Chomsky is to Jews what Clarence Thomas is to blacks– representing a fringe, says WNYC’s Lehrer

I have often written here that Brian Lehrer, the popular talk show host at WNYC public radio, reflects a strongly pro-Israel position because he regards himself as representing the attitudes of the Jewish community in New York. Yesterday in a discussion of the Supreme Court, Lehrer openly embraced that bias, and took a shot at Noam Chomsky in doing so: 

Brian Lehrer: Can I ask you, what is Clarence Thomas’s legacy on the court on these racially charged cases? I always thought having Clarence Thomas as the only black person on the Supreme Court is like having Noam Chomsky as the only Jew at the U.N. You know– from the group, but opposed to the positions of probably 90 percent of the group on the salient issues. Do his votes this week on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act and over his career bear that out?

Adam Liptak of New York Times: He has taken a very consistent and most people would say principled, hard line against racial classifications from the government whether for good or ill. He doesn’t want the government’s help. He thinks that black people can make it on their own. And in all of these cases, he takes a very hard line against any kind of he’d call it discrimination, whether it’s benign or not, whether it means to help historically disadvantaged groups or not. And that’s been his position since he was a very young man.

A couple of comments. I wonder how many of Noam Chomsky’s statements decrying the brutal exercise of US power overseas or supporting human rights in Palestine would actually be objectionable to the liberal Jewish community? It is time we had that battle, and let Lehrer stand up for Iraq-war neoconservatives– whom he so often hosts on his show– and drones. And see where “the community” is.

But let’s say Lehrer is right. He might be right. And by Chomsky he means cultural Zionists and anti-Zionists: so we are on the fringe in the Jewish community. Well then, here’s a simple challenge to Lehrer. Where are we politically represented? Clarence Thomas has strong political support, inside the Republican Party. Adam Liptak speaks respectfully of Thomas’s positions, above; and there are other black conservatives in public roles. Where’s our home? I’m not talking about the synagogues– but in the press, on WNYC, the New York Times, and in the Congress and legislatures. Who thinks we have a point?  And if we don’t have a home, isn’t that a bad thing?

This was first reported by the tireless Lisa Guido. Thanks to her and Adam Horowitz.

About Philip Weiss

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

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

  1. Citizen says:

    I guess we need to know more precisely why Lehrer thinks Chomsky and Thomas both represent a fringe spokesperson for, respectively Jewish Americans, and Black Americans? And, if he speaks for the majority of Jewish Americans, does he also speak for the majority of Black Americans? Why? Isn’t he too a member of the rarified elite? And he certainly is not black. More basically, even if its true what he says about who Chomsky and Thomas represent–a mere fringe of both groups, why does he think the majority is always right? His justification’s logic deduction is that, he, Lehrer, speaks for the majority of whatever subgroup of Americans because he parrots the view of that majority. Pretty juvenile, but very lucrative, and career-enhancing. So, ignoring the view of the minority of any group is supposed to enlighten the public? Twisted version of informed consent. How does he see the Amendments to the US Constitution that put a brake on the power of majority opinion (pure democracy)? I guess he’d just sit there and babble if they were all taken away? Because he does not represent any fringe group?

  2. American says:

    ‘Where are we politically represented? Clarence Thomas has strong political support, inside the Republican Party. Adam Liptak speaks respectfully of Thomas’s positions, above; and there are other black conservatives in public roles. Where’s our home? I’m not talking about the synagogues– but in the press, on WNYC, the New York Times, and in the Congress and legislatures. Who thinks we have a point? And if we don’t have a home, isn’t that a bad thing?”‘

    Yes it is a very bad thing. But you’re not represented within the political power structure in the US at all…..or the press…except you might see the occasional ‘guest editoral’ piece..but even then it wont go too far against zio land.

    However I am not going to be one to say …..’oh if only the Jews would do more on this’…..it would change……cause it probably wouldnt…..you’re locked out by the incesteous special agenda driven political-media elite like the majority of citizens are on a host of things.

    If you’re not part of the establishment you’re a ‘throw- away American’. The only comfort in this bad is it makes you part of biggest club in the US.

  3. RE: “Where’s our home?” ~ Weiss

    ANSWER: ‘Conscious pariahs’ don’t really have a home, especially not in this country (with its two empire-loving political parties, not to mention its corporatist mainstream media)!

  4. Krauss says:

    We have a home: it’s called the progressive base.

    Most progressives in the democratic base don’t like their politicians cozying up to Wall St, yet it inevitably happens because of the need for fundraising.
    Most of us don’t like them signing off on wars, especially in places like Syria. 70% of the American people were against involved. If you look at self-identifying progressives we’re talking 85% and up. Yet it happened.

    The progressive base has been ignored because we’re well-behaved, unlike the Tea Party. I have little patience for those who say the Tea Party is one giant scam by the Koch brothers. The Kochs and others have tried to co-opt the movement, and their results have been mixed at best, but the core of the TP was always among the conservative base and they were disciplined and they took a vicious beating from the press and kept at it. What happened after Occupy Wall St? It all fell apart, as it usually does with the left.

    It began with economic policies. If you look at the offshoots, like Oakland, you’ll notice that the focus quickly went from economics to petty identify politics. This is what usually happens, and that divides people and then you inevitably see splintering.

    If you want specifically Jewish progressive places, well, there’s no other way out than playing the long game. Look at the beating J Street took for taking essentially AIPAC lite positions. You can’t really negotiate with these people.
    You wait, and then people will come as time progresses and Israel falls further in the Apartheid mud.

    In the end, however, I believe in cross-cultural/cross-ethnic alliances. It’s a mistake to limit yourself to the Jewish community, even if the core ought to have a heavy Jewish mix. Why “Jewish progressive critics” when you can have the much broader “progressive critics”? Behaving otherwise makes you fall into the trap that only Jews can criticize Israel “because we do it out of love” – which is really a way to control the conversation because they know they control the discussion inside the Jewish community. J Street tried to reform it from the inside, they gave up and now they’re AIPAC’s whipping boy running around doing their errands. Not a place I’d like to end up in.

    • Elliot says:

      Krauss: “In the end, however, I believe in cross-cultural/cross-ethnic alliances. ”
      How would that look for progressive Jews? I mean, beyond caring about other progressives issues because those issues, like I/P are all essentially all the same issue. You seem to be talking about savvy, political alliances.

      • Citizen says:

        @ Elliott
        I don’t get your response to Krauss’s comment: “How would that look for progressive Jews?” Shouldn’t they be talking about savvy, political alliances? That seems to me Krauss’s point. Jews are no more than 2% of the US population. Surely there’s a lot more self-identified Progressives than that in USA. Why not band together? Please clarify. Thanks.

  5. Nevada Ned says:

    Brian Lehrer really ought to think about these three facts before sneering at Chomsky:

    (1) In 2005 the British magazine Prospect conducted a poll in which Chomsky was voted “the leading living public intellectual.”

    (2) The next year, the New Statesman magazine ranked Chomsky seventh in the list of “Heroes of our time.”

    (3) Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited in the field of Arts and Humanities more than any other living scholar.

    [source: Chomky entry in Wikipedia]

    Finally, I recall that in 2000, the Jerusalem Post conducted a poll, asking “who have been the most influential Jews in the last 1000 years?” Chomsky was on the list.
    However, I can’t find a citation online for this. I may have misremembered this “fact.” Can a Mondoweiss reader help?

  6. It is not only for his criticism of Israel that Chomsky has no home in the US political establishment. Even if he never mentioned the subject, he would still be marginalized for his expose of American imperial power and as a socialist (of the libertarian kind, though they don’t care what kind). However, I do not understand why any decent person would WANT a home inside such a shithouse.

    • Citizen says:

      I agree Chomsky’s anti-imperialism (US), as well as his anti-Zionism, have made him not welcome in the West Establishment.

  7. yourstruly says:

    another zionist attacking the messenger rather than challenge his/her views on the zionist entity. so what else is new?

  8. yourstruly says:

    on human rights clarence thomas is for setting the clock back, whereas, nome chomsky is and has always been a staunch advocate for advancing these same rights.

  9. Les says:

    Lehrer owes his listeners an explanation that explains what is is about Chomsky that embarresses fellow Jew Lehrer.

  10. German Lefty says:

    I always thought having Clarence Thomas as the only black person on the Supreme Court is like having Noam Chomsky as the only Jew at the U.N.
    Makes sense. Both, Clarence Thomas and Noam Chomsky, are against affirmative action for their own group of people.* They oppose racial discrimination. That’s what they have in common. What I don’t understand is that Clarence Thomas is regarded as right-winger for this reason, whereas Noam Chomsky is considered a left-winger for this reason.
    * Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.

    • if thomas was against affirmative action he should have given up his place in line for college and worked harder to have made his achievements on merit alone instead of reaping the benefits of affirmative action. he’s a hypocrite, among other things.

      and chomsky does not define himself as an anti zionist.

      * Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.

      extremist zionist lawfare ethnic cleanser Gerald M. Steinberg from ngo monitor agrees with you: link to freeman.org

      ZIONISM AS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

      In the Jewish tradition, affirmative action is based on the principle that in distributing charity, the poor of one’s own city have priority. Translated into modern political terms, before we can provide Israel’s Arab citizens with complete equal rights in all spheres, we must first ensure that this equality does not become the basis for depriving us of our own rights to survival, both individual and collective.

      • German Lefty says:

        if thomas was against affirmative action he should have given up his place in line for college and worked harder to have made his achievements on merit alone instead of reaping the benefits of affirmative action.
        “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a 15-cent price tag stuck to his Yale law degree, blaming the school’s affirmative action policies in the 1970s for his difficulty finding a job after he graduated. [...] Thomas’ new autobiography, ‘My Grandfather’s Son,’ shows how the second black justice on the Supreme Court came to oppose affirmative action after his law school experience.”
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        chomsky does not define himself as an anti zionist.
        Yes, I know. However, the article states: “And by Chomsky he means cultural Zionists and anti-Zionists.”
        Finkelstein is not an anti-Zionist either. Yet many Zionists mistake him for one and view him as a representative of the “anti-Israel crowd”.

        extremist zionist lawfare ethnic cleanser Gerald M. Steinberg from ngo monitor agrees with you
        No, he doesn’t agree with me. He supports affirmative action, I don’t. Don’t throw me into the same pot with Zionists.

        • Don’t throw me into the same pot with Zionists.

          GL, you wrote * Zionism is affirmative action for Jews. ( not a definition i agree with) it’s a definition likely coined by some think tank (like steinberg’s) specializing in formulating orwellian concepts, to usurp liberals whose sympathies generally lean towards supporting affirmative action. i didn’t throw you anywhere, my point was that both you and steinberg agree Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.

          interesting thomas blames the affirmative action for his difficulty finding a job after he graduated since the federal quota system probably helped land him his appointment as Assistant Attorney General in Missouri in ’74 when federal law required the integration of blacks into government positions. and that was only the beginning: link to huffingtonpost.com

          Despite his mediocre political credentials and undistinguished academic record, Thomas rose from junior Senate aide to Supreme Court justice in less than a decade. Here’s the parade of plum positions that he got: assistant secretary of Education for civil rights, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an appointment to the federal judiciary, and of course, Supreme Court judge. His quick rise up the political and legal ladder was all preceded by his race based admission to Yale Law School.

          In his memoir, Thomas protests that he never actively sought these spots and pretends that he didn’t want them because of his deep fear that he would be permanently tarred as an affirmative action hire. But no one twisted Thomas’s arm or put a knife to his throat and demanded that he accept any of these positions including admission to Yale Law School. He had a mouth and he could have opened it and said no every time he was offered a professional leg up. He didn’t. If Thomas had just taken the plums served up to him, and quietly melted into the woodwork with his titles, it would have been harmless enough. But he had a bigger agenda in mind, and that was to be an aggressive and relentless foe of the very affirmative action measures that he milked.

          anyway, citing thomas’s autobiography ….not sure that’s a source i’d recommend for unbiased opinion.

          i’m not going to stop you from defending thomas if you agree with him on affirmative action, go for it. but don’t blame me for ‘throwing you’ anywhere.

          and to answer your earlier question, of why thomas is considered rightwing and chomsky left wing when both “are against affirmative action for their own group of people*“, to construe zionism is affirmative action for jews, one would need to construe affirmative action was designed to include giving a leg up for the privileged (either within israel or the US). i seriously doubt chomsky, being a linguist, would agree with this inclusion in definition of affirmative action. i could be wrong, it would be interesting reading evidence to the contrary.

        • German Lefty says:

          GL, you wrote * Zionism is affirmative action for Jews. (not a definition i agree with)

          How else do you explain that (Zionist) Jews get away with crimes that other groups of people would definitely be punished for? Jews get special treatment. Different standards are applied to them because they are a former victim group, just like black US citizens. That’s affirmative action.

          my point was that both you and steinberg agree Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.
          Yes, but why did you consider it necessary to point this out? Viewing Zionism as affirmative action is not a typically or exclusively Zionist position. That I happen to agree with this particular Zionist on this particular issue is pure coincidence.

          Despite his mediocre political credentials and undistinguished academic record, Thomas rose from junior Senate aide to Supreme Court justice in less than a decade.
          This just proves how terribly unfair affirmative action is. Unqualified people get good jobs solely because of the colour of their skin. If that’s not racism…

          But he had a bigger agenda in mind, and that was to be an aggressive and relentless foe of the very affirmative action measures that he milked.
          That’s an unfair assessment. The article clearly states that “Thomas protests that he never actively sought these spots.” Therefore, he didn’t “milk” affirmative action measures. He only took the affirmative action positions that were offered to him in order to fight affirmative action. This was a dilemma. If affirmative action had not existed, he wouldn’t have had to do that.
          As long as affirmative action exists, black people will never be able to prove that they actually deserve the jobs they got and not only have them because of a race bonus. That’s a very unfortunate situation.

        • How else do you explain that (Zionist) Jews get away with crimes that other groups of people would definitely be punished for? Jews get special treatment. Different standards are applied to them because they are a former victim group, just like black US citizens. That’s affirmative action.

          not really. let’s check out wiki’s definition of affirmative action (my bold)

          Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group” in areas of employment, education, and business“.[2]

          perhaps you could explain how jews in either the US or israel are underrepresented in areas of employment, education or business.

          just because you do not approve of affirmative action doesn’t mean you can morph it into something it is not.

          How else do you explain that (Zionist) Jews get away with crimes that other groups of people would definitely be punished for?

          oh, they have a strong lobby in washington. there’s no law on the books demanding the federal government make quotas for jews in the workplace. that would be a little absurd since they are the most successful ethnic group in the US. is this a theory of yours or is it supported by other non zionist sources?

          Yes, but why did you consider it necessary to point this out?

          i didn’t find it necessary. i pointed it out because it sounded absurd to me so i googled it and that’s the first link that popped up. can you link to another sources for this theory you feel align with your sympathies (non/anti zionist plus opponent of affirmative action) and you do not find offensive?

          here’s another person who writes it’s a ‘potent rebuttal’ link to thedailybeast.com

          Perhaps the most potent rebuttal to both writers is that Zionism is analogous to affirmative action for a historically oppressed minority group which has all too often suffered grievously for not having a state specially dedicated to their interests. That was Arthur Hertzberg’s liberal defense of Zionism, which I recall him making personally at the Socialist Scholars Conference in 1992 or ’93.

          but affirmative action is not just for those who have historically been wronged, the purpose of it is the right that wrong within society. there’s just no evidence jews are discriminated against in our society or in israel. and i’ve looked at the definition of zionism. the people who try to co-op affirmative action in the definition seen to be primarily all pro zionists. again, it’s not necessary i point this out, but i do think it might be instructive to get my point across. only way down the wikipage can you find this definition, and it’s referenced as a political position held by zionists.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Characterization as colonialism

          Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving the expulsion of, and causing violence towards, the Palestinians. The characterization of Zionism as colonialism has been described by, among others, Nur Masalha, Gershon Shafir, Michael Prior, Ilan Pappe, and Baruch Kimmerling.[8]

          Others, such as Shlomo Avineri and Mitchell Bard, view Zionism not as colonialist movement, but as a national movement that is contending with the Palestinian one.[87] David Hoffman rejected the claim that Zionism is a ‘settler-colonial undertaking’ and instead characterized Zionism as a national program of affirmative action, adding that there is unbroken Jewish presence in Israel back to antiquity.[88]

          Viewing Zionism as affirmative action is not a typically or exclusively Zionist position.

          well, i look forward to reading some of your examples of anti or non zionists who hold your views.

        • also, i’d like to point out that i responded to something you didn’t understand. i felt this was based on a theory that didn’t hold water. so i made the attempt to explain to you how you were basing your assumption on a strange theory to better address your confusion.

          clearly, this bothered you. maybe someone else could step in and explain what it is you do not understand in a way that will not offend you.

          What I don’t understand is that Clarence Thomas is regarded as right-winger for this reason, whereas Noam Chomsky is considered a left-winger for this reason.

        • How else do you explain that (Zionist) Jews get away with crimes that other groups of people would definitely be punished for? Jews get special treatment.

          another way to look at affirmative action is not ‘special treatment’ but equal treatment. sometimes there are glass ceilings for women or blacks or palestinians or whoever within a society.

          let’s look at californians university system. who pays for that system? taxpayers. so why shouldn’t the government assure that lots of lower and lower middle class people who do not have the same educational opportunities (underfunded school programs in poor neighborhoods) but who still pay taxes, why shouldn’t their children be guaranteed representation in our public universities? instead, they are competing with kids from the best homes often educated at private schools. so i don’t have a problem with schools having quotas from underprivileged areas, which often means race.

          in this regard it is not the same as zionism.

        • German Lefty says:

          perhaps you could explain how jews in either the US or israel are underrepresented in areas of employment, education or business.
          I didn’t have Israel or the USA in mind.
          Zionism was and is seen as solution to the “Jewish question” and anti-Semitism in Europe. Zionists still live in the past and don’t want to acknowledge that times have changed. They claim that Israel as affirmative action project is necessary to protect world Jewry from anti-Semitism. Also, Zionists keep saying that there are very many Muslims and Muslim countries, whereas there are comparatively few Jews in the world and only one Jewish country. In their view, Jews are a minority in the Middle East that must be protected from the many, many Muslim terrorists. So, Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.
          (More tomorrow. It’s very late here.)

        • The article clearly states that “Thomas protests that he never actively sought these spots.” Therefore, he didn’t “milk” affirmative action measures. He only took the affirmative action positions that were offered to him in order to fight affirmative action. This was a dilemma. If affirmative action had not existed, he wouldn’t have had to do that.

          just thought i’d reprint this hoping one of your supporters shows up.

        • In their view, Jews are a minority in the Middle East that must be protected from the many, many Muslim terrorists. So, Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.

          yes, i totally get that it’s their view, i just can’t figure out why you’re agreeing with their conclusion. after all, it’s hasbara. again, affirmative action is to “benefit an underrepresented group”in areas of employment, education, and business“ within a society. it was never intended as a global effort to enhance one groups representation on a continent.

          I didn’t have Israel or the USA in mind.

          well by all means, do tell. where did you have in mind?

        • Citizen says:

          @ German Lefty
          I agree with you. I don’t know why Annie doesn’t see your POV. Where would Thomas be without affirmative action? (And where would Obmaa be?) And would Israel even exist without affirmative action? And, where would the Palestinian people be if it were not for the affirmative action of Christian Zionist & campaign cash poor Truman, competing with cold war Stalin, and then, the economic state PTB at the UN in 1948 that twisted arms ? The irony there, of course, is that the Palestinians were totally innocent. Nobody could say their ancestors were guilty of the racist sin, and so they had to pay. Yet they were made to pay, and still are.

        • Taxi says:

          “Jews are a minority in the Middle East that must be protected from the many, many Muslim terrorists.”

          Wow german lefty, one more “many” and you’ll get Abe Foxman knocking on your front door to give you an “affirmative” hug.

          (More later . It’s too early here)

          BTW, some people say there are more “terrorists” in israel than in the whole of the Arab world combined. Do the numbers.

        • I don’t know why Annie doesn’t see your POV. Where would Thomas be without affirmative action?

          he’d be nowhere, so if he’s so against affirmative action he should leave the court on principle!

          where would the Palestinian people be if it were not for the affirmative action of Christian Zionist & campaign cash poor Truman

          so can we assume you do not accept wiki’s definition of affirmative action: that it is mean to benefit an underrepresented group”

          you think of these participants,[ Palestinians, Christian Zionist & the campaign cash poor Truman], it’s the CZ’s and truman or zionists who are underrepresented?

          gee citizen. so do you also not support affirmative action. i wonder how many others will step up to the plate agreeing with GL that zionsim represents the underrepresented? congress et al.

        • German Lefty says:

          oh, they have a strong lobby in washington.
          I wasn’t only talking about the USA. European countries refrain from sanctions against “the Jewish state” because Jews were a former victim group in Europe. At least, that’s the official explanation. Every political party in the Bundestag states that supporting Israel’s national security is Germany’s historical responsibility. The German politicians and media silence and intimidate the German people by constantly talking about historical guilt. From the German point of view, Israel is clearly an affirmative action project. And most Germans disapprove of that affirmative action. 60% of Germans say that Germany has no special obligation to Israel.

          can you link to another sources for this theory you feel align with your sympathies (non/anti zionist plus opponent of affirmative action)?
          No, I can’t. But just because no anti-Zionist and anti-AA person has directly pointed out these parallels before doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
          However, I found an example of a post-Zionist and pro-AA person:
          “[Post-Zionist writer] Hannan Hever, for example, criticizes Said for viewing the Law of Return as racist and for not recognizing that the Law of Return, like American affirmative action, was designed as positive discrimination in favor of refugees and the persecuted.”
          Many left-wing Germans oppose affirmative action for blacks in the USA as well as Zionism. Several Germans who visited the USA or lived in the USA stated they were shocked that they met so many black US citizens who turned out to be racist. Also, many black US citizens, just like many Jewish Germans, shout “racism” as soon as you dare to disagree with them. They attribute every disagreement or rejection to racism. And they want preferential treatment because of past injustice. Many Germans are sick of such behaviour.

          there’s just no evidence jews are discriminated against in our society or in israel.
          Well, Zionists believe that there’s evidence. That’s why they support the affirmative action project called Israel.
          Besides, the question we are discussing is not whether affirmative action for Jews is actually necessary or not. (We agree on that!) The question is whether Israel is (designed as) an affirmative action project or not. (We disagree on that!)

        • German Lefty says:

          another way to look at affirmative action is not ‘special treatment’ but equal treatment.
          Nope. Racial discrimination prevents equal treatment. Only colour-blindness ensures equal treatment.

          so i don’t have a problem with schools having quotas from underprivileged areas, which often means race.
          That’s just not true. Saying “race” when you actually mean “wealth and privilege” is totally inaccurate. White people as a group might be more wealthy and privileged than black people as a group. However, people don’t exist as homogeneous groups. They exist as indivuduals. White people don’t hold secret meetings in which they distribute their wealth equally among all white people. It’s a fact that most poor people in the USA are white. Affirmative action for blacks is a collective punishment of ALL white people for the wealth and privilege of A FEW white people.

          underfunded school programs in poor neighborhoods. they are competing with kids from the best homes often educated at private schools.
          Make the funding of schools independent from the neighbourhood’s wealth. Abolish private schools and have public schools for everyone. That’s how you create the same educational opportunities, not by racial discrimination.

          sometimes there are glass ceilings for women or blacks or palestinians or whoever within a society.
          You don’t remove this glass ceiling by adding a further glass ceiling for men/whites/Jews.

        • German Lefty says:

          if he’s so against affirmative action he should leave the court on principle!
          Nope. According to that logic, black opponents of affirmative action couldn’t take any job and would have to be unemployed for their entire life. It’s pretty much impossible for black opponents of affirmative action to avoid affirmative action because it has been everywhere. If they get a job, then it’s difficult, if not impossible, to find out in how far this was because of actual prowess or affirmative action. I don’t think that a personnel manager would openly admit that someone is just an affirmative action hire.

          agreeing with GL that zionism represents the underrepresented
          Zionism is falsely regarded as solution to (former) anti-Semitism in Europe.
          Affirmative action is falsely regarded as solution to (former) anti-Black racism in the USA.
          In Germany, the official policy of anti-Semitism was replaced by philo-Semitism, i.e. support of the Jewish state.
          In the USA, the official policy of discrimination against black people was replaced by preferential treatment of black people.
          The thing is that two wrongs don’t make a right.

        • German Lefty says:

          The irony there, of course, is that the Palestinians were totally innocent.
          Right. But present generations of white US citizens are innocent, too. They can’t be blamed for slavery and the Jim Crow laws.

        • Citizen says:

          I think the CZ’s always buy into “poor little Israel” standing against the hoardes of ungodly Arabs as if Israel was Anne Frank. Truman new what the Nazis did, and as a youth probably read the story of David & Goliah a thousand times, and he reveals in his diary that he thought Jews, having experienced so much victimhood, would not behave like the Zionists were doing in the Mandate land, he got fed up with them pounding on his oval office door with their demands. He expresses in his diary deep disappointment that the Jews were no better than any bully group once they got power… so he clearly did look at recognition of Israel as a sort of affirmative action he could take, but he struggled with that because the Zionists he met were not like his old business buddy, far from it. In the end he closed his eyes (after deleting the adjective “Jewish”) and signed the letter recognizing the State Of Israel.

        • You don’t remove this glass ceiling by adding a further glass ceiling for men/whites/Jews.

          perhaps you could explain how, the way affirmative action has been applied in the US, it has ever created a glass ceiling for men, white people, or jews.

          “another way to look at affirmative action is not ‘special treatment’ but equal treatment.”
          Nope. Racial discrimination prevents equal treatment.

          i see you’re replacing affirmative action with “racial discrimination”. racial discrimination still exists in america and affirmative action was created to alleviate the ills of it. it was not created to be a permanent situation.

          Affirmative action for blacks is a collective punishment of ALL white people for the wealth and privilege of A FEW white people.

          ok, i can see were getting no where.

          The question is whether Israel is (designed as) an affirmative action project or not. (We disagree on that!)

          no, the question we are discussing is whether zionsim is affirmative action for jews. that is what we disagree on. there was nothing in our discussion about how israel was ‘designed’ until much later in the discussion. in fact when israel was designed there was no such thing as affirmative action.

          the term ‘affirmative action’ got highjacked and adopted by zionists decades after israel was already a country, specifically because there was sympathy for affirmative action in the US by liberals. this was a propaganda/hasbara coo which you have affiliated yourself with by adopting the terminology. granted, you are anti affirmative action, but it’s no different then claiming to be ‘pro ethnic cleansing’ of settlers from illegal settlements. obviously removing illegal squatters is not ethnic cleansing! it perpetuates a myth.

          good day.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Right. But present generations of white US citizens are innocent, too.”

          Nonsense. There are still a lot of white racists in the US who are not innocent at all. Further, even whites in the US who aren’t racist themselves benefit from white privilege which past and present racism has given them an improper leg up.

          “They can’t be blamed for slavery and the Jim Crow laws.”

          No, but also shouldn’t benefit from those historical practices and present, current racism and white privilege.

        • American says:

          ”racial discrimination still exists in america and affirmative action was created to alleviate the ills of it. it was not created to be a permanent situation. ”….annie

          Perhaps affirmative action policies should have an expiration date. Maybe one generation. Giving preference to a race or group just on that basis means someone somewhere is going to get the short end of the stick in the competition for education, jobs,whatever just because of their race.
          IMO AA for US blacks was the right thing to do when it began because we did owe blacks and needed to give them a leg up in the nation for keeping them down in slavery. But I’m not sure how long it should continue.
          Should nations have ‘forever’ preferences for past victims?.. I dont think so.
          The problem is it tends to go from helping or equalizing to ‘privileging certain groups when it goes on for too long.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Nope. Racial discrimination prevents equal treatment. Only colour-blindness ensures equal treatment.”

          In fantasy-land, sure. In the USA, with active, if covert (and sometimes overt) racism still in existence and white privilege still an issue, you won’t have color blindness, nor equal treatment. You’ll merely be stripping the victims of racism of one of their remedies.

          “Affirmative action for blacks is a collective punishment of ALL white people for the wealth and privilege of A FEW white people.”

          No, it’s not. It doesn’t even counter the effects of white privilege, which does benefit ALL white people to the detriment of non-whites.

          “Make the funding of schools independent from the neighbourhood’s wealth.”

          Politically unfeasible. (Because THAT is the basis of many of the USA’s dysfunctions: the overwhelming power of people with money.)

          “Abolish private schools and have public schools for everyone.”

          That would be unconstitutional. It would violate both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and probably the Fifth, as well.

          “That’s how you create the same educational opportunities, not by racial discrimination.”

          The problem, though, isn’t merely educational opportunities. There are society-wide problems that this center-right country simply refuses to deal with.

          “You don’t remove this glass ceiling by adding a further glass ceiling for men/whites/Jews.”

          Bad analogy. You wouldn’t be adding a further glass ceiling, you would merely be counteracting the ladder of unearned privilege that members of the majority group enjoy.

        • American says:

          Woody Tanaka says:
          July 1, 2013 at 12:05 pm

          ‘Nonsense. There are still a lot of white racists in the US who are not innocent at all. Further, even whites in the US who aren’t racist themselves benefit from white privilege which past and present racism has given them an improper leg up.>>>>>>

          You cant ‘legistate racism out of individuals…their will always be individuals with ‘atttudes. But you can excerbate racism or resentment with ‘collective white blame in ‘perpeturity’. Just like with the forever holocaust blame on the world.
          You cant go on collectively blaming generations after generations or they will get fed up and rebel against it, particuarly when they see or believe that the country has taken all the steps it can, like AA and laws against discrimination, to right a past wrong.

          What would you like to see done about…. “”whites in the US who aren’t racist themselves benefit from white privilege which past and present racism has given them an improper leg up…”?
          You want to see all whites put into slavery , denied voting rights or maybe go nazi on them and seize their property and deport them or have all racist individuals hunted down and imprisoned or excuted as punishment for that improper leg up and crimes by ‘some of’ their ancestors?
          Exactly what would be ‘enough’ payment from or punishment of the 21st century whites?

        • american, AA wasn’t developed as a way of punishing anyone. it was designed as a temporary measure to create a more equitable situation. AA made a huge difference wrt women in the workforce. i agree that you cannot ‘legistate racism out of individuals’ but you can legislate a small percentage of diversity in elementary schools in big cities so that children of different economic and racial backgrounds are educated around eachother. my child went to a junior highschool and highschool like this in seattle and the community was better for it.

          in fact there was a supreme court case about my son’s school while he was in attendance, it was a famous case.
          link to seattletimes.com

          but here is what the article doesn’t tell you. it doesn’t tell you nobody cared or sued about ballard high for years. everyone was fine with the voluntary diversity program, as the article notes:

          Over the four years the racial tiebreaker was in effect, district officials estimate about 1,000 students were assigned to schools based on their race. The tiebreaker mainly benefited students of color, but not exclusively.

          in a city the size of seattle you can imagine this is very very few students. you know what changed that brought on the lawsuit? ballard high was being rebuilt and it took a few years to build and when it was finished all of a sudden the people in the (wealthy) area of magnolia next door wanted their children to go to the new school. so the allotment set aside for kids from south seattle which was very few students…they all of a sudden after years had a problem with them. they didn’t want their kids to go to roosevelt anymore, now that ballard had a new school and they were closer than south seattle. the amount of kids who joined the diversity program (my son voluntarily went to a junior high in another neighborhood he was one of about 6 ‘white kids’ in the class and he loved it) and were assigned to other schools were not a huge number of kids but the impact on all the students was very positive. it was a popular program in the city.

          so while you can’t legislate racism out of individuals, you can legislate opportunities for children to be raised in a more diversified environment. kind of the opposite of israel where the communities have entrance committees to make sure the ‘other’ doesn’t move next door.

          edit, one more thing. when i moved to seattle they had a school superintendent that was ..literally famous within the city. i never even knew the name of a school superintendent anywhere else i ever lived. he was an ex general named john stanford and the kids/parents, everyone loved him like a hero. he was brought in to fix up the schools and wow, just amazing. when i arrived in seattle he was the most popular public figure in town hands down. more popular and than mayor or anyone else. anyway, he was diagnosed with leukemia and died very quickly in 1998. the whole town mourned, just devastated. they named a school after him which is a city landmark. he’s famous in seattle to this day.

          the lawsuit started within 2 years of his death. you can imagine how pissed seattlites were. just livid.

          you can read about him and how he turned thigs around in seattle here link to blackpast.org

          link to google.com

        • American says:

          ‘Annie Robbins says:
          July 1, 2013 at 1:36 pm

          american, AA wasn’t developed as a way of punishing anyone. >>>>

          Where did I say it was?…I didnt…I said I favored AA in the beginning.
          I asked Woody because of what he said, where he thought blame and punishment (reparations maybe better word) should end, what would be his idea of ‘enough’ to make up for the white oppression of blacks in the past and unfair white privilege. Is there a limit or an end date to this or is this permanent forever?

          I can think of a dozen stores and examples like yours about Seattle but ‘diversity’ and social engineering was not my point.
          My point was AA type policies , as I said, can creep beyond equalizing and protecting and become privileging of past victims and certain races over others.
          I think that is a very bad idea that leads to unintended consequences if it becomes a ‘permanent’ status or national policy and for any race or group.
          You’re never going to reach a ‘perfect pitch’ that will satisfy everyone in this country and thats why you cant go too overboard in any direction.
          And no I’m not saying we’ve gone overboard …yet…I am saying that if racial or ethnic quotas for any groups or etc. become ‘permanent’ then it’s eventually going to create more problems than it solves.

        • american, i see the other side on AA and i think each side has valid arguments although i still support affirmative action (within limits). my statement wrt ‘punishment’ was in response to: You cant go on collectively blaming generations after generations or they will get fed up and rebel against

          which i agree. i was just pointing out AA was not for the purpose of blaming. there’s still a lot of inequality in our system. law enforcement and the justice system targets certain ethnicities more than others.

          I am saying that if racial or ethnic quotas for any groups or etc. become ‘permanent’ then it’s eventually going to create more problems than it solves.

          well, college entrances can be set up in a variety of ways. the ivy leagues have a percentage for the children of alumni (which guarantees them placement called ‘ alumni status ‘) largest percentage of entries come from the test scores. then there are generally a smaller percentage that look at students who bring other qualities of a more creative nature or past honors they have received. i think diversity is important on a campus and also in the workforce. so i think state colleges should consider diversity when choosing applicants.

          also, if there is a college that has a strong decades old alumni that is white, there’s already a leg up for them. at harvard they call those kids ‘legacy’ this is from 2011: Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent:link to thecrimson.com

          Kahlenberg, who edited a book entitled “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions,” has worked to draw attention to the issue of legacy admissions at highly selective colleges.

          “There’s been so much focus on affirmative action in college admissions … Here there is a very large affirmative action program for wealthy students that gets very little attention,” Kahlenberg said. “It’s really a relic of European-style aristocracy that has no place in American higher education.”

          Fitzsimmons defended Harvard’s legacy admissions rate.

          “If you look at the credentials of Harvard alumni and alumnae sons and daughters, they are better candidates on average,” said Fitzsimmons, part of what he sees as the explanation for the disparity in the acceptance rate. “Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.”

          so by that same standard of ““Very few who apply have no chance of getting in.” that’s a standard that could probably be applied to most all of their black applicants too. but their legacy is not the same as the wealthy kids. (and i would not call a legacy rate AA either, but it is a quota system, a high one)

        • American says:

          annie,

          I really dont even have ‘a side’ actually…..and if anything I would probably hand over a slot to a underdog before I would hand it over to a elite who isnt going to need it as much as the underdog guy, all other things being equal or close to equal..

          I’m asking and no one is answering me on…….can nations have Permanent quota or preference type policies for the same races or victims forever or not?

        • well they can, but that’s not how it is intended.

          The United Nations Human Rights Committee states that “the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant.”[9]

          more here: link to en.wikipedia.org

          here’s an interesting article from today’s wapo: link to washingtonpost.com

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “You cant ‘legistate racism out of individuals’”

          You can’t legislate opinions, but you can, and should, legislate acts of bigotry and prejudice out of society.

          “But you can excerbate racism or resentment with ‘collective white blame in ‘perpeturity’.”

          And if you end it too soon, you will end up with an exacerbation of resentment by the minorities who still suffer from the prejudice. Why would you favor the white’s resentment over the non-white’s resentment? (One of the possible answers is white privilege…)

          And it should not last in perpetuity, it should last until the objective signs of racism discrimination are gone.

        • American says:

          @ annie

          I dont favor anyone ‘s resentment over someone elses.
          And in that vein, have you per chance seen any of the Zimmerman trial going on?
          The guy who killed the black teenager in Fla?
          I believe there was some racial profiling in that event and imo racism is definitely going in this trial …..the prosecutor is so bad he looks like he’s working for the defense instead of victim.
          This racism within law authorities that screws blacks in the legal system should be higher priority imo…yet not much is done about that.
          You can educate all you want to, but when a black person runs into that or sees that still at work it wipes out any and all good that was done.

        • American says:

          Why would you favor the white’s resentment over the non-white’s resentment?”……Woody

          opps, I answered annie instead of you on this…..answer is I dont favor either’s resentment. And we are also talking about AA and laws against discrimination which are different areas re racism.
          The place I think blacks are still entitled to have a huge resentment and raise hell about it is in law and enforcement authorities cause
          we absolutely see racism still goes on there –blacks, partculary poorer ones, get totally screwed in the halls of justice.
          As I mentioned below…watch the sham of the Zimmerman trial going on in Flordia.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “answer is I dont favor either’s resentment. ”

          I disagree. You seem to suggest that continuing Affirmative Action after the point when whites think it appropriate will foster racism and resentment in those whites and, therefore, we should end Affirmative Action. Studies have demonstrated that whites actually underestimate the level of racism in society because they don’t experience it. Consequently, there will be still a need for Affirmative Action programs even at a point where whites feel that resentment. But if you were to end those programs at that point, the non-whites would feel resentment. Yet your solution is to favor the white resentment and end the programs.

          “The place I think blacks are still entitled to have a huge resentment and raise hell about it is in law and enforcement authorities”

          They’re entitled to have whatever resentments they want. The criminal justice system is a sick joke, from the legislator to the prison guard. But the racism in the private sector is a huge problem. (Take the exact same resume and change the name from a “white” name to a “black” name and the number of call backs for interviews plummets. Approval of loan applications from equally qualified persons are decreased if the home is in a middle class minority community compared to a middle class white community.) Until such private sector racism still exists, there is a place for Affirmative Action.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Woody Tanaka
          “And it should not last in perpetuity, it should last until the objective signs of racism discrimination are gone.”

          That’s a tall (& on-going) order. Statistics can often correlate with many different views re cause and effect.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie Robbins

          The ivy league legacy is just a form of cronyism.

        • Citizen says:

          @Annie Robbins
          Thanks for the WP link. It makes some good points.

        • Citizen says:

          @Annie Robbins
          And here’s your reward: link to thedailybeast.com

        • Citizen says:

          Is class-based affirmative the answer? This article argues no; it argues that the actual purpose of affirmative action is merely to get as many women and minorities into the top 1-5% winners as white males, the elite whose income and wealth continues to soar, while for all the rest of us, including the college-educated, income keeps going down–the ever-widening income gap now three decades old. link to prospect.org

        • thanks for the daily beast link citizen. ‘beefing up schools and early childhood education in minority areas. ‘ would be the simplest most effective (and cost effective)solution.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “That’s a tall (& on-going) order. Statistics can often correlate with many different views re cause and effect.”

          Well, no one said justice was going to be easy…

      • Citizen says:

        @ Annie Robbins

        Your Steinberg quote does not echo historical US affirmative action programs as implemented because it contains a limiting condition against reverse discrimination against the majority.

        • yes i know citizen, that is why i cited that example and referenced the ‘logic’ as orwellian. calling zionism affirmative action is flipping the meaning of AA (regardless if one supports it or not it cements the idea as having validity), that is what pro israel lawfare does. no different than pro settler activists hijacking the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ by claiming they would be the victims if they had to leave the settlements*. it’s a hasbara tactic.

          i’m giving GL lots of slack here since she’s not a native english speaker but seriously…. zionism is affirmative action? i don’t think so! affirmative action was not designed to empower those in power, but those who are oppressed by the power structure. we might as well call for affirmative action for the 1% top income bracket since they are a minority. mindcrunch.

          *imagine if pro settlers ‘won’ on the concept their expulsion from the settlements was in effect ‘ethnic cleansing’. then, one could argue they did or did not support their ‘ethnic cleansing’. but they’ve already won 1/2 the battle by highjacking the definition of ethnic cleansing. zionists always seek to own the narrative.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie
          Well, there is weak analogy in saying Jews were given Israel as affirmative action for historical anti-semitism in the West, cumulating in the Shoah. But it’s very weak since affirmative action justifies reverse discrimination against whites based on what their ancestors did to minorities, but the Palestinians’ ancestors have had no history of anti-semitic persecution of Jews.

        • German Lefty says:

          affirmative action was not designed to empower those in power, but those who are oppressed by the power structure.
          Right, but you have to consider when Israel was founded. At that time, Jews were not in power. They were victims of ethnic cleansing.

          imagine if pro settlers ‘won’ on the concept their expulsion from the settlements was in effect ‘ethnic cleansing’.
          I don’t distinguish between the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and the 1948 occupation of the area that is now called Israel. Pretty much all Jews living in Israel/Palestine are illegal settlers, because the indigenous people didn’t grant them the right of residence. Nevertheless, would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)? I would indeed view this as reverse ethnic cleansing. Trying to undo this many decades of illegal settling would amount to further injustice.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Annie
          GL stated specifically she did not agree that Zionism was affirmative action for Jews.

        • Right, but you have to consider when Israel was founded. At that time, Jews were not in power.

          true, but zionism is not defined by israel’s founding. zionism is a political construct, it’s ethnic nationalism. so defining zionism entails looking at it today and how it functions today.

          and affirmative action has a definition also, that definition doesn’t morph at whim. here is the definition via webster: link to merriam-webster.com

          : an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons

          it’s one thing to object to this practice on principle or construe it’s application leads to an inevitable discrimination of other people. it’s another altogether to simply change the definition because you do not agree with it. and while one could argue, as you do, that in effect zionism was initially intended to alleviate past ills, zionism as it stands today, does not function as affirmative action in the way affirmative action is defined by the dictionary definition, which you seem to be willfully ignoring because you do not agree with it.

        • citizen, GL stated specifically she did not agree that Zionism was affirmative action for Jews.

          nope, that is what we are arguing about.
          link to mondoweiss.net

          * Zionism is affirmative action for Jews.

          she stated she is opposed to both zionism and affirmative action. iow she doesn’t support it. but she defines zionism as affirmative action for jews.

          and read the question in the comment re chomsky and thomas. it’s the ways she’s defined affirmative action that’s at the core of her “confusion”. but co-opting chomsky’s opinion, a linguist, into her ‘theory’ is a tad over the top.

        • yrn says:

          would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)?

          Many here see this act as the solution to the conflict.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)?”

          Should the children of Jews who had art stolen by the Nazis be able to recover it these days? It doesn’t matter how long ago the Israelis stole the land. They stole the land. Time doesn’t sanctify their crimes and while these present days israelis are entitled to full human rights, they must give the same to the Palestinians to be entitled to them, themselves. 1S1P1V

        • yrn, note how GL morphed my point and evaded addressing it (ie, she did not address “imagine if pro settlers ‘won’ on the concept their expulsion from the settlements was in effect ‘ethnic cleansing’.)”

          she did not distinguish between settlers in the west bank and israelis living on the other side of the greenline.

          i think it would be very fair if, in the context of a 2 state solution, palestinians (or any international body) expelled the settlers from the illegal colonies in the west bank (and i don’t care how many decades they have been there) and i would not consider this ethnic cleansing because it was against international law for them to move there and required the ethnic cleansing of palestinians from their land to create jewish only settlements. i do not advocate jews being expelled from israel. however, land illegally annexed to israel is another story depending on what kind of equitable outcome unfolds. at this juncture i think it’s more likely there will be one state with equal rights.

          words have meanings. ethnic cleansing is a crime and the crime has a definition. expelling illegal settlers from illegal settlements does not meet the description of the crime of ethnic cleansing. affirmative action has a meaning too, and it’s not synomymous w/zionsim or ethnic nationalism.

          btw, in case anyone is interested here is a rational description of the pros and cons of affirmative action, there’s nothing in there that resembles zionism as it exists today. conflating the two as a rhetorical device is not helpful. it’s an hasbara tactic. and i could care less if, as GL claims ‘lots of germans agree with her’. show me the proof of even one non zionist writer or journo making this argument.

          link to scu.edu

        • Donald says:

          “would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)?”

          I wouldn’t. As you say, they were born there. It’s their home. Kicking them out is a way of solving ethnic cleansing by more ethnic cleansing.

          But it seems like a pretty remote contingency–it might happen, or something like it, if a third intifada turned into something as bloody as the Syrian civil war and Israelis started leaving in large numbers on their own to escape a failed state. I don’t know what the chances of that are. Not very high at the moment.

          One final point. Anyone who thinks that the Nakba (and keeping Palestinians from returning after the fighting) was justified doesn’t really have a logical basis for objecting if the situation is reversed, but speaking for myself, one massive crime doesn’t justify another.

        • donald, would you find it fair in any situation to evict jews from jewish only colonies in the west bank, or would you consider this ethnic cleansing as the crime is defined under international law?

        • Taxi says:

          Evicting violent land thieves is not ethnic cleansing.

          Rewarding the children of land thieves by allowing them to keep stolen loot is immoral and does NOT deliver justice to the rightful owners of the land or to their children.

        • American says:

          “Nevertheless, would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)? I would indeed view this as reverse ethnic cleansing. Trying to undo this many decades of illegal settling would amount to further injustice.”….GL

          You need to disguish between residents in the UN chartered Israel and the illegal Israelis in ‘Palestine.
          Removing the illegal settlers,even if they were born in the settlements,
          is not ethnic cleansing.
          Applying international law and enforcing the ‘original requirments the UN set forth in Res 181 for Israel is the only way to settle this justly for those who want a 2 state solution and for Israel to remain.
          The scales of justice are blind for a reason…the law is about justice and rights under the law, not about the personal wants, desires or ‘feelings of
          one party trumping justice for some other group in a dispute.

          If the world ran on the personal wants and feelings of various groups we might as well go back to the tribal stone age and have no law.

        • American says:

          yrn says:
          July 1, 2013 at 12:07 pm

          would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)?>>>>

          Yes. Where it applies to the illegal settlers in Palestine. Not only fair but mandatory for justice for Palestine.

        • talknic says:

          @ yrn “would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)?”

          DUH! People born in NON-Israeli territory are quite simply NOT native-born Jewish Israelis.

          Is it fair that successive Israeli Governments have continuously LIED to its citizens in order that they settle illegally in non-Israeli territory in the first place? Stupid people who’ve believed Zionist land grabbing propaganda only have themselves to blame for their illegal predicament. You want the Palestinians to keep paying for YOUR stupidity?

          Is it fair of successive Israeli governments to dispossess non-Jewish non-Israelis out of non-Israeli territory after so many CENTURIES and the birth of successor generations, so that stupid Israelis who’ve allowed themselves to be duped by successive Israeli Governments into believing they have a right to illegally settle in non-Israeli territory ?

          Is it fair that the Israeli Government sells non-Israeli land in non-Israeli territory to stupid Jews who claim they’re returning to their own land? ( further reading HERE )

        • Donald says:

          “would you find it fair in any situation to evict jews from jewish only colonies in the west bank, or would you consider this ethnic cleansing as the crime is defined under international law?”

          I don’t think it’s wrong to evict the settlers. They have no right to be there. I’m talking about people born in a settler colonial state (there are a bunch, and as an American I live in one myself), who’ve never known any other home. You don’t punish people for the crimes committed by their parents or grandparents (or great grandparents or however far back one goes.) If you do, then ultimately we have to take seriously all the ridiculous arguments about whose ancestors were living where 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years ago. Of course Israelis should still be held responsible for their present day crimes and if they try to claim the Nakba was justified while complaining about people who want to throw them out it tells you they have the moral level of a spoiled child.

          “American” makes the argument a little better than I just did, providing the legal distinction.

        • Taxi says:

          “I’m talking about people born in a settler colonial state (there are a bunch, and as an American I live in one myself), who’ve never known any other home.”

          So you got a dog in the race – well, Donald, this clearly explains your political (and moral) schizophrenia.

          You’ve repeatedly stated that the children of thieves should keep the loot and eff the children of the victims. How utterly immoral of you – I am really very disgusted. You are no different that the worst of the right-wing zealots.

          You shouldn’t have invested in illegal property in the first place. That’s YOUR problem and mistake, not the suffering Palestinians. Where you live DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU MISTER DONALD! It belongs to Palestinians. GIVE IT BACK in peace or risk life and limb when the tables turn and you’re forced to give it back. And believe me, the tables are already turning.

          Remember this: when all-out war breaks out, and it will, all illegal settlements will be prime and LEGAL targets.

          And btw, stop crawling around mw looking for approval for your revolting ‘lite’ colonialism.

          Those whom you refer to as “never known any other home” but illegal settlements – like your kids, right? Well they’re AMERICAN born in occupied Palestine. I’m sure they have American passports. I have no doubt that they’ll be safer and most welcomed to live on American soil. They are NOT victims – they are part and parcel of the land swindle that zionists are continuing to execute. Stop using jewish children as begging bowl and shield for your zionist criminal folly.

        • taxi, i think many one staters are of the opinion everybody should just try to get along. as opposed to run along….

        • Taxi says:

          And I can see the “one stater” negotiations going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…..

          I’m afraid to say, israeli zionists are not ‘honest’ negotiators. No negotiation is ever gonna work with them. They arrived with malice and are intent on colonizing by malice.

          It is impossible for zionism to allow a “one stater”, or a two stater. They just want greater israel. Full stop. Therefore there will eventually be war.

          It’s a nice cover for ‘lite’ zionists though – yes let’s talk about a “one stater” AFTER Donald and his kin move into an illegal settlement – and they’ve been living there for a few decades, that is (right, Donald?).

          I don’t buy it, I just don’t buy it. No faith – no faith.

          Zionists living in illegal settlements have ZERO credibility when they talk about peace and solutions. Liberal zionists living in settlements are just as much of a problem as kahanists living in illegal settlements. If they remove themselves, we won’t have such an intractable problem that can only be solved by war. People like Donald ARE the source and sinew of the problem.

        • Donald says:

          “So you got a dog in the race – well, Donald, this clearly explains your political (and moral) schizophrenia.”

          That’s hilarious, Taxi. I don’t have any connection with Israel at all. Never been there and unlikely ever to go, unless they reach a just solution with the Palestinians. No property there, no friends or relations living there, nothing.

          I was talking about being a descendant of white Europeans living in the US. The US is a settler colonial state, as is Australia, Canada, Israel, and quite a few others.

        • Donald says:

          So anyway, Taxi, if you want to defend the policy of ethnic cleansing as a cure for ethnic cleansing, you’ll have to do it on some other basis besides my non-existent Israeli children. I’m not sure what the poor little virtual tykes had to do with the question anyway.

        • Taxi says:

          “I don’t have any connection with Israel at all.”

          AND

          “as an American I live in one [an illegal settlement] myself”.

          So which one would you like me to believe in, Donald?

          Maybe I should do an eenee meenee my-nee-mo?

          You’re a complete anonymous stranger to me whose consistently promoting the welfare of the children of land-thieves at the expense of the children of the victims. So like, no, you got no intellectual credibility as far as I’m concerned.

          I’d love to be a fly on the wall and hear you explaining the JUSTICE of your wrapped thinking to a Palestinian refugee living in dire poverty and squalor. Yeah Donald, I’d love to see you look into their suffering brown eyes and tell them that zionist children are more DESERVING than Palestinian children – that their desire for their land back, according to YOU, is a crime called “ethnic cleansing”. Seriously, where do you get off telling the victim that the criminal’s rights are more important than the victim’s rights and that they’d be committing a crime if they attempted to get their property back?!

          EVICTING VIOLENT SQUATTERS is NOT ethnic cleansing, mister. You can throw around “ethnic cleansing” till you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t make it so!

          You’ve always talked about the rights of colonialists to ‘parts’ of the stolen land – yeah yeah so long as they’re ‘polite’ and they do it ‘politely’ it’s alright by you. But you’ve always wriggled out of explaining how this is a fair proposition for the Palestinians. You’ve never even attempted to convince them. You completely dismiss the topic. You’ve never bothered to talk about it. Yes I know, you’re a ‘nice’ liberal zionist, you ‘like’ Palestinians, but I can see clearly where your sympathy boundary for Palestinians lies: it stops at the half-way point: you do not agree that they should have their FULL rights, which really is getting ALL their land back. You still want to take away half of what they own – and do it with a ‘polite’ smile.

          Disgraceful!

        • Bumblebye says:

          So you are saying that disenfranchised, dispossessed victims of theft and violence cannot expect to get back their homes and lands, let alone any kind of compensation for their loss and misuse over periods of up to 45 years (considering only post ’67 theft), despite the fact that those who live there at present must be aware of the illegality of their presence? They do NOT have the right to stay under twentieth and twenty-first century circumstances (int’l laws and conventions, plus the sheer scale of the communication revolutions since the nineteenth century!), and it is in no way ‘ethnic cleansing’ to insist on their removal. So damn what if they have kids born there – they’re raising the little sods to be racist supremacists!

        • Donald says:

          This is the passage that has you confused, Taxi–

          “I’m talking about people born in a settler colonial state (there are a bunch, and as an American I live in one myself), who’ve never known any other home. ”

          The “one” in that statement refers to “settler colonial state”, and as an American I live in one. But I understand that at this stage there’s no way you could possibly admit you misread me. So you double down.

          ” Seriously, where do you get off telling the victim that the criminal’s rights are more important than the victim’s rights and that they’d be committing a crime if they attempted to get their property back?!”

          Getting property back isn’t quite the same as forcing all Israeli Jews of European descent to leave Israel. You’re glossing the two things together. The Palestinians have every right to reclaim property back inside the 67 borders.

          Also, I don’t believe in collective punishment–I don’t label entire categories of people as “criminal” because of what members of that collective do or did.

          As for the solution, it’s up to the Palestinians to decide what they want to go for–a 1SS with equal rights for everyone, or a 2SS. I don’t have any skin in the game. They have the right to do either. They don’t have the right to act like Zionists did in 1948, and any situation that would produce an ethnic cleansing of the sort you imagine would probably be a humanitarian catastrophe for both sides. Something like Iraq, for instance.

        • yrn says:

          Here is the question Again

          GL mentions

          “I don’t distinguish between the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and the 1948 occupation of the area that is now called Israel. would you find it fair if Palestinians now kicked these Jews (In All the area what is now called Israel) out after so many decades and the birth of successor generations (i.e. native-born Jewish Israelis)? ”

          I know already from previous comments, that Taxi dose not distinguish too.

        • Taxi says:

          Oh so it’s my fault I can’t read English, right? Not your fault that you wrote a a statement with confused syntax and intention, no quotation marks that would have clarified the context etc? You really should be taking responsibility for your lexical disabilities, not dumping your bathos on your reader. Tsk tsk, most impolite.

          And of course you skidded around the vital question AGAIN: explaining how the Nakba and the birth of israel is a fair proposition for the Palestinians. That it’s justice for THEM to give up half of their nation and give it to faraway foreigners (whatever religion they are). Oh don’t worry, Donny, I ain’t waiting on your answer with bated breath. You’re never gonna give it cuz you’re never gonna get it. I accept that, but I don’t respect you for it.

          You can sit around your comfortable lounge with your buddies and talk one and two states till wallpaper peels, but neither is happening. What you don’t understand is that the majority of people in the middle east will never accept the land theft of the holy lands by european jews, or any other foreigner. Never. You’re fooling yourself if you think that zionists have a chance in hell surviving long term in the mideast. You can convince yourself and other liberal zios that what you think is right and right absolutely, but just you try convincing millions of people around the mideast to accept your brand of idealism – and btw, these mideasterns that you’ll need to convince are the people that COUNT dear, their determinations are legitimate and will be manifested one way or another, whereas your fishbowl opinion is utterly inconsequential to the end result. Not you and not your halfway-house of justice have any influence where it matters – on the ground or in reality, so to speak.

        • Taxi says:

          “I know already from previous comments, that Taxi dose not distinguish too.”

          And what a Clever Trevor you are, yrn. Your abilities to decipher my vague and convoluted writings are astounding! How do you do it? What a magician! King Of The Obvious!

        • German Lefty says:

          yrn, you skipped an important part of what I wrote. I made it clear that all Zionist settlers who live in the area of Mandatory Palestine are illegal residents. This includes native-born Jewish Israelis.
          I am against a two-state solution. Palestine must be reunited and become a secular, democratic state. The Palestinian majority will make sure that the Palestinian refugees get their right to return and that the Zionist minority doesn’t commit any further crimes.
          Regarding the land: The problem is that the Zionist regime used much of the stolen Palestinian land to build things like apartment houses or Ariel University. Of course, the Palestinian landowners have the right to get their land back. However, I think that demolishing all these expensive buildings in order to return the land is not useful. In these cases, the Palestinian landowners should be generously compensated and, if possible, given land of equal size and quality nearby.
          The Israeli settlements where no new buildings were erected can easily be evacuated and returned to their rightful Palestinian owners.

        • Palestinian landowners have the right to get their land back. However, I think that demolishing all these expensive buildings in order to return the land is not useful. In these cases, the Palestinian landowners should be generously compensated and, if possible, given land of equal size and quality nearby.

          this is a little confusing. first of all ..all the land ‘nearby of equal value and quality’ is already palestinian land.

          effectively, what difference does it make if you think palestinians have a ‘right to get their land back’ when in the same breath say they should be compensated for it instead. generously financially compensating palestinians for their land is a solution hardcore zionists have suggesting for decades.

          if demolishing all these expensive buildings in order to return the land is not useful, why not suggest turning them over to the landowners, the palestinians? that way they could be the ones to decide if the buildings are ‘useful’ to them or not.

          The Israeli settlements where no new buildings were erected can easily be evacuated

          what does this mean? does it mean ‘The Israeli settlements where no buildings were erected can be evacuated’ (who could disagree with that since there are no buildings to evacuate?) but Israeli settlements where buildings have been erected should not be evacuated?

          iow, no evacuation from the settlement buildings? so, in your mind GL, what difference does it make if you think “Zionist settlers who live in the area of Mandatory Palestine are illegal residents”? why is this an ‘important part’?

  11. Abdul-Rahman says:

    Whenever I hear nonsense such as this against Noam Chomsky, by some pathetic Zionist propagandists, I am always reminded of how it is also common for these same deluded Zionist propagandists to often absurdly shout the term “kapo” at Jews who stand against their oppressive apartheid Zionist ideology.

    The really “interesting” thing there is then viewing the documented links between Nazism and Zionism historically, links that historians like Lenni Brenner in particular have covered in-depth. With that information in mind these Zionist trolls should really be trying to avoid the word “kapo” as it boomerangs around on their colonialist “movement” pretty quickly!

    link to counterpunch.org

    link to channer.tv