Jewish leader warns Beinart that opening discussion to BDS would be like including the KKK

Israel/Palestine
on 58 Comments

Below are two video excerpts of a panel last Sunday in Washington, at which the liberal Zionist Peter Beinart called on the Jewish community to open up its conversation about Israel and then a pillar of that community took exception to Beinart’s call.

Let me set the exchange up.

The panel took place at J Street’s conference and was titled, “Held Hostage: How the Israel conversation is shut down and opened up in communities across the country.” Jeremy Burton, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in Boston, spoke first. I video’d that statement here, but let me summarize. He said the Jewish community has the right to set boundaries to cut people out. The Boston Jewish community has decided to include LGBT Jews and interfaith couples and J Street, but it has chosen to exclude Jewish Voice for Peace, because any political effort that involves pressuring the American government to pressure Israel to do something that Israeli Jews and their leaders are not willing to do “is at best distasteful to us.”

Though Burton said that it’s OK for his community to debate Israeli settlement policy, and for members to urge a boycott of the settlements. Though he would appreciate it if liberal Zionists like Beinart would show some sympathy to the possible loss of Jewish access to the West Bank.

The first video here is Beinart’s response to Burton (and to Melissa Weintraub, a rabbi with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, who said that his criticisms of the Jewish leadership are too sharp and public).

The best moments are in the second half. Beinart says that Burton is dumbing down the Jewish community by establishing absurd boundaries for the Israel conversation.

At 4:30, Beinart gets a lot of applause by saying that Jews have to listen to Palestinians on the Israel/Palestine issue, that Jews are ignorant about Palestinian views. “From the most narrow tribal perspective, I think we’re going to lose this intellectual encounter,” he says. “Because Palestinians understand what we think, they hear it all around them, and we don’t know what they’re saying…”

Beinart also argues that if the Jewish community is going to rule out an open discussion of BDS– the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement– because BDS undermines Israel’s legitimacy, then it should rule out open advocacy for the settlements, because they also undermine Israel’s legitimacy. Zionism, he goes on, is a wider tradition than Burton’s statist Zionism. Cultural Zionists like Ahad Ha’am did not want a Jewish national state, but per Burton they can’t be part of the discussion.

“If Zionism is bigger than a secure democratic Jewish state, it’s also really important for us to remember that Judaism is bigger than Zionism.”

This second video is of Burton responding.

Burton describes the conversation of Israel’s legitimacy as “an existential debate,” in which Jews are “talking about our existence.” That debate involves the “existential question of whether Israel is going to continue to exist in an un-secure part of the world surrounded by people who have vowed to destroy the Jewish state.”

Then Burton implies that admitting alternative views would threaten the existence of Jews in the U.S., and cites the Ku Klux Klan as a “paradigm” of what is beyond the pale.

“You know what, there are boundaries. And while it’s not necessarily fair to use the Ku Klux Klan as the paradigm, and I’ve definitely heard it used in Jewish audiences before, it is a paradigm about what is beyond, what is about destroying that state, what is it about destroying that thing we love and believe in and is at heart of the Jewish definition– of the Jewish sense of self, about a Jewish state.”

As for BDS advocates, they’re not part of the community; but some Jewish organization might allow a discussion with BDS advocates, and with Palestinians too.

At the end of the video, Burton says that Israel’s legitimacy rests not on its democratic principles. It would make him uneasy if Israel were not striving toward a true and full democracy. But it is more important that Israel be a Jewish state than a democratic state. The democracy standard is holding Israel to a higher standard of legitimacy than China and Saudi Arabia, he says.

P.S. Here are Rebecca Vilkomerson and Donna Nevel commenting on Beinart’s appeal for a wider discussion.

58 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    October 6, 2013, 1:09 pm

    Perhaps Israel is, as advertised, a democracy: but clearly Burton’s so-called Jewish Community in Boston is not, but is a dictatorship in which a self-declared leadership decides who may speak, and to whom its members may listen. Hillel does the same.

    “He said the Jewish community has the right to set boundaries to cut people out of the conversation about Israel.” He means, his Council (a private club, I’d guess) asserts the right to limit what Jews near Boston can say and hear.

    If the Jewish community were a private club, then, agreed, it could choose its own members and limit what could be said within its walls. But the name alone, Jewish Community, suggests otherwise. And when (Jewish) people are banging on the doors asking to raise the issues that BDS raises, and to raise the issue of BDS itself, then the doorkeepers are disclosed as tyrants. Period.

    I guess they are afraid that the message about and of BDS would gather so many converts if a full-and-free discussion were held that Zionism would go down the tubes. Perhaps he has a right to be fearful.

    • Krauss
      October 7, 2013, 12:20 pm

      I was a bit sad not to see Beinart’s response. He would have crushed Burton, the quasi-fascist.

      The answer is straight-forward: We hold the Jewish state to a higher standard because we want it to be democratic. For him to invoke Saudi Arabia and say that we should judge Israel on that same basis says everything you need to know about him.

      The only problem is that the Jewish state is not a democracy today and hasn’t been for decades. What made a lot of people able to overlook that fact was that they deluded themselves that the Occupation would end; that the ‘real Israel’ would re-assert itself. As it has not done so, they fall back on secondary explanations.

      Now the same people go as far as to say that if Israel ends up being the Jewish Saudi Arabia, we shouldn’t judge it.

      And these are the voices of the Jewish establishment?
      No wonder the situation looks the way it does.

  2. doug
    October 6, 2013, 1:17 pm

    How ironic. The concept that organizations advocating breaking down segregation and tribalism is somehow similar to the KKK, which advocates tribalism and segregation boggles the mind.

    • mondonut
      October 6, 2013, 2:15 pm

      doug says: …organizations advocating breaking down segregation and tribalism …
      ===================================================
      The BDS is no such thing, they flat out declare the land Israel occupies or controls as “Arab”land, not Palestinian, Lebanese or Syrian – but Arab. Land that can only be possessed by a particular ethnic group and not others.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 6, 2013, 5:54 pm

        you mean this: link to bdsmovement.net

        Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;

        they use the term arab land as part of a descriptor. it is about israeli control and occupation of territory that doesn’t belong to israel. what difference does it make if they call it arab land, palestinian land, lebanese land or syrian land?

      • tree
        October 6, 2013, 6:14 pm

        Land that can only be possessed by a particular ethnic group and not others.

        In reality, the problem is that Israel is only stealing land that belongs to a particular ethnic group: non-Jewish Arabs. To paraphrase Carville, “It’s the theft, stupid.”

        P.S. Israel occupies all three, Lebanese land, Palestinian land, and Syrian land, all stemming from its 1967 aggression. “Arab land” is an accurate shorthand description of the subject of Israel’s act of theft.

      • tokyobk
        October 6, 2013, 6:34 pm

        “On Arab lands occupied in June 1967″ and “On Arab lands.” are used interchangeably in various platforms. To be sure, just as there are one and two state boycotters, there are boycotters for whom this means BDS until Israel withdraws from the OT and for others BDS until the Jews are no longer where presumably they don’t belong, on land that is naturally Arab (not that the actual composition of Israeli Jews, where more than half have ancestry in Arab lands matters to this formulation).
        There are two major (Palestinian) writers who never refuse to answer me about anything but who simply won’t answer this question. The ambiguity is important for building a big tent and Palestinian consensus.

      • seafoid
        October 6, 2013, 6:53 pm

        “where more than half have ancestry in Arab lands matters to this formulation).”

        But less than 1% actually had roots in Palestine.
        So Moroccan or Baghdadi Jews were as alien as Odessan Hebrews.
        Israel is still a settler colonial state.
        Of course the people have nowhere else to go.
        However this doesn’t change the fact of the original sin, ethnic cleansing.

      • tokyobk
        October 6, 2013, 9:27 pm

        Sure, but my point is “Arab Lands” is being used in a way that does not actually mean all Arabs.

        Palestinian identity includes people born and raised in and with descent from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar etc… from Arafat to leaders of Hamas to Omar Barghouti. As well it has every right to. All identities are fluid and often political. Claiming a unique Palestinian culture is very recent. For most of the history of Palestinian nationalism, Palestinians argued that its culture was part of a peoplehood that stretched across North Africa and all the way to Persia.

        The answer is to minimize ethnicity and religion not enhance its power.

        And of course it does not change the nature of Israel’s founding.

      • mondonut
        October 7, 2013, 1:28 am

        Annie Robbins says: what difference does it make if they call it arab land, palestinian land, lebanese land or syrian land?
        ===============================================
        What difference does it make to ethnically assign territory when it is explicitly claimed that the BDS is about breaking down tribalism? You really do not see the contradiction?

    • Citizen
      October 7, 2013, 6:35 am

      @ doug
      Yes, the irony is heavy, deep, and as strong as can be. But Zionism is impervious to irony.

      As per the 2012 Hollywood “comedy” movie “This Is 40,” Albert Brooks explaining, “You can’t use up a Jew card — it goes forever!”

  3. Mike_Konrad
    October 6, 2013, 1:18 pm

    You want the Israelis, Jewish groups to understand the Palestinian position -Okay!

    But you do not want to understand their position.

    Many Jews rightly see a lot of this as a tactic to de-Judaize the Jewish state. To them, this is pure bigotry.

    You may say: States should not be based on religion. Do you protest against the Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, or the Islamic Republic of Iran?

    Most of the Arab states have Islamic supremacist legal systems. Are you as upset with them? Does the plight of the Copts bother you? In Egypt it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.

    This does not void criticism of Israel, but if all you do is criticize Israel then you are biased.

    • Cliff
      October 6, 2013, 1:37 pm

      Who are you addressing?

      Who here supports Saudi Arabian Islamism?

      No one, tool.

      A Jewish majority only exists because Jewish terrorism has driven the indigenous Palestinian majority from their homes and their land.

      You want to Judaize Palestine. Thats the problem – not ‘de-Judaizing’.

      Your perspective is that the Palestinian Arab majority has no legitimacy because of the Torah and Jewish ‘chosenness’.

      That is your perspective. Religious fundamentalism. Who are YOU to judge?

      We aren’t quoting the Torah or the Bible as legal or moral standards.

      You are.

    • seafoid
      October 6, 2013, 1:46 pm

      The “Jewish state” is minority Jewish , Mike.
      And the Palestinians are denied basic rights. Now you either go back to the 67 lines or you face the consequences. Dejudaising the Jewish state has precedents- de Protestanting the Protestant state in Northern Ireland and De Maroniting Lebanon.
      And both work quite well now.

      .

    • talknic
      October 6, 2013, 2:57 pm

      Mike_Konrad Most of the Arab states have Islamic supremacist legal systems. Are you as upset with them? Does the plight of the Copts bother you? In Egypt it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity”

      Like what they do or not, they’re exercising their sovereignty within the boundaries of their respective states. Israel has been acting “outside the territory of the State of Israel” link to wp.me for 65 years, in Occupied Territories link to mfa.gov.il

    • eljay
      October 6, 2013, 3:16 pm

      >> Many Jews rightly see a lot of this as a tactic to de-Judaize the Jewish state. To them, this is pure bigotry.

      Israel has no right to exist as a supremacist “Jewish State”. Transforming it into a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, equally – is the just and moral thing to do.

      >> Most of the Arab states have Islamic supremacist legal systems. Are you as upset with them? Does the plight of the Copts bother you?

      Yes and yes. Arab states should be secular, democratic and egalitarian states of and for all of their respective citizens, equally.

      They have no right to look to Israel as an excuse not to transform, and Israel has no right to look to them as an excuse not to transform.

      >> This does not void criticism of Israel …

      Damned right it doesn’t.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 6, 2013, 3:50 pm

      “This does not void criticism of Israel, but if all you do is criticize Israel then you are biased.”

      Baloney. to them and you it’s all about voiding criticism of that shitty little state.

      • hophmi
        October 7, 2013, 11:57 am

        “Baloney. to them and you it’s all about voiding criticism of that shitty little state.”

        I do so love it when people like Woody adopt the rhetoric of British aristocrats. Oh well, politics makes strange bedfellows, like Palestinian leaders and Nazis during the Second World War.

      • Bumblebye
        October 7, 2013, 5:40 pm

        hoppy
        Gosh, do you know lots of British aristocrats?
        And, oh, you forgot the strange bedfellows like Zionist leaders and Nazis during the Second World War!

      • Woody Tanaka
        October 8, 2013, 6:54 am

        “I do so love it when people like Woody adopt the rhetoric of British aristocrats.”

        He was French, Einstein.

        “Oh well, politics makes strange bedfellows, like Palestinian leaders and Nazis during the Second World War.”

        Still peddling that blood libel, eh?

      • hophmi
        October 8, 2013, 3:19 pm

        “He was French, Einstein.”

        You’re right. And he denied making the statement. Whatever, British aristocrat, French diplomat, it’s the same thing to me for the purposes of this discussion.

    • tokyobk
      October 6, 2013, 6:38 pm

      Mike, I for one have no problem with taking religion out of the Israeli state, in fact endorse it.

      The problem is referring to the land as essentially Arab.

      Land does not belong to ethnic groups, not even the so called natives (as an entity, of course Palestinians have rights to the homes they fled and were driven from), who are always diverse and almost always themselves immigrants (having supplanted some one else).

      • tree
        October 6, 2013, 7:24 pm

        I think this is really a problem with Zionist formulations, not Arab ones. Zionists consider the land “Jewish” because some millenia ago it was the home of some Jewish people, therefore it remains essentially “Jewish” and claimable by anyone today as long as they are likewise Jewish. Palestinians consider most of what is now Israel to have been Palestinian land prior to 1948 because it was actually owned by individual Palestinians as well as in some case owned communally by Palestinian villages, and was forcibly and illegally expropriated by the State of Israel (and likewise for the land taken from Syria and Lebanon and Egypt). That is what makes it “Arab land” in their eyes.

        No Palestinian that I know of or have read is advocating anything other than the return of those who were dispossessed and those who are their heirs (and would have legally gained the denied citizenship of their parents), to their homes. They are not advocating that a Yemeni Arab has a “right” to settle in Palestine because of his ethnicity. That’s an ethnic argument used by Zionist Jews, not Arabs.

      • Abierno
        October 6, 2013, 7:53 pm

        Well said. The conflating of religion, the state and property rights is what enables greater Israel. This was understood at the inception of israel, hence landholding entities that can readily confiscate deeded property rights from any entity who is not Jewish. There will be no peace until this conundrum is solved – nor will the Israeli government even allow the issue to be raised or discussed. Recognizing Israel as an exclusively Jewish state seals the issue and legally allows the continuing appropriation of land and resources. Those who refuse to sign on to this- Palestinians -are then accused of seeking to push the Jews out of Israel which is not only the case, but immediately steers the conversation to terrorism, thereby diverting the conversation away from property rights.

      • seafoid
        October 6, 2013, 7:46 pm

        “Land does not belong to ethnic groups, not even the so called natives (as an entity, of course Palestinians have rights to the homes they fled and were driven from), who are always diverse and almost always th
        emselves immigrants (having supplanted some one else).”

        Try that in Manhattan or Central London.
        Claim them for Israel using that logic.

      • tokyobk
        October 6, 2013, 9:33 pm

        ?
        My logic is the claim that land is not essentially ethnic.

      • Cliff
        October 7, 2013, 4:05 am

        Tokyobk,

        Why are you muddying the waters?

        Oh that’s right, you’re a ‘not a Zionist’ Zionist.

        Once again, you treat Zionist fanatics on this website w/ kids gloves. Your comment is aimed at us who recall the Nakba and the unfairness of the Partition Plan and Jewish colonialism during the Mandate.

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 4:46 am

        Nationalism is mostly built around ethnicity. The idea that the Zionists could claim the land because nobody actually owned it, because the people living there were displacement fodder, is deluded.

        “who are always diverse and almost always th emselves immigrants (having supplanted some one else).”

        And this is also bollocks. Empires came and went but peasants stayed put. Did the people of Turkey all migrate from Turkmenistan in 1200 ?

      • tokyobk
        October 7, 2013, 6:08 am

        You keep going back to Zionism as if I am making some brief for Jewish nationalism or the conquest of Palestine which I am certainly not. I am aware of the argument that the residents of Palestine did not really own their land and I reject it as completely as you do.

        Yes, nationalism is built around perceptions of ethnicity which are all fabricated. “Caucasian,” “Aryan” “Semite” all have political and social histories. “Our Ancestors the Gauls,” the beginning of past French primers had little basis in the demography of France and had everything to do with constructing a French nation that belonged on eternally French soil.

        Of course Israel cannot claim Central London. My point is neither can “Anglo Saxons” another invented identity which in its 18th century currency held that neither Romans nor Normans contributed in any way to the people living on the “British” Islands, and as I hope you agree, a UK citizen from Pakistan, Nigeria or Poland has as much natural right to live their as someone who is indeed descended from Danes, Picts, Angles or Celts.

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 7:16 am

        It was their land. The land was essentially Arab just as the land of Slovakia was essentially Slovak. Egypt belongs to the Egyptians- it hardly matters that in 1948 most of it was the property of absentee landowners. Same for the Palestinians. And very few of them were immigrants BTW.

        Zionist Jews had no right to the land of Palestine- they needed a war and a campaign of ethnic cleansing to gain possession.

        Zionism is very flaky on ownership which is why the legal system is so strict on who is even allowed into the country.

        Saudi companies need land to grow food – they often buy farms in Madagascar. The notion that the land belongs to Saudi afterwards is ludicrous. Zionism is similar.

      • eljay
        October 7, 2013, 7:17 am

        I agree with tokyobk’s comments. I don’t see that he’s saying anything controversial.

      • Cliff
        October 7, 2013, 7:27 am

        Tokyobk,

        When was there last a Jewish majority in Israel/Palestine before the campaign of Jewish terrorism that culminated in the Nakba?

        How many Jews constituted this majority? What is your source, if you can even come up with a number?

      • tokyobk
        October 7, 2013, 7:33 am

        Essentially Arab and essentially Slovak are meaningless terms, unless you mean language and sure there are places which speak Arabic predominantly but even that is not exclusive in any of the historic “Arab” countries.

        Palestine has been an especially diverse and fluid place by all measurements including those we use to (inaccurately) determine race and ethnicity such as hair texture, skin color, eye shape.

        Sure, Egypt belongs to the Egyptians, but that is actually a different kind of statement.

        And, again, you keep answering me as if I am justifying Zionism when in fact I am rejecting the basic terms by which Zionism argues.

      • Cliff
        October 7, 2013, 7:40 am

        tokyobk said

        Essentially Arab and essentially Slovak are meaningless terms, unless you mean language and sure there are places which speak Arabic predominantly but even that is not exclusive in any of the historic “Arab” countries.

        Palestine has been an especially diverse and fluid place by all measurements including those we use to (inaccurately) determine race and ethnicity such as hair texture, skin color, eye shape.

        Are you saying that during the advent of Zionist colonialism that there was a ‘fluidity’ of languages/religion/etc. (ie IDENTITY) in Historic Palestine?

        Are you saying there was no Arab majority? Are you saying that most people weren’t Muslim?

        OBVIOUSLY the people of the region rejected Zionism and the various plans by outsiders to CARVE UP THE LAND to create a Jewish State.

        How many non-Jews were in this Jewish State when proposed btw?

        Were they identity-less too?

        You’re so full of crap.

      • Cliff
        October 7, 2013, 7:44 am

        tokyobk

        you keep saying you are not a Zionist

        yet here you are saying that Palestine was an ooze/mixture of indiscernible identities

        here’s a simply question: PROVE IT WITH STATISTICS

        where are the numbers that show equal everything (ethnicity and religion and languages)

        how many different languages were people speaking? religion? etc.

        you’ve been muddying the waters since that religious fanatic first spat his propaganda

        you didn’t take him to task – as a supposed non-Zionist would

        you simply side-stepped the issue and helped him by equivocating (which always helps ISRAEL in the end since Israel controls the narrative)

        why the hell aren’t these comments going through when seafoid and tokyobk are commenting at the same time as me

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 8:06 am

        “Palestine has been an especially diverse and fluid place by all measurements including those we use to (inaccurately) determine race and ethnicity such as hair texture, skin color, eye shape.”

        So has any intercontinental crossroads. Sicily has a great mix too. And it’s not as if there is much to link Ashkenazim to the Samaritans either.
        The land belongs to the people who live on it. Nationalism came after.

        “The problem is referring to the land as essentially Arab”.

        It’s part of the Arab space. I think there are even mosques in Israel and someone told me they even eat hummus in Tel Aviv !
        France is part of Europe. Palestine is part of al Watan al Arabi.

      • libra
        October 7, 2013, 1:16 pm

        eljay: I agree with tokyobk’s comments. I don’t see that he’s saying anything controversial.

        But then tokyobk also believes this:

        I do recognize Israel is an existing political and legal entity and sovereign over all historic Palestine, indirectly Gaza,…

        I suspect he conveniently believes that no people have a right to any land unless they were granted it by divine deed, though generously they should be big enough to share it with the original inhabitants.

        Otherwise he’s really an anti-Zionist advocate for a single, democratic state who, for some odd reason, just comes across as a classic “not-a-Zionist’ trying to confuse everyone. Or maybe he’s just confused himself.

      • eljay
        October 7, 2013, 2:22 pm

        >> But then tokyobk also believes this:

        I read that strictly to mean that he recognizes the reality that Israel, for all intents and purposes, is sovereign over what was Palestine. He’s right: It is.

        In that same post, he also says “This should not be mistaken as a bias for a Jewish national entity in Palestine, for which I have never once advocated on this site. Not once.”

        >> I suspect he conveniently believes that no people have a right to any land unless they were granted it by divine deed, though generously they should be big enough to share it with the original inhabitants.

        I don’t get that from his posts either. I understood him to mean that land, in a “macro” geographic sense, does not (or should not) belong to an ethnic or religious or linguistic group*; and that fair acquisition of any portion of that land should not be prohibited on the basis of a claimed ethnic or religious or linguistic ownership.

        (*IMO, “Arab lands” is no more valid a concept than “Christian lands”.)

        All of this is very different, of course, from the control, management and defence by nation-states of land within their defined boundaries.

      • MRW
        October 7, 2013, 4:59 am

        The problem is referring to the land as essentially Arab.

        The people have been speaking Arabic there for 5,000 years, since the time of Canaan.

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 11:28 am

        They spoke Polish for most of the time, MRW. They only started to speak Arabic in 1882.
        They stopped eating borscht in 1883 and asked the Lebanese to show them how to make hummus.
        It is such a fraud.

      • talknic
        October 7, 2013, 8:13 am

        tokyobk “The problem is referring to the land as essentially Arab”

        The UNSC has no problem referring to the land as essentially Arab

        UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; link to domino.un.org

        “Land does not belong to ethnic groups, not even the so called natives (as an entity, of course Palestinians have rights to the homes they fled and were driven from)”

        Land & homes are ‘real estate’. Real estate is not ‘territory’. “the Land” is ‘territory’ and it belongs to all its legal inhabitants whether they own land/real estate, whether they lease or rent land/real estate or whether they’re homeless bums living under a bridge.

    • ziusudra
      October 7, 2013, 4:11 am

      Greetings Mike Conrad,
      ….. You may say: States should not be based on Religion……
      Pssst Mike,
      There is only one people in SA or Iran.
      Ob course the Japanese are racists & nationalistic
      non inclusive, but they rid themselves of the Aino Euros
      eons ago.
      Do you intend to become one ethnic group by ultimately
      pushing out the Semite Falesteeni?
      You can’t build a Christian Church in Turkey, so what!
      You can’t carry a Bible into SA, so what!
      Oy, weh ist mir! Bubala that’s an arguement?
      Can the Gazans go to & fro ,in & out of Gaza? No!
      Can the WB Falesteeni stop land annexation? No!
      ziusudra
      PS Palava is always done only on the perspective of
      Zionism! Falesteeni perspective don’t fit into the equasion.
      These 3 Anthropo Theisms of Judaism, Christianity & Islam
      & the concepts there of should be given back to the Mesopotanian
      Mythology from whence they came. There is nothing new under the sun
      just a carry over of older cultures.

  4. seafoid
    October 6, 2013, 1:23 pm

    “Jewish leader warns Beinart that opening discussion to BDS would be like including the KKK”

    Panic on the seats at the WZO
    Panic all over AIPAC
    I wonder to myself
    Will life ever be the same again?

    link to youtube.com

    • hophmi
      October 6, 2013, 6:07 pm

      And I wonder when Seafoid will stop crying wolf.

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 11:29 am

        It’s getting better all the time, Hoph.
        I see the hasbara team has been beefed up recently.
        I hope the new memes are different.

      • hophmi
        October 7, 2013, 11:35 am

        Well, seafoid, I know these people pretty well, and no one is in a state of panic. The world is more complex than that.

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 11:49 am

        Zionists used to be ice cold, Hoph.
        They don’t seem to manage the Steve McQueen style very well any more.

        And the world is complex. It’s also nuanced. Which is where Zionism struggles.

      • hophmi
        October 7, 2013, 11:56 am

        “Zionists used to be ice cold, Hoph.”

        Huh? What does that mean?

      • Cliff
        October 7, 2013, 12:06 pm

        hoppy, you know nothing about ‘the world’ outside of Zionism and ‘whats good for the [Israel]’

      • seafoid
        October 7, 2013, 4:43 pm

        Sure of what they were doing. Unruffled. Knew they had back up.
        Didn’t need to do anything in the open.

  5. David Doppler
    October 6, 2013, 7:32 pm

    Jeremy Burton needs to understand that the better analogue to the KKK today is the Settlers when they engage in “price tag” reprisals against the Palestinians.

    Let me also say it is beyond mendacity to pour the boiling oil of such personal accusations on people striving for justice for the oppressed, in a transparent effort to continue the long-standing policy of land-grab, ethnic cleansing, and de-stabilization of all neighboring powers.

  6. MRW
    October 7, 2013, 5:02 am

    “From the most narrow tribal perspective, I think we’re going to lose this intellectual encounter,” he says. “Because Palestinians understand what we think, they hear it all around them, and we don’t know what they’re saying…”

    Ah. Palestinians (in their own land) like Wandering Jews. Jews always had a fierce moral compass when they didn’t have their own state. They threw it away when they created Israel 65 years ago.

  7. Citizen
    October 7, 2013, 7:05 am

    RE: “He [Burton] said the Jewish community has the right to set boundaries to cut people out of the conversation about Israel. ”

    Does that excusion from the debate include all tax-paying Americans who fund Israeli policy and conduct to the tune of $8.5 Million per day, and who’s elected representatives in government also underwrite Israel’s debt, promise, in a myriad of MOUs, US blood and treasure to guarantee Israel’s survival at the beck and call of Israel’s leaders, and exempt accountability for Israel at the UN via the US SC veto?

    “Most of the Arab states have Islamic supremacist legal systems. Are you as upset with them? Does the plight of the Copts bother you? In Egypt it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.

    This does not void criticism of Israel, but if all you do is criticize Israel then you are biased.”

    The US relationship with the various Arab states is an arms-length one–the US does not give them anything, rather, they buy US arms with their oil resource money; I’ve never heard a single US citizen or government representative sing praise for USA’s Arab allies, e.g., Saudi Arabia or any of the gulf oil states. Criticism of these US allies’ internal politics, especially in the domestic civil rights areas, is an American norm.

    • seafoid
      October 7, 2013, 4:45 pm

      The notion that Jews are running this independently and that Israel is a sovereign Sparta that can give 2 fingers to the world is deluded.

      Israel is a court project .

    • JustJessetr
      October 10, 2013, 8:08 am

      Seafoid says: “The US relationship with the various Arab states is an arms-length one–the US does not give them anything, rather, they buy US arms with their oil resource money…”

      The NYTimes says different. “The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a modest and temporary freeze on military assistance to Egypt, even as American officials emphasized their desire to avoid rupturing a security relationship that stretches back more than three decades.

      “To signal its displeasure at the Egyptian military’s bloody crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, officials said, the United States would withhold the delivery of several big-ticket items, including Apache attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles, M1-A1 tank parts and F-16 warplanes, as well as $260 million for the general Egyptian budget. ”

      link to nytimes.com

      And I’m unaware that Egypt is a heavyweight oil exporter, Seafood.

      Seafoid says: “I’ve never heard a single US citizen or government representative sing praise for USA’s Arab allies, e.g., Saudi Arabia or any of the gulf oil states. Criticism of these US allies’ internal politics, especially in the domestic civil rights areas, is an American norm.”

      Terrific, then they aren’t biased. But you are. Definitely.

      Beinart says: “Most of the Arab states have Islamic supremacist legal systems. Are you as upset with them? Does the plight of the Copts bother you? In Egypt it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.

      This does not void criticism of Israel, but if all you do is criticize Israel then you are biased.”

      And he is spot on. Israel acts and reacts in a regional system of which it is a influence and in which it is affected. If you want to criticize Israel, you have every right, but if you can’t see it in context of events going on around it then you are indeed biased. For all it’s faults, Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbors.

      And if it ever came down to the USA persecuting Jews and I had to save my family’s life, I’m glad Israel is there. None of your moralizing, hyperactive hyperlinking, and skewed statistics can dissuade a single Jew, and that includes Phil Weiss, from weighing the same option.

  8. dbroncos
    October 7, 2013, 3:52 pm

    Thanks for your reports from the J Street confernece, Phil. Some of the discussions show encouraging signs that a debate about Zionism is quickly gaining traction among American Jews.

  9. seafoid
    October 7, 2013, 5:47 pm

    I don’t think Beinart understands what Israelis are saying either.
    He keeps on saying he wants a Jewish state but at what cost?

    And “Love and knowledge and learning’ were taken by the IDF and tortured to death in Gush Etzion police station.

  10. Peter in SF
    October 8, 2013, 3:59 am

    Burton at 2:38: “It would be nice to hear them [Palestinians] supporting the idea of a Jewish state as vociferously as some of us support the idea of a Palestinian state.”

    To paraphrase Fiddler on the Roof, “May God bless and keep the Jewish state … far away from us!”

Leave a Reply