The false equivalence of liberal Zionists

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 210 Comments

One of the most well worn tricks of the PR trade is establishing a false equivalence between supposed extremes in order to position yourself in the middle as the pragmatic, moderate viewpoint.

In his article “Zero Dark Zero” Roger Cohen does this very thing in an attempt to position liberal Zionism between two extremes. He establishes an ‘equivalency’ in the minds of readers between Israel’s radical extremist religious-nationalist camp and advocates for Palestinian human rights. He writes:

For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel, both the religious-nationalist Israeli push to keep all the land and the Palestinian refusal to abandon the untenable, unacceptable “right of return” (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews) are causes for deep despondency.

With Cohen’s argument in mind here are two videos I’d like you to view. First, religious-nationalist Israelis:


Make sure to hit the ‘cc’ icon to access the subtitles

Next, a Palestinian advocate for the right of return:

Does that look equivalent to you?  Why does Roger Cohen do that?

Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is an ethno-nationalist movement.  In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on equal civic and human rights. This is the challenge for liberal Zionists. To position themselves as moderate they seek to create an equivalence between extremists where none exists. And, evidently, are not averse to using a fallacy to make their arguments when all else fails.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

210 Responses

  1. jonrich111
    March 1, 2013, 4:45 pm

    Boo. For shame. You just proved Roger Cohen’s point for him. You juxtaposed a video of the most extreme Jewish settler you could find with a well articulated argument by a famous Palestinian advocate. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of your side. Why not be fair and post two videos that are even remotely comparable?

    Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is a liberation movement. In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on denying equal civic and human rights to the Jewish people, while affirming those same rights for the Palestinians. It is a campaign of double-standards designed to delegitimize the Jewish people’s inherent right to self-determination.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 1, 2013, 10:59 pm

      jon, have you read cohen’s article? it wasn’t me who chose barghouti in his ‘zero dark zero’ article as the targeted example juxtaposing religious nationalists (there are 100′s of thousands of them who attended the anniversary of kahane’s funeral). it was roger cohen.

      a well articulated argument by a famous Palestinian advocate.

      and thanks for proving my point. religious nationalists believe god gave them the land, and there’s a lot more freaky stuff where that came from. whereas advocates of a right of return are grounded in international rights, and values americans hold dear…like equality. that’s not fringe, that’s normal.

      • Kathleen
        March 1, 2013, 11:10 pm

        “and thanks for proving my point. religious nationalists believe god gave them the land, and there’s a lot more freaky stuff where that came from. whereas advocates of a right of return are grounded in international rights, and values americans hold dear…like equality. that’s not fringe, that’s normal.”

        freaky stuff indeed. So a bunch of Jewish guys write the Bible and claim that they have been talking to God and this God said the land belongs to the Jews. And please don’t try to question that insane and unprovable argument.

      • seafoid
        March 3, 2013, 3:47 am

        The europeans who settled the US also believed god gave them the land. It is hard otherwise to justify dispossession in law . St George Washington ran a punitive scorched earth policy against the Iroquois of NY state in september 1778. “Their torches reduced 40 Iroquois towns and villages to ashes and destroyed 160000 bushels of corn …not à singlvillage left in the country of the five nationsri. Histor
        an Joseph R Fischer .Thousands of Irouois died of starvation that winter and a few years later their land was divided amongst white settlers .

        That is the pre 1960s US mentality that is so important to zionism . The 24/7 dialogue in hebrew . Palestinians are the new Iroquois . But will Americans continue to buy this ?

      • yonah fredman
        March 2, 2013, 1:07 am

        Annie- there are hundreds of thousands of them who attended the anniversary of kahane’s funeral. Link please.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 10:29 pm

        Link please.

        sorry, couldn’t find it. the last time i looked i was able to find the link, this time no. but this was not 1000 people, much bigger than that.

      • Cliff
        March 3, 2013, 2:34 am

        Annie may be referring to this:

        link to jpost.com

        Not hundreds of thousands. Nearly a thousand.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 8:33 am

        @ Cliff, yeah, seems like about a thousand. Maybe Annie was thinking about the original funeral, which drew about 150 thousand.

      • Reds
        March 3, 2013, 1:51 pm

        Theres also this

        A majority of the public wants the state to discriminate against Palestinians, says a poll published in Haaretz.

        link to 972mag.com

        link to haaretz.com

        Poll: 46% of high-schoolers don’t want equality for Arabs

        Some 81% of religious students said they would refuse to evacuate settlements, versus 36% of secular counterparts. Every second student is opposed to granting right to vote to Arabs, and 32% don’t want Arab friends

        link to ynetnews.com

        Judging by the trend this # is most likely going to rise.

      • jonrich111
        March 2, 2013, 7:46 pm

        @ Annie Robbins:

        Cohen did not specifically bring up the Youtube video of the extremist settler that you posted. YOU chose that specific video to juxtapose against a professional Palestinian activist. If you were attempting to be fair and honest, why not show a video of a right-wing Jewish settler advocate, someone who is a professional public speaker or author who can articulate the viewpoint clearly?

        Second, and most importantly, the content of what Barghouti advocates is what is extreme, not his presentation. Just like the right-wing settlers, Barghouti favors denying one group their collective rights by setting up a state that empowers the Palestinians at the expense of the Jews. The claim that a single Palestinian state could be democratic and fair to Jews is an outrageous falsehood. Are you aware that Jews lived in Arab lands as second-class citizens for thousands, subject to state sponsored discrimination? The Arab world has no history or precedent of treating Jews as equals. Just last month, a video surfaced of the Egyptian prime minister calling Jews “pigs and apes” and advocating for hatred towards Jews. Barghouti’s policies are anti-Semitic, if not in intent then certainly in terms of outcome.

      • Light
        March 2, 2013, 8:44 pm

        Barghouti’s extreme position is to advocate for a state for all of its citizens, where everyone is treated equally.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 10:05 pm

        i thought the settler articulated very well jon, much better than the speaker (professional i assume since he was a featured speaker at an important event declaring ‘The Jewish Authority in Eretz Yisrael’) in this video: link to mondoweiss.net

        i mentioned earlier perhaps you should be suggesting your idea of a ‘reasonable’ land of israel lobbiest to compare barghouti with if you don’t like my choice. link to mondoweiss.net

        how come you didn’t? frankly, i don’t really know of any ‘right-wing Jewish settler advocate… professional public speakers or authors who can articulate the viewpoint’ that would not seem completely racist. notice how roger cohen didn’t mention one either? think there may be a reason for that? well, heck yes as a matter of fact the reason may very well be they are fruitcakes.

        most importantly, the content of what Barghouti advocates is what is extreme, not his presentation.

        really, do tell. because it sounds an awful lot like the principles of our american democracy to me.

        by setting up a state that empowers the Palestinians at the expense of the Jews.

        interesting, is that your definition of equal rights? ouch. i guess you are right since equal rights for all people is at the ‘expense’ of the colonial power. which reminds me..here’s another cool video link to mondoweiss.net

        no one is happy to give up, simply, their colonial privilege ….. It has to be pulled out from the colonial masters that you can no longer be our colonial masters. We want to live in full equality and have full rights……. So yes we know but this happens at the beginning, this feeling that everyone is banning together and the minority is dissenting….

        This suppression reflects that they’re really scarred and when people feel scared they do ban together until the price becomes much higher and then you’ll see cracks in this wall of silence … and wall of complicity … Almost all, all cultural institutions, all academic institutions, all economic institutions, everyone is complicit with very few exceptions. But we’ve seen it before. We’ve seen it in South Africa, we’ve seen it with the British colonial rule, French colonial rule. We’ve seen it before when the public do not pay a price they say ‘well we’re enjoying the fruits of colonialism and apartheid and oppression why can’t we continue?’……. enjoying the benefits of billions and billions of dollars of your ..tax money, American tax money, German tax money that’s subsidizing it’s occupation and apartheid so why should it stop oppressing us? …. Only when the price goes higher as we’re doing and that’s why BDS is truly alarming to the establishment, to the colonial establishment in Israel. It promises to threaten their hegemony and their privilege and once that happens we’ll see the dissent. That’s what happened in South Africa and we’ve studied South Africa experience very closely, very very closely…..from that experience we’ve learned if we keep at it with moral consistency with continuous pressure the system will start cracking and then we’ll see a lot of dissent.

        so yes i completely agree that freedom will come at the expense of jewish israelis, it will directly impact their colonial privilege. that’s gotta bite a little huh?

        anyway, please suggest some articulate religious nationalist speaker (let’s for get about that MK screaming death to arabs, he may be professional enough to get elected in israel but….;) never mind!) who you think will be a comparable match, because i thought the video i chose was extremely representative of the threat cohen referenced from the other side of the spectrum.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 10:21 pm

        The claim that a single Palestinian state could be democratic and fair to Jews is an outrageous falsehood.

        here’s the thing jon, israeli jews are accustomed to a life we know very little about, at least any american living in this century. here, we have to pay for land (water too!), we can’t just set up camp and expect to own it. we can’t get the state to bulldoze someones house so we can live on that parcel. we can’t shove people who’ve been living somewhere for 30/40/50/1000 years and say ‘hey! times up..we’ve returned‘ so in that sense heck yeah it won’t be ‘fair’ anymore. but zionisms sense of fair play is kinda skewed. and that’s where the lesson of false equivalence comes into play. when zionism is framed as the ‘norm’ then the outliers become those wacko lefties selfhating jews and their nutzoid ‘equality activist’ palestinians cohorts (sheesh!) on one side (waaaay off into the far reaches of the netherlands) and on the other side we have baruch goldstien. and gee, then zionism sounds kind normal doncha think? or not? that’s why the videos are instructive.

        but when equality is placed in the middle (say good ol american values) then zionism doesn’t fare so well, and protecting colonial rights seems less attractive.

        hey, i’m curious, in the nicest part of jerusalem, i wonder what it felt like to walk into a beautiful home and have it be yours, for free. knowing a palestinian man built it for his family. was your home free? is that the kind of unfair you will have to suffer? sharing what was stolen for you?

      • Djinn
        March 3, 2013, 1:32 am

        Instead of whinging at Annie, why don’t YOU find a video presenting a logical reason as to why the world should be OK with Israeli colonization of land that isn’t theirs. After that you can post your proof of Big Foots existence.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 2:14 am

        djinn, and this cracks me up:

        YOU chose that specific video to juxtapose against a professional Palestinian activist.

        this was the last video i had published the day before. needless to say there are many more of settlers where that came from, much worse.

      • Citizen
        March 3, 2013, 8:38 am

        Barghouti advocates is equal rights, jonrich111 . To us Americans that is not extreme. What was and is extreme for us Americans is, for example, kahane’s view that a Jewish state is incompatible with democracy. In short, your position is unAmerican to the extreme. Implementation of it here would mean a white Christian state. I doubt that would make Jewish Americans happy.

      • Donald
        March 3, 2013, 2:53 pm

        “The claim that a single Palestinian state could be democratic and fair to Jews is an outrageous falsehood. ”

        Not even possible, eh?

        I wouldn’t really count most of history here, because for most of history majority groups in any society discriminated against minority groups. Jews rarely had the power, but obviously they behave like the rest of humanity when given the chance. Why would anyone expect otherwise, unless one is a bigot of some sort? Israel’s record is much like that of a typical colonial power, not as terrible as the absolute worst (say, Leopold’s Congo Free State), but pretty rotten nonetheless.

        As for recent history, the Arab world was mostly dominated by colonial powers and when those left, usually they were replaced by dictatorships, which aren’t the best teachers of civic virtue and tolerance. Still, you might have a point, though not one you meant to make. The Israelis have been the colonial power for the Palestinians and have abused their power the way colonialists generally do, and so it is difficult to imagine Israeli Jews and Palestinians living together in peace with the decades of oppression, hypocrisy, and violence that have gone by. Difficult, but not impossible.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 3:09 pm

        “here’s the thing jon, israeli jews are accustomed to a life we know very little about, at least any american living in this century.”

        The hypocrisy of that statement reeks to the high heavens. America is a world dominating colonial superpower with military bases stationed on hundreds of countries around the world. We are currently the occupying power of Iraq and Afghanistan and we use geopolitical/corporate power to dominate Latin America, the Middle East, and most of the rest of the world. You have the chutzpah to criticize Israel’s abuses of power in the West Bank but ignore your own white American privilege as a citizen who benefits from living in a country that built its wealth and power on the backs of others. The entire nation of America was built on genocide and colonialism against the Native peoples and half the country was stolen from Mexican territory. Unlike the Jews of Israel, the white Europeans who colonized America had ZERO connection to the land they were taking.

        Contrast this with the Jewish situation. We were forced into slavery and exiled from our indigenous land by the Roman imperialists and we lived under systematic persecution from the entire Western world (both Arab and Christian), only to return to our indigenous land as refugees after being forced out by anti-Semitism. Israel is a country of refugees and as such, it is a shining example of Affirmative Action applied on a global scale.

        Again, the Palestinian refugee problem came about as a result of the entire Arab world’s refusal to accept the existence of Israel on ANY part of the land. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that there is blame to go around on ALL Sides of the conflict: the Arabs, the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the Americans. What makes Barghouti and BDS supporters so anti-Semitic and extreme is that they place 100% of the blame on Israel while ignoring the failures on the part of the Arab side.

        So to call Jews “colonialists” is an abuse of language; an Orwellian bout of double-speak akin to saying “black is white” or “up is down.” Only in the world of Mondoweiss could Jewish liberation be considered colonialism while Americans are somehow pure and democratic.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 3:27 pm

        Annie Robbins: “interesting, is that your definition of equal rights? ouch. i guess you are right since equal rights for all people is at the ‘expense’ of the colonial power.”

        Please name one Arab or Muslim country that gives Jews equal rights? Historically, Jews were systematically oppressed and forced to live as second-class citizens in Arab lands for centuries, despite the fact that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East. In the present day, anti-Semitism is blatant and widespread throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Consider Egyptian leader Morsi’s recent statements urging Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews. He further described Jews as: “bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.” And Egypt is considered Israel’s ally!

        Nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees fled the Arab world after 1948 as a result of persecution. It was only thanks to the creation of the state of Israel that the Mizrahi Jews were finally able to flee the systematic persecution they had endured in Muslim lands for centuries. To even suggest that a Palestinian majority state would treat Jews as equals is absurd and ignorant of the historical and ongoing reality of Arab anti-Semitism. But I suppose that assumption is a result of your privilege.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 4, 2013, 5:15 pm

        We were forced into slavery

        you were? somehow i doubt that. were you a slave trader too? or do you only speak collectively when it serves you?

        So to call Jews “colonialists” is an abuse of language; an Orwellian bout of double-speak akin to saying “black is white” or “up is down.”

        wow, that really rings a bell.

        ciao

      • Donald
        March 4, 2013, 5:18 pm

        “Nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees fled the Arab world after 1948 as a result of persecution. ”

        All of them for that reason? I mentioned recently that Algeria expelled its Jews in 1962 after they won their independence (according to Alistair Horne’s book), but I’ve also heard that many Jews in Arab countries came at the strong urging of Israel. I’ve also heard a few other things, but I’m not an expert.

        On your broader point, the Muslim world has been dominated by colonial powers and dictators for most of recent history–recent events show that there is a strong secular liberal element there that is struggling to achieve something better. They have a tough struggle ahead. But then, Israel isn’t exactly a model for them to follow, given its own record. At best Israel’s record is one of democracy for Jews, token democracy with discrimination for Israeli Palestinians, and apartheid or expulsion for the rest.

        So do you think it is impossible to imagine a state where Jews would treat Palestinians as equals, or is it only impossible to imagine that Palestinians would treat Jews with respect and as equals? If past history sets the limits for what is possible, then it appears that most humans, including Jews and Muslims, are doomed to behave like bigots. The same is true of white America too, seemingly. And every other ethnic group that has ever been in a position to abuse another.

      • Donald
        March 4, 2013, 5:43 pm

        “were you a slave trader too? or do you only speak collectively when it serves you?”

        Don’t know about Jon, but over the past 2000 years I have millions (theoretically billions, but there’s been a certain amount of inbreeding, which might explain a lot) of ancestors and speaking for ourselves, half of us were busy oppressing the other half. We were oppressed by the Romans and we were the Romans.

        We want to know what lands we are entitled to as recompense for the injustices we’ve inflicted on ourselves.

      • eljay
        March 4, 2013, 6:14 pm

        >> Israel is a country of refugees and as such, it is a shining example of Affirmative Action applied on a global scale.

        The answer to injustice is justice. Supremacist “Jewish State” is not about justice.

        The answer to immorality is morality. Supremacist “Jewish State” is not about morality.

        The answer to inequality is equality. Supremacist “Jewish State” is not about equality.

        Supremacist “Jewish State” is a shining example of immorality, injustice, oppression, colonialism, expansionism and supremacism in action.

      • RoHa
        March 4, 2013, 9:21 pm

        “We were forced into slavery and exiled from our indigenous land by the Roman imperialists”

        If you were forced into slavery by the Romans, you must be very old indeed, jonrich.

        “and we lived under systematic persecution from the entire Western world”

        And yet there were always many rich and powerful Jews in the Western world.

        “only to return to our indigenous land as refugees after being forced out by anti-Semitism”

        The early Zionists were not forced out of anywhere. The 1897 Zionist Congress was held 50 years after the first Jewish MP was elected to the British Parliament, 43 years after the first Jewish MP was elected to the British Parliament.

        “Again, the Palestinian refugee problem came about as a result of the entire Arab world’s refusal to accept the existence of Israel on ANY part of the land. ”

        No, it came about as a result of the Zionists’ decision to create a Jewish State in which the Palestinian Arabs would be either driven out or subjugated to second-class status.

      • Shingo
        March 5, 2013, 4:45 am

        We were forced into slavery..

        And Israle is now a hub of sexual slavery.

        exiled from our indigenous land by the Roman imperialists ..

        Exile was a myth. Romans did not expel Jews from Palestine.

        only to return to our indigenous land as refugees after being forced out by anti-Semitism

        You’re not indigenous to the land. You’re about as indigenous as aborigines from Australia or he Inuit.

        People like you can trace your Jewish heritage to conversion to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

        Again, the Palestinian refugee problem came about as a result of the entire Arab world’s refusal to accept the existence of Israel on ANY part of the land.

        False. The e Palestinian refugee problem came about because even decades before Israel came into existence, people like Herzl were encoring transferring he existing population out of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state.

        What makes Barghouti and BDS supporters so anti-Semitic and extreme is that they place 100% of the blame on Israel while ignoring the failures on the part of the Arab side.

        What makes Zionist hacks like you so repugnant is that your suggestion that the Arabs reacted any differently to having he land taken from them as any other indigenous population has throughout history.

        So to call Jews “colonialists” is an abuse of language

        You have a point. The word “colonialists” sounds too benevolent.

      • Shingo
        March 5, 2013, 4:50 am

        The hypocrisy of that statement reeks to the high heavens. America is a world dominating colonial superpower with military bases stationed on hundreds of countries around the world.

        Actually, the hypocrisy is when Israeli supporters, try to turn the argument around and point the finger at the biggest supporter, enabler and protector of Israel and it’s crimes.

        People like you have the chutzpah to criticize the US and it’s crimes and yet, remain silent and applaud every time an American political leader falls over himself to fawn over Israel and declare that the US and Israel share common values.

      • Shingo
        March 5, 2013, 4:55 am

        Historically, Jews were systematically oppressed and forced to live as second-class citizens in Arab lands for centuries, despite the fact that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East.

        What is truly sickening, is that the Zionist leaders from Europe treated the same Jewish population like Arabs or worse when they arriving in Palestine, yet you shills now want to argue that they were keeping the seats warm in Palestine for you converts to Judaism to arrive.

        Nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees fled the Arab world after 1948 as a result of persecution.

        As opposed to 800,000 Palestinians who were expelled by Israel.

        To even suggest that a Palestinian majority state would treat Jews as equals is absurd and ignorant of the historical and ongoing reality of Arab anti-Semitism.

        To even suggest that a Jewish majority state would treat Arabs as equals is absurd and ignorant of the present reality. But then again, you believe in Jewish privilege.

      • zenreaper
        March 5, 2013, 7:13 am

        Oddly enough, I don’t see special bans on American Indians or Mexican Americans to owns arms, or traveling freeing throughout the country. And yes, we are currently occupying Iraq. How many AMERICAN homes have been built there? How many AMERICANS have been “settled” in Iraq? So yes, you can compare the two…but only if you want to criticize Israel in the process, because they have NOT held up the civilized standards of modern society and how we treat an occupied people.

      • RoHa
        March 5, 2013, 6:41 pm

        Whoops! That should be
        “43 years after the first Jewish MP was elected to the NSW Parliament.”

      • john h
        March 7, 2013, 3:33 am

        “And yes, we are currently occupying Iraq”.

        Really? With what?

        That was then, this is now! :-))

    • Inanna
      March 1, 2013, 11:04 pm

      Epic fail. The other side of the Israeli push to keep all the land is the Arab push to kick Israel out of the land. The Arab push is not Barghouti’s position. It’s the same lies from the usual zionists, who do no understand the meaning of ‘liberal’ nor what an oxymoron liberal zionism is.

      • sardelapasti
        March 2, 2013, 1:02 am

        “The other side of the Israeli push to keep all the land is the Arab push to kick Israel out of the land”

        Not on your life! There is no obligation to accept the 11/1947 piracy and conquest by the alien invaders. There is even no obligation to accept the partition proposal (how many hundred GA proposals just like that were rejected by the Zionists?) The proposal to expel illegal immigrants to Palestine and even their local-born offspring while the future Palestinian state decides how to handle this may look crazy to a lot of people but it is a legitimate topic. This cannot be held equivalent to the illegal Zionist requests.

      • gamal
        March 2, 2013, 5:06 pm

        oh no false equivalence cuts both ways! who knew,

        i thought it was understood, since at least Kirkpatrick and “No moral equivalence”, that “false equivalence”, like a juju incantation, could hide racism and tyranny under a glamour of righteousness, its true i find my desire to steal rarely impinges in any way on other peoples actual property rights, they don’t need to compromise with me, which is trying but not equivalent to getting hooked in the head because i am trying to make off with someone Else’s stuff, not to my mind any way.

      • Inanna
        March 2, 2013, 8:48 pm

        You’re right that there is no obligation to accept the partition. But to kick out the Israelis who live there now would also be unjust. If they wish to leave because they can’t accept not living in ethnoreligious privilege that’s their choice. But BDS is not about kicking them out but living in equality.

      • Inanna
        March 2, 2013, 8:50 pm

        @gamal, there’s no perfect justice. I would settle for all Palestinians being able to return and live in Palestine and recover all their properties and receive compensation for their suffering. The Jews who want to stay and live can do so, the ones who want to leave – Allah lay riddun.

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 4:13 pm

        Inanna – Of course. Fully agreed with every word. The point, though, is that there cannot be any equivalence between a discussion on this, which is legitimate, and anything by Zionists.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 1, 2013, 11:15 pm

      and here’s a very realistic example of religious nationalists:

      link to mondoweiss.net

      no kidding and the settler in the movie above is a very balanced reflection of those people and their beliefs. whereas our team (and you know bds freaks liberal zionists out) are normal people, the kind you can have ‘normal’ conversations with.

      so cohen and ‘liberal zionists’ want to create a parity between the two? game on! we’re sooo ready for that. yeah, liberal zionism is stuck in the middle. right between equality and normal values americans share, and freaks. that’s your problem. we’re the moderates here, big time.

      open the first link, jim fallows, to better understand the propagandists use of the false equivalence. the goal is to frame themselves ‘in the middle’. but barghouti is not an extremist, neither is bds and neither is right of return.

    • Hostage
      March 1, 2013, 11:20 pm

      For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947

      The UN never authorized the creation of a Jewish state that could strip the Arab inhabitants of their citizenship, homes, lands, or property. In fact the responsible UN organs included a minority protection plan in the 1947 resolution which prohibited any population transfers or exchanges. Those same UN organs claim the 1947 resolution requires Israel to repatriate all of the refugees:

      19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

      link to un.org

      Boo. For shame. You just proved Roger Cohen’s point for him. . . . Why not be fair and post two videos that are even remotely comparable? Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is a liberation movement. In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on denying equal civic and human rights to the Jewish people, while affirming those same rights for the Palestinians.

      Modern-day Israeli Zionism is a racist and criminal colonial enterprise. Please explain how it harms the “equal or civic human rights” of Jews to re-naturalize the lawful Palestinian inhabitants and their descendants, who had their citizenship, right of residency, and civil rights revoked in direct violation of the terms of the 1947 UN resolution?

      Hell, even the former Nazis repealed the Nuremberg laws and re-naturalized the Jews and their descendants in the new German Constitution. link to germany.info

      Are “liberal Zionists” less liberal than former Nazis?

      • Kathleen
        March 2, 2013, 11:04 am

        Whoa

      • gamal
        March 2, 2013, 2:34 pm

        “Please explain how it harms the “equal or civic human rights” of Jews to re-naturalize the lawful Palestinian inhabitants and their descendants, who had their citizenship, right of residency, and civil rights revoked in direct violation of the terms of the 1947 UN resolution?”

        I for one would be fascinated by the answer to this one. In another thread Hostage posted an additional two paragraphs, i may hunt them up, these three paragraphs, it seems to me completely cover all the relevant issues.

        The other two, if i may venture to paraphrase what i understood to be Hostages point, apologies in advance etc, whatever one thinks of it we are currently governed by a system of international law and regulated international relations, people such as myself and other “3rd worldists” would like as a start to “healing the world” (that idea worries me but still) we would like those provisions respected in spirit and letter, that they should be applied equally and as the framers of these laws claimed to be advancing justice and peace we would like these laws and the rights they guarantee to be applied peacefully and justly, no more. Reform or revolution can come after the law of the jungle is replaced by the system we are supposed to be living under, well thats what i took from it, but i doubt Hostage meant anything quite so incoherent.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 1, 2013, 11:24 pm

      Jon
      It’s Cohen himself who cited Barghouti and the BDS as extreme. It was only fair to juxtapose what he himself viewed as being at the opposite poles.

    • lyn117
      March 2, 2013, 1:24 am

      @jon – what kind of a liberation movement urges “purification” and executes a campaign of mass murder and terror to cleanse the land of the native people, as Israel’s zionist founders did?

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 3:32 pm

        @lyn117:

        what kind of Palestinian liberation movement uses rocket attacks against civilian populations, suicide bombings, torture, and kidnapping — aided by an anti-Semitic program of demonization, deligitimization, and double standards — to to terrorize the Jewish population? Any real peace movement would affirm the rights of both Jews and Palestinians and work to build a lasting peace based on mutual respect and recognition of both sides — not one-sided biased attacks against Israel alone.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2013, 5:16 pm

        “what kind of Palestinian liberation movement uses rocket attacks against civilian populations, suicide bombings, torture, and kidnapping — aided by an anti-Semitic program of demonization, deligitimization, and double standards — to to terrorize the Jewish population?”

        One that is facing far worse, for far longer, from that Jewish population. If you don’t want to be hit back, don’t strike first. They brought it all on themselves.

        “Any real peace movement would affirm the rights of both Jews and Palestinians and work to build a lasting peace based on mutual respect and recognition of both sides — not one-sided biased attacks against Israel alone.”

        When the Jews are willing to settle for 78% and more than half of Al-Quds, then you can talk.

      • Shingo
        March 5, 2013, 5:01 am

        what kind of Palestinian liberation movement uses rocket attacks against civilian populations, suicide bombings, torture, and kidnapping — aided by an anti-Semitic program of demonization, deligitimization, and double standards — to to terrorize the Jewish population?

        That sounds very much like the Jewish liberation movement, which attacked civilians, aided by racist supremacist ideology, mind numbing hypocrisy and double standards. A state that elected 2 terrorist leaders no less, to lead their country.

        As for double standards, can anyone think of a more extreme case of delusion than the believe that European converts to Judaism who, along with their ancestors have never set foot in Palestine, can claim to be indigenous to the land, while expelled those who’s ancestry can be directly traced to the land for centuries?

        Any real peace movement would begin with affirming justice and returning stolen land and property. What you are arguing is that Zionist war criminals be rewarded for their ill gotten gains and crimes against humanity.

        That is why Zionist hacks are so insistent that the conflict not be brought before a court of law, because you know, as well as everyone else,. that when it comes down to truth, justice and the rule of law, you do not have a leg to stand on.

    • jon s
      March 2, 2013, 3:39 am

      The extremist settler could have been compared with this nice man:

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 9:50 am

        jon, i see you’re evading acknowledging my counter argument:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        linking to a memri post of someone who is not even palestinian nor represents a movement representing palestinians,i fail to see how this is applicable in addressing cohen’s article. again, it was him who chose barghouti, not i. and he chose him because he considers him a threat and bds a threat.

        perhaps you should be suggesting your idea of a ‘reasonable’ land of israel lobbiest to compare barghouti to if you don’t like my choice. there’s always this guy: link to mondoweiss.net

        there’s a whole slew of religious nationalist to choose from, many elected officials. go find one you like, that represents your idea of a well articulated argument by a famous jewish religious nationalist advocate.

    • Cliff
      March 2, 2013, 4:52 am

      jonrich said:

      Boo. For shame. You just proved Roger Cohen’s point for him. You juxtaposed a video of the most extreme Jewish settler you could find with a well articulated argument by a famous Palestinian advocate. Talk about stacking the deck in favor of your side. Why not be fair and post two videos that are even remotely comparable?
      Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is a liberation movement.

      Zionism is not a liberation movement because Jews were not liberated by Zionism.

      They were liberated by the Allied forces.

      Jews were flooding into Palestine before the Holocaust and before Nazi Germany.

      They weren’t enslaved anywhere else. They were second-class citizens in some parts of the world. In other parts, they were citizens like anyone else but subject to institutional discrimination.

      Now, Palestinian Arabs are second-class citizens AND institutionally discriminated against in Israel. And the Palestinians of the occupied Palestinian territories are without rights and subject to Jewish colonial rule.

      Zionism is first an foremost a COLONIAL movement. Not liberation. And if it were liberation, it would still be liberation at the cost of the liberty of the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (the Palestinian Arabs) whom Zionism expelled and expels / destroyed and destroys / discriminates against / stole from and steals from. Etc.

      Roger Cohen chose the dichotomy in the article.

      Settlers.

      Barghouti.

      Barghouti is sensible and rational. He adheres to international law and basic concepts of human decency.

      You/the other Mondoweiss Zionist commentators (as well as sock-puppet accounts of past banned users) and the Jewish settlers are against international law and against human rights and against basic concepts of human decency.

      Why?

      Because you want privilege for Jews. Special treatment and special considerations.

      A Jewish democracy means democracy for Jews and second-class citizenship for the Arab minority as well as colonialism for all the Palestinians (inside Israel and in the OPT) because they are thought of as a fifth column.

      You are on the wrong side of history just as Apartheid South Africa and just like SA, you and Zionism will be overcome.

      • jonrich111
        March 2, 2013, 7:51 pm

        “Zionism is not a liberation movement because Jews were not liberated by Zionism. They were liberated by the Allied forces.”

        The Allied Forces refused to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps, thus sharing partial blame for allowing six million Jews to be killed. The United States and virtually every other nation on earth refused to allow Jewish refugees from Europe to immigrate.

        Millions of Jews came to Israel as refugees seeking a safe haven from persecution. Zionism liberated the almost one millions Jews who were exiled from Arab lands in the 1950s. Zionism liberated the Jews of Ethiopia from persecution. Zionism rescued a million Russian Jews. Do you really think Jews want to return to the lands where they were persecuted, brutalized, discriminated against, and kept as second-class citizens (or worse)?

      • Shingo
        March 2, 2013, 11:58 pm

        The Allied Forces refused to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps, thus sharing partial blame for allowing six million Jews to be killed.

        That rubbish has been comprehensively debunked.

        1. It was physically impossible until the beginning of 1944, and it would have required a very significant re-allocation of resources from other efforts, such as preparation for and support of the Normandy invasion.

        2. The idea was specifically rejected by the most important Jewish groups.

        3. The effectiveness of such a bombing raid was questionable. Experts concluded that it would have been extremely difficult and risky and that the chances of achieving significant results would have been small

        4. There is no evidence that anybody came up with the idea before May 1944. The the first such proposal was made by a Slovak rabbi, Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel, to the Jewish Agency on May 16.

        5. As it was just beginning to get organized, at the beginning of 1944, the War Refugee Board asked Jewish organizations and other groups helping refugees for suggestions on what it should do. Not one suggested bombing extermination camps or rail lines leading to them. There is no evidence that anybody came up with the idea before May 1944. Apparently the first such proposal was made by a Slovak rabbi, Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel, to the Jewish Agency on May 16. At about the same time, two officials of the Jewish Agency in Palestine separately made similar suggestions. Yitzhak Gruenbaum made his to the U.S. Consul-General in Jerusalem, Lowell C. Pinkerton, and Moshe Shertok made his to George Hall, the British under secretary of state for foreign affairs. However, the idea was promptly squashed by the Executive Board of the Jewish Agency. On June 11, 1944, the Executive, with David Ben-Gurion in the chair, overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to ask the Allies to bomb the railroad lines and the death camps, with Ben-Gurion summing up:

        “The view of the board is that we should not ask the Allies to bomb places where there are Jews.”

        6. On June 28, Lesser met with A. Leon Kubowitzki, the head of the Rescue Department of the World Jewish Congress, who flatly opposed the idea. On July 1, Kubowitzki followed up with a letter to War Refugee Board Director John W. Pehle, recalling his conversation with Lesser and stating:

        “The destruction of the death installations can not be done by bombing from the air, as the first victims would be the Jews who are gathered in these camps, and such a bombing would be a welcome pretext for the Germans to assert that their Jewish victims have been massacred not by their killers, but by the Allied bombers.”

        So Jon, are you prepared to asserts that the Jewish Congress and Ben Gurion also share blame for the deaths of six million Jews?

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 1:38 am

        To:
        “Zionism is not a liberation movement because Jews were not liberated by Zionism. They were liberated by the Allied forces.”

        “jonrich1111″ answers:
        “The Allied Forces refused to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps …”

        Exactly like the famous old Berlitz French method:
        “Have you got a light?”
        “No, but I can sing the Marseillaise!”

        “The United States and virtually every other nation on earth refused to allow Jewish refugees from Europe to immigrate.”

        And who, 1111, lobbied round the clock to block the refugee admission quotas, in fact to bar any immigration into the US and the UK of Jewish refugees from Europe?
        The Zionist Organizations of America, under Rabbi Wise, also President of the American and World Jewish Congresses, that’s who!
        And they were already as obnoxious and shrill as the Zionists today; all the parties and organizations who were agreed to take a large number of Jewish refugees now had a perfect pretext: “The Jewish organizations don’t want it!”

        As for the ….smart people, who repeat bullshit day in, day out, no matter how many times it has been deflated and rejected (in this case no later than yesterday), there should be a requirement for them to first fellate a donkey before writing anything.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2013, 5:14 pm

        “Do you really think Jews want to return to the lands where they were persecuted, brutalized, discriminated against, and kept as second-class citizens (or worse)?”

        Who cares. That’s not the point. The point is that they are occupying and oppressing the Palestinians. If they can only experience this “liberation” themselves if they oppress the Palestinians, they they don’t deserve it.

      • hophmi
        March 4, 2013, 5:23 pm

        “Do you really think Jews want to return to the lands where they were persecuted, brutalized, discriminated against, and kept as second-class citizens (or worse)?”

        “Who cares. That’s not the point…”

        Exactly. This is why the pro-Palestinian community has no moral authority to speak on human rights or justice. Because at the end of the day, they’re simply for themselves, and not for peace or justice. They don’t care what happens to the Jews, as long as they get the Mandate territory.

      • Shingo
        March 5, 2013, 3:38 am

        Millions of Jews came to Israel as refugees seeking a safe haven from persecution.

        I always find it a paradox that you hasbarats insist Jews lived as dimis in Palestine, yet also argue that it was in Palestine that they would be free from persecution.

        Zionism liberated the Jews of Ethiopia from persecution.

        And relegated them to 2nd class citizens, as well as administering them with contraceptive drugs against their will.

        Do you really think Jews want to return to the lands where they were persecuted, brutalized, discriminated against, and kept as second-class citizens

        Funnily enough, Jews are lining up to obtain German passports.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2013, 10:39 am

        “The Allied Forces refused to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps, thus sharing partial blame for allowing six million Jews to be killed.”

        That is a damnable slur, a libel on par with the “blood libel.” How dare you lay blame on the men who fought and died in that war?? Have you no shame? Have you no decency?? Damn your parents for not teaching you character, or you for not learning it if they did.

        The historical fact is that bombing the camps would have done nothing but delay the end of the war. At the rate the Jews were being killed, every day delayed equalled thousands more dead. What you proposed would have been a death sentence to some people who survived the war. You would do well to keep your filthy mouth shut and go learn some history.

      • hophmi
        March 5, 2013, 11:04 am

        “That is a damnable slur, a libel on par with the ‘blood libel.’” Blah blah shame decency.

        Oh, please. This from someone who repeatedly distorts Edwin Black’s book and asserts that there was some wideranging conspiracy between Zionists and Nazis. There has been a great deal of debate on whether the Allies should have bombed the tracks, and whether the decision not to do so had an antisemitic element to it.

        “The historical fact is that bombing the camps would have done nothing but delay the end of the war.”

        I don’t know if that’s historical fact. The usual explanation is that it would not have worked, and probably would have been counterproductive. The war was on its way to ending by 1944. But there is also a line of scholarship that says that both the Roosevelt Adminstration and parts of the American Jewish leadership did not want to bomb the tracks both because they did not want to be seen as “fighting a war for the Jews.” You see, back then, there were many Americans who felt that if Jews could be said to derive benefit from an American military action, ergo, the war must be primarily for the Jews (like Father Coughlin). There are some who still think that way, like those who believe the Iraq War was primarily fought for the Jews.

        ” You would do well to keep your filthy mouth shut and go learn some history.”

        Again, comment policy #4.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 11:22 am

        people don’t think the iraq war was fought ‘for the jews’, no more than an iran war would be fought ‘for the jews’. we think a bunch of right wing neocons want to massively screw up the middle east to create a balance of power that effectively leaves israel as the permanent dominating force in the region, for like… ever. that’s not ‘for the jews’, it’s for a bunch of genocidal warmongers, many of whom are jewish.

      • eljay
        March 5, 2013, 11:33 am

        >> This is why the pro-Palestinian community has no moral authority to speak on human rights or justice. Because at the end of the day, they’re simply for themselves, and not for peace or justice. They don’t care what happens to the Jews, as long as they get the Mandate territory.

        As far as I can tell, the pro-Palestinian community advocates for a single state in which all citizens are equal. By contrast, not a single Zio-supremacist advocates for anything other than a supremacist “Jewish State” in which Jews have more / different rights than non-Jews.

        The Zio-supremacists are the ones who don’t have a clue about peace or justice. Actually, that’s not right: They know full well about peace and justice, but prefer to sh*t on both as long as it benefits “the Jews”.

      • seafoid
        March 5, 2013, 12:26 pm

        For once I agree with Hoph. They should have trashed Auschwitz in 1944 before the Hungarian Jews were exterminated.

        Kastner knew what was going on. The other bots and the Allies probably did too.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2013, 12:42 pm

        “Oh, please. This from someone who repeatedly distorts Edwin Black’s book and asserts that there was some wideranging conspiracy between Zionists and Nazis. ”

        Nope. I don’t hold that position, nor have I ever commented on it. I commented on the Transfer Agreement once, to note that it would not have stopped Hitler from killing the Jews in Palestine had he occupied the land. I never commented on Edwin Black or his book, as I have never read the book.

        But I guess to someone like you, all of “us people” look alike.

        “I don’t know if that’s historical fact.”

        That merely demonstrates your ignorance, nothing more.

        “The usual explanation is that it would not have worked, and probably would have been counterproductive.”

        Yes. Given the technology at the time, the intent of the Germans and the reality of the situation, a mission to bomb the tracks would not have been successful. (All of the tactical issues regarding bombing of the day — dive bombing, carpet bombing, night-time v. day-time bombing, the “miraculous” Norden bombsite — all existed because of the undeniable fact that bombers of the time pretty couldn’t guarantee that they could hit anything in particular. They could guarantee to his the planet Earth somewhere in the vicinity of where they dropped the bombs, but not more precise than that.) Further, even if they’d been successful, the Nazis were more than capable of repairing the tracks or finding other ways of carrying out the killings; the only thing that would have stopped them was the destruction of the Nazi state. Any delay in bringing that about would have resulted in the murder of more people.

        “But there is also a line of scholarship that says that both the Roosevelt Adminstration and parts of the American Jewish leadership did not want to bomb the tracks both because they did not want to be seen as ‘fighting a war for the Jews.’”

        And that scholarship is irrelevant to the question. Regardless of the motive, ending the killings by ending the Nazi state was the most effective and life-saving method by which to end the killings, regardless of what anyone’s particular policy position was. In fact, even if the Allies took the action they did specifically out of anti-Jewish animus (and, of course, there is no evidence this is true), they still made the decision that saved the most Jewish lives.

        “There are some who still think that way, like those who believe the Iraq War was primarily fought for the Jews. ”

        A lot of people believe a lot of nonsense. (Listen to one of the settlers some time…) That’s no excuse for you believing nonsense because it fits into your pre-existing prejudices.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:29 am

        hoppy said:
        “Because at the end of the day, they’re simply for themselves, and not for peace or justice. They don’t care what happens to the Jews, as long as they get the Mandate territory.”
        —-

        You mean that’s why the pro-Israel community has no moral authority since Israel already took the Palestinian’s land and resources and didn’t give a **** about peace or justice.

        Jews live all over the world and have self-determination as citizens of many countries.

        Jews as an amorphous entity that Zionism has co-opted have no right to steal Palestinian land and then when Palestinians are pissed off or their advocates are pissed off, Jews have no right to lecture the people they stole from (the Palestinians) about ‘morality and justice’.

        In the US, you will say that the students from the MSA broke the law or something at the Oren speech, and got what’s coming to them with the lawsuits and suspensions and blah blah. But you intentionally fail to recognize their moral outrage. You equate Oren to a BDS conference. You equate the civil ejection of Zionist partisan hacks and hecklers from a BDS conference to the lawsuits and hysteria surrounding the MSA activists.

        In short, you’re the hypocrite – not us. You’re the one doing the occupying and colonizing and creeping toward fascism within your oasis of democracy.

        The Palestinians had a society before Zionism. It was destroyed. They have a right to be upset and a right to moral outrage.

        Instead, YOU and your fellow tin-foil hatters direct your outrage of over 9000 years of persecution (none at the hands of Palestinians) at the Palestinians.

        It was ze Germans who carried out the Holocaust but you’re not railing at Germans. You’re railing at Palestinians.

        All you care about is the LAND. Not about however many years of Jewish blah blah blah.

        You are simply another ethno-religious nationalist. There have been plenty of you all throughout history. And you are ALL racist, bigoted and ethnocentric.

      • Cliff
        March 6, 2013, 9:31 am

        hoppy you should be banned for calling all Palestinians, Nazis.

        So don’t cite comment policy as if you give a damn. On any other website, you’re regularly ****-talking uninhibited by MW moderation. You say plenty of lies here that manage to make it through moderation, so it’s easy to see how much of a liar you are without it.

      • pjdude
        March 7, 2013, 2:11 pm

        um only the soviets had planes that could reach the the rail lines. and since that would have helped the polish home army they weren’t going to do that.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 4, 2013, 5:12 pm

      “Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is a liberation movement.”

      Nope. It’s about oppressing Palestinians and little else.

      “In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on denying equal civic and human rights to the Jewish people, while affirming those same rights for the Palestinians. ”

      And if the zios were so inclined, they could, tommorrow, institute a system which provided for full equality and full human, civil and polticial rights and the vote to every adult between the Jordan to the Med. But they won’t, because to do so would mean an end to the torture, occupation and oppression of Palestinans, and those things are what zionism is all about.

    • K Renner
      March 7, 2013, 8:35 am

      ha ha ha ha oh wow.

      I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised though, eh.
      “Zionism is a liberation movement”- Yes, in the same way that the self-proclaimed “Bosnian Serb Republic” back in the ’90s was a liberation state.

  2. pabelmont
    March 1, 2013, 5:35 pm

    The fallacy of this false equivalence is that the two states envisioned by UNGA in 1947 did not foresee and explicitly did not allow the two states (one Jewish and one Arab) to discriminate against the people of the other camp then living within the territory suggested (yes, it was a mere suggestion) for the two states. The proposed (or suggested) Jewish State would have had a Jewish majority and could have magnified that majority via selected immigration. But expulsion of Arabs by Jews or vice-versa was neither foreseen nor allowed by the UNGA.

    The UNGA, upon seeing the expulsions — and Israel’s refusal to allow returnn of the refugees/exiles — immediately, and repeatedly over the years, asserted a Palestinian Right of Return. Israel, as we know, ignored or denied the PRoR.

    BDS in asking for PRoR merely asks for what UNGA proposed or suggested in 1947, an what the Jewish Agency said that it agreed to, and what UNGA demanded repeatedly thereafter. BDS does not by PRoR demand the destruction of Israel nor necessarily the creation within Israel of a non-Jewish majority, although that might happen (and might have happened had Israel never expelled/exiled the Palestinians in the first place). Israel can avoid a population with large Arab population by the simple (if distasteful to many Israelis) expedient of falling back into a territorially smaller “Israel”,

    In refusing PRoR, Israel is acting against the human rights of the Palestinians as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in numerous UNGA resolutions.

    Those Liberal Zionists who resist PRoR (I’m sure they do not all do so) are extremists, not moderate middle-of-the-roaders. They demand the fulfilment of promises that they made to themselves (a predominantly Jewish state), not promises made to them by Balfour, the Mandate, or UNGA.

    • Sibiriak
      March 2, 2013, 4:41 am

      pabelmont:

      The proposed (or suggested) Jewish State would have had a Jewish majority

      An extremely thin Jewish majority–not anywhere near enough to be the basis of a Jewish state in the view of most, if not all, Zionists at the time (and now).

      BDS does not by PRoR demand the destruction of Israel nor necessarily the creation within Israel of a non-Jewish majority

      Not necessarily, but possibly (if not probably)–that’s the problem from the Zionist perspective.

      • pabelmont
        March 2, 2013, 10:35 am

        Sibiriak: I agree with you. The Zionists wanted more than was suggested (or, as they would claim, offered). they took what they wanted, not what was offered. In succeeding years they took more (they have a right to capture land in wartime, and to occupy it, but not to settle the occupied land — that is my “took more”).

        I have said, and no-one has denied, that Israel could assure itself as large a Jewish majority as it likes by agreeing to move its population into a smaller territory where the Jewish part of the population would be denser. Today, after the 1948 expulsion-cum-refusal-to-repatriate, pre-1967-Israel has a 4:1 Jewish:Arab population. If full PRoR were imposed on Israel, I dare say that ratio would change to 1:1 or even 2:3 or 1:2, and, yes, Zionists would not like that outcome. But if they moved into a place 5 or 10 or maybe 25 times the size if Gaza (let’s say, the size of NYC, all 5 Boroughs), the Jewish:Arab ratio would be enormous, EVEN with PRoR into that smaller territory.

        My proposal is a serious one, at least as a gedanken-experiment. It shows that Zionism’s desire for a substantial Jewish majority can be accomplished within Palestine, even with an Israeli capital in West Jerusalem, and without violation of international law or opposition by international opinion. This “solution” would not be “criminal” by any measure and includwes the PRoR (into the smaller “Israel”).

        But my proposal also shows that such an outcome is not compatible with other Zionist goals such as possession of all of Palestine and its waters and expulsion of most of its Arab people, which has been accomplishe by what I consider tio be “criminal” measures requiring restitution — including the PRoR.

  3. piotr
    March 1, 2013, 5:40 pm

    I am a “two stater”. From that perspective, right of return exists but is not absolute.

    For example, Jews who descent from property owners in Poland that was owned before WWII and than was confiscated at least twice (Nazis, Communists) have the right to compensation but normally at some fraction of the value of these properties today.

    Full recognition of the rights to property etc. is a quite understandable demand but clearly, negotiable.

    Settlements are similarly negotiable, although I have much harder time marshaling ANY valid argument for making them “understandable”. This is one asymmetry.

    The second asymmetry is that postulating RoR causes mild psychological discomfort, while maintaining and expanding settlements closely associated with continuing dispossession, repressions and immiseration.

    Ideally, some simple measures would force Israel to evacuate all lands sized after Oslo accords and then to negotiate in good faith, e.g. sanctions copied from those that are currently applied to Iran. I have seen a very nice description of the negotiation mode envisioned by liberal Zionists and other mainstream liberals “negotiations of a whip with an ass” (whip and posterior? try to translate “negocjacje dupy z batem”)

    • Inanna
      March 1, 2013, 11:05 pm

      @ Piotr – states don’t trump human rights.

      • piotr
        March 2, 2013, 5:44 am

        They do. But it is not that simple.

        Full realization of rights is not possible, full negation of rights is going back to life as short, brutish etc. (but at least not solitary because the State keeps us together!).

        So some compromise is needed. Given that, Cohen’s compromise is to mix courageous and cowardly sentences, a standard liberal Zionist boef Stoganoff, which is an efficient but unhelpful way to fill a column.

      • Inanna
        March 2, 2013, 8:55 pm

        No they don’t.

        Palestinians rights were unlawfully taken away from them. The state that unlawfully took those rights away does not have the right to do so. I know there is no perfect justice – but there is no justice at all without the right to return.

  4. American
    March 1, 2013, 5:43 pm

    ‘Why does Roger Cohen do that?”…annie

    Because he is a zionist.
    Zionism is a genetic brain disorder caused by a different form of a gene, called the ‘Z” gene, found in some Jews, a gene mutation similar to the “AS”(anti semite) gene mutation found primilary in gentiles.

    However amazing research is being done in ‘brain sharing’ that one day might lead to a solution in brains curing each other.

    Duke University Connects Rat Brains,
    link to geekosystem.com
    1 day ago – Researchers at Duke University have successfully wired together the brains of two rats, allowing the animals to share a response to a stimulus …

    So we just have to connect the Z brain to the AS brain and the Z and AS genes will short each other out. Viola! A cure. Or worse case two dead brains. Whichever..problem solved.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 3, 2013, 1:30 am

      Zionism is a genetic brain disorder caused by a different form of a gene, called the ‘Z” gene, found in some Jews, a gene mutation similar to the “AS”(anti semite) gene mutation found primilary in gentiles.

      oh my, this sounds as tho some reverse ziocaine medication could alleviate some of the symptoms. where’s mooser?

      we just have to connect the Z brain to the AS brain and the Z and AS genes will short each other out. Viola! A cure. Or worse case two dead brains.

      well, 2 dead brains will never do. back to the drawing board!

  5. Kathleen
    March 1, 2013, 6:19 pm

    ” In contrast, the principles of the BDS movement, including the right of return, are based on equal civic and human rights. This is the challenge for liberal Zionists. To position themselves as moderate they seek to create an equivalence between extremists where none exists. And, evidently, are not adverse to using a fallacy to make their arguments when all else fails.”

    Have heard this false equivalency argument used by Jewish friends over and over again through the decades “both sides are wrong” Just absolute dangerous hogwash.

    Great post Annie.

    • seafoid
      March 2, 2013, 5:48 pm

      The other great bot meme is that both sides are responsible for the mess . They never accept the concept of jewish agency.

  6. a blah chick
    March 1, 2013, 6:26 pm

    What so called liberal Zionists like Cohen refuse to accept is that Palestine was ethnically cleansed of its Arabs. They cannot accept this because if they do then they would have to accept responsibility. Cohen, et. al., are not emotionally ready to do that. They cling to the cozy fiction that the Palestinians fled because they did not want to live with the Jews or because the Arab nations sent out broadcasts telling them that they should flee and return triumphant on Egyptian tanks. To acknowledge that Zionism is responsible for the Nakba is just too much for him and his ilk. He does not want to face the fact that he is on the wrong side of history.

    A people were dispossessed of their homeland due to nothing more than they were the “wrong” religion, that is a fact and history. Cohen and others need to face this unpleasant fact and make amends.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 2, 2013, 9:51 am

      ”They cling to the cozy fiction that the Palestinians fled because they did not want to live with the Jews or because the Arab nations sent out broadcasts telling them that they should flee and return triumphant on Egyptian tanks.”

      Alternatively/in addition, they hold on to the Joan Peters fantasy of a ‘land without a people’ ie that Palestine was virtually uninhabited (except, conveniently, for a few Jewish communities) until the Zionists came and made the desert bloom. In other words, the Palestinians (or ‘Arabs’ as they prefer to say) are just blow-ins with no greater attachment to the land than Jews from Germany or Ukraine.

      But I agree that even – no, especially – ‘liberal’ Zionists cannot bring themselves to own up to Israel’s original sin – that it was built on another people’s land, and, necessarily, involved their expulsion. To admit that Israel is the product of a great injustice foisted on another people would be to admit that the whole Zionist project is inherently unjust. And that is something no ‘liberal’ Zionist can do.

      • seafoid
        March 2, 2013, 5:51 pm

        They are waking up to reality – the death of the 2ss reopens the pandora box of 1948. They lied about peace . They lied about war . They lied about 48.

      • Castellio
        March 2, 2013, 9:56 pm

        The lies started long before ’48.

  7. justicewillprevail
    March 1, 2013, 8:11 pm

    Most ‘liberal’ zionists, as far as I can see, have no interest in Palestinians or their culture, know nothing of their desires or the reasoning behind their arguments, pay no heed to the justice of their cause, or the argument about basic human rights. The most they can offer is the same tired old formulaic cliches, the stereotyped assumptions and prejudices, the inability to listen or learn. I suppose the danger is if they did, then their own case will crumble, or at least have to be completely re-evaluated. At heart, they appear to only care about themselves and zionism, have little interest in the real history of the region (as opposed to the manufactured myths and post hoc rationalisations) – which means they are trapped in the same old cycle of repetition like this, and ultimately have little or nothing to offer, except dogmatic formulae which they seem incapable of understanding have been comprehensively trashed by the occupation and annexation of all viable Palestinian land. Ostriches, sand, camouflage.

  8. OlegR
    March 1, 2013, 8:15 pm

    Difference in style , same results if policies succeed no Jewish and democratic state of Israel.
    In the first case no democracy in the second no Jewishness. (and democracy )

    • Sibiriak
      March 2, 2013, 4:32 am

      OlegR,

      In the first case no democracy in the second no Jewishness. (and democracy )

      That’s true. But anti-Zionists don’t recognize the validity or value of a Jewish state, while the do recognize the validity and value of democracy.

    • Cliff
      March 2, 2013, 4:53 am

      There is no democracy in Israel.

      It’s simply special privilege for Jews and racism, apartheid and institutional discrimination/second-class citizenship for non-Jews.

      Israel is an ethno-nationalist religious State where nationalism trumps liberalism and human rights.

      The Palestinians aren’t immigrants.

      You are, Russian Jew.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 5:02 pm

        @Cliff:

        Israeli society has every right to privilege Jewish culture: the use of Hebrew language and calendar, Jewish holidays, Jewish literature, etc. This is no different than the dozens of Muslim states privileging Islamic culture, or Europe and the United States privileging Christian holidays. On an even deeper level, the state of Italy privileges Italian culture and language; France privileges French culture, etc. Every society identifies with one group narrative more than others. This is a good thing. The world benefits from having the diversity of hundreds of unique nations with their own flavors, histories, and cultures. As long as countries are democratic and allow for equal rights and respect towards minorities, there is no problem.

        Btw, Israel actually treats its minority cultures far better than most countries, so why is 100% of your anger directed at the Jewish state? Muslim countries are not exactly known for their tolerance of minorities. Yet you fail to criticize them for the “special privileges” they give to Muslims/Arabs. Double-standards much?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 9:33 am

        jon, this is a tad off topic regarding some of your comments that didn’t cut the mustard. please review our comment policy, specifically #2. just letting you know because it is a ban-able offense. we don’t debate whether expelling palestinians was done with intention to ethnically cleanse the land anymore than we debate whether hitler intended to exterminate jews. there are other kinds of sites that do that but we’ve moved on.

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2013, 7:18 am

        Israeli society has every right to privilege Jewish culture: the use of Hebrew language and calendar, Jewish holidays, Jewish literature, etc. This is no different than the dozens of Muslim states privileging Islamic culture, or Europe and the United States privileging Christian holidays.

        False. There is no culture or religion that is privileged above all others in Europe or the US, and certainly not written into law.

        The fact that you feel the need to compare to Muslim states, none of which are democracies only highlights the absurdity of your argument.

        Btw, Israel actually treats its minority cultures far better than most countries

        Actually it doesn’t, unless you are ignoring all the western states in which minorities are protected under the law, unlike Israel.

    • eljay
      March 2, 2013, 8:35 am

      >> … same results if policies succeed no Jewish and democratic state of Israel.

      Make “Jewish” a nationality granted to all existing and future citizens of Israel (including RoR Palestinians) – so that all citizens are Jewish and all citizens are completely equal – and you can have a “Jewish and democratic” state.

      Until then, all you have is a supremacist “Jewish State” which – because you are Zio-supremacist – you prefer over a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state.

  9. Scott
    March 1, 2013, 8:54 pm

    Kind of curious about the theology. Is this standard, when the Messiah comes they will be able to enslave –who, everyone? In what book or psalm or whatever is this written? Or is this a particularly Zionist interpretation?

    • Kathleen
      March 1, 2013, 11:27 pm

      There is a great deal of hatred, violence and racism in Deutoronomy. As Annie said above some “freaky stuff”

      Chapter 7 verse 6:

      “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

      You must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire (Deut 4:2-5).

      In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes (Deut 20:16).

      You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you (Deut 15:6).

      “all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you” (Deut 28:10)

      • yonah fredman
        March 2, 2013, 12:56 am

        Kathleen- Agreed: Taking the book of Deuteronomy literally is dangerous stuff. but please note: Deuteronomy also includes: “Man does not live by bread alone” and other great phrases. Thus it should not be thrown out in whole, although a discerning mind must do the picking and choosing.

        Not all the verses that you quote are equally bad in my opinion. Genocidal warmaking is the worst obviously, I hope obviously. All the others vary.

        Lending with interest is kosher in my book. Saying, “lend with interest to the stranger and not to your brother” is natural. To mention this law in the same breath as genocidal wars is a bit askew.

        The fact is: modern society needs lending with interest. A critique of capitalism would be over my head, I accept economics as given, which includes lending with interest and thus when you make an exception to the rule, saying treat him like a brother and not like an outsider, I happen to accept that as well as being a natural development of society. Organizing society around “us” and “them” is antithetical to americanism, but only to America’s ideals and not to America’s realities. Interestingly Jewish law never tried to figure out how to prohibit interest on all transactions, but instead figured out how to permit lending with interest to Jews, by turning every loan into an investment and thus turning interest into something permitted. Islam prohibits lending with interest and suffers as a result. It is not a tenable way to do business.

        The chosen people idea is not the best, but within itself it is an idea we can understand, from the perspective of a parent who says to one’s kids, “they might do that down the street, but we consider ourselves above that”. That is a common attitude in life and it is acceptable, it is only the nation part of it and the god part of it that change what is acceptable to a family as being unacceptable in Deuteronomy.

        I am in favor of freedom of religion and freedom to marry who you want, the freedoms we have in 2013 in America. The worship of one god leads to bad things, true, but I was taught that the worship of idols leads to worse things. This battle between the belief in one god and the belief in many (or the belief in none) should be fought in the marketplace of ideas. But we should not expect America 2013 from Deuteronomy. We can strenuously object to (deride and ridicule even) commands to kill in war, but we should not expect our ideals regarding free religion from Deuteronomy.

        Thus I think your inclusion of all these verses in one breath is a bit perverse. Interest is kosher to me. Chosen people is problematic but understandable.

        Genocidal wars is a clear problem found with Deuteronomy, the others need to be discussed at greater length and judgment of those verses needs to be discussed and analyzed with some degree of nuance.

      • Kathleen
        March 2, 2013, 11:08 am

        “lending with interest” has put the world in chains. Just not into any religious books that encourage and cultivate hatred, elitism, racism etc. All learned behavior in my book

      • gamal
        March 2, 2013, 11:17 am

        “Islam prohibits lending with interest and suffers as a result. It is not a tenable way to do business.”
        For those who are interested in such things, one of the reasons that the recent Chinese Olympics was such a success was that it was financed, in part, by the purchase of Shariah compliant financial instruments by the Chinese state, all of which performed very well, and many of the Islamic Banks were not badly affected by the current crisis because CDS and other exotic structured products are not allowed under Shariah, for various reasons partly because they place all the risk, like borrowing at interest on one party and someone makes money without incurring risk, the Shariah doesnt like that, an aside, boring but as the above poster brought it up.

      • sardelapasti
        March 2, 2013, 12:38 pm

        “Genocidal wars is a clear problem ” says the defender of torture while pushing his own (low-speed) genocidal war.

      • Kathleen
        March 2, 2013, 12:48 pm

        interesting

      • piotr
        March 2, 2013, 2:12 pm

        An interesting aspect of the genocidal wars described in Torah is that according to very reputable archaeologists they are pure fiction. I suspect that at the time when they were inserted to the text they were adding a heroic credibility, glory if you will, the the ancestors, plus a justification for monotheistic innovations and the increase authority of the priests.

  10. Sin Nombre
    March 1, 2013, 11:04 pm

    Not that this false equivalence employed by liberal Zionists doesn’t deserve observation and ridicule, but frankly the hypocrisy is still that which gets me more.

    Show me, that is, another ethno-nationalist movement *aside* from Zionism that Cohen wouldn’t positively vomit on and I’d be surprised. Show me any American or European ethno-nationalist movement that he hasn’t poured the worst venom imaginable over and I’d be surprised. Show me any that, no matter how utterly lacking they are in any other way to Nazism that he hasn’t instantly compared to Nazism anyway and I’d be surprised.

    But okay, one might say, if that’s the extent of it. But it isn’t of course. Any other country being concerned with its racial/ethnic “demographics” and the Cohens spew, not to mention their implicit approval of Israel having the right to take action to maintain an artificial demographic makeup.

    Or … any other country not essentially having utterly open borders may likewise get the Cohens bubbling, much less openly discriminating on the basis of some alleged blood characteristic.

    Or … any other country treating its minority population in any way inferior to its majority. (Not to mention actually having colonial *subjects.*)

    And on and on and on.

    It is hypocrisy on stilts, and the only thing other than a belief in jewish supremacy that I can see explaining it is the idea of jewish exceptionalism which amounts to the same thing, and it is then here that we see the second necessary prong of the Cohen world-view: The ability to read out of the discourse anyone who even observes this as being “anti-semitic.”

    The indispensable two-prongs: The double-standard, and the condemnation of all who even observe same.

  11. kayq
    March 2, 2013, 2:48 am

    Yay! Even more LibZio’s.

    A two-state is practically on the brink of extinction, if not yet extinct. We all know that both parties are unwilling to give up their land, and the reason I say both, is even as a Palestinian, we will not give up our land to the Zionists. It is rightfully ours, and thus why we deserve the right of return. Not to mention, the 60 years worth of struggle. The other side, purely to fulfil their dreams of a greater “Jewish state” or for religious rasons. As we saw, when that religious Jew(s) assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, and as we also see in present day with the building of settlements. Zionists need to let go of this notion of maintaining a Jewish majority. It will not work, unless somehow miraculously all the Jews move to Israel, which also will not happen.

    The only way forward now is a democratic, secular Palestine with full right of return for Palestinian refugees,.
    It’ll be an economic disaster but to counter that, we can only let in a few hundred thousand in at a time.
    Israeli’s will either have to emigrate or accept the Arab population.

    Also why can Jews return after 2, 000 years but Palestinians cannot after nearly 70 years?

    • seafoid
      March 2, 2013, 5:54 pm

      That sorry 70 years is too late but 2 millenia – how many passports do you want ? is chutzpah khaalis.

  12. mcohen
    March 2, 2013, 4:56 am

    Zionism, whether religious or secular, revisionist or liberal, based on biblical prophecy or not, is an ethno-nationalist movement.

    false equivalence ?

    Pan-Arabism, Nationalist notion of cultural and political unity among Arab countries. Its origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when increased literacy led to a cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East. This contributed to political agitation and led to the independence of most Arab states from the Ottoman Empire (1918) and from the European powers (by the mid-20th century).

    supposed?what is supposed,what does not exist

    and what about the mondoweiss supporters club -whats your equivalence ?

    arab nationalism ?

    • Cliff
      March 2, 2013, 3:32 pm

      Jewish nationalism is not the same as Arab nationalism.

      Arabs are nationalistic in their own land. Their self-determination is based on their residency in the land they live in.

      Jewish nationalism and colonialism is based on a religious and mythological cultural claim to the land that Israel exists on presently and is also presently stealing, colonizing (as opposed to its previous theft of Palestinian land).

      A Jew from America, never setting foot in Israel/Palestine, can become an Israeli citizen and settler and kick Palestinians off their land while safely guarded by the thugs and murderers in the IDF.

      There is no comparison because Jews live all over the world and Zionism says they are all the same and all have a right to land they have no tangible ties to. Furthermore, the Jewish ‘right’ comes at the continual destruction of the indigenous population – the Palestinian Arabs.

      • mcohen
        March 2, 2013, 6:56 pm

        cliff-WAKE UP

        jewish nationalism—–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt

        The Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE),[2] Hebrew: מרד בר כוכבא‎ or mered bar kokhba, was the third major rebellion by the Jews of Judaea Province against the Roman Empire and the last of the Jewish-Roman Wars.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 7:12 pm

        yeah, wake up to “Israel Tour Daily Newsletter”. 27 July 2010. (the source, before citation needed]citation needed]citation needed]citation needed]citation needed]”) wiki strikes again! all those instructionals at the yeshivas are really proving to be a godsend, pardon my phrasing.

    • eljay
      March 2, 2013, 3:46 pm

      >> and what about the mondoweiss supporters club -whats your equivalence ?

      Arabs are not entitled to supremacist “Arab States”. Muslims are not entitled to supremacist “Muslim/Islamic States”. Jews are not entitled to supremacist “Jewish States”. Homosexuals are not entitled to supremacist “Homosexual/Gay States”. Stamp collectors are not entitled to supremacist “Philatelist States”.

      If there is wrong in the world, the task is (or should be) to right it – not to advocate for a piece of the immoral and unjust action.

      Leave it to Zio-supremacists to dig for the bottom of the morality barrel…

    • MK_Ultra
      March 2, 2013, 5:11 pm

      Its origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when increased literacy led to a cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East.

      LOL, LOL, LOL! Dishonesty ignorance or both? That quote in reference to the people who invented (among many other things) written language, astronomy, mathematics, architecture, surgery, physics.

      Didchya ever?

      Every time one of you Hasbaranik trolls pulls a stunt like that you show not only your ignorance, hatred, racism and jealousy but your extreme inferiority complex, one that you overcompensate for with some serious Narcissistic and socio/psychopathic traits.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 2, 2013, 7:26 pm

      mcohen, if you’re going to copy text verbatim off the internet you need to blockquote it or use quotemarks and attribute it to the source. for example:

      link to britannica.com

      Pan-Arabism, Nationalist notion of cultural and political unity among Arab countries. Its origins lie in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when increased literacy led to a cultural and literary renaissance among Arabs of the Middle East. This contributed to political agitation and led to the independence of most Arab states from the Ottoman Empire (1918) and from the European powers (by the mid-20th century). An important event was the founding in 1943 of the Baʿth Party, which formed branches in several countries and became the ruling party in Syria and Iraq. Another was the founding of the Arab League in 1945. Pan-Arabism’s most charismatic and effective proponent was Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. After Nasser’s death, Syria’s Ḥāfiẓ al-Assad, Iraq’s Ṣaddām Ḥussein, and Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi tried to assume the mantle of Arab leadership.

      so just out of curiosity, don’t you find it a tad odd, the western colonial implication that the political agitation of uppity arabs would be an increased literacy, as opposed to their societies being manipulated by foreign powers?

      • mcohen
        March 3, 2013, 3:02 am

        a tad odd

        thats me spot on

        have not quite mastered the blockquote-how is that done

        i will swop you a free prophesy -a farmers one – if you instruct me on how to blockquote-fair trade ?

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        March 3, 2013, 9:46 am

        @ mcohen

        “i will swop you a free prophesy -a farmers one – if you instruct me on how to blockquote-fair trade ?”

        If you know how to italicize, it’s easy. Just substitute the “i” for “blockquote”

        link to w3schools.com

        If you don’t know how to italicize, here is how:

        Put at the beginning of the text you want italicized the following:
        Put at the end of the text the following:

        DISREGARD the asterisk, i just put it there so that the text i wrote to you won’t be italicized.

        Quid pro quo, time for the prophecy: who is going to win the trophy in the Greek soccer league?

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        March 3, 2013, 10:55 am

        @ mcohen

        don’t ask me why, but the html symbols i wrote did not pass through, the system made them vanish.

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 12:50 pm

        Mitropoulos just cracks me up.
        After revealing himself as the best antizionist satire writer, bar none, he now provided an authoritative lesson on html:

        “If you don’t know how to italicize, here is how:

        Put at the beginning of the text you want italicized the following:
        Put at the end of the text the following:

        DISREGARD the asterisk, i just put it there so that the text i wrote to you won’t be italicized.”

        Should have his own column.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 1:30 pm

        dion, follow these instructions link to mondoweiss.net

  13. William Burns
    March 2, 2013, 8:20 am

    Very odd for Cohen to invoke Jews as witnesses that there is no “right of return” when the state of Israel is premised on the idea that there is a Jewish right of return.

    • MichaelSmith
      March 2, 2013, 12:51 pm

      “Very odd for Cohen to invoke Jews as witnesses that there is no “right of return” when the state of Israel is premised on the idea that there is a Jewish right of return.”

      I don’t understand that either.

      Is it just a throwaway line tossed in to end debate, or is there any substance to what he says?

      Is Cohen confusing the asserted “right of return” with the unwillingness of many Diaspora Jews to make use of that asserted “right”?

      In any case it’s a strange statement to insert into his article and just leave hanging without explanation or documentation.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 1:00 pm

        michael, professional hasbarists knew exactly what they were up to naming the call for jews all over the world to come to israel as a ‘right of return’, the very same words to describe palestinians international rights. it was to co op the meaning of the term and use it for their own, flipping the original meaning in an attempt to steal the real meaning away from palestinians. both the terms “right” and “return” are not used in the traditional sense, at all. yet we are supposed to think of them in a similar fashion.

      • yonah fredman
        March 2, 2013, 2:34 pm

        Annie- The piece of legislation from 1950 is called “the law of return” and it invoked a right to individual Jews to “demand” citizenship when deciding to move to Israel. I think to call it “coopting” the phrase “right of return” is a bit of anachronistic fantasizing on your part.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 2, 2013, 3:31 pm

        link to mondoweiss.net
        Definition of INVOKE
        1
        a : to petition for help or support
        b : to appeal to or cite as authority
        2
        : to call forth by incantation : conjure
        3
        : to make an earnest request for : solicit
        4
        : to put into effect or operation : implement
        5
        : bring about, cause

        yonah, if i invoke a right to ‘return’ to some alleged forefathers house across the world does it make it my right? you can call it a right and so can israel, but it is not the same as the international right of return. so whatever was being ‘invoked‘ was not the international right of return, which, as far as i know, does not apply to biblical claims.

        The term right of return refers to a principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        we already had a conversation that explained my ‘homeland’ position wrt your alleged ‘return’ link to mondoweiss.net

      • Cliff
        March 2, 2013, 3:34 pm

        Wondering Jew, Eric Alterman’s plagiarist, and quibble-extradonaire.

        Going to have another kvetch attack?

      • eljay
        March 2, 2013, 3:57 pm

        >> The piece of legislation from 1950 is called “the law of return” and it invoked a right to individual Jews to “demand” citizenship when deciding to move to Israel.

        The only people who have a right to demand or expect citizenship of a country created in a geographical region are:
        - the people who are in that country;
        - the people who were removed from that geographical region at the time the country was created; and
        - IMO and at the discretion of the new country, n generations of descendants of people from that geographical region.

        The average Jewish citizen of a country in the world is not entitled to this right simply because he is of the Jewish faith. To suggest he is entitled to this right – while ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and their descendants are denied this right – is to advocate for supremacism.

        Surprise, surprise.

        But, yeah, it would be a boring world if guys like y.f. weren’t advocating for supremacism…

      • yonah fredman
        March 2, 2013, 4:59 pm

        Anne- I was not saying that the Israeli law of return is great or good or justified. I was merely stating that it was enacted in 1950 and to attach your hasbara “flip” explanation to it is highly unlikely and unbecoming to this blog to theorize flippantly without the basis of truth or facts.

        and to my bizarro fan club of cliff and eljay, hey fans.

      • eljay
        March 2, 2013, 6:20 pm

        >> and to my bizarro fan club of cliff and eljay, hey fans.

        The word “fan” usually implies admiration. Trust me, I don’t admire you.

      • mcohen
        March 2, 2013, 7:16 pm

        law of return ,right of return,turn right at return,law of the right

        jews have been returning to israel for centuries what is it you people are mumbling about.

        link to whc.unesco.org

        Masada is a dramatically located site of great natural beauty overlooking the Dead Sea, a rugged natural fortress on which the Judaean king Herod the Great constructed a sumptuous palace complex in classical Roman style. After Judaea became a province of the Roman Empire, it was the refuge of the last survivors of the Jewish revolt, who chose death rather than slavery when the Roman besiegers broke through their defences. As such it has an emblematic value for the Jewish people.

      • sardelapasti
        March 2, 2013, 8:17 pm

        “jews have been returning to israel for centuries.. ”
        “Returning”? Strange. Before you use that kind of stupid words, kindly provide credible personal documents in their own name or that of their immediate family. Like anyone does anywhere to get a citizenship document or a regular title. Like the ethnically cleansed Palestinians, for example. Or then shut the f*&%& up.

        That Unesco page contains mendacious propaganda and must be taken down.
        “… last stand of Jewish patriots” my ass.
        Last stand perhaps, but of the day’s Al Qaida, the obscurantist, fanatic anti-Hellenic minority battling a majority of the population of Palestine. That majority seems to have been, from all serious investigations, hellenized in part or entirely. See Tcherikover for a start. The use of words like “patriot” on a Unesco site is also very questionable.

      • eljay
        March 2, 2013, 8:46 pm

        >> As such it has an emblematic value for the Jewish people.

        An “emblematic value” doesn’t give “the Jewish people” the right to swarm to Palestine, cleanse the indigenous population and set up an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      • tree
        March 2, 2013, 8:46 pm

        Yonah, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN om December 10, 1948, two years prior to Israel’s “Law of Return”. I doubt that it is flippant to theorize that the Law of Return was a co-optation of Declaration.

        As an aside, I note that you have a habit of making flip statements here yourself. No biggie, but it’s certainly hypocritical of you to search for the mote in other’s eyes .

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        March 2, 2013, 10:02 pm

        @ Annie

        “michael, professional hasbarists knew exactly what they were up to naming the call for jews all over the world to come to israel as a ‘right of return’, the very same words to describe palestinians international rights. it was to co op the meaning of the term and use it for their own, flipping the original meaning in an attempt to steal the real meaning away from palestinians. both the terms “right” and “return” are not used in the traditional sense, at all. yet we are supposed to think of them in a similar fashion.”

        Annie, there is something that makes me reluctant to accept that all Palestinians have a right of return to Israel.

        When i think of the right of return stripped of any legal considerations, and i try to justify to myself why such a right should exist for people that have been expelled from their land, the first thing that comes to my mind is the emotional pain that the refugees might be experiencing because of the memories they have of the places they used to live.

        But the refugees who have not been born in the lands which we assume they have a right of return to cannot possibly have any memories of these lands, hence no emotional pain from being deprived of satisfying whatever emotional needs these memories usually give rise to.

        On the face of it, these particular refugees (the born-elsewhere ones) do not have a compelling moral claim to return, since they are not experiencing emotional pain that cannot be relieved unless they return.

        Can anyone think of some other form of emotional pain that would make compelling the moral right of return for these particular refugees?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2013, 2:28 am

        thank you tree. as if it was merely a coincidence the term ‘right of return’ applicable to zionisms victims just hap-hap-hap-happened to be the same term chosen by israel for their law….used to DENY palestinians of their international rights…

        to attach your hasbara “flip” explanation to it is highly unlikely and unbecoming to this blog

        oh yeah, so very unlikely because the chance israel’s lawyers who crafted these laws had any idea what the rights of their victims were is just , like, so far fetched! who would ever think of that back then remember this is, like, pre internet. bread wasn’t even sliced back then. omg, like, it’s so like, unbecoming maybe i should just take it right back?

        but i won’t. because people are not stupid and zionists chose the term with the anticipation they could totally steal the meaning for their farce of biblical justification. did i just say that? sorry. but that’s what it smells like to me.

        heck, i only have common sense tho, i’m not brilliant or anything. something tells me i’m in for another lecture on minority sensitivity very shortly.

        edit: good question dion, and i will address it after you explain to me why jews from brooklyn, having never set foot on the land really ‘feel’ that homeland thing because allegedly their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparent lived there.

        and why their ‘right’ of ‘return’ should trump that of the original definition (which btw, does not apply to this biblical thing)

      • gamal
        March 3, 2013, 3:19 am

        “Judaean king Herod the Great” yikes,

        ” Herod the Great

        Herod the Great was the king of Palestine from 37 BC – 4 BC. We owe the division of BC to AD to a 6th century monk, Dionysius Exiguus. Dionysius placed the birth of Jesus in the year 753 after the founding of old Rome but he overlooked the fact that Herod died in 750 – which is 4 BC by Dionysius reckoning. Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, whose fury at the news of his birth led to the flight to Egypt. Herod, the son of Antipater, sought as did his father the favor of Rome. Jerusalem received the splenderous appearance as it was in Jesus’ day until its destruction along with the new temple building, begun in 20 BC. Herod the Great was an Hellenistic-Oriental despot, although he formally belonged to the religious community of Jerusalem. When the king died, the representatives of the Jewish community requested of Augustus the removal of Herodian rule, but the emperor divided the country among his sons. Herod the Great, who, as another has said, stole to his throne like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog, had seized Jerusalem with a Roman army in 37 BC in a victory so murderous that he himself had asked the Romans whether they purposed making him king of a desert. He had a passion for building and had embellished the city in the generation before Jesus. His palace on the western hill, his castle near the temple area, and the new temple itself, whose outer colonnades were not completed until after Jesus’ death, were the outstanding features of the city. He even built a theater, to the scandalization of the Jews, and in the valley below, an amphitheater as well.

        Herod was not actually of Jewish blood. His mother Kypros was an Arab, his father Antipater an Idumaean, and neither of them was of royal lineage. The little that did seem Jewish about him was a veneer which had been applied to his ancestors by violence. Herod meaning “descendent of heroes” shows how little of Jewish spirit his father had absorbed when he gave his circumcised son a name out of Greek mythology. Herod had a frenzy for power. No tyrant in history ever was more hated than Herod was hated by the people who worshipped there. They resented an man not of their blood, he was an Arab from Ashkelon, a tribal warrior, ferocious enough to win many a battle, shrewd enough to be an expert politician, but no true king of theirs. By turns Herod had tried being cruel and kind. Having despoiled their treasury, and with the very money he had filched from them, he built a magnificent house of God. The people took this new temple to their hearts but they barred him from entering any part of it. It may be clear to others why Herod had been called the great, but to the Jews it has always remained a mystery. He was the arch-murderer of his time. He murdered 45 members of the Sanhedrin as well as his family and all the children of Bethlehem.”

        link to latter-rain.com

        Zionist history does such violence to Jewish history,

      • yonah fredman
        March 3, 2013, 5:07 am

        eljay- bizarro is a word that implies the opposite, as in : you’re a bizarro genius, to not understand that by bizarro fan, i meant someone who throws spitballs at me whenever I pass.

      • leenb
        March 3, 2013, 5:11 am

        So what’s up with the Law of Return for Jews who have not resided in the country at all?

      • yonah fredman
        March 3, 2013, 5:14 am

        tree- There is little question in my mind that the primary impetus for the law of return was the situation which existed in 972 land during the 30′s when Jews considered the gates of the world closed to them (even though you deny this fact). thus: hey, now we have a state that has opened its gates to the Jews.

        It is difficult for me to determine what role the UN declaration of human rights played in the israel decision or wording, but I assume it was minimal. I think the currency of the phrase right of return is much greater today than it was any time in my childhood- say starting from 67 until 82 I don’t recall the phrase taking up so much space in the Israel versus Palestine discourse. Since the war in lebanon of 82 and the intifada of 87 it has been much more part of the common discourse. To take the currency of the phrase today and to infer that Israel flipped it, is to infer that it was a common current phrase at the time of 1950, which I assume it was not.

        If Israel referred to the declaration of human rights for propaganda purposes and crafted its law with that declaration in mind, it is still anachronistic to refer to a phrase that exists in a document, whereas today it is a phrase that is part of the discourse.

      • leenb
        March 3, 2013, 5:15 am

        I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are basing this argument on Abraham, who may or may not have existed. ON the fact that some God, who may or may not exist, told people that this is the promised land.

        Seriously? None of these are facts.

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        March 3, 2013, 7:24 am

        @ Annie

        “edit: good question dion, and i will address it after you explain to me why jews from brooklyn, having never set foot on the land really ‘feel’ that homeland thing because allegedly their great great … great grandparent lived there.”

        They feel that homeland thing because they talk (and have been talked to by their parents) a lot about the land – usually in a religious context, i am guessing.

        But this does not furnish a compelling moral reason for them to have a right of return to this land. Merely wanting something does not give us the moral right to have the thing we want.

        “and why their ‘right’ of ‘return’ should trump that of the original definition (which btw, does not apply to this biblical thing)”

        I am not predicating the moral right of Jews to return to Israel on any religious consideration. I am justifying their right to have and go to some state, any state, that will make them feel safe from hypothetical future anti-Semitism. It so happened that the land allocated to Jews by the international community was what was later named Israel. It might have been any other land and it would have served the same purpose. But this is now the land that makes many Jews feel safe.

        That’s what gives Jews the moral right to be in Israel, the alleviation of rational fears which the existence of a Jewish state provides for – no matter where that Jewish state is located.

      • dionissis mitropoulos
        March 3, 2013, 7:39 am

        @ Annie

        “zionists chose the term ["right of return"] with the anticipation they could totally steal the meaning for their farce of biblical justification. did i just say that? sorry. but that’s what it smells like to me.”

        Smells like zio-spirit – the hilltop variety.

      • eljay
        March 3, 2013, 8:55 am

        >> eljay- bizarro is a word that implies the opposite, as in : you’re a bizarro genius, to not understand that by bizarro fan, i meant someone who throws spitballs at me whenever I pass.

        Give me a second to wipe off the spitball…okay, thanks. ;-) So, I’m not a genius (no mystery there) and I’m not a fan (glad to know you know it).

        As for spitballs, I don’t throw them at you whenever you pass, because:
        - I don’t see or read everything you write; and
        - not everything you do write consists of apologetics for Zio-supremacism.

        Occasionally, though, your bizarro morality and humanism does catch my eye and, while I could refrain from throwing a spitball at you, I know you’d find the world boring if I didn’t. :-)

      • Kathleen
        March 3, 2013, 9:18 am

        Bingo. When people are screaming at others that it is their land because a bunch of Jewish guys claiming they had talked to some god 2000 years ago feels like we are watching some science fiction flick. And I grew up Catholic and started thinking the same thing sitting in daily religious classes. All voodoo to me.

        Religious Jews, Catholics, Muslms can not prove any of their claims

        But we can prove that their is an internationally recognized border.

      • justicewillprevail
        March 3, 2013, 9:40 am

        This is complete nonsense, and a non-argument. They need to assault and expel the indigenous people from their land and houses because of a hypothetical future danger? They feel safe there, despite hyping threats to themselves endlessly, many of which are self created? The international community did not ‘allocate’ the land to them as you claim. Claiming a ‘moral right’ is meaningless when it means the immoral occupation of another land and its people. Many dictators, demagogues and rogue states will claim ‘moral rights’ to do what they like, so what? Doesn’t make it just, or remotely acceptable.

      • eljay
        March 3, 2013, 10:28 am

        >> … while I could refrain from throwing a spitball at you, I know you’d find the world boring if I didn’t. :-)

        Correction: … while I could refrain from throwing a spitball at you, I know you’d find the world boring if I did. :-)

      • sardelapasti
        March 3, 2013, 12:45 pm

        Dionysis – I apologize for missing the fact that your act was pure antizionist satire, and very effective satire, too:

        “I am justifying their right to have and go to some state, any state, that will make them feel safe from hypothetical future anti-Semitism…It might have been any other land and it would have served the same purpose. … That’s what gives Jews the moral right to be in Israel…”

        How did we all miss the fact that you are a dedicated antizionist?

        Not even the Onion ever reached such summits. That’s where you should be writing.
        At any rate, I am proposing you for the next Swift Prize.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 5:23 pm

        @Annie Robbins: “good question dion, and i will address it after you explain to me why jews from brooklyn, having never set foot on the land really ‘feel’ that homeland thing because allegedly their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandparent lived there.”

        The hypothetical Brooklyn Jew you’re referencing has never stepped foot on Eretz Yisrael because his ancestors were ethnically cleansed by the imperial system whose various successors still rule much the world. While living in galut, or “exile,” Israel played a central role in Jewish culture and religion in the nineteen centuries of Diaspora. Prayers for a return to Israel and Jerusalem are included in our daily prayers as well as many holiday observances and special events. For example, every Passover seder, we pray for “next year in Jerusalem.” To deny our connection to Eretz Yisrael is not only historically inaccurate; it is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 10:06 am

        To deny our connection to Eretz Yisrael is not only historically inaccurate; it is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

        well, i think understanding religious jews pray to jerusalem (keeping in mind the ‘jerusalem’ they pray to is not traditionally (necessarily) the physical place/location) acknowledges a ‘connection’ however, ‘connections’ are not real estate deeds. i am not denying a jewish ‘connection’ anymore than i would deny a christian or muslim ‘connection’ to the holy land. in fact it’s my understanding that’s why it’s called the holy land! most people understand this but so good of you, once again, to drag anti semitism into the conversation/NOT.

        lots of people have ‘connections’ but that doesn’t translate, for most of us, an overwhelming desire/feeling to immigrate somewhere. anyway, the reason i offered to address it was after another poster questioned me about palestinian refugees:

        But the refugees who have not been born in the lands which we assume they have a right of return to cannot possibly have any memories of these lands, hence no emotional pain from being deprived of satisfying whatever emotional needs these memories usually give rise to.

        On the face of it, these particular refugees (the born-elsewhere ones) do not have a compelling moral claim to return, since they are not experiencing emotional pain that cannot be relieved unless they return.

        Can anyone think of some other form of emotional pain that would make compelling the moral right of return for these particular refugees?

        now i realize that is not your statement. but the absurdity of any morally superior claim of ‘feelings’ of someone who prays to a place (or as you put it, a ‘connection’) as opposed to recent refugees, is mindlowing.and if you think that’s anti semitic..so be it.

      • eljay
        March 5, 2013, 10:15 am

        >> For example, every Passover seder, we pray for “next year in Jerusalem.” To deny our connection to Eretz Yisrael is not only historically inaccurate; it is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

        A “connection” made in prayer – no matter how fervently – does not entitle you to secure a geographical region, ethnically cleanse part (most?) of the indigenous population from it, and set up a supremacist state in it.

        What you have done – what you continue to do – is fundamentally unjust and immoral. But you’re a Zio-supremacist, and so you justify and excuse your hateful and immoral actions.

      • seafoid
        March 5, 2013, 10:34 am

        Jews pray about Jerusalem. Big deal.

        Indonesian Muslims pray towards Mecca- doesn’t mean they own the place.

        Irish Americans sing about Kevin Barry- doesn’t confer any property rights in the old country.

      • hophmi
        March 5, 2013, 11:06 am

        “Indonesian Muslims pray towards Mecca- doesn’t mean they own the place. ”

        Not only do Muslims own the place, but they don’t let any non-Muslims even approach it.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        “Irish Americans sing about Kevin Barry- doesn’t confer any property rights in the old country.”

        And yet, it’s called Ireland and inhabited mostly by Irish Catholics.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2013, 11:26 am

        “To deny our connection to Eretz Yisrael is not only historically inaccurate; it is fundamentally anti-Semitic.”

        No, it isn’t, because people aren’t denying anyone’s connection to anything; they’re saying that just because your religious myths are centered upon a piece of land does not give you any particular rights to that land over the natives whose land it belongs to. If there is any bigotry, it is yours to think that all the worlds’ peoples must reorder their outlook on the world to give you what you believe these religious myths mean.

      • sardelapasti
        March 5, 2013, 7:47 pm

        gamal – “how little of Jewish spirit his father had absorbed when he gave his circumcised son a name out of Greek mythology.”

        Let’s not exaggerate. Even though less hellenic than Coele-Syria and Lebanon, the area had been at the strategic border of the two Macedonian empires and extensively, if not quite, hellenized. Of course the upper (and often middle) class would give Greek names to their sons, send them to the Gymnasia, speak Greek in the home and generally live like Greeks.

        That does not mean that there was “little Jewish spirit” as the priestly caste was also extensively hellenized and carried Greek names.

        “Zionist history does such violence to Jewish history”
        It sure does! To the point of getting even you to say that a Greek name indicates “little Jewish spirit” when it was rather the rule. According to the Zionists, the zealots, the norm would be the minority of macchabs and other obscurantist sects, the El Qa’ida of their time responsible for the revolt and repression.

      • gamal
        March 5, 2013, 9:15 pm

        it was a link old thing,

        people who are interested in those kind of things tend to be a bit weird, i was just amused by the construction ‘Judean King’,

        gave me the feeling that the strange little poster Yonah F, knew of the total badass Arabness of Herod, the Idumeans, his paternal line, were Arabs forcibly judaised by Hycarnus,

        i am not in to this vast field of irrelevance myself, so you will forgive me if i dont bother with your wasted effort of a post, but thanks anyway for attempting to instruct me in whatever you feel it is i should know.

        i read your final paragraph, sorry i cant account for statements which are not mine, however your ahistorical reference to Al Qa’ida being the Zealots de nos jours is almost meaningless, or perhaps you could explain what a modernist movement born in the 20th century has to do with the early part of the first millenium in the Levant, I would hazard that the Democratic Party in the USA is more similar to the Zealots than Al-Qaida both ideologically and in terms of praxis, or is it only we who are stuck in the past and can be found exact ancient parallels, is America Rome or the Inca’s, in my opinion Al Qaida and the Zealots have significant differences to the extent that i would not want to make the connection myself, but as I say i reckon the Social Democratic Left in Europe also boast significant similarities with the poor much maligned Zealots?

        Anyway i have no idea what Jewish spirit is, and therefore, sadly i didnt really read the link once i was sure it covered my Arabian ancestor Herods glorious cynicism, you dont see whats funny about the wholesale Zionization of history that just keeps barking its toes on history, like the exodus, perhaps you could tell me what Jewish spirit means in the context the falling-rain writer to whom i linked was using it, you are not aware of the tensions caused at the time about the adoption of Hellenistic culture, you surprise me!
        Jewish, Christian and Muslim history obsessives are a bore i have taught enough classes rammed with them, like a real intellectual history of say mathematics, is fascinating once you get beyond the cultural achievemnt bull, the real history of the ME is very interesting, the Abrahamic squabble version of is like ten valleys of dry bones.

        sorry to have wasted your time.

      • sardelapasti
        March 5, 2013, 11:42 pm

        gamal – No waste of time, as I am “in those kinds of things”, interested because it is not necessarily irrelevant (because it contributes to destroy Zionist affabulation) and I tend to be a bit weird. The analogies between US ‘liberals’ and the Zealots are inescapable, by the way, save for the adoption of hands-on guerrilla –you may want to patent that.
        “perhaps you could tell me what Jewish spirit means”… I can’t, as for the life of me I don’t see the existence of anything Jewish outside the strictly religious mumbo-jumbo. And of course all of this, from glorious Herod to now, was anyway about “the tensions caused at the time about the adoption of Hellenistic culture”, duh.

      • Shingo
        March 6, 2013, 7:21 am

        The hypothetical Brooklyn Jew you’re referencing has never stepped foot on Eretz Yisrael because his ancestors were ethnically cleansed by the imperial system

        False. Studies have shown that very few Jews were vanquished from Palestine by the Romans, thus those in the diaspora became Jewish through conversion.

        Exile is a myth.

        To deny our connection to Eretz Yisrael is not only historically inaccurate; it is fundamentally anti-Semitic.

        Rubbish.

        1. Eretz Yisrael doesn’t exist
        2. Your connection is based on myth and delusion, seeing as your connection to Judaism was probably the result of conversion to Judaism.
        3. Jewish connection to Israel is about a credible as Catholic connection to Rome.

      • sardelapasti
        March 6, 2013, 10:08 pm

        Shingo – “3. Jewish connection to Israel is about a credible as Catholic connection to Rome.”

        The fact is, though, that there is a better jewish connection to Rome: Rome being the world capital in those times, the immigration of Hebrews, Samarians, Nabateans etc was quite important, and recorded. So the Roman Jews (with due regard to all the movements and admixtures etc.) in Trastevere are the only ones who could with some appearance of logic boast of a lineage connecting them to Palestine.

  14. Egbert
    March 2, 2013, 8:33 am

    What’s the difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist?

    I seem to remember a one-time contributor, a self-described Liberal Zionist, stating that ethnic cleansing is currently not necessary. So the only difference appears to be the matter of timing.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 2, 2013, 10:04 am

      I think the main difference is one of style – it’s certainly not substance. How many ‘libZios’ claim to find Netanyahu repellant, yet when you ask them to name which of his actual policies they find so objectionable, they’re at a loss. That’s because, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, Netanyahu is no different from ‘moderates’ like Barak or Livni. It’s not his actions that bother the libZios, it’s the fact that he’s up-front about them in a manner which makes them distinctly uncomfortable. Why can’t Israel be a bit more subtle about its long-term plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

      • Kathleen
        March 2, 2013, 12:53 pm

        Hey they have been pulling off the slow, steady ethnic cleansing for decades. And have had the support and silence of the US MSM.

      • W.Jones
        March 2, 2013, 1:49 pm

        “How many ‘libZios’ claim to find Netanyahu repellant,”
        You mean “Bibi”, right?

        “when you ask them to name which of his actual policies they find so objectionable, they’re at a loss.”
        They could probably name some, like allowing settlements too much.

        “it’s the fact that he’s up-front about them in a manner which makes them distinctly uncomfortable.”
        Good point. That’s a big factor.

    • Shingo
      March 2, 2013, 4:06 pm

      What’s the difference between a Zionist and a Liberal Zionist?

      The question should be, what’s the difference between a right eing Zionist and a Liberal Zionist ?

      The answer is that right wing Zionists are simply more honest.

      • MK_Ultra
        March 2, 2013, 5:02 pm

        LOL! That seems to be the case between the Right Wing and the Left Wing period. No matter what adjective they put before/after it.

      • W.Jones
        March 2, 2013, 11:57 pm

        “The answer is that right wing Zionists are simply more honest.”
        They certainly seem more consistent. I am not sure the liberal Zionists do not say what they believe. Although of course in some cases that’s true, as with alot of things in politics.

        I am not sure that Netanyahu says what he believes- and he is not liberal.

  15. American
    March 2, 2013, 11:12 am

    Forgive me for being OT but speaking of ‘falsities’ this is just so f’ ing laughable I can’t resist.
    This is one of those “policies” that goes under the heading of “makes no sense” for the US and is the product of hyphen- (Cubans) in congress and the dwindling exiles- in -waiting in Miami who still live under the delusion the US is gonna invade Cuba and give it back to their Batista elite class that Castro ran out.
    This is another prime example of how la la ridiculous our government now is.

    US: Cuba is a State Sponsor of Terrorism
    Washington refuses to lift the harsh economic embargo on Cuba
    by John Glaser, March 01, 2013

    Print This | Share This The United States is grasping at straws in justifying the continued economic embargo on Cuba by claiming the country is in a category with Iran, Sudan, and Syria as officially recognized state sponsors of terrorism.

    Washington, of course, refuses to provide any evidence of this, even as the charge of Cuba’s “support for acts of international terrorism” is increasingly questioned.

    Responding to press reports that Obama’s new Secretary of State John Kerry was considering lifting the harsh economic sanctions on Cuba, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland such rumors are false.

    “This department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism list,” said Nuland. “We review this every year, and at the current moment we — when the last review was done in 2012 –didn’t see cause to remove them.”

    Cuba has elicited particular ire from Washington ever since the Eisenhower administration, a byproduct of Cold War justifications for US grand strategy, which seeks to maintain hegemony and crush economic, geopolitical, or ideological defiance.

    The claim of being a state sponsor of terrorism is a mere pretext, a blanket accusation Washington applies to any government it doesn’t like (and one that ignores America’s own history of supporting and carrying out international terrorism). A State Department report last year found that Cuba’s ties to so-called terrorist groups are tenuous at best.

    Cuba has repeatedly reached out Washington, as President Raul Castro did last summer, insisting that Cuba “is willing to mend fences with bitter Cold War foe the United States and sit down to discuss anything, as long as it is a conversation between equals,” The Associated Press reported.

    “Any day they want, the table is set. This has already been said through diplomatic channels,” Castro said. “If they want to talk, we will talk.”

    But the Obama administration has refused, intent on continuing to isolate Cuba and maintain the embargo.”

  16. Kathleen
    March 2, 2013, 1:03 pm

    Always liked this paragraph in Glenn Greenwald’s “false equivalency” piece awhile back

    link to salon.com
    “It’s admirable to want to apply the same standards to both sides, but straining to manufacture false equivalencies doesn’t accomplish that; sometimes, honestly applying the same standards to each side will result in a finding that one side, at least in that regard, is actually worse. When that’s the case, a person engaged in truly independent, non-ideological inquiry — rather than the pretense of such — will expressly acknowledge the imbalance, not concoct an equivalency where it doesn’t exist. “

  17. joer
    March 2, 2013, 1:36 pm

    (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews)

    Excuse me, wasn’t the whole rationale behind Zionism, The Balfour Declaration and everything else? And also, many of the countries Jews were expelled from, they were later invited back into.

    And I alway find phrases like “ask the Jews” irksome. It perpetuates the myth that all Jews think alike and work in consort.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 2, 2013, 2:59 pm

      yes well i suppose roger cohen had his reasons for writing that. not sure what they were but it’s right there in the nyt. who’da thunk.

    • jonrich111
      March 4, 2013, 5:33 pm

      @joer,

      the reason Cohen said “just ask the Jews,” is because after the Jews were exiled from our land, the various powers that conquered Israel had refused to allow us to return for nineteen centuries.

  18. American
    March 2, 2013, 1:47 pm

    For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel, both the religious-nationalist Israeli push to keep all the land and the Palestinian refusal to abandon the untenable, unacceptable “right of return” (there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews) are causes for deep despondency.”

    Listen, let’s just keep it simple…..there is not even any false equivalency in this nonsense.

    First Cohen told a lie about no right of return for Jews –by which I assume he was talking about after WWII–because Jews did have the ‘right’ to return their European country and reclaim their property and there was a whole international agency dedicated to helping them do that—whether they wanted to use it not was up to them.

    Second he’s saying we Jews who were not residents in Palestine for 2000 years and most of who’s ancestors never were residents to begin with have right of return—-You former actual Palestine residents up till we ran you out 60 years ago dont have any return rights.
    Lying prevaricating Zionist exceptionalism for Jews. …period.
    That’s all it is.

  19. yourstruly
    March 2, 2013, 2:20 pm

    liberal zionist = wolf in sheep’s clothing?

  20. American
    March 2, 2013, 3:03 pm

    42,500 more Jewish concentration camps and nazis run ghettos discovered? Hummm…I am having a hard time believing this one. Particulary the part about keeping Jewish brothels for German soliders since sex with Jews was grounds for imprisonment and/or execution for German soliders — and the part about killing the babies when they were born. And they had 110 camps for 10,000 political prisoners–only a 100 to a camp?..that makes no sense either. The Nazis might have been efficient but not that efficient, I doubt all the allies put together could have managed and policed 42,500 camps and ghetto sites.

    Holocaust Museum Researchers Discover 42,500 more Nazi concentration camps and Jewish ghettos

    link to nytimes.com

  21. W.Jones
    March 2, 2013, 3:06 pm

    Speaking of liberal Zionists, I like some things J Street does, but disagree with others. For example, they often attend of host presentations supporting Palestinians’ rights. At my college they came to a talk by a Palestinian Christian about her hard situation, while in Philadelphia they are now arranging for people to attend The Gatekeepers.

    But then they are a “pro-Israel” group, which typically means they support the State’s basic system. Why not say they are a Jewish, Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli group? Plus, they opposed the Palestinians’ bid to statehood, which almost everyone else in the world approved. Certainly they didn’t demand that Israel’s first delineation in the UN 60 years ago require Palestinian approval!

    Can you tell me please if it’s even possible to donate to J Street, or one of its projects without effectively also donating to this nationalist organization as a whole?

    • German Lefty
      March 2, 2013, 6:03 pm

      Why not say they are a Jewish, Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli group?

      W.Jones, that’s a contradiction. Being pro-Israel (i.e. pro-Zionism) means that you are anti-Palestinian.

      • W.Jones
        March 2, 2013, 8:26 pm

        German Lefty,

        I think that’s often true, but not necessarily. Jeff Halper of ICAHD I think is both.

      • sardelapasti
        March 2, 2013, 8:50 pm

        Jones – Impossible. Of course some people say that, we know (but Halper? strange) but it is a logical impossibility. No Jewish State is possible without extreme prejudice of Palestinians. You may want to first confirm that the Zionists are living on Palestinian land.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 2:25 pm

        Sard,

        As you say: “Halper? strange.” It must seem strange to you, because he dedicates himself in a strong heartfelt way to helping Palestinians in one of their major hardships, their homes being bulldozed. It is one of his main causes. I expect he may accept the ROR or BDS. He has alot of sympathy for Palestinians and I would say loves them. Thus, I think he is pro-Palestinian.

        However, he is pro-Israeli too I think because he is or was for a serious time period an elected official in Israel. I think he may have been a mayor of a town. He is an American by birth from Minnesota. He made aliyah. Even more than pro-Israeli I think he is likely a Zionist for this reason. He explained in an interview, I think posted on Mondoweiss, that he admired the Native American and African American nationalist movements in the US in his younger days and so in his thinking he thought of the nationalism of “his people” (ie the Jewish people) in a similar way. So basically he was also a nationalist and a leftist, who also valued diversity alot.

        Thus, just as he was able, as a white person in America to value blacks’ rights, he also values Palestinians’ rights. This is my take on it. That he is both a nationalist and is also pro-Palestinian. However, his nationalism may not be in a statist form. There is a group of anarchist Zionists, for example. The Zionist movement meant return to Zion, and thus a return could be made without making a state aspect part of the ideology.

        Along with Halper, I think Uri Avnery might also be pro Israeli, Zionist, and also Pro-Palestinian. He had an idea about a pan-Semitic federation and was part of a ZIonist thinking concept called Canaanism, I think. Avery himself had immigrated from Germany. It is true, though, that pro-Israeli/Zionist and also pro-Palestinian is a rare ideological mix.

      • sardelapasti
        March 5, 2013, 1:33 am

        Jones – “It is true, though, that pro-Israeli/Zionist and also pro-Palestinian is a rare ideological mix.”
        Sure, I have heard about it too. Rare ideological mix it sure is.
        But it remains a logical impossibility. No different than the case of highly intelligent people who happen to also be religious.
        Possible inside one’s skull but impossible and deadly in the real world.

      • W.Jones
        March 6, 2013, 12:43 am

        No different than the case of highly intelligent people who happen to also be religious. Possible inside one’s skull but impossible and deadly in the real world.
        I disagree- these cases are quite different.
        Intelligence and religion are not contradictory. A religious system can have many ideas involved, as we see for example in Greek philosophy. Understanding and developing these ideas can require intelligence.

        Liberalism and Zionism however may be directly contradictory due to the fact that the one bases itself on universalism, while the latter devotes itself to giving a religious community power over the land. However, there are different cases of Zionism too- one could have an anarchist Zionist viewpoint and not contradict the idea of having a pluralist state- and possibly not even demand any state or political system at all.

      • jonrich111
        March 4, 2013, 5:39 pm

        “that’s a contradiction. Being pro-Israel (i.e. pro-Zionism) means that you are anti-Palestinian.”

        Incorrect. The Zionist dream will not be fulfilled until the Palestinians have a state of their own. Both of our destinies are intertwined. The task of Jewish liberation (e.g. Zionism) will not be complete until Palestinian liberation occurs.

      • sardelapasti
        March 5, 2013, 11:52 pm

        1111, Jones – As already said, the Zionists are living in and ruling over Palestinian land. Let them get their fat behind out of there and your land of milk and honey may just seem possible. Not before. There is no covering this big a doodoo.

      • W.Jones
        March 6, 2013, 12:52 am

        The Zionist dream will not be fulfilled until the Palestinians have a state of their own. I don’t think that is part of Zionist dream fulfillment, although you may argue that it is a condition for the Zionist state to have far better foreign relations.

        Secondly, I am not doubtful that Jewish liberation=Zionism , as you phrase it. In the Old Testament, liberation meant a spiritual redemption, like the Exodus. The people were freed from Egypt even before they reached the promised land. That being the case, the people could have a spiritual liberation from things like prejudice, and this could occur even outside of Zion. Zionism on the other hand focuses on the people’s physical return, if not political statehood.

        Now maybe you will label this as ultra-Orthodox religious ideas. However, once we throw out the Biblical ideology, there is no reason to demand a state for just one ethnicity or religion in the name of National Liberation. A people can achieve National Liberation in a binational state, just as Lebanon has one state with two ethnicities. And as anthropology shows, Jews and Palestinians are largely the same people with a range of religions.

        So whether you look at it from a religious or progressive, secular, universalist perspective, neither one demands a state dedicated to just one ethnicity, or even two states separated based on ethnicity.

    • ritzl
      March 2, 2013, 6:38 pm

      Just my take, but if you leave out the Pro-Palestinian part, you have the basis for your answer. J-Street is obsessively/tenaciously in the “Israel can be reformed, if only…TBD” camp. That possibility is very much in doubt, now, and TBD always, imo, remains elusively ill-defined in their efforts. J-Street is way too far down on the “backside of the power curve” on this. They are very much an influence-able insider org. They’re reactive, iow.

      Still, there’s the slim residual rationale that J-Street (as they themselves pose) presents an alternative to AIPAC, however minimal. If that minimal hope is acceptable, or a credible part of the mix of softening hard AIPAC power, then donate. But I think circumstances have passed them by on this.

      I used to donate, but when I saw a vid of their “political” (if ever there was a position requiring distinction-drawing contention) completely back down to Dersh in an informal hallway setting, I realized that they were not part of any solution to this problem.

      FWIW.

      • W.Jones
        March 2, 2013, 8:25 pm

        Dear Ritzl,

        I don’t think I would donate to the police force in a segregationist state in the 1950′s just because they were an “alternative” to more discriminatory forces.

        Can you please say where you saw the video you mentioned?

        It sounds from you that it is not possible to “wall off” one’s donations from the rest of the organization.

      • ritzl
        March 2, 2013, 9:58 pm

        Thanks for making me watch it again.

        link to youtube.com!

        Hadar Susskind v. Alan Dershowitz

        Susskind (J-Street’s, at the time, VP of Policy and Strategic Planning), imo, couldn’t and didn’t stand up to Dersh (mostly toward the end). It was like Susskind didn’t want to be too disagreeable, particularly when Dersh made the accusation that “people like Norman Finklestein” support J-Street. No comeback, in fact acquiescence.

        Susskind has left J-Street since this episode (I’m sure it was embarrassing), so I don’t know if that’s a policy shift or simply a personnel replacement. I don’t get a sense of a policy shift, though. Maybe that’s just me…

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 2:34 pm

        I vaguely remember reading about J Street bringing in some kind of new director from the more AIPAC oriented sphere. There is alot of rotation, probably. Even HRW got a new director not too long ago from the AIPAC sphere. A director of HRW, in November, repeated the AIPAC-type of talking by announcing that Hamas was violating human rights by launching rockets in populated areas. All the while, Israeli drones on average kill something like 2 civilians, and the population of Gaza itself has been squeezed into a crowded area. It’s kind of like penalizing someone twice as bad because they pushed someone in prison when the prisoner is in a tiny cell.

      • W.Jones
        March 3, 2013, 3:27 pm

        Ritzl,

        In the clip you pointed to, like you said, Susskind didn’t really want to disagree. Or rather, it wasn’t even that he didn’t want to disagree, but didn’t want to show himself to have an independent mindset from Dershowitz’s.

        One can easily say: “Yes, Mr. Dershowitz, you made a good point that it’s important for people to work together, including our community. On the other hand, there are alot of people who want to have their own voice.”

        Or, “I’m glad that you understand that you see some value in having a liberal stand. That’s what we try to work on.”

        Instead, it reminds me of times when I occasionally met conservative republicans I really wanted to be friends with and when they made political statements or condemnations of things I believed in, I would express softer views of theirs.

        In any case, even if the director in the interview had spoken more strongly I don’t think I would want to donate, considering that their positions oppose Palestinians’ request for UN membership, say they are pro-Israeli but not pro-Palestinian, etc.

        One time there was a mini-scandal in a charity group I belong to, and a piece of advice I got was to donate just to select causes by name within the charity instead of giving to the charity as a whole so that the funds would not be misused. That’s why I asked whether it was possible to do selective giving when donating to it.

        To give another example, you might not want to give a donation to the Presbyterian Church if you are not Presbyterian. But their denomination has a way that you can give to specific projects, like ones that help people in certain regions of a country.

        So I wanted to see if perhaps that would be possible with JStreet. I could donate to them arranging a speaking tour for a Palestinian or a Mondoweiss staffperson, for example. But I am not even sure they would do that.

  22. hophmi
    March 2, 2013, 4:33 pm

    So when is the boycott of Saudi Arabia starting?

    • seafoid
      March 2, 2013, 5:58 pm

      Soon as the oil runs out. It is a cruel world, hoph.

    • eljay
      March 2, 2013, 6:21 pm

      >> So when is the boycott of Saudi Arabia starting?

      Whenever you get it started.

    • Donald
      March 3, 2013, 2:39 pm

      “So when is the boycott of Saudi Arabia starting?”

      Fine with me, but as others have pointed out, there’s a certain practical problem there.

      Also, you know, nobody claims Saudi Arabia is a paragon of human rights. In the case of Israel I’d settle for our politicians and pundits just discussing it honestly, without all the BS about its wonderful democratic values. My expectation of a just and fair solution to the I/P conflict is that it is pretty remote. Saudi Arabia and Israel both might become countries with good human rights records, but I’m not holding my breath.

  23. MK_Ultra
    March 2, 2013, 4:50 pm

    Liberal Zionism…hmmm…isn’t that an oxymoron?

  24. Shingo
    March 2, 2013, 5:19 pm

    Have you read the comments under Cohen’s column Annie? While few recognize your observations about Cohen’s argument, most are highly critical of his op-Ed.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 2, 2013, 8:30 pm

      no actually i have not shingo. i often have difficulty accessing comments at nyt but i will go look. thanks.

  25. IL1948
    March 3, 2013, 3:18 am

    There is a false equivalence there… It is outragous to compare the settlers to the “activist Palestinians” … A true insult and unwarranted smear to the settlers.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 5, 2013, 5:31 am

      “It is outragous to compare the settlers to the “activist Palestinians” … A true insult and unwarranted smear to the settlers.”
      I bet they, or you, wouldn’t feel insulted if compared to the Brown Shirts of yore, would you?

    • Shingo
      March 5, 2013, 7:01 am

      It is outragous to compare the settlers to the “activist Palestinians”

      True. The settlers are involved in war crimes while the Palestinian activists are legally resisting occupation.

      Huge difference.

  26. Reds
    March 3, 2013, 5:15 am

    Here’s a simple way to see present or show such “Liberal Zionist” as racist.

    When they talk about the demographic threat/s take the same comment and say replace it with blacks,jews,Latinos in the U.S.

    When they talks about no right of return for Palestinians ask them how they justify the “Right to return” for all Jews around the world? When they say Something along the lines of Israel won the war and Jews are only returning home point out that the Romans won the war so using there logic they have none.

    When they give the Gaza line how Israel withdrew the settlements as a sign of peace. Point out that those settlers instead were moved to illegal settlements in the West Bank and the # of Illegal settlers nearly doubled. Also point out after just “withdrawal” the settlers destroyed the infrastructure and are now known for “Price Tag” policy. Terrorism by any definition.

    When they scuff at the comparison of Israel/IDF/Settlers violence and give the line when ____ starts bombing themselves up. Point out the Human Rights reports of Settlers burning mosque, shooting up towns/villages or the death count and the nearly zero conviction notice.

    When they make the typical line that it was only one person and at least our(Israel) politicians don’t say ______ like the hateful/violent Palestinians point out Israeli politicians calling African immigrants “Cancer” polls showing the majority of Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against non-jews and the discriminatory laws.

    When they bring up Hamas rockets and the count. Ask how many bombs has Israel dropped during the same period. Also Note that in the late 70′s Israel actually help and supported Hamas as a way to Weaken the more Secular PLO. Also point out while the West Bank isn’t firing rockets they have less and less than they did each previous year.

    When they start quoting charters, quote the Likud Charter, or Rabbi’s like Dov Lior

    When/If Iran comes to play and the “Wipe Israel off the map” refer them to Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor acknowledged on Al Jazeera English (4/14/12) that Iranian leaders have never called for Israel to be “wiped” off the map.

    Provide links of course, most likely by now they would have loss all signs of civility and personal attacks galore(if not already) while others may not join in, others are indeed checking out those links. Highly likely most of there responses will have no links in return and if it such link is post it’s worth reviewing the author or site since it will be highly likely to be from an biased Zionist site who most likely distorted things to a unheard level.

    • dionissis mitropoulos
      March 3, 2013, 12:05 pm

      @ Reds

      “Here’s a simple way to see present or show such “Liberal Zionist” as racist.
      When they talk about the demographic threat/s take the same comment and say replace it with blacks,jews,Latinos in the U.S.”

      I think that some of us, zios, will respond that it is certain that the blacks are not going to become violently hostile to whites, if they happen to become the dominant group in terms of demographics. And that the same goes for US Latinos or Jews towards any other US group.

      • Reds
        March 3, 2013, 1:53 pm

        Oh but such White Southerners made just that claim

        “blacks were going to become violently hostile to whites” Heck it was one of the main reasoning for keeping Jim Crow.

      • Donald
        March 3, 2013, 2:34 pm

        What reds said. In fact, violent black crime, both real and imaginary, has always been part of the white racist schtick, just as Palestinian or Arab violence, cited without any reference to Israeli violence, is part of the Zionist schtick.

    • dionissis mitropoulos
      March 3, 2013, 12:19 pm

      @ Reds

      “When they make the typical line that it was only one person and at least our(Israel) politicians don’t say ______ like the hateful/violent Palestinians point out Israeli politicians calling African immigrants “Cancer”.”

      The typical zio counterargument offered as a response to your thesis is not that Israel has very few cowboys, but rather that she has far fewer cowboys than the other side.

      • Reds
        March 3, 2013, 1:56 pm

        Again,

        There’s very little restriction on arming settlers or settlers with weapons even going to far as to train such settlers and provided security. Something the “other ” side is does not get.

        Adding the supposed sheriff is on the side of the is not only protecting the first group he/she training them.

      • Reds
        March 3, 2013, 2:40 pm

        “Adding the supposed sheriff is on one side of this and is not only protecting the first group he/she training them to attack or harass the other based on some old cowboy fable.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 3, 2013, 1:35 pm

      Here’s a simple way to see present or show such “Liberal Zionist” as racist……

      ha! reds, that didn’t take long now did it.

      • Reds
        March 3, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Look at dionissis response to me. He proved my point

        “that it is certain that the blacks are not going to become violently hostile to whites, if they happen to become the dominant group in terms of demographics.”

        There’ this

        “While both nations used prohibitive laws to keep Black/Palestinians populations concentrated in certain impoverished areas, Israel effectively stripped Palestinians of their national citizenship and set up ‘Bantustans’ or independently governed homelands that Palestinians were forced to inhabit in order for the government to achieve an Jewish majority in ‘true’ “Greater Israel”. Further, in efforts to prevent Palestinians from coming to the Israeli homelands, the government enacted pass laws, which required all Palestinians to carry identification documents, and also prohibited unemployed Palestinians from entering the Jewish only cities/towns in the West Bank and Israel.”

        “While both nations used prohibitive laws to keep Black populations concentrated in certain impoverished areas, South Africa effectively stripped Blacks of their national citizenship and set up ‘Bantustans’ or independently governed homelands that Blacks were forced to inhabit in order for the government to achieve a white majority in ‘true’ South Africa. Further, in efforts to prevent Blacks from moving out of the homelands, the government enacted pass laws, which required all Blacks to carry identification documents and also prohibited unemployed Blacks from entering the main cities of South Africa.”

        link to bet.com

        Than

        Jim Crow-

        “One rationale for the systematic exclusion of black Americans from southern public society was that it was for their own protection. An early 20th-century scholar suggested that having allowed blacks in white schools would mean “constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion”, which might lead to “a morbid race consciousness”.[19] This perspective took anti-black sentiment for granted, because bigotry was widespread in the South after slavery became a racial caste”

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        “Southerners continued to use racism as a tool for re-election, scaring their constituents by claiming that “white womanhood” was endangered by the loss of states’ rights to control the blacks of the South.”

        link to pbs.org

        remix

        “Israeli Politicians continued to use racism as a tool for re-election, scaring their constituents by claiming that “Jewish security” was endangered by the loss of states’ rights to control the Palestinians of the Gaza and the West Bank.”

        “The Knesset passed two controversial bills on Wednesday- one which allows small communities in the Galilee and Negev to maintain admissions committees to screen potential new residents”

        Southern states have passed two controversial bills on Wednesday- one which allows small white communities in town _____and town___to maintain admissions committees to screen potential new residents

        “Critics of the admission committee law, which would apply to communities in the north and south with up to 400 families, have said the provisions could be used to bar weaker demographic groups, including Arabs, immigrants, same-sex couples and single-parent families, from being accepted as residents.”

        “Critics of the Southern law, which would apply to communities in the north and south with up to 400 families, have said the provisions could be used to bar weaker demographic groups, including jews, immigrants, same-sex couples and single-parent families,blacks from being accepted as residents.”

        ” but the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, along with the Abraham Fund, which promotes Jewish-Arab coexistence, and a group of Galilee residents, filed a petition yesterday with the High Court of Justice describing the law as a “license for discrimination.” ”

        but the Association for Civil Rights in American, along with the ____ Fund, which promotes Black-Whites coexistence, and a group of ____residents, filed a petition yesterday with the High Court of Justice describing the law as a “license for discrimination.”

        “MK Hanna Swaid of Hadash acknowledged the law’s explicit prohibition against ethnic or religious discrimination but said the legislation left an opening to reject candidates based on cultural characteristics.”

        Senator Thurman acknowledged the law’s explicit prohibition against ethnic or religious discrimination against Africans but said the legislation left an opening to reject candidates based on cultural characteristics.

        “The ACRI petition against the admission committee legislation said the law would legalize discrimination based on the vague standard of “compatibility with the life of the community” or “compatibility with the social texture.”

        The Civil rights group petition against the admission committee legislation said the law would legalize discrimination based on the vague standard of “compatibility with the life of the community” or “compatibility with the social texture.

  27. Reds
    March 3, 2013, 5:26 am

    “Zero Dark Zero” by Roger Cohen

    In short it’s absurd to allow Palestinians to return home because they lost the war. But it’s perfectly logical to allow Jews from around the world to return home because 3000 plus years ago they lose the war.

    It’s absurd to allow Palestinians to return home because they not Jews and therefore to be blocked because it will mess up the demographics majority. Yet isn’t this the beef Many Revisionist Zionist say for the creation of Israel because other countries didn’t let them in because they were Jewish?

    It’s absurd to allow Palestinians the right to return because the current majority might lose power and it would be a “Jewish State” yet it calls itself Liberal. Just picture if I U.S. politician said we had to many Jews, Blacks, or Latinos in america and will now start giving citizenship to White Christians while denying it for the other groups?

    My bet the likes of Cohen would fight this tooth and nail, yet these same “Liberal Zionist” see nothing wrong with allowing/promoting/accepting just that in regards to Israel.

  28. jimmy
    March 3, 2013, 2:41 pm

    boo

  29. phacepalm
    March 4, 2013, 4:35 am

    Leaving aside Cohen’s pathetic arguments and the entire article itself, isn’t it sad how he has become more and more extreme in his zionism over time? His attitude has definitely taken a turn for the worse – he used to be much more thoughtful. I guess the call of the tribe was too much even for him.

  30. jonrich111
    March 4, 2013, 7:27 pm

    For a non-crazy, more articulate, pro-peace, and tolerant Jewish advocate for the settler movement, look at Rabbi Menachem Froman (who just passed away).

    link to forward.com

    • Donald
      March 4, 2013, 11:15 pm

      I was skeptical when I clicked on your link, but that guy was interesting. I’m not sure what to think, but I’m not inclined to criticize.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 5, 2013, 7:07 am

        he is a famous person. i intercepted a bunch of videos a while back and kept following them..i think including his daughters wedding. he had a beautiful spirit and i truly believe he worked for peace. unfortunately he was a rare man, fortunately he had followers.

      • sardelapasti
        March 6, 2013, 2:20 am

        Annie – “beautiful spirit” and so on and so forth…
        What the heck, the guy was a founder of the settlements party and has these “fortunately”followers creating new illegal settlements… advocating religious dialogue, and the brotherhood of the militarily protected colonist with the colonized and spoliated, all so nicely in collaboration with Muslim Ayrabs on confiscated Palesti.. pardon Ayrab land in the shadow of the machine-guns. Dialogue, eh. Pro peace, sure, normalizing his presence. If he was that beautiful he would be back in the Bronx or Zdvyzhivka. Why are you guys censoring posts critical of such a … (I am not using profanity, these are just dots!)

        This said, I agree in part with you, i.e. I believe that he sincerely believed that he was working for “peace”, OK? Only his understanding of the word is passing bizarre.

    • Shingo
      March 5, 2013, 3:34 am

      For a non-crazy, more articulate, pro-peace, and tolerant Jewish advocate for the settler movement, look at Rabbi Menachem Froman (who just passed away).

      It’s fascinating that someone who rigorously defends segregation and Jewish supremacy holds someone who stood for co-existence in such high esteem.

    • thankgodimatheist
      March 5, 2013, 4:54 am

      “tolerant Jewish advocate for the settler movement”
      It’s like “liberal Zionist”. There’s no such a thing. A settler who is pro peace buggers off (Aussie slang for f**#k off) the stolen land he squats on post swift!

  31. W.Jones
    March 5, 2013, 11:56 pm

    One view I heard expressed at a JStreet gathering was that they do not think it is fair that the ultra-Orthodox do not have to serve in the military, but that they do not want the ultra-Orthodox serving in it either because it would make the military more extremist.

    You know what, if no one served in the military there and everyone acted like ultra-Orthodox Amish we would not have this conundrum.

Leave a Reply