‘J Street’ leader acknowledges that Israel discriminates against its Palestinian citizens with 30 laws and separate nationality

Israel/Palestine
on 36 Comments

Watch The Law in These Parts: A Discussion on PBS. See more from WNET.

 

 

 

Last week PBS aired the anti-occupation Israeli documentary, The Law in These Parts, and afterward had a panel of experts. They were: Roane Carey of the Nation, Noura Erakat of Jadaliyya, Daniel May the director of the liberal Zionist campus arm J Street U, and rightwing Fordham Law professor Thane Rosenbaum.

The best moment took place at 11:00, after Erakat, correcting Rosenbaum– who had said that Israeli Palestinians enjoy the full “panoply” of Israeli rights– said, “They are absolutely not treated the same as Israelis within Israel itself.” She went on to explain that there are 30 laws that advantage Israeli Jews or disadvantage Palestinians, and the state bifurcates nationality from citizenship; so even if you’re an Israeli citizen, you’re not eligible to be a Jewish national, with a “whole host” of  rights non-Jews don’t have. She mentioned the 40,000 Palestinian citizens in the Negev who are being forced out of their villages and into urban townships.

Erakat: “Israel actually tells the world that it treats them the same as its citizens, and that’s not true…This doesn’t happen to their Jewish Israeli counterparts.”

“Is that accurate, Daniel?” the host, Rafael Pi Roman, asked May.

May: “Certainly what she’s describing is accurate.”

May went on to say that the laws in the occupation are worse toward Palestinians.

Still, I have to ask, How can J Street be celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech and the March on Washington and Congressman John Lewis, as Jeremy Ben-Ami did in an email to me today, and wrap its arms around a society that discriminates against 20 percent of its population in such invidious ways? It doesn’t add up.

The other significant thing about the discussion is the extent to which the two-state solution is still valorized inside the U.S. The PBS discussion accepted the idea that the two-state solution is the international consensus of a just resolution of the conflict and also the desire of the Palestinians. Though Roane Carey made it clear that it’s one state right now, and an apartheid state, and Erakat said that the Palestinian state envisioned is a “truncated” vision of Palestine, the discussion reveals the poverty of the American conversation generally. Really, Pi Roman ought to be saying, Why not a one-state outcome? But he didn’t.

Carey also offered an excellent summary of the brutality of the occupation. “[The film] shows a very thin veneer of legatlity covering what is in effect a very brutal system.” Torture, seizure of land– all violations of Fourth Geneva convention, he said. And what it does to all Israelis: “It turns Israel into a– Baruch Kimmerling called it a herrenvolk society, an oppressive dictatorial society… This country has turned itself into a brutal regime.” And for all those who think that this is a stable situation, he says, Palestinians will not stop struggling for their freedom and independence.

Finally, I enjoyed Thane “the Mane” Rosenbaum’s response to Erakat at 35 or so about inequality within Israel.

“But I will say this– Noura’s point about the disparate treatment within Israel between Jews and Arabs. To the extent to which–even if I said it’s true– it’s a Jewish state. For the love of god, can we have one Jewish state?”

Good to have both a rightwing Zionist and a liberal Zionist acknowledging this reality. And accepting it, too, on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s dream.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

36 Responses

  1. NormanF
    August 27, 2013, 2:07 pm

    Even the most anti-Israel Arab in Israel has to admit they don’t have to fear for their lives and they can express opposition openly to Israel’s government – even the Islamists in Israel!

    Try doing that on the streets of any Arab country and an Arab opposed to the government would be killed! My response is why a Jewish State? Because it treats even its enemies humanely.

    And for me as a Zionist and someone who is passionately pro-Israel, that alone trumps any possible discrimination Arabs face in Israel. The point being while Israel is far from perfect there are light years between what Arabs face around the Arab World and what Arabs face in Israel.

    Arab regimes that mass murder their own people and who oppress their political opponents are in no position to preach to Israel about respect for human rights.

    • merlot
      August 27, 2013, 4:28 pm

      A willingness and ability to tolerate dissent is nearly always linked to a regimes power both perceived and real. Within Israel the Israeli government is willing to allow for a certain level of dissent within Israel as long as that dissent is not seen as a substantive threat. When an individual becomes substantive threat then dissent becomes criminal. Ask Azmi Bishara, Ameer Makhoul, and Hannin Zougbi what they think about Israel’s tolerance of dissent.

      In the OPT it is much less tolerant. The idea that Israel “treats even its enemies humanely” is only believable if you completely ignore its occupation. In the areas it occupies it holds political prisoners, tortures children, assassinates activists, bombs civilian targets, cuts off families access to water, destroys homes, and carries out many other actions that can hardly be labeled humane.

      Your insistence that dissent will in an Arab country will result in death is based on a racist, anti-Arab viewpoint that conflates all Arab countries, that allows for no political complexity in Arab society, that ignores strong and public Arab voices of dissent, and that is clearly not based on any experience in these countries.

      This is not to deny the terrible violence in Syria and Egypt, nor to deny the limitations on freedoms in other Arab states. However, to use these rights violations to justify or minimize “discrimination Arabs face in Israel” is support for racism at its worst.

      • NormanF
        August 27, 2013, 5:01 pm

        The PA condemns Israel for killing unarmed Arabs. Fine.

        What about when it does the same thing itself?

        Now that’s a case of throwing stones at the glass house. Arabs in the Arab World are mistreated by their own governments every day.

        If they practiced what they demand of Israel, they would rightly be on s0lid ground.

        I never said Israel is perfect. No country in the world can be. But in terms of ensuring Arabs have the right to life, to freedom of expression, to have good schools and jobs and a better life – Israel is miles ahead of any Arab country.

        The Arab World has a long way to go in that regard.

      • talknic
        August 27, 2013, 7:56 pm

        NormanF “The PA condemns Israel for killing unarmed Arabs. Fine.

        What about when it does the same thing itself?”

        Israel is killing non Israelis “outside the State of Israel” in order to maintain control over them and their territories while it illegally settles Israeli civilians in occupied territories. The PA is not doing the same thing, killing Israelis in Israeli territory in order to illegally acquire Israeli territory

        “Arabs in the Arab World are mistreated by their own governments every day”

        What has that to do with the Palestinians? If the Arab states start treating their people as you’d like them to, will Israel suddenly start adhering to International Law and UNSC resolutions? End its territory grabbing policies after 65 years? Remove all illegal settlers from non-Israeli territory? Pay reparations for 65 years of injustice?

        “..in terms of ensuring Arabs have the right to life, to freedom of expression, to have good schools and jobs and a better life – Israel is miles ahead of any Arab country”

        Problem. Israel is screwing around in non-Israeli (UNSC res 476) have you ever bothered to read it?

        “If they practiced what they demand of Israel, they would rightly be on s0lid ground.”

        They demand Israel get out of all non-Israeli territory and keep to its own territory for once (it has never been tried) . No Arab state or entity is in Israeli territory. Far more solid ground than Israel’s illegal ‘ facts on the ground’

      • seafoid
        August 28, 2013, 1:56 am

        Dead right Norman. Why do African Americans moan about police brutality and the prison system ? They have cable TV in the US and can eat doritos any time they want- it’s way better than in Africa, isn’t it ?

        Did I get the formatting right?

    • bigbill
      August 30, 2013, 4:57 pm

      “Even the most anti-Israel Arab in Israel has to admit they don’t have to fear for their lives and they can express opposition openly to Israel’s government – even the Islamists in Israel!”

      As can Jews, blacks and Mexicans in America. So can we have our own white Christian state here in America.

      You see, multiculturalism hasn’t worked out so well for us here. We would like to “redeem” our land from Jews, blacks and Mexicans. I promise you that we will treat you better in our New Christian America than you Jews are treated in Arab countries (and thanks for establishing that “floor” of bad behaviour, by the way!). You’ll still be able to make money here, keep your property and such. We would have to put limits on your participation in Congress, colleges, the professions and the like in order to preserve the Christian Character of our country, but certainly we would treat you better than those Muslims.

      Whaddaya say?

      Do we have a deal?

  2. Citizen
    August 27, 2013, 2:58 pm

    How can J Street celebrate Martin Luther King’s speech in Washington and Israel’s racist state? It’s easy when Dick and Jane are misinformed, and the Israel First crowd has that single agenda and more money than God has. Bribery is the actual US domestic and foreign policy. Cash is the only vital free speech.

  3. Woody Tanaka
    August 27, 2013, 3:09 pm

    “Still, I have to ask, How can J Street be celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech and the March on Washington and Congressman John Lewis, as Jeremy Ben-Ami did in an email to me today, and wrap its arms around a society that discriminates against 20 percent of its population in such invidious ways? It doesn’t add up.”

    It’s simple: they’re hypocrites. As I’ve said here many times, if one doesn’t apply his principles to his own people and his own country, then he simply doesn’t have principles. J Street, at the end of the day, agrees with Rosenbaum that it is somehow okay that Arabs are treated worse than Jews because it wants that same “Jewish state” that Rosenbaum does, even if it means that the Arabs are treated worse.

  4. Talkback
    August 27, 2013, 3:25 pm

    Rosenbaum: “But I will say this– Noura’s point about the disparate treatment within Israel between Jews and Arabs. To the extent to which–even if I said it’s true– it’s a Jewish state. For the love of god, can we have one Jewish state?”

    So that’s what’s “Jewish”? A disparate treatment between Jews and Nonjews?

    • Hostage
      August 27, 2013, 5:41 pm

      So that’s what’s “Jewish”? A disparate treatment between Jews and Nonjews?

      Yes:

      Religious and secular MKs participating in a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee were at loggerheads Teusday over the inclusion of the principle of equality in the draft of Israel’s constitution.

      During the meeting, members of the ultra-Orthodox parties and the National Religious Party reiterated their objection to the incorporation of the concept of equality into a constitution, as they say it contradicts their religious beliefs.

      “There cannot be a constitution in a Jewish and democratic state if it does not defend the unequal values of Judaism – and they are unequal,” MK Yitzhak Levy (NRP) said. “Equality in fact will close the rabbinical courts,” a contingency he was not prepared to allow for. “If you want equality in the constitution, it must be limited. We cannot write off the entire Jewish aspect of the country because, in the end, Judaism will be nothing more than eating a donut during Hanukkah.”

      — MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution
      Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism. link to haaretz.com

      So you have millions of indigenous people who are being subjugated and dominated by a criminally racist Jewish regime that claims equality contradicts Judaism. Simply proposing that “Arabs” be given back a small portion of their own expropriated lands is totally unacceptable:

      Furious Debate as Arab Town gets Jewish Land — Furious debate erupts in Knesset over land transfer from Jewish town to Arab town. MK Feiglin to Arabs: You’re guests here.

      “This plan sets a dangerous precedent of using agricultural land to expand the jurisdiction of Arab municipalities while they aren’t willing to encourage other solutions. This will encourage other municipalities to take the same approach, and will deal a serious blow to agriculture,” he argued.
      He noted that officials in Jisr a-Zarka had rejected the idea of addressing the town’s housing crisis by building tall apartment buildings rather than low-level homes.
      His comment angered MK Hanin Zoabi of the Arab nationalist Balad party, who replied, “Do they build tall buildings in Beit Hananya? Show me where they build tall buildings, and then you can say that in Jirs a-Zarka they should build tall buildings!”

      MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud) voiced strong opposition. “When a guest is in my home, I give him respect. As long as they understand who is the host, and who is the guest, everything is fine.”
      “This debate is about national rights, not individual rights,” he continued. “We have to speak the truth: this is our land, not yours. You are guests. The minute that you are guests, you deserve every individual right. But when it becomes a national struggle – you do not deserve anything.”
      Feiglin clarified his stance further, “If this were about transferring Jewish land to a Jewish village, I would agree, but if it were an Arab village, I would not. It’s a nationalist thing.”

      link to israelnationalnews.com

  5. eljay
    August 27, 2013, 3:38 pm

    >> ” … Noura’s point about the disparate treatment within Israel between Jews and Arabs. To the extent to which–even if I said it’s true– it’s a Jewish state. … ”

    Well, there you have it: “Jewish State” means “f*ck you” to equality, morality and justice.

    >> ” … For the love of god, can we have one Jewish state?”

    Why? So you can practise your supremacism with impunity?

    Zio-supremacists are hateful and immoral lot…

    • NormanF
      August 27, 2013, 5:08 pm

      Nationalism is the love of one’s country. Zionism is no different in that regards from American, English, French, German, Russian or Arab nationalism.

      Every country privileges the majority group. If nationalism is a form of racism no country on earth could exist! You either have to say the nation-state is no longer a valid principle for the organization of human affairs. You don’t single the Jews out as an exception to a rule that’s true for every one else.

      The Palestinian Arabs have autonomy and the Arab peoples have self-determination. The Jewish people only want their own place under the sun. Zionism has only given them the same thing all the other peoples on earth already possess.

      • Bumblebye
        August 27, 2013, 6:17 pm

        Please enumerate the laws (other than opaque tax laws – but they only favor a tiny wealthy minority, oops) that deliberately privilege the majority groups in US or UK, or those that deliberately penalise minorities in either country. That is just two out of the “every country” you state does it.

      • justicewillprevail
        August 27, 2013, 6:37 pm

        You live in a rose-tinted world of false equivalences, the kind espoused with predictable zeal by lightweight hasbarists who hope that it sounds kind of plausible, and might fool some people as long as they don’t think about it for too long. You are very confused, or more likely, deliberately elide and confuse the differences between citizenship, nationality and identity. Zionism is nothing like English or French citizenship or identity. If it is like anything in those countries it is like far right fringe groups such as the BNP, a neo-fascist ragbag of violent thugs who, unsurprisingly, quote Zionism as an example in support of their racist, segregationist ideology. They are abhorred by the vast majority. Palestinian Arabs have autonomy – lol.

      • just
        August 27, 2013, 6:39 pm

        You STOLE and are stealing the Palestinian’s “place in the sun”!

        Show me, tell me where is their “self determination”????????

        Oh, and by the way– why a “Jewish” country? All of your examples are actually countries and cultures and NOT religions.

      • eljay
        August 27, 2013, 6:50 pm

        >> Nationalism is the love of one’s country.

        1. “Jewish State” is not a country, it’s a religion-supremacist construct.
        2. Mr. Rosenbaum is American. America is his country to love.

        >> You either have to say the nation-state is no longer a valid principle for the organization of human affairs. You don’t single the Jews out as an exception to a rule that’s true for every one else.

        The nation-state is a valid principle.

        Israel as the nation-state of and for all Israelis, equally, is a valid principle.

        Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State” with preferential laws not just for its Jewish citizens, but for Jews anywhere in the world, is not a valid principle.

      • talknic
        August 27, 2013, 7:23 pm

        NormanF “Nationalism is the love of one’s country. Zionism is no different in that regards from American, English, French, German, Russian or Arab nationalism”

        Zionist Israel covets other folks territory “outside the State of Israel” link to pages.citebite.com link to unispal.un.org

        “You don’t single the Jews out as an exception to a rule that’s true for every one else”

        Israel is not ‘Jews’. It’s a state. A state that singles itself out by being in breach of Internal Law , the UN Charter and relevant conventions.

        “The Palestinian Arabs have autonomy and the Arab peoples have self-determination”

        Uh huh. Under occupation. You are a such a funny little joker

        “The Jewish people only want their own place under the sun.”

        We got it 00:01 May 15th 1948 ” the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ link to trumanlibrary.org

        ” Zionism has only given them the same thing all the other peoples on earth already possess”

        Slight problem there, the ZIONIST MOVEMENT’s Israel has been acting “outside” its borders for 65 years, illegally acquiring their territory by war, illegally annexing, illegally settling

      • RoHa
        August 27, 2013, 7:33 pm

        “Nationalism is the love of one’s country.”

        So nationalist Australian Jews will love Australia. Nationalist Swedish Jews will love Sweden. Nationalist American Jews will love America. Each will love the country in which he was born, grew up, has his home and citizenship. That is his country.

        “The Jewish people only want their own place under the sun.”

        American Jews have Florida and California. Australian Jews have the entire country. Lots of sun here.

        (British Jews have to do without, but so does everyone else in Britain.)

  6. DICKERSON3870
    August 27, 2013, 5:13 pm

    RE: “Last week PBS aired the anti-occupation Israeli documentary, The Law in These Parts…”

    NETFLIX:
    The Law in These Parts, 2011, NR, 101 minutes
    What is the rationale behind the work of the people charged with the developing and upholding the law in the Occupied Territories? The Law in These Parts tries to answer these questions while also exploring the implications of such a system.
    Director: Ra’anan Alexandrowicz
    Genres: Documentary, Foreign, Political Documentaries, Social & Cultural Documentaries, Foreign Documentaries, Hebrew Language, Israel
    Language: Hebrew
    This movie is: Cerebral, Controversial
    Netflix format: DVD
    Netflix listing – link to dvd.netflix.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      August 27, 2013, 5:26 pm

      P.S. THE LATEST FROM HANEKE: Amour, 2012, PG-13, 127 minutes
      In this 2012 Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or winner, Georges and Anne, retired music teachers in their eighties, have a time-tested love. But as Anne’s health fails, Georges becomes her caregiver, and the couple’s bond is tested like never before.
      Cast: Jean-Louis Trintignant, Emmanuelle Riva, Isabelle Huppert, Alexandre Tharaud, William Shimell, Ramón Agirre, Rita Blanco, Carole Franck
      Director: Michael Haneke
      Genres: Drama, Foreign, Indie Dramas, Romantic Dramas, Tearjerkers, Foreign Dramas, Foreign Romance, French Language, France, Blu-ray
      Language: French
      This movie is: Cerebral, Emotional, Dark, Sentimental, Romantic, Understated
      Netflix format: DVD and Blu-ray
      Netflix listing – link to dvd.netflix.com

  7. just
    August 27, 2013, 5:17 pm

    Thanks for this.

    I’m still stymied by this: ” For the love of god, can we have one Jewish state?”

    Yeah, you can “have” a Jewish majority state. You cannot, however, continue to steal another peoples’ land, livelihood, traditions, culture, hope, freedom and LIVES while resting on your laurels as eternal victims as you viciously victimize others.

    Nope– this you cannot do. It’s just wrong and illegal, and Israel as it exists today, is becoming increasingly exposed.

    • Bumblebye
      August 27, 2013, 6:12 pm

      I suppose the only real equivalent is the KKK or South African Boers wailing for just one White state! Where they can practice their supremacism to their hearts content. Major yuk. And before the zios pile in, both of these groups twisted their faith into pretzels to justify their racism.

  8. DICKERSON3870
    August 27, 2013, 5:23 pm
  9. David Samel
    August 27, 2013, 5:42 pm

    Daniel May has no trouble expressing the traditional liberal Zionist position that sure, there are differences between the way Jewish and non-Jewish citizens are treated under Israeli law, but that just has to be for there to be a Jewish State — almost the exact same sentiment as Peter Beinart, Jerry Slater, and others. On the one hand, it’s nice that these people acknowledge the existence of the legal discrimination and presumably hope that it is minimized, but on the other hand, they are implicitly insisting that Palestinian citizens of Israel accept a situation that would be untihinkable in the US, and that they accept it in perpetuity.

    Similarly, May talks toward the end about how the occupation corrupts the Israeli soul, etc. Surely he is right, just as slavery corrupted the slaveholders and apartheid corrupted South African whites. I don’t mind if someone makes this point, but it should always be accompanied with the acknowledgement that while the oppressors are corrupted, life for their victims is immeasurably worse.

  10. a blah chick
    August 27, 2013, 8:12 pm

    “…For the love of god, can we have one Jewish state?”

    Why?

  11. hophmi
    August 28, 2013, 12:26 pm

    “rightwing Fordham Law professor Thane Rosenbaum.”

    Are you insane? Thane Rosenbaum is not right-wing, not even remotely. What part of “the settlement movement is a blight” did you not understand? I know him personally and he’s very much anti-occupation. He’s also not an expert on this particular issue; my guess is that he’s here because of his writing on law, literature, and film.

    The panel’s makeup is ridiculous. Noura is an international lawyer who specializes in this issue. Roane Carey has been a pro-Palestinian activist forever. Dan May is a kid who has relatively little experience with the legal side of this issue and Thane has not written much about the conflict at all.

    “How can J Street be celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech and the March on Washington and Congressman John Lewis, as Jeremy Ben-Ami did in an email to me today, and wrap its arms around a society that discriminates against 20 percent of its population in such invidious ways? It doesn’t add up.”

    Because Israel is not America, Phil, and you are not a lily white angel doing King’s work in America; you write virtually nothing here about the conditions Black people continue to face in urban areas. You’re a middle class guy talking about a foreign conflict you don’t live day-to-day and saying little about the injustices in the country where you actually live. How can you celebrate MLK’s speech and not be speaking out against the discrimination against Copts in Egypt, against Jews throughout the Middle East, against Christians in Iraq, against Kurds in Turkey?

    • Hostage
      August 28, 2013, 5:55 pm

      He’s also not an expert on this particular issue; my guess is that he’s here because of his writing on law, literature, and film.

      You’re being disingenuous as usual. Rosenbaum teaches human rights law at Fordaham. link to law.fordham.edu

      The ICJ Advisory Opinion was based upon 3 UN Human Rights Conventions – the ICCPR, ICESCR, and the UN CRC – plus the portions of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter dealing the members obligations to respect and promote the right of self-determination.

      • hophmi
        August 29, 2013, 11:42 am

        “You’re being disingenuous as usual. Rosenbaum teaches human rights law at Fordaham. link to law.fordham.edu”

        His main course is called Human Rights, the Holocaust, and the Law. It’s a student favorite. Again, I know him personally, and yes, I took the class. He’s not an expert on international law or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I doubt he’d have much trouble admitting that; anybody with a passing familiarity of the conflict can see from his POV appearance that he doesn’t get much beyond the basic talking points.
        He’s not a right-winger, either. He supports a two-state solution and he hates the settlement movement and has little trouble criticizing people in the Jewish community for not speaking out about it more than they do. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he and Phil have probably crossed paths at some point, but that’s just a guess. I think that they would probably have a lot to talk about.

        In the 1990s, he was known as a cultural critic, and especially known for his view that Schindler’s List was symptomatic of a Hollywood culture that treated the Holocaust like an uplifting story of survival told from the point of view of a righteous gentile, rather than a film that deals with the event from the point of view of the persecuted and the experiences of the people who went through it, and that by doing so, Hollywood was essentially shielding the public from grappling with the deeper meaning of atrocity and the complex burden of survival. One of his favorite films is “The Pawnbroker,” which is obviously a much more complex character study of a Holocaust survivor than Schindler’s List is that shows both the tragedy of atrocity and the burden of survival.

        He’s part of the Law and Literature movement, and he runs a law and film series at Fordham every year. He was on POV primarily in that capacity. The theme of his legal writing is about creating a legal system more focused on just and moral outcomes rather than legal ones. You can read his book, “The Myth of Moral Justice,” which, I have to say, was not one of my favorites, though I think most people here would probably find the idea of achieving more moral outcomes in the legal system enticing.

    • just
      August 28, 2013, 6:11 pm

      hit a nerve, hop? You certainly seem to be prejudiced against the indigenous Palestinians– Christian or Muslim or agnostic./ Muslims/Arabs/anyone who disagrees with your world view. (a limited and bigoted one with a certain soupcon of rudeness thrown in for good measure, imho.)

      Believe me when I say that MLK would be speaking out against Israel and her Apartheid practices. And I have no doubt that you and Rosenbaum have a warm and fuzzy “personally” fantabulous relationship. As for your dismissal of all of the others on the panel… I would expect no less from you. It’s so very nice of you to remain true to your personal agenda.

      (nice touch– “lily white angel”).

      • hophmi
        August 29, 2013, 11:53 am

        “Believe me when I say that MLK would be speaking out against Israel and her Apartheid practices.”

        I doubt it. I think MLK probably would have ended up as basically a liberal Democrat.

        ” And I have no doubt that you and Rosenbaum have a warm and fuzzy “personally” fantabulous relationship.”

        Not at all. Thane was one my professors in law school. I spent most of his class arguing with him that his philosophy on justice and morality was a recipe for disaster. Outside of class, he’s a nice guy, and he lives a cool life that is part law professor, part public intellectual, part culture critic, part film critic, part celebrity interviewer.

        “As for your dismissal of all of the others on the panel”

        I didn’t dismiss the others on the panel. Dan May is probably closest to my personal POV. I just would not have put Thane on there because he’s not an expert on the issue. I mean, it’s a film about the I-P conflict and specifically about law in the occupied territories. They could have put, I don’t know, an actual Israeli who was knowledgeable about the subject, rather than someone who is primarily a legal philosophy professor and a film critic. Avi Bell, for instance. But a Palestinian-American legal expert, a pro-Palestinian activist, a J Street U guy who’s quite critical of Israel, and Thane, who’s not an expert on the subject? I’d like to hear what the Israeli legal point of view is, thanks very much.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        August 29, 2013, 7:01 pm

        hophmi says:
        August 29, 2013 at 11:53 am

        “I’d like to hear what the Israeli legal point of view is, thanks very much.”

        Watch Exodus, then cry yourself to sleep instead.

      • Cliff
        August 29, 2013, 8:04 pm

        hoppy:

        I doubt it. I think MLK probably would have ended up as basically a liberal Democrat.

        Based on what?

        There’s no evidence whatsoever that he’d become anything resembling a ‘liberal Democrat’.

        And no, he would not have become a Zionist either. Deal with it.

    • talknic
      August 28, 2013, 7:11 pm

      @hophmi “How can you celebrate MLK’s speech and not be speaking out against the discrimination against Copts in Egypt, against Jews throughout the Middle East, against Christians in Iraq, against Kurds in Turkey?”

      Lead me to the discussions you must be having … we’ll team up and show ‘em. Then will Israel then suddenly adhere to the law, UN charter and relevant conventions … right? End occupation … right? Take its illegal settlers and go live within Israel’s actual borders for the first time in modern history … right?

    • American
      August 28, 2013, 7:38 pm

      “Because Israel is not America, Phil, and you are not a lily white angel doing King’s work in America; ‘…hoppie

      It’s the ‘hypocrisy” oh dense one….you know saying one thing and supporting the oppposite of what you claim to support..

    • Djinn
      August 28, 2013, 8:13 pm

      I may be confusing you with someone else so I apologise in advance if I’ve got this wrong but aren’t YOU a middle class dude living in America and constantly praising a country YOU don’t live in Hophmi?

      If I’m wrong about your location you most certainly are NOT a Palestinian citizen of Israel living with institutional and societal discrimination and you’re not a Palestinian living under an oppressive occupation yet you still see fit to claim that things aren’t as bad as made out for those people.

      So, you know, pot, kettle, black.

  12. Pamela Olson
    August 28, 2013, 5:50 pm

    Thane “The Mane” is good. I call him Racist Beethoven.

    (No disrespect to the actual Beethoven, who’s one of my favorite humans.)

Leave a Reply