Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an anti-Semite

Last night at the City University of New York, Alan Dershowitz attacked the British physicist Stephen Hawking for cancelling a visit to Israel in protest of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Dershowitz called Hawking an “ignoramus” and suggested he’s anti-Semitic, then said he is just another “lemming” being pressured by the BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) movement, which he said was gaining ground around the world.

Dershowitz made these sober utterances in his third debate with liberal Zionist Peter Beinart over whether there’s a crisis for Zionism.

It was an interesting discussion. Below are some excerpts. I’ll focus on Dershowitz’s and Beinart’s central disagreement over what is fueling the movement against the Jewish state, even inside American Jewish life–anti-Semitism or Israel’s actions. 

Dershowitz said that his job is to protect Israel. He doesn’t care what Jews do inside Jewish life; he is concerned with external threats, like Stephen Hawking:

If Jews choose to assimilate, that’s a question of free will, choice and freedom… But I defend Israel against its external enemies, external threats. My job is to protect Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, along with many other people, from external threats so that Jews can obsess about their internal problems and drive themselves crazy. I want to get back to the point where we are divided and fight among each other and have these kinds of arguments– as long as the Stephen Hawkings of the world leave us alone and don’t try and destroy us.

Dershowitz was most compelling when he deconstructed the idea of Jewish values and opposed Beinart’s call for more religious education. He sounded a lot like Israel Shahak and Yossi Gurvitz, criticizing the Jewish religion:

Peter talks about Jewish values. I don’t know what that means, Jewish values. I’m as familiar with the Torah as Peter is. I can quote from all the wonderful parts of the Torah and the wonderful parts of the Talmud. But I also understand that for every wonderful part of the Torah and the Talmud, there’s at least  one perhaps two godawful parts that also represent the worst of Jewish values….

[Peter] wants [Israel] to represent Peter’s Jewish values…. I like Peter’s Jewish values. I would much prefer that they [Israel] represent Peter’s Jewish values than Meir Kahane’s Jewish values because I like Peter’s Jewish values more than Meir Kahane’s, but I can’t tell you that Kahane’s are any less authentic.

To the red meat. Moderator Ethan Bronner of the New York Times asked the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism question. Bronner, the former Jerusalem bureau chief of The New York Times who was so often indifferent to Palestinian conditions in his reporting, is Jewish, and he ventured that “Israel is the central project of the Jewish people of the world,” the one thing that nearly every Jew has some link to.

Bronner: If that’s true, is attacking Israel’s right to exist a form of anti-Semitism?

Dershowitz: Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people. The love of the Palestinian people is largely a function of the hatred of the nation state of the Jewish people. People who don’t care about the Kurds, who don’t care about the Armenians, who don’t care about the Tibetans, who didn’t give a damn about the Cambodians, who didn’t say a word about the people of Rwanda and the people of Darfur, suddenly have discovered the Palestinian people. The deep hatred that people have of Israel– I’m not talking about criticism; I was very actively involved in the anti-apartheid movement, I remember how strongly we felt about white South Africa, it didn’t come close to the kind of hatred that many people feel today about Israel. Let me put it this way, Stephen Hawkings [sic] would not refuse to attend a conference in a country that was equally oppressing another country, say China and Tibet, or Russia and Chechnya– it’s all about the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. You cannot understand the hatred of Israel if you eliminate the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Is that anti-Semitism? You know– you name it, I’m describing it.

Dershowitz acknowledged that supporting Israel has become an embarrassment because of the shift in attitude on campus and in Europe, toward what he described as politically-correct anti-Semitism. This also explains Stephen Hawking’s defection.

Dershowitz: In 1967 Jews were able to beat their chest and say wow we’re proud to be Israel, look how tough Israelis are. It was a source of pride. Today it’s a source of embarrassment.

Bronner: Because of the occupation.

No. Because of their friends, because of Stephen Hawking. Because of the Brits. No, it’s not about the occupation. If the occupation ended tomorrow, you would find the same… He [Hawking] accepted the invitation two months ago. What happened– did the Israelis start the occupation in the last two months? He got a lot of pressure in 2 months. What we’re seeing is, Today if you go to dinner at a university dinner, and you speak up on behalf of Israel, in favor of Israel, it is an embarrassment. It is not an embarrassment because of what Israel is doing but because of what Israel is. And the BDS movement is growing and the BDS movement does not talk about the occupation. The occupation BDS talks about is the occupation of 1948, the occupation from the ocean to the sea. [sic]

Beinart took sharp issue with that analysis. He said that what is driving world opinion and many young Jews away from support for Israel is the condition of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Beinart: It’s definitely true that there are a lot of people who don’t want Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and there are many important people in the BDS movement who take that view. But if you don’t believe that their efforts are being fueled by people’s anger at what happens in the West Bank and Gaza, you’re just not connected to reality. And this is the problem with the Jewish community. We go to Israel all the time, and it’s wonderful. But where we don’t go– on Birthright, our synagogue trips– we don’t go to experience Palestinian life in the West Bank. And as a result, we are disproportionately ignorant. It’s actually the non-Jews who go and see those things. And when you go and see those things– I was there last week. Believe me, there’s an Israeli flag on my kid’s wall, I love Israel. It is deeply, deeply upsetting and deeply angering to see the way that people are forced to live because they lack [unintelligible]. It is that anger which is leading to the BDS anti-Zionists getting more and more support, and leading to those Jewish kids hearing from their friends…

Dershowitz: They’ve never seen the West Bank. They are just being politically correct. They are being lemmings, who are being led the way the ignoramus Stephen Hawking who doesn’t know anything about the Middle East was led, by pressure from his fellow academics. That’s what it’s about today. It’s an embarrassment.

Beinart and Dershowitz argued about how democratic Israel is. Dershowitz expressed some indifference about the matter. “Israel’s soul will take care of itself, so long as [its] body is kept intact,” he said, then quoted Scripture to make the point that he wants Israel to survive and be stronger than all its neighbors, more than he wants it to have peace. 

Beinart: The message of [the Israeli documentary] The Gatekeepers is precisely that Israel’s ethical character and its physical security are intertwined. This was the bet that Israel’s founders made when they yoked Zionism to democracy, that ultimately if Israel surrendered its democratic character it would not be able to survive physically. Because in today’s age, any nondemocratic government is living on borrowed time. Any nondemocratic government has a huge legitimacy problem in today’s world, and that’s why you can’t distinguish so easily Israel’s democratic survival and its physical survival.

Dershowitz: I don’t disagree with that, but… the worst case scenario Israel is still among the top 5 or 10 percent of the countries in the world in terms of democratic values–

Beinart: Not on the West Bank–

Dershowitz: in terms of the judiciary, in terms of the rule of law, in terms of equality of women, equality of  gays.  Israel’s soul is not in grave turmoil today.

Beinart: Alan– Alan– Alan– have you been to–

Dershowitz: It could improve. It could get matter. Israel on the West Bank, the worst case scenario, Israel on the West Bank is more democratic than any Arab or Muslim state in the world today. And there is more democracy on the West Bank, more freedom of speech, more freedom to criticize, more freedom to get an education. I think Israel on the West Bank is a three or four on a scale of ten.

Beinart: You need to spend more time there.

Dershowitz: I spend a lot of time there.

Beinart. Go to Shuhada street [in Hebron], where Palestinians are literally not allowed to walk on that street even if they live on that street and tell me that Israel’s soul in Hebron is doing well.

Dershowitz. You don’t look at one place–

Beinart said that Palestinians’ inability to vote for the government that is determining their lives is the reason there is a global campaign to delegitimize Israel. If those Palestinians did have the vote, there would have been a “radically different outcome” in the last Israel election.

Dershowitz challenged Beinart: But Israelis chose that government, and it supports the occupation; what would you do to overrule them, impeach Netanyahu?

Beinart: We stand up as Americans and say this is bad for American national security. And we stand up as Jews and say that Our honor is on the line in the question of how Jews use power…. That’s what we do.

An excellent speech. Beinart concluded by addressing the power of the Israel lobby.

Beinart: Look Israel is not going to– the United States is Israel’s only important strategic partner in the world. If the U.S. president said that the relationship with the United States is going to change if you don’t support the ’67 parameters, believe me, the Israeli government would fall.

Dershowitz responded with Bill Kristol’s warning to another liberal Zionist on the Upper West Side a year or so back: he warned Beinart against sitting in comfort in New York and telling the Israelis how to behave.

Beinart: We have a right to decide what is best for the United States. I believe that America must always support Israel’s security interest… But we as Americans and Jews do not have to fund and support the settlement enterprise that is destroying Israel’s democratic character…. We can have a president who said that very loudly…

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. Sumud says:

    I wish for Dershowitz a long, long, long life.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      So you curse the rest of us?

      • Sumud says:

        Not at all Woody ~ I want Dershowitz to be alive when Israel fades to black, as is now inevitable. I want him to understand that he has been a major contributor to Israel “winning” it’s way to oblivion.

        I want Dershowitz to fall to his knees and beg his god for forgiveness.

        You reap what you sow.

  2. Woody Tanaka says:

    How convenient it is for Dershowitz that he can blame criticism of the country to which he places his primary allegiance to the critic’s bigotry. It excuses him from having to actually think and to do any mature self-reflection. Rather, he gets to engage in the infantile self-obsession which is at the heart of the psyche of zionists and defenders of the regime of Jewish Apartheid.

    Further, falsely calling someone an antisemite, as Dershowitz called Hawking, is as bad as actually being an antisemite, in my opinion.

    • Woody- You’re entitled to your opinion, but what you’re saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad. (no offense meant to the wolf)

      • Donald says:

        “You’re entitled to your opinion, but what you’re saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad.”

        Actually, no. He’s saying, I think, that people who make false accusations of anti-semitism are usually doing it to discredit critics of Israeli racism. And it is racist, because it means that nobody can defend Palestinian rights without coming under suspicion of being an anti-semite. The implication is that Palestinian rights simply don’t matter and therefore if someone claims they do, they can only be motivated by hatred of Jews.

      • tree says:

        Dershowitz isn’t just “crying wolf”. He is making negative stereotypes about non-Jews –i.e. that criticism of Israel by gentiles is ipso facto anti-semitism. That’s bigotry on Dersh’s part. Bigotry that conveniently allows Dersh to ignore the validity of the criticism.

      • American says:

        yona friedman says:
        May 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm

        Woody- You’re entitled to your opinion, but what you’re saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad.>>>>>

        No. The zios are the wolf crying wolf….they are both the wolf and the cryer.
        Another version of their ‘ shoot and cry routine.’

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Woody- You’re entitled to your opinion, but what you’re saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad. (no offense meant to the wolf)”

        No, it isn’t. If it were, I would have said so. What I’m saying is that falsely calling someone an antisemite is being a wolf as much as being an antisemite is being a wolf. Falsely calling someone an antisemite is not an act of warning, akin to crying wolf, it is an action of attack, no less than hating someone because of their heritage. (Your position might be true for someone who mistakenly calls someone an antisemite. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about someone who calling someone an antisemite while knowing that they are not, such as Dershbag did to Professor Hawking here.)

      • Joe Ed says:

        It is a matter of the wolf crying wolf

    • Bumblebye says:

      Hawking was also responding to the over 20 academics who lobbied him – including Chomsky:
      link to guardian.co.uk

      “Chomsky, a US professor and well-known supporter of the Palestinian cause, joined British academics from the universities of Cambridge, London, Leeds, Southampton, Warwick, Newcastle, York and the Open University to tell Hawking they were “surprised and deeply disappointed” that he had accepted the invitation to speak at next month’s presidential conference in Jerusalem, which will chaired by Shimon Peres and attended by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.”

      I don’t want to know what Dersh has to say about Chomsky!

      • Bumblebye says:

        Also from the Guardian/Chomsky link above – this could be *really* significant, Phil -

        “News of Chomsky’s role in what has been considered the coup of Hawking’s decision for the movement came amid growing signs in UK academia of interest in supporting boycotts of Israel. At its annual congress beginning on 29 May, the University and College Union will urge its 120,000 members to consider rethinking links with Israeli academic institutions. Teachers and lecturers will be asked to “consider the appropriateness of Israeli institutional associations”, according to a draft motion.

        “It is brave of Hawking for the straightforward reason that someone who has his prominence will be targeted for vilification,” said Tom Hickey, a member of the UCU’s executive committee who put forward the draft motion. “If he can do that then all of us should think of doing it. This isn’t about targeting Israeli scholars but targeting the institutions.”"

    • yesspam says:

      Further, falsely calling someone an antisemite, as Dershowitz called Hawking, is as bad as actually being an antisemite, in my opinion. We really should agree, and then cosistently use and defend a word to describe this activity. Something like an ‘A-S abuser’ or ‘A – S accuser abuser.’ I know that there are better terms, but let us agree on one.

  3. RomanHans says:

    I know zero about Israel, because in terms of relevance to my life it’s right up there with string cheese shuffleboard. However, I know an asshole when I see one, and Mr. Dershowitz might as well wear a name tag. “I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people,” he says. It upsets me that a man so allegedly concerned with human rights thinks they’re a prize to be awarded. If nobody cares about Palestinians, should we just round them up and shoot them? Should we take a vote American Idol-style?

    Another tipoff? He says “My job is to protect Israel.” Not FIX Israel, not HELP Israel, but to PROTECT Israel. Huge difference, since unlike the other words it requires self-imposed blindness.

    But the absolute nadir? Mr. Dershowitz wants the “Stephen Hawkings of the world [to] leave us alone and don’t try and destroy us.” You know, if an 70-year-old man in a wheelchair poses such a huge threat to you, I’m thinking you’d shit your pants if you met my grandma. Plus, you know, Mr. Hawkings just CANCELLED A VISIT. If this is going to destroy Israel I’m pretty sure they weren’t on a solid foundation to begin with.

  4. Betsy says:

    Dershowitz: Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people.

    Who is Dershowitz to tell other people who they do & don’t care about? He sounds insane. But, beyond that, this is a deeply condescending, inaccurate, and aggressive view of much of the world — and an extraordinarily heartless & dehumanizing view of the Palestinians.

    What a strange choice of someone to put on a supposedly serious public panel…

    • Betsy says:

      here are photos of Palestinians & the Nakba (that would make anyone with a human heart, care) link to jamalkanj.com

    • yrn says:

      Who is Dershowitz to tell other people who they do & don’t….

      And who are ALL of you here, that tell Israelis and Palestinians what’s good for them….

      • Sumud says:

        And who are ALL of you here, that tell Israelis and Palestinians what’s good for them….

        When Israel is consigned to the pages of history, no Israeli or zionist is going to be able to claim:
        – we never knew what Israel really had done to Palestinians
        – we never understood that making 2 states impossible made 1 state inevitable, and that meant the end of Israel
        – we thought US power could always protect Israel from itself.

        No, no and no. Israel is a country like any other that will thrive or fail (or something in between) based on it’s merits and behaviour.

        As for Palestinians you might not have noticed but they are leading BDS, and those who advocate follow their lead. Palestinians know what is good for them and are rational actors.

      • talknic says:

        yrn ” who are ALL of you here, that tell Israelis and Palestinians what’s good for them”

        Members of the human race, the majority of whom thru UN/UNSC representatives, hold Israel in breach of International Law (binding), the UN Charter (binding), relevant conventions (binding) and numerous resolutions reminding Israel of what is binding on all states.

        On the other hand, you’re supportive of a state in breach of International Laws, the UN Charter and relative conventions adopted in large part because of the treatment of Jews by the %^&*&^% Nazis. Bravo!!!

      • Ron Edwards says:

        Many of us here, including me, are the ones who are financing the atrocities and seeing our government play diplomatic fullback to protect the perpetrators. For both of those: a lot.

        Therefore we are not interfering. We are not meddling. We are not doing any other synonym for that. This *is,* in fact, our business – this is the American “we” speaking.

        Pro-Israel ideologues pull the whole sovereignty thing and our-business thing as one-half of their cute waltz between (i) utter rogue state and (ii) nice little client state. Whereas Israel owes its current privileged status wholly to the U.S. ennabling factors.

        So … who are we to tell Israelis anything? Fill in the blanks yourself.

        (The Palestinian part of your question has been ably answered by others. Nice of you, by the way, to acknowledge that there are, in fact, Palestinians.)

  5. Krauss says:

    I look at these two fossils and can not help anything but a slight sigh.
    They are debating the world as the world is devouring their understanding of it.

  6. HarryLaw says:

    Dershowitz @ “My job is to protect Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people,” Can I ask the professor where the borders of this Nation state are? And do they include Judea and Samaria as most governments of Israel assert, and whose decisions on these matters he is so willing to defend, if sovereignty is claimed over all this territory, and as Beinart explained to Dershowitz the Palestinians have no vote, then that would be apartheid, this is important since later in the debate on how democratic Israel was, he was indifferent, only caring whether Israel was stronger than all it’s neighbors, and that this was more important than to have peace, Dershowitz is just a blinkered Zionist whose opinions will lead his favored border less Nation state into endless war and eventual oblivion.

  7. Ramzi Jaber says:

    All I can say to Dershowitz and his ilk is this: stop your racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic rants against Palestinians. They are taking you nowhere. When you speak such things, it only reinforces your insecurity and stupidity since you know what’s the road ahead gonna lead to and you have nmo logical argument to defend yourself and your stand.

    We Palestinian Christians and Moslems (and most of our supported I would add) have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against Jews or Judaism. Nothing. Nothing at all. On the contrary, we were living in peaceful coexistence with Jews in Palestine before the zionist rape of our land.

    Our fight is with zionism, colonialism, and occupation. End it now and peace, democracy, security, and prosperity will prevail. 1S1P1V.

    • yrn says:

      Our fight is with zionism, colonialism, and occupation. End it now and peace…..

      What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……
      Who do you think you are fooling.

      • Sumud says:

        What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……

        For someone lecturing another below about ‘History’ you sure seem to have a flimsy understanding of it, if you can’t work out what possible grievances Palestinians might have from before 1967.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……”

        No, before 1967 there were the aforementioned evils of zionism and colonialism. Destroy those evils and peace is possible.

      • Shingo says:

        What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……

        It was occupation before 1967 and the aftermath of 800,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed

      • talknic says:

        yrn “What was before the occupation in 1967″

        According to the Israeli Government occupation from at least 22nd May 1948 and 12 Aug 1948 link to wp.me

        • talknic says:

          @yrn “What was before the occupation in 1967″

          It really must be embarrassing to have only looked at flimsy, propaganda laden narrative only to find you’ve been duped.

      • Talkback says:

        yrn says: “What was before the occupation in 1967, peace and nirvana……”

        Besides the ongoing Nakba: Nonjewish citizens of Israel living under the same military law and permit system that Apartheid Israel has exportet beyond the green line after 1967.

    • have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against Jews or Judaism.

      reminds me of article by Maysoon Zayid i read the other day …
      No, Most Palestinians Aren’t Anti-Semites. i rec link to thedailybeast.com

    • yrn says:

      Ramzi Jaber writes
      “we were living in peaceful coexistence with Jews in Palestine ”

      In April 1920, Amin al-Husseini and other Arab leaders organised the 1920 Jerusalem riots where 10 people were killed and 250 others wounded. Several women were raped and two synagogues fired. Jews were particularly shocked by these events and viewed the events as a pogrom.[81] Next year, on April 1921, Arabs of Jaffa attacked Jews in the city, particularly around the Red House whose inhabitants were massacred. 95 people were killed and 219 injured.
      Religious tension over Western Wall, an international economic crisis and nationalist tension over Zionist immigration led to the 1929 Palestine riots. In these religious-nationalist riots Jews were massacred in Hebron killing of sixty-seven Jews and the survivors were expelled from the town. Devastation also took place in Safed and Jerusalem.

      Well what can I tell you real peaceful coexistence with Jews.

      We heard people like you before………………..

      • Ramzi Jaber says:

        yrn, the biggest fools are those who fools themselves. That’s what zionists are doing. YES, Christians, Moslems, and Jews were living peacefully until zionism started and zionists began plotting and stealing. I know the stories told to me by my family. Probably your ancestors were living in Europe at that time and all you and they know are the hagganah and stern lies…

        Go check your history and see when herzl started that bigoted racist movement. The truth is clearly inconvenient to you.

        • yrn says:

          Ramzi Jaber

          Your problem with me is that I am 9 Generation in Israel.
          So your stories are made up, lets see some Evidence.
          fool someone else with your stories
          I checked my History’as what I wrote is My History.
          [..... ]
          You can fool those here, but your problem is that there are others who read your stories.
          So before you call some one a Liar, think carefully, as I did not call you names as you always do,
          I just gave facts.
          You gave your routine propaganda.

        • eljay says:

          >> Your problem with me is that I am 9 Generation in Israel.

          Your problem with reality is that Israel hasn’t been around for nine generations. So perhaps you are nine generations in Palestine. In which case, your goal should be to fight for justice for yourself, your family and all your fellow Palestinians, and not for an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

          Since you scorn the former and advocate for the latter, you are just another hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist.

        • Ramzi Jaber says:

          yrn, let’s see. 9 generations back. At that time, there were about 1-2 thousand Jews in Palestine.

          If you are truly one of them, then YOU ARE A PALESTINIAN JEW!!! You are my COMPATRIOT. You are CERTAINLY NOT ISRAELI.

          There was no Israel then. That’s a fact. Check it out yrn and be PROUD TO BE PALESTINIAN. Stand shoulder to shoulder with me and your Palestinian brothers and sisters and join the non-violent fight to gain our freedom, and our civil and human rights. Together we can, 1S1P1V.

          WELCOME TO PALESTINE, your country yrn!!

        • yrn says:

          Ramzi Jaber

          Read some of your comments.
          I love the integrity and your way of thinking.
          Fool of stories from your Mom and Dad, no evidence

          “we will push the criminal zionist occupation back to the 1967 line with this comprehensive and sustained approach. I bet it will not take more than 3 months to accomplish…. Time to go to work and liberate the occupied State of Palestine!”

          But then there is another version, if the public does not like the first one !!!!

          “We will no longer ask for any land back from israel. We will no longer ask for settlements to stop. We will no longer bother with the US. We will no longer beg for our rights.”

          And here comes the real Ramzi…….
          So at the end you speak up, you are for war……. and you want the balance to change so you will have the power….. so what are you talking about peace…..

          “So we are doomed to continued war (and an upcoming third intifida that may have just gotten ignited in Al Khalil) until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 or so. Palestinians, if anything, are a very patient people!!!!!!!!”

          And Now about your religion Idea’s.
          We Jews are not the Jews of then……

          “What is surprising to me is the lack of realization that the Jews of then are in fact the Christians of today; the Jews of then are NOT the Jews of today”

          “Also note that Christians and Moslems and Jews are RELIGIONS that descended from the ARABS, with Arabs being one of the largest Semitic tribes who claim Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail (Ishmael) as their ancestors.”

        • Hostage says:

          I just gave facts. You gave your routine propaganda.

          No, you recited the usual shopworn hasbara talking points. They represented an extreme distortion of the events in Palestine when they were first deployed by Zionist propagandists.

          Jabotinsky revealed the true situation regrading “The Iron Wall” of bayonets and dissimulation that facilitated the Zionist supremacist plan to dispossess the Palestinians. You idiots got off the boat itching for a war with the Arabs and demanding “the establishment of a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

        • talknic says:

          yrn “I am 9 Generation in Israel”

          Israel came into existence 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) = 65yrs

          9 generations in 65 years = 7.2 years per generation

          ‘fool someone else with your stories’

        • Good job, Ramzi.

        • MRW says:

          So your stories are made up, lets see some Evidence.

          Read Hostage’s archives here.

        • Ramzi Jaber says:

          Philip, thank you for your support.

        • yrn says:

          Philip

          “Good job, Ramzi.” of what
          What did he say, read his comments.
          He dose not want any solution, he just gives all the reason why not.
          He has no evidence only stories.

          So what’s his good job.
          for saying, I want peace, but I don’t want any solution.

          You are a joke

        • eljay says:

          >> You are a joke

          The real joke is the person who denounces those who advocate for peace, justice and morality while, in return, offering only hatefulness, immorality and supremacism.

          Actually, that’s not a joke, that’s disgusting. And that – in a nutshell – is Zio-supremacism.

        • yrn says:

          eljay

          Read carefully what your Ramzi writes
          ““So we are doomed to continued war (and an upcoming third intifida that may have just gotten ignited in Al Khalil) until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 or so. Palestinians, if anything, are a very patient people!!!!!!!!”

          This is your peacefull advocate……
          Plays arround with words but at the end gives his real nerrative.
          He wants war until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050……..

          If this is your solution for peace.
          Well advise it to someone else.
          This is not the persons who wants peace .

        • Shingo says:

          So we are doomed to continued war

          Doomed because Israel’s answer to any resistance is war.

          He wants war until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050……..

          Compared to the Zionist approach which is simply ethnic cleansing and massacres.

        • eljay says:

          >> eljay
          >> Read carefully what your Ramzi writes

          yrneee:
          1. Ramzi is not mine.
          2. Read carefully what you write. You referred to Phil as a joke. Phil advocates for peace, justice and morality. By contrast, you – a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist – advocate for hatefulness, immorality and supremacism. You are the joke…and a bad one at that.

        • talknic says:

          @ yrn says:

          Read carefully what your Ramzi writes
          “So we are doomed to continued war (and an upcoming third intifida that may have just gotten ignited in Al Khalil) until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 or so. Palestinians, if anything, are a very patient people!!!!!!!!” “

          “He wants war until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 .. ” …. “Plays arround with words but at the end gives his real nerrative.”

          Uh? You said read carefully. He wrote an observation. Your twisted little strawman ain’t gonna turn it into “He wants war “. It’s a tired olde tactic Pajero.

        • yrn says:

          eljay

          Before you jump read.
          I mentioned that “Philip Munger” is a joke……. and not PHIL, but as usual you want to read, or for you all of you here are the same.
          I never mentioned that I am “doomed to continued war” as Ramzi Jaber the one you defend so much writes .
          I mentioned clear that I want PEACE and JUSTICE.
          But I have to make peace with Ramzi Jaber and not with you, so read what he writes again and CAREFULLY.
          “So we are doomed to continued war (and an upcoming third intifida that may have just gotten ignited in Al Khalil) until the demographics balance between the river and the sea changes by 2050 or so.”

          Would you make peace with someone that tells you clearly that he wants war and waits that the demographic will change even if it will take 40 years.

          Lets hear your answer.

      • tree says:

        yrn, if your family has been in Palestine for 9 generations, and you claim that there was no peaceful coexistence among religions before the Zionist came, why do you only cite instances of riots that happened after Zionism, after the Balfour Declaration, after the Zionist institution of “conquest of labor”, after decades of Zionist expulsion of Palestinian tenant farmers from their lands? And why do you quote from Wikipedia that “10 people were killed” and not mention that at least 4 of those killed were Arab non-Jews? And that 39 Jews were among the 200 arrested for participating in hostilities after the violence erupted?

        Here is the King Crane Commission Report recommendations on the situation in Palestine in 1919:

        E. We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish state.

        (1) The Commissioner began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favour, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

        (2) The Commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist programme by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. They found much to approve in the aspirations and plans of the Zionists, and had warm appreciation for the devotion of many of the colonists, and for their success, by modern methods, in overcoming great natural obstacles.

        (3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase. In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great “ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting”: “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.” If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law. It is to be noted also that the feeling against the Zionist programme is not confined to Palestine, but shared very generally by the people throughout Syria, as our conferences clearly showed. More than seventy-two percent-1.350 in all the petitions in the whole of Syria were directed against the Zionist programme. Only two requests–those for a united Syria and for independence had a larger support. This general feeling was duly voiced by the General Syrian Congress in the seventh, eighth and tenth resolutions of the statement.

        The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the programme. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions requiring armies to carry out are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of serious injustices. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

        There is a further consideration that cannot justly be ignored, if the world is to look forward to Palestine becoming a definitely-Jewish State, however gradually that may take place. That consideration grows out the fact that Palestine is the Holy Land for Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike. Millions of Christians and Moslems all over the world are quite as much concerned as the Jews with conditions in Palestine, especially with those conditions which touch upon religious feeling and rights. The relations in these matters in Palestine are most delicate and difficult. With the best possible intentions, it may be doubted whether the Jews could possibly seem to either Christians or Moslems proper guardians of the holy places, or custodians of the Holy Land as a whole.

        The reason is this: The places which are most sacred to Christians those having to do with Jesus-and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them. It is simply impossible, under those circumstances, for Moslems and Christians to feel satisfied to have these places in Jewish hands, or under the custody of Jews. There are still other places about which Moslems must have the same feeling. In fact, from this point of view, the Moslems, just because the sacred places of all three religions are, sacred to them, have made very naturally much more satisfactory custodians of the holy places than the Jews could be. It must be believed that the precise meaning in this respect of the complete Jewish occupation of Palestine has not been fully sensed by those who urge the extreme Zionist programme. For it would intensify, with a certainty like fate; the anti-Jewish feeling both in Palestine and in all other portions of the world which look to Palestine as the Holy Land.
        In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist programme be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.

        There would then be no reason why Palestine could not be included in a united Syrian State, just as other portions of the country, the holy places being cared for by an international and inter-religious commission, somewhat as at present under the oversight and approval of the Mandatory and of the League of Nations. The Jews, of course, would have representation upon this Commission.

        link to hri.org

        Current Zionist difficulty with understanding how others could react negatively to the loss of their own sovereignty and civil and political rights only points to the racism inherent within Zionism.

      • Shingo says:

        In April 1920, Amin al-Husseini and other Arab leaders organised the 1920 Jerusalem riots

        Debunked. It has since been revealed that Husseini called for calm and that the letter attributed to him inciting the riots was likely a forgery

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “In April 1920,”

        1920 was already many years into the zionist invasion of Palestine. If they caused problems, the zionists are to blame. They had no business being there, and they get the blame for the problems their presence in the Palestinians’ land caused.

      • talknic says:

        yrn

        “In April 1920 ….. April 1921″

        Both long after the Zionist Federation colonization of Palestine began.

      • RoHa says:

        “In April 1920, Amin al-Husseini and other Arab leaders organised the 1920 Jerusalem riots”

        By 1920 it was clear that the immigrant Jews were intending to create a state in which Arabs would be either expelled or kept in subjection.

      • Talkback says:

        yrn: “Well what can I tell you real peaceful coexistence with Jews.”

        Conclusions from the Palin Report after these riots:
        “69. The following are the considered opinions submitted by the Court:

        1. That the causes of the alienation and exasperation of the feelings of the population of Palestine are:-

        (a) Disappointment at the non-fulfilment of promises made to them by British propaganda.
        (b) Inability to reconcile the Allies’ declared policy of self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, giving rise to a sense of betrayal and intense anxiety for their future.
        (c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
        (d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
        (e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
        (f) Anti-British and anti-Zionist propaganda working on the population already inflamed by the sources of irritation aforesaid.

        2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis.”
        link to en.wikisource.org

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Well what can I tell you real peaceful coexistence with Jews.”

        The Jews who were invading Palestine had no intention of “peaceful coexistence” with the Palestinians, but intended to establish a Jewish homeland in a non-Jewish land, Palestine, and destroy the existing Palestinian society and genociding or ethnically cleansing the native Palestinian population. Those people are wholly responsible for any reaction which they instigated by their schemes.

      • yesspam says:

        People like this are easily exposed for their one sided condemnation of violence. Just ask them if they agree that the Lehi and Irgun were terror groups. Just ask them to list the apologetics for the Dier Yassin massacre, the Nakba, and the King David Hotel bombing.

      • yesspam says:

        [81] (sic ). Don’t you just love it when the cut and pasters can’t even be bothered to remove the footnote number?

      • Joe Ed says:

        See if you can find Arab vs. Jewish problems prior to the advent of Zionism.

    • Ramzi- Palestinian opposition to Jewish immigration was based upon other factors besides the Jewish will to obtain sovereignty. Palestinians got along well with the self deprecating Jews of Meah Shearim, but when the Jews arrived and said we want to move here in large numbers, even if their intention had been “honorable” (non sovereignty oriented) , the effect of a mass immigration would have changed Palestinian nonJewish lives. So to say, we were at peace with the Jews when they were 3% of the population and dependent on charity from overseas and presented no economic or political challenge, is really a weak statement when in fact, a Jewish population of 30% that would present an economic and political challenge was opposed by the Palestinian people. (Just like Arizona opposed immigration, Palestinians have a right to oppose immigration. But let us not pretend that coexistence with an impoverished group of 3% is the same thing as coexisting with a powerful group of 30% or 50%.)

      • tree says:

        While we are at it, let’s not pretend that individual Mexican immigration to Arizona or elsewhere in the US, is the same as organized Jewish immigration to Palestine, which had the clearly stated goal of dispossessing the native population and subjugating them to Jewish rule and oppression.

      • Ramzi Jaber says:

        Not quite my good friend yonah. If only the additional Jews who “arrived… with honorable intentions” in Palestine have coordinated with the indigenous Palestinian population and nicely requested refuge due to Nazi persecution. They did not. Instead, the zionist jews had a colonialist agenda. A very hostile one as captured by:

        A LAND WITH NO PEOPLE FOR A PEOPLE WITH NO LAND.

        They wanted to take something that is not theirs. They knew it so they spent 50 years “convincing” the powers that be through dubious methods to allow them to migrate to Palestine. The criminal, genocidal, and anti-semitic crimes of Hitler provided the perfect opportunity.

        So this was clearly a belligerent and hostile act with the SOLE intention of stealing someone else’s land. Their intentions were anything but “honorable”. It was colonialist and racist and criminal from its inception. Read what Ben Gurion, Sharon, Begin, Meir, Dayan, Shetreet, and many others said about this and you’ll see how wrong the zionists KNEW what they were doing.

        On another point, thank you yonah for admitting that my land is not for israel as you eloquently state “when the Jews ARRIVED and said we WANT TO MOVE HERE in large numbers”. NO regard or respect to the existing and rightful owners.

        • Palestinian opposition may possibly have been based on the terrorism carried out against them by the Jewish gangs, not to mention theft and looting of their properties and land, don’cha think yonah? Arizona?? No comparison at all, unless you think that the racism against Mexicans was initiated by the Mexicans killing and looting Arizonans and their property, which I don’t seem to recall.

      • Shingo says:

        but when the Jews arrived and said we want to move here in large numbers, even if their intention had been “honorable” (non sovereignty oriented) , the effect of a mass immigration would have changed Palestinian nonJewish lives

        Isn’t that the same excuse the Israelis are citing for rejecting ROR of Palestinians?

        Gotta love your hypocrisy.

      • peeesss says:

        The problem was that Palestinians realized , belatedly, that the Zionist project was to turn that 3% to 30% to 50% eventually to 100% Jewish only Palestine . Before Zionism and Zionists intruded into the Palestinian discourse, Muslims , Christians and Jews did live in peace and tranquillity as PALESTINIANS. The intention of some Jewish immigrants might have been “honorable”. But the mass migration of Jews to Palestine in the 1920′s , 30′s and 40′s was pushed and funded by the leaders and followers of the Zionist project which was to attain complete “sovereignty” in “Eretz Israel”., i.e Palestine. Would any Nation /State/People not object to a people from all over the world coming to their shores and openly profess the desire to turn their land into the ” State of and for the Jewish ” people in which the native Chritians and Muslims would be “spirited ” across the land into the neighboring Arab States. To conveniently forget the Zionist imperative in the mass immigration of Jews to Palestine shows one’s ignorance or dishonesty.

  8. pabelmont says:

    “[Peter] wants [Israel] to represent Peter’s Jewish values…. I like Peter’s Jewish values. I would much prefer that they [Israel] represent Peter’s Jewish values than Meir Kahane’s Jewish values because I like Peter’s Jewish values more than Meir Kahane’s, but I can’t tell you that Kahane’s are any less authentic.”

    This is indeed close to the admission that there are some VERY SICK Jewish values, which are authentic, and which would justify anti-Semitism. Kahane was a gangster, and thereby embodied authentic Jewish values. Nuff said.

    Except to add that Israel’s governments have for many years also been gangsters and TheDersh ™ wants to protect Israel, its bad acts obviously included. As a lawyer, he might (possibly) have not wished to protect (non-client) Jewish gangsters operating in violation of USA’s laws — but seems quite content to protect Israel while it manifestly operates in gross violation of human rights law, laws of war, etc.

    What a complex human being! Wow! Complex! Many sided! Maybe even Renaissance! Even Machiavellian! Wow!

  9. gingershot says:

    Dershowitz himself is therefore a racist bigoted hypocrite, for not calling Netanyahu out for barring Rivka Feldhay from a conference last December because Feldhay signed a petition in 2008 that supported Israeli soldiers who refused to serve in Palestinian territories

    Can Dershowitz even remember things that happened 6 months ago these days? It’s pretty doubtful

    ‘Israeli academic banned from German conference by Netanyahu’

    Rivka Feldhay barred from scientists’ meeting because of her criticism of the Israeli government

    link to guardian.co.uk

    Can I be president of Harvard Law now, please? Ridiculous…

    Dersch throws up anything on the wall he thinks might stick. That ain’t a sign of brilliance more than a sign of what a sloppy slobbering tribal sociopath he is

    • Nevada Ned says:

      Thanks very much for the link to the Guardian story.

      Last December, Israel was threatened by an Israeli academic who had signed a petition (back in 2008) supporting Israeli draft resisters, and they banned her from a science conference in Germany .

      Now Israel is threatened by a British academic, Stephen Hawking, who is boycotting a conference in Israel.

      Such a lot of existential threats!!

  10. Bumblebye says:

    “My job is to protect Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, along with many other people, from external threats so that Jews can obsess about their internal problems and drive themselves crazy. I want to get back to the point where we are divided and fight among each other and have these kinds of arguments– as long as the Stephen Hawkings of the world leave us alone and don’t try and destroy us.”

    So Dersh is a self-appointed warrior for Israel, wielding his mighty sharp tongue in its defence! Wot a weapon. And all so that other Jews – Israeli and not – can navel gaze and argue amongst themselves, and themselves alone as no one else is qualified to participate.

    “I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people. ”

    Oh, and sod the Palestinian victims, they are an irrelevant nuisance and should shut up already! I mean, who cares? they’re not Jews, and they’re in the way.

  11. Great reporting, Phil. Excellent discussion. Beinart gets all my applause. How did the crowd split?

    • eGuard says:

      Applause for Beinart? Only when compared to Dershowitz. Don’t forget he’s a Zionist. And a bad one.

      Today Beinart says this: We have a right to decide what is best for the United States. That is not what he said earlier.

      A year ago, speaking on the 2012 Presidential Conference (the same conference Hawking now withdrew from; Beinart is not invited this year), Beinart said this in his opening lines: link to presidentconf.org.il

      “What does diaspora Jewry expect from Israel?” is the wrong question. I think we in the diaspora have the right to give our opinions about Israeli policy, but I don’t think we have the right to expect that Israeli leaders should make their decisions about Israeli policy based on what is good for us [diaspora Jews]. Take, hypothetical situation, let’s say Israel were to attack Iran. You can imagine a situation in which Iran retaliated against US troops in Afghanistan, oil prices spike, the US went into recession, and it lead to an increase in anti-Semitism in the United States. So perhaps it would not be so good for the Jews in America. But I don’t think we would have the right to say to Israeli leaders that therefor Israeli leaders should put our [US Jews?] interests ahead of what they perceive to be the interest of the state of Israel.

      In other words: First he does not want diaspora Jews to defend their homeland (e.g., US) interests vs. Israel. Then he advocates Israel to put its Israeli interest above US interests (not just US Jews’ interests). Attacks on US troops in Afghanistan, high oil prices and a recession don’t matter? He is an Israel firster.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Applause for Beinart? Only when compared to Dershowitz. Don’t forget he’s a Zionist. And a bad one.”

        Very true. Never forget that he claims to be a “liberal zionist” (as if such a thing were possible) but it’s a lie. He stated he would jettison his supposed principles of liberalism if necessary for israel. He’s not to be trusted to do the right or liberal thing any more than ANY zionist can be trusted.

      • pabelmont says:

        Apart from applause for Beinart (or not), if he really said that Israel need not be concerned with what’s good for USA’s Jews (and other Jews), then he’s set up a delicious non-symmetry: the members of the Jewish People ™ (I don’t believe there is such a thing, but these guys seem to) have a duty, each of them, providing they live outside Israel, to protect each other. That is why American Jews are so desperately concerned to protect Israeli Jews. However, according to Beinart, Israeli Jews do not have a corresponding duty to protect scattered (used to be called “diaspora”) Jews such as American Jews.

        This non-symmetry is audacious, but cut from the same cloth as everything else Israel does, including the anti-Jewish terrorism that Einstein complained of in his 1948 letter to the NYT.

        No-one should buy this drivel.

        • eGuard says:

          pabelmont: if he really said that Israel need not be concerned with what’s good for USA’s Jews (and other Jews)

          He said. I linked. I transcribed. Why the ‘if’?

  12. Citizen says:

    ” It is not an embarrassment because of what Israel is doing. It is an embarrassment because of what Israel is.”

    Actually, it’s both.
    Why should 98% non-jewish America support Israel’s racism at all? Jews live in USA’s very advanced and profitable protection of its Jewish citizens, though they are a very small part of America.

  13. gingershot says:

    The thing that bothers me about Peter Beinart is that he’s so young that if he becomes a new ‘Dershowitz Equivalent’ he’s going to be around forever

    In 2050 will Beinart be claiming the One State Solution should never have been attempted because there never was an Apartheid to begin with?

    Is Beinart the ‘J Street Cop’ to the Dershowitz ‘AIPAC Cop’?

    Dershowitz is ‘Anti-Goy’ more than anything else – he just disguises it as being Pro-Israel

    • American says:

      ‘Dershowitz is ‘Anti-Goy’ more than anything else’..gingershot

      I think you just nailed him…he’s a real hater and his outlet for it is defending Israel……just like he accuses others of supporting Palestine only cause they hate Jews.

      projection, projection,projection…the Dersh is a classic case and example.

    • Kathleen says:

      Anti Goy indeed…for decades. Probably all of his life.

  14. Talkback says:

    The Dersh: “You cannot understand the hatred of Israel if you eliminate the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people.”

    You cannot understand the infantile narcissism of a Jewish supremacist if you eliminate the fact that he thinks that even his racist actions towards Nonjews (or their justificaion) could never create hatred.

    I’m sure that if people find his comments about Hawkings hateful, he will run to his inner mummy and whine about the “fact” that people only hate him, because he’s a Jew.

  15. talknic says:

    ” as long as the Stephen Hawkings of the world leave us alone”

    Uh huh. Under a boycott he will. Dersh really is quite an embarrassment ..

  16. Kathleen says:

    “If Jews choose to assimilate, that’s a question of free will, choice and freedom… But I defend Israel against its external enemies, external threats. My job is to protect Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, along with many other people, from external threats so that Jews can obsess about their internal problems and drive themselves crazy. I want to get back to the point where we are divided and fight among each other and have these kinds of arguments– as long as the Stephen Hawkings of the world leave us alone and don’t try and destroy us.”

    When will this guy stop undermining U.S. National Security by looking out for alleged Israeli security over U.S. National security. Move to Israel give up your U.S. citizenship and put your allegiance where it wants to be fully. Stop undermining U.S. National Security…Dershowitz. People have had it with this loyalty for Israel that trumps what is best for the U.S….and really ultimately best for Israel.

    • Hostage says:

      “If Jews choose to assimilate, that’s a question of free will, choice and freedom…”

      No in Israel it’s a hotly disputed legal question whether or not a Jew has the right to marry a Gentile or become a member of a Christian congregation. The answer is no. Some Jews, like Dersh, can’t even assimilate that fact or try to gloss it over.

    • Bravo, Kathleen. Will Dershowitz stop undermining the national security of the American people? Fair question.

  17. RE: Dershowitz . . . quoted Scripture to make the point that he wants Israel to survive and be stronger than all its neighbors, more than he wants it to have peace. ~ from the Weiss article (above)

    MY COMMENT: This sounds exactly like Revisionist Zionism’s “Iron Wall” strategy to me.

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Iron Wall (essay)]:

    “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)” is an essay written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in 1923. It was originally published in Russian, the language in which Jabotinsky wrote for the Russian press.[1]
    He wrote the essay after the British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill prohibited Zionist settlement on the east bank of the Jordan River, and formed the Zionist Revisionist party after writing it.[2]
    Jabotinsky argued that the Palestinian Arabs would not agree to a Jewish majority in Palestine, and that “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.”[1] The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, he argued, would be for Jews to unilaterally decide its borders and defend them with the strongest security possible.

    • References
    1.^ a b Jabotinsky, Ze’ev (4 November 1923). “The Iron Wall”. – link to jabotinsky.org
    2.^ Zionist Freedom Alliance – Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky – link to zfa.org.il

    • External links
    Lustick, Ian S. (2007). “Abandoning the Iron Wall: Israel and ‘The Middle Eastern Muck’”. Middle East Policy (Middle East Policy Council) (Fall 2007). – link to mepc.org

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

    ENTIRE ‘IRON WALL’ ESSAY: “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, By Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1923 – link to marxists.de

  18. RE: “Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an anti-Semite”

    MY COMMENT: When Dershowitz goes into his ‘defending Israel’ mode, he can act out in an incredibly childish manner!

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Acting out]:

    [EXCERPTS] Acting out is a psychological term from the parlance of defense mechanisms and self-control, meaning to perform an action in contrast to bearing and managing the impulse to perform it. The acting done is usually anti-social and may take the form of acting on the impulses of an addiction (e.g. drinking, drug taking or shoplifting) or in a means designed (often unconsciously or semi-consciously) to garner attention (e.g. throwing a tantrum or behaving promiscuously).
    In general usage, the action performed is destructive to self or others and may inhibit the development of more constructive responses to the feelings. The term is used in this way in sexual addiction treatment, psychotherapy, criminology and parenting.
    Acting out painful feelings may be contrasted with expressing them in ways more helpful to the sufferer, e.g. by talking out, expressive therapy, psychodrama or mindful awareness of the feelings. Developing the ability to express one’s conflicts safely and constructively is an important part of impulse control, personal development and self-care.

    • In analysis
    Freud considered that patients in analysis tended to act out their conflicts in preference to remembering them – repetition compulsion.[1] The analytic task was then to help “the patient who does not remember anything of what he has forgotten and repressed, but acts it out”[2] to replace present activity by past memory.
    Otto Fenichel added that acting out in an analytic setting potentially offered valuable insights to the therapist; but was nonetheless a psychological resistance in as much as it deals only with the present at the expense of concealing the underlying influence of the past.[3] Lacan also spoke of “the corrective value of acting out”,[4] though others qualified this with the proviso that such acting out must be limited in the extent of its destructive/self-destructiveness.[5] . . .

    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  19. American says:

    ”Dershowitz: Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people. ”

    I think this what is called ‘projection’…..translated>>>>’I cant understand any one caring about others because I myself dont give a shit about anyone but Jews, which is perfectly ‘normal’.

  20. dakersting says:

    Dershowitz is obviously doing damage-control. Having given up on fooling those who’ve been paying attention, he says what he hopes will fool the rest for a while – and lying as fast as he can talk. The “anti-Semitism” thing is such a dead horse. For example, Dershowitz characterizes the opponents of Zionist racism as “People who don’t care about the Kurds, who don’t care about the Armenians, who don’t care about the Tibetans, who didn’t give a damn about the Cambodians, who didn’t say a word about the people of Rwanda and the people of Darfur,” but in reality, people who devote their lives to ethics itself, and who try to do the right thing on all topics, will soon be attacked and their livelihoods virtually destroyed by one group alone: our “pro-Israel” friends and neighbors. This fact is closely tied to the very reason we Americans have most need to take care about Zionism: since forcing a “Jewish” state into a multi-ethnic region is the only case of OPENLY-DECLARED mass ethnic violence demanded by a swing-vote portion of the US population since Southern slavery, yet we ourselves are financing it with our taxes. The really odd thing is that anyone could get away with such openly-declared racist violence, in a world that would show zero tolerance toward any such thing anywhere else. Dershowitz himself represents the methods involved. Yet, to those paying attention, he exposes himself neatly when he attributes “..the hatred of Israel..” to the fact that “..Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people.” In reality, the Zionists declare their violent racism when they pretend that self-determination is a human right of ethnic or religious groups. That’s the point where they claim a right to ethnic-cleansing and all its horrors, since that’s what’s required to fulfill that particular “human right.” The fact that some nations represent particular ethnicities or religions does not mean that every ethnicity or religion has a right to a nation state of its own – and that such a right counter-balances the rights of people to not be ethnically-cleansed, with the balance settled by force of arms, as in Palestine. Self-determination is the right of populations to rule themselves – regardless of ethnicities or religions – and Dershowitz’ racist version of that right is directly contrary to it. All of this is most crucial to Western populations whose governments have been wangled into financing policies of ethnic and religious prejudice, in Israel, which would be radically illegal in their own countries. Finally, forcing Israel to learn how to live without official ethnic or religious prejudice (“violent racism”) would be the best thing its friends could do for it – as anyone knows who understands the wrongs and harms of racism. But these are just minor samples. Virtually everything Dershowitz writes is equally easy to explode. It’s all just damage-control – struggling to keep fooling the dwindling numbers of those willing to be fooled.

  21. Rusty Pipes says:

    In what universe is Stephen Hawking an “ignoramus?” Dersh is having to get more and more creative to find new ways to delegitimize himself as any sort of credible spokesperson. Tenure is a wonderful thing.

  22. a blah chick says:

    Beinart. Go to Shuhada street [in Hebron], where Palestinians are literally not allowed to walk on that street…
    Dershowitz. You don’t look at one place–

    I think that exchange sums up the Dersh’s racism quite nicely.

    We need to start calling him and the rest of his ilk by their rightful names-Jewish supremacists. We also need to stop allowing him and said ilk to be a part of the conversation.

    It’s like trying to negotiate the end of Segregation with the White Citizens leagues and Stormfront. Not happening.

  23. RE: “Last night at the City University of New York, Alan Dershowitz attacked the British physicist Stephen Hawking for cancelling a visit to Israel in protest of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Dershowitz called Hawking an “ignoramus” and suggested he’s anti-Semitic, then said he is just another “lemming” ~ from the Weiss article (above)

    YET ANOTHER “LEMMING”: “Ex-Israeli diplomat: Boycott my country”, By Joshua Mitnick, csmonitor.com, July 17, 2012
    Former Israeli ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel argues that a boycott would put pressure on people and businesses, possibly persuading some to relocate inside Israel proper.

    [EXCERPTS] In a commentary published in Business Day, a South Africa daily, he sided with the South African government, rejecting the foreign ministry’s contention that encouraging the boycott constituted a “racist” policy. With his very public break with government policy, Liel became the rare former senior official to encourage such a boycott.
    A consumer boycott serves to reassert the existence of the West Bank border, which Liel argues has been blurred in Israelis’ minds by the establishment of Israeli settlements.
    “The simple act of marking settlement products differently to Israeli products pulls the rug from under the refusal to declare a border,” he wrote. “I buy Israeli products every day and do my best not to buy Israeli products from the Occupied Territories. I don’t see why you, living outside Israel, shouldn’t have the same choice.”
    Liel also added his name to a petition by more than 1,000 Israeli academics calling for a local academic boycott of the Ariel University Center. The petition alleges that the school is a vehicle of Israel’s right-wing government to make Israel’s presence in the West Bank a permanent one, risks an academic boycott of Israeli universities, and calls on AUC students and faculty to transfer to institutions in Israel proper.
    Liel argues that at a time when West Bank settlements are expanding, applying pressure to AUC and the dozens of businesses based in industrial parks in the settlements could deliver a “symbolic” blow and persuade some to relocate inside Israel.
    However, he draws what he says is an important distinction between a boycott of settlement goods and one that targets all Israeli exports, which is the goal of the international pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to csmonitor.com

    • P.S. YET ANOTHER “LEMMING”: “A Zionist defense of Hawking”, By Larry Derfner, +972 Magazine May 9, 2013

      [EXCERPTS] I wish there was a kinder, gentler way than acts of ostracism to get Israel to end the occupation, but those ways have failed terribly.
      I would not join a BDS protest
      ; I’m a “two-stater” who believes Israel should remain a Jewish state because the alternatives would be worse, who believes Israel’s “original sin” is the occupation, not Zionism, and so I don’t think I’d really feel at home at your average BDS demonstration. . .
      . . . But when I read Wednesday that Stephen Hawking was boycotting the President’s Conference, I was glad. He doesn’t hate Israel; he’s been here four times. . . What Hawking hates is the occupation, not Israel, and he believes that by striking a blow against Israel’s rule over the Palestinians, he is helping not only the Palestinians but Israel as well. I think he’s right, and what’s more, I think he succeeded in a seismic way. . .
      . . . I wish there were kinder, gentler ways than such acts of ostracism to get Israel to end its 46-year dictatorship over the Palestinians. Ideally, of course, the public would elect a government that would do it. Failing that, its best friend, America, would prod the public and its leaders with “tough love.” Failing that, the Palestinians would rally the world against the occupation through diplomacy and nonviolent protest.
      Like a lot of other people, I put my hope in one after another of the above tactics, and one after another, they have so far come to nothing.
      So, as they say, desperate times require desperate measures, and for the cause of Israeli justice and Palestinian freedom, that means ostracizing Israel, including by such means as boycotting the President’s Conference. . .
      . . . Again, if Israel would reverse the status quo of its own volition, through elections, or do it in response to pressure from its friends like the U.S. and European governments, then I’d oppose punishing it by any means. But the fact is that there’s no rational hope of this happening; the right wing owns Israeli politics, while the U.S., European Union and the other democratic states, for a variety of reasons, won’t force Israel’s hand. The kinder, gentler ways haven’t worked on this country, so it’s either acts of ostracism or occupation forever, and given those two choices, I’d say Israel is best served by the former.
      In retrospect, the sanctions on South Africa were a gift to that country. If Israel ends its long tyranny over the Palestinians, such conscientious boycotts as that of Stephen Hawking will be remembered for having been a gift to this one. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to 972mag.com

  24. Danny_123 says:

    Ah… the Dersch is back in all his “glory”.

    Where to begin to sum up the nausea one feels when reading transcripts of his words?

    I think I will simply say that Israel is in very good hands indeed if this man is its chief defender. Just ask O.J. Simpson.

    • Ron Edwards says:

      The Dersh, a drinking game:

      Whenever he says “smacks of,” or “very much like,” or “likely,” regarding anti-semitism, down a good stiff shot.

      But not when he actually says outright about a specific person or quote, “That’s anti-semitic.” Which practically never happens, or rather, if it has, I’ve never seen it. I wonder why not? (rhetorical)

    • gingershot says:

      ‘Where to begin to sum up the nausea’ –

      Obviously you have missed the little gem of ‘Vomit Performance Art’ – it’s up on the Mondoweiss header.

      This artistic performance is evocative of our needs as humans to simply fully experience the very natural physical sensations we nearly all experience and which arise in our throats when faced with arguments from Dershowitz or his Pro-Apartheid buddies

      Somethings are just simply left better unsaid and are more richly communicated with body language

  25. seafoid says:

    “Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people. ”

    That is classic bot framing. And dead wrong. “It’s not about what the goys think. it’s about what jews do”. Just what Jews do. And the occupation is basically it.
    all the assumptions people like the dersh made about YESHA were wrong. it doesn’t matter how long it is in situ. it is an abomination. Would be if the South koreans or the bolivians ran it too. are the settlers Jewish? So what? they are first and foremost arseholes.

    “then quoted Scripture to make the point that he wants Israel to survive and be stronger than all its neighbors, more than he wants it to have peace. ”

    Those iron age gurus didn’t have the capacity to imagine a cruel judaism unable to run a nation state.

  26. Avi_G. says:

    It sounds like Dershowitz was describing himself.

  27. Mike_Konrad says:

    Dershowitz: Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people.

    What a truly vicious thing to say. He is dismissing a whole people as unworthy of concern by outsiders.

    Sadly, it may be true. Most outsiders do not care. It may explain Palestinian rage.

    The Palestinians are worthy of concern, but not at the expense of Israel.

    • amigo says:

      “The Palestinians are worthy of concern, but not at the expense of Israel.”

      What a truly vicious not to mention stupid thing to say.

      Israel was created at the Expense of the Palestinians.

      What planet are you from.

    • Blank State says:

      “The Palestinians are worthy of concern, but not at the expense of Israel”

      What an amazing statement. Do people really think like that?

      I see the male orthos are stoning Jewish women at the wailing wall, for thier daring to pray there in celebration of the recent Israeli court decision allowing it.The stones, the statements such as quoted above, personages such as Dershowitz…the disingenuous hasbaridiotic internet trollwork of those such as Hophmi or RJL…all symptoms of a deep ailment suffered by zionism, insidiously infecting the whole of Israel.

      “The Palestinians are worthy of concern, but not at the expense of Israel”

      Oh my. Unbelievable, isn’t it?

  28. Nevada Ned says:

    Somebody ought to demand that Dershowitz declare whether or not he “supports Israel’s right to exist as an Orthodox Jewish State”.

    What’s that? A state in which only the Orthodox Jews are first class citizens. What about Reform Jews or secular Jews? Tough! Legally they would be in the same category as Palestinians. They would have to put up with checkpoints, religious discrimination, etc. After all, Israel has a right to exist as an Orthodox Jewish State!

    Why am saying this? Seriously: once you start to declare that citizenship depends on race or religion, you might as well go all the way. And Orthodox Jews undoubtedly are closer to the ancient Hebrews than secular Jews.

    I’m just curious about how the harbarists like Dershowitz would respond to a proposal that would make him a second class citizen.

    Numerically, non-Orthodox Jews are about 90% of US Jewry, Orthodox about 10%.

    • Hostage says:

      And Orthodox Jews undoubtedly are closer to the ancient Hebrews than secular Jews.

      Correction: Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. None of the modern streams have taken on the whole yolk of the law. For example, the Torah didn’t mention Jerusalem or limit the number of locales that God could choose. It simply warned the ancient Hebrews to be careful to obey all of the commandments when they entered the land that the Lord had given them – not just the whittled-down modern fraction.

      Unlike the modern Orthodox Jews, the ancient Hebrews established a Temple in Shiloh where the prophet Samuel was raised. They also had Temples in Egypt during the Persian era, which presumably were erected in places that the Lord had chosen. The main streams of Judaism have deliberately created a national crisis over a section of what they believe to be Herod’s wall.

  29. ritzl says:

    Focusing (if possible) only on Dersh’s intra-Jewish insularity, how can he say that Israel is the project of the [entire, as I read the excerpts] Jewish people, and at the same time tell non-Israeli Jews to butt out? It makes no sense, even within his reflexive, soda-straw world view.

    As Sumud said, keep talking AD.

    And as Taxi said in yesterday’s thread on Hawking, this does have the feeling of a pivot point ["avalanche"], if only as suggested by Dersh’s literal, yet increasingly desperate and louder (even for him), nonsense. If this debate was internet written, methinks Dersh would be in ALL CAPS, all the time. I sense serious concern, if not fear, about Hawking’s decision.

    And speaking of insularity, what is Beinart trying to salvage exactly in these debates? It’s almost like he’s trying to salvage the word Zionism itself from historical oblivion/wrongheadedness. He’s less myopic than Dersh, but he’s late to his current adjusted views, and events are/have outpaced even those adjustments, even in the time frame that he’s held them. I don’t know who his audience is, but I guess he has a dais of sorts and therefore must use it.

    • seafoid says:

      “but he’s late to his current adjusted views, and events are/have outpaced even those adjustments”

      I read something today about a writer who won’t write anything set later than 2007 because tech is changing so fast.
      Poor Beinart. Events moving faster than his parameters allow. And those Israelis are so VULGAR.

  30. I am curious as to what others think of this BDS article -

    Boycott Israel?

    Collective punishment is always wrong

    by Justin Raimondo, May 10, 2013

    link to original.antiwar.com

    • Hostage says:

      I am curious as to what others think of this BDS article – Boycott Israel? Collective punishment is always wrong Justin Raimondo.

      That Justin Raimondo and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center should grab a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary and brush-up on the meaning of term. Prof Hawking isn’t 1) imposing a penalty or punishment; or 2) failing to perform a duty by turning down an invitation to attend a conference.

      They might also benefit from reading the definition of some other related legal terms, like punishment, collective responsibility, and collective action.

      • I like some of Raimondo’s work, but this could have been written by any run of the mill ‘liberal Zionist’.

        It relies on two non-truths:

        1) The notion (disproved on these pages and elsewhere) that the chip that powers Hawking’s communication technology was produced in Israel. It wasn’t.

        2) The notion that there is some ‘liberal Israel’ just waiting to get out, and that it’s our job to coax them along by holding their hand and telling them how wonderful they are. In other words, the old cliches about the importance of ‘engaging’ with Israelis, despite the fact that decades of ‘engagement’ have led to ever growing ‘settlements’, the siege of Gaza, and routine killings of Palestinians, with barely a whimper from all these ‘liberal Israelis’ who are supposedly just waiting for us to ‘engage’ with them.

        Speaking of the siege, and Raimondo’s belief that it’s wrong to ‘collectively punish’ a people – how do you deal with a nation which itself indulges in collective punishment, to a far, far greater degree than anyone in the BDS movement wishes to see imposed on Israelis? Why should the world sit back and watch Israel – with the consent, if not outright support, of the vast majority of Israelis – starve the ordinary men, women and children of Gaza? In other words, when Israel itself practices colelctive punishment on a grand scale, why should they be immune from it?

      • MHughes976 says:

        My reaction would be that his analogy with sanctions that hurt the innocent, not the political class, is (even if true in some cases; another matter) wildly inept in this case, when it is clear enough that the political class is highly troubled and offended. The conference is associated with a politician, the Israeli President, and it is absurd to say that some kind of reprimand or snub addressed to a politician, of all classes of person, is an illogical generalisation of blame to the innocent masses. If there are Israelis who are innocent in the sense of not to blame for what is happening to the Palestinians it would surely be those who have made their disapproval of Israeli policies plain – and I would think that they will, if they are at all logical, rejoice in the fact that an important outsider has endorsed the views which they, a minority in their own context, advance. If they say that the policies which they denounce should not be opposed in any way that hurts their careers or even their feelings I would say that they are not innocent at all, but something rather worse.

        • ” If there are Israelis who are innocent in the sense of not to blame for what is happening to the Palestinians it would surely be those who have made their disapproval of Israeli policies plain – and I would think that they will, if they are at all logical, rejoice in the fact that an important outsider has endorsed the views which they, a minority in their own context, advance.”

          Exactly! Those (few) white South Africans who genuinely wanted apartheid to be dismantled actively welcomed sanctions against their country. The same would be true in Israel, but, I suspect, those who GENUINELY want the occupation to end are even fewer than those whites who opposed apartheid in SA. We hear a lot of talk about how moderate and liberal most Israelis are, but if so, they keep awfully quiet about it. You’d almost think they barely existed at all.

          There’s also the question of just how ‘innocent’ people can be in a democracy (which Israel is, for its Jewish citizens) where people can choose their leaders, and where almost everyone serves in the army. Given that Israelis consistently choose leaders who advocate war and occupation – to the point that there is not a single mainstream party which opposes the occupation – then surely ‘ordinary Israelis’ must share in the blame. Nobody is advocating anything like the sadistic siege these ‘ordinary Israelis’ seem happy to see imposed on Gaza, but I don’t buy the argument that they are innocent and should be shielded from the consequences of their actions.

    • talknic says:

      If collective punishment thru boycott is bad, the Israeli colonistas’ calls to boycott the UK, USA, Russia, China are … ?

    • Stunningly ill-informed and sloppy, even by Justin Raimondo’s wildly erratic standard. He managed to toss in a hefty helping of hoary hasbara horseshit, too. Really, too much nonsense to even know where to begin unpacking. Note, too, his dismissive attitude toward the SA boycott. Oh, and don’t forget: Jews have been the target of boycott before!

      My hunch? Raimondo’s libertarian-capitalist ‘soul’ has been so seduced by the whole ‘Start-Up Nation’ myth that is now central to modern Zionist propaganda, that it’s tipped him into that benighted territory known as Lib-Zio Land. Sure, the Palestinians deserve our support in their struggle for human rights; just don’t let them try anything that might, you know, actually be effective.

      • MHughes976 says:

        And making protest into punishment is just ridiculous. Calling an action by one person with no capacity to use violence punitive treatment of a whole mass is preposterous.

    • Sincere thanks to all who weighed in on this. I very much appreciate your input and feel you made a strong counter-argument.

  31. kalithea says:

    Actually, those are words that the mirror should pitch back at Dersh.

    When Zionists argue amongst themselves the bullshet meter goes off the chart. If I had to choose the most delusional and hypocritical of the two; I’d choose Beinart. In my opinion, Liberal Zionists are the biggest threat of all because they actually believe something good can come out of Zionism when history and reality are in their face proving them wrong. It’s not the radicals like Dersh that sustain Zionism. If we only had to deal with the radicals; the occupation would be over and Palestinians would have their rights and justice.

    But woe is them and us! Liberal Zionists are insufferable keeping the Zionist dream, ergo the occupation, alive with all their endless hopey talk. Zionism is good, if only….blah, blah, blah, BULL!

  32. talknic says:

    “Let me put it this way, I have never met anybody except perhaps Palestinians who really give one good goddamn about the Palestinian people. ”

    1) Doesn’t get out much 2) So who is he arguing against? 3) The guy really is embarrassing

    The Arab states have for 65 years offered them refuge

    The Arab states have fought wars on their behalf

    The Arabs have for almost 100 years fought the legal battle for self determination of “the people of Palestine” per the LoN covenant, LoN Mandate, UN Charter

    Ordinary civilians risked their lives on the Mavi Mamara

    Activists risk their lives regularly in non-Israeli territory under Israeli occupation

    Dersh has to ignore reality and the hundreds of UNSC resolutions on occupation, deny, lie and suspend sanity and rationality attempting to get his inane drivel to float.

  33. eGuard says:

    When everything else fails, call anti-Semitism.

    The good news is, that Dershowitz had to retreat to that last line of defense.

  34. Sycamores says:

    “Last night at the City University of New York, Alan Dershowitz attacked the British physicist Stephen Hawking for cancelling a visit to Israel in protest of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Dershowitz called Hawking an “ignoramus” and suggested he’s anti-Semitic, then said he is just another “lemming” being pressured by the BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) movement, which he said was gaining ground around the world.”

    for that small man name ‘alan’ to called Stephen Hawking an “ignoramus”, “anti-Semitic” and a “lemming” on Palesine/israel has help in more ways then one to expose ‘alan’ to the world at large that ‘alan’ has no place in any further debate on the subject.

    Stephen Hawking (like Albert Einstein before him) is very much envolved in current affairs. his views on the Middle East are well known by anyone that has done any research on Stephen Hawking.
    check out what his views were on the Gaza war of ’08/’09

    link to youtube.com

    people like Stephen Hawking and Noam Chomsky are intellectual leaders not lemmings like the mindless brainwash ‘alan’.

    each time people like ‘alan’ open their mouths of late they seem to help further in isolating israel from everyone else.

  35. Blank State says:

    I consider Dershowitz to be the perfect spokesman for Israel and the zionists. He is everything they claim to be.

  36. Blank State says:

    Hmmmm…..perhaps I should have said….. “He is everything they can honestly claim to be. “

  37. NoMoreIsrael says:

    OJ Simpson’s attorney calls the greatest living astrophysicist “an ignoramus” and other heart-warming tales from the pro-Israel sewage hole!

    Of course, Hawking is only following in the footsteps of that other notable “anti-Semite,” Albert Einstein, who famously described the Israelis as Nazis and fascists and urged the US to bar them from entering our country.

  38. jonah says:

    Dershovitz is of course right. The BDS movement is a direct emanation of the PLO and other Palestinian NGOs. Its main goals are the same as those pursued by the Fatah, that means
    “1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
    2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
    3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.” link to bdsmovement.net

    The first point assumes that the West Bank is solely Arab Land, while in fact the illegitimate claims to these territories were simply and unlawfully transferred from the illegal occupying force Jordan to the PLO in 1988. “Arab Lands” means in fact Islamic Lands since Islam believes that once conquered lands have to stay for ever under Muslim rule. However, this can never be a legitimate and acceptable argument for a claim to absolute domination over those territories.
    The call for the dismantling of the wall is hypocritical and dishonest, because it does not consider at all the need to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism. Without the terrorist attacks there would be no wall, as it was before the Second Intifada. But since the BDS has integrated in its statutes the goal of the Palestinians to weaken and finally demolish the state of Israel, it is not surprising that the wall is seen only in its function of separation and alleged segregation and not as protection as in fact in has (but Israeli jews have apparently no right to protect and even less to defend themselves).

    The second point is obscure, since the Arab citizens of Israel already have full civil and political rights, which the citizens of any other state in the Middle East, included the people in the territories governed by the Palestinians themselves, could only dream of. The height of all this is that Palestinian leaders and probably also the followers of the BDS movement, exclude a priori the idea of ​​a Jewish minority living in the territories of their future envisaged state. We can call this for what it is and what is already well established in all the Arab countries towards non-Muslims, that is: full Apartheid.

    The third point represents the Trojan Horse of the so called ‘moderate’ ‘soft’ Palestinian struggle against Israel, embodied by the Fatah under rule of Mr. Abbas, and its aims at the demise of the Jewish state (as a state with Jewish majority) by means of demographic invasion of millions of Palestinian refugees.

    In some ways, I feel a bit sorry for Hawking, because I don’t think that he, unlike many acolytes of the BDS movement, has anti-Semitic motivations behind his decision, he certainly has been put under intense pressure by BDS from the day he announced his acceptance to participate at a conference in Israel. He is just, as Dershovitz has rightly stated, a “lemming” who did not have the guts to stand up against the aggressive campaign waged by the BDS movement. But like all those who support the boycott of Israel, he should at least have the honesty to give up his computing devices, since they all run on Israeli intel chips.

    • Shingo says:

      The first point assumes that the West Bank is solely Arab Land, while in fact the illegitimate claims to these territories were simply and unlawfully transferred from the illegal occupying force Jordan to the PLO in 1988. “

      False. There is not a single legal finding that Jordan’s occuaption was illegal. In fact, the entire UNSC recognized Jordan’s annexation as of 1966, as proven by UNSC228,that refers to Hebron as Jordan. The resolution condeming Israeli agression was passed 14-0.

      UNSC242 declared that Israel had no legal claim to the territory.

      Arab Lands” means in fact Islamic Lands

      That’s like saying that Israeli land means Lkudnik lands.

      Habsara Fail #1!

      The call for the dismantling of the wall is hypocritical and dishonest, because it does not consider at all the need to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism.

      That’s because the apartheid wall serves no such purpose as is a blantant land grab. The ICJ 2004 Wall case stipulated that Israel could build any Wall it wanted within it’s own legal borders. The Wall is illegal because it cuts 10 miles into Palestinian territory.

      That makes hasbara fail #2.

      The second point is obscure, since the Arab citizens of Israel already have full civil and political rights, which the citizens of any other state in the Middle East

      Also false. There are 30 descriminatory laws that disenfranchise non Jews in Israel proper.

      Israel is an apartheid state inside and out.

      That makes hasbara fail#4.

      The third point represents the Trojan Horse of the so called ‘moderate’ ‘soft’ Palestinian struggle against Israel, embodied by the Fatah under rule of Mr. Abbas, and its aims at the demise of the Jewish state (as a state with Jewish majority) by means of demographic invasion of millions of Palestinian refugees.

      Right of return is guaranteed under international law. Israel actually agreed to UN194 as a condition of memership at the UN. The fact that Israel claimed to accept these terms and then violated them once they got what they wanted shows what a duplicitous ideology Zionism has been from the start.

      Those who claim the need to protect Jewish character are the ultimate hypocrites seeing as they dismissed the same concerns when the Arabs expressed them (after the LON) as Arab rejectionism.

      So there yo have it Jonah. You are wrong on every point – as is always the case.

    • Hostage says:

      The first point assumes that the West Bank is solely Arab Land, while in fact the illegitimate claims to these territories were simply and unlawfully transferred from the illegal occupying force Jordan to the PLO in 1988.

      No, Israel signed an armistice agreement with the government of Jordan (not Transjordan). It legalized any Arab occupation of Palestine pending a final settlement or until Hell freezes over. It also recognized the sovereignty, legal jurisdiction, or legal competence of the new joint Kingdom to lawfully dispose of the territory in a final settlement agreement. The Israelis couldn’t have done any of those things with an illegal occupation regime.

      FYI, Ambassador Abba Eban said:

      “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.”

      – See “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      The second point is obscure, since the Arab citizens of Israel already have full civil and political rights, which the citizens of any other state in the Middle East, included the people in the territories governed by the Palestinians themselves, could only dream of.

      Correct. They can only dream of holding one of the many seats reserved on the Israeli Land Authority board of governors for the Jewish representatives of the Jewish National Fund. Arabs have no civil or political right to vote on the candidates for those key government positions that control national infrastructure planning and access to the State’s franchised JNF monopoly on land expropriated from Arabs.

      The third point represents the Trojan Horse of the so called ‘moderate’ ‘soft’ Palestinian struggle against Israel, embodied by the Fatah under rule of Mr. Abbas, and its aims at the demise of the Jewish state (as a state with Jewish majority) by means of demographic invasion of millions of Palestinian refugees.

      You are projecting. The Jewish Agency partition proposal and its military plans for a minority takeover of the country after the British withdrawal represented a true Trojan Horse. See Plan Dalet. The Agency dismantled the Mandated State of Palestine and declared martial law to prevent the Arab majority from returning to their homes and property.

      By way of comparison, the German government adopted a liberal constitution which committed the former Nazis to permit Jews and their children, who had been stripped of their citizenship and right of residency as a result of the Nuremberg Laws, to return to the country as if nothing had ever happened.

      • Shingo says:

        Thanks again Hostage for schooling Jonah on all the topics you schooled him on a year ago, after which he dissapeared from MW for a while.

        I also thought out the projection and utter hypocrisy of his accusation of ROR being a Trojan Horse. It was the Zionist leadership that denied all along they had any intention of creating a Jewish state, and as one of your links pointed out, they even suggested that this claim was made by “anti Zionists”.

        So while they were floowing Palestine with immigrants, they were accusing the Palestinians of racism n rejectionism. Yet, here is Jonah, accusing Paleetinians of using their right to return to their stolen land as a Trojan Horse.

        As others have said before, what the Israelis fear the most is that the Palestinians might be as cruel and ruthless to them as they have been to the Palestinians.

        • jonah says:

          Shingo : the entire UNSC recognized Jordan’s annexation as of 1966, as proven by UNSC228, that refers to Hebron as Jordan.

          The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: “… no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (Art. II.2), “The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” (Art. VI.9). link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          Jordanian annexation of the West Bank in April 1950 was unlawful and was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of U.K. and Pakistan. In 19 years of Jordanian rule, the Palestinian Arabs never attempted to establish an independent state in the territory alloted to them by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. They cooperated with the unilateral annexation by Jordan und were granted Jordanian citizenship.
          Furthermore, the Jordanian “occupation” of the West Bank was very abusive of the rights of Jews and Christians, or any resident of Israel. During the 1948-1967 period of its occupation, Jordan permitted terrorists to launch raids into Israel. Jewish and muslim residents of Israel were not permitted to visit their Holy Places in East Jerusalem. The Jewish Quarter in the Old City was destroyed; fifty-eight synagogues were also destroyed or desecrated. All this in direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements.

          Hostage: It (the armistice agreement) legalized any Arab occupation of Palestine pending a final settlement or until Hell freezes over. It also recognized the sovereignty, legal jurisdiction, or legal competence of the new joint Kingdom to lawfully dispose of the territory in a final settlement agreement.

          There was never such a final agreement regarding the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, not with Jordan and not even with the later self-appointed only holders of the rights on those lands, the self-proclaimed “Palestinians”. Nor any Jordanian sovereignty over the occupied territories was ever recognized by any international body. The armistice agreements did not contemplate the question of sovereignty and were to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.
          Here can you find some views on the transitional nature of the lines:

          During the debate in the Security Council before the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, the Jordanian ambassador stated:
          “There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights political, military or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement.”
          Prof. Mughraby wrote in the Beirut Daily Star:
          “Israel is the only State in the world which has no legal boundaries except the natural one the Mediterranean provides. The rest are nothing more than armistice lines, can never be considered political or territorial boundaries.”
          President Lyndon Johnson is on record stating:
          “The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction and war.”
          In this context, international jurists have also acknowledged the limited effect of the armistice lines:
          Elihu Lauterpacht, in his booklet, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, states:
          “Each of these agreements…contains a provision that the armistice lines therein laid down shall not prejudice the future political settlement. It would not therefore be accurate to contend that questions of title…depend on the Armistice Agreements. Questions of sovereignty are quite independent of the Armistice Agreements.”
          Judge Steven Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, stated in 1994:
          “The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.”

          In conclusion, the claims of the Palestinians as the only legitimate owners of the occupied (or rather disputed) territories is based on an unlawful Jordanian annexation of these territories, and as such they do not have an absolute, but at best a relative and partial valence.

          Shingo: Right of return is guaranteed under international law. Israel actually agreed to UN194 as a condition of memership at the UN.

          There isn’t any sort of explicit conditionality between Israel’s admission to membership in the UN and the implementation of UNGA Res. 194, as revealed in the neutral language of paragraph 5 (“taking note”) to Israeli “declarations and explanations”, records of which reveal that Israel did not commit itself to any specific action or time frame for implementing Resolution 194.

          And let’s be honest for once: What other refugees in the world can still retain its right to return after more than 65 years? None other than the “Palestinian people”. And note well, not the right to return to their nation-state, as for all other refugees, but the right to flood the sovereign neighboring state that happens to be, for more 65 years now, the state of the Jewish people.
          Obviously a Trojan Horse.

        • Shingo says:

          The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: “… no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (Art. II.2),

          As Hostage pointed out from Eban’s statement, this agreement was reached by both parties. Eban states that Israel recognized the legitimacy of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank. Thus, the terms that you have cited were satisfied according to the parties concerned.

          Jordanian annexation of the West Bank in April 1950 was unlawful and was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of U.K. and Pakistan.

          Again this false claim has been dbunked repeatedly. First of all, there is not a single legal finding from any member state of the UN, the UN itself, the UNSC, the ICJ or even the US State Department that designated the annexation to be unlawful.
          The only group you can point to that stated it to be unlawful, was the Arab League, which had no authority to make that determination. The problem you have is that UNSC 228 states categorically that the West Bank is Jordanian territory, which is why it condemns Israel for attacking Jordan. had any one of the 15 members of the UNSC (especially the permanent members) had any reservation about this issue, they would have issued sucha declaration or in the case of the permanent members of the UNSC, vetoed the resolution.
          The resolution passed 14 – 0 with one abstention. That means all 15 recognized the annexation as legal andlegitimate.

          In 19 years of Jordanian rule, the Palestinian Arabs never attempted to establish an independent state in the territory alloted to them by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. They cooperated with the unilateral annexation by Jordan und were granted Jordanian citizenship.

          Again this has been repeatedly explained to you. They cooperated with the annexation by Jordan but it was anything but unilateral. The annexation was carried out by referendum which was passed unanimously. Under the terms of the annexation, Arab Palestine’s status as a state was explicitly recognized as a state within a state.

          Furthermore, the Jordanian “occupation” of the West Bank was very abusive of the rights of Jews and Christians, or any resident of Israel. During the 1948-1967 period of its occupation,

          Actually, if you read UNSC228, it’s purpose was to condemn unprovoked Israeli aggression against Jordan, so your Hasbra doesn’t even pass the smell test. UNSC228 is founded on a central consensus, without which it would not have been passed unanimously. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was legal and legitimate.

          There was never such a final agreement regarding the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, not with Jordan and not even with the later self-appointed only holders of the rights on those lands, the self-proclaimed “Palestinians”.

          Of course there was, which is why Jordan hadnded sovereingty to the PLO of Arab palestine in 1988.

          Nor any Jordanian sovereignty over the occupied territories was ever recognized by any international body.

          The UNSC is an international body and it did.

          There isn’t any sort of explicit conditionality between Israel’s admission to membership in the UN and the implementation of UNGA Res. 194, as revealed in the neutral language of paragraph 5

          There is no paragraph 5, so you probably never bothered even reading your own link. It states that Israel “unreservedly accepted the obligations to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations”
          The them refers to the obligations contained in the charter, which means that Israel pledges to beholden to the UN Charter.
          UN Resolution 273 admitted Israel to the United Nations on May 11, 1949, “taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel” in respect of implementation of resolutions 194 and 181, to which Israel did not commit itself to any specific action or timeframe. Israel has since rejected any resolution calling on it to allow the Palestinians to come to Israel. Since General Assembly resolutions are not binding, and only serve as advisory statements, there can be no obligation or enforcement of Resolution 194.[3][4]
          link to en.wikipedia.org
          So yes, Israel did indeed commit itself to specific actions for implementing Resolution 194. The time frame argument is pathetic seeing as Israel now rejects 194 altogether.

          And let’s be honest for once: What other refugees in the world can still retain its right to return after more than 65 years? None other than the “Palestinian people”.

          Fail. UNWRA and UNHCR both recognize that refugee status is passed down through generations,. There is no statute of limitations on refugee status.
          You’re not being honest at all Jonah, you are repeating the same trash that has been shredded by Hostage and Talknic, and you are simply trolling.

        • Shingo says:

          BTW.

          Prof. Mughraby is a liar. Israel did indeed have legal boundaries, which were the ones it declared in 1948 and inside which it was admitted to the UN.

          Neither he, not Lauterpacht, not Jonson, nor Shwebel, have ever explained how Israel’s 1948 borders ceased to exist after 1948.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Shingo
          What is the official explanation as to how Israel’s ’48 borders ceased to exist after ’48? Has the US government ever made a public statement about it?

        • talknic says:

          “Jordanian annexation of the West Bank in April 1950 was unlawful and was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of U.K. and Pakistan”
          1) No countries recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.
          2) Legal annexation is by agreement of the representatives of the legitimate citizens of the territories to be annexed. See the US annexation of Texas. link to tsl.state.tx.us
          3) Legal annexation only has to be agreed between the party to be annexed and the annexing party. Recognition by any other parties is not a prerequisite to legality, agreement is THE prerequisite.
          4) There is no vote on recognition at the UN. Same applies to the recognition of statehood.
          5) Unilateral annexation is illegal. UNSC res 252 and EIGHT reminders, of which UNSC res 476 encapsulates it rather nicely link to domino.un.org

          “In conclusion… “

          Every one of your quotes is against your case. I’ll deal with just one as an example.

          “There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights political, military or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement.”

          Correct. The Armistice Agreement was to stop hostilities, not to change or demarcate territorial boundaries or define states or statehood.

          All the states had already existing territorial boundaries. The boundaries of Israel were confirmed May 15th 1948 by the Israeli Government plea for recognition

          “…as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 … ” link to avalon.law.yale.edu

          What remained of Palestine was bound by default of its independent neighours.

          The UNSC resolutions on the Israel/Palestine Question call for “peace in Palestine”, not Israel. The Israel Govt itself confirmed its territorial extent May 22nd 1948 to the UNSC, describing Palestine as “outside the State of Israel” link to wp.me

          The Armistice Agreements

          Article V
          1. The line described in Article VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948.

          2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

          3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

          4. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article VI. ”

        • talknic says:

          @ jonah
          And let’s be honest for once: What other refugees in the world can still retain its right to return after more than 65 years? “

          Let’s be honest for once. What other refugees have been refused RoR for 65 years? Israel doesn’t even allow return from the surrounding Arab States to any Palestinian territories.

          ” the right to flood…”

          The so called ‘flood’ is via the Israeli promotion of the irrelevant UNRWA definition. Unfortunately for that theory, the Palestinians claim RoR under UNGA res 194. UNGA res 194 was adopted 12 months BEFORE UNRWA even existed!

          Furthermore UNRWA’s mandate doesn’t even extend to final status link to unrwa.org
          UNRWA’s definition is not applicable except to serve the purpose of ascertaining who is eligible for assistance whilst they are a refugee.

          DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194) link to unispal.un.org

          “.. the sovereign neighboring state that happens to be, for more 65 years now, the state of the Jewish people”

          Only within Israel’s Internationally recognized sovereign extent. Israel doesn’t even allow the return of Palestine refugees currently in neighbouring Arab states to the non-Israeli territories the Jewish state currently occupies. It does however encourage its citizens to illegally settle in “territories occupied”

          —-

          BTW how do these reconcile?

          ” WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions” link to mfa.gov.il

          “We cannot allow the Arabs to return to those places that they left” link to pages.citebite.com

          To repatriate those who had fled would be “suicidal folly” link to google.ps

          They’re welcome to stay, but within weeks of fleeing the violence of war, they’re suddenly a demographic threat if they return? Doesn’t make sense.

          BTW all alive today were only children in 1948. Now they’re 65 minimum

          All civilians have the right to flee the violence of war, no matter who tells them or why, because they’re civilians. They also have the right to return, because they’re civilians.

          The moment they take up citizenship in a country other than that of return, they are no longer refugees and have no refugee rights. The Palestinians have chosen to adhere to their rights, which must really irk some.

        • @Citizen – - You have your finger on why George C. Marshall and the rest of Truman’s advisers (military and foreign policy) opposed recognition of Israel by US in 1948.

        • And most, if not all, Christian leaders in the West Bank say the Israeli occupation has been catastrophic for their communities.

    • talknic says:

      @ jonah“The first point assumes that the West Bank is solely Arab Land, while in fact the illegitimate claims to these territories were simply and unlawfully transferred from the illegal occupying force Jordan to the PLO in 1988. “

      1)

      Resolution 228 (1966)
      of 25 November 1966
      The Security Council,
      Having heard the statements of the representatives of
      Jordan and Israel concerning the grave Israel military
      action which took place in the southern Hebron area
      on 13 November 1966,
      Having noted the information provided by the Secre-
      tary-General concerning this military action in his
      statement of 16 November 17 and also in his report of
      18 November 1966.18
      Observing that this incident constituted a large-
      scale and carefully planned military action on the terri-
      tory of Jordan
      by the armed forces of Israel,
      Reaffirming the previous resolutions of the Security
      Council condemning past incidents of reprisal in breach
      of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel
      and Jordan 19 and of the United Nations Charter,
      Recalling the repeated resolutions of the Security
      Council asking for the cessation of violent incidents
      across the demarcation line, and not overlooking past
      incidents of this nature,
      Reaffirming the necessity for strict adherence to the
      General Armistice Agreement,
      1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to
      property resulting from the action of the Government
      of Israel on 13 November 1966;
      2. Censures Israel for this large-scale military action
      in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the
      General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jor-
      dan;
      3. Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military repri-
      sal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated,
      the Security Council will have to consider further and
      more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to
      ensure against the repetition of such acts;

      2)

      Resolution 476 (1980)

      Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting
      on 30 June 1980

      The Security Council,

      Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,

      Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

      Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

      Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

      Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

      Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

      Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

      1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      3) What is it you don’t understand about an Armistice AGREEMENT?

      4) The West bank was Sovereign to Jordan 1950 – 1967 , part of a UN Member state for at least 17 years.

      “The third point represents the Trojan Horse of the so called ‘moderate’ ‘soft’ Palestinian struggle against Israel, embodied by the Fatah under rule of Mr. Abbas, and its aims at the demise of the Jewish state (as a state with Jewish majority) by means of demographic invasion of millions of Palestinian refugees. “

      Twaddle. The Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194 adopted 12 months BEFORE UNRWA was instituted. The UNRWA definition is irrelevant to UNGA res 194.

      DEFINITION OF A “REFUGEE” UNDER PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION OF 11 DECEMBER 1948 (UNGA res 194) No mention of lineal descendants.

      UNGA res 194 also applied to Jewish refugees as did UNRWA 12 months later (til 1952 when the State of Israel took responsibility for Jewish refugees in Israel.)

      The only refugees with full right of return to Israel’s actual internationally recognized territory ( sans any territory illegally acquired by war and never annexed to Israel link to wp.me ), amounts to a few thousand people ALL over 65 years of age. They were ALL children in 1948. link to wp.me

      The only demographic threat by millions is in territories not yet Israeli … some 50% of what remained of Palestine acquired by war by Israel after Israel was declared and recognized “an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

  39. doug says:

    Chomsky and Hawking have both made brief appearances on The Big Bang Theory. I wonder if we’ll see more of them? Or less?

    Hawking is this generation’s Feynman.

  40. NickJOCW says:

    The Dershowitz and Beinart positions on what fuels the BDS movement and associated activities are not mutually exclusive, they overlap. One may be unsympathetic about Israel while holding one, the other, both or neither position. Dershowitz is quite right that there is a lot of anti-Semitism around, both latent and active, but it didn’t come into existence with the state of Israel and some may consider his lumpen personal attack on Hawking actually serves to encourage it by reflecting a regrettable stereotype. The same is true for his spurious reasoning about Kurds, Armenians, etc., none of whom is supported by US tax payers or aspiring to full acceptance in the Western world. Beinart, on the other hand, strikes me as a harmless aspirant for having his cake and eating it.

  41. NickJOCW says:

    I would like to say one other thing about Hawking. I have never met him but I do know other physicists equally renowned though not so famous, and I assure you there is great deal of validity in the stereotype of the absent-minded professor. It is difficult for ordinary folk to realise how little of their minds is actively engaged in what we see as the real world. I once had a meal with one such in a pizzeria a short walk from his office. He talked incessantly and there was still a good piece left on his plate when it came time to leave; still expounding, he picked it up and moved to put it in his jacket pocket but paused and frowned until his eyes settled on the napkin and then his eyebrows rose and his head lifted fractionally. In a flash the pizza was in the napkin and in his pocket and his exposition continued virtually uninterrupted. That was a Friday and I was in his office again the following Monday. He was illustrating on a large blackboard when the chalk broke. He patted his pocket, frowned, and withdraw the napkin which I recognised. He regarded it briefly, clearly having no notion what it was or how it got there, then he put it back, found a piece of chalk in his other pocket and continued his exposition. I really don’t imagine Hawking spent much time thinking about the conference. He had more likely accepted casually and quite forgotten about it until he got those messages from his peers when he was quite glad to have an excuse to cancel an attendance that would anyway have taken up valuable time and involved considerable logistical hassle. It’s the rest of the world that interprets it as a political gesture.

    • NickJOCW says:

      PS. In case you may be speculating on the subsequent fate of that portion of pizza, all I can say is that fortunately he is married.

  42. THEN:
    “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially” ~ Robert E. Lee, 1856

    “South Africa has achieved for its nonwhite people the best education and the highest standard of living among all the blacks of Africa” ~ James Kilpatrick, 1971

    NOW:
    “Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they’re all citizens of Israel!” ~ Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli Prime Minister), May 2011

    “Israel on the West Bank is more democratic than any Arab or Muslim state in the world today” ~ Alan Dershowitz, May 2013

    MORAL:
    If you want to know what the slaves think, DON’T ask the slave-owners …ask the slaves!

  43. Is Hawking trying to “destroy” Israel?

    Or, does Hawking think Israel should get out of the West Bank, for its own sake?

  44. Rebekkah says:

    “Let me put it this way, Stephen Hawkings [sic] would not refuse to attend a conference in a country that was equally oppressing another country, say China and Tibet, or Russia and Chechnya– it’s all about the fact that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people.”

    I wonder what people would respond to this because this kind of comment comes up a lot when I talk about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

    • Ecru says:

      China’s not a democracy so BDS, which is aimed at the population at large wouldn’t work, and it’s debatable these days if Russia is either. Further neither nation has a leadership that gives a damn about how the rest of the planet sees them. BDS is a tactic to encourage change it’s not applicable in all situations. Israel’s particularly vulnerable to this type of tactic because its economy rests so much on foreign largess and it loves to bill itself as a vital part of the Western democratic world.

  45. notatall says:

    I remember when Dershowitz’s restaurant in Harvard Square failed and I said to myself, God exists after all.