly assert that there is such a right.

        • hophmi says:

          When you tell a people who are under constant threat of terrorism that they have “nothing to fear,” you’re effectively denying them their basic human right to protect themselves.

          It’s clear you have no appreciation for the right of Jews to basic self-protection.

        • Bumblebye says:

          “Israeli fear and Palestinian malevolence”
          Hophead, you really believe that? It’s an inversion of reality.
          Israel will almost certainly have a govt even further to the right next year, which will make it significantly harder for the US to support it unconditionally, since the truth is reaching ever more people. The sheer malevolence of Israel towards its unwanted Palestinian populations is becoming clearer day by day.

        • Cliff says:

          If Israeli fears are real, then why not settle the conflict?

          If Israeli fears are real, then why transplant more and more Israelis into dangerous and fear-inducing territories? Living among the enemy.

          You’re so full of it hoppy, and you know nothing about the Civil War.

          Israelis are entirely invested in occupying, colonizing and oppressing the Palestinians.

          If Israelis wanted peace, then there would be peace and not continued settlement expansion, war and conflict.

          You want land and you’re getting it because Americans hate (thanks to a steady diet of Zionist lies) Arabs and do not listen to ‘the world’ (once again, people like you dismiss the world as being mostly Arab dictatorships and China or Russia).

          The Palestinians suffer because of Israeli and American Jews and the actions of both in the Establisment.

          Anyone pick up on hoppy’s sympathy with the slave owning South? Who characterizes slave owners as being ‘fearful of change’? Lol so harmless!

          Your comments are always pukeworthy pro-Israel historical imagination akin to Alien tin foil hat nuttery of the History Channel.

        • Talkback says:

          hophmi says: “Stop denying Jews their right to self-determination.”

          You actually meant: Stop denying Jews to keep Nonjews expelled, correct?

        • you have no appreciation for the right of Jews to basic self-protection.

          that’s an amusing statement coming from someone who supports a state who denies all basic forms of self protection for a people, because they are not jews.

        • eljay says:

          >> This is a bait and switch tactic … For Jews to be free, we need self-determination as Jews, not as “the people of Palestine.”

          Speaking of bait-and-switch: Just as homosexuals are free to be homosexuals without the benefit of a “gay state”, Jews are free to be Jews without the benefit of a supremacist “Jewish State”, particularly one created by means of terrorism and ethnic cleansing and at the expense of the indigenous population of a geographic region.

          The solution to the inequality and persecution of Jews is equality and respect for Jews, not for Jews to impose inequality and persecution upon Palestinians.

          Zio-supremacists really don’t seem to understand justice and morality.

          >> Jews are a cosmopolitan, globally dispersed people who have been exiled from country after country for thousands of years.

          Jews are living in and as citizens of country after country around the world. But even when they weren’t, that did not give them the right to conquer, cleanse and colonize any part of Palestine, or to set up a supremacist state.

          >> And keep in mind that a Jewish state is entirely consistent with equal rights for minorities living in that state.

          By consistent, you mean “inconsistent”, given that Jews in “Jewish State” have more and different rights than non-Jews in Jewish State.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “For Jews to be free, we need self-determination as Jews, not as “the people of Palestine.”… Jewish state is necessary not just for the Jews living in Israel, but for those living in diaspora.”

          Since it is unavoidable that Jews must persecute Palestinians in order to exercise this so-called self-determination and create this “Jewish state,” my question to: Exactly how many Jews may be persecuted for someone else to exercise their self-determination?? 1,000? 100,000? 6,000,000?

          Or are you of the belief that Jews allowed to persecute others to exercise self-determination, but no one is allowed to persecute Jews?

        • hophmi says:
          December 10, 2012 at 7:22 pm

          “When you tell a people who are under constant threat of terrorism that they have “nothing to fear,” you’re effectively denying them their basic human right to protect themselves.

          It’s clear you have no appreciation for the right of Jews to basic self-protection.”

          Unlike you, hop, I have absolutely no “appreciation for the right of Jews” to be hasbara spouting terrorists.

          I have zero appreciation for all and for any Jews who believe that they have some god given right which entitles them to willfully engage in a program of ethnic cleansing and genocide in some perceived promised land, while simultaneously demanding “the right of Jews to basic self-protection”, a right of “basic self-protection” from those very people they’re victimizing.

        • Citizen says:

          @ hophmi
          You avoid the issue of what should happen when Jewish self-determinism meets Palestinian self-determinism, in the context of the former having the support of the world’s only superpower and the EU, and the power of the UN with swing votes grabbed from US-economically dependent tiny island nations, and the fact the Palestinians did not cause the Shoah.

    • hophmi sez “Israeli fears are legitimate. And they are not about voting rights.” Thank you hophmi: one person, one vote, with equal human rights for all, from the river to the sea. A solution Lincoln would be proud of!

    • Sumud says:

      This is another post that sums up all of the problems with your thinking.

      http://www.mondohophmi.net << Bring it on, let's see how much of a following your thinking can generate. Not much I guess, with such drudge as:

      The Palestinians mostly simply want to reverse the effects of 1948, when, had they won, they would have subjected the Jews to far worse than anything they have ever been subjected to themselves.

      Proof of this…?

      • Citizen says:

        @ Sumund
        No proof needed. Just believe in Jewish version of history disconnected from world history. Jewish religious history celebrations and calendar does this itself, let alone Zionism.

    • Mooser says:

      “Israelis are not invested in oppressing Palestinians in the way Southerners were invested in owning slaves.”

      Gee, and I thought a house (in the settlements) was the best investment of all, the key to a family’s security.
      Oh wow, that “invested” Hophmi? That’s a ROTFLMSJAO!!! fo’ sho’! Nope, not a single asset in Israel can be traced back to the Palestinians! The Zionists, being very organised, brought their own land with them, so as not to owe anything to the Palestinians.

      Naaa, no “investment” of all in oppressing the Palestinians. What a word to use. That is so manifestly and brutally what there is in Israel. The entire place is just one big investment in the oppression of the Palestinians !!
      Does your AIPAC know you’re out, Hophmi?

      • hophmi says:

        It’s typical that you’d miss the point Mooser, in your endless stream of less-than-clever irrelevant comments. Seriously, you really should comment elsewhere, because then you’d at least know how utterly unclever you are.

        The Israelis could give up most of the settlements tomorrow and not suffer economically; its economy is not reliant on the settlement project in the way the Southern economy was reliant on slave labor.

        • Cliff says:

          then get the hell out of the Palestinian territories

        • Mooser says:

          “It’s typical that you’d miss the point Mooser, in your endless stream of less-than-clever irrelevant comments. Seriously, you really should comment elsewhere, because then you’d at least know how utterly unclever you are.”

          Yes, Hophmi, I’ve never been clever enough to be a Zionist. Maybe I missed out on the +15IQ, or my Mom dropped me on my head. Maybe the circumcision didn’t take, who knows? Whatever it was, it was the best thing that ever happened to me. And reading you, I am ever more sure of that. Mein freaquing Gott, what a collection of odious character defects (which is to be very generous with the word “character”, you don’t have a character, all you’ve got is a motive.) you are, Hophmi.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Mooser
        In support of what you say, where would the South have been economically if it did not have cotton–”Cotton was King”; and the value and profit of it was totally tied to slavery. The South was just one big investment in slavery.

        • Mooser says:

          The South was just one big investment in slavery.”

          Exactly. And remember there are other returns from an investment besides money. Doesn’t Israel claim the Occupation is an investment in “security”? And gosh, if they can annex (especially under conditions they can dictate), their non-investment (pace Hophmi) will pay off big.

        • lysias says:

          The American Revolution was financed on the proceeds from tobacco grown in Virginia and Maryland and from rice and indigo from flax grown in South Carolina. Almost all of them produced with unfree labor (mostly slaves, but also convicts and indentured servants).

    • lysias says:

      Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence.

      Oh yes, they did. They had a pathological fear of slave rebellions. Any decent history of the Old South will tell you that.

      • American says:

        lysias says:
        December 10, 2012 at 7:15 pm
        ”Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence. ”’

        Oh yes, they did. They had a pathological fear of slave rebellions. Any decent history of the Old South will tell you that.>>>>>

        Not really. I live in the town that was the original Colonial Capital of our state and it was a shipping and slave trading port. Our population is 60% black today and not a lot of backs left our area. My ancestors have been in the South, first Va and then NC for 397 years since 1615, so I’ m pretty well ‘steeped ‘in it’s history and lore.
        The population in general wasn’t ‘afraid’ of freed slaves and the freed slaves weren’t inclined to any ‘revenge’ riots—– most of the freed slaves still had to depend on the whites for jobs, sustence, a lot became what are called share croppers..meaning a farmer would turn over some farm land to them to live on and farm in return for a share of the crop profits….that’s how most black men continued and made a living because that’s what most had experience with , working on farms for the white man.The back women basically kept on being cooks, nannies and servants until civil rights came about. But even before civil rights we had some enturperial back women who opened resturants that were patronized by whites…..cause they were the best home cooking and sea food frying cooks in town. But we did have the forever bigots like the KKK that tried to promote the idea of black uprisings and so forth. As late as the 60′s there were still KKK billboards on highways in the state. One was on Highway 70 just as you crossed the state line from Va…..finally enough people raised hell to have it removed.

        • Citizen says:

          @ American
          Huh? You think the fact “Cotton was King” replete with slavery was not significant in the reasons for the Civil War? And, beyond that (the biggest economic reason for the South’s rebellion), the average slave-holder and his whip didn’t worry about slave uppityness? Maybe I don’t understand you, so can you clarity?

        • American says:

          Citizen,

          What I was responding to was the claim that whites ‘generally feared” the former slaves after the war.. ..as in uprisings against whites and etc..and blacks in general were out for revenge and etc..
          This is a very superficial view for many reasons and was not ‘true in general”.
          One of the biggest reasons being that even after the war when slaves were freed……..they were still ‘dependent’ in a major way on the whites…..they had to exist, have food, work, shelter. It wasn’t like civil rights suddenly bloomed and blacks had opportunities and all kinds of making a living options. That’s was the reality for blacks after the war. They could go North or West to find livings and still encounter bigtory and a hard time or stay where they were. Most chose to stay where they were. I am old enough to know what was going on before civil rights came into effect and how Backs had to’ get along with’ and still be dependent in many ways on whites.
          Whoever these authors or people who are hyping ‘white fear and black revenge’ are, they are blowing it way out of proportion and misrepresenting the actual conditions and reality of the times. Maybe they thinks it sounds more dramatic and sell more books.

        • American says:

          Citizen says:
          December 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm

          @ American
          Huh? You think the fact “Cotton was King” replete with slavery was not significant in the reasons for the Civil War? And, beyond that (the biggest economic reason for the South’s rebellion),
          >>>>>>

          And I said nothing about that……or the reasons for the war…..don’t know where you got that from.

      • Mooser says:

        “Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence.” Says Hophmi

        Gosh, a Zionist defending the slavery South. Now, if that don’t prove that Zionism is “progressive” I don’t know what will. I mean, hey, what could be more “progressive” than positing that slavery is just a part of a society, not that there’s anything wrong with that! ANd the society of the Old South didn’t exclude slaves! Now, that’s diversity!

    • Mooser says:

      “This is another post that sums up all of the problems with your thinking.”

      Dr. Hophmi is in the house! And he’s ready to dispense the cure for every ill, a nice shot of Ziocaine! There, doesn’t that feel good? Really PEPs you up, makes you feel 15 points more intelligent. Oww, it’s fading. Gimme another, Doc! Stronger this time…

    • Donald says:

      “Southerners feared societal change. They did not fear for their safety or existence. There was no rash of Northerners killing Southern children and glorifying the violence by dancing in the street.”

      Dead wrong. As someone else pointed out. Southerners were deathly afraid of slave uprisings–they saw Haiti, where hundreds of thousands died, as something that could happen to them. On a much smaller scale there was Nat Turner’s revolt, which involved white women and children being hacked to death, and then John Brown’s abortive attempt to spark an uprising.

      And in the 20th century your typical white Southerner was, rightly or wrongly, scared of the crime rate in poor black areas. Law and order has always been the not terribly subtle way for politicians to appeal to racial fears without using explicitly racist language.

      How could you possibly be unaware of all this?

      • American says:

        Donald,

        I am curious why you and some others have such different understandings or opinions of what took place post slavery and believe there was this ‘ wide spread fear’ of blacks among whites.
        I described the conditions and the attitudes post slavery in my area which had been a major slave port and I am very, very familiar with the history of the era.
        There were out breaks like described but they don’t represent the ‘whole story’ and don’t apply to the whole population.
        Where were you raised in the South and what eco-social class were you raised in and was your family living in the South during that era and are you still living there? Perhaps you are applying your particular frame of reference and certain rare events to the whole of the population and area instead of looking at the majority atmosphere and conditions at the time.
        Both my great- great and great grandmothers were local writers and recorders of the events, conditions and attitudes of their times. Their writing and dairies were judged a accurate enough record of their eras to be placed in the NC Museum of History and don’t record any wide spread fear or belief among whites that former slaves were dangerous or would or were rising up en mass to kill white people.
        If you or your family did live in the South at that times that might have been their fear or experience but it doesn’t apply to the entire South any more than today’s Islamophobes who fear Sharia Law in the US is a fear of the majority of the population today.

        • Donald says:

          The fear of slave uprisings was during the pre-Civil War era and I’ve read that in books, not heard it from family lore. I think it’s well accepted. Whites in that era had mixed feelings, of course, with some being convinced that their slaves loved them, while others were less certain and some terrified of what would happen if blacks were free. I think Mary Chesnut has some passages on this, but my memory on this point isn’t very good.

          My family is half Northern, half southern. The southern half were mountain people, poor, but my father was a WWII vet and got a college education, so I grew up middle class. Racism was extremely common–not universal. For instance, my father wasn’t, and when I said something stupid at age 9 (I said I like Indians better than blacks because Indians fought back) he very gently corrected me about making generalizations about groups of people that way. But the “n” word was used constantly, all the time, by my white classmates before busing started (and more circumspectly afterwards.) I remember one sweet girl at age 13 saying that busing would be a disaster because no one could learn with the “n****” fighting all the time.

          There’s a historian, Rick Perlstein, who has written a book “Nixonland” about (among other themes) how appealing to white racial fears in the 60′s is how the Republican Party won the traditionally Democratic South over to its corner. I grew up there then and knew this from firsthand experience. My father would tell me the South was traditionally Democratic, and I’d go to school and hear my white friends being pro-Republican, and it was tied up with seeing the Democrats as liberal and pro-black.

        • American says:

          “about (among other themes) how appealing to white racial fears in the 60′s is how the Republican Party won the traditionally Democratic South over to its corner. “…Donald

          That is true, that’s where the GOP first made inroads. But it was much like today’s politics where ‘fringes’ or the very fanatical on a issue can be lured by fear mongering or promises. Not that there wasn’t still plenty of bigots but it was that element that worked for the GOP in the South. It’s an odd situation and always has been because for decades the South has been voting itself democratic State governments most of time and yet leans conservative in Federal government.
          If you are really interested in the Civil War era and really want to get into the all the historical events, battles, attitudes and beliefs and politics you should read Shelby Foote’s 3 volumes on The Civil War. Shelby is Southern and those were his personal sympathies but he doesn’t slant it and treats both sides equally. He is who you want to read if you want historical accuracy and also want to ‘feel’ what was going on and inhabit the ‘minds’ of all those involved.

          link to amazon.com

        • lysias says:

          A quote from Thomas Jefferson suffices to demonstrate Southerners’ fear of what the slaves might do:

          “But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
          - Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, (discussing slavery and the Missouri question), Monticello, 22 April 1820

          I happen to be reading Kevin Phillips’s new book 1775: A Good Year for Revolution at the moment. He discusses at length how royal governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore’s promising freedom to slaves who joined the British army to fight against the American Patriots drove almost all the whites of the South into the Patriot camp.

        • Donald says:

          I’ve read Shelby Foote’s 3 volume work–a few summers ago in fact. I loved it, but it’s a very white-centric work. It’s great for the military history aspect. Foote was a product of his time–the mid 20th century, when historians still wrote about the Civil War in somewhat romanticized terms. You should look for the Atlantic Monthly blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates and read some of what he’s said on the Civil War and Civil War history. One could write a history on how the history of the Civil War has been presented. Probably someone has.

        • American says:

          “I loved it, but it’s a very white-centric work. “…Donald

          It had to be because the Civil War was mostly a ‘white on white’ war.

          “He discusses at length how royal governor of Virginia Lord Dunmore’s promising freedom to slaves who joined the British army to fight against the American Patriots drove almost all the whites of the South into the Patriot camp.”..lysias

          If you and lysias are interested in the part of blacks and slaves in the Civil War there are books and records specifically about the Black participation in the war at sites like this one and others that will give you records and lists of books.
          link to nps.gov

          They are much more accurate and detailed about the slave and black attitudes and what they did during the war then books and authors who deal with the war as a whole. For instance regarding lysias’s comment on blacks joining the British army and that scaring whites into the Confederacy. It didn’t really work that way and actually backfired on Dunmore and the British because then various Southern states did the same thing…offering blacks their freedom and a sum of money.
          For instance from the the Africian American site records:

          ”The British governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, quickly saw the vulnerability of the South’s slaveholders. In November 1775, he issued a proclamation promising freedom to any slave of a rebel who could make it to the British lines. Dunmore organized an “Ethiopian” brigade of about 300 African Americans, who saw action at the Battle of Great Bridge (December 9, 1775). Dunmore and the British were soon expelled from Virginia, but the prospect of armed former slaves fighting alongside the British must have struck fear into plantation masters across the South.

          But African Americans in New England rallied to the patriot cause and were part of the militia forces that were organized into the new Continental Army. Approximately 5 percent of the American soldiers at the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775) were black.
          New England blacks mostly served in integrated units and received the same pay as whites, although no African American is known to have held a rank higher than corporal.
          It has been estimated that at least 5,000 black soldiers fought on the patriot side during the Revolutionary War. The exact number will never be known because eighteenth century muster rolls usually did not indicate race. Careful comparisons between muster rolls and church, census, and other records have recently helped identify many black soldiers.

          Additionally, various eyewitness accounts provide some indication of the level of African Americans’ participation during the war. Baron von Closen, a member of Rochambeau’s French army at Yorktown, wrote in July 1781, “A quarter of them [the American army] are Negroes, merry, confident and sturdy.”"”

          I doubt if anyone can say for absolute certain how many blacks fought on either side or died unaccounted for cause a lot of both blacks and whites died unrecorded. In cemeteries thruout the South though, like the one in my town where my ancestor relatives are buried there are graves of Blacks who fought in the revolution. We have a local tv channel here that is mostly dedicated to programs on the historic aspects of the area and they always feature interviews with descendants of Blacks who fought in the Revolution during the Revolution commemorations.. ..very interesting. ..a lot of things about Black participation that people dont know or would never guess.

        • American says:

          “slaves in the Civil War ”

          Sorry… meant to say interested in Blacks and the Revolution….the edit thing is not working for me.

        • Mooser says:

          It’s been said that slavery was a whole lot better than outside agitators have made it out to be, and the Middle Passage was the most popular pleasure-cruise of its day. The only complaint was that the slaves arrived too fat, and wouldn’t fit the custom made clothes their owners had waiting.

          Why on earth would a person feel the need to defend any aspect of 18th and 19th cent. black slavery? Especially when the South made every effort to re-impose it after the Civil War, and nearly suceeded right up into the 1940s and 50s.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Donald
        Good questions; let’s see the reply.

      • American says:

        “Dead wrong. As someone else pointed out. Southerners were deathly afraid of slave uprisings”….Donald

        Listen if you want to fall for the highly dramaticized and hyped up version of what went on after the Civil war ended I can’t stop you. A lot of people do and they probably believe everyone in the South lived on romantic Gone With the Wind plantations like Scarlet too…lol.
        More and more in the world the difference between what was reality in history and how someone portrays it to sell books increases, if you don’t understand that you’re falling for some really ‘sexed up” depictions of ‘what really happened’.

        • Donald says:

          “Listen if you want to fall for the highly dramaticized and hyped up version of what went on after the Civil war ended I can’t stop you”

          I missed this one, but as mentioned above, I was talking about the pre-Civil War era, not later. As for later, KKK terrorism and Jim Crow laws were put in place mainly to prevent the threat of blacks voting, not to prevent an uprising. And I think in the past few decades what’s happened is that historians have poked around the somewhat romanticized version of Civil War and Southern history that I was taught in school and found that it left out or downplayed some really ugly truths–just as the history of Israel was whitewashed. But I don’t doubt that people can overreact in the process of removing whitewash, and possibly be unfair in the other direction. But personally, the similarities between how the South treated its history and the way whites talked about it when I was growing up began to strike me (when I started reading seriously about the I/P issue) as amazingly similar to the way I saw American Jews and Christian Zionists and some liberal Christians talking about the history of Israel and its interactions with Palestinians and other Arabs. Though the resemblance isn’t that amazing when you think about it–in both cases there were some ugly facts about a subculture that people who identified with that subculture didn’t want to acknowledge.

    • Antidote says:

      “There was no rash of Northerners killing Southern children and glorifying the violence by dancing in the street.”

      You’re kidding, right? The Civil War was the deadliest war in American history, killing close to a million soldiers (10% Northerners and 30% white Southerners) and God knows how many civilians. You really should see “Gone with the Wind” , or read this:

      link to nytimes.com

      As for celebrations: How about Thanksgiving?

      • hophmi says:

        Uh, I’m talking about before the war, obviously. There was no rash of Northerners killing Southern children before the Civil War.

        • Antidote says:

          “I’m talking about before the war”

          When did ‘the war’ start in Palestine? Who or what started it?

          Never mind.

        • Cliff says:

          What about Nat Turner’s rebellion? While it alienated some, there were abolitionists like the paper, The Liberator, who essentially said, ‘but who can blame them’?

          Nat Turner killed women and children too.

          Anyways, hoppy, when have you EVER commented honestly on the 48′ War or the Nakba?

          First you blamed all Palestinians for the Grand Mufti – who was politically irrelevant.

          Next, you perpetuate the Zionist blood libel that Palestinians were trying to push the Jews into the sea.

          You’ve never said anything about the numerous Palestinian women and children killed by Israel and in the case of the Palestinian women – raped.

          You only apply moral standards for the reaction to Jewish and Israeli terrorism. You totally approve of the murder, rape, theft, etc. of Palestinians.

    • lyn117 says:

      Yeah, the zionists invaded their land, mass murdered left and right in a premeditated campaign of ethnic cleansing, stole land, resources and wealth of the people, imposed a decades long brutal occupation during half of which they forbade Palestinians so much as to display the Palestinian flag and would shoot or beat people to death for protesting, or simply for living on their own land. And then claim they just want to live in peace with them, and complain of the “malevolence” of the Palestinians

      @Hopmi, do you grasp that the white slaveowners just wanted to live in peace with their slaves too? Or that the white slaveowner’s fear of what slaves would do in a rebellion was as valid as the Israelis’?

      As far as the Palestinians views on equal rights, they were asking for equal rights regardless of creed at least as far back as 1933. Zionist leadership did not then and haven’t since.

    • Antidote says:

      “You would like to force a solution on the region that is against the consent of governed. You’re no Lincoln.”

      sure he is. Because that’s precisely what Lincoln did.

  11. you’re very generous in your interpretation phil. my response to that passage, which i thought stood out like a sore thumb, was mere seconds after the south surrendered. immediately lincoln starts musing about visiting jerusalem, something about solomon and david. i was taken aback. too much pandering for my taste because it was wrongly timed.

    there was only one other glaring feature about the movie i didn’t like.

  12. Mooser says:

    Funny, isn’t it, how “tokyobk” never talks to “OlegR” and “OlegR” never talks to “Hophmi”. Why, here’s this great opportunity to shame us with a show of Zionist unity and consensus solutions, but they won’t take it. Now that’s class! A well-bred distaste for engaging in an unfair fight.
    But that show of Zionist unity on the topics important to Israel’s future sure would be impressive! Probably blow me right out of the place.

    • Are you saying that they’re probably the same 16 year old kid earning some extra pocket money? lol

      • Mooser says:

        “Are you saying that they’re probably the same 16 year old kid earning some extra pocket money? lol”

        Of course not. I’m saying that each of those schlemiels finds it easy to speak for Judaism, or Israel, or Zionism, but they are incapable of talking to each other about these issues, except superficially.

        Who the hell do they think they’re kidding?

        • Mooser says:

          And of course, nobody talks to Yonah. What’s the point?

        • tokyobk says:

          As I have said to you before and happy to make clear again: I am not a Zionist. I reject all ethnic and religious nationalism as a legitimate political force. I believe one has the right to resist other people’s nationalism, and a duty to reject one’s own. The only kind of Zionism I feel is not malevolent is cultural Zionism, the idea that Jews have a real connection to Israel and should be able to live there safely as equals. I have many friends on all sides of this issue and I do not have a litmus test until the racist and genocidal extremes. I believe two states is a good start but my ideal for the region is no different than Ali Abuminah.

          I reject Jewish supremacy over Palestinians in every case without reservation.

          Which part of the above makes me a Zionist?

          I respond to the issues here that interest me as everyone else does. When I feel the nee to respond to Oleg or Hophmi I will.

        • seanmcbride says:

          tokyobk,

          I finally have your views in focus and I find that I agree with them all. And I also strongly support “cultural Zionism” — the freedom and ability of Jews to express their historical and cultural connection to their ancient land in a completely unfettered way.

          Actually, I may be a bit more of a political Zionist than you are — I would still support the two-state solution if there were the slightest chance of it being realized — which would include Israel’s ability to organize itself as a Jewish state, but one which fully respects modern Western democratic values. But that clearly isn’t going to happen. Israel intends to go for broke in pursuit of the dream of building Greater Israel.

        • irishmoses says:

          Tokyobk,

          “Cultural Zionism”; that’s a new one on me. I find it fascinating because it opens the door to an Abrahamic revival in the Holy Land whereby Christian, Muslim, and Jew can share in their common “real connection to Israel (Palestine) and live there safely as equals”. I am presuming of course that you agree that Christians and Muslims also have a real connection to the Holy Land that also entitles them to safety and equality. Come to think of it, that equality was spelled out in the Balfour Declaration.

          Tokyobk, you give me hope, but I need a few more details. Does the “real connection” of the Jews to Palestine entitle them to a separate and exclusive part? If so, aren’t Christians and Muslims also entitled to separate and exclusive parts based on their own cultural “real connection” to Palestine (or Israel, or the Holy Land)? Or, are you suggesting that all three Abrahamic faiths share the Holy Land equally since all three have a cultural real connection that entitles them to safety and equality?

          Cultural Abrahamism; what a fascinating concept. This would lead to the A1SS: the Abrahamic one state solution.

        • seanmcbride says:

          irishmoses,

          Cultural Abrahamism; what a fascinating concept. This would lead to the A1SS: the Abrahamic one state solution.

          I love where you’re going here.

          Perhaps tokyobk could get on board.

          Jewish culture could thrive in a democratic and culturally diverse Abrahamic state — just as it currently thrives in the United States.

        • tokyobk says:

          Islam and then Christianity are the dominant faiths in the ME so those connections are obvious. There is nothing inherently antagonistic or unfair about a majority population wielding more influence than minorities as long as minorities are protected as a category and individual rights are inalienable and neutrally defined.

          My point is that a cultural Zionism that affirms Jewish connections (or for example the revival of Hebrew) does not have to be the buttress of an ethnic state. This is an old point, of course, though pushed by the wayside in mainstream Jewish life. I was only explaining that I am comfortable with Jews who want to maintain this kind of connection with Israel and the parts of historic Palestine that matter to them such as Hebron.

          In fact, the One State Solution depends on recognizing the naturalness of Jews and respecting a mild cultural Zionism, much more so than the 2 in which both sides can continue to dream of “purity.”

          And just for the record, since there were assumptions here, I consider myself (regarding this discussion) an American Jewish non-Zionist.

          The Jewish people matter to me a great, great deal. The Israeli State not so much (though I see it as an object of history like Australia or Pakistan or the US, not a focal point of my moral outrage) and often I am quite offended by its actions which are bad for people living there and undercut the best aspects of the Jewish people and our religious and historical legacy.

        • hophmi says:

          “In fact, the One State Solution depends on recognizing the naturalness of Jews and respecting a mild cultural Zionism, much more so than the 2 in which both sides can continue to dream of “purity.””

          How so? Let’s deal with reality. There is no reason, historically or politically, to believe that in a one-state context, the Palestinians would respect a “cultural Zionism,” whatever that means today. Even in the so-called golden age, Jews were not accorded an unfettered right to practice their religion, and they certainly were not accorded such rights in Enlightenment Europe; they aren’t accorded such rights in today’s Europe.

          No, as a matter of theory, cultural Zionism does not have to equal a “Jewish state.” But in a world where most states have a predominant religious or ethnic majority and where minority rights are an ongoing problem, a problem that has affected Jews in a particularly acute way, why should Jews volunteer to relegate themselves to that status in a region that has a bad record of protecting minority rights, let alone permitting minority cultures to fully flower in the manner cultural Zionism suggests?

        • tokyobk says:

          Sean, I fear you are correct about going for broke with Greater Israel, Fortress Israel.

        • chinese box says:

          Jews were not accorded an unfettered right to practice their religion, and they certainly were not accorded such rights in Enlightenment Europe; they aren’t accorded such rights in today’s Europe.

          So you’re now claiming that Jews in the UK and France aren’t allowed to practice their religion? Link, please? What is your definition of “unfettered rights”? Are you talking about the most extreme Hasidim and their rigid set of practices?

        • tokyobk says:

          Hophmi,

          I agree with you that there is great hostility among many anti-Zionists to even cultural Zionism: The stuff about Israeli’s “stealing” hummus (and other downplaying of native Jewish culture as well as expulsions).

          Though, as I say, its those who hold up One State who need most to understand that one peaceful state only happens with a reconciliation and acknowledgment of people’s right to be there as equals under the law.

          This is a criticism of anti-Zionism.

          I am very aware of the reality for Jews in the past and the difficulty of establishing a fair society anywhere,perhaps moreso in today’s ME.

          But there is no other way forward. No way that is acceptable to me at least. And not just me.

        • eljay says:

          >> But in a world where most states have a predominant religious or ethnic majority and where minority rights are an ongoing problem, a problem that has affected Jews in a particularly acute way, why should Jews volunteer to relegate themselves to that status in a region that has a bad record of protecting minority rights …

          1. Make “Jewish” a bureaucratic nationality, so that every citizen and immigrant to Israel is “Jewish”, with full and equal rights. Then Israel can be a 100% Jewish state in the same way that other countries (Canadian, American, German, etc.) are states of and for their people.

          2. Retain Israeli as the bureaucratic nationality and foster Jewish culture within a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel. Let citizens choose between living in a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel that is culturally Jewish (while respecting other cultures) or moving to a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine that is culturally Palestinian (while respecting other cultures).

          3. Dismantle the “Jewish State” colonialist entity and let Jews migrate to parts of the world that do not have “a bad record of protecting minority rights”. Aside from Zio-supremacists, no one is asking Jews to risk their lives in Palestine.

        • Mooser says:

          irish moses, it leads to a whole lot of pilpul abuse. And when you point that out, a full-fledged Ziocaine syndrome goes into effect. Remember, you may not like self-determination, but then there’s self-defense! We can’t just let Jews seeking a cultural Zion be murdered, you know.

    • tokyobk says:

      Mooser,

      Setting aside the others (who are indeed Zionists and have said as much) my reason for avoiding you is showcased above.

      You are continuously snarky and can’t sit still for a moment to have a real conversation. You are often immature and resort to name calling, like “schlemiel.”
      You come in and out of lucidity and shoot wildly.

      As I have said to you before and happy to make clear again: I am not a Zionist. I reject all ethnic and religious nationalism as a legitimate political force. I believe one has the right to resist other people’s nationalism, and a duty to reject one’s own. The only kind of Zionism I feel is not malevolent is cultural Zionism, the idea that Jews have a real connection to Israel and should be able to live there safely as equals. I have many friends on all sides of this issue and I do not have a litmus test until the racist and genocidal extremes. I believe two states is a good start but my ideal for the region is no different than Ali Abuminah.

      I reject Jewish supremacy over Palestinians in every case without reservation.

      Which part of the above makes me a Zionist?

      I respond to the issues here that interest me as everyone else does. When I feel the nee to respond to Oleg or Hophmi I will.

      • chinese box says:

        @tokyobk

        NOT being snarky, but I’m still unclear on your views. Do you support 1ss with equal voting rights for all?

      • Mooser says:

        tokyobk, if you are willing to indict yourself like that, show everybody that your view spiral off into fact-denying fantasies, I’ve got no objection, and there’s no reason why you have to engage me. You’ll do a fine job for yourself. And your aura of ‘intellectual entitlement’ (to be nice about it) will endear you to all. It’s a combo I can’t do anything but stand back and admire.

        • chinese box says:

          @Mooser

          I’m still not clear on what tokyobk’s views are but he(?) seems more rational than some of the other posters here. I don’t get the impression he’s a hasbarist.

  13. dbroncos says:

    “I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”

    – Lincoln
    From the Lincoln -Douglas debates.

    In his rhetoric Lincoln wasn’t committed to equality, at least not by our contemporary standards. Perhaps the same can be said of LBJ. But what they said about American blacks in public or in private didn’t matter compared to what they did even in the face of radically changing the status quo with no guarantees of success – no small thing. In Obama’s case the opposite is true. He’s happy to pay lip service to equity (Cairo speech) while supporting whole hog Zionist fascism in Israel.

  14. bobbydigital says:

    Interesting take. I think this new Lincoln movie will shed even more light on the matter: link to savinglincoln.com

  15. While “Lincoln”, the movie by Tony Kushner, might assert a one state solution, I doubt Lincoln the man would have. He was a realist, who in fact wished to avoid a civil war rather than end slavery in the south. That war was brought on by the fact that the south wished to extend slavery elsewhere and insisted on secession and attacking Fort Sumter to assert its rights. He was also a creature of his times in terms of thinking that sending the blacks back to Africa was the best solution.

    Has Phil commented yet on the situation in Egypt? Whose side is he on in Egypt? The majority or the minority? The Muslim Brotherhood that wants to rule democratically or the minority that wants there to be limits on the will of the people reined in by rules in a constitution. Has Phil taken sides on this issue yet? Or is he waiting for the dust to settle? (He might have commented and I missed it. If so, sorry. If not, then he is a fair weather friend to minority rights, waiting for the winner to be revealed. I wonder how the liberal Egyptians feel about fair weather friends like Phi.)

    • The Muslim Brotherhood that wants to rule democratically or the minority that wants there to be limits on the will of the people reined in by rules in a constitution.

      so, you got it all figured out do you yonah. are you aware the guardian’s on the ground reporter was tweeting denunciations of the editorial staff’s op ed yesterday? you just mimicked that op ed.somehow..i ain’t biting it’s as simple as you make it out to be.

      • Mooser says:

        Poor Yonah. It’s a hell of a thing to be convinced you are smarter than anybody else. Painful disillusions abound.

      • Annie Robbins- My assessment is superficial and based upon headlines and sound bites. It could be that the anti Morsi forces are terrible people who wish to return power to Mubarak or the army or the old order. It could be that Egypt needs a constitution that doesn’t defend its minorities and gives unlimited power to its legislature and President. (I doubt both of these premises, but I certainly realize that superficial headlines and sound bites don’t always reveal the truth.)

        But if Phil cites the drive towards democracy in Egypt as a symptom that happy days are coming to the world and the Middle East (and he has and does), then he owes his readers some reading of the situation on the ground in Egypt. The situation is 17 or so days old. Odds are he has an opinion. Why does he keep it to himself?

        • actually yonah, i have not discussed it with phil. but i do know his life has been unusually full of family matters for over a month and the working trip to israel was sandwiched in there.

          i’ve been following events to a degree, but i don’t feel qualified to asses the situation there right now. it actually takes a lot of research to write about something you know little about. i know a lot of people are very disappointed in morsi right now.that i do know. the world bank loan, raising taxes and then changing his mind, and then back..it’s hard to keep track. i know he’s working with the US, i know he was instrumental in the ceasefire with gaza. but what i don’t really know about is how things work in egypt. it seems incredibly confusing. and i don’t feel qualified to judge because of the situation they are coming out of. everything is very new, relatively speaking. i don’t think a large complex country can transition from a dictatorship to a democracy seamlessly. i’ve read a lot about it and tend to read almost everything with a grain of salt.

          syria is very violent and intense now also. there’s been an amazing amount of neocon emphasis/accusation on them possible using WMD (very sonn, allegedly), but thus far no concrete evidence at all. just a lots of fanfare which, ever so conveniently, just happens to segue with the US plans to gather all these opposition groups together. but of course some are extremely unsavory. then there’s the recent hype of hezbollah maybe getting them too! horrors,pleeease! but naturally, nothing definitive…all allegations. so much gossip so little fact/time. so between our staff i don’t know who’s qualified to write about egypt, but i’ll put some feelers out. we have lots of contributors.

          here’s a cartoon you might enjoy:

          link to latuffcartoons.wordpress.com

        • It could be that the anti Morsi forces are terrible people who wish to return power to Mubarak or the army or the old order.

          i had to respond to this too. very amusing:

          On Friday morning, and as Egypt’s resurgent revolution was preparing to lock horns yet again with forces bent on its destruction, I received (an exceedingly) long distance call from an Australian broadcast journalist. They wanted a phone interview with me on the confrontation between “the Muslim Brotherhood and the pro-Mubarak forces,” explained the female voice on the other side of the line. Utterly baffled by the bizarre question, it took me a while to reply. Finally, with admittedly a nasty chuckle, I said it seemed that by the time Egypt’s news gets half way across half the globe to reach down under, it tends to be rather distorted.

          link to english.ahram.org.eg

          recommend

    • Cliff says:

      Wondering Jew – you know nothing about Lincoln. Don’t try to Zionize him – its especially pathetic for a Know Nothing like you.

      Lincoln believed the Union could not be partial enslaved and partial free.

      He was most interested in preserving the union though but saw war as an inevitability.

      That is realism – not the 2SS which racists like you support because you want to protect your privilege.

      Lincoln was not looking to protect his privilege like racist pro-Israel Jews.

      • Antidote says:

        “Wondering Jew – you know nothing about Lincoln.”

        Well, neither do you, apparently. Yonah is perfectly correct calling Lincoln a racist who contemplated sending Blacks back to Africa (or resettling them in reservations, apartheid-style). Your ignorance or denial of Lincoln’s “White Dream” may suit your need of sentimental wet-dreaming about this and other ‘great presidents’ but is a far cry from historical fact

        ___

        “Who freed the slaves? To the extent that they were ever ‘freed,’ they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was authored and pressured into existence not by Lincoln but by the great emancipators nobody knows, the abolitionists and congressional leaders who created the climate and generated the pressure that goaded, prodded, drove, forced Lincoln into glory by associating him with a policy that he adamantly opposed for at least fifty-four of his fifty-six years of his life.”

        Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’ s White Dream, p. 19

        [...]

        Bennett documents that Lincoln stated publicly that “America was made for the White people and not for the Negroes” (p. 211), and “at least twenty-one times, he said publicly that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks.” “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races,” said Lincoln (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 2, p. 521).

        Reading through Forced into Glory, one gets the clear impression that Bennett got angrier and angrier at the non-stop excuse-making, lying, cover-ups, and fabrications of the “Lincoln scholars.” He never takes his eye of the ball, however, and is relentless in throwing facts in the faces of the Lincoln cultists.

        As a member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln urged the legislature “to appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation” (p. 228). As president, Lincoln toiled endlessly with plans to “colonize” (i.e., deport) all of the black people out of America. This is what Bennett calls Lincoln’s “White Dream,” and more recent research of the very best caliber supports him. I refer to the book Colonization after Emancipation by Phillip Magness of American University and Sebastian Page of Oxford University that, using records from the American and British national archives, proves that until his dying day Lincoln was negotiating with Great Britain and other foreign governments to deport all of the soon-to-be-freed slaves out of the U.S.

        The Lincoln cult, which has fabricated excuses for everything, argued for years that Lincoln mysteriously abandoned his obsession with “colonization” sometime around 1863. Magness and Page prove this to be the nonsense that it is.

        In Illinois, the state constitution was amended in 1848 to prohibit free black people from residing in the state. Lincoln supported it. He also supported the Illinois Black Codes, under which “Illinois Blacks had no legal rights. White people were bound to respect.” “None of this disturbed Lincoln,” writes Bennett.

        Bennett also points out the clear historical fact that Lincoln strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act which forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to their owners. He admittedly never said a word about slavery in public until he was in his fifties, while everyone else in the nation was screaming about the issue. When he did oppose slavery, Bennett points out, it was always in the abstract, accompanied by some statement to the effect that he didn’t know what could be done about it. And as a presidential candidate he never opposed Southern slavery, only the extension of slavery into the territories, explaining that “we” wanted to preserve the Territories “for free White people” (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 311). In Bennett’s own words: “One must never forget that Lincoln always spoke in tongues or in a private code when he was talking about slavery or Negroes. And although he said or seemed to say that slavery was wrong, he always qualified the assertion in the same speech or in a succeeding speech, saying either that slavery was wrong in an abstract sense or that it was wrong in so far as it sought to spread itself.” He was a master politician, after all, which as Murray Rothbard once said, means that he was a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator.

        All of these truths, and many more, have been ignored, swept under the rug, or buried under thousands of pages of excuses by the Lincoln cult over the past century and more in books and in films like the new Lincoln film by Steven Spielberg. After spending a quarter of a century researching and writing on the subject, Lerone Bennett, Jr. concluded that “Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in ‘the great emancipator’ and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him” (p. 114). And “with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.” Amen, Brother Lerone.

        November 10, 2012

        Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, How Capitalism Saved America, and Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

        link to lewrockwell.com

        Harry Jaffa, the dean of what DiLorenzo calls the “Lincoln cultists,” has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.

        In Germany, Hitler promised that the Nazis “would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power.” Thus the “mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.” Which side was the Nazi one again, Professor Jaffa?

        link to lewrockwell.com

        Compare:

        “What are the similarities between Adolf Hitler and Abraham Lincoln?”

        Answer:
        “They both ran a country through a war, and were both hated by most members of the apposing side. Of course, Lincoln was a great man who fought to end slavery, while Hitler tried to commit genocide.”

        link to wiki.answers.com

        So the bad guys (racists) in 19th c American history were the Southerners who were forcefully brought to their senses by the great Lincoln who never ever supported genocide, and certainly not in the context of Lebensraum expansion all the way to California? Let’s remember that Hitler’s Lebensraum-plan in the East was modeled on the American conquest of the West

        BOOK REVIEW

        Murder State: California’s Native American Genocide, 1846-1873
        BY STEVEN NEWCOMB/AUGUST 10, 2012

        Lindsay uses the UN Genocide Convention, Rafael Lemkin (who coined the term “genocide”), and genocide studies as key aspects of his framework of analysis. He has provided a meticulously detailed and comprehensive account of the murderous treatment of the original peoples of California by Euro-Americans who poured onto Indian lands during the gold rush days. White citizen groups utilized democratic processes as a means of committing genocide against the original nations and peoples of California.

        It was methodical, it was well-planned and it was well-executed—with lethal and ghastly results.

        For the sake of dead cattle, sometimes killed by starving Indians, and often for the sake of dead cattle not killed by Indians at all, thousands of Indians were wantonly murdered. Vigilante groups were democratically formed, financed by local citizens, to hunt Indians down and kill them as if they were animals destined to be slaughtered. The lives of cattle were deemed much more valuable than the lives of Indians, who were considered to be a nuisance that needed to be removed permanently, “by death or deportation,” so the whites could help themselves to valuable Indian lands and resources.

        It was all done in the spirit of Manifest Destiny, yet, ironically at times a few U.S. Army officers tried to defend Indian people, to no avail.

        During that time, the kidnapping and rape of Indian women was treated as a sport or a readily available form of entertainment for white men who could not be punished for such egregious conduct under white laws. The kidnapping of surviving Indian children by whites was rampant. Forced Indian labor became a way of life to fuel the white economy.

        In the chapter “Advertising Genocide,” Lindsay recounts the description of the Indian Island Massacre, as published in Northern Californian Union in 1860, by a twenty-four year old newspaper guest editor named Francis Bret Harte. Lindsay states that “Since the women and children were unarmed, the volunteers mostly saved their ammunition, instead hacking them to death with axes and knives.” Harte, the guest editor, explained what happened to Wiyot people under a doctrine of extermination:

        Little children and old women were mercilessly stabbed and their skulls crushed with axes…. Old women wrinkled and decrepit lay weltering in their blood, their brains dashed out and dabbed with their long grey hair. Infants scarce a span long, with their faces cloven with hatchets and their bodies ghastly with wounds…. No resistance was made, it is said to the butchers who did the work, but as they ran or huddled together for protection like sheep, they were struck down with hatchets. Very little shooting was done, most of the bodies having wounds about the head.

        Lindsay goes on to explain that because he “tried to demonstrate the monstrosity of Euro-American actions, Harte seemed to local people to be a traitor to his own race.” A grand jury convened to look into the matter ended its proceedings without concluding anything. “No evidence existed, the jurors claimed, to bring charges.” Lindsay explains that one editor of the Humboldt Times claimed that people who “lamented the massacre” and “‘shed crocodile tears over the poor Indians’” were “fools.”

        In his preface, Lindsay explains that during his seven years of graduate work, and as a university lecturer, “I encountered many students colleagues, and faculty unwilling to accept the argument that genocide had been committed upon Native Americans in California and the United States during the nineteenth century.” Such people had the impression, he explains, “that the tremendous loss of lives was instead an unintended consequence or even a necessary evil of the advance of Western civilization or national progress.”

        That the history of the treatment of Indian nations and peoples is a history of domination, dehumanization, and genocide is the inevitable conclusion to draw after reading Murder State. As Peter H. Burnett, governor of California put it in an 1852 “Address to the Legislature”:

        That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected; while we cannot anticipate this result with but painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert.

        When the carnage was over, white Euro-Americans had successfully reduced the Indian population of California by some 90 percent.

        Some scholars have brilliantly referred to history as “a history of the present.” The genocide unleashed on the Indians of California in the nineteenth century is a key aspect of that history of the present. One of the lessons we can bring away after reading Mr. Lindsay’s book is that genocide is the wider historical context of contemporary issues in California and elsewhere, issues such as Indian nation sovereignty, land into trust, water, and the taxation of Indian nations by two institutional perpetrators and beneficiaries of that genocide, the state of California, and the federal government of the United States.

        link to indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com

        Once in a while a book comes along that is transformative. Murder State, by Brendan Lindsay, is such a book. Recently released by University of Nebraska Press, Murder State is heart- wrenching and deeply informative. I see it as one of the most important works ever published on the history of American Indians in California in the mid-nineteenth century. It ranks up there with David Stannard’s 1992 masterpiece American Holocaust, in the context of overall Indian history.

        Lindsay uses the UN Genocide Convention, Rafael Lemkin (who coined the term “genocide”), and genocide studies as key aspects of his framework of analysis. He has provided a meticulously detailed and comprehensive account of the murderous treatment of the original peoples of California by Euro-Americans who poured onto Indian lands during the gold rush days. White citizen groups utilized democratic processes as a means of committing genocide against the original nations and peoples of California.

        It was methodical, it was well-planned and it was well-executed—with lethal and ghastly results.

        For the sake of dead cattle, sometimes killed by starving Indians, and often for the sake of dead cattle not killed by Indians at all, thousands of Indians were wantonly murdered. Vigilante groups were democratically formed, financed by local citizens, to hunt Indians down and kill them as if they were animals destined to be slaughtered. The lives of cattle were deemed much more valuable than the lives of Indians, who were considered to be a nuisance that needed to be removed permanently, “by death or deportation,” so the whites could help themselves to valuable Indian lands and resources.

        It was all done in the spirit of Manifest Destiny, yet, ironically at times a few U.S. Army officers tried to defend Indian people, to no avail.

        During that time, the kidnapping and rape of Indian women was treated as a sport or a readily available form of entertainment for white men who could not be punished for such egregious conduct under white laws. The kidnapping of surviving Indian children by whites was rampant. Forced Indian labor became a way of life to fuel the white economy.

        In the chapter “Advertising Genocide,” Lindsay recounts the description of the Indian Island Massacre, as published in Northern Californian Union in 1860, by a twenty-four year old newspaper guest editor named Francis Bret Harte. Lindsay states that “Since the women and children were unarmed, the volunteers mostly saved their ammunition, instead hacking them to death with axes and knives.” Harte, the guest editor, explained what happened to Wiyot people under a doctrine of extermination:

        Little children and old women were mercilessly stabbed and their skulls crushed with axes…. Old women wrinkled and decrepit lay weltering in their blood, their brains dashed out and dabbed with their long grey hair. Infants scarce a span long, with their faces cloven with hatchets and their bodies ghastly with wounds…. No resistance was made, it is said to the butchers who did the work, but as they ran or huddled together for protection like sheep, they were struck down with hatchets. Very little shooting was done, most of the bodies having wounds about the head.

        Lindsay goes on to explain that because he “tried to demonstrate the monstrosity of Euro-American actions, Harte seemed to local people to be a traitor to his own race.” A grand jury convened to look into the matter ended its proceedings without concluding anything. “No evidence existed, the jurors claimed, to bring charges.” Lindsay explains that one editor of the Humboldt Times claimed that people who “lamented the massacre” and “‘shed crocodile tears over the poor Indians’” were “fools.”

        In his preface, Lindsay explains that during his seven years of graduate work, and as a university lecturer, “I encountered many students colleagues, and faculty unwilling to accept the argument that genocide had been committed upon Native Americans in California and the United States during the nineteenth century.” Such people had the impression, he explains, “that the tremendous loss of lives was instead an unintended consequence or even a necessary evil of the advance of Western civilization or national progress.”

        That the history of the treatment of Indian nations and peoples is a history of domination, dehumanization, and genocide is the inevitable conclusion to draw after reading Murder State. As Peter H. Burnett, governor of California put it in an 1852 “Address to the Legislature”:

        That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected; while we cannot anticipate this result with but painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert.

        When the carnage was over, white Euro-Americans had successfully reduced the Indian population of California by some 90 percent.

        Some scholars have brilliantly referred to history as “a history of the present.” The genocide unleashed on the Indians of California in the nineteenth century is a key aspect of that history of the present. One of the lessons we can bring away after reading Mr. Lindsay’s book is that genocide is the wider historical context of contemporary issues in California and elsewhere, issues such as Indian nation sovereignty, land into trust, water, and the taxation of Indian nations by two institutional perpetrators and beneficiaries of that genocide, the state of California, and the federal government of the United States.

        Steven Newcomb (Shawnee,Lenape) is the co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and the Indigenous and Kumeyaay Research Coordinator for the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.

        _______

        I’m looking forward to Native Americans joining the Herero and Armenians in filing lawsuits and demanding billions in reparations. Maybe it can all somehow be blamed on German or Turkish Americans? Or Zionists?

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          I think that Rule #1 under the heading of: “What To Do If You Want To Have an Historical Discussion And Not Have Everyone Laugh At You, Point Fingers And Call You A ‘Kook’” is: Don’t cite Tom DiLorenzo or lewrockwell.com.

      • Cliff- Lincoln favored the blacks going back to Africa. He opposed giving them the vote. His belief regarding half free and half slave and a house divided against itself were more basic to his beliefs than his beliefs regarding what to do with the blacks after emancipation, I believe. I put him in the context of his time. 1860 and not 2012. I wish we could have him around to give us advice, rather than just Tony Kushner and the uncivil denizens of the Mondoweiss basement like you. (Not all denizens of the Mondoweiss basement are uncivil, but you certainly are, Cliff.)

        • Mooser says:

          “I wish we could have him around to give us advice, rather than just Tony Kushner and the uncivil denizens of the Mondoweiss basement like you. (Not all denizens of the Mondoweiss basement are uncivil, but you certainly are, Cliff.)”

          Oy Gevalt what a life. Civil and uncivil alike, we’re all in a basement. Not walking around in the sunshine petting the ponies and unicorns with Yonah. Look down and pity us, Yonah!

        • Mooser says:

          “Lincoln favored the blacks going back to Africa. He opposed giving them the vote.”

          So “transfer” of the Palestinians is straight out of the American tradition! Wow, never though about it that way before.

        • Mooser- How about this proposal for the West Bank, they can vote for prime minister but they won’t have any vote for the Knesset, just like American citizens living in Washington d.c.? Or how about Jewish Israel will be divided into 49 states with 2 senators each and the west bank will be called one state with 2 senators only. Like New York state vis a vis Wyoming, Nebraska and North Dakota. There are plenty of current tense undemocratic vestiges in America, we don’t have to go back to Lincoln and 1860.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          LOL. If the Jews in the West Bank don’t get to vote for the Knesset and the Palestinians are free to go wherever they want to live, without restriction, including the 49 states that do get to vote, I’m sure that would be acceptable. (and I would invest in moving companies, because they’ll be a lot of movement out of the WB, until the new, majority Arab Knesset grants the vote to all, including the WB.)…

          Or do you propose that the “DC” status of the Palestinians follow them like a mark of Cain?

  16. lysias says:

    Wasn’t Lincoln a free thinker of very doubtful Christianity? So, would he have expressed a desire to go to Jerusalem?

    If he would not, if this wish attributed to him is unhistorical, that strengthens the case that Kushner and Spielberg are trying to make a point here.

    • Ellen says:

      And the point is that Jerusalem is really the spiritual 51st State?

      Have not seen the movie, but all things considered that a myth making piece of hollywood historical propaganda ending with a line like that seems creepy.

      • a myth making piece of hollywood historical propaganda ending with a line like that seems creepy.

        ellen, the movie didn’t end on that myth, just our civil war (it was spoken seconds after the surrender of general lee as it appeared lincoln was riding away in a carriage, although it could have been another day). the movie ended with his assassination (tho they didn’t show it), or shortly thereafter.

        i thought given the enormity of the moment (the movies defining end of our civil war) swiftly turning the attention towards jerusalem was inappropriate.

  17. flyod says:

    Henry Wentworth Monk..

  18. seanmcbride says:

    Lysias,

    Wasn’t Lincoln a free thinker of very doubtful Christianity? So, would he have expressed a desire to go to Jerusalem?

    Lincoln was definitely neither a Christian Zionist nor a biblical simpleton:

    Some Lincoln quotes on religion:

    1. “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.”

    2. “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

    3. “The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.”

    4. “The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.”

    5. “When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read: “All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

    6. “I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed that He would reveal it directly to me … These are not, however, the days of miracles…. I must study the plain, physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right.”

    Maunsell B. Field on Lincoln:

    Mr. Lincoln was entirely deficient in what the phrenologists call reverence [veneration]…. I was once in Mr. Lincoln’s company when a sectarian controversy arose. He himself looked very grave, and made no observation until all the others had finished what they had to say. Then with a twinkle of the eye he remarked that he preferred the Episcopalians to every other sect, because they are equally indifferent to a man’s religion and his politics.”

    And from the Wikipedia entry “Abraham Lincoln and Religion”:

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Noll argues Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man who saw how excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. As a young man, Lincoln enjoyed reading the works of deists such as Thomas Paine. He drafted a pamphlet incorporating such ideas. Nonetheless, after charges of hostility to Christianity almost cost him a congressional bid, he kept his unorthodox interests private.

    and:

    William Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner, stated that Lincoln admired deists Thomas Paine and Voltaire, and had read and knew of Charles Darwin before most. “He soon grew into a belief of a universal law, evolution, and from this he never deviated.”

    Abraham Lincoln was almost certainly in the same Enlightenment camp as Voltaire, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson — a skeptic, rationalist and free thinker.

  19. kalithea says:

    My comments [...]

    Spielberg: “From the day I started to think [think? - I doubt it very much!] politically and to develop my own moral values, from my earliest youth, I have been an ardent defender of Israel. [iow, Defender of land theft, occupation, oppression and ETHNIC CLEANSING.] As a Jew I am aware of how important the existence of Israel is for the survival of us all. [Whut??? So then, you're not thriving in America?] And because I am proud of being Jewish, I am worried by the growing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the world [because the world should love the oppressor...riiight?]. In my film I ask questions about America’s war on terror and about Israel’s responses to Palestinian attacks. If it became necessary, I would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel [note the contradiction in these two sentences - what to believe???].”

    link to spiegel.de

    This statement is replete with IGNORANCE. This is a man with absolutely NO INTEGRITY, and nothing disgusts me more.

    • American says:

      “As a Jew I am aware of how important the existence of Israel is for the survival of us all.”

      I have one question…because I see this statement made all the time….by religious fanatics and Israel agents…usually along the line of America can’t exist without Israel and so forth or if Israel perishes the world will perish..

      How do they come up with these wild beliefs? It seems to me it can only be what I’ve said before…they are a cult, a actual cult with all the mythical, delusional, fantastical kinds of beliefs that cults typically promote. Spielberg comes across as normal, lives I guess a normal life for the most part, has a successful career…and yet he’s a loony bird. Scary thought how many people in the world that we think are “normal” or appear normal in most areas of their lives actually may have these kind of crazy beliefs.

  20. Antidote says:

    Note on the Gettysburg Address

    by H.L. Mencken

    The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

    • hophmi says:

      I wouldn’t quote Mencken on democracy, since he was not exactly an unabashed fan of it.

      In any case, his notion is ridiculous, given that the Confederates were fighting to preserve a way of life that included slavery.

      • lysias says:

        The American Revolution too was fought to a significant extent to preserve a slavery that Americans thought was threatened by Britain after Lord Mansfield’s Somerset decision. (Read Slave Nation by Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen.)

        Does that fact mean that the Thirteen Colonies had no right to secede from the British Empire, and that it was the British government that was in the right in that war?

        • Antidote says:

          “Does that fact mean that the Thirteen Colonies had no right to secede from the British Empire, and that it was the British government that was in the right in that war?”

          Whether they had the right or not — if the 13 Colonies had not seceded but had followed the British model of abolishing slavery they would not have had to fight the Revolutionary War and Civil War. Unless neither war was about enslaving or not enslaving Africans

      • Antidote says:

        I quoted Mencken on self-determination, not democracy

        There a few unabashed fans of democracy. Here are some examples for you:

        link to en.wikiquote.org As Churchill put it:

        ‘The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”

        Which is the best argument against your illogical defense of democracy next to defending the right of Israel to defend itself and a way of life that not only includes apartheid but also denies self-determination to the very same people they oppress, imprison, blockade, segregate and kill with impunity. How is that better than slavery?

        As we know, the ancient Hebrews (or Egyptians) had no objection to slavery as long as they were not the ones being enslaved. It’s always the same problem: Do not do to others… It’s really simple. why don’t you get it???

        • Mooser says:

          “Do not do to others… It’s really simple. why don’t you get it???”

          Jeez, didn’t Mencken have something to say about that (who doesn’t ‘get’ what and why)? But for the life of me, I can’t remember what it is. It’s like my salary depends on not recalling it or something.

  21. kalithea says:

    I forgot to add one more thing to my comments on Spielberg’s statement to Spiegel:

    I have been an ardent defender of Israel. [Defender of land theft, occupation, oppression and ETHNIC CLEANSING.]

    • Antidote says:

      “I [Spielberg] have been an ardent defender of Israel. [Defender of land theft, occupation, oppression and ETHNIC CLEANSING.]”

      I’m looking forward to Spielberg’s next movie: “FDR” — defender of land theft, occupation, oppression and massive ethnic cleansing in Europe — and his dramatization of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. And I’m sure he’ll find a place for this FDR quote

      I have read with interest and a good deal of dismay the decisions of the British Government regarding its Palestine policy…. Fra nkly I do not believe that the British are wholly correct in saying that the framers of the Palestine Mandate “could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country.”… [W]hile the Palestine Mandate undoubtedly did not intend to take away the right of citizenship and of taking part in the Government on the part of the Arab population, it nevertheless did intend to convert Palestine into a Jewish Home…. Certainly that was the impression that was given to the whole world at the time of the Mandate.”

      Read more at link to quotes.dictionary.com