‘J Street’ leader hints that 2013 is make-or-break for two-state solution

Israel/Palestine
on 366 Comments

J Street, the liberal Zionist group, asserts that Obama will be reviving the two-state solution on his trip to Israel and Palestine in March, and the theme of its Fall 2013 conference is that it’s now J Street’s time to lead the American Jewish community– i.e., not AIPAC. The group’s latest messaging balances an acknowledgment of Palestinian “anger” and “frustration” under occupation with affirmation of the need for a Jewish state: in March, J Street Miami is screening the Gatekeepers, the Oscar-nominated documentary in which former heads of the Shin Bet call for an end to the occupation, though as my tipster points out, it’s not screening “5 Broken Cameras,” the film about occupation told from a Palestinian point of view, which is far more descriptive of actual oppression.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, just got back from a trip to Israel and Palestine with four congresspeople and sent out an email in which he speaks of Palestinian anger and frustration, notes that Israeli two-staters don’t seem to hold out much hope for the Obama trip, and describes Gaza, which he did not visit, as “Hamas-controlled Gaza.”

I’d point out that Ben-Ami’s elected companions were all liberal Democrats, two of them African-American. So J Street is operating on the left of the mainstream discourse. Some of Ben-Ami’s email:

The J Street delegation met with Knesset Members from four different factions – and consistently heard that the election results represented widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo on social and economic issues and left the Prime Minister scrambling. However, we heard equally clearly that the election did not constitute a referendum on the Palestinian question. While the number of strong advocates for a two-state solution increased in the new Knesset, there continues to be little public discussion of or attention to the conflict or the urgency of achieving a two-state solution overall.

Obama’s trip: We spoke a lot about the Obama trip – what he should say and do while he is here. Some Israelis have already written the trip off saying that he’s not going to do anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they are taking the White House’s clear statements that he won’t be bringing a plan as a sign that the trip is not serious….

Our group urged those we met with not to misread the signs around the trip and to recognize just how serious the President and Secretary of State Kerry are about addressing the conflict. We urged them to pay careful attention to the style and tone of the trip and to keep a close eye on the follow-up actions in the coming months. Progress toward an end of the conflict won’t happen as the result of one trip, but the President’s commitment to a serious and sustained effort is what we should be seeking

Urgency: Finally, we came back with a strong sense of the urgency that is being felt on the Palestinian side. Tension is high and those who have supported the institution-building program of Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad are very worried that the program is on the verge of collapse in the absence of sustained commitments of funding and a lack of political progress.

We heard very clearly the rising anger and frustration from Palestinians. While we were there, prisoners were on hunger strike again, large-scale protests were building, and it seems there is very little recognition of the rising frustration among Palestinians on the Israeli side of the green line. 

We ended the trip convinced that 2013 is an important year for diplomatic efforts. If the President does not take concrete steps now to advance a two-state resolution, it may be quite a while before opportunities present themselves again.

It seems to me that Ben-Ami is hinting at a deadline there, of 2013. If there is no progress this year on the holy grail of the two-state solution, much as he may be willing to wait for further “opportunities,” Ben-Ami knows that many liberal Zionists will begin to choose liberalism over Zionism….

I see that one of them, Bradley Burston, writing in Haaretz, shares my view that the occupation is as bad as the pre-Civil War south: 

I realize now that I am an abolitionist and that occupation is slavery….I realize how many, many people I know, people in that unnamed, largely unorganized group I belong to, are abolitionists as well, people for whom the central, the crucial, the overriding issue facing Israel and Israelis – and Jews the world over – is how to bring the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to an end.

Burston seems to think that ending the occupation will end the problem. But if you call yourself an abolitionist in 2013, you recognize the historical sweep of the anti-slavery movement in the U.S.: you look back over 160 years and acknowledge that in the 1850s, many ab0litionists opposed freedoms that we take for granted today (intermarriage, women and blacks voting)– so even those noble activists did not anticipate the full ramifications of an equality movement. From our vantage, we can say that abolitionism didn’t reach its fulfillment till a black-led civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s overturned legalized discrimination. Isn’t maintaining a Jewish state with 20 percent non-Jews, a state whose governing coalitions exclude non-Jewish parties, analogous to the Jim Crow south?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

366 Responses

  1. jon s
    February 27, 2013, 10:52 am

    There was a remarkable interview with Prof.Yehuda Bauer in Haaretz. This is part of what he had to say on “one state”:

    “The dream of a binational state and a state of all its citizens has no chance. That dream would mean a permanent civil war and mutual killing. Those who want to foment potential genocide here can do so by advocating a binational state for all its citizens.”

    The entire interview is here:
    link to haaretz.com

    Incidentally, is Phil saying that Gaza is not controlled by Hamas? News to me…

    • sardelapasti
      February 27, 2013, 11:42 am

      jon s – “..saying that Gaza is not controlled by Hamas? News to me…”
      Don’t be discouraged, even deaf and blind and touch-deprived you can manage like Helen Keller! Except, of course, if the brain can’t make it.
      Gaza is a part of a place called Palestine, far away, that has been under the direct military control of a rogue invader state of Zionists for a long time. Currently it is a concentration camp.

      • jon s
        February 27, 2013, 2:20 pm

        sardelapati,
        You seem to be incapable of simply commenting on topic without your stupid hate-filled insults. I don’t know why you’re so full of hatred, but I’m not a shrink. Maybe you should see one.

      • sardelapasti
        February 27, 2013, 3:06 pm

        jon s – Insults? hate-filled? Where is that? Just expressing facts and observations, and Zionism deserves any amount of hate. How can one destroy it otherwise?

    • seafoid
      February 27, 2013, 11:46 am

      As Petraeus asked when he went to Baghdad after it fell in 2003, how does this end, Jon? It is all very well to say the binational state would mean mutual killing but Zionism is already pretty murderous and if Judaism copperfastens apartheid the religion will be torn apart.

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 27, 2013, 11:47 am

      So Mr. Bauer is saying that either Jews or Arabs are, what, genetically incapable of non-murder?? Nonsense. South Africa proves the lie to this position. The USA proves lie to this position.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 10:55 am

        “So Mr. Bauer is saying that either Jews or Arabs are, what, genetically incapable of non-murder?? Nonsense. South Africa proves the lie to this position. The USA proves lie to this position.”

        South Africa is an exception. Yugoslavia shows that it’s a relevant concern. Rwanda shows that it’s a concern. Congo shows that it’s a concern. Sudan shows that it’s a concern. Nigeria shows that it’s a concern. Indonesia shows that it’s a concern. The former Czechoslovakia shows that it’s a concern. It’s no comment on the genetics of Arabs and Jews. It’s a comment on the arbitrary combination of ethnicities without regard for the consequences that is a hallmark of the post-colonial age.

        “After all, are Palestinians going to start a civil war if they get their rights within the framework of a binational state? I don’t think so.”

        Why? Do you not believe in the concept of revenge? What assurance can you offer the Jews here? You use the term binationalism, but for most people here, it seems to be synonymous with majoritarianism. The record of minority treatment in the Arab Middle East is not good, and even under the best conditions, Jews were still second-class citizens.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      February 27, 2013, 7:36 pm

      Many Israelis say that a binational state would lead to permanent civil war (though Bauer is really upping the ante when he casually throws in genocide). Even Uri Avnery says this. It seems that they are making a dispassionate prediction, but I think the “prediction” is really a threat. They are saying: “We are not going to put up with that and we shall respond with violence” (perhaps not the speaker personally, but enough Jews to create havoc). After all, are Palestinians going to start a civil war if they get their rights within the framework of a binational state? I don’t think so.

      • sardelapasti
        February 27, 2013, 9:00 pm

        What the Israeliacs say is of no consequence; of course everyone knows that, given their social composition, they are not likely to accept any peaceful solution bar some miracle. All possibilities are rejected by all Zionist factions, so what’s new?

      • German Lefty
        February 28, 2013, 6:28 am

        Many Israelis say that a binational state would lead to permanent civil war.

        I don’t understand why it is called a “binational” state. A one-state solution means that there will only be one nation. The nationality will be “Palestinian”. And these Palestinian citizens can be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, non-religious, or something else.

        I think the “prediction” is really a threat. They are saying: “We are not going to put up with that and we shall respond with violence”

        I agree. People who interpret equality as genocide are paranoid, racist nutjobs.

      • jonrich111
        February 28, 2013, 6:09 pm

        German Left,

        a single nationality of “Palestinian” is not equality, it is oppression. It is a denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, the same right you are affirming for the Palestinian people. Why the double-standard? Why are national rights acceptable for Palestinians but not for Jews? Our people need a Jewish state for survival, for a safe haven, for our own security. We have the right to one nation in the entire planet with a Jewish majority. We have the right to have one country in the world where Jewish culture, religion, history, and language can thrive and prosper. Throughout our entire history we have been exiled and chased from one land to another with no place to go. That is why we need Israel, not as a “Palestinian” state, but as a Jewish and democratic one.

      • German Lefty
        March 2, 2013, 7:08 am

        @ jonrich111

        a single nationality of “Palestinian” is not equality, it is oppression. It is a denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination

        A single nationality of “GERMAN” is not equality, it is oppression. It is a denial of the ARYAN people’s right to self-determination. How does that sound?
        Look, no (actual or invented) ethnic group has the right to an own ethnic nationalist state, especially not on stolen land. Ethnic nationalism requires ethnic cleansing and is inherently unequal and oppressive. That’s what Israel, the self-declared Jewish state, is.
        The Palestinian state that I envision is NOT an ethnic nationalist state, but a civic nationalist state, just like contemporary Germany or the USA. In a civic nationalist state all its people have equal rights, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.
        Jews are NOT a people. They are a religious (or ethnic) group. A people are all citizens of a (legitimate) country.

        Why the double-standard?

        There is no double standard. There must be one country for the people in Palestine. Israel was built on Palestinian land. So, it’s a part of Palestine. And therefore it must be Palestinian citizenship.

        Our people need a Jewish state for survival, for a safe haven, for our own security.

        No. That’s bollocks. Paranoid people need a shrink, not an own state.
        And if there’s anyone who hates Jews, then that’s probably because Zionists stole Palestinian land in the name of “the Jewish people”. Zionists give Jews a bad reputation.

        We have the right to one nation in the entire planet with a Jewish majority.

        No, you don’t. I really don’t mind the existence of a country that happens to have a Jewish majority. However, the problem is that the Jewish majority in Israel did NOT develop naturally. It was artificially created and is artificially maintained by ethnic cleasing and discriminatory legislation, e.g. the law of “return” for FOREIGN Jews and the denial of the right of return for INDIGENOUS Palestinians. That’s what I object to.
        You have two options:
        1) a supremacist country with a Jewish majority
        2) a democratic country with a non-Jewish majority
        A democratic country with a Jewish majority is simply impossible due to the circumstances.

        Throughout our entire history we have been exiled and chased from one land to another with no place to go.

        Stop living in the past and start living in the present.
        The past injustice that was done TO Jews does NOT justify the present injustice that is done BY Jews. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The vast majority of Germans find it totally disgusting that tragedies like the Holocaust are MISUSED for further injustice. So, we are not just disgusted with the Holocaust (-> Nazism) but also with the misuse of the Holocaust (-> Zionism). The ethnic cleansing of Europe does NOT justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Ethnic cleansing is not just a crime when it’s done TO Jews, but also when it’s done BY Jews. No double standards. The opposite of anti-Semitism is NOT philo-Semitism. The opposite of anti-Semitism is EQUAL treatment. That’s what (Jewish and non-Jewish) Zionists need to understand.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 6:45 am

        @ German Lefty
        I agree with your clear, concise, and logical comment in response to jonrich111′s zionist pablum. I realize you are German, and you live in Germany, but what evidence do you have that the vast majority of Germans find the misuse of the Holocaust disgusting? Do you have, e.g., poll results?

        As an American, I see little news of such a consensus from over here. Does such news appear in any English translations of German media? Perhaps in media like Der Spiegel? What would you recommend I read to find out how Germans think and feel about their country’s current relationship with Israel?

        Does Germany have a free mainstream press in this matter? America certainly does not. MW here is samizdat, an underground press.

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 11:48 am

        @ Citizen

        what evidence do you have that the vast majority of Germans find the misuse of the Holocaust disgusting?

        This survey from 2011 shows that 48.9% of Germans agree with the statement that “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era.”
        link to library.fes.de (page 57)
        Of course, that’s not the majority of Germans. However, I believe that quite a few Germans didn’t give their honest opinion in order not to appear anti-Semitic. Also, a number of people probably hesitated to agree with the statement because it’s not accurate. It’s not necessarily Jews who misuse the Holocaust. It’s Zionists. And Zionists can be Jewish or not Jewish.
        In Germany, for example, almost all politicians are “liberal” Zionists. They talk about “Germany’s historical responsibility for the national security of the Jewish state”. (That’s partly because they allow themselves to be put under pressure by the Central Council of Jews in Germany.) However, a poll from 2012 shows that 60% of Germans think that Germany has no special obligation to Israel.
        link to globalpost.com
        Also, according to the above-mentioned survey from 2011, only 19.7% of Germans believe that “Jews have too much influence in Germany.” This shows that Germans are mainly upset about non-Jewish Zionists, i.e. coward German politicians and the German media, who pretty much voluntarily support Israel and totally ignore the will of the German people. 47.7% of Germans believe that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.”
        Also, several polls show that over 80% of Germans agree with the Günter Grass poem that – among other things – complains about false accusations of anti-Semitism when you negatively criticise Israel.
        link to mondoweiss.net
        From a Spiegel article: “German-Israeli relations are not without difficulties these days. A recent survey found that 58 percent of Germans consider Israel to be foreign. The German-Jewish publicist Michael Wolffsohn recently summed up the situation in comments to the daily Die Welt, saying that ‘the German-Israeli friendship is limited to a tiny portion of the political and media classes.’ The recent scandal over the Israel poem by German Nobel laureate Günter Grass, which was highly critical of Israeli threats to attack Iran, highlighted the difficulties that many Germans have with embracing Israel. The challenge has always been that of balancing Germany’s historical guilt for perpetrating the Holocaust with the more recently developed sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Chancellor Angela Merkel has walked this fine line with mixed results. In 2010, she declared that Israel’s security was ‘a part of Germany’s raison d’etre,’ a comment for which she was heavily criticized domestically.”
        link to spiegel.de
        You see that the article’s author refers to “Germany’s historical guilt” as if it were a fact. However, a survey from 2005 shows that the German people think differently.
        Question: Do you think that nowadays we still need to feel guilty about Auschwitz?
        No. -> 74 %
        Yes. -> 20 %
        I don’t know. -> 6 %
        link to de.statista.com
        A while ago, some guy said on a political talk show that the German youth doesn’t bother about the Holocaust, because it’s history. Instead, the German youth bothers about present injustice, namely the oppression and dispossession of Palestinians.
        On a recent political talk show titled “Hitler as laughing stock – What is Germany allowed to laugh about?” the generational divide was obvious again. A 72-year-old politician, who was Germany’s ambassador to Israel, stated that the German people need to assume responsibility for their country’s past. A 35-year-old comedian, however, immediately countered: “Why should I accept responsibility for this? It’s not my fault that grandma and grandpa screwed up in the past. Of course, German teenagers need to learn about German history, but there’s no reason for them to feel guilty. And nobody should make them feel guilty.”
        link to youtube.com
        When you put all these pieces together and also examine German reader comments to articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then you can only conclude that most Germans are sick of the misuse of the Holocaust.

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 12:29 pm

        @ Citizen

        “What would you recommend I read to find out how Germans think and feel about their country’s current relationship with Israel?”

        It’s difficult for people who don’t speak German to get an impression of the mood here. The media mainly report on the statements that politicians make. Only polls reveal the opinion of the people. However, there aren’t many polls on this subject. That’s why the best way to find out what Germans think is to look at German reader comments on articles about Israel.
        Do you know the book “I Sleep in Hitler’s Room: An American Jew Visits Germany” by Tuvia Tenenbom? The author travelled to Germany and interviewed several Germans about their attitude towards Jews. As he is a Zionist, he misinterprets all the negative comments about Israel as anti-Semitism and concludes that nothing has changed in Germany since Hitler. “It will be much easier to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Arabs and Jews in general, than to uproot the Jew hate of the German,” he writes. I suggest you read the reviews on Amazon’s US website. Also, here are two articles about the book:
        link to spiegel.de
        link to nationalreview.com
        By the way, I didn’t read the book. It’s not that I don’t like to know what the guy wrote. I just don’t want him to make money out of his lies.

        Does Germany have a free mainstream press in this matter?

        Yes and no. I’d say it’s self-censorship. However, it’s not as terrible as in the USA. German media don’t go beyond what they call “legitimate criticism” of Israel. That means that they don’t oppose Zionism, only the occupation and the settlements. A non-Zionist one-state solution is taboo.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 1:04 pm

        @ German Lefty

        Thank you so much for your response.
        Did you mean to state the converse of this? “… than to uproot the Jew hate of the German.” This would be logical, from what you said: “…than to uproot the German hate of the Jew.”

        From what you say, it seems to me the average German gets about the same amount of mainstream news information as the average American on anything Israel. Interesting that in the US, this mainstream media self-censorship regarding anyting Israel can be attributed to who controls that media (via a handful of corporations), so what’s Germany’s excuse? Who controls German mainstream media?

        I will go check out your recommendations. Thanks again!

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 1:27 pm

        @ Citizen

        By the way, the only German show I know that deals with anti-Zionism in a positive way is KenFM.
        link to youtube.com
        The host, Ken Jebsen, is a left-wing German of Iranian descent. He openly referred to Zionism as racism and complained about the double standard of the German media regarding Israel, e.g. “If any other country did what Israel does, the media wouldn’t hesitate to call it racism and hatred.” On his internet show, he regularly interviews people who are critical of or opposed to Zionism, e.g. Evelyn Hecht-Galinski.
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        Also, Ken Jebsen was falsely accused of anti-Semitism by Henryk M. Broder, who is a famous Zionist Jew in Germany.
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        Feel free to contact Ken Jebsen. He can tell you much more about the German media and how they deal with Zionism. I am sure he would be glad about enquiries or encouragement from abroad.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 1:35 pm

        OK, I read all the comments on Amazon re I sleep in Hitler’s bed–a strong theme among them is that this book echoes Goldhagen’s premises Germans are just natural born jew haters. Another countervailing theme is that the author seems not to have distinguished between German criticism of the nuclear armed state of Israel and jew hating. More to come.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 1:51 pm

        @ German Lefty

        Thanks again for taking the time to answer me. Guess what? What you say is about what I intuited. Reason? I don’t think Germans are much different than the average American, once either have the facts. Also, I lived in Germany for three years as just an individual with no support. What’s really annoying to me is that the two main funders of Israel’s negative conduct are Americans and Germans. That is, their governments do this. And it does not seem to matter which politicians get leadership in either country. It’s aggravating to me to know that if this continues, we will end up, after many lives lost after WW3 as the linked sequel to WW1, then WW2 , with another cycle of Jewish history, with both Jewish conclusions and World history, that is, non-Jewish conclusions, to wit: “We won, they lost, let’s eat,” versus “Let’s end this Jewish problem, once and for all.”

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 2:02 pm

        citizen, i recommend this must read article on der siegel for pure entertainment value: link to spiegel.de

        debate between the surrogate wiesenthal center replacement Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany and german journo jakob augstein re augstein’s alleged anti semitism (he was on the wiesenthal center’s top ten anti semite list). it’s hysterical, parts of it. w/der spiegel as moderator. fun fun fun

        i was going to draft it at the time and then spaced it out. now it’s kinda late, but this is really worth the read.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @ German Lefty

        Thanks to you I unearthed this link. It goes give the flavor of Germany re Israel these days. I guarantee Americans don’t know anything about this conflict in German foreign policy re Israel, nor in what the average German thinks. I find it really irritating that the two biggest funders of Israel’s shitty conduct are democratic Western governments that pretend they are living examples of the highest values of Western civilization. And that neither government can stand up to Jewish Zionist big money. Wait, that’s true for America, but as to Germany–I think it’s more Holocaust guilt. In either case, how to dilute this?
        link to worldpoliticsreview.com

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 2:31 pm

        I see the big issue is whether or not criticism of Israeli conduct is jew hatred: link to spiegel.de

        Gee, what a surprise.

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 2:53 pm

        Annie, thanks for the link to the debate. I just finished reading it. Unlike you, I didn’t find it entertaining. Dieter Graumann’s statements totally infuriate me. No matter what a (non-Jewish) German does or says, he always finds a (ridiculous) reason to complain about it. Usually, I try to avoid him, because that’s better for my health.

        Here are the most interesting parts of the debate:

        SPIEGEL: You make it sound as if Israel is at least as great a threat to world peace as the aspiring nuclear power Iran. Which of them is the greater threat?

        Augstein: This isn’t some kind of talent show where Germany is looking for the super threat to world peace. Let’s stick to the facts. We don’t even know what Iran is doing. You can read in The New York Times that the CIA believes that Iran is not building a bomb. Don’t forget that the war against Iraq was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There were none.

        Graumann: How blind can one be to equate democratic Israel with this repressive, Islamist religious state and its Holocaust deniers — or even to think that Tehran is less “dangerous?” Augstein defends Günter Grass, who also sees it that way. This just flabbergasts me — trivializing a regime that tortures dissenters, stones women to death and exports hate and terror, while Israel is demonized.

        SPIEGEL: Mr. Augstein, this point makes your argument difficult to follow.

        Augstein: Why would I defend Iran? An Islamist dictatorship! I’m saying that democratic Israel is an occupying power and it oppresses the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s settlement policy has been condemned by the United Nations as a violation of international law. You, Mr. Graumann, are trying to divert attention from this, and Germany’s politicians are treating the issue with kid gloves. We should call injustice by its name.

        Graumann: You are the one who commits injustice by painting a grotesquely distorted image of Israel.

        Augstein: I can’t see how radical religious fundamentalism on the Jewish side should be any more positive than on the Islamic side. Once again, this is precisely the double standard that is so often applied in this region of the world.
        [...]
        Augstein: There is a conflict of roles here. As a German, I would like to take a cautious approach with Israel. As a journalist, however, I want to be candid. How do I resolve this? It’s a double-bind situation. Should I add a severability clause to every criticism of Israel stating that I have nothing against Jews? That’s neurotic journalism. Should we ignore that Israel’s government violates the law and that there are also alternatives?

        Graumann: I’m sure the Israelis have been waiting with bated breath for your suggestions. It’s easy to judge Israeli policy from Berlin, but things look different on the ground, where people are grappling with existential matters — with life and death. One has to recognize this emotionally, if one has a heart — assuming one has one.

        Augstein: Whoa, now that could have come straight from Henryk Broder.

        Graumann: I recall a statement made by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, who said that we Jews don’t have an antenna for anti-Semitism — we are the antennas. If I say that anti-Jewish sentiment is favored by your articles, then you should take that seriously. It’s not hysterics.

        Augstein: It appears to me that this serious allegation is being used to divert attention away from other issues. This is not about me; it’s about putting a stop to the debate process.

      • American
        March 3, 2013, 4:15 pm

        @ annie

        O gawd that is priceless!..you should do something with it.
        Augstein let Graumann reveal the whole and limited mind of the zionist.
        Augstein was talking politics and occupations and law all the zionist said to anything was:

        We’re Jews, we’re special
        Everyone must be sensitive to us.
        Nothing we persecuted Jews do is wrong.
        Anyone that isn’t sensitive to us is a anti semite.
        Israel isn’t bad, Iran and Egypt are bad.
        Germany owes us.
        The world owes us.
        Yes, we Jews are traumatized and everyone must treat us special becuase of that.
        Only cold hearted people are not sensitive to this specialness of Jews and Israel.
        If you don’t treat us and Israel special than you are anti Jew.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 5:09 pm

        ok maybe i will american, i thought it was priceless too.

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 5:25 pm

        I see the big issue is whether or not criticism of Israeli conduct is jew hatred

        Yes, that’s what I meant by misuse of the Holocaust. The accusation of anti-Semitism is misused to silence negative criticism of Israel’s human rights violations. As Augstein stated, “Everyone says you’re allowed to criticize Israel, but when you do, you get clobbered over the head.”
        Of course, the German people know the difference between Israel criticism and Jew hatred. However, the media still try to turn the non-issue into a controversy in order to have something to write about and attract readers or viewers. I think that the media shouldn’t give people like Dieter Graumann a platform for his false accusations.

      • German Lefty
        March 3, 2013, 5:51 pm

        I guarantee Americans don’t know anything about this conflict in German foreign policy re Israel, nor in what the average German thinks.

        That’s a problem, too. It’s not just embarrassing that the German government simply ignores the will of the people when it comes to Israel. It’s also embarrassing that this inevitably leads to false perceptions of Germans by foreigners. Foreigners logically assume that a democratically elected government implements the will of the people.

        I find it really irritating that the two biggest funders of Israel’s shitty conduct are democratic Western governments that pretend they are living examples of the highest values of Western civilization.

        Wait, wait. It’s just the USA that claims to be great and perfect. Germany is pretty self-critical. Sometimes that criticism is justified, sometimes not.

      • MHughes976
        March 3, 2013, 6:24 pm

        Is condemnation of Britain’s human rights record Anglophobia? As ever, it depends what you mean. Even if it is, the condemnation is not for that reason necessarily mistaken. I remember a meeting – in Germany actually – in which the anger and contempt felt by many Irish intellectuals for British imperialism was made rather clear to me. I thought that their underlying attitude was unfair – I would, wouldn’t I? But that unfairness, even if I was right in thinking that it existed, would not exclude the possibility that their specific complaints were justified. Even if there was something personal in it, so that there was something about me, my mere Englishness, that they could not but dislike, I would not have been justified, at least not without further argument, in saying that their ideas were obviously without merit.

      • Newclench
        March 5, 2013, 8:24 am

        One part that baffles me: why do you think Palestinians desire to expand their historic and proud nationality so that it will encompass millions of Jews from other places? Hundreds of thousands of Russians who aren’t even Jewish?
        No matter what the state is called, ‘Palestinian’ will be a nationality derived from shared history and language, not legal citizenship. That’s why Israeli Arabs are nonetheless ‘Palestinian’, and many Jordanian citizens identify as Palestinian.
        This notion that somehow millions of Jews in Israel become ‘Palestinian’ is as realistic as thinking that millions of additional Palestinians become ‘Israeli.’
        Equality and justice are important values – but they do not map to a single political outcome.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 10:03 am

        @ German Lefty
        Danke schon
        More to come, but I thought American MW readers may want to see how Germans now think about Jews and Israel, so here’s more from p. 57 of the report, showing how Europeans think/feel these days (& I noticed, e.g., Hungary & Poland are much more negative about Jewish influence & Israel):

        Jews have too much influence in Germany: 19.7%
        Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era: 48.9%
        Jews generally don’t care about anything or anyone but their own kind: 29.4%
        Jews enrich German culture: 68.9%
        Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians: 47.7%

        I’d like to see a poll of average Americans asked the same questions.

        My guess would be the results would be about the same, except on the question about Israel conducting a war of extermination against the natives–Americans are simply kept ignorant about this subject by the US mainstream media.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 10:20 am

        @ German Lefty
        Thanks for the link to the Global Post url. I want to share data from their here:

        North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, & Israel–are the most negatively perceived countries in the world.
        Germany, Japan have best reputation. And 70 % of Germans believe Israel pursues its interests without regard for other countries.
        Only 21 % agree that Israel respects human rights. link to globalpost.com

        link to globalpost.com

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 10:27 am

        Oops, I see German Lefty, U already mentioned most of these poll results in an earlier comment.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2013, 10:31 am

        What you call the state is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. I could care less if there was 1 state, 2 states or 10, so long as there was full equality, full political, human and legal rights for all, full and equal voting, and an end to occupation by one of another. (And if you go with one state, my suggestion is to give the state two official names, with two official flags, etc. After about 30-50 years, the people will settle on one, the other or another option.)

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 10:52 am

        I don’t know how to contact Ken Jebsen, German Lefty. His facebook page is in German. While I once could speak and write the language, I can’t any more.
        And I saw no email address.

      • German Lefty
        March 5, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Did you mean to state the converse of this? “… than to uproot the Jew hate of the German.” This would be logical, from what you said: “…than to uproot the German hate of the Jew.”

        I was quoting Tuvia Tenenbom.

        Who controls German mainstream media?

        The German print media are partly controlled by the Axel Springer AG.
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        “The Axel Springer company is the largest publishing house in Europe and controls the largest share of the German market for daily newspapers; 23.6%, largely because its flagship tabloid Bild is the highest-circulation newspaper in Europe with a daily readership in excess of 12 million. [...]
        Corporate principles:
        To promote reconciliation of Jews and Germans and support the vital rights of the State of Israel. [...]
        Critics:
        The Axel Springer AG is criticized by German leftists and Muslims who maintain that Springer media show excessive support for Israel. Axel Springer AG refused to publish advertising campaigns of the Left Party in 2005 as well as of the socialist PDS in earlier elections.”

      • MRW
        March 6, 2013, 7:00 am

        @American
        March 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm

        Category –> innumeracy –> symbolic action.

        Thinking of an idiot.

      • tokyobk
        March 6, 2013, 10:46 am

        Because ethnic nationalism is over for everyone.
        Newclench, you politely state the Hamas vision but they are expecting divine intervention and force of arms.
        In reality, the only path to equality and justice is the good will of humankind towards the Palestinians and the recognition by enough Israelis that every step towards implementing new and acknowledging existing Apartheid is a cut to the body (for the same reasons of depending on global good will).
        That good will and sense of fair play means the Palestinians don’t get to go back to the 19th Century any more than the British when all Britons were cousins and descendants of William the Conqueror.
        And btw 5% of Palestine as you know was always Jewish and if you do go back to the late 19th Century 20% of Jews would have the right to live safely as citizens just as the 20% Arab Israelis have the claim to today.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 10:57 am

        “I don’t understand why it is called a “binational” state. A one-state solution means that there will only be one nation”

        A more honest assessment of what people here mean when they say binational. It’s not about recognizing the national rights of both peoples in one space. It’s about privileging Palestinian nationalism over Jewish nationalism and ignoring the risks, consequences, and injustices of doing so.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 3:04 pm

        “Because ethnic nationalism is over for everyone.”

        Oh no. Ethnic nationalism is very much alive. But there comes a point where it’s a fait accompli, and there is no need for any formality about it. You can’t spend hundreds of years cultivating an ethnic state, achieve it, eliminate discriminatory law, and then tell everybody you’re a paragon of pluralism and that ethnic nationalism is over.

        In any case, you might ask the Serbians whether it’s over. You might ask the Iranians whether it’s over. Or the Saudis. Or the Indians and Pakistanis. Or the Czechs. Or the Sloaks.

        “And btw 5% of Palestine as you know was always Jewish and if you do go back to the late 19th Century 20% of Jews would have the right to live safely as citizens just as the 20% Arab Israelis have the claim to today.”

        Jews constitute a lot more than 20% right now, and your proclaiming their right does not mean the Palestinians will.

      • K Renner
        March 9, 2013, 12:33 pm

        Threw up after reading this due to your hypocrisy. Save the whining for fellow Arab-hating Zionists, alright?

      • German Lefty
        March 12, 2013, 5:40 am

        @ hophmi
        It’s not about recognizing the national rights of both peoples in one space. It’s about privileging Palestinian nationalism over Jewish nationalism and ignoring the risks, consequences, and injustices of doing so.

        Interesting how you ignore my other post that explains my statement.
        link to mondoweiss.net
        Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism are NOT the same. Jews are NOT a people, but merely a religious group. Palestinians, however, are the people of Palestine. And they can be Muslim, Christian or Jewish. Palestinian nationalism means equality, whereas Jewish nationalism means oppression.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 10:13 am

        “Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism are NOT the same. Jews are NOT a people, but merely a religious group.”

        We are indeed a people, whether you think so or not.

        “Palestinians, however, are the people of Palestine. And they can be Muslim, Christian or Jewish.”

        But Muslims have the advantage, and Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist group. Sorry it doesn’t fit your romantic lefty narrative.

      • German Lefty
        March 13, 2013, 1:31 pm

        We are indeed a people, whether you think so or not.

        So, you are denying that Judaism is a religion and that people become Jewish by religious conversion!?
        As I said before, a people are all citizens of a (legitimate) country. The fact that there is no Jewish citizenship shows that Jews are not a people.

        But Muslims have the advantage, and Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist group.

        What are you trying to tell me with this? Just because most Palestinians happen to be Muslims doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians can have any religion and that they are the indigenous people of Palestine.

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:05 pm

        Palestinian Christians helped to create Hamas.

        Before the First World War, almost all upper class Jews in England considered themselves as Englishmen (or women) who happened to be Jewish by religion.

      • hophmi
        March 13, 2013, 2:43 pm

        “So, you are denying that Judaism is a religion and that people become Jewish by religious conversion!?

        We are both a religion and a people, and always have been.

        “As I said before, a people are all citizens of a (legitimate) country. The fact that there is no Jewish citizenship shows that Jews are not a people.”

        It shows nothing of the sort. That is your fabricated nonsense.

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 7:27 pm

        We are indeed a people, whether you think so or not

        The international community of states have legally recognized several Jewish national groups, but not a single Jewish people. It would be more accurate to speak in terms of Jewish peoples and Jewish cultures.

        In any event, an April 20, 1964 letter to Rabbi Elmer Berger of the American Council for Judaism from Assistant Secretary Phillips Talbot of the U.S. State Department confirmed that the US government “does not recognize a legal-political relationship based upon religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of religion or ethnicity. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.” — See Whiteman’s Digest of International Law, Volume 8, U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1967, page 35

        The fact is that most states have never recognized an exclusive right of Jews everywhere to govern or have a say over the disposition of the territory of Palestine. Every international proposal, including the General Assembly plan, required the establishment of a mixed Judeo-Arab state with equal and proportional representation in the governing institutions.

        I’ve noted before that only national minority groups who have been explicitly recognized as “a people” have the right to self-determination in any territory, and only to the extent that they do not commit wrongful acts against others. See Thomas D. Musgrave, “Self-Determination and National Minorities”, Oxford Monographs in International Law, 2000.

        There are several examples where the right of Portuguese, British, or other colonists to exercise the right of self-determination has been challenged, e.g. Goa, Falklands, etc.

        The recent referendum in Falkland Islands was challenged on that basis:

        Marcelo Kohen, an Argentine professor of international law at the University of Geneva. He described the forthcoming referendum as “completely illegal”.

        Prof Kohen acknowledged that “self determination is a fundamental right enshrined in the charter of the United Nations”. But he noted that “different human communities have different rights” and “not all are entitled to the right of self determination … only peoples have the right to self determination”.

        Prof Kohen said: “The General Assembly has not recognised the existence of a separate Falklands people and so the General Assembly has not recognised the applicability of the principle of self determination to the islands.”

        link to telegraph.co.uk

      • jonrich111
        February 28, 2013, 5:44 pm

        “After all, are Palestinians going to start a civil war if they get their rights within the framework of a binational state? I don’t think so.”

        The problem is that Palestinian “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Jewish people. Civil war is inevitable when two distinct groups attempt to exercise their right to self-determination on the same plot of land. And that is precisely the problem here: you are attempting to give rights to Palestinians that you wish to deny to the Jews. And that, my friend, is a double-standard that will lead to brutal violence.

      • German Lefty
        March 2, 2013, 7:21 am

        @ jonrich111

        The problem is that Palestinian “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Jewish people. Civil war is inevitable when two distinct groups attempt to exercise their right to self-determination on the same plot of land.

        Really? What about the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up 20% of the Israeli population? Do Jewish Israelis view them as foreigners or a distinct group?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 9:03 am

        The problem is that Palestinian “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Jewish people. Civil war is inevitable when two distinct groups attempt to exercise their right to self-determination on the same plot of land. And that is precisely the problem here: you are attempting to give rights to Palestinians that you wish to deny to the Jews. And that, my friend, is a double-standard that will lead to brutal violence.

        The problem is that zionism will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the palestinian people. Civil war is inevitable when zionists attempt to exercise an exclusive ‘self-determination’ on a plot of land already inhabited by another people. And that is precisely the problem here: you are attempting to give rights to Jews that you wish to deny to the palestinians. And that, my friend, is a double-standard that will lead to brutal violence.

      • eljay
        March 2, 2013, 9:13 am

        >> The problem is that Palestinian “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Jewish people.

        No-one – not even “the Jewish people” – has a right to a supremacist state.

      • MHughes976
        March 3, 2013, 6:28 pm

        If there are individual rights which are absolute there are no collective rights overriding the individual ones. On the other hand, if everyone has the rights to which as an individual (s)he is entitled, no one is wronged, no group is systematically disadvantaged and there is no reason for violence.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2013, 10:33 am

        “The problem is that Palestinian “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Jewish people.”

        No more than the Jewish “rights” in a binational state will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the Palestinian people.

        “Civil war is inevitable when two distinct groups attempt to exercise their right to self-determination on the same plot of land.”

        Only if one sees, as part of that right, the ability to oppress another.

        “And that is precisely the problem here: you are attempting to give rights to Palestinians that you wish to deny to the Jews. ”

        And you and your ilk are denying all rights to Palestinians, now, and for the past 40 + years. Why should I give a damn about your fears when your actions are damnable?

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 10:59 am

        @ German Lefty
        Further, what country has a right recognized by anyone but itself to deny equal rights to all those born and resident within its borders? Only Israel thinks so–hell, it thinks it has the right to occupy foreign land forever, and to settle it, and give the natives no rights at all except minimally what it is forced to allow by the reality of Public Relations with the rest of the world, especially when its big friend is USA, which use to be the advocate of equal rights everywhere before it commenced rubber-stamping Israel.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 11:00 am

        @ jonrich111
        How is it that those who invaded subject land (jews) get to self-determine, but the natives (palestinians) do not?

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 3:53 am

        “And you and your ilk are denying all rights to Palestinians, now, and for the past 40 + years. Why should I give a damn about your fears when your actions are damnable?”

        Me and my ilk — pro-peace Jews — have been fighting for Palestinian statehood and an end to the occupation for 40+ years. To lump all Jews into the same “damnable” category is bigotry. Straight. Up.

      • German Lefty
        March 6, 2013, 8:08 am

        @ jonrich111

        Me and my ilk — pro-peace Jews — have been fighting for Palestinian statehood and an end to the occupation for 40+ years.

        The problem is that by “occupation” you and your ilk merely mean the occupation of the West Bank (and perhaps Gaza), but not the occupation of entire Mandatory Palestine. You only acknowledge the injustice partially, not completely. Palestinians must have equal rights in all of their homeland, not just in 22% of their homeland.

        To lump all Jews into the same “damnable” category is bigotry.

        But we don’t lump all Jews together. We lump all Zionists (= supporters of Jewish supremacy) together. That’s a difference.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:02 am

        “The problem is that zionism will inevitably lead to the denial of the collective rights of the palestinian people. ”

        I don’t see why that would be an issue in a context of a two-state solution. The destiny of the Palestinian minority in Israel is wrapped up in the two-state context. Once there is peace, there is no reason to believe that Palestinians in Israel would not be treated equally. They already vote. They already attend Israeli universities. They already participate in Israeli society. If they are viewed with suspicion, it is because their brethren over the Green Line have conducted a terrorist campaign against Israeli Jews. But it really would not take much to grant them societal equality; affirmative action and improved provision of government services and schooling should do it. I also think that there should be a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state. If Palestinians can live in a Jewish state, Jews should be able to live in a Palestinian state.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 1:45 pm

        If they are viewed with suspicion, it is because their brethren over the Green Line have conducted a terrorist campaign against Israeli Jews.

        zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        shorter hops: it’s all their fault

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 2:02 pm

        “To lump all Jews into the same ‘damnable’ category is bigotry. Straight. Up.”

        I’m not lumping together all Jews. I’m lumping you together with your fellow zionists and excusers of israel’s crimes. Your victim trolling is pretty pitiful.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 2:05 pm

        “Once there is peace, there is no reason to believe that Palestinians in Israel would not be treated equally.”

        Zionism is the reason why. The israelis don’t mistreat and oppress Palestinians as some value-neutral reaction; they do it because their ideology of zionism compels that oppression. That would not change if the criminals get the Palestinians agree to inhabit Bantustans.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 2:12 pm

        “shorter hops: it’s all their fault”

        Not only that, but hoppy’s statement is a confession of base bigotry if there ever was one; a bigotry he himself demonstrates and which he asserts is the official policy or unofficial belief of israelis in general. The most pathetic part is his refusal ot even see his own bigotry. No doubt if someone said, “If Jews in America are viewed with suspicion, it is because of the action taken by such-and-such other person who happened to be Jewish” he could see the bigotry in that, yet he wallows in the exact same level of bigotry but accepts it because it is targeting someone else.

      • tree
        March 6, 2013, 2:38 pm

        Also shorter hops: Racial profiling is good.

        And of course for two decades after Israel’s occupation began there was little violence “over the Green Line” by Palestinians against Israelis. The majority of violence was Israeli, perpetrated against Palestinians. And yet during that time Israel did NOT give the Palestinian citizens of Israel equality, so clearly his excuse for the lack of equality in Israel is bunk.

        Using Hophmi’s logic: Since the Israeli government has viciously murdered US citizens Rachel Corrie and Furgan Dogan and the crewmembers of the U.S.S. Liberty, as well as injured numerous other American citizens, it is OK to view US Jews “with suspicion” and deny them full rights in the US, until such time as Israel stops its violence against US citizens. Hophmi would scream bloody murder about such profiling, as he certainly should and so would we all if such an unthinkable thing should happen in the US. But if the same kind of thing happens in Israel against Palestinians, is all good in Hophmi’s mind because he can’t get past his own bigotry and hypocrisy.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 3:00 pm

        “shorter hops: it’s all their fault”

        You can distort my position if you like, Annie. You’re the political extremist here, not me.

        It is not “all their fault.” But, as I said, human beings are human beings. History shows that when ethnic groups war with each other, it tends to cause ethnic majorities to view ethnic minorities with suspicion. Again, I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli. Your minority population identifies with and has family in a polity on your border who hates you and supports the killing of your children in public places liek pizza parlors. Is that going to make you suspicious of your Palestinian brethren? How did Czechoslovakia deal with the Sudeten Germans after the war? By giving the Germans voting rights and benefits?

        You ask me to put myself in the shoes of persecuted Palestinian; I can do it, even if I criticize them at the same time. But you’re not capable of doing it for an Israeli.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 3:06 pm

        ” “If Jews in America are viewed with suspicion, it is because of the action taken by such-and-such other person who happened to be Jewish”

        Jews have not, to my knowledge, gone on a terrorist rampage through America. If they did, and repeatedly proclaimed publicly a desire to rule America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have little doubt they’d be naturally viewed with the great deal of suspicion.

      • eljay
        March 6, 2013, 3:18 pm

        >> I also think that there should be a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state. If Palestinians can live in a Jewish state, Jews should be able to live in a Palestinian state.

        There should be two states:
        - Israel – a secular, democratic and egalitarian (and “culturally Jewish”) state of and for all Israelis, equally; and
        - Palestine – a secular, democratic and egalitarian (and “culturally Palestinian”) state of and for all Palestinians, equally.

        Palestinians – or other non-Jews – can live as equals in Israel, and Israelis – or other Jews – can live as equals in Palestine.

        Unlike the two states listed above, “Jewish State” – a fundamentally religious construct – is not and can never be a secular, democratic and egalitarian state.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 3:23 pm

        They already vote.

        But political parties that deny the existence or territorial integrity of “the Jewish state” are illegal. So there aren’t any truly representative parties upholding the existence and rights of the Palestinians citizens to enjoy territorial integrity. In fact it has always been a state policy to break-up contiguous “Arab” population centers.

        I also think that there should be a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state. If Palestinians can live in a Jewish state, Jews should be able to live in a Palestinian state.

        The term Palestine refugees in resolution 194(III) always has referred to both the Jews and Arabs who were actually registered with the UN.

        But I doubt that you support that right return or the equitable demand that Israel repatriate 1 Palestinian refugee for every illegal Israel settler living on Palestinian territory captured since 4 June 1967, i.e. 600,000 plus and counting.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “But political parties that deny the existence or territorial integrity of “the Jewish state” are illegal.”

        Yes, they’re illegal. So are Kahanist parties. But just as people who sympathize with Kahanist views serve, so to do people who sympathize with those who deny Israel’s right to exist.

        “But I doubt that you support that right return or the equitable demand that Israel repatriate 1 Palestinian refugee for every illegal Israel settler living on Palestinian territory captured since 4 June 1967, i.e. 600,000 plus and counting.”

        Most of those 600,000 would be incorporated into Israel in the context of a peace agreement, so it’s a straw man. I’d support a 1:1 swap for those Jews remaining over the Green Line. That seems perfectly fine.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 4:17 pm

        A decent enough vision, but Eljay, do you really consider the Palestinian state that is coming into being not to be a Muslim state?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 4:40 pm

        Jews have not, to my knowledge, gone on a terrorist rampage through America. If they did, and repeatedly proclaimed publicly a desire to rule America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have little doubt they’d be naturally viewed with the great deal of suspicion.

        ok so now we’re getting somewhere. so you understand going on a terrorist rampage through a country and proclaiming publicly a desire to rule that country from one end to the next it would justify someone naturally viewing you with a great deal of suspicion.

        now all you have to do is make the leap that is doesn’t have to be this country, because that’s basically what “the jewish state” has been doing for quite awhile, with lots of support via a lobby.

        it’s not that hard connecting the dots hops.and while you’re calling me a political extremists and claiming i am lying about what you said.

        here’s what you said, if they are viewed with suspicion it is because of their own actions. that’s what you said,those were your own words. and then on another thread you are simultaneously absolving jews from having any role in the persecutions against them (ever).

        so i am starting to figure it out. in your mind, when jews are viewed with suspicion it’s the others fault and when jews are suspicious of others that too is the others fault.

        makes all the sense in the world!

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 4:58 pm

        “now all you have to do is make the leap that is doesn’t have to be this country, because that’s basically what “the jewish state” has been doing for quite awhile, with lots of support via a lobby. ”

        I can understand why Palestinians view Jews with suspicion (though not the religion itself; the apes and pigs stuff predates Israel). So could most of Israel’s founding fathers, for that matter. The question is whether killing Jewish civilians has been productive for them (forgetting the moral question for the moment). I don’t think it’s worked very well.

        “it’s not that hard connecting the dots hops.and while you’re calling me a political extremists and claiming i am lying about what you said. ”

        You’re a political extremist because you are a Westerner and you buy into the worst notions of how the Palestinians see the Jews, even to the point of citing literature about how Judaism tells Jews to be separate and how that contributed to their persecution. You’re also prone, like most Westerners, to thinking that just because you have a “principled” approach to solving the conflict, the Palestinians will think exactly as you do and hold the same set of values dear.

        “here’s what you said, if they are viewed with suspicion it is because of their own actions.”

        I said Palestinians in Israel were viewed with suspicion because of the actions of their brethren in the West Bank. Do not misquote me.

        “and then on another thread you are simultaneously absolving jews from having role in the persectutions against them.”

        Our discussion on the other thread was about the persecution of Jews in the European context. You cited an Arendt passage that discussed Jewish-Christian relations and that suggested that Jews contributed to their own persecution by practicing a culture of separateness. I did not absolve the Israelis (which includes Jews, Christians, Druze, Muslims, and others) of all responsibility for Palestinian violence, to which they contribute in some respect through counterproductive policies in the West Bank and Gaza. These are not specifically “Jewish” policies.

        “so i am starting to figure it out. in your mind, when jews are suspicious it’s the others fault and when others are suspicious ofjews that too is the others fault.”

        I am reminded again what a piece of work you are and how utterly disingenuous (or, more generously, lacking in basic reading comprehension). You have managed here not only to misquote me and quote me completely out of context in the same post, but also apparently suggest that you believe that there is a continuum between the way Jews acted vis-a-vis Christians in Europe and the way Israelis are acting in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and suggest that you yourself are suspicious of Jews.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 5:35 pm

        “Jews have not, to my knowledge, gone on a terrorist rampage through America. If they did, and repeatedly proclaimed publicly a desire to rule America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have little doubt they’d be naturally viewed with the great deal of suspicion.”

        Irrelevant. Nothing more than trying to strawman your way to cover up your bigotry. The fact is that most Palestinians are not terrorists, have committed no terrorists acts nor have they announced their desire to do anything but be free of the oppression and occupation. They’ve even gone so far as to express a willingness to sacrifice 78% of their country.

        So, again, what you are doing is excusing the base racism of the israelis and expressing your own base racism, by attributing to millions of people the bad acts of a few who happened to share that ethnicity. The nature of the bad acts are irrelevant. It is racism, pure and simple.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 5:43 pm

        hoppy,

        You call Annie a political extremist.

        The term is entirely meaningless when used by you. As is the slander of antisemitism.

        Taking MEK off the terrorist list in America is politically mainstream. AIPAC is mainstream. Being pro-Israel is mainstream.

        So being politically ‘extremist’ according to you, being anti-Zionist that is – should be considered a badge of honor. Akin to the unjust slander of antisemitism.

        You are so desperate that you’ve completely dispensed with sources and discussing event by event and history by history.

        Instead, you’re just shoving the poll results for the 30 % who are pro-Israel as opposed to the 4 % pro-Palestinian. As if that means anything to us.

        We’re not running the show. We know we aren’t mainstream. And guess what? It doesn’t matter. Principles matter though. You support an ethno-religious Jewish State. We support equal rights, civil rights and an end to apartheid and colonialism.

        That you reiterate that over and over demonstrates your immorality and shallowness.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 5:48 pm

        Neither have Palestinians hoppy.

        Jews have gone on murderous rampages in Palestine though. That’s gotta count for something.

        But comparing Zionism and Islamist violence is absurd. Apples and oranges.

        You are so effortlessly dishonest.

        Zionist violence is channeled through Israel. So the organized Jewish community in the States is violent. They support the Jewish State such as it is – racist, apartheid, colonialist.

        I recall getting into an argument once about this very subject. A fanatical Christian kept saying the suicide bombers (and Islamic radicals generally, as if Islamic radicals pioneered suicide bombing) were unique.

        But Christian evangelicalism has been plenty destructive. Supporting genocidal dictatorships (as Israel has as well, in material support and training and information) or destroying indigenous tribes in the Amazon.

        The core of your argument is Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism.

        You’re populist act is horrible. Zionism is not accepted by a majority of Americans. A majority of Americans do not give a **** either way. We are an empire and empires do whatever they want until they can’t anymore.

      • ritzl
        March 6, 2013, 6:18 pm

        Good one, Annie. The Möbius Argument. Classic.

      • eljay
        March 6, 2013, 6:29 pm

        Jews have not, to my knowledge, gone on a terrorist rampage through America. If they did, and repeatedly proclaimed publicly a desire to rule America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I have little doubt they’d be naturally viewed with the great deal of suspicion.

        But Jews have gone – and continue to go – on a terrorist rampage throughout Palestine. There’s no reason to think that they – or their co-collectivists – won’t bring their “Jewish jihad” to America if they feel it is necessary in order to achieve their goals. 8-o

      • eljay
        March 7, 2013, 7:27 am

        >> A decent enough vision, but Eljay, do you really consider the Palestinian state that is coming into being not to be a Muslim state?

        I haven’t seen any concensus that the Palestinian state will be a Muslim state, but if it turns out that that’s the direction in which it’s headed – if the goal is to create anything other than a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestinian state – I will denounce it the same way I currently denounce the “Jewish State”.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 7:46 pm

        But political parties that deny the existence or territorial integrity of “the Jewish state” are illegal.” . . . Hophmi: Yes, they’re illegal. So are Kahanist parties.

        Zionist racists, like Ariel Sharon, have continuously pursued policies to establish blocks of inland settlements to break-up the territorial contiguity of Arab population centers in Palestine and adjacent areas of Israel that have existed for more than a century. When Sharon was Minister of Agriculture he bragged about the plan at great length in interviews with the Jerusalem Post, September 9th and 12th, 1977. Those reports were submitted as exhibits to the Senate. As the old saying goes, “Its a fact, and you can look it up in the Library of Congress”. link to loc.gov

        So Jews can have parties and Prime Ministers devoted to the destruction of Palestinian territorial contiguity, but it is illegal for Arabs to vote for a party ticket that defends their own territorial integrity. Only racist hypocrites like yourself think that the right to vote in rigged elections is something to brag about.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 7:51 pm

        @ Stephen Shenfield
        The Samson Option is always on the table, as it was during Golda M’s time. Time for the USA to risk it because if USA calls Israel on it in public, Israel will fold–high stakes, yes, it’s time the USA plays them, just like Israel does . No matter what, the USA is 99% goy. And those goys have a sense of justice if they are given the facts–this is the problem, along with the other fact, Congress is for sale to the highest bidder.

    • ToivoS
      February 28, 2013, 7:34 pm

      I actually tend to agree with Prof.Yehuda Bauer’s pessimistic feelings. So why do you Israelis insist on stealing more and more Palestinian lands. Every step in that direction increases the number of Palestinians that will end up inside Israel.

      Your choice jon s. You can try to make apartheid work, but in the long term the rest of the world will reject Israel. Your only choices are one or two states. And the latter choice will be Jew on Jew civil war. It might be tooo late.

    • Hostage
      March 5, 2013, 9:20 am

      There was a remarkable interview with Prof.Yehuda Bauer in Haaretz. This is part of what he had to say on “one state”:

      “The dream of a binational state and a state of all its citizens has no chance.

      Prof.Yehuda Bauer is only a historian (Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from prophets and given to fools and children.) — Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 12b

  2. seafoid
    February 27, 2013, 10:53 am

    1967 was the make or break year for the 2 state solution.
    Jewish settlers will only leave in coffins. That was always the plan.
    Much easier to give everyone the vote and let the bots swing on their own rope.

    • Citizen
      March 6, 2013, 8:03 pm

      @ seafoid
      1967 is also the date hillbilly POTUS Johnson OK’d Israel’s intentional attack on the USS Liberty intelligence-gathering ship (with French jets); ever since, America has rubber-stamped Israel and funded it, and has given it diplomatic cover.

  3. seafoid
    February 27, 2013, 11:03 am

    The bots will deny the reality of their belief system right to the bitter end

    link to haaretz.com

    “The mindset that settlements and settlements alone constitute the prime obstacle to peace has in fact overtaken the (difficult) reality on the ground: The real obstruction is a lack of will on the part of both sides, rather than pure geographic determinism. The more this refrain is repeated, the more it becomes a self-perpetuating mythology. Irreversibility becomes the victim of its own irreversibility.”

    Yeah. The Palestinians in Gaza prefer to live under the bot heel than gain independence. Sure they do. They prefer carpet bombing to justice. Of course. It’s so obvious when I translate it into Hebrew.

  4. Elliot
    February 27, 2013, 11:37 am

    Every year is a “make or break” year for Zionism.
    It’s always the 90th minute/11th hour/the closing window.
    The mid-20th century liberal Zionist Simon Rawidowicz spoke about this as a Jewish psychological mindset. Jews are always “the last generation” always on the brink of collapse.

    • jonrich111
      February 28, 2013, 5:52 pm

      “The mid-20th century liberal Zionist Simon Rawidowicz spoke about this as a Jewish psychological mindset. Jews are always “the last generation” always on the brink of collapse.”

      This is classic victim blaming, like responding to a domestic violence case by telling the abused wife: “well, if only you had dinner ready, maybe your husband wouldn’t have hit you.”

      The reason for this supposed “psychological mindset” is that enemies have risen up in every generation to try and destroy us. Sometimes the threat is through the overt violence of pogroms, terrorism, and genocide. More often it is through forms of “soft oppression” like assimilation, intermarriage, or anti-Semitic stereotypes. Either way, it is not our fault that we cannot live in peace in this world. The blame lies on the oppressors, not the victims.

      • Philip Weiss
        March 1, 2013, 10:32 pm

        So the woman I fell in love with and married and has been The Rock in my life is my enemy?

      • Peter in SF
        March 2, 2013, 12:25 am

        Funny to read about intermarriage as a form of “soft oppression” when American laws against intermarriage used to be seen as inherently oppressive.

      • jonrich111
        March 2, 2013, 8:00 pm

        “So the woman I fell in love with and married and has been The Rock in my life is my enemy?”

        The massive cultural steamroller of oppression known as “assimilation” is the enemy. Assimilation threatens to wipe out thousands of years of Jewish civilization and culture — a culture which is based on revolutionary liberation and social justice at its core. Mocking Jewish concerns over intermarriage and continuity IS an act of oppression. Attacking Jews for being “tribal” by doing things like raising our children as Jewish in day schools IS oppressive. Everything that is good for the Jews, you seem to be against. You are furthering acts of oppression against your own people.

      • Cliff
        March 3, 2013, 2:20 am

        jonrich,

        Assimilation is not oppression.

        Jewish supremacy is oppression. You are no different from previous ethno-nationalist fascists (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Apartheid SA, etc.).

        You just whine a lot and the Zionist Lobby works to flip the entire power dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians in the eyes of the average, ignorant American.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 6:55 am

        @ jonrich111
        So Phil’s wife is an oppressive actor against her own people?
        And, since I married a Jewish woman, I too oppress my own people, just as my wife oppresses her own people?

        And my son, who does he oppress?

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 7:00 am

        @ American
        The persistent demand to marry inside your group is a constant theme in two reality shows on American Roma. jonrich111′s logic and justification fits right in as displayed on those shows–except he’s not Roma, so he’s out automatically.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 5:25 pm

        enemies have risen up in every generation to try and destroy us……often it is through forms of “soft oppression” like assimilation, intermarriage, or anti-Semitic stereotypes. Either way, it is not our fault ….. The blame lies on the oppressors, not the victims……The massive cultural steamroller of oppression known as “assimilation” is the enemy…..Mocking Jewish concerns over intermarriage and continuity IS an act of oppression.

        okay, this is really instructive. the blame lies on the massive cultural steamroller of oppression ..the oppressors not the victims (being jews). you said something similar in the oscars thread. you make it sound like people are demanding you assimilate or gentiles are demanding (steamrolling ) jews into marriages that jews become the victims of, it’s not jews fault they marry gentiles, it’s the oppressive gentiles fault. just like it’s the gentiles fault jews don’t get to be jews in hollywood *which is what you said.

        so can you point to a particular gentile who’s demanding to assimilate? who is mocking jewish schools? i have no problem with catholic schools either, on principle. where is all this coming from? do you live in the US? where is all this massive oppression coming from? demanding jews assimilate? i’m just not seeing it. do you mean having to follow laws, like no pedophilia? parking tickets? where is this coming from? what would you have a gentile do?not look at jews as they walk down the street so’s not to drive them into temptation to communicate with us?

        i’m failing to see what your contributions add to our conversations. you seem to have a real chip on your shoulders based on a persons ethnicity. . do you even live in the US? you are sounding a little brainwashed. and if relating to us is so oppressive why do you do it?

      • American
        March 3, 2013, 6:27 pm

        Citizen says:

        @ American
        The persistent demand to marry inside your group is a constant theme in two reality shows on American Roma>>>>

        Haven’t seen that show but the Roma can’t be as crazy jonrich 111…..marrying outside you own religion, ethnic, race whatever is oppression?……never heard that one before.
        We should capture jonrich and take him to a zoo or taxidermist, he’s bound to be an almost extinct specimen.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 7:06 pm

        Annie Robbins:

        “so can you point to a particular gentile who’s demanding to assimilate?

        I think you are missing the point when I said assimilation is a “cultural” phenomenon. Just as there can be “colorblind racism” (e.g. whites who claim not to be racist yet still benefit from white privilege and racist cultural norms), so too are there things such as “Gentile privilege,” “white Christian privilege,” and “Muslim privilege” in the Western world. Again, these are CULTURAL SYSTEMS of oppression. They are not reducible to the beliefs and practices of any particular individual. A person may have no personal hatred towards Jews yet still contribute to anti-Jewish oppression. Hell, even JEWS themselves can contribute to anti-Jewish oppression (look at Karl Marx).

        “who is mocking jewish schools?”

        There was an article a few months ago on Mondoweiss mocking Jewish Day Schools for being racist and ethnocentric.

        “where is all this massive oppression coming from?”

        Historians have pointed out that anti-Judaism has formed the basis of Western Civilization for nearly 2,000 years. Islam and Christianity have constructed opposition to Judaism as the heart of their theology, and much of Western culture has been constructed oppositionally with Jews defined as the “Other.” I personally believe that Jews have been persecuted because we are seen as a threat to the prevailing systems of oppression due to our intellectualism, our prohibition against idolatry, and our fierce commitment to human liberation through Tikkun Olam. See this book:
        link to tabletmag.com

        I’ll give you another example. Phil Weiss’ entire shtick is that Jews are tribalistic and overly concerned with their particular group and need to abandon their ethnocentrism in order to assimilate into the “universal.” That is the entire basis for this website! I have never seen a positive representation of Judaism on this site. Mondoweiss even mocks Hanukkah, calling it a celebration of blood baths, war, and murder!

        “demanding jews assimilate? i’m just not seeing it.”

        Forgive me Annie, but as a Gentile (I presume), it is not really your place to tell Jews what is and is not anti-Semitism. Just as I, a male, do not have the right to lecture women about what is and is not sexist. I also am heterosexual and cisgendered, yet I don’t try to explain to the GLBT community what constitutes homophobia.

        One of my heroes, sociologist WEB Du Bois, wrote about how his blackness gave him a “double consciousness,” a state of being an outsider looking in, able to see the world through two perspectives. Being an “African” and an “American” allowed Du Bois to see the world in a way that an average white person would have missed. It is the same for me as a Jewish-American. There are certain things I notice as oppressive that white Christians do not, just as I am sure that you may notice things that oppress you as a woman that I, and other men, ignore. One aspect of privilege is the ability to ignore other people’s oppression. That’s how these things work!

        “you seem to have a real chip on your shoulders based on a persons ethnicity.”

        Again, I am baffled by this. One of your other commentators referred to Zionism as a “genetic brain disorder” and you didn’t seem to upset about that. I have also been called a “fascist,” “nazi,” “supremacists,” “colonialists,” etc. Where is your outrage about these hurtful statements? Or do you want to take out your violin so you can play some mock sympathy for me again?

        “do you even live in the US? you are sounding a little brainwashed. and if relating to us is so oppressive why do you do it?”

        Yes, I live in the US and grew up in the Deep South (which is a conservative Christian region). I highly value multiculturalism and diversity and I believe in the inherent value of all people and cultures. I believe all people can and should learn from different groups and exchange ideas with one another. The reason I object to assimilation is because it is an UNEQUAL exchange of ideas. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, 2 billion Christians, and only about 13 million Jews in the world. There are 150 Christian nations, 50 Muslim nations, and only one Jewish nation. There is no equal exchange here. Unlike Judaism, Christianity and Islam are proselytizing, imperialistic religions. They engage in mass widespread conversions, often forcibly taking entire populations. Jews don’t proselytize; or civilization is spread through heritage and birthright.

        I’ll be more than happy to support intermarriage and assimilation as soon as Christians and Muslims stop proselytizing and forcing their beliefs onto others. And I will gladly give up Israel as a Jewish state as soon as the 150 Christian countries and 50 Muslim countries renounce their religious privilege.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 7:49 am

        Again, I am baffled by this. One of your other commentators referred to Zionism as a “genetic brain disorder” and you didn’t seem to upset about that. I have also been called a “fascist,” “nazi,” “supremacists,” “colonialists,” etc. Where is your outrage about these hurtful statements?

        first of all, i was neither upset or outraged when i wrote “you seem to have a real chip on your shoulders based on a persons ethnicity.” it was my observation. and when i wrote “demanding jews assimilate? i’m just not seeing it.” i was not lecturing you on what is and is not anti-Semitism.

        you do not think there is an ‘equal’ exchange based on demographics. demographics is not the mark of what is ‘equal’ or not. and just because there are more christians and muslims in the world doesn’t, in and of itself, mean jews are oppressed. i am not religious, hence i am not a christian, muslim nor jew. i have no idea how many people out there are ‘likeme’ in this regard. whether there are 100,000 or 10 million, it makes no difference. i am surrounded by people who believe in god, but do not feel personally oppressed by them. but being part of a society with religious people in it has it’s drawbacks, it just does. but i accept it without considering myself a victim. the holidays for example, the entire period between thanksgiving and new years is practically impossible to ignore. consumerism completely dominates the entire culture, the roads, advertising, everything. but do i feel carry a chip on my shoulder because my people don’t get a month dedicated to me? no. and i live around all these christians, and they are not constantly trying to convert me. if i say ‘i’m just not seeing something’, i really do not need a lecture from you about what is and what is not anti semitism. the constant accusation and claim of victimization is a form of oppression. the money we are required to give israel is a form of oppression. the constant attention of our elected officials on israel, is a form of oppression. this is a form of oppression: link to thehill.com

        between you and me, your opinion does not hold more weight because demographically there are less jews in the world than christians and muslims. it means nothing to me. my ‘demographic’ is so ignored and overlooked and shunned it’s not even counted. and running for public office while admitting one is part of the non religious is practically unheard of. and as for a “genetic brain disorder”, although that was not my terminology you were repeating, it just so happens to be my conclusion wrt why so many of my fellow human beings believe in god. i think it must be some other kind of dna wiring, but do i get all victimize whiny about it? no. just get over your victimhood and accept you live in a society where other people are around. i do it all the time. and i still don’t see anyone demanding you assimilate anymore than i feel people demand i endure christmas. it’s just part of life.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 11:05 am

        @ jonrich111
        So, Americans who choose to intermarry as between Jews and Gentiles–is oppression? Isn’t mocking Gentile concerns over intermarriage just as oppressive as mocking Jewish concerns over intermarriage? Don’t you think Gentiles value their various traditions as much as Jews do theirs? Is the latter important, but the former not? If so, why?

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 3:49 am

        @annie robbins:

        “i am not religious, hence i am not a christian, muslim nor jew.”

        This is a bait and switch. You are changing the topic from ethnicity and culture to a discussion about theological beliefs. You might be an atheist in terms of theology, but by birth, heritage, upbringing, and culture you are a Christian. Most Jews today are secular and non observant, but they are still part of the Jewish people regardless of theology.

        “i am surrounded by people who believe in god, but do not feel personally oppressed by them.”

        Atheists are persecuted in many parts of the world, even killed. But this is a disanalogy to anti-Semitism. Being an atheist is not remotely similar to being a member of a group that has endured 2,000+ years of persecution, slavery, pogroms, forced assimilation, exile, terrorism, and genocide. One out of every three Jews on the planet was murdered in the last century. Can you say the same about atheists?

        “i really do not need a lecture from you about what is and what is not anti semitism.”

        I do not enjoy lecturing about anti-Semitism. It is tiring. It is painful. It is emotionally draining and often futile. But it is also necessary. You and others at Mondoweiss claim to be anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites, but you can’t bring yourself to feign even the slightest modicum of sympathy for Jewish suffering. Why not show a little more empathy?

        “the constant accusation and claim of victimization is a form of oppression.”

        Been studying Orwell? Because this is classic Doublespeak. Black is white. Up is down. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

        “just get over your victimhood and accept you live in a society where other people are around.”

        What you really need is to check your privilege. Big time. You do not have the right to tell me what is and is not anti-Semitism because you will never EXPERIENCE anti-Semitism. I have.

        Try going to a Gay Rights rally and telling people to stop being all “victim whiny” because you are “just not seeing” anti-gay oppression. As a straight person, that is not your judgement to make.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 6:25 am

        I object to assimilation is because it is an UNEQUAL exchange of ideas. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, 2 billion Christians, and only about 13 million Jews in the world. There are 150 Christian nations, 50 Muslim nations, and only one Jewish nation. There is no equal exchange here.

        jon, that was you. i was not pulling a ‘bait and switch’ i was specifically addressing your argument. and you ignored it, wiped it away as if it had no meaning just like you are wiping away my self identity as if it has no meaning. basically informing me i am a christian or was raised christian culturally, i was not. you are also informing me i ‘ claim to be anti-Zionist’. you know nothing about me and i do not self identify as such.

        this is not a one way street where you lecture and i follow you down a road. when you want to address my argument as well let me know, otherwise communicating with you is a dead end.

      • MRW
        March 6, 2013, 6:46 am

        I do not enjoy lecturing about anti-Semitism. It is tiring. It is painful. It is emotionally draining and often futile. But it is also necessary. You and others at Mondoweiss claim to be anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites, but you can’t bring yourself to feign even the slightest modicum of sympathy for Jewish suffering. Why not show a little more empathy?

        Gag. When did you suffer from being a Jew here in the USA?

      • seafoid
        March 6, 2013, 8:28 am

        “Being an atheist is not remotely similar to being a member of a group that has endured 2,000+ years of persecution, slavery, pogroms, forced assimilation, exile, terrorism, and genocide”

        Christ. Do you think Irish history was a party over the last 700 years? Persecution, pogroms, forced assimilation, exile, terrorism, and genocide – you can tick them all.

        Do Dalits in India spend all day whining about 5000 years of persecution, pogroms, forced assimilation, exile, terrorism, and genocide ?

        Do women walk around all day moaning about 2 million years of persecution, slavery, pogroms, forced assimilation, exile, terrorism, and genocide ? No. Why not?

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:01 am

        jonrich,

        When were Jews slaves? Were all Jews enslaved? Why were they enslaved? How long did ‘the Jews’ endure this slavery?

        Cite your sources.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:12 am

        @Jonrich

        You say:
        And I will gladly give up Israel as a Jewish state as soon as the 150 Christian countries and 50 Muslim countries renounce their religious privilege.
        —–

        What constitutes a Christian country? List some examples of ‘Christian countries’.

        Ditto for Muslim countries. Are these Christian countries, Christian as their Muslim counterparts are Muslim? And are all these examples or some within your statement, Christian or Muslim, like Israel is Jewish?

        Your entire world-view is twisted.

        Human history isn’t neatly delineated in the formation of countries.

        There is no central and singular arbiter who is passing out Jewish and Muslim and Christian States.

        There are no Scientologist States. So why don’t you dismantle your Jewish State until there’s AT LEAST ONE Scientologist State? I mean, come on! How dare you make a Jewish State when there isn’t even ONE measly Scientologist State.

        The Palestinian Arabs aren’t immigrants. They aren’t from Jordan. They are from Historic Palestine and they have a much more tangible claim to the land you advocate for than you and your ethno-religious group (‘the Jews’).

        Judaism has no right to self-determination. Religions do not have self-determination.

        People of the land do. The people of that land had a right to self-determination (in a variant of natural rights, if you believe in such a thing or maybe you do not since you seem like a right-wing religious fanatic).

        Jews who’ve never set foot in Palestine have no right to colonize another peoples land. But that’s a slippery slope.

        All of Israel is built on Palestine. So all of Israel is illegitimate.

        The only thing that is true in history in most cases is power. It was power that gave Zionism legitimacy.

        Not morality or fairness. It’s not fair to make a Jewish State at the expense of the majority population of Palestinian Arabs who dissented.

        It was not the right of the UN or the British or the Ottomans or Jewish agency to displace the Palestinians so that ‘the Jews’ would have a country of their own after 2000 years of blah blah blah.

        You lump all the world’s Muslims together because you are a maniacal shallow, Jewish supremacist and paranoid racist.

        Palestinians have the right to self-determination on their ancestral lands which Zionism stole – not somewhere in Saudi Arabia because Palestinians are not from Saudi Arabia.

        In the long run, Zionism will fail just like White South Africa failed. That’s history – slow change over time.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:04 am

        “Assimilation is not oppression. ”

        Then you are not familiar with Jewish history up until the mid-20th century.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 11:49 am

        And you’re not familiar wth assimilation in the 21st century.

      • American
        March 6, 2013, 12:40 pm

        “You and others at Mondoweiss claim to be anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites, but you can’t bring yourself to feign even the slightest modicum of sympathy for Jewish suffering. Why not show a little more empathy?”…jon rich 111

        I formulated half a dozen questions about this to jonrich then decided why bother. The answers from the jonrichs are always the same and we’re just spinning our wheels on it.
        Just let them go, the jonrichs aren’t going to change no matter what anyone says .

      • tree
        March 6, 2013, 2:50 pm

        Assimilation threatens to wipe out thousands of years of Jewish civilization and culture — a culture which is based on revolutionary liberation and social justice at its core.

        It sounds like you should be more concerned about what Zionism is doing to Jewish civilization and culture. It has you spouting ideas that are anathemas to the concept of social justice. It is propping up a society that is based on ethnic/religious privilege backed up by state violence. Unless you are trying to say that Jewish social justice is merely concerned with the rights of Jews and indifferent or antagonistic to the rights of gentiles, and I take it that you are not saying that (I hope), then clearly Zionism is the steamroller here. It has already steamrollered you into excusing massive social injustice and you don’t even recognize it.

      • American
        March 6, 2013, 2:54 pm

        “Again, I am baffled by this. One of your other commentators referred to Zionism as a “genetic brain disorder” and you didn’t seem to upset about that.”……john rich

        That was my description….and no one objected to my description of anti semitism as a AS genetic disorder…it was humor.
        That’s one of the problems with paranoia and victimhood, you only see what fits your own ideas about people.

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 4:11 pm

        @Annie Robbins:

        I suggested your self-identity of “atheist” has a meaning that is distinct and not directly analogous to Jewish identity. Which is a factually indisputable statement.

        My point in bringing up demographics, if you look at the context, was to highlight the operational dynamics of privilege and oppression that Jews endure. Demographics alone do not constitute privilege — there are more women in the world than men, but men have privilege over women — but when you add in the fact of Christian and Muslim proselyting and Jewish assimilation, you get a picture of how those oppressive dynamics work.

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 5:40 pm

        @Cliff:
        “What constitutes a Christian country? List some examples of ‘Christian countries’. Ditto for Muslim countries.”

        Muslim countries? You mean theocracies like, oh I don’t know… Saudi Arabia or Iran? As for countries that honor some form of Christianity as their official state or national religion, see: link to en.wikipedia.org

        “Judaism has no right to self-determination. Religions do not have self-determination.”

        Judaism isn’t a religion; we are a people. And people have the right to self-determination. Especially when the world gave us no other choice.

        “All of Israel is built on Palestine. So all of Israel is illegitimate.”

        By the same token, all of Palestine was built on ancient Israel. The Arabic word “Filastin” is not Palestinian in origin but refers to the biblical “Philistines,” whose name the ancient Romans gave to the country in an attempt to obliterate the Jews’ connection to it around the 2nd century.

        “Jews who’ve never set foot in Palestine have no right to colonize another peoples land.”

        The claim that Jews are colonialists makes little sense once one understands the history of Jewish oppression in the Western world. Jews were not an integrated or accepted element of colonial European society. Those who were attracted to Zionism saw it as a way to protect themselves from persecution, not as a vehicle to extend Western/European domination.

        “It’s not fair to make a Jewish State at the expense of the majority population of Palestinian Arabs who dissented.”

        It was not fair of the Palestinian population to deny Jewish refugees the right to live in the land after they were fleeing for their lives from European genocide. Although Palestinians didn’t cause the Holocaust, they were not totally innocent in relation to Jewish oppression. One of the reasons Palestinians violently resisted early Jewish immigration is because they considered themselves a part of the larger Arab nation — a group that has a long history of oppression and racism against Jews. The Palestinians were in a similar position to whites today in America who argue against Affirmative Action for blacks, or that deny Mexican immigrants the right to become citizens in the United States. The subsequent dispossession and displacement of Palestinians in 1948 is a tragedy and crime of epic proportion, but that does not mean Jews are 100% to blame and that Palestinians (and the Arab world) deserve no responsibility for the outcome.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Since Jews in America are as likely to marry a non-Jew, as not, what does Tree think should be the “solution”?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 3:50 pm

        @Annie Robbins:

        I suggested your self-identity of “atheist” has a meaning that is distinct and not directly analogous to Jewish identity.

        jon, why are you using quotemarks and attributing it to me? i told you i was non religious. but i do not self identify as an athiest. my self identity is directly analogous to yours only in the sense they are both self identifications, and therefore should be regarded with equal respect. yours is not privileged because of whatever percentage of the worlds population shares your self identification, and neither is mine.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 4:40 pm

        jonrich111 – - Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy, not a theocracy.

        Iran is a partial democracy, with theocratic elements.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 7, 2013, 5:32 pm

        “And people have the right to self-determination.”

        And if you can exercise it without oppressing another people (and their right to self-determination) have at it. If you can not, then you have the right to individual human rights. Nothing more.

        “The Arabic word ‘Filastin’ is not Palestinian in origin but refers to the biblical ‘Philistines,’ whose name the ancient Romans gave to the country in an attempt to obliterate the Jews’ connection to it around the 2nd century.”

        That statement makes no sense. The Arabic word is the Arabic version of the name. The name and people pre-dates the Romans’ involvement in the area and are among the native peoples of Canaan, who arose in the area as did the proto-Israelites. They are not “biblical” but are historical people who predated the bible but happened to be recorded in it.

        And the Romans’ politics aside, to suggest, as you do, that they sought “to obliterate the Jews’ connection to it” implies that that connection was somehow exclusive and the Palestinian name is imposed and false, is nonsense. The Jews of that time had a connection to that region, as did all the other peoples who lived in that area, regardless of name.

        “The claim that Jews are colonialists makes little sense once one understands the history of Jewish oppression in the Western world.”

        Nonsense. The Puritans in America were oppressed in the Old World. That does not make them somehow non-colonialists in the New World.

        “Those who were attracted to Zionism saw it as a way to protect themselves from persecution, not as a vehicle to extend Western/European domination. ”

        The two are not mutually exclusive, nor does it need to be a “vehicle to extent Western/European domination” for it to be colonialism. All you need is the domination of the indigineous population (here the Palestinians) by a foreign population (here the European and American zionist Jews.)

        “It was not fair of the Palestinian population to deny Jewish refugees the right to live in the land after they were fleeing for their lives from European genocide.”

        Why not? They’d already been fighting for decades the zionist program which intended to take over their land and create an ethnoreligious exclusivist state in which the Palestinians would be shut out, in their own land. (And were quite prescient in their views.) What obligation were they under to aid and abet the destruction of themselves, their families, their villages, their land and their way of life for a people whose only connection to Palestine lie in the fact that their religious stories were set there in the long ago past?

        No doubt if there had not been generations of plotting and conspiracy to steal Palestine, and the European Jews wished to live as refugees until they could return to their European homes, the outcome would have been different.

        Only a fool blames a man for locking his door and resisting someone trying to rob his home in the night. Only a crazy fool blames the man for not welcoming the thief with open arms. Only a damned crazy fool blames the man for not helping the thief cart away the loot.

        “One of the reasons Palestinians violently resisted early Jewish immigration is because they considered themselves a part of the larger Arab nation”

        No, it was premised on the fact that the Jewish immigrants/invaders did not wish to merely live as Palestinians who happened to be Jewish, but wished to steal from the Palestinians all they cherished, their lives, families, and land in order to create a Jewish-supremacist polity. For you to blame it on anti-Jewish animus among Arabs is the worst kind of racism and victim mongering.

        “The Palestinians were in a similar position to whites today in America who argue against Affirmative Action for blacks, or that deny Mexican immigrants the right to become citizens in the United States. ”

        Nope. They were in a similar position as the Native Americans who fought yet another group of Europeans who were intent on stealing thier their lands, destroying their people and murdering them wholesale in acts of ethnic cleansing.

        “The subsequent dispossession and displacement of Palestinians in 1948 is a tragedy and crime of epic proportion, but that does not mean Jews are 100% to blame and that Palestinians (and the Arab world) deserve no responsibility for the outcome.”

        Not all Jews, no. Those who actually went and stole the land from its people to build the zionist abomination are to blame.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 8:57 pm

        Judaism isn’t a religion; we are a people. And people have the right to self-determination. Especially when the world gave us no other choice.

        That’s a completely untenable proposition. The Jews are not a people. Full stop. Several Jewish communities, including the ones in Palestine, were recognized as peoples (plural) by various governments and international organizations.The political and civil rights of Jews living in other countries were not prejudiced by the recognition of the Jewish people of Palestine and those who wished to become assimilated to them.

        Self-determination is not a “get out of jail free card”. The Zionist Organization opted to exercise their right of self-determination through incorporation with the Mandated State of Palestine. Then they tried to establish a state by force on the territory of Palestine without the consent of the other inhabitants. Neither the right of self-determination, nor the right of a state to exist imply the right to commit wrongful acts against others. Try reading the deliberations of the International Law Commission on the Rights and Duties of States regarding that particular point in the 1949 Yearbook. link to untreaty.un.org

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 7:34 pm

        Cap Weinberger was a Christian (Episcopalian). Not a “Jew”, though of Jewish descent.

      • Elliot
        March 2, 2013, 9:56 pm

        @jonrich
        Either way, it is not our fault that we cannot live in peace in this world.

        Simon Rawidowicz, and to a greater extent Hannah Arendt, are powerful precisely because they establish Jewish responsibility. They worked to free themselves from the mindset of victimhood.

        I hear that tone of victimhood precisely in the words of mainstream Zionists today: peace is “elusive”; Israel is stuck in a “tough neighborhood”; if only we had a better “partner” for peace talks everything would be so different; What can you accomplish when you’re dealing with Arafat/Hamas/the PA and so on?

        In this endless evasion, Israel is always the victim, never the agent of its own history.
        Whatever happened to the vision of Zionism? Where’s the Sabra, the tough Hebrew man?

        Rawidowicz, by the way, was no golus yid, hiding in the ghetto. You might respect the fact that he was a colleague of David Ben-Gurion’s. If Rawidowicz were alive today, he’d give you a good tongue lashing for accusing him of being a wimp.

      • MRW
        March 6, 2013, 6:49 am

        @jonrich
        Either way, it is not our fault that we cannot live in peace in this world.

        Ain’t my fault, nor the fault of anyone on this board, babee. Unless you’re some putz who let’s the world steamroller him. You want peace? Create it.

        While you’re at it, add justice.

      • Hostage
        March 5, 2013, 8:34 am

        The reason for this supposed “psychological mindset” is that enemies have risen up in every generation to try and destroy us. Sometimes the threat is through the overt violence of pogroms, terrorism, and genocide. More often it is through forms of “soft oppression” like assimilation, intermarriage, or anti-Semitic stereotypes. Either way, it is not our fault that we cannot live in peace in this world. The blame lies on the oppressors, not the victims.

        That’s Zionist propaganda and racist claptrap that only passes for history among those too lazy to look into the subject and discover the truth for themselves.

        See link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 9:25 am

        wow hostage, that is such a great quote of arendt i have to republish it.

        The history of antisemitism, like the history of Jew-hatred, is part and parcel of the long and intricate story of Jewish-Gentile relations under the conditions of Jewish dispersion. Interest in this history was practically nonexistent prior to the middle of the nineteenth century, when it coincided with the rise of antisemitism and its furious reaction to emancipated and assimilated Jewry—obviously the worst possible constellation for establishing reliable historical records.
        Since then, it has been the common fallacy of Jewish and non-Jewish historiography—though mostly for opposite reasons—to isolate the hostile elements in Christian and Jewish sources and to stress the series of catastrophes, expulsions, and massacres that have punctuated Jewish history just as armed and unarmed conflicts, war, famine, and pestilence have punctuated the history of Europe. Needless to add, it was Jewish historiography, with its strong polemical and apologetical bias, that undertook to trace the record of Jew-hatred in Christian history, while it was left to the antisemites to trace an intellectually not too dissimilar record from ancient Jewish authorities. When this Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles came to light, “the general Jewish public was not only outraged but genuinely astonished,” so well had its spokesmen succeeded in convincing themselves and everybody else of the non-fact that Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. Judaism, it was now maintained chiefly by Jewish historians, had always been superior to other religions in that it believed in human equality and tolerance. That this self-deceiving theory, accompanied by the belief that the Jewish people had always been the passive, suffering object of Christian persecutions, actually amounted to a prolongation and modernization of the old myth of chosenness and was bound to end in new and often very complicated practices of separation, destined to uphold the ancient dichotomy, is perhaps one of those ironies which seem to be in store for those who, for whatever reasons, try to embellish and manipulate political facts and historical records.

      • American
        March 5, 2013, 10:30 am

        ”When this Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles came to light, “the general Jewish public was not only outraged but genuinely astonished,” so well had its spokesmen succeeded in convincing themselves and everybody else of the non-fact that Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. Judaism, it was now maintained chiefly by Jewish historians, had always been superior to other religions in that it believed in human equality and tolerance. That this self-deceiving theory, accompanied by the belief that the Jewish people had always been the passive, suffering object of Christian persecutions, actually amounted to a prolongation and modernization of the old myth of chosenness and was bound to end in new and often very complicated practices of separation, destined to uphold the ancient dichotomy, is perhaps one of those ironies which seem to be in store for those who, for whatever reasons, try to embellish and manipulate political facts and historical records.””–Arendt quote

        thank you thank you thank you—–for quoting a credible intellectual on this! It is something I as an ordinary non scholarly reader of history have harped on and harped on here.
        Any observer can see how “this self-deceiving theory” that ‘all’ Jewish travils were ‘always’ the fault of the hostility of the others is being driven by Zionism even more so.
        It’s a dangerous political game Zionist they are playing with this. If you constantly flog and brow beat the world over ‘their’ hostility, when in fact there is so little hostility on the others part that it’s not really credible, then you are eventually going to create hostility in the others as a result.
        If you take Israel and zionist out of the equation there is not enough Jewish related hostility to fill a teaspoon, but the zionist won’t let it be, they have to have the hostile and persecuted meme to suceed.

      • Citizen
        March 5, 2013, 11:43 am

        “Judaism, it was now maintained chiefly by Jewish historians, had always been superior to other religions in that it believed in human equality and tolerance. That this self-deceiving theory, accompanied by the belief that the Jewish people had always been the passive, suffering object of Christian persecutions, actually amounted to a prolongation and modernization of the old myth of chosenness…”

        And now this Jewish/Zionist self-deceiving theory has come to the commonly professed notion in America that Jewishness is proven by a Jewish “pro-Israel” POV and advocacy, and constant demand for increased funding (with American Gentile tax dollars and soldiers) for the nuclear-armed state of Israel, the only one so in the ME, the most strategic place in the world due to oil, the engine for all contemporary human activity and life as we know it.

        This myth of Jewish belief they are the chosen of God, and, even more ironical than Hannah in her time (Hitler era and immediate aftermath) thought, the Christian Zionist belief (so convenient for war business), that they are the chosen of God… And Dick and Jane pay through the nose; and the Palestinian people pay through the ass–most directly and daily. It’s time for some payment by Jews who so love the status quo they donate tons of money to keep it growing.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:34 am

        This is one of the most morally dubious statements ever made, and made by a person who was a too-often apologist for European antisemitism and had a history of being cold toward the victims of the Holocaust. As even Arendt’s fans have written, Arendt was, and this is putting it generously, scarred by her Holocaust experience.

        It is so telling that this quote that you call “great,” coming from a non-historian, no less, blames the Jews for their own persecution, claiming a “violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles” and holding that Jewish “separateness” and claims of persecution was in reality a manifestation of chosenness.

        That the Christians persecuted the Jews in Europe on and off for a millenium is a fact. That there are a few places in the Talmud, a gigantic work of roughly 3700 pages written in the early Christian period where early Christianity was spoken of derisively, is also a fact, and not a surprise considering that the religions were in competition at one time.

        These references are so far outweighed by the nasty references to Jews in historical Christian literature, iconography, and catechism that to bring them up this way is to suggest a totally false parity. Christianity, for most of its existence, propounded a charge a deicide and argued that it has succeeded the Jews as the chosen ones, and that heaven was achievable only through Christ. Jews never propounded either philosophy; Jews have never argued an exclusive right to salvation.

        Much more importantly, it ignores the substantive difference in action; historically, it has been Gentile persecution of the Jews that has been predominant. It is not the other way around. The Holocaust was the culmination of a millenia of this garbage, and it took place at a time where Jews in Germany were highly assimilated.

        This is the disgusting underbelly of pro-Palestinian politics. It is not enough to argue for a Palestinian state. It is not enough to criticize Zionism. It is not even enough to criticize the excesses in Judaism. No, Jewish history itself must be denied. Historical persecution of Jews must be soft-pedaled.

        We did not choose to be persecuted during the Crusades. We did not chose to accused by the Church of deicide. We did not choose to live in ghettos. We did not choose to be converted by the sword, to be burned at the auto-de-fa, or to be expelled from England. And Spain. And Portugal. And on and on and on. And we sure as hell did not choose to shot and gassed during the Holocaust.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 11:58 am

        hops, just thought i’d point out your argument would be more persuasive if your first paragraph wasn’t an ad hominem. why not just look at what she said instead of how arendt was “cold toward the victims of the Holocaust.”

        blames the Jews for their own persecution, claiming a “violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles” and holding that Jewish “separateness” and claims of persecution was in reality a manifestation of chosenness.

        well, i didn’t read it like that. i am just curious, do you agree with this:

        Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 12:02 pm

        Jewish history to you hoppy is entirely ideological and utilized ideologically.

        We are living through ‘Jewish history’ now. Every day is another chapter of such and such history.

        And look at what a liar and racist you are. What you rail against is not a denial of Jewish history.

        You assault free speech and honest inquiry. Hence, why you repeatedly pose these mind-numbingly idiotic equivocations and always without proof.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 12:09 pm

        also, i am curious if this bolded part is incorrect, and if it is how so:

        the history of Jew-hatred, is part and parcel of the long and intricate story of Jewish-Gentile relations under the conditions of Jewish dispersion. Interest in this history was practically nonexistent prior to the middle of the nineteenth century

        and then she says “Since then” (meaning the middle of the 19th century)

        to isolate the hostile elements in Christian and Jewish sources and to stress the series of catastrophes, expulsions, and massacres that have punctuated Jewish history just as armed and unarmed conflicts, war, famine, and pestilence have punctuated the history of Europe.

        did that happen? this is not a claim catastrophes, expulsions, and massacres etc etc did not occur, it addresses the framing of how they are archived historically.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 12:27 pm

        My first paragraph isn’t ad hominem. Many have criticized Arendt on similar grounds, including Bernard Wasserstein and Walter Laqueur.

        “Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. ”

        I’d say the statement is mostly true and entirely irrelevant. Whatever inclination Jews had to keep to themselves, medieval Christians reinforced it by persecuting them for who they were and instilling within their Church the notion that the Jews killed their god and could only be saved by conversion. What is relevant is what happened. And what happened is that over and over again in Europe, the Christians were the persecutors of the Jews, the expellers of the Jews, the arsonists who burned down synagogues, the swordsmen who slaughtered Jewish children, the intellectuals who called Jews filthy and accused them of killing Christian children for ritual purposes, and finally, the barbarians who shot them on site, enslaved them en masse, and murdered them en masse in gas chambers in the middle of the twentieth century.

        Arendt is hardly an authority on any of this. She was a philosopher, not an historian, and her judgments, particularly on issues like these are highly controversial, and hardly widely accepted. And whatever she said, the history remains fairly clear. Even if you believe Jews maintained a philosophy of separateness and even believed their religion superior (as if the Christians did not), the worst crimes perpetrated on the Jews were perpetrated on a heavily assimilated populace in a state purported to represent the highest European culture.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 12:58 pm

        If one reads the old testament (Torah), who doesn’t think this was written by Jews? Is that question OK? And, should we not give the same scrutiny we gave to Nazi versions of history? And early American versions of history? If not, why not? Please explain.

        What do the pro-Israel bots here have to say about the history of the Irish people?

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 1:20 pm

        We did not choose to be persecuted during the Crusades. We did not chose to accused by the Church of deicide. We did not choose to live in ghettos.

        No one living today even witnessed the Crusades. No sane intellect should still be nursing a vicarious grudge over events that happened on another continent in the year 1291, much less assigning reposibility to modern-day mainline denominations like the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and etc. with no connection whatever to the wars waged by the 13th Century Roman “Church”.

        Here’s hint for you, many of them took-up arms against the Third Reich. So they can’t logically be blamed for the Nazi genocide either. That doesn’t stop Zionists from engaging in the worst forms of racial stereotyping and historical revisionism. You’re a poster boy for that sort of thing. Just read your own comments.

        The notion that Jews didn’t choose to live in ghettos doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny either. Jewish religious leaders actively pursued the temporal power to treat assimilation or close associations with Gentiles as both a sin and a crime. We can all serve as witnesses to the establishment of hundreds of Jewish-only communal settlements in the State of Israel and Palestine; the prohibition against intermarriage with non-Jews; and etc. Even the cemeteries are still racially exclusive or segregated. Those situations were not imposed by Gentile authorities.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 1:24 pm

        “No, Jewish history itself must be denied. Historical persecution of Jews must be soft-pedaled.”

        And this is where you zionist apologists go off the rails. No one but you is denying Jewish history; it is you who are attempting to sell a false past. It is not enough for you that the persecution which Jewish people have suffered be noted, any note of Jewish animus toward non-Jews must also be eliminated or, at least, minimized and excused out of existence. Rather than having a fully informed, if complex, understanding of not only the facts of history but why that history occured, you are looking for a cartoonish view, in which the historical actors might as well be wearing black hats and white hats. Grow up.

        That’s the problem that Arendt noted. The fact that history is complex is unfortunate for the likes of you, because it puts a damper on your argument, which essentially boils down to: “Jews in Palestine are permitted to oppress Palestinians, in any way they choose, because the Holocaust happened.” That’s the kind of nonsense which both undergirds your position and which generates the very opposition you decry.

        “We did not choose to…”

        But the zionists among you did choose to invade the land of Palestine, which belongs to another people, and did choose to steal that land, and did choose to murder and oppress the owners of that land, and did choose to excuse and defend those crimes. THAT is the only important point here.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2013, 1:39 pm

        hops, the entire first paragraph is nothing but an ad hominem. it hardly matters that others have criticized her before. you didn’t address one thing she said before your preface of insults.

        I’d say the statement is mostly true and entirely irrelevant. …..

        well, it’s not irrelevant when discussing arendt’s quote. if you don’t agree with her basic premise, that implies jewish separateness is, at least in part, part of judaism or self imposed for religious reasons, then it is not irrelevant.

        anyway, i guess that would be a yes. according to you; ‘mostly true’ Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment.

        thanks, that answers my question.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 1:43 pm

        If one reads the old testament (Torah), who doesn’t think this was written by Jews?

        There’s more than ample evidence that much of the folklore in it is borrowed from other cultures. There are quite a few serious scholars who believe that borrowing would include the myths of the original Israelites. According to their theories, “the Jews” misappropriated the legends of the Hebrews or Israelites and revised the stories to meet their own political and religious ends.

      • sardelapasti
        March 6, 2013, 2:27 pm

        Hophmi – “Even if you believe Jews maintained a philosophy of separateness…”
        You yourself are the most glaring example of the “philosophy of separateness”. You exhibit the most obvious signs of having been brought up in a Jews-only bubble, without any meaningful or deep contact with the general humans. Your whine above shows how terribly cut off you are from the mainstream.

        “the worst crimes perpetrated on the Jews…”
        That is one more example of how much off the wall you are. NOT “on the Jews”. On people who, in the sick minds of both the Nazis and the Jewish tribal enforcers, were “Jews”!

        See, some of them were Jews, others were non-religious or even Christian or Buddhist. And only few were tribal Jews like the non-religious “Jews” who are muddying the waters in our times.

        “…heavily assimilated populace…” Ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Make that light and free in their minds and hearts. A population rid of the horrible religious and tribal chains. Nothing heavy there.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 2:51 pm

        “hops, the entire first paragraph is nothing but an ad hominem. it hardly matters that others have criticized her before. you didn’t address one thing she said before your preface of insults.”

        OK, I guess criticism of Arendt, made by other philosophers, for blaming the victim and for internalizing Nazi critiques of Judaism, is ad hominem. The point is that her views on this issue, besides being outside of the area of her expertise, are highly, highly controversial, and your citation of her here is for political convenience, because if you claim Jews are separate, then you can claim that Zionism reflects this understanding of Judaism, that Palestinians, like the Gentiles in Arendt’s passage, are victims of this strain of separatism and not responsible for the atrocities they commit against Jews as a collective, and moreover, that the history of persecution Jews claim as part of their rationale for a state is persecution which is part their fault anyway. So, Judaism bad, Palestinians not responsible for their crimes, Zionism should end (and maybe, if bad stuff happens to the Jews after it ends, it will be their own fault anyway because they are “separate” and it’s not your problem).

        Remember: Jews were murdered en masse after they assimilated. The case for Israel that Herzl made was a case made by a man who was frustrated that after about 100 years of Enlightenment and assimilation, Jews were still suspected of treason for being Jews and still living by the grace of their Christian neighbors. The Holocaust provided tragic support for Herzl’s point, when the state considered the epitome of high European culture perpetrated a campaign of barbaric mass murder, and other highly developed supposedly liberal European societies either joined in or did nothing to stop the slaughter; the righteous ones were the exception, not the rule.

        In the case of Israel, I can say with great confidence that it likely would not have happened nor been necessary had the Europeans and the Russians, and later, the Arabs, made life as a minority in their societies a reality that ranged from second-class citizenship at its very best to a living (and dying) hell at its worst. Maybe, as I have urged before, you can put yourself in the shoes of the Jews of Europe of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century and ask what you would have done and what political programs you might have supported.

        “well, it’s not irrelevant when discussing arendt’s quote. if you don’t agree with her basic premise, that implies jewish separateness is, at least in part, part of judaism or self imposed for religious reasons, then it is not irrelevant. anyway, i guess that would be a yes. ”

        Her basic premise is far more controversial than the simple claim that Jewish separateness (which she doesn’t define or contextualize) is part of Judaism. She claims that Jewish separateness is a reason Gentiles persecutes Jews, and that, moreover, Jewish historians downplay that separateness to make it look as if Christian persecution of Jews is one-sided. For the thousand years or so leading up to WWII, Christian persecution of Jews was one-sided, and the Jews were mostly passive victims of the Christian majority. There’s a reason that, to this day, most synagogues in Europe are built with walled courtyards and/or have armed guards. It’s not because Jews in these places wanted separation. It’s because they wanted protection from their Christian neighbors. One thing I can tell you about Israel. The Churches and the mosques are not unobtrusive and hidden the way the synagogues in Berlin are.

        Have some Jewish historians taken a rosy view of the Judaism as being the first religion to foster tolerance and human equality? Yeah, of course. And there are bases for doing so; Judaism posits a system of equal justice before the law and doesn’t exclude the possibility of salvation for Gentiles. Every religion has apologists.

        Christianity, the majority religion in Europe, does posit an exclusive claim to salvation that changed only with Vatican II. And it used the forces of church and government to persecute religious minorities and force them to convert. In the Enlightenment period, arguing that their religion was the enlightened one, it went on a campaign of brutal colonialism around the world.

        Any reading of the Jewish-Christian relationship with regard to the persecution of one religious group by the other would have to conclude that, yes, the history of persecution is largely one-sided. So how separate Jews were is irrelevant. The notion that this supposed separation is somehow responsible for Gentile persecution of the Jews is simply wrong, not to mention morally and intellectually disgusting.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 2:59 pm

        My first paragraph isn’t ad hominem. Many have criticized Arendt on similar grounds, including Bernard Wasserstein and Walter Laqueur.

        LOL! That merely relocates the original source of the ad hominem attacks to a pair of Zionist historiographers.

        Here’s an article by Irving Louis Horowitz “Assaulting Arendt
        (footnoted version)” which examines the criticisms published by Bernard Wasserstein and Walter Laqueur regarding Arendt. link to firstthings.com

        Walter Laqueur made a spectacle out of himself in the 60s and continued to do it decades after Arendt passed away by attempting to portray her as a trouble maker, conspiracy theorist, and a person who somehow obscured the real political issues. He alleges that historical truth has suffered, but never mentions any specific instances of falsehood in her body of work. His attacks on her cult of personality are little more than thinly disguised ad hominem attacks. I could care less about her personality quirks or the fact Laqueur thinks she needs to be forgiven for the things she wrote in Eichmann in Jerusalem. I only care if she got her facts straight.
        link to web.archive.org
        link to nybooks.com

        He complained that she had damaged the official historiography of the Holocaust. But Walter Laqueur is just one of the many Zionist historians or hasbarists that Arendt offended by goring his ox or (sacred cow). It wasn’t just a figment of her imagination that the Zionist establishment of the State of Israel was actively out to vilify and ban her works – and it was completely disingenuous of him to publicly suggest otherwise in the New York Review of Books article cited above. link to politicalaffairs.net

        For the purposes of our discussion here, Arendt’s commentary in Eichmann about the similarity in effect of the Nazi and rabbinical laws; the reasons for the lack of a written Israeli constitution; and etc. remain more relevant and unassailable than anything Walter Laqueur has ever written on the subject. See link to mondoweiss.net

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 3:36 pm

        “You yourself are the most glaring example of the “philosophy of separateness”. ”

        Ad hominem and why, exactly?

        “You exhibit the most obvious signs of having been brought up in a Jews-only bubble, without any meaningful or deep contact with the general humans. Your whine above shows how terribly cut off you are from the mainstream. ”

        The mainstream supports Israel over the Palestinians by a factor of about 3.5 to 1. And for the record, I was not brought up in a bubble and I have had plenty of meaningful contact with others Jewish and non and across the political spectrum. You should watch your language; you imply that Jews are not general humans.

        “See, some of them were Jews, others were non-religious or even Christian or Buddhist. And only few were tribal Jews like the non-religious “Jews” who are muddying the waters in our times.”

        Jeez, man, you’re really not doing well here. First of all, I never that all of the victims of the Holocaust were Jews. This seems to be a thread here; if you don’t mention the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, you are being “tribal” and denying that there are non-Jewish victims. Save it. Are you denying that Jews were targeted by the Nazis?

        “Ridiculouser and ridiculouser. Make that light and free in their minds and hearts. A population rid of the horrible religious and tribal chains. Nothing heavy there.”

        Uh, yeah, you’re kind of missing the point. The discussion we’re having is about whether Jewish separateness contributed to Jewish persecution. My point is that Jews were persecuted even after they assimilated, or in your wonderfully progressive language, “ridding oneself of horrible religious and tribal chains.” I know what I’d like to be rid of . . .

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 4:21 pm

        Hoppy you continue to cite polls as if they were gospel. You cite them because they ‘support’ your views.

        But it’s more iortant to ask who within the subset supports Israel and for what reasons.

        You seem to think that popularity implies morality. Or even legitimacy but that is by definition subjective.

        The polls show that most people would rather we do not support either party in the conflict.

        In fact, when you couple this knowledge with how our political culture operates, the measly 30 to 40 percent support that your apartheid State gets is more than underwhelming. Especially considering the decades of pro-Israel, anti-Arab, Islamophobic indoctrination that the media and Hollywood inculcate in each generation.

        Israel is constantly having to put on a show for the American public.

        And all that PR and propaganda and antisemitism-slandering amounts to 30ish percent or so.

        We, as in the American government, support Israel because of lobbying and long-standing regional policy.

        The average American doesn’t know where the Middle East let alone the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

        But keep spamming these polls as objective truth as you simultaneously raise the specter of suicide bombing as if its happpening right now. It isn’t, and like pro-Israel support – its overstated.

        You live in your little Jewish Zionist bubble. End of story.

      • sardelapasti
        March 6, 2013, 4:59 pm

        hoppme, you still don’t get it and can’t get it in your separate world.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 5:40 pm

        hoppy wrote:

        “You yourself are the most glaring example of the “philosophy of separateness”. ”

        Ad hominem…

        You really need to either stop using “ad hominem” or learn what it means. Pointing out that you demonstrate the position is not an ad hominem attack.

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 5:52 pm

        @ Hostage:

        “When this Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles came to light, the general Jewish public was not only outraged but genuinely astonished, so well had its spokesmen succeeded in convincing themselves and everybody else of the non-fact that Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment.”

        I agree that things are never EXCLUSIVELY the fault of one group and that oppression is never so one-sided as it may seem. But this quote goes dangerously close to blaming the victim. Negative behaviors on the part of a minority group does not justify their oppression. For example, the fact that some blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America does not justify their insanely high rates of imprisonment. Likewise, the higher rate of AIDS in the gay community does not justify homophobia or bans on gay marriage.

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 7:10 pm

        @Hophmi,

        Can I just say that you are doing an excellent job articulating a progressive Jewish viewpoint? I know how hard it can be to defend yourself against an onslaught of accusations of us being tribal racist colonialists and what not. Glad to know there is at least one other on this website who is fighting the good fight. :-)

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 1:02 pm

        I posted this yesterday, and it wasn’t put through.

        “hops, the entire first paragraph is nothing but an ad hominem. it hardly matters that others have criticized her before. you didn’t address one thing she said before your preface of insults.”

        OK, I guess criticism of Arendt, made by other philosophers, for blaming the victim and for internalizing Nazi critiques of Judaism, is ad hominem. The point is that her views on this issue, besides being outside of the area of her expertise, are highly, highly controversial, and your citation of her here is for political convenience, because if you claim Jews are separate, then you can claim that Zionism reflects this understanding of Judaism, that Palestinians, like the Gentiles in Arendt’s passage, are victims of this strain of separatism and not responsible for the atrocities they commit against Jews as a collective, and moreover, that the history of persecution Jews claim as part of their rationale for a state is persecution which is part their fault anyway. So, Judaism bad, Palestinians not responsible for their crimes, Zionism should end (and maybe, if bad stuff happens to the Jews after it ends, it will be their own fault anyway because they are “separate” and it’s not your problem).

        Remember: Jews were murdered en masse after they assimilated. The case for Israel that Herzl made was a case made by a man who was frustrated that after about 100 years of Enlightenment and assimilation, Jews were still suspected of treason for being Jews and still living by the grace of their Christian neighbors. The Holocaust provided tragic support for Herzl’s point, when the state considered the epitome of high European culture perpetrated a campaign of barbaric mass murder, and other highly developed supposedly liberal European societies either joined in or did nothing to stop the slaughter; the righteous ones were the exception, not the rule.

        In the case of Israel, I can say with great confidence that it likely would not have happened nor been necessary had the Europeans and the Russians, and later, the Arabs, made life as a minority in their societies a reality that ranged from second-class citizenship at its very best to a living (and dying) hell at its worst. Maybe, as I have urged before, you can put yourself in the shoes of the Jews of Europe of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century and ask what you would have done and what political programs you might have supported.

        “well, it’s not irrelevant when discussing arendt’s quote. if you don’t agree with her basic premise, that implies jewish separateness is, at least in part, part of judaism or self imposed for religious reasons, then it is not irrelevant. anyway, i guess that would be a yes. ”

        Her basic premise is far more controversial than the simple claim that Jewish separateness (which she doesn’t define or contextualize) is part of Judaism. She claims that Jewish separateness is a reason Gentiles persecutes Jews, and that, moreover, Jewish historians downplay that separateness to make it look as if Christian persecution of Jews is one-sided. For the thousand years or so leading up to WWII, Christian persecution of Jews was one-sided, and the Jews were mostly passive victims of the Christian majority. There’s a reason that, to this day, most synagogues in Europe are built with walled courtyards and/or have armed guards. It’s not because Jews in these places wanted separation. It’s because they wanted protection from their Christian neighbors. One thing I can tell you about Israel. The Churches and the mosques are not unobtrusive and hidden the way the synagogues in Berlin are.

        Have some Jewish historians taken a rosy view of the Judaism as being the first religion to foster tolerance and human equality? Yeah, of course. And there are bases for doing so; Judaism posits a system of equal justice before the law and doesn’t exclude the possibility of salvation for Gentiles. Every religion has apologists.

        Christianity, the majority religion in Europe, does posit an exclusive claim to salvation that changed only with Vatican II. And it used the forces of church and government to persecute religious minorities and force them to convert. In the Enlightenment period, arguing that their religion was the enlightened one, it went on a campaign of brutal colonialism around the world.

        Any reading of the Jewish-Christian relationship with regard to the persecution of one religious group by the other would have to conclude that, yes, the history of persecution is largely one-sided. So how separate Jews were is irrelevant. The notion that this supposed separation is somehow responsible for Gentile persecution of the Jews is simply wrong, not to mention morally and intellectually disgusting.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 1:03 pm

        “Can I just say that you are doing an excellent job articulating a progressive Jewish viewpoint? I know how hard it can be to defend yourself against an onslaught of accusations of us being tribal racist colonialists and what not. Glad to know there is at least one other on this website who is fighting the good fight. :-)”

        Thank you, jonrich111. I appreciate that a lot.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 1:10 pm

        “You seem to think that popularity implies morality. Or even legitimacy but that is by definition subjective.”

        No, I haven’t said that. But it’s something you have to deal with, no?

        “The polls show that most people would rather we do not support either party in the conflict.”

        Yes, that’s definitely true. But that’s true with most foreign policy issues, and my guess is that the number engaged on this one is higher than the average. On foreign policy, most people are ignorant/disinterested and the issue is decided by those who are engaged.

        “In fact, when you couple this knowledge with how our political culture operates, the measly 30 to 40 percent support that your apartheid State gets is more than underwhelming. Especially considering the decades of pro-Israel, anti-Arab, Islamophobic indoctrination that the media and Hollywood inculcate in each generation. ”

        You may be right, but I think probably not, and of course, you overstate the Hollywood case a lot. As I have to point out again and again, Hollywood didn’t create 9/11, WTC 1, the airplane hijacking of the 1970s and 1980s, or the suicide bombings of the 1990s and 2000s.

        “Israel is constantly having to put on a show for the American public. ”

        It doesn’t take much effort when the American public sees atrocity after atrocity being committed by Al-Qaeda and other radical Muslim organizations.

        “And all that PR and propaganda and antisemitism-slandering amounts to 30ish percent or so.”

        31% support the US adopting a policy that favors Israel. 45% sympathize with the Israelis over the Palestinians. So it’s quite a bit higher than 30%.

        “We, as in the American government, support Israel because of lobbying and long-standing regional policy.”

        Lobbying is a part of it, no doubt. But that’s true with any issue in Congress. You can go lobby for your side. You have to make a convincing case. You don’t.

        “But keep spamming these polls as objective truth as you simultaneously raise the specter of suicide bombing as if its happpening right now. ”

        Do you think that because a suicide attack hasn’t happened in awhile, Americans have forgotten about them?

        “You live in your little Jewish Zionist bubble. End of story.”

        I’m sorry to say I think that it’s more you living in a BDS cult.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 1:17 pm

        “Here’s an article by Irving Louis Horowitz “Assaulting Arendt
        (footnoted version)” which examines the criticisms published by Bernard Wasserstein and Walter Laqueur regarding Arendt. link to firstthings.com”

        I saw the Horowitz article. His is the Arendt-apologetic view. I didn’t say there was universal agreement on any of this.

        Really, we don’t need to survey the views of other academics to analyze the Arendt passage. It’s condemnable on its face, and is only being used here for political convenience. Since you are a political partisan, I’m not surprised that you agree with her highly controversial views on this subject, just as you agree with Israel Shahak’s controversial views and Shlomo Sand controversial views. All three share a common thread. They are people writing polemically, out of area of expertise, but all can be conveniently used to bash Judaism as a religion and undermine any sort of Jewish claim to nationhood or a state.

        Believe me, Hostage, I get it all. There’s no need for you to go through the motions of condemning everyone who criticizes Arendt by claiming they are Zionists, as if this was a rejoinder, or comparing Jewish law and Nazi law, as if this had relevance or was in any way intellectual honest or appropriate. I accept that you are pro-Palestinian.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 2:39 pm

        jonrich 5:52 pm …no, it not only does not come close to blaming the victim it doesn’t even address blaming the victim. it merely addresses instances when jews were not the victim. is that a problem for you? or is that just not supposed to be mentioned at all, ever?

        the use of the word ‘exclusively’ in this paragraph doesn’t say anything about how much when or where, it merely introduces the idea there was, in fact (and i assume you will agree) a ‘Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles’. ‘often’ does not mean ‘mostly’ or ‘usually’ or ‘overwhelmingly’ or anything else.

        now it appears to me this is not something anyone cares to discuss. in fact there seems to be so much hostility and resistance towards any concept this could have occurred, it’s being bandied about as ‘ah my god your blaming us!! for something…EVERYTHING’.

        it’s stupid. your attachment to the jewish victimhood mantel is so great you can’t take it. it reminds me of the reaction arendt writes about …the outraged part of course, not the ‘genuinely astonishment.’

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 2:45 pm

        hops, i didn’t ‘cite’ her, hostage did. i merely read his link and posted it for people to read, sans commentary other than ‘great a passage’ or something..meaning it was interesting. you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill:

        your citation of her here is for political convenience, because if you claim Jews are separate, then you can claim that Zionism reflects this understanding of Judaism, that Palestinians, like the Gentiles in Arendt’s passage, are victims of this strain of separatism

        yea, the operative word being “if”. it’s not my claim jews are ‘separate’. at least the ones i know are not. i don’t have to time to read the rest of your schpeel.

        oh, and ziomism is separatism, but unlike others, i’m not really into finding the roots of it in judaism. see ya!

      • Light
        March 7, 2013, 3:13 pm

        jon, It is well documented that Christian clergy in Jerusalem are regularly spit on by some religious Israeli Jews. The Israeli authorities don’t seem to do much about. How is this helpful in building interfaith dialogue?

        link to haaretz.com

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 3:25 pm

        There’s no need for you to go through the motions of condemning everyone who criticizes Arendt

        as you go thru the motions of listing everyone who condemns arendt! classic! you crack me up!

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 3:46 pm

        ” ‘Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles’. ‘often’ does not mean ‘mostly’ or ‘usually’ or ‘overwhelmingly’ or anything else. ”

        “‘often’ does not mean ‘mostly’ or ‘usually’ or ‘overwhelmingly’ or anything else. ”

        It is far from accurate to suggest that Jewish tradition has been “often” violent toward Christians and Gentiles. You’ve provided zero proof of this generalization. There is next to no support for the claim in last 1500 years. You’re relying on a few scant references in the Talmud and a few in medieval Jewish writing.

        The fact of the matter is that in the last millenium, the Christians have persecuted the Jews mercilessly, not the other way around. There is no history of Jews accusing Christians of using the blood of Jewish children to make Easter treats. There is no history of Jews shoving Christians into ovens. There is no history of Jewish popes accusing Christians of killing their god. And there is no recent history of Jews forcing others to convert.

        “now it appears to me this is not something anyone cares to discuss.”

        It’s a false assumption, so there isn’t much to discuss.

        “it’s stupid. your attachment to the jewish victimhood mantel is so great you can’t take it.”

        It has nothing to do with Jewish victimhood. It has to do with how you’re using the statement, and whether the statement has validity. You’re using it for a purely political purpose, and it has little validity because it comes from a non-historian with a penchant for polemical writing on this subject.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 3:48 pm

        “hops, i didn’t ‘cite’ her, hostage did. ”

        You cited Hostage’s citation and called it a great quote. I assumed that you agreed with it. Are you saying now that you don’t?

        “i don’t have to time to read the rest of your schpeel.”

        By all means, ignore views that disagree with your own.

        “oh,and ziomism is separatism, but unlike others, i’m not really into finding the roots of it in judaism. see ya!”

        Think whatever you want, Annie.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 3:49 pm

        “as you go thru the motions of listing everyone who condemns arendt! classic! you crack me up!”

        I didn’t list everyone who condemns Arendt. I said her view is highly controversial, which is completely accurate. Hostage is not one to recognize nuance, and neither are you.

      • Betsy
        March 7, 2013, 3:57 pm

        Does anyone have the citation for this Arendt quote? She said different things at different times of her life (she was always growing, changing, responding to emerging issues & different contexts. That was part of what’s so amazing about her). It would be helpful to know when she said this & where…

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 4:28 pm

        You cited Hostage’s citation and called it a great quote. I assumed that you agreed with it. Are you saying now that you don’t?

        i can’t agree or disagree because i don’t know enough history. but it’s a great quote because if true it’s instructive and it makes a lot of sense. hostage mentioned earlier:

        Walter Laqueur made a spectacle out of himself in the 60s and continued to do it decades after Arendt passed away by attempting to portray her as a trouble maker, conspiracy theorist, and a person who somehow obscured the real political issues. He alleges that historical truth has suffered, but never mentions any specific instances of falsehood in her body of work.

        so what’s false? if you’re denying there is not or has never been any kind of traditional Jewish ‘antagonism towards Christians and Gentiles’, just say so. if you can prove her wrong do it.

        but i’m not interested in an argument where you say..’and then if you said this and if you said that and then one could say this or one could say that and if they did, it would be awfully close to implying ..something!

      • MRW
        March 7, 2013, 5:04 pm

        Hostage is not one to recognize nuance, and neither are you.

        LOL. You, who thinks categorically about everything (Arendt bad…Jews good…Christians anti-semites, etc) are lecturing Hostage and Annie about nuance? Annie may not be the walking encyclopedia that Hostage is, but that scrappy little woman can turn a worm in your argument faster than you can hit the caps button.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 5:45 pm

        ” if you’re denying there is not or has never been any kind of traditional Jewish ‘antagonism towards Christians and Gentiles’, just say so. if you can prove her wrong do it. ”

        I’ve said clearly that there has been some, mostly in the Talmud, which was written when Judaism and Christianity were somewhat in competition with one another, but again, and I have to keep stating it, it is miniscule in comparison to the Jew-hatred found in Christian literature, and the centrality of the deicide charge to Church thinking, and even more important, the sheer volume of persecution of Jews by Christians. This is the point I’ve been trying to make. It’s not to deny or apologize for ancient Judaic attitudes; it’s merely to say that talking about Jewish attitudes vis-a-vis Christians historically is irrelevant given what the actual history of persecution looks like. If my group of 1000 people says in the year 500 that your group of 50,000 people believes in a false god (and pretty much not much else), and your group says from the year 500 to the year 1945 that my group is possessed of the devil, drinks blood for ritual purposes, and actually annihilates my group multiple times, do you think that history ought to focus on the fact that my group said your god was false 1500 years ago?

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 6:12 pm

        But this quote goes dangerously close to blaming the victim.

        Remember that the Talmud is available online. Anyone can read through it and see for themselves that Jewish separateness is hardly attributable to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. link to halakhah.com

        There’s nothing dangerous about admitting that historical fact. The Gentiles have already noticed anyway. See for example:
        *The annual report of the European Ministers in Jerusalem starting on page 9 under the heading Religion, paragraph 58 link to 972mag.com
        *Knesset Members Furious over New Testament Gift
        link to cbn.com

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 6:54 pm

        The Gentiles have already noticed anyway.

        i don’t know why but that made me laugh. maybe we’ll get more stern warning about being dangerously close to suggesting jewish history is not just one long uninterrupted pogrom of pain and suffering. when i stop to think about it it’s kind of amazing you guys even had time to procreate.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 6:56 pm

        Believe me, Hostage, I get it all. There’s no need for you to go through the motions of condemning everyone who criticizes Arendt by claiming they are Zionists, as if this was a rejoinder, or comparing Jewish law and Nazi law, as if this had relevance or was in any way intellectual honest or appropriate.

        Of course it’s perfectly appropriate to discuss the similarities between Jewish religious laws and the Nazi Nuremberg laws. The same Zionist hypocrites who never tire of shreying about the injustice of Jews being stripped of their citizenship and prohibited from marrying persons of German blood hardly take notice when the leaders of the governing coalitions in the Jewish state propose or actually do the very same things to Palestinians. See
        *Israel admits it revoked residency rights of a quarter million Palestinians
        link to haaretz.com
        *Lieberman’s ‘peace’ plan: Strip Palestinians of citizenship: Blueprint requires pure Jewish state link to globalresearch.ca

        After all, there is nothing about the “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (September 15, 1935) that Israeli state-salaried officials, Rabbis, or their wives haven’t enthusiastically preached to Jewish communities in letters published in Israel and abroad. See:
        *40 rabbis: Jews shouldn’t rent, sell homes to gentiles
        link to jpost.com
        *Supermarket adopts racist policy?
        link to ynetnews.com
        *Haredim demand ‘kosher’ certification for Arab workers
        Ultra-orthodox in Beitar Illit ban together against Arab workers, claim they have negative influence on town’s women.
        link to ynetnews.com
        *Rabbis’ wives urge Israeli women: Stay away from Arab men
        link to haaretz.com

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 7:08 pm

        Does anyone have the citation for this Arendt quote?

        Surely, it’s from “The Origins of Totalitarianism”: link to books.google.com

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2013, 8:26 pm

        “other highly developed supposedly liberal European societies either joined in or did nothing to stop the slaughter;”

        My memory is fading, but I seem to recall a little scuffle involving the Germans and Britain*, France, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, and Greece.

        It may not have been much, but as I recall it was a bit more than nothing.

        (Britain, of course, got support from Canada, Australia, India, NZ, etc., but those are not European societies.)

      • Donald
        March 7, 2013, 9:12 pm

        Jonrich111, I don’t have time to get into this thread (and maybe that’s a good thing), but you ought to read this blog entry by Ta-Nehisi Coates from several days ago–

        flawed america in context

        Pay particular attention to his realization that history is not meant to bolster our self esteem. And that being victimized doesn’t mean you’re noble–it means that people with power are displaying the ugly traits which seem so depressingly common throughout history.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 8, 2013, 1:10 am

        hops, given the fact you copy/pasted those words not once but twice is there a particular reason you ignored them in your argument and chose to argue It is far from accurate to suggest that Jewish tradition has been “often” violent toward Christians and Gentiles. instead of the term arendt used, which was ‘violent antagonism’, as opposed to ‘violent’?

        can you argue that ‘It is far from accurate to suggest that Jewish tradition has often been antagonistic toward Christians and Gentiles? ‘

      • MHughes976
        March 9, 2013, 6:04 pm

        Most British people of older years will have met someone who arrived on our shores via the Kindertransport, part of the last pre-Scuffle phase, unfolding just as a policy of theft and expulsion turned into something more lethal under wartime conditions, which included deep secrecy. That too was not nothing. Sigmund Freud did not qualify for Kindertransport but he did take refuge among us, mentioning our magnanimity. Not a compliment we have always deserved, and I don’t suppose the Palestinians feel like echoing it in these times. In any event the wrongs of the past are not arguments for more wrongs now.

      • Djinn
        March 10, 2013, 4:03 am

        Not to mention the mass protest recently in Acre where hundreds of Jewish Israelis demanded the removal of an Arab who had bought a home in the area. It didn’t even matter that the Arab in question was Jewish.

      • Djinn
        March 10, 2013, 4:09 am

        Its quite astounding how many millions died while doing nothing to stop the slaughter. Maybe their deaths were brought on by a sedentary lifestyle.

      • Hostage
        March 11, 2013, 10:18 pm

        OK, I guess criticism of Arendt, made by other philosophers

        Let’s call bullshit on this right now. You’ve been talking about Bernard Wasserstein and Walter Laqueur. They both specialize in Zionist or Jewish historiography, not philosophy. Laqueur advanced the flakey proposition that Arendt wasn’t a specialist on the subject of totalitarianism, as if there were any universities at the time with competence to award a degree in such a thing.

        Learned doctors and academics can safely study and discuss the consequences of political and historical events without the need for tutoring. That’s especially true in connection with events they have witnessed first hand. It’s the height of ignorance or conceit to suggest otherwise.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 8:15 pm

        @ jonrich111

        Yep, Gentiles Dick and Jane must support Israel even if they can’t afford to pay for their kids’ education, and their grandparents are destitute. What could possibly be wrong with this picture? Nothing if you are Jewish?

  5. flyod
    February 27, 2013, 11:46 am

    the 2 state distraction

  6. hophmi
    February 27, 2013, 12:40 pm

    “Isn’t maintaining a Jewish state with 20 percent non-Jews, a state whose governing coalitions exclude non-Jewish parties, analogous to the Jim Crow south? ”

    No. It’s analogous to just about every European state, where the population is more homogeneously Christian (in part by virtue of historical societal discrimination) than Israel is Jewish.

    After a peace agreement is signed, you’ll see that Arab parties will not be excluded from governing coalitions any longer, because there will be less societal fear that they are a fifth column, much as there would be in ANY OTHER STATE IN THE REGION if Jews or Christians formed a party and wanted to join a governing coalition.

    Your argument is always undermined by the same problem – the entire region is the antithesis of diversity and liberalism, and Israel is the closest thing to it, by very far.

    • Cliff
      February 27, 2013, 2:00 pm

      Who cares of Israel is the ‘closest thing to it’.

      The Palestinians aren’t immigrants. They are thought of as a fifth column because they are both a sizeable population and were the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the land before Zionism stole their land, property, etc. and destroyed their society.

      What other country has a sizeable population, I.e. close to half (greater Israel), of the dispossessed indigenous population living with and under the supremacist caste?

      Israel is the only country.

      Before it was apartheid SA.

      So YOUR comparison is false. A Zionist lie AS USUAL.

      Israel doesn’t compare to Europe. Israel compares to apartheid SA.

      • jonrich111
        February 28, 2013, 6:02 pm

        “The Palestinians aren’t immigrants. They are thought of as a fifth column because they are both a sizeable population and were the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the land before Zionism stole their land, property, etc. and destroyed their society.”

        The Palestinian disposession is a shanda, a tragedy and Israel should acknowledge at least partial blame for causing the Palestinian refugee problem. But beyond that, your statements are incorrect. Jews are the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the land. Jews are indigenous to the land. Israel is our birthplace. We never voluntarily left the land; we were colonized, massacred, and enslaved by the Roman empire and driven out by force. Zionism is a liberation story: what other indigenous group has returned to their homeland after being forced into exile by imperial powers? If anything, Jews and Palestinians have EQUAL claim to the land and that necessitates a two-state solution. Since you only support national rights for one group (Palestinians) but deny those right to Jews, it is not hard to see what your true motives are.

      • Cliff
        March 3, 2013, 2:26 am

        jonrich said:

        Jews are indigenous to the land. Israel is our birthplace.

        ‘Jews’, as in Jewishness and Judaism, are not indigenous to the land.

        There was a small number of Jews who lived there alongside the majority of Palestinian Arabs. Those Jews were part of the population who had been living there for thousands of years.

        The vast majority of Jews lived everywhere else. They did not ‘return’ or think to return until the lat 1800s. And even then, they weren’t flooding the gate of Palestine until decades later.

        You are not an ancient Jew or an ancient Israelite or whatever. You are the product of conversion.

        Which means being Jewish is (and has never been) not genetic. It is purely cultural and abstract.

        A non-Jew can marry into Judaism or convert and after a couple of generations can claim to be Jewish and ‘returning’ to their ancient holy homeland. What a scam.

        That’s you claim. Total mendacious nonsense.

      • jonrich111
        March 6, 2013, 4:00 am

        “Which means being Jewish is (and has never been) not genetic. It is purely cultural and abstract.”

        Genetic studies show that Jews from all over the world are more genetically similar to each other than they are to their non-Jewish neighbors. Obviously there is not a “pure” genetic lineage, as there has been conversion, intermarriage, rape, etc. But Judaism isn’t about genetic purity. It is a covenant. It is a living relationship with the traditions of our ancient ancestors that is to be passed on to future generations.

      • justicewillprevail
        March 6, 2013, 7:12 am

        Actually genetic studies have shown that the Palestinians are most closely related to the ancient peoples of the region, including Jews. Hardly surprising, since they are the indigenous people of the region. Using myths and legends to forcibly and violently expel the indigenous people, by those whose heritage is a polyglot mixture of European, Slavic and Asian, is a crime which is inexcusable, and certainly not remotely justifiable, whatever you happen to believe about your culture. You are free to indulge in whatever myths you care to believe, but you are not free to visit violence, cruelty and apartheid on a people who have committed no crimes against you, other than existing in a place you have arbitrarily decided is ‘yours’, with no shred of evidence, legal or historical or ‘genetic’ (as if such an absurd justification even existed).

      • MRW
        March 6, 2013, 7:19 am

        Israel should acknowledge at least partial blame for causing the Palestinian refugee problem.

        Full blame.

      • Hostage
        March 6, 2013, 9:11 am

        Genetic studies show that Jews from all over the world are more genetically similar to each other than they are to their non-Jewish neighbors.

        That’s hard to reconcile with the fact that studies of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish communities of Europe indicate 30-60% admixture and closer relationships to neighbors or persons of Italian or Tuscan descent. According to one recent study they are even less inbred than their Gentile neighbors:

        Researchers looked for close to one million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs): common alternative spellings in the genome, analogous to American and British spellings of words such as organize/organise. One measure of genetic diversity in a population is heterozygosity, or how many of the SNPs inherited from the mother and father are different; a more inbred population has less heterozygosity.

        “We were surprised to find evidence that Ashkenazi Jews have higher heterozygosity than Europeans, contradicting the widely-held presumption that they have been a largely isolated group,” says first author Steven Bray, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Warren’s laboratory.

        He adds that his group’s analysis agrees with a recently published study from New York University and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and supports estimates of a high level of European admixture, accounting for up to half of the genetic make-up of contemporary Ashkenazi.

        Analysis of Ashkenazi Jewish genomes reveals diversity, history (Bray et al. 2010) link to eurekalert.org

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:20 am

        jonrich,

        People who intermarry will share characteristics.

        But there is no such thing as Jewish DNA. Jewish identity is man-made. It is a culture and sociological invention.

        Those studies are not identifying Jewish interrelations – they are identifying a group of people who are interrelated and CALL THEMSELVES Jews.

        Meaning, they could just so easily self-identified in any other name. They chose Jews for whatever reason.

        Just as Christianity is derivative of the many ‘mystery religions’, i.e. Mithraism, so is Judaism.

        In fact, ancient Judaism is nothing like Judaism today. Neither was ancient Christianity.

        And saying Judaism is about maintaining traditions is nothing special and confirms my point. It’s a fabrication meant to tie people together. Group survival. People flock together in groups and need organizing structures to keep themselves in said groups.

        Does any of this need to be said? Unless you really believe in God or take passages from the Torah to be literal – then I think you should understand that these sociological inventions are a product of higher brain functioning.

        You don’t see snails worshipping anything do you?

        Anyways – all of this is pointless. The simple truth is that you and the vast majority of Jews were not indigenous to ‘the land of Israel’ because first, such a land was nonexistent. History books usually cite the Bible or Torah and only do so likely because it would be too big a deal politically to just call out your ‘land of Israel’ meme as b.s.

      • Light
        March 6, 2013, 12:49 pm

        A have a problem with genetic studies done by researchers who shoot an arrow and then draw a bulls eye around the arrow to prove their point. The recent obsession with genetics in Israel is a reincarnation of 19th century craniometry. If a Palestinian can prove she has one of these special genes does she get the Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return?

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 1:16 pm

        @ jonrich111

        Assuming what you say is historically accurate, that Jews were driven off their land by Imperial Rome many centuries ago, how does that justify Palestinians being driven off their land by, e.g., American-born and bred Jews in modern history? Please explain. Thank you.

      • sardelapasti
        March 6, 2013, 2:38 pm

        1111 – “Genetic studies show that Jews from all over the world are more genetically similar to each other than they are to their non-Jewish neighbors”
        1. You are manifestly so ignorant in matters of statistical genetics that you don’t even understand that such a statement would exhibit your ignorance of it.

        2. All statistical genetics data up to nos show the exact opposite of the stuff you are asserting with unjustified assurance.

      • Light
        March 6, 2013, 3:30 pm

        We never voluntarily left the land; we were colonized, massacred, and enslaved by the Roman empire and driven out by force.

        jon you are repeating myths. The Romans at one time controlled Palestine and fought some wars there but there is no evidence that they exiled the Jewish population. If you have a source for such an event, please cite it.

      • James Canning
        March 6, 2013, 5:46 pm

        It does appear that many Jews remained in Palestine after the destuction of Jerusalem. And it also appears that descendants of these Jews, to some extent, are now called Palestinians.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 8:27 pm

        @ jonrich111
        According to your sense of world history, and sense of ethics and morality, since humans came from Africa, who has a historical claim to where?

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Bravo. If half of all Jews in US marry non-Jews, surely there is by definition of blending of “Jewish” blood with “non-Jewish”.

      • lysias
        March 7, 2013, 7:12 pm

        Jews are the ORIGINAL inhabitants of the land. Jews are indigenous to the land.

        I thought that, according to the Bible narrative, the Canaanites were in the Holy Land before the Jews were. I thought that, according to that same narrative, the Jews were in Egypt and earlier in Mesopotamia before they finally settled in Palestine.

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 2:14 pm

        “Arab” tribes were in Palestine too. Wasn’t Abraham a member of an “Arab” tribe? And who were the “Sea People”?

      • MHughes976
        March 8, 2013, 4:20 pm

        Genesis describes the arrival of benevolent immigrants from Iraq in Palestine. They make a few moral compromises and promise to treat one in particular set of people whom they found there, the Philistines/Palestinians, better than they had before. That’s the story of Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 20-21). Most modern scholars would dispute the idea that the Philistines were in place so early, towards 2000 BCE, and regard them as among the Sea Peoples. These are described in Egyptian inscriptions of the early twelfth century BC, hardly any time after the inscription referring to Israel of which we never hear the last, using the name which is represented as ‘Peleset’, as new arrivals. They seem to have been Indo-European language-speakers. I like the idea that the name is derived from Greek, Phyle for tribe and Hestia for hearth, making Palestine ‘the land of hearth and home’ which is rather charming don’t you think? But we all know what happens to hearths and homes that get in the way of Zionist ambitions.

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2013, 10:47 am

        light- When Israel prevents Muslims from praying in Jerusalem, it is called a form of ethnic cleansing on this web site. But when Rome bans Jews from living , praying or visiting Jerusalem, what is it called? When they capture your capital and rename it and ban you from it, what is that called?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2013, 11:42 am

        When they capture your capital and rename it and ban you from it, what is that called?

        when did that happen?

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2013, 12:05 pm

        Annie- wikipedia history of Jerusalem

        What is today known as the “Old City” was laid out by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century, when he began to rebuild Jerusalem as a pagan city. In 130, Hadrian visited the ruins of Jerusalem remaining after the First Roman-Jewish War of 66–73. He rebuilt the city, renaming it Aelia Capitolina in 135 CE. Hadrian placed the city’s main Roman Forum at the junction of the main Cardo and Decumanus, now the location of the (smaller) Muristan. Hadrian built a large temple to the goddess Venus, which later became the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.[29] He placed restrictions on some Jewish practices, which caused a revolt by the Judeans, led by Simon Bar Kokhba. Hadrian responded with overwhelming force, putting down the rebellion, killing as many as a half million Jews, and resettling the city as a Roman colonia. Jews were forbidden to enter the city but for a single day of the year, Tisha B’Av, (the Ninth of Av), the fast day on which Jews mourn the destruction of both Temples. For the next 150 years, the city remained a relatively unimportant pagan Roman town.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2013, 12:17 pm

        iow, your response to israel’s crime of ethnicly cleansing palestine in present day is to redirect to 2000 years ago to what romans did to the jews? it’s so redundant yonah. could we get current please. i think people are getting sick of zionist justifying their crimes against humanity. doesn’t mankind aspire to improve over the civilizations that existed 2000 years ago? what’s your point? that jews have suffered? it’s like a constant drumbeat running thru the discourse. move on. link to mondoweiss.net

      • sardelapasti
        March 9, 2013, 12:22 pm

        Annie – When? When the dinosaurs roamed the earth along with Adam and Eve and their early progenies. I don’t suppose that particular guy was there anyway. The chances of a “blood” connection of his to the then murderous fundamentalist insurgents of a ceremonially renamed Aelia capitolina, barred from entering town for a short while, are nil.
        I can’t feel his pain, because Cyrus’ invasion of Sardes has precedence and rankles as if it had been yesterday. It still wakes me up in the middle of the night, I’m telling you.

      • Hostage
        March 9, 2013, 12:36 pm

        But when Rome bans Jews from living , praying or visiting Jerusalem, what is it called?

        Most of us with half a brain call it mythical bullshit. It supposedly was the fulfillment of the prophecy “Zion will be plowed like a field”. See Israel Jacob Yuval, “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship”, Common Knowledge – Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33

        FYI, the Roman Emperor and son who destroyed the Temple supposedly set-up the Sanhedrin and rabbinical academy in style on their private estate in Yavneh. That was done at the request of Rabbi Johanan ben Zakai. The Emperor Augustus had given Yavneh to Herod. But after his death, it passed to the control of his sister, Salome, and from her directly to the emperors as a private estate.

        Rabbi Akiva taught the sages to laugh about the destruction of the Temple. If you really believe that God will send a Messiah to rebuild it, then why are you still whining about it? If you don’t believe in that sort of nonsense, why would you want Jews to pray there anyway? In either case, you shouldn’t try to make Gentiles feel sorry for things that the tannaim themselves had giggled about.

      • sardelapasti
        March 9, 2013, 12:37 pm

        That Fredman can’t even find a halfway reliable history report to even mention pre-dinosaur stuff. Even here his account is so heavily Zionist-doctored you’d howl with rage. Wikipedia is a peer-reviewed academic source now, with any moron allowed to rewrite things? Get out of here.

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2013, 1:16 pm

        Annie- light made a comment. i refuted his comment. now you are telling me that i need to get current. give me a break. I’m not allowed to answer light’s false comment?

      • James Canning
        March 9, 2013, 1:26 pm

        yonah – - “Your capital”?

      • K Renner
        March 9, 2013, 1:33 pm

        Rome did that circa 2000 years ago.

        Israelis detain and deport Muslims (or anyone who “looks” Muslim) who wish to pray at the Dome of the Rock- on a consistent basis and in the present day.

      • MHughes976
        March 9, 2013, 4:13 pm

        The Roman refusal to let Jerusalem be used for Jewish worship, except for the 9th Ab ceremony, was intolerant, though you might have expected worse after three fierce wars. If the standards set by the Roman Empire were followed things might not be so bad. There was no discrimination against Jewish people becoming Roman citizens anywhere on territory controlled by Rome. Jewish religious life flourished in Galilee. The rural population surrounding Jerusalem was still strongly Jewish, as is indicated by Jerome’s account of poor people, who could not have afforded to travel far, taking part in the Ab ceremonies.

      • sardelapasti
        March 9, 2013, 4:27 pm

        “The Roman refusal to let Jerusalem be used for Jewish worship, except for the 9th Ab ceremony, was intolerant..”
        Not on your life. The reactionary part of the population, i.e. the Qa’ida-like murderous insurgents and part of the clergy, were adamantly refusing to pay lip service to the divinity of Rome, which was the binding element of all possible religious and/or atheistic manifestations of the Empire –with the condition of acknowledging the superiority of the state. The contrary was, at the time, the very definition of insubordination. This couldn’t be considered intolerant by any of the time’s yardsticks.

        We should be happy to have even a little fraction of those times’ tolerance in the US… establishment clause or not.

        As for Friedman’s facts, do not forget that he is quoting… Wikipedia, fcol.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2013, 10:47 pm

        light made a comment. i refuted his comment. now you are telling me that i need to get current.

        yonah, you didn’t refute lights comment. you asked a question(‘what’s it called when….?’). light refuted jon’s comment and challenged him wrt evidence. for your review:

        jon you are repeating myths. The Romans at one time controlled Palestine and fought some wars there but there is no evidence that they exiled the Jewish population. If you have a source for such an event, please cite it.

        citing wiki isn’t impressive.

      • James Canning
        March 10, 2013, 2:17 pm

        Annie – - A key point is simply that even if many Jews left Palestine, after the destruction of Jerusalem, many Jews remained. And Palestinians today descend in part from the Jews who remained.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 2:54 pm

        key point of what? myth vs reality? what happened 2000 years ago is not a key point in anything other than people’s psychosis. it won’t resolve anything.

      • James Canning
        March 10, 2013, 3:19 pm

        Annie – - You do not see any significance in the fact the Palestinians descend from the people who occupied Palestine 2000 years ago?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 10, 2013, 4:02 pm

        perhaps in a historical sense, but i’m not much of a history buff.. in terms of people having equal rights in the 21st century … no, i can’t say i do. i really could care less what happened 2000 years ago wrt how it impacts politics today. it should not matter. i do not believe people have collective personal feelings surrounding what happened 2000 years ago either, except thru brainwashing.

      • sardelapasti
        March 10, 2013, 4:53 pm

        Canning – What the hell of a relevance would that strictly racist consideration have? Do you want to play the insane games of the Zionists with this, too?

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 4:48 pm

        Annie – - Let’s remember the catastrophe of the Iraq War was direct result of gross historical ignrorance on part of so many of those who set up the war.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 9:41 am

        james, please do not tell me you are that gullible. the catastrophe of the Iraq War was the direct result of the intent of those who set up the war. the intent was to incite a civil war so iraq would destroy itself. the intent was for the US to be there long enough to create a permanent presence there, build all the bases etc. the only way to do that would be to position the US troops as a ‘moderating force’ between hostile internal and external forces. to bring that about there need to be a mass of confusion and subterfuge and then ‘how were we to know????’ the neocons knew very well, they planned it like that and the death squads we trained and funded were all sectarian forces.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Annie – - The neocon warmongers who conspired to set up the illegal invasion of Iraq, thought they could convert Iraq into an ally of the US and Israel. You doubt this?

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 1:56 pm

        sardelapasti – - What is “racist” about the fact Palestinians of today descend partly from Jews who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago? Do you challenge this?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 2:54 pm

        sure i doubt it, it wasn’t their goal either. no more than the objective of bombing iran would be to make them our allies , but of course it would be nice. read micheal leeden ala caldron of fire. i mean being an ally is nice and all, but the goal was to control iraq, to turn it backwards, to carve it up, into sectarian regions. look at the neocon new middle east map, that’s the goal. they are not happy with the lines drawn after ww2, they want new ones. i think in an ideal world they thought they could get the kurds as allies. if they could get the kurds as allies for a permanent US installation, and expand the kurdish state outward. the point was manipulation. don’t look at what they say, look at what they do. i read somewhere, long time ago, some neocon think tank paper i lost track of, the biggest challenge was baghdad which was a completely mixed city. many neighborhoods were mixed. so they needed them cleansed, divided and walled up. if you look at what they did (biggest embassy in the world in the heart of baghdad) and assume that was part of the intent. now..just ask yourself, if all had gone swimmingly how would they have been able to build that mini city in the flash of a few months or even a year? impossible. and it’s against human nature the iraqis would welcome us and be happy with us occupying them. they needed years, and they got years. they needed the lasting infrastructure to facilitate a private army of 50,000 ‘security agents’, that’s what they got. they never thought it was going to be fast. the way to build a democracy is not to set people against each other which is exactly what they did. it was a strategy for dismantling the country. they needed the friction/bloodbath between the tribes to position themselves as the ‘big brother/teacher/overseer’ to rationalize our presence there,otherwise there would have been no rationale for our continued presence.

        the neocons are not interested in these big countries w/unifying populations, not with the goal of splitting up the region into mini states. think israel/zionism. each state w/it’s own religious ethnic group. then they can be pitted against eachother more easily. this is the zionist model. now, it’s hard to pull that off. but there are ways. one challenge was getting the christian out of there. the zionist model doesn’t support mixed populations. in the new middle east map they even named the three countries intended for iraq by the names of the sects. shia region sunni region etc. this was done before the invasion. common sense dictate you cannot divide a culture like that , that has lived together for centuries, voluntarily or without massive bloodshed. when you understand the goal, you realize everything they did completely facilitated the goal. it really went swimmingly , albeit i am sure they planned the civil war to break out sooner. but it just didn’t. hence, the big samarra mosque blown up in 06 (i think it was 06) before the summer operation (‘operation together forward’ remember the neocon penchant for naming things the opposite of what they are), which they first tried to pin on al queda. long story. it went the way they intended.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 3:05 pm

        “each state w/it’s own religious ethnic group. then they can be pitted against eachother more easily”

        Do you read what you write? I mean, seriously? First you say that the neocons wanted to turn Iraqis against one another (total nonsense, but for the sake of argument…) and say this is proof that what they wanted was chaos so they could break up the country into smaller states (a solution the Kurds would surely favor since being a minority in Iraq has resulted in their longtime persecution). Then you say that ethnic states (which is what most of the world is divided into) don’t work because people war with one another. Lebanon is a mixed state. People war with one another. Iraq was
        a mixed state.

        “common sense dictate you cannot divide a culture like that , that has lived together for centuries, voluntearily or without massive bloodshed. ”

        What are you smoking? It was already divided. The Sunni leadership persecuted the Shia and the Kurds. Turkey is a mixed state. The Turks persecuted the Kurds. You act like everything was hunky dory under Saddam Hussein and that mixed states are a big success.

        “when you understand the goal, you realize everything they did completely facilitated the goal. ”

        When you walk into every one of these situations with the preconceived notion that people who don’t share your politics are evil people, you realize that you’re capable of fitting everything into your preconceived conspiracy theory.

        “albeit i am sure they planned the civil war to break out sooner.”

        Yes, the evil neocons just wanted lots of dead American troops and the moral opprobrium of America. It had nothing to do with bad planning or dismantling the army early on.

      • eljay
        March 12, 2013, 3:12 pm

        >> What is “racist” about the fact Palestinians of today descend partly from Jews who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago?

        This is an interesting idea. So…what percentage of Palestinians today – as a result of having descended from Jews in Palestine 2000 years ago – are (unknowingly) Jewish? And do you have any evidence (e.g., a link to a study) to support your assertion? Thanks.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 3:41 pm

        Then you say that ethnic states (which is what most of the world is divided into) don’t work because people war with one another.

        i didn’t write that. i’ll read the rest of your comment now, but why are you strawmanning? not enough there to argue against?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 3:56 pm

        “albeit i am sure they planned the civil war to break out sooner.”

        Yes, the evil neocons just wanted lots of dead American troops

        a civil war between iraqis doesn’t facilitate lots of dead americans, it facilitates lots of dead iraqis. it’s always preferable to have your enemies killing eachother . relatively speaking there were hardly any american deaths in that war, considering the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis. we facilitated them killing eachother, obviously. we trained the black n decker drillers. i followed the war.

        petraus ‘misplaced’ hundreds of thousands of arms. we armed both sides of the war, and the peshmerga worked with us.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 3:57 pm

        “the neocons are not interested in these big countries w/unifying populations, not with the goal of splitting up the region into mini states. think israel/zionism. each state w/it’s own religious ethnic group. then they can be pitted against eachother more easily.”

        What did this mean, then? Seems like you’re saying it’s easy to pit ethnic states against one another.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 3:58 pm

        “a civil war between iraqis doesn’t facilitate lots of dead americans, it facilitates lots of dead iraqis.”

        Yes, but it also contributed to the deaths of thousands of American troops. You apparently think the neocons planned all this. It’s a conspiracy theory.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 3:59 pm

        When you walk into every one of these situations with the preconceived notion that people who don’t share your politics are evil people,

        i don’t use biblical terms when describing my enemies. but yes, the neocons who got us into that war are my enemies, and they do not share my politics. they facilitated genocide in iraq, and it’s a stain on my conscious and my country of which i am deeply ashamed.

      • Light
        March 12, 2013, 4:04 pm

        Eljay, why are you so surprised? There was never any massive emigration from Palestine. The Palestinians today are descended from people who lived there 2000 years ago whether they were Jewish, Christian or Pagan mixed with the civilizations that conquered and ruled the area in the intervening time. Would you be surprised to find out that modern Italians are related to the ancient Romans? Do you need a study to prove that? Finally, are human rights only available to people who have 2000 years of documented genealogy?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 4:10 pm

        of course they planned it! you don’t send a nation to war and not expect dead troops! get a grip.

        deaths of thousands of American troops

        4,487 in how many years? compared to a million iraqis? neocons don’t send their children off to war, it was no skin off their backs. seriously, armchair warriors promoting war where a couple hundred dead iraqis for everyone of ours? and the drone wars where americans sacrifice no blood. you show me even one of the architects of that war whose child was in combat. one. take it away hops, that’s my opinion. it disgusts me.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 12, 2013, 4:23 pm

        Seems like you’re saying it’s easy to pit ethnic states against one another.

        it’s a radical new theory of mine, i thought of it all by myself. it’s called divide and conquer. of course it is easier to pit people against each other when they are divided. this is not rocket science. the challenge, is dividing them. go ask the government of israel if you do not believe me. or look at a map of the palestinian occupied territories. and note how i said “then they can be pitted against eachother more easily

        here’s what you said i wrote: “ethnic states.. don’t work because people war with one another.”

        lol, not necessarily!

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 4:53 pm

        ” neocons don’t send their children off to war, it was no skin off their backs.’

        ” you show me even one of the architects of that war whose child was in combat.”

        Eliot Cohen’s son was in Iraq for quite a while; he was one of the most prominent neocons to support the Iraq War.

        link to washingtonpost.com

        John McCain’s son fought in Iraq. He was one of the most prominent Senators to support the war. Another son is at the Naval Academy.

        link to snopes.com

        ” neocons don’t send their children off to war, it was no skin off their backs.”

        That’s just a bald generalization that assumes the neocons are evil and it’s untrue to boot, as I have showed above. Once again, you may not agree with the policy, but good faith suggests you should grant that those who support it believe they are acting in America’s best interest.

        “4,487 in how many years?”

        It was much more than Americans were prepared to lose.

      • hophmi
        March 12, 2013, 4:59 pm

        “it’s a radical new theory of mine, i thought of it all by myself. it’s called divide and conquer. ”

        It’s a little out of date. The United States went to Iraq principally because it’s in a strategically important place. It had no interest in, and gained nothing from the civil war that resulted. These guys are guilty of mismanaging the war badly, probably because they had precious few dissenters in the room to tell them that they would not be “greeted as liberators.” But to assert that they wanted this to happen, for over 4,000 Americans to die and for Iraq to be a mess is a conspiracy theory. We’re not occupying the place.

        “go ask the government of israel if you do not believe me. or look at a map of the palestinian occupied territories. ”

        Israel is different. Israel actually occupies the territories because of the security threat they posed before 1967, because of the policy mistakes Israel has made since then and because of the continued threat of Palestinian violence and possible lawlessness in the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal. America does not occupy Iraq, and has no interest in paying billions upon billions of dollars to remain there forever.

      • MHughes976
        March 12, 2013, 6:01 pm

        Referring to Sardela’s remark on the Romans. They were intolerant by the exacting standards we now profess, perhaps. Certainly no less intolerant than the Hasmonean rulers had been. And at least by the standards of that time the Roman Emperor was the legitimate ruler of Judaea.

      • eljay
        March 12, 2013, 6:08 pm

        >> Eljay, why are you so surprised?

        Who’s surprised? All I said was “This is an interesting idea.”

        >> The Palestinians today are descended from people who lived there 2000 years ago whether they were Jewish, Christian or Pagan mixed with the civilizations that conquered and ruled the area in the intervening time.

        Sounds reasonable. This doesn’t answer my question: What percentage of Palestinians today – as a result of having descended from Jews in Palestine 2000 years ago – are (unknowingly) Jewish?

        >> Would you be surprised to find out that modern Italians are related to the ancient Romans? Do you need a study to prove that?

        If someone were to say that the Italians of today descend partly from Etruscans who lived in Italy 2000 years ago, you wouldn’t be curious to know what percentage that implies?

        >> Finally, are human rights only available to people who have 2000 years of documented genealogy?

        No. Why do you ask?

      • Hostage
        March 12, 2013, 6:25 pm

        Yes, the evil neocons just wanted lots of dead American troops and the moral opprobrium of America. It had nothing to do with bad planning or dismantling the army early on.

        You act as if these same neocon nut cases didn’t write a political platform to secure the empire by weakening Syria, restoring the Hashemites in Iraq, & etc. See A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. link to iasps.org

        At one and the same time, they spent millions of misappropiated funds (the taxpayer dollars) to conduct an illegal public propaganda campaign and to lend legitimacy to Ahmed Chalabi and the bogus Iraqi National Congress, which was a fiction they had invented to support their invasion plans.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 7:15 pm

        The neocons did not expect the vicious civil war in Iraq, that was set off by Jerry Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi army and security services.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 7:19 pm

        Shlomo Sands wrote a book touching on this. Or more than touching. I have been hoping someone curious about this angle, and rich, would fund DNA testing. Rafiq Hariri funded a good deal of genetic testing in Lebanon, before he was assassinated. He was fascinated by descent of modern Lebanese from the Phoenicians of thousands of years ago.

      • James Canning
        March 12, 2013, 7:23 pm

        Annie, you are simply not informed well on this particular topic. Remember Chalabi, and the deal he made with the neocons? Doug Feith apparently thought he would become hugely rich, due to deals made possible by a Chalbi government in Baghdad.

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 3:33 pm

        eljay – - Probably a very high percentage of Italians in Tuscany descend from Etruscans. And one likely can assume most Italians descend in part from the Etruscans.

        Rafiq Hariri thought it fascinating to determine that present population of several Lebanese coastal cities largely descend from ancient Phoenicians.

      • gamal
        March 13, 2013, 3:44 pm

        As does Walid Phares (Faris) and draws all sorts of fascinating conclusions as a result.

      • Light
        March 13, 2013, 4:14 pm

        If someone were to say that the Italians of today descend partly from Etruscans who lived in Italy 2000 years ago, you wouldn’t be curious to know what percentage that implies?

        Perhaps, but not if Italians were looking for a Romulus and Remus gene and definitely not if that information were used to oppress the Italians with the wrong genes.

        In the case of Israel, these studies have been coopted for propaganda purposes. I’ve heard an Israeli cabinet minister claim that science has shown there are special Jewish genes that are only passed down by the mother. Other Israelis have told me that they have Cohen genes from Aaron.

      • sardelapasti
        March 13, 2013, 4:39 pm

        Canning – Use standard English grammar and parse. It is irrelevant. It encourages morons to continue racist theories. It gives a foot to stand on to Nazis and Zionists and Turanists and suchlike crawlers. It encourages people who, without any even elementary understanding of biology, genetics or statistical methods, declare themselves ready to fund stuff that does not and will not ever allow them to jump to the conclusions they are jumping to. Everyone is mixed to the max. Even stating that the Ashkenaze are likely unrelated to the Chinese is a very risky comment. Repeat: it is entirely irrelevant, and it is precisely because it is irrelevant that we are condemning the racist ‘return’ theories of the Zionists. Not because their hallucinations are wrong (which they are anyway.)

      • eljay
        March 13, 2013, 6:06 pm

        >> eljay – – Probably a very high percentage of Italians in Tuscany descend from Etruscans. And one likely can assume most Italians descend in part from the Etruscans.

        I’d be curious to know what percentage “most Italians” actually equals, as this assertion appears to contradict Light’s assertion that “modern Italians are related to the ancient Romans” (who, presumably, were different from the Etruscans).

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 8:42 pm

        hops, no one’s even heard of eliot cohen, i said the architects of that war. and john mcCain wasn’t an advisor to cheney.

      • talknic
        March 13, 2013, 9:38 pm

        hophmi … “Israel is different”

        Yes. Israel illegally claims as its own the territory it has illegally acquired by war (since 00:01 May 1948 ME time). The US is not claiming Iraq as its own

        “Israel actually occupies the territories because of the security threat they posed before 1967″

        Twaddle. They were under the military control of Egypt (Gaza) and temporary sovereign trusteeship of Jordan (the West Bank) and posed no security threat to Israel. Israel meanwhile threatened regional security by illegally acquiring, by war, some 50% of the territory allocated for the Arab State. link to wp.me

        Furthermore, Israel was trying to claim territories allocated for the Arab State BEFORE 1967. On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers. The claims were rebuffed, citing the Armistice AGREEMENTS. Israel has yet to legally annex those or any other territories. link to wp.me and;
        Israel still constitutes ” a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;” link to wp.me

        “..because of the policy mistakes Israel has made since then and because of the continued threat of Palestinian violence and possible lawlessness in the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal”

        A) Israel’s first policy mistake was thinking it could illegally acquire other folks territory..
        B) It’s policy mistakes since are in illegally acquiring even more territory, illegal settlements, illegal annexation, ignoring UNSC resolutions, the Law and the UN Charter and LYING to its own citizens and the world in order to justify its belligerence.
        C) There will always be resistance to oppression and occupation.
        D) End the occupation and the Law and UN will by default be in Israel’s favour should there be any “possible lawlessness in the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal”
        E) Peace comes AFTER withdrawal.. Israel agreed to this principal in signing the Israeli/Egypt Peace Treaty link to wp.me

        “America does not occupy Iraq, and has no interest in paying billions upon billions of dollars to remain there forever”

        A) Israel is interested in remaining in territory allotted the Arab State forever.
        B)Israel can not afford now to adhere to the law, UN Charter and conventions because it would be sent bankrupt paying reparations and attempting to resettle hundreds of thousands of disillusioned Israeli citizens back within Israel’s actual sovereign extent

        So yes.. “Israel is different” it’s a rogue state supported by idiots for a Greater and illegal Israel. Idiots who could well bring about the demise of the Jewish State

      • James Canning
        March 14, 2013, 2:02 pm

        eljay – - The Etruscans became Romans. Italians descending from Romans of 15 centuries ago also descend from Etruscans. Especially in the areas occupied by the ancient Etruscans prior to the rise of Rome.

      • ToivoS
        February 28, 2013, 7:55 pm

        Israel doesn’t compare to Europe. Israel compares to apartheid SA. and to French Algeria, settler state Rhodesia, British Kenya and Portuguese Angola to name just a few. There are many precedents for Israel.

        Umm, I wonder how this last one works out?

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 27, 2013, 2:05 pm

      So you seriously blame the fact that the israeli Jews are so racist on the victims of that racism?? Your bigotry knows no bounds.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      February 27, 2013, 2:11 pm

      Huh???

      Europe is not ‘Christian’, and hasn’t been for decades. Most Europeans are secular, as are pretty much all European governments. No European state refers to itself as a ‘Christian state’ or gives preferential treatment to Christians, while treating non-Christians as second class citizens. Moreover, all major Western European countries – Britain, France, Germany – are multi-cultural these days, and if you’re a citizen, you’re a citizen. Sure, there’s unofficial discrimination against minorities, but NO European country officially considers one ‘ethnicity’ to be more valuable than another. In other words, you’re talking nonsense.

      ”you’ll see that Arab parties will not be excluded from governing coalitions any longer, because there will be less societal fear that they are a fifth column,”

      What a pile of rubblish. So it’s up to the indigenous people of the region to soothe the ‘fears’ of the colonists that they’re not a ‘fifth column’? Any chance that Israelis might try to convince the rest of the region that they’re not aggressive racial supremacists, despite all evidence to the contrary?

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:45 am

        “Europe is not ‘Christian’, and hasn’t been for decades. Most Europeans are secular, as are pretty much all European governments”

        Most Israelis are secular. And when faced with a religious minority (see France, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland) that wants to do things their own way, it becomes a big problem in Europe.

        “No European state refers to itself as a ‘Christian state’ or gives preferential treatment to Christians, while treating non-Christians as second class citizens.”

        See France, where Muslims can’t cover their heads and Switzerland, where Muslims can’t build mosques of a certain height. Europe doesn’t need to call itself Christian. It is an entire content, and it is 90% Christian. If the shoe fits . . .

        “Moreover, all major Western European countries – Britain, France, Germany – are multi-cultural these days, and if you’re a citizen, you’re a citizen.”

        They’re multicultural in word, not in deed. And conservative European leaders are trying to run away from the notion of multiculturalism as fast as they can.

        “Sure, there’s unofficial discrimination against minorities, but NO European country officially considers one ‘ethnicity’ to be more valuable than another.”

        Sure, there’s unofficial discrimination, but Europeans say all the right things. LOL.

        “What a pile of rubblish. So it’s up to the indigenous people of the region to soothe the ‘fears’ of the colonists that they’re not a ‘fifth column’?”

        No, not really. But human nature is human nature. If you have a minority living within your border, and its fatherland has been warring with you, you’re going to be a little afraid. See Europe at any time before the 1950s. See Europe’s attitude toward its Muslim minority today. See Serbia and its treatment of Albanians in Kosovo. It’s always the same double standard. No one is able to see Jews as human beings. It’s either they have to be sub-human and are less than everybody else, or they have to be superhuman and be better than everybody else.

        “Any chance that Israelis might try to convince the rest of the region that they’re not aggressive racial supremacists, despite all evidence to the contrary?”

        Any chance you might walk a day in their shoes and try to think how you would react if Palestinians were killing your family members and their leaders were calling you pigs and apes?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 8, 2013, 11:23 pm

        Europe doesn’t need to call itself Christian. It is an entire content, and it is 90% Christian.

        are you deaf? unlike jews, who identify as jews whether they are religious themselves, other people do not self identify with a religion they are not. including europeans who are definitely NOT 90% christian. this is not the borders of the zionist state where they demand a religious identification, where you self identify as such (religiously) or not. this is the real world.

      • Cliff
        March 9, 2013, 3:21 am

        hoppy says:

        “Any chance you might walk a day in their shoes and try to think how you would react if Palestinians were killing your family members and their leaders were calling you pigs and apes?”

        Palestinian militants have kill around 1000 Israelis since 2000.

        Palestinians aren’t colonizing Israelis. Palestinians aren’t immigrants like Israelis. Palestinians aren’t stealing water from Israelis. Palestinians don’t continually get away with murdering and abusing Israelis.

        You exaggerate and equivocate because you are sophist.

        Israelis butcher Palestinians 10 times over. That’s on top of the occupation, colonialism and apartheid.

        And then there’s the racism and institutional discrimination inside Israel proper.

        So shove your false paradigm, Zionist.

      • sardelapasti
        March 9, 2013, 12:01 pm

        Annie – Hphmi isn’t deaf, the poor thing only spent all his life in an Ashkenazi bubble, without even a need to avoid anything extraneous to it . He has never seen the real world or read about it. It’s a wonder he hasn’t been run over crossing the street yet.
        It is not just about Hoppmi, though. If he believes half of what he writes, he illustrates perfectly the total madness of part of Zionist supporters, whose understanding of tribe matches exactly that of the real Antisemite pundits like Rosenberg and Goebbels.

      • Elliot
        March 13, 2013, 4:41 pm

        Hophmi:
        no one is able to see Jews as human beings
        You have put your finger on the issue but you missed the mark.
        Who, in Europe for instance, are you talking about?
        You complain that others make you into sub- or super- human. Jewish exceptionalism is the mindset of certain Jews (and Christians who support those Jews).
        As an Israeli and former Zionist I know that most Israelis – and most Zionists who support them – believe that Israeli Jews and Jews in general are not like other human beings. Not like Palestinians. Not like Europeans. Zionists generally believe that Jews are unique.

      • RoHa
        March 13, 2013, 9:40 pm

        “No one is able to see Jews as human beings.”

        Could that be because Jews have put so much effort in declaring themselves special, chosen, and different? Could that be because Jews have put so much effort into keeping themselves separate from the people they live among?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 11:21 pm

        i see them as human. furthermore, it’s never occurred to me they weren’t. albeit, lots of them are not humane.

      • RoHa
        March 13, 2013, 11:43 pm

        I see Jews as human too, in spite of their best efforts.

      • eljay
        March 14, 2013, 2:10 pm

        >> No one is able to see Jews as human beings.

        I see Jews as regular human beings. Why do some Jews see themselves as something other than regular human beings?

        >> It’s either they have to be sub-human and are less than everybody else, or they have to be superhuman and be better than everybody else.

        Really? Huh. Phil and others on this site seem so regular-human. But apparently they’re not. How do I tell if they’re sub-human or super-human?

      • eljay
        March 14, 2013, 2:13 pm

        >> Could that be because Jews have put so much effort in declaring themselves special, chosen, and different? Could that be because Jews have put so much effort into keeping themselves separate from the people they live among?

        Like the aggressor-victimhood of Israelis, it’s a very tough gig. :-(

      • German Lefty
        March 14, 2013, 3:04 pm

        I see Jews as regular human beings. Why do some Jews see themselves as something other than regular human beings?
        Phil and others on this site seem so regular-human. But apparently they’re not. How do I tell if they’re sub-human or super-human?

        Ha, ha. Great post, eljay. Air kisses from Germany.

      • eljay
        March 14, 2013, 3:25 pm

        Vielen Dank, German Lefty! :-)

    • American
      February 27, 2013, 2:12 pm

      “”because there will be less societal fear that they are a fifth column, much as there would be in ANY OTHER STATE IN THE REGION if Jews or Christians formed a party and wanted to join a governing coalition.””…hoppie

      Well then, you understand Americans fear of the US zionist’s political party as a Fifth column.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        February 27, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Ah, but that would be ‘anti-Semitic’ wouldn’t it? It’s OK for Zionists to ‘fear’ others, but the reverse just isn’t allowed.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 1:24 pm

        @ Maximus Decimus Meridius

        Why should non-jews not fear jews when jews express their fear of non-jews, considering which has a money advantage in USA where money buys US policy? There’s a big advantage when the Israel Lobby has only one agenda.

    • Bumblebye
      February 27, 2013, 2:46 pm

      Right, hop brain, I’d like you to cite some of the laws in the various European states that are discriminatory/bigoted against their minority citizens.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:46 am

        “Right, hop brain, I’d like you to cite some of the laws in the various European states that are discriminatory/bigoted against their minority citizens.”

        France’s law against headcoverings, for starters.

      • Ellen
        March 6, 2013, 11:10 pm

        Hop, there is no law against headcovering in France.

        There is a law against religious display in public schools and government offices.

        Not defending the law said to preserve secularism — separation of government institutions from religious. (It should not really matter either way…but whatever…)

        But you grossly misrepresent.

        What is a seconder?

      • sardelapasti
        March 7, 2013, 7:25 pm

        hopme – “France’s law against headcoverings,”
        kippas, ostentatious crosses, visible tallits, and all other bisterous signs of religious allegiance that threaten the separation of Church and State; limitedly to state premises. Especially, of course, ostentatious symbols of Christian allegiance.
        A hard-won victory over the religious fanatics.
        Can’t you stop lying, even if only for a second?

    • Cliff
      February 27, 2013, 4:17 pm

      Hoppy says:

      No. It’s analogous to just about every European state, where the population is more homogeneously Christian (in part by virtue of historical societal discrimination) than Israel is Jewish.
      ——-

      Secular Europe confirmed by poll

      link to nytimes.com

      Saying all of Europe is ‘more homogeneously Christian’ than Israel is Jewish is disingenuous.

      Israel has a total population of what? 5 million + the 3.9 million living in the Occupied Palestinian territories.

      Europe encompasses many countries and altogether has a larger population – obviously. There’s also a different history and different organic growth Christianity (fall of the Roman Empire, etc., duh).

      Israel is Jewish because of Jewish immigration and expulsion of the indigenous population.

      And while Europe may or may not be ‘more homogeneously’ blah blah – polls conducted by Gallup demonstrate that Europeans are not Christian like Americans are Christian.

      Religion in Europe: Trust Not Filling the Pews

      link to gallup.com

      With a few exceptions, trust in religious institutions is extremely low in most European Union (EU) countries. But data collected by Gallup for the European Commission’s Eurobarometer survey* and the European Social Survey reveal that even in countries whose populations express high levels of trust in religious institutions, that trust doesn’t necessarily translate into regular attendance at religious services.

      I think hophmi chose Europe so he could make the superficial comparison statement, “more homogeneously” blah blah. It’s a way to white-wash Jewish nationalism. This is not to say Europe is paradise for minorities but the comparison being made here by hophmi is idiotic.

      The more appropriate comparison would be apartheid South Africa.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 6:32 pm

        @ Cliff
        Further, you cannot be a self-identified Christian if you self-identify as an agnostic or atheist, while the same is not true of additional self-identifiction as a Jew or “Jewish,” or identified as such by yourself or by others as such because your mother or/and father, or even a grandparent is or was Jewish. You either believe in Jesus the son of God and your savior, or not. If you do not, you are identified by nobody, including yourself, as a Christian.

        And there is no Christian state, except the one or so square-mile Vatican City, which is a state of a sub-set of Christians. All the other European states, like the USA, and Canada, and Australia, the balance of the Western States in culture, separate church and state in their governments–citizenship is totally secular, so that all rights within borders are not defined by ethnic group at all, and citizen rights are available to anyone outside any majority ethnic group in any Western state by compliance with citizenship laws that are not religious or ethnic in nature.

    • jonrich111
      February 28, 2013, 5:57 pm

      Hophmi, you are 100% correct. Phil Weiss and his followers write thousands of posts attacking Israel as being racist, colonialist, aparthied, genocidal enslavers, yet they refuse to acknowledge that despite Israel’s many problems, it is far closer to the ideal of liberal democracy than any other Middle Eastern nation. Beyond that, Jews lived as second class citizens in every Arab country prior to the exodus of Jews from Arab lands post-48. It is this kind of double standard that reeks of anti-Semitism and is why it is hard to take mondoweiss’ critiques at face value.

      • Cliff
        March 3, 2013, 2:29 am

        Israel IS an apartheid, colonial settler State that is practicing slow-destruction of Palestinian society but shunting them into cantons and refugee camps and cutting them off from their family and friends.

        Jewish fascists and supremacists enjoy democracy among themselves and other Jews – democracy with privileged status as Jews.

        Palestinians do not enjoy democracy because Israel treats them like second-class citizens and a constant fifth column.

        Israel will never ever change. It will always treat the Israeli Arab population as a threat and keep their numbers under control.

        That tension will either be Israel’s undoing as a racist ‘White’ nationalist country or Israel will just kill all the Palestinians – which Shin Bet or Israeli officials have said would be a possible end-game scenario.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 6, 2013, 1:40 pm

        “it is far closer to the ideal of liberal democracy than any other Middle Eastern nation. ”

        “Close” is not good enough. If a state was the Platonic ideal of liberal democracy, except that it is actively seeking to exterminate the 1% of its population that is, say, Jewish, you wouldn’t say, “oh, well. They’re really close to being perfect. We should give them a round of applause.” The same should be true here. No matter how progressive israelis are in their treatment of Jews in Israel, its mistreatment and oppression of the Palestinians is horrific and every decent person should be denouncing it, along with denouncing the non-progressive policies of every country. You and your ilk, however, are happy to excuse the crimes of the israelis, simply because they’re israelis.

        “Jews lived as second class citizens in every Arab country prior to the exodus of Jews from Arab lands post-48″
        So what? That was a horrible situation and every decent person should condemn that. That, however, is no exuse for israel’s horrific treatment of the Palestinians. The fact that you would even bring this irrelevancy up demonstrates why your position reeks of anti-Arab racism.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 6:52 pm

        @ jonrich111
        I don’t know where you live, but this blog is situated in America, and is a blog devoted to telling Americans, most especially, what their own government does not tell us as to anything critical related to the nuclear-armed state of Israel, which is the biggest recipient of US tax dollars, US UN veto diplomatic cover, main beneficiary of US military might, while at the same time, gaining this “special relationship” with America with no strings attached, unlike any other foreign country. And all this, despite the fact Israel does not exhibit America’s values, except for its Jewish citizens. US politicians’ careers at the national level, sink or swim depending on if they extoll Israel as the most democratic, and Western country in the Middle East. The other countries in the Middle East pay for all they get from the USA in hard cash and barter, and sans interest paid by America. No Americans are ever told by its leaders or press that the Arab states or Persian states are like America, have the same values.

        No American is ever lead by their own government and main media to think that any Arab state, or the Persian state, adores a government that is constitutionally bound to, and does practice, all in all, the highest human right values for government, which are 1) separation of religion and state, and, 2) full equal civil/human rights for all citizens before the law. And, again, no other state than Israel gets financial aid with no strings attached, let alone interest, and Israel get more aid than any other country on the back of 99% Gentile US tax payers.

    • Citizen
      March 3, 2013, 7:03 am

      @ hophmi
      What European states legally define full citizenship by ethnic or religious group?

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:47 am

        “What European states legally define full citizenship by ethnic or religious group?”

        Do you think I care about the de jure question? Go be an Algerian Muslim in France and get back to me.

      • Ellen
        March 6, 2013, 11:16 pm

        Hophmi, go be a backwoods American from the Ozarks hunting rabbits to eat, living on the fringes and get back to me.

        But meanwhile what European state define citizenship by religious group?

    • Hostage
      March 5, 2013, 9:05 am

      Isn’t maintaining a Jewish state with 20 percent non-Jews, a state whose governing coalitions exclude non-Jewish parties, analogous to the Jim Crow south?

      (Hophmi): No. It’s analogous to just about every European state

      *Name one European State that deliberately refuses to adopt a written Constitution in order to deprive ethnic minorities equal rights and protections under their municipal laws. See MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution; and Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, Google ebook, page 7

      *Name one European Union State that hasn’t adopted the Acquis communautaire regarding minority rights.

      • MRW
        March 6, 2013, 7:23 am

        Hostage says:
        March 5, 2013 at 9:05 am

        [...] *Name one European Union State that hasn’t adopted the Acquis communautaire regarding minority rights.

        I see you’re still waiting.

      • hophmi
        March 6, 2013, 11:54 am

        Talk all you want about the law. You’re missing the point. France keeps its Muslims from covering their heads and discriminates against them in employment. Of course, the legislation is non-sectarian, but everyone understands who the target was. The Swiss voted by referendum to ban minarets. The campaign to ban them was entirely Islamophobic.

      • Ellen
        March 6, 2013, 11:19 pm

        “The Swiss voted by referendum to ban minarets.”

        There was a vote in one Canton about 10 years ago and that vote was then quickly over turned.

        And France does not Keep Muslims from covering their heads any more than it does Jews from covering their heads.

        You simply cannot answer the question honestly.

      • Djinn
        March 7, 2013, 5:45 am

        Is there any chance at all that some day you’ll post a comment that isn’t a complete distortion of the truth? There is no ban on head covering in France, hats are fine, headscarves are fine, wigs are fine. There is a ban on FACE covering in public and it applies equally to someone wearing a motor cycle helmet as a niqab. It’s a stupid law and effects Muslim women more than everyone else in reality but it is simple not analogous to the many many laws and regulations in Israel that explicitly discriminate on the basis on ethnicity. FFS don’t you get bored of this? You are not convincing anyone here of anything other than the fact that you are an unrepentant ethno-supremacist.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 7:25 am

        Talk all you want about the law. You’re missing the point. France keeps its Muslims from covering their heads and discriminates against them in employment.

        Hophmi, I’m not the one missing the point of all the laws that safeguard the lives and property of Muslims. Bigotted French and Swiss politicians are limited to adopting symbolic acts against face covering and minarets precisely because they are not compulsory items according to either the Koran or many Muslim cultures and no one’s survival is threatened. If they did entail the violation of a religious obligation, the bans would be patently illegal. Open acts of employment and housing discrimination are illegal, and there are avenues to pursue administrative and judicial remedies.

        That’s not the case in Israel, where salaried state religious and secular officials publish open calls for Jews to discriminate against Arab tenants or workers.

        There’s really no comparison between the Swiss and French Constitutions and Articles 8 and 10 of the Israeli Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in that respect. The latter explicitly authorizes the retention of old Israeli laws or the adoption of new ones that directly discriminate against non-Jews.
        link to knesset.gov.il

        States with a formal written Constitution based upon the Acquis communautaire have safeguards, like The Constitutional Council and The Defender of Rights. See Title VII and XI of the French Constitution. link to assemblee-nationale.fr

        Do you think I care about the de jure question? Go be an Algerian Muslim in France and get back to me.

        I expect you don’t care about anything, except Zionism and the fees from your law practice. Your feeble line of argument might have worked decades ago. But the French government does not routinely adopt closures against Muslim citizens or their communities which prevent the inhabitants from traveling or leaving their homes to obtain food, water, medical care, or to go to work, school, and bury their dead. The French Army doesn’t routinely patrol Muslim neighborhoods, expropriate and demolish Muslim private property, conduct targeted killings of Muslims, deliberately destroy infrastructure necessary for the Muslim’s survival, or construct walls and fences around open air prisons. The same situation prevails throughout the European Union. In short, loudmouthed Zionists shouldn’t knock the legal protections for minorities contained in the Acquis communautaire until they have actually tried them.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 3:33 pm

        “There was a vote in one Canton about 10 years ago and that vote was then quickly over turned. ”

        Um, no, Ellen. There was a nationwide referendum, and the case is currently being appealed to the ECHR. In 22 of 26 cantons, a majority approved the measure, and as I said, the entire campaign was a racist one. You’re simply wrong. You can read about it here:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        The French senate voted overwhelmingly to ban the wearing of burqas in public in 2010. Don’t tell me about dishonesty when you’re not familiar with the basic facts.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 4:00 pm

        “Bigotted French and Swiss politicians are limited to adopting symbolic acts against face covering and minarets ”

        Symbolic? I don’t think religious Muslims in France find a burqa ban symbolic, not the comments of President Sarkozy from the time that headcoverings like burqas are “not welcome” in France.

        Don’t tell me about bigoted politicians. The Swiss minaret ban was adopted by referendum. The people of Switzerland knew full well what they were doing.

        “Open acts of employment and housing discrimination are illegal, and there are avenues to pursue administrative and judicial remedies.

        Open acts. It’s amazing how you defend French and Swiss bigotry in this way, by saying it’s not a problem because the law protects against it. As I said, de jure means little if the de facto is the truth. Lots of country have good laws on the books. It means diddly squat if they are poorly enforced. It means, quite simply, that the Europeans are hypocrites.

      • hophmi
        March 7, 2013, 4:01 pm

        “It’s a stupid law and effects Muslim women more than everyone else in reality but it is simple not analogous to the many many laws and regulations in Israel that explicitly discriminate on the basis on ethnicity.”

        You’re right. It’s not comparable. In Israel, the niqab is legal.

      • tree
        March 7, 2013, 4:31 pm

        You’re right. It’s not comparable. In Israel, the niqab is legal.

        Yes, its just the woman wearing it that can be subject to ” closures against Muslim citizens or their communities which prevent the inhabitants from traveling or leaving their homes to obtain food, water, medical care, or to go to work, school, and bury their dead. ” Israel does “routinely patrol Muslim neighborhoods, expropriate and demolish Muslim private property, conduct targeted killings of Muslims, deliberately destroy infrastructure necessary for the Muslim’s survival, or construct walls and fences around open air prisons. ”

        But hophmi thinks that’s all inconsequential because a Palestinian woman can legally wear the niqab while Israel routinely violates her civil and human rights. I’m sure that Palestinian women should be eternally grateful to their “benevolent” oppressors.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 7, 2013, 5:36 pm

        “You’re right. It’s not comparable. In Israel, the niqab is legal.”

        Yeah, the garment is fine. It is only the people wearing them that are treated badly by the israelis.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 7:59 pm

        You’re right. It’s not comparable. In Israel, the niqab is legal.

        But they are unnecessary. Christian, Muslim, and secular Palestinian women, like Hanan Ashrawi, Haneen Zoabi, and Diana Bhuttu don’t habitually cover their faces.

        When will you address the Israeli laws and Military Orders that deny Palestinians equality and access to things that are necessary for basic survival, like adequate supplies of food and water and shelter from the elements? Your concern for face coverings and minarets is misplaced, and undoubtedly insincere.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 8:06 pm

        “Bigotted French and Swiss politicians are limited to adopting symbolic acts against face covering and minarets ” . . . Symbolic?

        Yes they are symbolic when compared to Israeli laws that routinely close territories inhabited by Muslim citizens in order to prevent the inhabitants from traveling or leaving their homes to obtain food, water, medical care, or to go to work, school, and bury their dead. The Israeli government patrols Muslim neighborhoods, expropriates and demolishes Muslim private property, conducts targeted killings of Muslims, deliberately destroys infrastructure necessary for the Muslim’s survival, and construct walls and fences around open air prisons that concentrate millions of Muslim refugees into Bantustans.

      • Hostage
        March 7, 2013, 8:36 pm

        Don’t tell me about dishonesty

        Fair enough, you’ve got dishonesty down pat with the inaccurate comment about head coverings versus face coverings.

        Get back to us when the French and Swiss start openly and routinely building walls and checkpoints around Muslim enclaves, refusing Muslims building permits for housing, arresting Muslim legislators and imprisoning them administratively for use as bargaining chips, forcing Muslims to relocate to “planned Bedouin settlements”/reservations, like Rahat and Hura, or using Muslims as human shields when they conduct incursions and urban warfare.

        Until you can cite situations like that, it’s risible for you to suggest to anyone here @ MW that the situation in Israel is pretty much like the situation in most European States.

      • Djinn
        March 7, 2013, 9:46 pm

        way to miss the point – does France have large tracts of land held exclusively for Christians? Does France deny family reunions based on ethnicity? Does France have segregated public transport? Are people denied entry into France on account of human rights activism? Is the French military posted in towns to ensure only Christians can walk down certain streets? Has France been continuously occupying another nation for 60 plus years whilst refusing to provide the protections required by an occupier? In other words, once again, you are a repulsive ethno-supremacist and compulsive liar.

      • K Renner
        March 9, 2013, 1:47 pm

        I believe the ban was on the niqab- the face covering, not the hijab.
        I’m against the ban on the basis that it was advocated by your friends in Marine le Pen’s National Front party (who use the same “points” you do in defending Israeli atrocities in Gaza and West Bank) and because the 200-300 women in all of France’s Muslim population (of millions) made a conscious choice to wear niqab, out of religious conviction.
        Regardless of the xenophobia in elements of French society, there still was quite the uproar over the ban, not only from “more conservative” Muslim factors. I believe the issue of the banlieues came up- the ghettoization and isolation of immigrants.
        The point is that France and Israel are incomparable in terms of racism. As you’re aware, whenever Palestinians are brutalized by the occupation, or beaten up for “being Muslim/being Arab”, or held under arrest without charges at 16 years old, there is almost no condemnation from even the “progressive” jewish groups in the country. At all.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 7:09 pm

        @ Hostage
        Further, name one European state that has not declared its official geographical borders, and that has never complied with a condition subsequent to its very recognition as a legal state by the UN, to wit, allowing the ASAP full ROT of all natives booted out during its formation as a state.

    • Citizen
      March 5, 2013, 11:53 am

      @ hophmi
      Israel may be the “closest thing to “diversity and liberalism” in the ME, but that’s a far cry from America’s respect and protection for those things. Israel only gives full rights to Jews, although they have a citizenry 20% Arab. Why should America fund Israel? The Arab regimes pay for everything we give them. We need their oil, that is, we need control of access to their oil. Israel pays for nothing we give them, and we give them more than we give any country. For what? So they can play Jim Crow with their Gentile citizens? So we can support their regressive and illegal colonial settlements?

  7. Annie Robbins
    February 27, 2013, 2:43 pm

    bradley burston really says it:

    I realize now why “apartheid” is too easy, too slick, too Madison Avenue a term, for what occupation truly is and does.

    Occupation is slavery.

    In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families separated at will. They can be denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own

    powerful words

    • seafoid
      February 27, 2013, 3:03 pm

      That was a very good piece. It has been interesting to follow Burston’s evolution in thinking in Ha’aretz over the last 5 years or so. There is going to be no comeback for Zionism. They bet the house on YESHA. They made that bed for themselves.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 27, 2013, 8:03 pm

        i like burston, i really do. he’s a good man. i have not always agreed with him but i still think he’s a man of integrity.

      • seafoid
        February 28, 2013, 3:31 am

        Yes. He thinks about things and he’s not afraid to challenge his prejudices. He’s a good person.

    • Philip Weiss
      February 27, 2013, 3:47 pm

      Thanks Annie, should have included that language! Phil

      • Annie Robbins
        February 27, 2013, 8:07 pm

        hey, no looking back phil. better yet use it in another article soon. the points you brought up were important ones.

      • eljay
        February 27, 2013, 8:59 pm

        Mr. Burston’s article is unimpressive. He speaks boldly about ending the unjust and immoral occupation – no sh*t, Sherlock – but says nothing about ending the unjust and immoral oppression and supremacism that are “Jewish State”. Looks like he hasn’t found his (misplaced) liberalism just yet…

      • MHughes976
        March 3, 2013, 6:12 pm

        Occupation, if occupation is what it really is, is not slavery but a temporary adjustment after a conflict, marked by the occupier’s acceptance of a duty to maintain law and order in the occupied territory and above all by the occupier’s acceptance that the occupied territory belongs to someone else and should be vacated as soon as possible. This acceptance does not exist in the case of the territories we call occupied Palestine: claims of divine right are waved in the face of the world. What we face is not occupation but attempted conquest, which is slavery fair and square. From this point we see that eljay is right: the attempted conquest of the West Bank and Gaza is continuous with the same attempt in respect of pre-67 Israel.

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2013, 7:17 pm

        The US constantly says it’s getting out of states it has occupied, and it has done, and is doing so, and certainly, there’s no American citizens moving to any such states, to life live there like some French citizens, for example, did in Algeria back in the day. Instead American citizens, among others, move to Israel’s occupied lands to stay forever, at the expense of the native people. And the USA supports this de fact with US taxes and lives. This works only because 1) the US press is silent about it, and 2) US congress is for sale to the highest and most singe agenda, focused bidder. And SCOTUS confirms this.

  8. pabelmont
    February 27, 2013, 4:20 pm

    Phil,
    If occupation were over (which is not exactly a peace treaty, not yet equable sharing of water, of off-share oil, etc.), it would still be an enormous advance. Not enough for the Israeli Palestinians, and not enough at all for the exiles-of-1948 who would wish to return to live in Israel, but a grat deal nevertheless.

    One thing to remember is this: the occupation will not end by itself, nor yet by Israel’s voluntary act. Pressure from somewhere will have to be applied. Maybe from EU, maybe (hah!) from Obama. without pressure, nothing will happen. THEREFORE to imagine the end of the “slavery”, the “apartheid”, is necessarily to imagine the pressure. And when we contemplate how Israelis will feel after the application of that pressure, we will imagine a chastised (and hurt and angry) people. We will imagine a people whose dream of greater Israel has been crushed, a people whose messianic (or some such) dreams, whose dreams of racist triumphalism, will have been crushed. a people pushed back into what may seem a ghetto (and we might propoerly say, into a self-chosen ghetto, for no-one twisted Jewish arms to get them to engage in the terrorism and warfare that established Israel).

    We will also imagine an Israel which recognizes that its horrible intransigence w.r.t. occupation finally got the world’s nations to erupt in a sufficiency of anger to create the rpessure that brought about the changes, That anger will still exist! It may serve the exiles of 1948.

    So don’t despise the end of occupation. (Also, don’t imagine it is around the corner.)

    • Citizen
      March 6, 2013, 7:29 pm

      @ pabrelmont
      And don’t imagine Israel’s fight against the end of occupation, nor it’s exercising the Samson nuclear option thanks to Jewish influence, as a 5th Column in the only superpower, USA, won’t be written up by Jewish historians and religious folk, as yet another Jewish holiday, celebrating, “They lost, we won-let’s eats!” Doesn’t world history show Goy nations come and go, but the Jewish nation survives? Many Jews brag about this all the time. The Roma brag about survival too, but they don’t brag about gaining and controlling the Other.

  9. DICKERSON3870
    February 27, 2013, 6:14 pm

    RE: “Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, just got back from
    a trip to Israel and Palestine with four congresspeople and sent out an email in which he speaks of Palestinian anger and frustration, notes that Israeli two-staters don’t seem to hold out much hope for the Obama trip . . .
    ~ Wiess

    MY COMMENT: Even the usually optimistic Uri Avnery seems to have little hope for an Obama peace initiative.

    SEE: “The Riddle of the Israel Lobby”, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 2/25/13
    Don’t expect a second term peace initiative from Obama

    [EXCERPTS] . . . Why, for God’s sake, did the Americans not do what logic dictated? Why didn’t they put pressure on our government? Why didn’t they make an offer that our leaders couldn’t refuse? In short, why no effective peace initiative?
    It could not be in the American national interest to follow a policy that made it a hate-object of the masses throughout the entire Arab and most of the Muslim world. Didn’t the Americans understand that they were undermining their clients in every Arab country – as these rulers never tired of telling them at every meeting?
    The most obvious reason was the growing power of the pro-Israel lobby, from the early 50s on. AIPAC alone has now more than 200 employees in seven offices throughout the US. Almost everyone in Washington DC lives in deadly fear of it. The Lobby can dethrone any senator or congressman who arouses its anger. Look at what is happening right now to Chuck Hagel, who dared to say the unthinkable: “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator!”
    The two professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, dared to say it: the pro-Israeli lobby controls American policy.
    But this theory is not completely satisfying.
    What about the spying affair around Jonathan Pollard, who stays in prison for life in spite of immense Israeli pressure to release him?
    Can a world power really be induced by a small foreign country and a powerful domestic lobby to act for decades against its basic national interest?
    Another factor often mentioned is the power of the arms industry. . .

    . . . The US supplies us with huge quantities of the most sophisticated weapons. True, a lot of these come to us as a gift – but that doesn’t change the picture. The arms producers are paid by the US government as a kind of New Deal public works project supported enthusiastically even (and especially) by the Republicans. . .
    . . . Then there is the “Common History” thing. The US and Israel are so much alike, aren’t they? They have both displaced another people, and live on denial. . .
    . . . Neither Goldman nor I found a satisfactory answer to this riddle.
    Eight months before his death, I received from him, quite unexpectedly, a surprising letter. Written in German (which we never spoke) on his stationery, it was a kind of apology: I had been right all along, no American peace initiative was to be expected, the rationale remained inexplicable. . .
    . . . The letter was a response to an article I had written some days before in the magazine I edited, Haolam Hazeh, in which I asked: “Do the Americans really want peace?”
    Goldmann wrote: “I, too, have already sometimes asked myself this question. Though one should not underestimate the lack of statesmanlike wisdom of American foreign policy makers
    … I could write a whole book proving that America seriously wants peace, and another book showing that they do not want peace.”
    He mentioned America’s fear of Soviet penetration of the Middle East, and their belief that peace is impossible without Russian participation. He also disclosed that a Russian diplomat had told him that there had been an American-Russian agreement to convene a peace conference in Geneva, but that Moshe Dayan had called upon the American Jews to sabotage it. The Russians were very angry.
    Sprinkling names along the way, he summed up: “Without being quite sure, I would say at the moment that there is a combination of American diplomatic incompetence on one hand, a fear of Russian involvement in a peace on the other hand, added to the domestic fear of the pro-Israeli lobby, (which includes) not only the Jews but also (non-Jews) like Senator (Henry “Scoop”) Jackson and others. (All these) seem to be the reasons for the complete lack of understanding and results of the American Middle East policy, for which Israel will pay heavily in the future.”
    Except FOR the decline of Russian influence, every word is valid today, 31 years later, on the eve of the Obama visit. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com

  10. Avi_G.
    February 28, 2013, 11:41 am

    I can’t take these the-two-state-solution-still-has-a-chance people seriously anymore.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/–ciwVR1shk0/T9jYzf66QDI/AAAAAAAABYg/LvVB_uRnqTA/s1600/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

    For the record, the one state solution isn’t going to morph into a viable solution over night. It’s going to grow from its current state of Apartheid and transform into a permanent state of democracy. But the road to that democracy is going to be fraught with bloodshed given the forces at play, especially the armed-to-the-tooth colonists.

  11. James Canning
    March 6, 2013, 2:35 pm

    Regarding pre-Civil War abolitionists, it is worth remembering that their fanaticism contributed a good deal to bringing catastrophe to the American people, given that slavery was dying out naturally.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 6, 2013, 2:53 pm

      Oh, that is a complete load of unhistorical bull. The pre-War abolitionists were only “fanatical” to people without character and without any moral foundation. Theirs was simply the recognition that there is no excuse for not immediately righting the wrong they faced.

      Further, the catastrophe to the American people was brought by the slaveholders and the racists who supported them — the catastrophe of slavery, the catastrophe of Jim Crow, the catastrophe of a slap-on-the-wrist Reconstruction, and the catastrophe of the impact that the Civil War had on the Northern and pro-Union forces (the affect it had on traitors and racists in the South was no catastrophe, but just deserts) — not by people seeking to defeat those evil people.

      Further, the notion that slavery was dying out naturally is nonsense, concocted after the war by apologists for the Southern traitors to cover up the evil they sought to maintain in the world. The fact that the sharecropper system lasted as long as it did was proof that such arrangements were very profitable for the landowners and gives lie to the notion that slavery would have died out anyway.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 1:43 pm

        Woody – - Numerous states banned slavery, in the decades before the Civil War.
        Abraham Lincoln wanted the Federal gov’t to issue bonds to buy out the slaveonwers, arging it would be much less expensive than civil war.
        Fanatical abolitionists brought disaster to the US.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 7, 2013, 3:38 pm

        “Numerous states banned slavery, in the decades before the Civil War.”

        So? Numerous states not only supported slavery, but sought to expand it in the west and these states felt so strongly about it that they turned traitor so that they could maintain it. The “it was dying anyway” nonsense is post-hoc rationalizations to pretend that traitorous dogs like Col. Robert E. Lee, Senator Jefferson Davis, Brevet Major Stonewall Jackson, and the rest weren’t the evil treasonous snakes they were.

        “Abraham Lincoln wanted the Federal gov’t to issue bonds to buy out the slaveonwers, arging it would be much less expensive than civil war.”

        Yes, there were many such proposals which all ran into the same problem: the people who owned the slaves wanted the slave system to not only continue but to expand. It was their evil intransigence that brought about the war.

        “Fanatical abolitionists brought disaster to the US.”

        Nope. The slave-owning traitors did. Your statement is ignorant, unhistoric gibberish.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 7:56 pm

        @Woody Tanaka – - Massachusetts banned slavery, on its own motion. So did Rhode Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey.
        Slavery would have died a natural death, but Abraham Lincoln was quite right to want the Federal Government to buy out the slaveowners. Much cheaper than civil war, said the future president.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 7:58 pm

        Woody – - You appear to be unaware that Robert E. Lee was taught constitutional law at West Point. Including the crucial point, that states had a right to secede.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 8, 2013, 9:52 am

        “Massachusetts banned slavery, on its own motion. So did Rhode Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey.”

        Again, so what? Was Virginia? South Carolina? Any of the other hell holes where Southern slave-labor camps (read “plantations”) were? The filth in those states were trying to extend slavery into the Western territories. So the fact that New Jersey banned this evil… good for New Jersey. That didn’t change the fact that slavery was still going strong.

        “Slavery would have died a natural death, but Abraham Lincoln was quite right to want the Federal Government to buy out the slaveowners. Much cheaper than civil war, said the future president.”

        Again, when the slaveowners would rather rebel and fight, as they did, what Lincoln wanted was irrelevant.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 8, 2013, 9:58 am

        “Woody – – You appear to be unaware that Robert E. Lee was taught constitutional law at West Point. Including the crucial point, that states had a right to secede.”

        And whoever told Col. Lee that nonsense was wrong. There is no such right, as both the Supreme Court noted after the war, and as is inherent in the document, itself.

        The Constitution, by its very terms, precludes states from having full soverignty (for, example, they can’t coin money or declare war, among many, many, many, many other things.) The Supremacy Clause indicates that no state can pass a valid law which conflicts with the limitations of the Constitution. Thus, the only way that a state, once it is bound to the Constitution, can leave the Union is through an Amendment to the Constitution which restores to that state the soverignty which it does not have under the Constitution, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

        Since no Constitutional Amendment was ever passed which restored to Virginia its soverignty, the attempted secession was a legal nullity and Col. Lee was nothing but a traitorous dog who was lucky that he wasn’t hanged and his body thrown in a ditch.

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 1:45 pm

        @Woody Tanaka – - The point you overlook is simply that the rebellion was caused to a considerable degree, by religious fanatics in the North.

        The South, and the US as a whole, paid a gigantic price due to arrogance and stupidity on part of leaders of South Carolina, that was in large part a reaction to abolitionist fanaticism in the North.

        Do you agree Lincoln’s plan to buy out the laveowners was a good one?

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Woody – - Can you name a single state that would have been admitted to the Union as a slave state, if Civil War had not started?

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 1:52 pm

        Woody – - The right of a state to secede was open to intelligent debate by constitutional authorities, prior to the Civil War. Robert E. Lee’s constitutional law instructor at West Point was an authority.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 8, 2013, 10:57 pm

        by religious fanatics in the North……reaction to abolitionist fanaticism in the North….foolish Abolitionist fanaticism in the North…..driven by fears stoked by religious fanatics in the North.

        it’s like a broken record.

      • James Canning
        March 9, 2013, 1:44 pm

        Annie – - Are you claiming the catastrophic civil war was not partly the fault of well-meaning but misguided people in the North?
        Surely you are aware I see Israel as posing the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 10:49 am

        “The point you overlook is simply that the rebellion was caused to a considerable degree, by religious fanatics in the North.”

        No, it was caused by evil men seeking to continue their evil system. To call people who called for men to be free “fanatics” is disgusting.

        “that was in large part a reaction to abolitionist fanaticism in the North.”

        Nope. That is merely your attempt to make excuses for these evil people and their actions. The fact that the world was coming to recognize their evil for what it was, was a simple fact in which that evil operated. Those slaveholding devils were not reacting, they were acting, acting in order to protect their stolen wealth and their evil institution, as they had from before the nation was founded.

        “Do you agree Lincoln’s plan to buy out the laveowners was a good one?”

        Good how? To whom? It would been good one if it would have set people free earlier. It was a bad one because the evil devils benefited and profited from their evil.

        A better, albeit unworkable one, would have been to immediately free the slaves, seize all of the property of the slaveowners, white plantation workers and anyone who would have supported that system, to the last stitch of clothing , give that property to the former slaves, and proceeded to hang the slaveowners.

        As it was, the slaveholding South got off way too easy.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 10:52 am

        “Woody – – Can you name a single state that would have been admitted to the Union as a slave state, if Civil War had not started?”

        It is impossible to know what would have occurred had the Civil War not started, but given the fact that the Southern devils were seeking to have any Federal restriction on the expansion of slavery declared unconstitutional, (and given the make up of the Supreme Court, that was possible) any of the states in the Midwest, West (other than Ca.) and Northwest could have been if the slave power had not been defeated.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 10:57 am

        “Woody – – The right of a state to secede was open to intelligent debate by constitutional authorities, prior to the Civil War. Robert E. Lee’s constitutional law instructor at West Point was an authority.”

        The question simply had not been definitively decided, and people had their own positions on that. However, no one who took the position that there was a “right” for states to seceed did so out of anything other than an ideology that was not only not found in the Constitution (indeed, it was directly opposed to the text of the Constitution) but directly contrary to the intent of the Union in the first place.

        That someone told Col. Lee some nonsense in his schooling in no way mitigates the treason and villany of that dog.

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:11 pm

        Woody – - Does any serious historian challenge the great integrity of Robert E. Lee?

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:13 pm

        Woody – - You apparently think an avoidable civil war, which was the greatest catastrophe in the history of the US, was a good thing.

      • American
        March 9, 2013, 1:37 pm

        @ Woody

        I wouldn’t get on that the North was more moral high horse if I were you.

        The North didn’t really get a “conscious” until events conspired to make ‘indentured servants” which made up most of the Northern colonies industrial labor not quite as ‘necessary’ as it had been—and that was the huge and sudden influx of Irish due to starvation and political wars in Ireland and Scotland in the early 1800′s that gave Northern industrialist a cheap and plentiful labor pool that didn’t entail the upfront outlay of ‘purchasing’ indentured labor by paying for their passages.
        This change in immigration made it ‘easier’ for the Northern colonies to take up the cause of slavery.
        However their motives still weren’t all simeon pure, as slavery still cost the South less than indentured labor or even new cheap Irish labor and created an advantage for the South economically.

        You really should (learn) pay more attention to the events and politics of that period.
        Long before the Civil War Southern states had already threatened to secede from the Union over many other states rights issues.
        South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, over a tariff that benefited Northern manufacturers but increased the cost of goods in the South.
        The fight over state’s rights had been going on since the American Revolution. Several states had forced the colonial government to alter the Constitution during the American Revolution to keep some of the states and have them part of the Union. Massachusetts for instance demanded a State Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution….and got one. Virginia did also and theirs was based on keeping slaves…..which the constitutional congress agreed to. So the slavery issues was moral when it was convenient to be moral and of no moral concern when some bigger interest trumped it for the “union”.

        You and most I see here make the same mistake…claiming and thinking, without regard to real history that some great moral fever seized the North and that was why the war was fought.
        The truth is, despite Lincoln having taken up slavery as a religious issue during his presidential campaign (just as politicians do now) after the publication of Stowes Uncle Tom’s Cabin, it was the ‘economics of slavery’ in North-South competition and also mixed with that was the ideology of states rights in the South, that drove and created the war. Morality or lack of it wasn’t the main concern of those influential individuals in both the North and South who promoted, organized and financed the war.

        And also what tells me you have done no history on this is the claim that the South wanted to push slavery into the West….that is laughable…. the colonies were in economic ‘competition’ among themselves in trade and commerce, just as the North and South was….the last thing the Southern colonies wanted was for other states they competed with to have the economic advantage of free slave labor.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 11:09 am

        American,

        I am not on any pro-Northern high horse. If anything, the fact that the North did not smash the Southerners early and hard, and did not do so out of a sense of moral outrage, is an indelible blot on the North. As is the wrist-slap Reconstruction. The fact that those slave holders who participated in the rebellion, as well as the political and military leaders, were not all hung, and Southern society restructured permanantly from the ground up, is a stain that the North must always face.

        And, truly, if you don’t understand about the desire of the Southerners to open up federal territories to slavery, with the various compromises (1820 (Missouri), 1850, etc.) working as a check on the Southern desire for unchecked expansion of slavery into those territories, then it is you who needs to learn a little bit of history. The first 90 years of this country’s history is infused with the question of slavery, the limitations on it and the expansion of it. The notion that it was part of “state’s rights” is nothing but a racist excuse concocted to protect the guilty from their crimes.

      • James Canning
        March 13, 2013, 2:16 pm

        @Woody Tanaka – - Name a single sate that would have been admitted to the Union as a slave state, if there had been no civil war.

    • Donald
      March 6, 2013, 4:11 pm

      “given that slavery was dying out naturally.”

      That’s questionable at best. But I won’t debate it. The place for that topic would be Ta Nehisi Coates’s blog at the Atlantic website. He’s covered that a lot, with a POV that is the opposite of yours.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 2:01 pm

        @Donald – - Surely you do not think slavery would have continued in the US until present days, without Civil War?
        Abraham Lincoln wanted to buy the slaves, and free them (and return them to Africa, as much as possible). He said it would be much less expensive than civil war.

      • Donald
        March 7, 2013, 10:48 pm

        It was the fanatical slaveowners that started the civil war. And when the war was over, it was the fanatical former slaveowners who did their best to restore the status quo, using violence to do it. In some ways they reconstituted slavery with the prison system–

        link

        And another link–

        Slavery by another Name

        And still another, to the author of the book above–

        link

        It’s striking how little many Americans seem to know about the uglier parts of our own history. It’s fundamentally the same as the blindness we seen in Israel defenders.

        So in answer to your question, yeah, slavery in America easily could have lasted well into the 20th century.

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 7:37 pm

        Lincoln clearly had the right idea: buy out the owners’ interests in the slaves. Avoid civil war.

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 7:39 pm

        Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln believed the freed slaves should be returned to Africa. To avoid numerous social and economic problems.

        Zero chance the US would have kept slavery legal, into 20th century.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 8, 2013, 10:53 pm

        into 20th century.

        give or take 50 years..what’s the dif?

    • sardelapasti
      March 7, 2013, 12:01 am

      Canning – If this were not a Palestine site you would have started a major flame war. You perhaps have already, at that. Can’t you try to avoid totally extraneous issues, especially when you can be sure that a lot of other people will oppose you on something totally unrelated to Palesine? I am not so sure I always do that myself, but we certainly should try; this case here is egregious. Go write on some American history site.

      • James Canning
        March 7, 2013, 1:44 pm

        sardelapasti – - Fantatical Zionists risk bringing catastrophe to the American people. And you think it is irrlevant to point out how religious fanatics brought catastrophe to the US in the 19th century?

      • sardelapasti
        March 7, 2013, 7:32 pm

        Canning – Lame. There is any amount of religious fanaticism before starting on the Abolitionists. Any reasonable person would know how to avoid that kind of BS.

      • Djinn
        March 7, 2013, 9:52 pm

        There’s a rather large difference. Fanatical Zionists cast the first stone so to speak, in relation to slavery, those who sought to kidnap, torture and own people (ie not the “fanatical” abolitionists) did. Not comparable.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2013, 10:30 pm

        Fanatical Zionists cast the first stone so to speak, in relation to slavery

        they did? was zionism even around when slavery began? that’s news to me.

      • sardelapasti
        March 8, 2013, 1:05 am

        Exactly Annie… that’s what the word “whatever” was invented for.

      • MRW
        March 8, 2013, 1:55 am

        Annie, I think there should have been a period after “so to speak.” “in relation to slavery” should have initial cap. Then it makes sense.

      • tree
        March 8, 2013, 3:15 am

        they did? was zionism even around when slavery began?

        I think you misread the sentence.

        I read it as “Fanatical Zionists cast the first stone so to speak” (and)… “in relation to slavery, those who sought to kidnap, torture and own people (ie not the “fanatical” abolitionists) did.”

        In other words, the “in relation to slavery”phrase was a modifier of the clause that followed it (“those who sought to… did”), not a modifier of the clause that preceded it, i.e. “Fanatical Zionists cast…”.

        ( A period after “so to speak”, rather than a comma, would have helped clear up the misreading.)

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 2:18 pm

        @sardelapasti – - Foolish decision to secede, taken by South Carolinian leaders, was in response to equally foolish Abolitionist fanaticism in the North.
        We have a good deal of Christian Zionist religious fanaticism, driving foolish US policy toward Israel/Palestine. Or, if you prefer, helping to drive that foolish US policy toward Israel/Palestine.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 8, 2013, 3:04 pm

        listen james, this ‘Abolitionist fanaticism’ is a political talking pt, nothing more. were there fanaticals, yes, was that the norm? no. perhaps you are not aware of the pre war split in the methodist church before the war. they were divided and so they did divide, and the pro slave went became the ‘episcopal methodist’ and then started slandering the traditionalist as fanaticals. so it was all very political. and there’s no different than today when opponents slam the opposition as being radical leftists like what they say about obama being a muslim or whatever. i know a little bit about this, and how the ones you are defending here claimed the other half of the church was going to burn down texas! the kind of generalizing you’re doing is refuted by history. and even the nyt wrote about what lies they were making up. i don’t have time..i may but not sure, but i’ve read about this, will look for sources.

        here: link to texashistory.unt.edu

        alleging that an interrogation of certain blacks around Dallas had revealed a sinister abolitionist plot to “devastate with fire and assassination all of North Texas”

        it begins on the page before, and read the footnotes on that page about the feud between the southern and northern methodists. and that said, i inherited by grandfathers papers, which included many papers of my forefathers, abolitionists of the northern methodist variety. and the papers are all about the homeless and social justice and could have been fron today. there’s nothing radical about them. and in the later part of the19th century my own grandfathers papers they still fighting in the church over whether blacks should have representations in the courts. this is what churches do, so many of them. just like churches are debating about palestine today. so if you want to buy into the idea 1/2 the church was fanatical abolitionists ..you’re nuts.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 8, 2013, 3:30 pm

        Jmes Canning,

        It demonstrates the depth of your depravity that you would actually assert that someone who says, “the slaves should be freed” is “foolish” and exercising “fanaticism.”

        There was nothing foolish nor fanatical about the call for the abolition of slavery except in the fevered mind of racists, slave holders, would-be slave holders and their supporters.

      • MHughes976
        March 8, 2013, 4:24 pm

        The only morally acceptable attitude to slavery was and always has been to wish, profoundly and even fanatically, to abolish it. The same with any system that disfranchises, ie enslaves, any masses of people, Arab masses, Jewish masses, English masses, whomever. Guess what example I mainly have in mind.

      • James Canning
        March 8, 2013, 6:35 pm

        Annie – - I’m “defending” the arrogant leaders of South Carolina who brought catastrophe to their state, and much of the South?
        No. I am saying that the disastrous decision they made, was in fact driven by fears stoked by religious fanatics in the North.

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2013, 9:40 am

        Woody Tanaka- When Lincoln said “with malice towards none with charity towards all” was he not referring to the fevered minds of racists as you refer to them. Was he wrong? Was he being a realistic politician? What was wrong with him and what is right with you?

      • Hostage
        March 9, 2013, 11:05 am

        Woody Tanaka- When Lincoln said “with malice towards none with charity towards all”

        He was delivering a platitudinous and belated Inaugural Address on 4 March 1865. It didn’t effect planning or execution of the Union offensive in the upcoming Appomattox Campaign, March 29 – April 9, 1865, that effectively ended the war. There were 8,628 killed, about 29,300 wounded, and 28,251 captured, surrendered, or paroled. link to encyclopediavirginia.org

      • sardelapasti
        March 9, 2013, 11:24 am

        Canning – I see you obtained your flame war, working with insistence and diligence. Apart from the disruptive effect, the value of this message is the same as that your intense activity in presenting the loss of Palestine as already agreed by all and not worth fighting for: pacification at any price.

      • James Canning
        March 9, 2013, 1:28 pm

        Abe Lincoln wanted to avoid vindictiveness after the war ended. And he wanted the war ended.

      • James Canning
        March 9, 2013, 1:32 pm

        sardelapasti – - I see a grave danger to the national security interests of the American people, arising from activities of religious fanatics in the West Bank. I think the grave injury to the national security interests of the American peopl,e, caused by religious fanatics in the 19th century, is relevant.
        I think too many Americans are simply ignorant of the situation, in both instances.

      • James Canning
        March 9, 2013, 1:40 pm

        yonah – - Lincoln very intelligently wanted to avoid retribution, vindictiveness, etc etc once the civil war ended. Eminently sensible position.

      • American
        March 9, 2013, 2:02 pm

        @James( and all)

        The nonsense that has ensued since your first comment is why it is ridiculous to compare I/P to US slavery.

        Slavery is slavery, seizing people and ownership of humans for enforced labor.

        I/P is not seizing people as slaves.
        I/P is violently stealing the land of a people, killing them at will and trying to force them to leave their land.
        Israel’s preference is no Palestine as slaves or otherwise.

        These are two entirely different evils . I can only assume that those who constantly promote the Slavery is I/P meme have some personal reason for this faulty comparison…perhaps some who do are black and still feel it emotionally, perhaps some think that by likening it to some injustice that existed in the US it takes some heat off Israel’s I/P…whatever the reason some do this— the fact is US Slavery and I/P are not the same thing or in any way similar except in the greed and immorality of both.

      • Djinn
        March 10, 2013, 4:28 am

        I wrote, ‘Fanatical Zionists did COMMA in relation to slavery…’ Meaning in relation to the former (Palestine) Zionists cast the first, in relation to the latter (slavery) it wasn’t the abolitionists casting first.

        Did you really think I was saying that Zionists cast the first stone in relation to the Atlantic slave trade?

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 12, 2013, 11:16 am

        “Woody Tanaka- When Lincoln said ‘with malice towards none with charity towards all’ was he not referring to the fevered minds of racists as you refer to them. Was he wrong? Was he being a realistic politician? What was wrong with him and what is right with you?”

        I believe he was being a realistic politician, but not staking a very moral position. The moral position would have been to hang the political and military leaders of the rebellion, to seize all of the property of the southerners who were involved with slaveholding in any form and use it to compensate the slaves, and to base federal forces in the South for as long as necessary so that the freedmen could live in freedom and security.

        Those who held slaves and turned traitor showed no charity to their victims. They deserved none themselves.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 13, 2013, 8:24 pm

        i just misunderstood you Djinn ,sorry.

  12. Annie Robbins
    March 8, 2013, 11:04 pm

    driven by fears stoked by religious fanatics in the North.

    ‘driven by fears stoked by islamists in gaza.’

    yeah, right, what.ever. way to not take responsibility.

    • James Canning
      March 9, 2013, 1:33 pm

      Annie – - My concern is not with Hamas in Gaza. My concern is with illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank. Some of whom are religious fanatics.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 11, 2013, 8:35 am

        james, so, you are making a symbiotic relationship between northern fanatics and fanatical settlers? how helpful/not.

        regardless of what you say your concerns are, by perpetuating the impression the lions share of responsibility for the civil war was ‘religious fanatics in the North’, or the lions share of responsibility for the present day i/p conflict are the fanatical religious settlers, or religion, or as i alluded to, those driven by fears stoked by (and fill in the cause or blame because the ‘well meaning’ or ‘rational’ were merely stoked by fear of the opponents religious fanaticism), you’re redirecting the focus, in both conflicts away from the underlying socio political and economic realities the stoked (stokes) the conflicts.

        i’m not sure why you are doing that, nor have i read this entire thread and all your arguments. but i am not interested in an extended debate with you here. i think you’re wrong. please excuse me for not carrying on this debate further. others may want to address the extension of your line of thinking, it won’t be me.

      • James Canning
        March 11, 2013, 2:39 pm

        Annie – - My point was simply that the arrogance and stupidity of the leaders of South Caroline, in starting the Civil War, owed a great deal to zealots in the North.

        Anyone following Israel/Palestine is aware that zealots in the West Bank help prevent Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

  13. mcohen
    March 10, 2013, 3:32 am

    the problem of the “right of return”-a possible solution

    the countries that house the palestinian refugees surrounding israel could swap land for people with israel .israels borders are enlargened to accomadate displaced arabs.land from lebanon ,syria, jordan and egypt could be added to israels geographical borders and in return those refugees are given israeli citizenship and settled on that land.
    the surveyors who divided up the ottaman empire made a mistake in not creating larger borders for israel by not taking into account population growth and this must be rectified.
    of all the countries in the world israel has one of the oldest records of its geographical borders as stated in the bible.
    this was not taken into consideration and must be rectified
    this is it -a possible solution to peace between arab and jew

    • Citizen
      March 10, 2013, 8:10 am

      @ mcohen
      I memory serves, there was a condition subsequent to the UN’s acceptance of Israel as full member which was the then immediate return of the non-Jewish refugee families. The solution to the ROR is consequently for Israel to fulfill this requirement (much belatedly) without further ado. If Israel refuses, its full membership in the UN should be terminated. Too, why on earth does Israel deserve to be given more land by other states? The correct question is, why on earth deserve to control foreign land for at least 60 plus years. And, why does Israel deserve to settle foreign lands taken over in war? Should the bible delineate current borders anywhere? How about the Koran as border authority?

      • Hostage
        March 10, 2013, 12:06 pm

        I memory serves, there was a condition subsequent to the UN’s acceptance of Israel as full member which was the then immediate return of the non-Jewish refugee families.

        That’s correct. Israel accepted a legal undertaking to implement resolutions 181(II) and 194(III) during the hearings on its membership application. Resolution 181(II) and customary international law required Israel to respect the international boundary agreements mentioned in my post below. Those treaties acknowledged the ancestral rights of Arabs in the region to navigate and fish on Lakes Huleh, Tiberias, and the Jordan River, and to graze their livestock on either side of the new boundaries. McCohen glosses over the fact that Israel has refused to respect international law and that the people of Lebanon and Syria have already been deprived of ancestral lands for the sake of peace under the terms of the 1949 Armistice agreements. Israel still has a legal obligation to drop its belligerent claims under the terms of resolution 242 and restore those rights that were only suspended by the Armistice agreements.

      • mcohen
        March 10, 2013, 4:31 pm

        citizen

        better read this first before you speak of ROR

        link to academia.edu

      • Hostage
        March 16, 2013, 1:46 pm

        citizen better read this first before you speak of ROR

        I’d say that its a fairly unenlightened paper that uses economic production as a benchmark of civilization, while overlooking the unsustainable side effects of pursuing that goal in the way so-called advanced cultures have, e.g the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, entire species commercially harvested to extinction, ground water depletion of aquifers that are simply pumped dry faster than they can be naturally recharged for the production of semi-conductors, agribusiness, & etc, dead zones in the ocean from phosphate run-off, oil spills, and discharge of brine from desalination plants.

        You could just as easily have written a cautionary paper about the environmental disaster that would result from granting millions of Zionists the boundless discretion to establish yet another outpost of European culture while exercising a misnamed “Right of Return”.

      • James Canning
        March 16, 2013, 3:30 pm

        mcohen – - Palestinians tend to be well-educated and industrious. Lebanese of course are adroit businessmen.

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 12:23 pm

        @ Hostage
        Not to mention the part that says the Arab worker doesn’t tend to be very individualistic, but instead tends to self-identify as a member of a group, the more homogeneous, the better–I can think of another ethnic type of worker who generally exhibits the same characteristics.

    • James Canning
      March 10, 2013, 2:12 pm

      mcohen – - There was ZERO provision for an “Israel” in the allocation of mandates tp France and Britain after the First World War.

  14. Hostage
    March 10, 2013, 11:50 am

    the problem of the “right of return”-a possible solution

    the countries that house the palestinian refugees surrounding israel could swap land for people with israel .

    Anyone familiar with the history of the region and the international boundary treaties already knows that Israel is violating the fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing rights of the inhabitants of Syria and Lebanon in the region of Palestine under the explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926. For example:

    The Government of Syria shall have the right to erect a new pier at Semakh on Lake Tiberias or to have joint use of the existing pier, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the above-mentioned commission. . . . Persons or goods passing between the existing landing-stage or any future landing-stages on the Lake of Tiberias and Semakh Station shall not by reason of the mere fact that they must cross the territory of Palestine be deemed persons or goods entering Palestine for the purpose of Customs or other regulations, and the right of the Syrian Government and their agents to access to the said landing-stages is recognised.

    The inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes.

    –See:
    *Exchange Of Notes Constituting An Agreement Between The British And French Governments Respecting The Boundary Line Between Syria And Palestine From The Mediterranean To El Hammé. Paris March 7, 1923, pdf page 7; and
    *Agreement between His Majesty’s Government and the French Government respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hámmé, Treaty Series No. 13 (1923), Cmd. 1910″ link to web.archive.org

    The disputes arising from attempts to violate ancestral rights led to the signing of an agreement which stipulated that:

    All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing, watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past.

    – See The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 4, Oct., 1927, Agreement Between Palestine and Syria and The Lebanon To Facilitate Good Neighborly Relations In Connection With Frontier Questions, February 2, 1926

    The neighboring states are only “housing” refugees, because the State of Israel has violated their territorial integrity by driving portions of its own population across the international frontiers. One of the problems with you lizard-brained Zionists is your blatant greed and desire for ethnically-cleansed land that belongs to other peoples and the need to violate the territorial integrity and rights of other states in the region in order to give Jews exclusive use of the land and waterways of Palestine (that belonged to everyone in the region in the first place).

  15. mmayer
    March 12, 2013, 11:27 pm

    We keep on hearing about the last chance for a two state solution, but what is there left to make a viable Palestinian state with? We keep on thinking this is even a possibility anymore. It gets harder, not easier as time goes by. The occupation becomes more and more entrenched and if a two state solution came about at this point, it will be created of bantustans officially called the Palestinian State.

    • James Canning
      March 13, 2013, 1:48 pm

      MMayer – - You assume that areas illegally occupied by Jews cannot be part of Palestine. One might ask why you make this assumption.

  16. Hostage
    March 13, 2013, 8:36 am

    We keep on hearing about the last chance for a two state solution, but what is there left to make a viable Palestinian state with?

    I’ve pointed out in the past that many observers gave up any hope of maintaining state continuity during the German and Russian occupations of the Baltic states or the South African and Indonesian occupations of Namibia and East Timor.

    • James Canning
      March 13, 2013, 2:34 pm

      Soviet Unuion indeed tried to drown the “native” population of Estonia (and Latvia, and Lithuania), with Russian settlers. Ironically, Russia itself ran low on Russians.

Leave a Reply