‘An Arab & A Jew’ debate BDS and the future of Israel/Palestine

ActivismIsrael/PalestineUS Politics
on 144 Comments

Ahmed Shihab-Eldin and Mike Sacks hosted an episode of their weekly Huffpost Live program “An Arab & A Jew”.  Their guests were also an Arab and a Jew, Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center, and Chemi Shalev, U.S. editor of Haaretz.

This episode on ASA’s Academic Boycott of Israel and the interviews were quite telling. They packed quite a bit into 24 minutes.

Shihab-Eldin began by reading a section of ASA’s boycott resolution and asking Shalev for his reaction to either the statement or the general vote. Shalev responds saying the basis for the boycott was one-sided, Israel is being unfairly singled out(1:59) and that a lot of the people supporting the boycott are not necessarily protesting the occupation but “protesting the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”

At which point Sacks asks Shalev point blank what part of the statement would lead one to believe that it wasn’t a protest of the occupation but of the Jewish state.  And Shalev can’t answer, he says, “You’d have to show me the statement again.” I found that very telling. It means he probably has not even read the resolution and wasn’t even listening. He goes on to say he doesn’t think the wording matters (actually, words do matter Chemi).

Later in the interview (21:34) Shalev comes back to this point. He claims he was ignored over this issue. “You chose to ignore it, people who do not want a Jewish state.” When in fact he wasn’t ignored, he was asked for clarification. No one called him on this. It really pissed me off, more on that later.

Shalev then pulled out the ‘worse regimes than Israel’ shtick we always hear.

When Munayyer had a chance to respond he made mince meat of that argument saying this idea of unfairly singling out Israel was a tired argument; that there were far worse regimes around the world than the South African regime during Apartheid and that taking a stance is not wrong; that if there’s a critical mass of movement in civil society to oppose human right violations they should be encouraged.

More than once Shihab-Eldin and Sacks talk between themselves and they make an effective team. Sacks brings up the 2SS and what he calls the ‘end game’ and this is where it gets interesting because, for me, it speaks to the intentions of the parties. Shihab-Eldin said Palestinians should be able to speak for themselves and the notion the boycott was unfair to Israel, he turns that around and asks isn’t the occupation unfair? And if not boycott then what would Shalev suggest? Shalev doesn’t want to answer that. He says he “promises” if Palestinians would accept Israel as a Jewish state and agree to something Israelis would go along, or something. He’d rather discuss how there’s no ‘sympathy’ for the Israeli point of view, and let’s just put aside what’s fair or unfair!

Then he emphatically states:

We’re talking about American teachers and American universities taking completely one sided positions with no sympathy whatsoever for Israeli point of view.

Shihab-Eldin rightly points out it’s disingenuous to assume that people who voted for the boycott have not taken both sides into consideration and that this should not be framed as a one sided decision because people can evolve and change based on info made available to them. Then he brings the conversation right back to ‘if not BDS then what?’

Munayyer’s words are like crystal clear water. He spoke to the huge imbalance of power Palestinians are up against “Israel simply imposes its will and if Palestinians refuse the unjust proposals they are blamed for the failure of the peace process..Palestinians are asking for their human rights to be recognized and the rights to live in the land where they are from.” Palestinians society is saying:

Look we cannot coerce this state by ourselves we need your help, we need you to take a position that you can take on your own in whatever capacity that you can to send this message to the Israel state that the continuation of these policies are only going to lead them into further isolation.

Munayyer says change the behavior of the state itself, not just the settlements..”The settlements don’t just grow on the top of the hills themselves..a deliberate state policy crafted in the very corridors of power” and if you’re going to send a message to the state it has to be sent in “every forum and every direction possible because isolation is a message that takes a long time to get across.”

Here’s the thing, Shalev knows all to well what’s ahead. He recently wrote a killer article Israel inches closer to ‘tipping point’ of South Africa-style boycott campaign and referenced a 1998 article by political scientists Martha Finnemore,  and Kathryn Sikking “International Norms, Dynamics and Political Change,” :

laid out the foundations of the “life cycle” by which certain norms develop to shape the behavior of states and then of the international community as a whole. The first step, they claim, is “norm emergence,” when a new norm is championed by NGO’s and “norm entrepreneurs.” The second stage is a “norms cascade,” when states fall into line to embrace the new norm. And a prerequisite for evolution from the first to the second stages is a “tipping point” that occurs when a critical mass of events and opinions converge to create the norms cascade.

…..“Tipping points,” of course, are hard to predict, and efforts to do so have been the focal point of widespread, multidisciplinary research in recent years. “You know the edge is out there, but it’s dark and foggy. We’re really great at knowing where thresholds are after we fall off the cliff, but that’s not very helpful,” as lake ecologist and “tipping point” researcher Stephen Carpenter told USA today in 2009.

Israel could very well be approaching such a threshold………..One must always take into account the possibility of unforeseen developments that will turn things completely around. Barring that, the only thing that may be keeping Israel from crossing the threshold and “going over the cliff” in the international arena is Kerry’s much-maligned peace process, which is holding public opinion and foreign governments at bay and preventing a “tipping point” that would dramatically escalate the anti-Israeli boycott campaign.

So, given he knows the tipping point is likely right around the corner (if it isn’t already here) it’s quite telling the main line of defense is ‘Many BDS activists don’t want an Israeli state.’ To that I say, so what? Everyone knows lots of Israelis don’t want a Palestinian state. This is not a viable counter argument.

Words do matter, what BDS stands for does matter. The words of these resolutions do matter. If Shalev and Israeli society don’t like the implications of the ‘end game’, they should take the initiative and do something about it rather than whining about how unfair it is. And if their society is so paralyzed they’re incapable of doing anything then do what Munayyer suggests, “applaud the strategy and empower it if you want to see real change.”

I love it when Shihab-Eldin says he applauds the strategy because there’s a lack of any other options(17:12). The chances this will be resolved in the negotiations is nil and we can all read the writing on the wall, even Shalev.

Shihab-Eldin and Sacks make quite a team and I plan on watching more of these weekly shows about the Middle East.

About Annie Robbins

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

144 Responses

  1. just
    December 21, 2013, 5:38 pm

    Super article and dissection of the “conversation”, Annie!

    Munayyer makes the perfect point with regard to Abbas and his statement(s)…………huge props to him for that clarification. Munayyer makes so many great points… kerpow!

    (PS– Chemi is obviously a leader of Hasbara. It’s Chemi warfare.)

  2. Seth Edenbaum
    December 21, 2013, 6:09 pm

    A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans, legitimizing concerns over demographics. How do I defend concern over the number of Palestinians in Israel without allowing for concern over the number of Jews in Germany? How can I defend Zionism without defending Pat Buchanan’s concerns for the future of white America? Likudniks don’t deny the equivalence; they shrug it off.

    Anyone who defends the two state solution as an ideal moral goal is a nativist and a bigot. Liberals have to negotiate with bigots, and maybe the two state solution is or once was the best viable option, but any self-described liberal who defends it as anything else is a hypocrite and should be called on it. I’m tired of Zionists behaving like the American southerners, “concerned white people” without anyone pointing out to their face that that’s all they are.

    I assume many of the people who voted for the boycott are opposed to the existence of the Jewish state. I’d like to think at least a few are consistent in their defense of democracy and the equality of all under law.

    • JeffB
      December 21, 2013, 8:56 pm

      @Seth —

      There is a huge difference between these cases. Blacks in the south always insisted they were Americans. They consisted fought the idea that being black made you unable to be American and rejected Liberia. Similarly German Jews sought to be Germans and considered themselves Germans, many even converting from Judaism.

      Africa was a shattered mess when the white traders who started the slave trade showed up. By the time of the 1950s most Africans were 600 years or more removed from a successful society (remember the slaves came from tribes that were losing internal wars). By the time of the 1930s Jews were 18.5 centuries removed from Judea. The Palestinians were dominant in Palestine in 1913. They directly border the countries with cultures similar to their own, the refuges from the early years of fighting. They haven’t had time to adjust. The Palestinians have dreams of Algeria, the idea that Palestine is over forever is just not accepted the way it was for Jewish Germans or Black Americans. If Palestinians were willing to be ethnically Palestinian Israelis there would be nothing to fight about. They mostly aren’t willing to be Israeli. They aren’t willing to accept that their national aspirations are over.

      So the situations aren’t comparable.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 12:12 am

        @Seth –There is a huge difference between these cases

        Tony Judt, Joel Kovel, and Jacqueline Rose have more than adequately explained that the idea of a Jewish State, as such, is an anachronism and that there aren’t any meaningful differences when it comes to those who dream of forming “nation-states” and territorial “homelands”.

        @6:30 Mike Sacks acknowledged the tactic of endlessly debating whether Israel is, or is not like South African apartheid, by labeling that as a rabbit hole he didn’t want to go down.

        Blacks in the south always insisted they were Americans. They consisted fought the idea that being black made you unable to be American and rejected Liberia.

        Thanks for changing the subject, but Seth was complaining about people who thought like white southerns, e.g. Chief Justice Taney ruled in the Dred Scott case that blacks had never been US citizens for the purposes of the Article III federal courts. For that matter many northern states adopted laws which prohibited freed slaves from taking-up residence.

        Southern and northern “whites”, including Lincoln himself, admitted that Liberia had failed to attract the freed slave population in any considerable numbers, but they were optimistic about the possibility of forced or voluntary black colonization in Central America to achieve racial separation on the soil of our own continent. In October 1861, Lincoln asked Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, to look into a proposal for colonizing blacks on the isthmus of Chiriqui, a small area in the northwest of present-day Panama.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 22, 2013, 1:50 am

        This comment by “hostage” and the one it responds to are two of the oddest blog comments I’ve read in a long time. JeffB’s comment is a strange fantasy of history, with no basis beyond his imagination. And the racism is out in the open. It deserves no response.

        Israel within 67 borders is a moderate Jim Crow state. In the Territories it’s Apartheid, full stop. At its most enlightened it is not a state for all its citizens equally, yet its defenders call it modern. It is no more modern than the Shah’s Iran, Hussein’s Iraq, Botha’s South Africa or the monarchies of the Gulf, all of them allies of Israel, de facto or de jure. Israel is a focus of criticism because it is a focus of praise.

        I implied nothing about Dred Scott. My comment was more direct, though maybe not direct enough: as a part time defender of Jim Crow, Mike Sacks of Huffpost and others like him are bigots, nice bigots or well-meaning bigots, but bigots nonetheless. It’s the nature of his interest in a “Jewish state” that demographics are a concern. If he were concerned about the browning of America, he would be called out in a minute. But about Israel, he isn’t. Never mind the 19th century, maybe you should read King’s letter from Birmingham jail. For his description of the “white moderate”, read the Zionist one. The narcissism is the same.

        The lasting strength of Zionism has been in the delusional false liberalism of the majority of its supporters. It’s also the greatest weakness. That’s where the focus needs to be.

      • Donald
        December 22, 2013, 12:17 pm

        “This comment by “hostage” and the one it responds to are two of the oddest blog comments I’ve read in a long time. JeffB’s comment is a strange fantasy of history, with no basis beyond his imagination. ”

        You must have misread hostage’s comment if you lumped it in with Jeff’s. Hostage was agreeing with you.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 11:15 am

        @ Seth Edenbaum
        “Israel is a focus of criticism because it is a focus of praise.”

        And the biggest chunk of US foreign aid, including US UN SC vetoes, by far, with Egypt coming in second on the military aid, but only on condition it continues to act as Israel’s border guard.

        These two reasons are more than enough to counter the very popular Zionist notion that amounts to pointing at other crappy states, not picking on Israel. They should be used by anybody tired of Israel’s rogue conduct which is constantly justified by overlooking international law, hard won by two world wars–we really don’t need to try hard to jeer at the ancient painting of Custer’s Last Stand, which now hangs in the Knesset, we just need to figure out how to change the current bribery system that is the American campaign finance system.

      • Ecru
        December 22, 2013, 2:23 am

        @JeffB

        Where the F!CK do you get this stuff?

        Africa was a shattered mess when the white traders who started the slave trade showed up.

        Massive historical ignorance distilled into one sentence.
        1) Africa was NOT a shattered mess there were plenty of complex civilisations when the “White Traders” arrived. The “White Traders” were drawn to Africa because of the wealth of those cultures. Your claim is typical of racist idiots who can only see Africans as “savages.”
        2) “White traders” did not start that African slave trade – the East African slave trade had already been going on for centuries if not millennia.

        By the time of the 1950s most Africans were 600 years or more removed from a successful society..

        Interesting slip – Africans, not African Americans. Could it be that you don’t truly think of Black Americans as Americans? Oh and don’t try and claim your talking of all people of African descent because you’ve clearly put this in an American context with your first paragraph.

        But I hate to think what your definition of a successful society is. And forget history – you can’t even do basic maths. 600 years? Even when you include the Portuguese Old World slave trade that would give 500 years. Transatlantic slave trade – since you’re referencing African Americans – around 400 years (earliest vessel – Portuguese – S. Antonio – 1532). Don’t rely on your own bigotry – do some sodding reading.

        ..remember the slaves came from tribes that were losing internal wars..

        Love the way you fail to mention that the societies you deem “successful” were the ones armed by the slave traders and who had no problem attacking and enslaving other people for profit. Ooh parallel to Israel being armed by the USA there.

        Further yet another revelation of your bigotry,

        ..internal wars..

        What because they all had dark skin the wars fought between them were all internal? Differences in culture, language, belief etc. etc. don’t matter? Apparently not, after all they’re all just “darkies” aren’t they.

        If Palestinians were willing to be ethnically Palestinian Israelis there would be nothing to fight about.

        Yep definitely KKK material. You sound like a slave master complaining that the slaves should just accept their station in life and get on with being whipped every day. So according to you African Americans should never have fought for their HUMAN rights, just accepted the bigotry and violence of their “betters.” Nice. Why on earth would Palestinians want to be third class citizens who can be shot with impunity by the master-race?

        They mostly aren’t willing to be Israeli

        Except of course there’s no such thing as Israeli. The Israeli high court just said so. And nor is anything even similar being offered – that would, we are repeatedly told, spell the end of the “Jewish State.” Palestinians CANNOT become Palestinian Israelis because Israel doesn’t want them to have either rights or the vote.

        They aren’t willing to accept that their national aspirations are over.

        You mean like the Jews didn’t for so long? How come it was OK for the Jews to fight for their national aspirations but not the Palestinians?

        I wonder if I changed the ethnicities of the people you talk about and posted your stuff over at Stormfront if anyone would be able to tell the difference between you and any other common-or-garden KKKer.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 11:27 am

        @Ecru —

        I meant 600 years not 500. I was talking about the internal wars and the events prior to the arrival of slavers. I think that was rather explicit given I specially said”internal wars” not slavery.

        As for your comment about Palestinians accepting slavery I neither said that nor meant that. I was quite explicit I was talking about accepting equality as Israelis.

        I think you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.

      • Ecru
        December 22, 2013, 1:24 pm

        @ JeffB

        I think you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.

        In case you missed it – I quoted you quite a bit. And anyone can take a look at the post of yours I was responding to to see I’m doing anything but misrepresenting what you wrote.

        But OK – in the interests of fair play and all that, let’s have another gander shall we? First of let’s look at the Africa portion.

        You start off with this,

        Blacks in the south always insisted they were Americans. They consisted fought the idea that being black made you unable to be American and rejected Liberia.

        So here you’re on about African Americans and their rejection of Liberia.

        Africa was a shattered mess when the white traders who started the slave trade showed up.

        As ignorant of African history the second time around as it was the first. Europeans didn’t show up in Africa as slavers until the mid 15th Century (1950-1450=500 years. The first transatlantic slave ship though gives :- 1950-1532=418 years). This is important because in your first paragraph you contextualise your later mentioning of Africa and slavery in respect to African Americans. In fact none of your screed makes even the little sense it does if you concentrate on Africa.

        However even if you meant all African descended people then your 600 year figure is still off since African societies did not simply collapse in the mid 14th century (1950-600=1350).

        But I can’t see how you can have meant Africans in Africa since your next line about Jews describes them as being removed (you use the same word) from a geographic location. How then can you be referring to Africans who stayed in Africa?

        By the time of the 1950s most Africans were 600 years or more removed from a successful society

        By the time of the 1930s Jews were 18.5 centuries removed from Judea.

        Then again you draw the parallel between Jews of the Diaspora and African Americans. Again and again you clearly show that what you are referring to is the African Diaspora not those who remained in Africa.

        the idea that Palestine is over forever is just not accepted the way it was for Jewish Germans or Black Americans.

        Now as for your comment about “internal wars.” You claim that this was a reference to (and here I’m quoting your most recent response)

        the internal wars and the events prior to the arrival of slavers. I think that was rather explicit given I specially said”internal wars” not slavery.

        And yet in your original post this is what you say

        remember the slaves came from tribes that were losing internal wars

        You’re use of the present continuous “losing” speaks of events going on at the time of the slavers, not prior to it at all. Your attempt to deny your own words is, alas typically of a zionist, deeply dishonest.

        Also your use of “internal wars” in reference to the Slaves ignores the cultural richness of Africa, lumping all Africans into one muddled mess with no distinguishing features to their societies or ways of life.

        Now your next response as regards Palestinians.

        …your comment about Palestinians accepting slavery I neither said that nor meant that…

        Now who’s misrepresenting people’s words? Here was my actual response to your initial post,

        You sound like a slave master complaining that the slaves should just accept their station in life and get on with being whipped every day.

        No mention that the Palestinians are slaves just that you sound like a slave master complaining of uppity natives unable to see or accept your own part in the violence of people protesting valid grievances. What I actually said of Palestinians themselves was this,

        Why on earth would Palestinians want to be third class citizens who can be shot with impunity by the master-race?

        Not accepting slavery – accepting third class status in a fundamentally prejudiced nation.

        If you’re going to claim misrepresentation it might help if your words were not right here for people to check on. Unfortunately for you – they are.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 11:30 am

        @ JeffB
        Anyway one looks at it, the black slaves did not come willingly to America’s shores, and the Palestinians did not leave willingly from what is now Israel, nor were they allowed to return–to this day.

      • ziusudra
        December 22, 2013, 4:31 am

        Greetings Jeff,
        Great post, Thank you.
        May i add that Germany only had 400K confessors to Judaism, whereas Poland & Russia millions.
        Over 200K left before the atrocities began.
        Most of the Camps were built outside of Germany.

        ..By the 1930s Jews were 18.5 centuries removed from Judea….
        The concept of Judah & its Kingdom was removed in 586BC.
        5K return to Jerusalem in 456BC & survive w/o future Kingdom or
        tribal identities. They live as a minority & drop Hebrew, a dialect of the Canaanites & take up Aramaic, another dialectic, to survive.
        They begin migrating voluntarily under the Macedonians to Athens in 323BC.
        They migrate on under the Romans in 63BC., hence these people were removed 200BC to 1945AD, which is ca.2150 yrs.
        ziusudra
        PS Is there such a precedence in history that 5K People People could remain healthy by only reproducing within such an abyssmal number?
        Let’s read Dr Eran Elhaik, who spilled the beans.

      • Sibiriak
        December 22, 2013, 10:12 am

        JeffB:

        I can imagine my daughter or her children making aliyah. I want that option open for them like it was for me.

        And for the option of your daughter–who has so many other wonderful options– to “make aliyah”, you are willing to brutally strip the Palestinians of their national aspirations, their right to self-determination, and subject a whole people to unending oppression?

        For the option” of your daughter or grandchildren to “make aliyah” you demand not just a Jewish State in Palestine, but a Jewish State in all of Palestine–you aren’t willing even to embrace the liberal Zionist notion of “two states for two peoples”?

        This, apparently, is the logical outcome of an anachronistic social-Darwinistic worldview based on pseudospeciation (aka “tribalism”) which is antithetical to any morality based on universal human values and rights.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 11:37 am

        @ Sibiriak
        Yep. The irony is that the Zionist state has adopted and implemented the zero sum game Hitler himself played to his dying day and which lives on in Hitler’s Last Political Testament. The exact same game, only who wore the white hat and who wore the black hat has changed.

        Zionists don’t play irony. They are like Christian fundies but they have a nuclear-armed state, armed with the US UN veto and lots of cash endless from dopey Uncle Sam.

      • amigo
        December 22, 2013, 12:10 pm

        “They aren’t willing to accept that their national aspirations are over.”j, b(igot)

        Au contraire, it is you zionist incorrigibles who cannot accept your extra territorial aspirations are over.Unless you have a master plan for all those non Jews when they decide bigots and racists like you are right and end their Palestinian State battle and demand their citizenship and equality as citizens of Israel.

        What are you going to do then.I hope to be alive the day Israel becomes a state for all it,s people. Who will give a rodents posterior about your daughter having the opportunity to make Aliyah.

        My view, very simply is, you zionists have been given a chance to have a state for Jews and quite frankly you f,,ked it up so now be prepared to live with the consequences.The end of your supremacist idea of an Arab Free State for Jews only.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 2:36 pm

        @Ecru

        Replying up a level.

        But I can’t see how you can have meant Africans in Africa since your next line about Jews describes them as being removed (you use the same word) from a geographic location.

        In that case removed in time, i.e. 600 years removed meaning 600 years since.

        f since African societies did not simply collapse in the mid 14th century (1950-600=1350).

        Some did. Some collapsed before. The societies that the slaves came from (i.e. not the societies the slavers came from) had collapsed by that time.

        But I can’t see how you can have meant Africans in Africa

        I didn’t mean that. I’m not a racist. I was talking about different as African nations as different nations and not grouping them into one pile.

        JeffB: By the time of the 1950s most Africans were 600 years or more removed from a successful society
        By the time of the 1930s Jews were 18.5 centuries removed from Judea.

        Ecru: Then again you draw the parallel between Jews of the Diaspora and African Americans. Again and again you clearly show that what you are referring to is the African Diaspora not those who remained in Africa.

        No I was not. I was talking about the collapse of their societies that led those societies to lose the internal African wars that would eventually result in them being sold into slavery. Time, not space. Couldn’t be clearer.

        Also your use of “internal wars” in reference to the Slaves ignores the cultural richness of Africa, lumping all Africans into one muddled mess with no distinguishing features to their societies or ways of life.

        Nope. Try again. You are the one doing that. I hadn’t even considered this interpretations until I read this post.

        You need to stop being such an ass and assume that when I tell you you are misunderstanding me, consider that maybe you are.

      • MRW
        December 23, 2013, 12:56 am

        Africa was a shattered mess when the white traders who started the slave trade showed up.

        No, it wasn’t. It was an unprotected continent unused to the colonialist mercantile cunning of the white traders who colluded with, and manipulated, rival black tribal chiefs who were all too happy to rid themselves of competition. Lush Timbuktu was a seat of great learning until the climate (meaning the actual climate) changed.

        To get the population they were colonializing to accept work for British Pounds–the Africans had no reason to impute value to the Pound otherwise–they threatened death.

  3. American
    December 21, 2013, 7:29 pm

    ”people supporting the boycott are not necessarily protesting the occupation but “protesting the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    boo hoo, boo hoo hoo, ……it would be great if in debates between zionist and Arabs the audience all had ‘laugh buttons’ to press at the zio statements.
    I am waiting for some debate where a zio trots out that ‘you dont want Israel to exist ‘ whine and the other person says….’Well who would? You steal the Palestines land and oppress them to this day so why should they care if you exist? You’re a complete parasite on US Taxpayers and screw with our country’s interest constantly so why should we care if you exist? Tell us why a criminal parasitic state that does absolutely nothing but create trouble for e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e and wants to bomb every other country in the ME should exist? Being a Jewish state is not a good enough reason for anyone to care if a state like that exist or not.”

    • JeffB
      December 21, 2013, 9:01 pm

      @American —

      The claim of BDSers is their objections are based on Israeli behavior not Israeli intrinsically. There certainly are people on MW who hate the idea of a Jewish state and Zionism, and that’s fine as a position but then mistreatment or not of Palestinians becomes just a side issue. If Israel can’t be legitimate if it treats the Palestinians well then its illegitimacy has nothing to do with Palestinian mistreatment.

      So if the Arab says they are opposed to Israel. Then they are an intrinsic enemy. If they win, Zionism and the Jews die; if they lose Zionism and the Jews live. It is a simple pure question of strength. And your saying you are throwing in with the Arabs in such a battle. Which is fine. But it means you aren’t a neutral moral actor you are just a participant in a tribal war.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 21, 2013, 9:25 pm

        there are no ‘nuetral moral actors’ in this conflict. none.

      • mcohen
        December 22, 2013, 2:09 am

        Annie Robbins says:
        December 21, 2013 at 9:25 pm
        “there are no ‘nuetral moral actors’ in this conflict. none.”

        nu ? does that mean that an arab and jew cannot have soup together ,maybe a little chicken soup with falafel balls instead of kneidelach. pita bread instead of matzah

        O,Jerusalem,how you beauty beckons in the fading light,behind closed walls.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 23, 2013, 1:36 am

        does that mean that an arab and jew cannot have soup together

        it means having soup together will not render either ‘neutral’.

      • tree
        December 21, 2013, 9:35 pm

        There certainly are people on MW who hate the idea of a Jewish state and Zionism, and that’s fine as a position but then mistreatment or not of Palestinians becomes just a side issue. If Israel can’t be legitimate if it treats the Palestinians well then its illegitimacy has nothing to do with Palestinian mistreatment.

        Zionism and Israel are built on a foundation of treating Jews as if they are the only ones who matter, thus the insistence on calling Israel a Jewish State. This foundation is what originally created and continues to create the mistreatment of Palestinians and thus the mistreatment of Palestinians is NOT a side issue. It is the inevitable outcome of a state that is purposely built on inequality before the law and the government.

      • tree
        December 21, 2013, 9:38 pm

        If they win, Zionism and the Jews die; if they lose Zionism and the Jews live.

        You are equating Jews with Zionists, when they are not the same. And you are further implying that the only way Jews can survive is by mistreating non-Jews. Not only is that a falsehood, it is a particularly anti-semitic one.

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 10:05 pm

        @tree —

        You are equating Jews with Zionists, when they are not the same.

        They are the same. There are 3 clusters of Jews

        Most of the Jews in the world are either Israeli or American. The American Jews are mostly Zionist, especially if you ignore orthodox theoretical objections and just look at their behaviors. The Israeli Jews are living Zionism. The few scattered remains are mostly Zionist as well.
        Zionism is vastly more popular a belief in the Jewish community then say the sabbath or even the existence of HaShem. Yes, Zionism is Judaism.

        Now there are lot of Christian Zionists so the equation doesn’t work in the other direction.

        And you are further implying that the only way Jews can survive is by mistreating non-Jews. Not only is that a falsehood, it is a particularly anti-semitic one.

        I didn’t say that you said that. Now I will say stuff. If Israel dies, Judaism dies. When Judea fell the Romans printed a coin commemorating Yahweh’s defeat to Jupiter. Most Jews accepted that interpretation within a few generations and converted off. Some did not and remained. To quote the King who convert France to Catholicism, ” I will believe in thee and be baptized in thy name. For I have invoked my own gods but, as I find, they have withdrawn from aiding me; and therefore I believe that they possess no power, since they do not help those who obey them.” A second defeat would prove Yahweh a false god. If Israel dies, Judaism whatever is left of it, dies.

        As far as the Jewish people. Having had a false, messiah, having seen their country destroyed for the 3rd time. The ones in Israel who don’t get out won’t have an option. They are lucky if they get a quick death. But what point would the Jewish people in America even have without Israel? What’s worth saving? We gather around at Pesach to pray to a god whose led us back into slavery again and again and again and still wants credit for Egypt. Judaism would be a cruel joke after the messianic promise had proven to be a lie.

        Now I also didn’t say anything about mistreating anyone. Israel doesn’t need to mistreat the Palestinians to exist. That can stop as soon as the Palestinians are willing to be Israelis of Palestinian descent.

      • Ecru
        December 22, 2013, 5:17 am

        @ JeffB

        Gods but you’re depressing.

        If Israel dies, Judaism dies

        No. If Israel, yo use your overly dramatic language, dies then Israel dies. Probably (hopefully) Zionism. Judaism? Except for religious Jews, if Judaism’s dead it’s because Zionism killed it. Judaism as a religion survived perfectly fine for 2500 years by constantly re-inventing itself, why would that change now? Now Judaism has to serve a secular religion of supremacy and domination?

        Most Jews accepted that interpretation within a few generations and converted off

        Any evidence that the process of conversion only started with the fall of Jerusalem to Titus? Any figures for conversion rates in the 1st Century AD for Jews in the Empire? Stop making stuff up.

        A second defeat would prove Yahweh a false god.

        Hate to break it to you Jeff old boy but your own mythology list well over two defeats for Hebrew states and statelettes.

        The ones in Israel who don’t get out won’t have an option. They are lucky if they get a quick death.

        Ahh the old Zionist refuge of bigotry – the Muslims are ALL rampaging blood thirsty savages intent on genocide. If Israel ever falls it spells doooooom for every Jew in Palestine. You know just saying things over and over again doesn’t make them true.

        We gather around at Pesach to pray to a god whose led us back into slavery again and again and again and still wants credit for Egypt.

        Excuse me if I’m wrong but isn’t the myth that Yahweh punished the people for various infractions by allowing them to be conquered by others. He didn’t lead people into slavery it was punishment. So let’s say Israel’s conquered from without (not going to happen btw – Israel’s got too many WMD’s for Europe – let alone the States – to allow it. We have heard of the Samson option over here you know.) that would just be Yahweh punishing “his people” for straying from Judaism into Zionism wouldn’t it. False idols, Golden Calves not ring a bell?

        Judaism would be a cruel joke after the messianic promise had proven to be a lie.

        Not really since Zionism started out as a secular philosophy. And could you idiots make up your minds – are you Jewish because of the religion or because of some myths about “nationhood?”

        That can stop as soon as the Palestinians are willing to be Israelis of Palestinian descent.

        Except Israel won’t accept any more Israelis of Palestinian descent. That’s why all the protests about recognising the rights of the 1948 refugees. That’s why the constant angst over a “Demographic Threat.” That’s why Israel has all the bigoted laws and practises on the books, it wants rid of Israeli Palestinians, not more of them. The Nakba never stopped – it just got slightly quieter.

        Added to which the Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that the “Israeli” nationality doesn’t exist – there’s no such thing as an Israeli national, only Jewish Israeli’s and Other Israelis. With ALL the others under continuous pressure to leave.

        If this is your true views about Jewish people and the Jewish religion all I can say is you fit the description of a “self-hating Jew” much better than any non or anti-Zionist Jew with your view of the Jewish people and faith as ultimately pathetic and weak. Which is really very sad.

      • ziusudra
        December 22, 2013, 5:32 am

        Re.: Jeff,
        …..The American Jews are mostly Zionist…..
        …. The Israeli Jews are living Zionism……
        …. If Israel dies, Judaism dies……

        What is Zionism?
        Collective practising Judaism begins after Babylonian capitivity in 536BC.
        when all the tribal identities were gone.
        Ideological Zionism begins ca. 1860 in Europe.
        Confessors to Judaism preached ‘ next year in Jerusalem’ from 200BC to 1945AD, psst, most skipped to the US & France, today 50% of World Jewry.
        Euro Jewry survived by ‘compromise’ . See the US, France, UK & Iran of today. Judaism survives w/o Israel!
        Again, what is Zionism? World Jewry w/o it will survive in Judaism again.
        It’s like saying that Jewishness will not survive. Jewishness, if there is such a thing, it is a small group that survived being the most integrated of all Euro ethnicities, languages, cuisines & sporting the eclectic wearing apparel of Mankind held together by Judaism not Zionism.
        That’s my agreement on Jewishness.
        The historical concept of Zionism by protagonists Birnbaum & Hertzl were to convince Euro leaders that it would be beneficial to Europe to help them
        leave for another Region, which all were most happy about.
        Zion itself goes back to a name of a hill outside of Jerusalem which was still a hill when Jerusalem went by the Canaanite name of Schalim in the Region of Peleset (Palestine)named by the Canaan, who reside & rule there since 4K BC. Neither Judaism nor Zionism can set itself apart from the rest of the world. There is only one human species & we left Africa thouroghly miscegenized ca. 200K yrs ago.
        ziusudra
        PS a Mythology is a dream of one Group of People. Biblical history of said Group is a Mythology not a Religion. Judaism is based on biblical stories accounting the Myths of the Sumerians, simply Judaised.
        Christianity & Islam are variations of the deeds of the Sumerians & are also only Mythologies
        A Religion is a democratic Mythology combining Mankind to dream said dream together. Christianity & Islam have sought this aspect, not Judaism
        which is exclusive.

      • Donald
        December 22, 2013, 12:20 pm

        ” That can stop as soon as the Palestinians are willing to be Israelis of Palestinian descent.”

        So you claim the Israeli Jews support a one state solution with equal rights for all, so long as the Palestinians are willing to call themselves “Israelis of Palestinian descent”? This will be news to almost everyone, probably including most Israeli Jews.

      • LeaNder
        December 22, 2013, 12:26 pm

        JeffB,

        this is the most odd comment I have read here for a while, it feels. Messianic promise, Mishna Tora, power? Religious nationalism, victory or doom.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 1:40 pm

        @Donald —

        Replying up a level

        So you claim the Israeli Jews support a one state solution with equal rights for all, so long as the Palestinians are willing to call themselves “Israelis of Palestinian descent”? This will be news to almost everyone, probably including most Israeli Jews.

        Of course! (though I’m a bit iffy about the “call themselves” they have to mean it). Take an example of the Russian Christians married to Russian immigrants. They aren’t Jewish and they aren’t willing to convert. Yet they are willing to identify with Israel and be loyal to her, including the idea that their children will be raised in the state church church of Israel; not the state church of Russia and they are fully embraced. Similarly the Palestinian Jews, who identified with Israel and became Mizrachi Jews not Palestinians.

        The moments Palestinians are willing to be Israeli there is nothing to fight about. Then it just becomes a question of the details of managing the specifics. This isn’t going to happen for a while but as soon as it does, everyone moves on to a new phase.

      • talknic
        December 22, 2013, 3:38 pm

        @ JeffB ” Zionism is Judaism”
        Then
        “Now there are lot of Christian Zionists so the equation doesn’t work in the other direction”

        Say anything, no matter how contradictory, illogical or oxymoronic

        “If Israel dies, Judaism dies”

        Survived without Israel for thousands of years. Now more than any other issue Jewish in history, the Zionist Movement’s Israel is driving a wedge between Jewish folk.

        “A second defeat would prove Yahweh a false god”

        Being AWOL from the Holocaust wasn’t convincing enough? Some people are really slow learners.

        “But what point would the Jewish people in America even have without Israel?”

        Children, families, friends, picnics, careers, the normal stuff of life. Millions of people live quite full lives without any religious affiliations. In fact Judaism and its off shots are newbies in the history of mankind. Compared to the 45,000 unbroken hard copy evidence of the Australian Aboriginal dreaming, Judaism et al is a fly spec in time

        ” Israel doesn’t need to mistreat the Palestinians to exist”

        Oh OK …… But then

        ” That can stop …”

        So it does…

        ” That can stop as soon as the Palestinians are willing to be Israelis of Palestinian descent.”

        Ugly supremism blindly reigns supreme. ‘Of course I don’t need to abuse you but I’m gonna abuse you unless you do what I want’

      • Sibiriak
        December 22, 2013, 9:03 pm

        JeffB

        Take an example of the Russian Christians married to Russian immigrants. They aren’t Jewish and they aren’t willing to convert. Yet they are willing to identify with Israel and be loyal to her, including the idea that their children will be raised in the state church church of Israel.

        What does that mean exactly–the children of Russian Christians will be “raised in the state church of Israel”?

        The moments Palestinians are willing to be Israeli there is nothing to fight about.

        Your analogy between Israeli Russian Christians and Palestinians fails completely as soon as one considers the numbers involved.

        …. the Christian population is shrinking. Israel counted just 154,500 Christians at the end of 2011, or just 2 percent of the the population, the Central Bureau of Statistics…

        link to jpost.com

        In contrast, we are talking about millions of Palestinians, who, if they became Israeli citizens, would form a majority or near-majority.

        The question then would become: would Jewish Israelis be willing to continue to be Israeli?

        Would Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that was no longer a predominantly Jewish State, socially and politically (and Palestinians would be highly politicized and mobilized and very active in democratically re-shaping the Israeli state.)

        With all due respect, Jeff, you are being disingenuous. Your claim that “Israeli Jews support a one state solution with equal rights for all” is utter nonsense–and you know it– since in a democracy such rights would include the ability to change the character of the state so that it is no longer a Jewish-dominated state–which would mean the end of Zionism.

      • JeffB
        December 23, 2013, 6:21 am

        @Sibiriak —

        Replying up a level

        What does that mean exactly–the children of Russian Christians will be “raised in the state church of Israel”?

        It means they will go to schools where Israeli Judaism is part of the curriculum. And within a generation or two they will be Jews.

        Would Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that was no longer a predominantly Jewish State, socially and politically (and Palestinians would be highly politicized and mobilized and very active in democratically re-shaping the Israeli state.)

        If they are active in reshaping the state in fundamental ways they aren’t part of the Israeli nation. They are enfranchised Palestinians. What it means to be ethnically Palestinian Israelis is to adopt the culture and start a process of active assimilation. That doesn’t mean complete it but it does mean move towards it.

        With all due respect, Jeff, you are being disingenuous. Your claim that “Israeli Jews support a one state solution with equal rights for all” is utter nonsense–and you know it– since in a democracy such rights would include the ability to change the character of the state so that it is no longer a Jewish-dominated state–which would mean the end of Zionism.

        If they aren’t Zionists then they reject the fundamental ideology of the state they aren’t agreeing to join Israel. They are agreeing to act like enemy invaders and overthrow it. Of course the Palestinians are willing to be enemies of the nation. What I’m talking about is them being willing to join Israel not overthrow Israel. Consider the Russian immigrants and their willingness to become Israeli.

      • Sibiriak
        December 24, 2013, 12:13 am

        JeffB:

        [Sibiriak:] What does that mean exactly–the children of Russian Christians will be “raised in the state church of Israel”?

        It means they will go to schools where Israeli Judaism is part of the curriculum. And within a generation or two they will be Jews.

        Is that really true? I’ve read articles to the effect that the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Christian culture are experiencing a revival in Israel, and more generally that the Israeli “Zionist melting pot” paradigm is giving way to cultural fragmentation. In any case, Palestinian Muslims are not going to give up their faith any time soon, and you can’t become a Jew if you are a Muslim, needless to say. So even if Russian Christians were to become Jews eventually, that analogy does not apply to Palestinians Arabs.

        [JeffB]: If [Palestinian Israeli citizens] are active in reshaping the state in fundamental ways they aren’t part of the Israeli nation.

        1) If Israel is to be a democratic society like any other, then efforts by a (majority of) citizens to reshape it democratically, consonant with international law and universal human rights standards, must be recognized as legitimate. The only alternatives are that Israel become non-democratic or Israel expels those citizens, which just brings us back to square one.

        2)According to Israeli law and Zionist ideology, there is no Israeli nation–only a Jewish nation and other non-Jewish nationalities. So, in effect, you are suggesting that Palestinian Arabs can eventually become part of the Jewish nation–an absurd proposition really–and that if they are not willing to become part of the Jewish nation, they can’t be Israelis. Which means you are basically saying that only Jews can be real Israelis. True perhaps, but that completely exposes the fiction of Israel as a western-style democracy.

        Previously, I described Israel as a ethnocracy with theocratic and liberal-democratic elements. Your prescription–deny the Palestinians their own state, but also deny them equality in the Israeli state, treat them as enemies, unless they become part of the Jewish nation –an impossibility–means jettisoning all remaining liberal-democratic elements and recognizing Israel as a pure ethnocratic/theocratic state.

        [JeffB] : If they aren’t Zionists then they reject the fundamental ideology of the state they aren’t agreeing to join Israel. They are agreeing to act like enemy invaders and overthrow it.

        I basically agree. Where I think you were being disingenuous was to suggest that Palestinians could ever or would ever become Zionists . You know that isn’t going to happen. It’s going the opposite direction with Israeli Palestinian Arabs right now, and its inconceivable for the rest of the Palestinian Arab population who already have their own state de jure. It’s too absurd to contemplate. Why pretend otherwise?

        I think you and I could agree: “one democratic state in Palestine” (1S1P1V) means the end of Israel =Zionism.

        The alternatives are 1) “two states for two peoples in Palestine” or 2) an apartheid state where some 6 million Jews rule over a nearly equal number of non-Jew, or 2) expulsion.

        Liberal Zionists support 1) because they see 2) and 3) as both completely unfeasible and utterly destructive of any remaining moral/legal acceptability of Zionism.

        The problem with the Liberal Zionist position is that Israel is bent on preventing the creation of a Palestinian state and there are no internal or external forces at the moment that can push Israel into another direction.

        Enter your illiberal Zionism. On the one hand, it is far more “realist” than the liberal version, recognizing that Israel has the upper hand at the moment and nobody is going to stop their expansionism, but on the other hand, it seems far less realistic in that it fails to realistically assess the consequences of Israel trying to completely crush Palestinian national aspirations.

        That lack of realism is made abundantly clear by your suggestion that somehow millions of Palestinians can be eventually integrated and assimilated into Zionist Israel without Zionism being fundamentally undermined.

        No, the reality is that the illiberal Zionism you preach leads logically and directly to apartheid and/or expulsion. While Liberal Zionism seems to be impossible, illiberal Zionism seems disastrous.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 11:45 am

        @ JeffB
        The Jews chose their own messiah instead of Jesus; that messiah led them to Massadah. Looks like, eventually, this will happen again. Does that make you feel good?

      • JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 3:24 pm

        @Citizen

        The Jews chose their own messiah instead of Jesus; that messiah led them to Massadah. Looks like, eventually, this will happen again. Does that make you feel good?

        Wow. You are really going to make that argument? Well then I’ll use an 900 year old answer. Your messiah defines his suffering as a triumph. If the answer is to only worship Gods who are triumphant convert to a pagan faith.

      • eljay
        December 21, 2013, 10:09 pm

        >> There certainly are people on MW who hate the idea of a Jewish state and Zionism …

        “Jewish State” is supremacism. There’s nothing about that to love.

        >> If Israel can’t be legitimate if it treats the Palestinians well then its illegitimacy has nothing to do with Palestinian mistreatment.

        Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is only part of the problem. The other part – and it’s so minuscule I can see how it might overlooked – involves its on-going occupation and colonization of Palestine; its past and on-going (war) crimes; its obligations under international law; and its status as a supremacist state.

        >> If they win, Zionism and the Jews die …

        Zionism is not oxygen. Without it, “the Jews” can still live.

      • bintbiba
        December 22, 2013, 1:04 pm

        @ziusudra…. impressive!!
        @ eljay…. … “Zionism is not oxygen” “Without it, ‘the Jews’ can and will live!!

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2013, 12:23 am

        If Israel can’t be legitimate if it treats the Palestinians well then its illegitimacy has nothing to do with Palestinian mistreatment.

        That’s not even a good hypothetical. Israel has been under an international legal obligation to adopt constitutional guarantees of equality since the day it was established. Its Governments, the Knesset, and the Courts have steadfastly refused to give Palestinians equal rights under the law for 65 years and deliberately maintained a two-tiered system of that grants superior rights and privileges to persons of Jewish descent and persecutes non-Jews with barbaric methods under a system of Emergency Regulations, & etc.

      • Ecru
        December 22, 2013, 2:31 am

        @ JeffB

        There certainly are people on MW who hate the idea of a Jewish state and Zionism, and that’s fine as a position but then mistreatment or not of Palestinians becomes just a side issue.

        You’ve got the cause and effect back to front. Does it not occur to you that the reason some of us object to Israel and Zionism is BECAUSE of the mistreatment?

        The fact the sate is “Jewish” is neither here nor there. If the “Jewish State” did not indulge in ethnic cleansing and massive violations of human rights I for one would have no problem with it. Unfortunately it doesn’t just indulge – it positively revels in such vomitous behaviour.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 11:51 am

        @Ecru

        Does it not occur to you that the reason some of us object to Israel and Zionism is BECAUSE of the mistreatment?

        Yes it occurs to me, that’s often the claim. Kathleen Christison’s essay a decade ago, “Zionism As A Racist Ideology” which reintroduced the permissibility of a critique of Zionism not just Israeli behavior to the western anti-Israeli movement makes that tie explicit.

        But I simply don’t believe it. This is a non-sequitor and moreover I’ve never heard this sort of denunciation of the concept of a nation being applied anywhere else. The Berber’s commit horrible acts in Mali. I’ve never once heard human rights activist advocate for elimination of Berberism or argue that belief in a Berber people in inherently racist against Malians. Russia has problems with Chechnya no one argues the Russian people don’t exist or that the very notion of Russia is inherently racist.

        So yes it occurred to me and I rejected it.

      • Sibiriak
        December 22, 2013, 7:15 am

        JeffB:

        The claim of BDSers is their objections are based on Israeli behavior not Israeli intrinsically.

        That dichotomy–Israeli behavior vs Israel’s intrinsic nature–is a false one.

        The word “Israel” here is not simply an abstract term for any kind of state on that territory.

        “Israel” = a Jewish state in Palestine.

        “Jewish State” = a state dominated by Jews (and a state for global Jewry.)

        “Palestine” = a territory already inhabited by many Palestinian Arabs.

        Therefore, “Israel”–a Jewish State in Palestine– necessarily means a state where Jews dominate the existing Palestinian population and/or expel them.

        Therefore, “Israel” – a Jewish State in Palestine –cannot be defined without reference to behavior toward Palestinian Arabs. Israel, for better or worse, is intrinsically about Jews dominating and or expelling Arabs (which isn’t to say that is the only thing it is about.)

        If they [the Arabs] win, Zionism and the Jews die

        Nonsense. Jews (and Judaism) will continue on, with or without Zionism.

      • American
        December 22, 2013, 9:56 am

        ”There certainly are people on MW who hate the idea of a Jewish state and Zionism,…” jeffb

        You wouldnt worry about what people though of Jews if you knew how seldom they did.
        Outside of people involved in I/P watching or activism Jews arent a hot topic of discussion for anyone– —and inside the issue 99% of talk about Jews is by Jews/zionist. And the reason you keep talking about Jews is you think the holocaust is some kind ‘forever sheild’ against people ever taking action against the ‘Jewish’ state of Israel crimes.

        “And your saying you are throwing in with the Arabs in such a battle. ”

        I am throwing in with the Palestines because they are the ones being opressed and stolen from—-and yea you zios are my enemy—for both what you do in Palestine and what you do in the US.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2013, 10:26 am

        @ JeffB
        As TS Eliot put it, re the Jewish State and Zionism, and the actual history of both, between the real and the ideal, falls the shadow.

      • JeffB
        December 24, 2013, 1:00 pm

        Hi Sibirak —

        Good post! Thoughtful and well reasoned. Replying up a level.

        Is that really true? I’ve read articles to the effect that the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Christian culture are experiencing a revival in Israel, and more generally that the Israeli “Zionist melting pot” paradigm is giving way to cultural fragmentation.

        Yes it is true for many. Others as you mentioned are trying to assert religious equality. But ultimately the math is against them.

        You have two populations A and B. When A marries within A 80% of the time it stays in A’s religion. When B marries within B 100% of the time it stays within B. A intermarries with B 50% of the time and those children are 80% likely to be in B’s religion. A is falling in size 50% per generation every generation, assuming both populations have equal number or kids.

        That’s how assimilation works. I’m oversimplifying but that’s what is playing out. BTW for below that’s what I’m proposing for the Palestinians.

        In any case, Palestinian Muslims are not going to give up their faith any time soon, and you can’t become a Jew if you are a Muslim, needless to say. So even if Russian Christians were to become Jews eventually, that analogy does not apply to Palestinians Arabs.

        I don’t know that. You are going to say stuff like that below. But that is a key point of our dispute. Let’s pick American Jews for example. Most of them participate in a form of Judaism that culturally acts like a liberal Protestant denomination. Suddenly rabbis are giving sermons, minyons aren’t that important and the gift giving holiday is Chanukah not Purim.

        Ideas like 4 freedoms (Baptist theology):
        Bible Freedom: to read the bible and arrive at your own theological conclusions
        Soul Freedom: faith is a personal experience and voluntary
        Church Freedom: churches have the right to determine their own membership
        Religious Freedom: separation of church and state

        have become so deeply absorbed by American Jews that they actually think these ideas originated with Judaism! More or less America managed to take this minority that nobody could deal with for 2500 years and convert them to social Christianity without them even realizing it was happening.

        Now if they can pull off that, heck yeah Israel can convert the Palestinians if the Palestinians will meet them 1/2 way. But that’s the big if, will they meet them 1/2 way. Propaganda works, but not in an environment of total cultural rejection. Then you need things like state terrorism and I’m not sure how Jews are going to feel about trying the other side of the Spanish Inquisition.

        [JeffB]: If [Palestinian Israeli citizens] are active in reshaping the state in fundamental ways they aren’t part of the Israeli nation.

        1) If Israel is to be a democratic society like any other, then efforts by a (majority of) citizens to reshape it democratically, consonant with international law and universal human rights standards, must be recognized as legitimate. The only alternatives are that Israel become non-democratic or Israel expels those citizens, which just brings us back to square one.

        Let me qualify that a bit. America has lots of traditions that require supermajorities. For example a small minority generally can’t spend money because of the overlapping system by which budgets are done. You need somewhere around 55+% to spend and this creates a small conservative bias that the majority disagrees with.

        To pick an even deeper example it was only in the last decade that a majority of Americans supported the idea that interracial dating was a good thing and shouldn’t be discouraged as a matter of policy. Yet, the principles of equality, non-interference with marriage… allowed a minority to successfully change the legal landscape and thus the cultural landscape and thus finally majority opinion.

        Such things can be done by a state and most states do these things. They have an ideology. Democracy is not majoritarianism. Now I will agree that a democratic society can’t function if a majority, or even a substantial minority despise the foundations of the state and seek to overthrow them. Passionate disagreement is a serious problem. And that’s why Palestinians (as opposed to ethnically Palestinian Israelis) should never be citizens.

        2)According to Israeli law and Zionist ideology, there is no Israeli nation–only a Jewish nation and other non-Jewish nationalities. So, in effect, you are suggesting that Palestinian Arabs can eventually become part of the Jewish nation–an absurd proposition really–and that if they are not willing to become part of the Jewish nation, they can’t be Israelis. Which means you are basically saying that only Jews can be real Israelis. True perhaps, but that completely exposes the fiction of Israel as a western-style democracy.

        Again look at the Russian Christians. They aren’t Jews, but they in wanting to be part of the Jewish nation, they are Israeli. Jew might be a final destination while Israeli includes the road. I think Israeli Arabs were on the road prior to the early 1980s. I think in the early 1960s and 1970s they were Israeli. And I think they are still close enough that they could turn around and come back.

        I agree that having a permanently disenfranchised minority population is a denial of a western style democracy. But I don’t advocate that. I think the Palestinians will meet Israel 1/2 way and then Israel can get them the rest of the way.

        Previously, I described Israel as a ethnocracy with theocratic and liberal-democratic elements. Your prescription–deny the Palestinians their own state, but also deny them equality in the Israeli state, treat them as enemies, unless they become part of the Jewish nation –an impossibility–means jettisoning all remaining liberal-democratic elements and recognizing Israel as a pure ethnocratic/theocratic state.

        I don’t see the conflict there. I think a theocratic state can be democratic, Israel obviously proves that point.

        As far as the ethnocracy I think that the era of immigration is coming to an end so the ethnic issues are likely to fade away. Using my crystal ball here is what I see. The only large population of Jews left are in America. Those Jews I think can easily reconcile their Liberalism with the Zionism by recognizing Israel as a religious state, Benjamin Netanyahu as more like their pope than a man who makes political claims on them. It solves the problem of dual loyalty instantly. It fits well with Christian Zionism which sees Israel in semi-supernatural terms, and American Judaism has always been adopting theology (though not admitting it) from Protestantism.

        Ultimately though of course the Palestinians can’t believe in Nasserite pan-Arabism or pan-Islamicism or other anti-Zionist theologies.

        [JeffB] : If they aren’t Zionists then they reject the fundamental ideology of the state they aren’t agreeing to join Israel. They are agreeing to act like enemy invaders and overthrow it.

        I basically agree. Where I think you were being disingenuous was to suggest that Palestinians could ever or would ever become Zionists . You know that isn’t going to happen. It’s going the opposite direction with Israeli Palestinian Arabs right now, and its inconceivable for the rest of the Palestinian Arab population who already have their own state de jure. It’s too absurd to contemplate. Why pretend otherwise?

        Because we disagree. I don’t think it is too absurd to contemplate. I’m not talking 5 years. Israel could focus its attention on the Israeli Arabs and the people of Jerusalem while the West Bank becomes a peaceful semi-self governing colony and Gaza goes into ecology collapse and with most of the population getting absorbed into Egypt. 2 generations later the Israeli Arabs and the Jerusalem Palestinians grandchildren are often married to Israelis, speak Hebrew, participate in Israeli culture, practice some Judiazed form of Islam… That’s not apartheid.

        Enter your illiberal Zionism. On the one hand, it is far more “realist” than the liberal version, recognizing that Israel has the upper hand at the moment and nobody is going to stop their expansionism, but on the other hand, it seems far less realistic in that it fails to realistically assess the consequences of Israel trying to completely crush Palestinian national aspirations.

        I don’t believe so. The realistic consequences is that once their national aspirations are crushed, they fall into hopeless and then you can offer them hope via. assimilation.

        No, the reality is that the illiberal Zionism you preach leads logically and directly to apartheid and/or expulsion. While Liberal Zionism seems to be impossible, illiberal Zionism seems disastrous.

        I believe the Palestinians are capable of being reasonable. Once they stop believing that the Arabs, the international community… will rescue them then they can have an honest conversation. If you aren’t going to have your own nation do you want to join a successful one that’s willing to take you because they feel somewhat guilty about having displaced yours? If they really understood how bad their hand was, then making a deal would be easier. I think practical men are already somewhat hopeless hence the rise of Hamas which is an escape to fantasy of a return to Saladin and BDS which is a similar fantasy of the left of the UN riding in on a pale winged horse. The fact that there is an escape to fantasy means that the Palestinians deep down understand where they are. What I’m offering is a realistic way out. I’m not being disingenuous, supporting policies that can’t possible work OTOH does strike me as disingenuous.

        One of the things that shocked me was when Sharon restructured the Israeli economy so that there was little Palestinian labor, the Palestinians became surplus. That was one of the most dangerous things that happened to the Palestinians since Black September. No consideration of how this was a major concrete step towards expulsion / genocide. The conversation that Palestinians need to have with themselves is how to respond to the collapse of Oslo in a realistic way. Oslo was one of the few times when the Palestinians actually were realistic.

    • pabelmont
      December 22, 2013, 11:52 am

      “protesting the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.” — When anti-BDSers say that, I believe that one proper response is to ask “Why, then, did they wait all thee years to make their protest?” Was the Palestine civic BDS movement truly anti-occupation, but the American joiners-of-BDS merely antisemites who found BDS a handy “vehicle” for their antisemitism? And if so why so many Jewish BDSers?

    • MRW
      December 23, 2013, 1:04 am

      ‘you dont want Israel to exist ‘

      My answer these days is that I don’t care one way or another. But I do care what actions Israel takes to assure its own existence. Those actions are of Israel’s choosing. Its choices are myriad. Yet it never chooses justice or peace.

      Asking the world to stand back and accept the results of those choices, and subsequently, the consequences, is an insanity.

      Israel is part of the world community. It is our future those consequences affect. We will stop you when what you want to do is deleterious to others and ourselves.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 11:57 am

        @ Hostage
        I guess he thinks Israel treats the natives well.

      • Citizen
        December 26, 2013, 12:00 pm

        @ MRW

        “We will stop you” when the US changes its campaign finance system, which requires the US government to suck up to rogue Israel if they want to live the good life via elective government office. AIPAC et al need a major face lift and liposuction.

  4. just
    December 21, 2013, 7:48 pm

    “A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans”

    Nope, nyet, unh- uh, nej, non, ni, lo, etc.

    I was kinda hoping that you were being provocative ’til I read:

    “I assume many of the people who voted for the boycott are opposed to the existence of the Jewish state. I’d like to think at least a few are consistent in their defense of democracy and the equality of all under law.”

    wow. That is a loaded thought. No good intention ever goes unpunished by some.

    (the very paranoid and guilty.)

    • tree
      December 21, 2013, 8:15 pm

      “A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans”

      Nope, nyet, unh- uh, nej, non, ni, lo, etc.

      I think you are mis-reading Seth’s post, just. His second and third sentences are these:

      How do I defend concern over the number of Palestinians in Israel without allowing for concern over the number of Jews in Germany? How can I defend Zionism without defending Pat Buchanan’s concerns for the future of white America?

      I think he’s making the point that Israel as a “Jewish State” is an equivalent to Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa in being an ethnocratic state, not a democratic one with equality for all regardless of ethnicity or religion..

      • just
        December 21, 2013, 8:25 pm

        tree– I hoped and searched for that in his post, but maybe I am too tired and fed up, or his post was quite oblique and beyond me.

        I hope that you are correct in your assessment. If so, I do apologize.

      • tree
        December 21, 2013, 8:52 pm

        Well, I think his post was a bit oblique and I could be wrong in my assessment, of course. I guess the only way to find out for sure is to get his response, but my gut goes with the interpretation I made.

        Slightly off topic, I wonder if anyone has ever asked those who claim that there are worse things happening in the world, so why “single out” Israel, why, given that attitude, are they singling out the support of a boycott when there are certainly many, many, many worse things happening in the world than a voluntary civil boycott of an oppressive country like Israel?

        I don’t know why this question never occurred to me before but maybe I’ll get the chance to ask it of the next commenter who uses the “singling out” talking point.

      • JeffB
        December 21, 2013, 9:09 pm

        @tree —

        I don’t know why this question never occurred to me before but maybe I’ll get the chance to ask it of the next commenter who uses the “singling out” talking point.

        I’ll answer. I’m a partisan. I agree the BDS movement is not the worst thing to happen. But it is a direct attack on my people. Ultimately I fully acknowledge the Tutsi vs. Hutu wars affects more people, I’m just not one of them. While Israel I choose to identify with. If BDS wins, if Iran wins, if the Palestinians win then Israel, something I’ve cared about all my life, dies.

        I can imagine my daughter or her children making aliyah. I want that option open for them like it was for me. I don’t care nearly as much whether Congo is viable or not.

      • tree
        December 21, 2013, 10:04 pm

        I’ll answer. I’m a partisan. I agree the BDS movement is not the worst thing to happen. But it is a direct attack on my people.

        So when and if you use the singling out argument you admit that you are being hypocritical, and don’t apply that argument to your own actions. Thanks for that.

        Why is BDS aimed at Israel a “direct attack on my people”? “Your people” are only Israeli Jews? … no, not even just Israeli Jews but those Israeli Jews (most likely the majority) who don’t mind at all the inequality that is the foundation of Israel and/or don’t mind the occupation? Only Jews (or only Zionist Jews?) count to you, no matter where they live and what actions they commit? Did the US government commit a “direct attack” against “your people” when they prosecuted Bernard Madoff for fraud? Does Israel get a pass in your view on actions like oppression of minorities and ethnic cleansing that you would be heartily protesting if they were committed against Jews instead of non-Jews? “My country right or wrong” except that its not even your country?

        If BDS wins, if Iran wins, if the Palestinians win then Israel, something I’ve cared about all my life, dies.

        It only “dies” in the sense that it becomes a more humane place, a country of all of its citizens. I’m sure that some bigoted white southerners bemoaned the “death” of the Old South. You can grow out of your bigotry. You should try it. Its much healthier than advocating for a system that you would never agree with if it was instituted by other bigots instead of one’s that held your own bigoted beliefs about “your people”. Why not hold “your people” to the same standards you hold every one else, rather than lower ones?

      • pabelmont
        December 22, 2013, 12:23 pm

        tree: beautiful question.

        Why are so many people attacking BDS so furiously? Do they belive BDS is the worst thing since sliced bread? Do they perhaps think BDS should not exist? (Ohhhhh!) Or are they merely attacking BDS’s behavior?

        BDS is not killing anybody. BDS is not breaking any laws. BDS is a mere expression of opinion and an exercise (and a suggestion as to others’ exercise) of the right of association. And, of course, BDS calls a spade a spade.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2013, 10:29 am

        @ just
        I read it the same as tree did. Get some sleep. I don’t know what you can do about being fed up because I am too.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 21, 2013, 9:20 pm

        France does not recognize the existence of a genetically “French” people, and hasn’t since the end of the 18th century. In Germany until 2000, when they finally changed the laws, even third generation descendants of Turkish immigrants could not become full citizens. They were not “German” citizens because they were not ethnic Germans.

        I will not defend a German state for a German people. I will not defend the politics of Le Pen and Haider and the EDL. Zionism is founded that politics. It’s Garveyism for Jews, but black nationalists don’t hang out with Whitey. Liberal Zionists are like Southerners living in Massachusetts who defend bussing in Boston and Jim Crow at home.

        “A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans.”

        I oppose the first because the thought of the second disgusts me.
        I will not defend a state built to ensure that power stays in the hands of one ethnic group.

        My language was not “oblique”. Learn to read.

      • James North
        December 21, 2013, 10:08 pm

        Seth: I understood you perfectly the first time, and I agree with you.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2013, 10:35 am

        @ James North
        Me too.

      • Philip Weiss
        December 24, 2013, 9:24 am

        I agree with Seth, too; thanks Seth!

      • LeaNder
        December 21, 2013, 11:10 pm

        In Germany until 2000, when they finally changed the laws, even third generation descendants of Turkish immigrants could not become full citizens.

        This is absolute nonsense. Although third generation descendants of Turkish immigrants sounds good. I liked your response above minus the Germans, you needed to get started, it felt there was more beneath it. Apparently there was.

        I have good friends of Turkish parents. The mother never became German, didn’t want to, but all her kids are.

      • LeaNder
        December 23, 2013, 1:09 pm

        Seth, I am not trying to ignore you, but one didn’t really need to be Jewish to realize that there was still a much Nazi mindset around, not only Hans Globke, who Israel agreed to ignore during the Eichman trial. It was in fact pretty easy to see. We didn’t need to read Hannah Arendt to realize that, Hannah may in fact have read Germans to realize it. It was pretty obvious, one could watch it closely, e.g. teachers, never mind de-Nazification or for instance Nazi trained police or Federal police officers, to pick just two.

        An old lady told this to me decades later:

        But yes, who else would have had leadership experience?

        There you go. She thought that her father made a big mistake by joining the resistance. His pension was really low. Something that did not happen to people that accommodated to the regime one way or another.

        The mindset easily shifted towards whatever others, e.g. “guest workers”. The word tells you all you need to know. They were meant to return again after they weren’t needed anymore. Now most did not return wherever they came from, Italy, Spain, Turkey.

        My best friend married an American, they were both tested for a couple of hours if it wasn’t a faked marriage. One of the question, she told me she was asked was, what type of toothpaste her husband used.

        But yes, we don’t have any automatic birthright for kids being born here, and to get German citizenship who need to live in Germany for a couple of years: I forget was it was, 10? It’s 8 now. Cologne has a pretty good asylum policy my friends from Iran and elsewhere tell me. That is why they moved here. Ok, in the States one only needs 5 years.

        Heine: Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht, bin ich um meinen Schlaf gebracht.

      • LeaNder
        December 23, 2013, 1:19 pm

        Seth, I am not trying to ignore you, but one didn’t really need to be Jewish to realize that there was still a much Nazi mindset around, I am born in 1950. One didn’t need to read Hannah Arendt to realize that. That was in fact pretty obvious, one could watch it closely, e.g. teacher and for instance Nazi trained police officers, to pick just two.

        An old lady told this to me decades later:

        But yes, who else would have had leadership experience?

        There you go. She thought that her father made a big mistake by joining the resistance. His pension was really low. Something that did not happen to people that accommodated to the regime one way or another.

        The mindset easily shifted towards whatever others, e.g. “guest workers”. The word tells you all you need to know. They were meant to return again after they weren’t needed anymore. Now most did not return wherever they came from, Italy, Spain, Turkey.

        My best friend married an American, they were both tested for a couple of hours if it wasn’t a faked marriage. One of the question, she told me she was asked was, what type of toothpaste her husband used.

        But yes, we don’t have any automatic birthright for kids being born here, and to get German citizenship who need to live in Germany for a couple of years: I forget was it was, 10? It’s 8 now. Cologne has a pretty good asylum policy my friends from Iran and elsewhere tell me. That is why they moved here. Ok, in the States one only needs 5 years.

        Heine: Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht. Dann bin ich um den Schlaf gebracht.

      • mcohen
        December 22, 2013, 2:27 am

        hi seth

        “A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans.”

        but seth there are many non jews living in that jewish state right now…….

        and seth

        “I will not defend a German state for a German people”

        yes of course,wonder what germans think about that

        the indignation boggles through rose tinted goggles (TM)

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 22, 2013, 1:42 pm

        Germany is slowly learning to accept the multi-ethnic future, but yes the right is getting stronger. The laws should have been changed in 1945.

        The reason “Eichmann in Jerusalem” caused so much trouble was not only Arendt’s focus on psychology and her skepticism but her open contempt for the culture of post war Germany, then helping to fund the Jewish state. Israel didn’t call out the the Nazis in Adenauer’s government; Arendt did.

        Some fun for you. link to leiterreports.typepad.com
        —On the other hand, my own expected happy homecoming into German society wasn’t necessarily working out as planned. One of the teachers at the Gymnasium told me that Heinrich Heine wasn’t really a “German” poet, but rather was a “European” poet. My absurdly well-meaning and wonderful hostfather regularly repeated that “Deutschland ist kein Einwanderungsland” (which is, as Schneider points out, a common theme among Germans of a certain generation). Whenever I told people I was of German descent, they would argue with me — then upon discovering that I was Jewish, would say “Oh, so you’re not German, you’re Jewish”—

        It amuses me no end that Israelis are now moving to Germany in droves.

      • just
        December 22, 2013, 5:42 am

        Gee, thanks for the rebuke Mr. Edenbaum. I promise to learn more reading.

      • Citizen
        December 22, 2013, 10:44 am

        @ just
        Here’s wiki on the current state of German nationality rules as to German citizenship and dual citizenship–applicability to those of Turkish ethnicity: link to en.wikipedia.org

      • ziusudra
        December 22, 2013, 6:13 am

        Shalom Seth,
        … 3rd Gen. Turks in Germany….
        Not fair, Seth.
        I’m a American lapsed Catholic of Italo/Greco Ethnicity living in Germany.
        Me Wife had the allowance of the German State to receive German
        Citizenship for our children to help her in an int’l court defence should i depart with the children being under the cititzenship of foreign Fathers.
        The Turks were historically allowed in under worker’s contracts en masse,
        Niether side expected to stay . They weren’t in the EU like the Italians or Spanish, who preceded them. No one is allowed citizenship en masse anywhere. All EU member states can reside & work in all EU States.
        ziusudra
        PS Israel is the only State that allows World Jewry to enter with immediate
        recognizion of citizenship.
        Germany had this rule after WWII for all Germany living out of Germany.
        No an American with German decendency cannot automatically become a German. They tolorate me & others w/o German Citizenship since 1965.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 22, 2013, 1:23 pm

        Look up the history of the the Nationality Law.

      • American
        December 22, 2013, 12:00 pm

        Seth Edenbaum says….

        ‘“A Jewish state for a Jewish people is the logical equivalent of a German state for ethnic Germans.”….>>>>

        So what is a ‘ethnic German” ?
        German like French and American is a “Nationality’ not an ethnic.
        Are you perhaps referring back to the nazis days of ‘ayran’ ethnic-hood?

      • The Hasbara Buster
        December 22, 2013, 5:19 pm

        @Seth Edenbaum

        In Germany until 2000, when they finally changed the laws, even third generation descendants of Turkish immigrants could not become full citizens. They were not “German” citizens because they were not ethnic Germans.

        Correction: descendants of Turkish immigrants could and did become full citizens, only the process was not automatic. In this Germany was indeed similar to Israel, where descendants of non-Jewish immigrants can at least theoretically apply for citizenship.

        But there was a fundamental difference between the German system and the Israeli one. Once those immigrants, having overcome all the hurdles, became German citizens, they were undistinguishable from ethnic Germans. They became part of the German people.

        In Israel, on the other hand, non-Jewish immigrants who become citizens do not become part of the Israeli people, because Israel doesn’t recognize such a people in the first place; and, critically, because they don’t acquire the Right of Return Jewish Israelis enjoy. The two groups have legally different statuses even if non-Jewish citizens travel on an Israeli passport.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 22, 2013, 6:42 pm
      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 22, 2013, 9:41 pm

        Thanks for the correction, but my point was more general. Zionism has its origins in German racial nationalism. Israel was founded as reaction, and has never been a a modern state. And as for Germany itself, “Deutschland ist kein Einwanderungsland”. Change is slow, and Jus Sanguinis is still the model. As I said, France has not recognized a French ethnicity for 200 years. German laws should have been changed in 1945.

        One of the reasons Arendt is so criticized by Zionists is her clear-eyed observations of post-war German culture, and the meaning of collaboration.
        —If Ben-Gurion’s remark about “the connection between Nazis and some Arab rulers” was pointless, his failure to mention present-day West Germany in this context was surprising. Of course, it was reassuring to hear that Israel does“not hold Adenauer responsible for Hitler,” and that “for us a decent German, although he belongs to the same nation that twenty years ago helped to murder millions of Jews, is a decent human being.” (There was no mention of decent Arabs.) The German Federal Republic, although it has not yet recognized the State of Israel presumably out of fear that the Arab countries might recognize Ulbricht’s Germany – has paid seven hundred and thirty-seven million dollars in reparation to Israel during the last ten years; these payments will soon come to an end, and Israel is now trying to negotiate a long-term loan from West Germany.

        …The logic of the Eichmann trial, as Ben-Gurion conceived of it, with its stress on general issues to the detriment of legal niceties, would have demanded exposure of the complicity of all German offices and authorities in the Final Solution – of all civil servants in the state ministries, of the regular armed forces, with their General Staff, of the judiciary, and of the business world. But although the prosecution as conducted by Mr. Hausner went as far afield as to put witness after witness on the stand who testified to things that, while gruesome and true enough, had no or only the slightest connection with the deeds of the accused, it carefully avoided touching upon this highly explosive matter upon the almost ubiquitous complicity, which had stretched far beyond the ranks of Party membership.—

        White Goyim know as much about what it means to be Jewish in a white man’s world as they know about what it’s like to be black. I’m sort of amazed in discussions of Israel how many Americans have no idea of why that state came to be. It’s only half joking for me to say that if the Jewish state were on the Rhine and Cologne were the new Jerusalem, I’d be in the Shin Bet.

      • Chu
        December 23, 2013, 12:30 pm

        “White Goyim know as much about what it means to be Jewish in a white man’s world as they know about what it’s like to be black.”

        Really? I though Jews were in large part white people. I’m kidding, we all know how special that underlying layer is to your identity. If we’re making labels, why not consider ‘White Jew’? It could clear up so many misconceptions about being Jewish & White in the world of white Goyim (as you say).

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2013, 2:38 am

        The truth according to MRW: WWII was not caused by Hitler reneging on his deal with the appeasers at Munich. It was not caused by his invading Poland. it was not caused by his invading France. it was not caused by his invading the USSR. No, it wasn’t even caused by the stringency of Versailles. It was caused by the Jewish boycott of 1933. Bravo, MRW. Bravo.

      • MRW
        December 23, 2013, 4:49 am

        yonah fredman,

        These events happened post the 1933 declaration of war:

        WWII was not caused by Hitler reneging on his deal with the appeasers at Munich. It was not caused by his invading Poland. it was not caused by his invading France. it was not caused by his invading the USSR.

        This event happened in 1918+:

        No, it wasn’t even caused by the stringency of Versailles. It was caused by the Jewish boycott of 1933. Bravo, MRW. Bravo

        I said nothing zero @12:34 am about the boycott of 1933. Zip. I said, per British newspapers, world Jewry had declared war on Germany in 1933. The boycott happened subsequent to this declaration. Further, and in light of “the stringency of Versailles,” and its effect on the Germany economy (especially the horror of hyperinflation in 1923) and the poverty that resulted, which was evident to any sentient being then, why?

        Why that stupidity, which is being mirrored in the same inanity Netanyahu is doing today? Why? What is it about you Israel-Firsters that cannot understand action-result-consequence, and in which you fail to take any responsibility for participating in action-result-consequence?

      • Ecru
        December 23, 2013, 5:26 am

        @ yonah fredman

        The truth according to MRW….

        For once I completely agree with you.

      • talknic
        December 23, 2013, 8:02 am

        @ yonah fredman “The truth according to MRW: WWII was not caused by Hitler reneging on his deal with the appeasers at Munich.”

        Making false accusations, even against MRW, is against the basic tenets of Judaism. The cause of war is not the declaration of war.

        ” It was not caused by his invading Poland. it was not caused by his invading France. it was not caused by his invading the USSR. “

        Events during a war are not the causes of war.

        “It was caused by the Jewish boycott of 1933. Bravo, MRW. Bravo.”

        MRW’s words are there. It’s idiotic to make accusations so easily proven false. Why is it that the Zionist Movement’s Israel attracts idiots?

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2013, 8:59 am

        MRW and talknic- All people who believe that “the declaration of war by Jewish groups reported in the British newspapers” in March of 1933 was the cause of World War II ought to stand up and be counted. If you think you do the cause of anti Israel credit with your idiocy, then keep up the good work.

      • Sibiriak
        December 23, 2013, 9:17 am

        MRW:

        “World Jewry” declared war on Germany in 1933, according to British newspapers, and we subsequently got WWII.

        Exactly which British newspapers are you referring to?

        According to Wikipedia:

        the UK newspaper the Daily Express [went] so far as to put as headline: “Judea Declares War on Germany”.[2] The Daily Express headline has been cited by Holocaust deniers such as Ernst Zündel as evidence of a conspiracy against the Nazi government by World Jewry.

        A Google search on this “declaration of war on Germany” theme brings up many blatantly antisemitic web sites.

        It seems to me that you are echoing antisemitic notions of Jewish responsibility for WWII. If I’m wrong, please explain why.

      • talknic
        December 26, 2013, 12:44 am

        @ yonah fredman “.. talknic- All people who believe that “the declaration of war by Jewish groups reported in the British newspapers” in March of 1933 was the cause of World War II ought to stand up and be counted.”

        Uh huh. Any evidence I do? When you bring straw to the table be prepared to eat it Pajero

        ” If you think you do the cause of anti Israel credit with your idiocy, then keep up the good work”

        What “idiocy” and what “anti Israel” are you babbling about?

        I support a law abiding Israel for the sake of all our Jewish fellows and Israel’s neighbours. Anti Israel are the people who support Israel in breach of International Law and the UN Charter (and Israel’s own Declaration)

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2013, 2:08 am

        talknic:

        @ yonah fredman “.. talknic- All people who believe that “the declaration of war by Jewish groups reported in the British newspapers” in March of 1933 was the cause of World War II ought to stand up and be counted.”

        Uh huh. Any evidence I do?

        Well, you haven’t made your position clear: do you or don’t you reject MRW’s suggestion that WWII was a “result-consequence” of a “declaration of war” by Jewish groups?

        MRW wrote:

        “World Jewry” declared war on Germany in 1933, according to British newspapers, and we subsequently got WWII.

        “And we subsequently got” implies causality. That that was the intended meaning is confirmed by MRW’s followup assertion:

        Why that stupidity, which is being mirrored in the same inanity Netanyahu is doing today? Why? What is it about you Israel-Firsters that cannot understand action-result-consequence, and in which you fail to take any responsibility for participating in action-result-consequence?

        So, either you reject MRW’s “action-result-consequence” line of thought regarding the “declaration of war” by Jewish groups and WWII, or you don’t. Which is it?

      • yrn
        December 23, 2013, 7:58 am

        Hostage

        MRW writes
        ““World Jewry” declared war on Germany in 1933, according to British newspapers, and we subsequently got WWII.|

        Jill in another comment wrote ” The Holocaust started with a boycott”
        link to mondoweiss.net

        You jumped in with accusations.
        “We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews ”
        link to mondoweiss.net

        But your attack on Jill should be on MRW as he “Blames the Jews” for WWII.”

        Hostage…….. standards…….

    • ziusudra
      December 22, 2013, 5:46 am

      Greetings just,
      Right on, Babe.
      Mr Boycott was an Irish overseer for the English landowners in Ireland.
      The People boycotted him! Were the Irish anti Irish or anti Boycott & his stifling methods?
      The Salt & Textile Boycotts by Ghandi were against the resource thievery of the Brits.
      ziusudra
      PS What is a Jewish State?
      Jew does not signify Judaism.
      Make it a Democratic State even with Judaism as a State Religion or Mythology, but allowance of other beliefs. Oy, Weh! Where’s the Problem?
      There were hundreds of Synagogues in Germany for over a thousand yrs. in a Christian Country. We have numerous Sysnagogues & Moshees today.

      • MRW
        December 23, 2013, 1:25 am

        @Seth Edenbaum

        [Ben Gurion's] failure to mention present-day West Germany in this context was surprising. Of course, it was reassuring to hear that Israel does“not hold Adenauer responsible for Hitler,” and that “for us a decent German, although he belongs to the same nation that twenty years ago helped to murder millions of Jews, is a decent human being.”

        It wasn’t surprising at all. Ben Gurion and Konrad Adenauer were great, though, secret friends. They met at the Waldorf Astoria in 1965, their suites on the same floor. Adenauer complained about the influx of Turks (Muslims) into Germany. It started in 1959 after Turkey’s new agriculture strategy failed to take into account what would happen to the poor uneducated farmers who were paid for their opium plots sold to the larger co-ops that would now be producing real food. They had nothing to do and no means of feeding their families. They migrated north.

        And even though Germany had signed treaties or deals with Turkey saying this influx of young males–the deal was only for single males–was a temporary situation that would or could be reversed by their returning to Turkey when the situation improved, it didn’t happen. They weren’t supposed to bring their families with them, but it happened slowly.

        Adenauer knew he couldn’t complain about the Muslims because it raised the spectre of pre-WWII Germany; he had to keep his mouth shut. Ben Gurion understood. And it, according to a NY Israeli consulate official who told me this, was why Ben Gurion knew that the plan for the 1967 War, started in 1963, would succeed: they would have Germany and therefore Europe on its side. They could go ahead.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        December 23, 2013, 11:30 am

        “Judea Declares War on Germany”

        And my father boycotted German goods until he broke down and bought a Krups coffee grinder in 1985. Go away.

      • yonah fredman
        December 23, 2013, 9:07 am

        ziususdra- We have numerous Sysnagogues and Moshees today. Another contributor to the high level of the Mondoweiss comments’ sloppy typing and sloppy offensive language contribution to western society.

      • Taxi
        December 23, 2013, 9:33 am

        Another contributor to the high level of the Mondoweiss comments’ sloppy typing and sloppy offensive language contribution to western society.”

        Oh right you are, Shakespeare. Judging from the quoted line above, you really are a master of cogent grammar.

        You know, a few people from “the Mondoweiss” on the “internets” have repeatedly urged you not to ingest all that ziocaine and now your brain is fried like an egg on a bare lightbulb. Best you rest now and turn that zio switch off. Because I know there is no zionism in the land of dreams, I can bid you, therefore, a sweet, Apartheid-free dream.

      • mcohen
        December 23, 2013, 4:07 pm

        taxi says

        “there is no zionism in the land of dreams”

        in the land of dreams ,there is hezbollah,a national goverment,no apartheid ,all people live happily together,and hariri is still prime minister,no civil war and a plentiful supply of hash.instead of zionism you have what?

  5. Taxi
    December 21, 2013, 11:52 pm

    I’ve never seen so many whiny criminals huddled up in one place like they have in Apartheid israel.

    To all the zionist whingers out there, I say: take your boot off the Palestinian neck or STFU!

    You can’t have it both ways!!!

  6. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    December 22, 2013, 9:02 am

    ”And if not boycott then what would Shalev suggest? Shalev doesn’t want to answer that.”

    I have asked the same question of ‘liberal Zionists’ and got the same (non) answer. OK, you tell me you’re ‘against the occupation’ and ‘believe in a 2SS’. Fine. So, if you’re so opposed to BDS (for all the lame ‘picking on poor Israel’ reasons you suggest) what then? If you REALLY want justice for the Palestinians, as opposed to making benign statements to make yourself feel better, how are you going to help this happen? As with Shalev, they have no answer, except more of the same – more ‘negotiations’, more ‘peace process’, in other words, more of the same charade which has entrenched the occupation they claim to oppose, while making the supposedly desired 2SS an impossibility.

    The problem is, these ‘liberal Zionists’ are in a quandary. They do not actively hate Palestinians, like the far right Zionists do, but if obtaining justice for Palestinians means making Israeli Jews give up their supremacy, then in reality they’re quite happy for Palestinians to languish under occupation. Of course, they cannot admit that – not even to themselves – but their outright opposition to the ultimate form of peaceful protest – BDS – while offering no alternatives solutions to how the conflict could be solved, makes it pretty obvious. At the end of the day, if it’s a choice between justice and Jewish supremacy, the latter will win. Always.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2013, 10:54 am

      Justice, the personification of justice is usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.

    • Citizen
      December 22, 2013, 11:51 am

      The blindfold was put on ancient Lady Justice only in the 16th Century, in Berne, Switzerland. In the video, I saw for the first time, somebody on a relatively influential media blog, say, in effect, Why shouldn’t Americans single out Israel for criticism since we’ve been singly out Israel so much for praising decades it’s now the #1 recipient of US taxpayer cash in the entire US history? Too bad, this was not further discussed. Well, at least the point was made that when apartheid S Africa was singled out, there were many far more inhumane regimes alive and functioning.

      I also notice, on this blog MW, whenever the singling out of Israel for special US gifts of blood and treasure is offered as a reason why All Americans, not just Jewish Americans, should be symmetrically critical of how their super-special gift money is spent abroad, and more so considering US bankruptcy and American needy millions, the regular Zionists here say nothing.

      • JeffB
        December 22, 2013, 2:38 pm

        @Citizen —

        They’ve said plenty. Also your figures about #1 are just wrong. I gave you the example of Japan which is far more expensive. Columbia is also more expensive in this year.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2013, 11:10 am

        @ JeffB

        Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign in all US history: link to fas.org

        Further, all other countries get their US foreign aid with lots of strings attached as compared to Israel.

    • JeffB
      December 22, 2013, 1:20 pm

      @Maximus Decimus Meridius

      The problem is, these ‘liberal Zionists’ are in a quandary. They do not actively hate Palestinians, like the far right Zionists do, but if obtaining justice for Palestinians means making Israeli Jews give up their supremacy, then in reality they’re quite happy for Palestinians to languish under occupation.

      That’s politics dude. Lots of people support causes in the abstract but not in the particular. Obamacare’s solution is far and away the most popular solution with the broadest support. That’s get you to roughly a 1/3rd of the population.

      What JStreet wants is for Israel to offer the Palestinians a pretty good deal, and for the Palestinians to say “yes”.

      At the end of the day, if it’s a choice between justice and Jewish supremacy, the latter will win. Always.

      I don’t agree with you on the word “supremacy”, but I agree with the sentiment. Roughly 1/2 the American liberal activists are Jewish. If Jews won’t support BDS, which they won’t, then BDS can’t thrive inside American liberalism. If it can’t thrive among liberals it is unlikely to take root here. The domestic population here is too hostile to turn on Israel at this point. Something has to happen to change the political calculus.

      People like Norman Finkelstein (Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End) believe that this is going to happen. I don’t think he’s right. I think ultimately arguing against Israel for gentiles is like walking on eggshells. It is going to be very hard for gentile anti-Zionists not to end up triggering Jewish tribal loyalties when they are attacking Israel. Think for example the change, the shift between the 1990s where the battle was between Labor and Likud with most Jews being pro-Palestinian i.e. pro-Labor; and the 2000s when it was Labor&Likud vs. Fatah/Hamas and Jews were solidly behind Israel. I think the next generation of Jews are going to want to continue to act as gatekeepers and they will be successful.

      • Philip Weiss
        December 24, 2013, 9:12 am

        This is an excellent comment, Jeff but it suffers from myopia. Please check Pew poll on young Jewish attitudes. Or read rplatkin on changing Jewish attitudes. They just won’t care enough to be gatekeepers and swing that big old rusty gate on its obsolete hardware. You are behaving like Canute.

      • JeffB
        December 24, 2013, 9:57 am

        @Phillip —

        18-29 year olds 60% very (25%) or somewhat (35%) attached. And incidentally I’d assume that 25% that is very attached are likely the most politically active and thus disproportionately the ones who are going to be liberal political activists. In the other direction we know that liking Israel (currently) is strongly correlated with conservatism, and this correlation will probably get stronger as Israel shifts right. And of course tribalism is correlated with tribal loyalty. So let’s call it break even until we get better data.

        And BTW because of the way Pew counts religion and the high level of some Jewish identification among children of the intermarried if you want to use Pew data long term like that you have Jews growing as a percentage of the population and thus (possibly) growing as a percentage of liberal activists.

        30-49 look the same as the younger group. And 50+ are way more loyal to Israel. So you will have a shift if the trend continues as this group dies off. So let’s assume you are right, the trend continues for a generation+, it is 2050 and we have a 25/35/27/11 Jewish population. Israel has now had 3.5 decades more of USA support and BDS is making a play. Give me your picture. Have the Palestinians even made it to 2050? How is 25/35 vs 30/39 (what it is now) or even 35/42 (what it is for older Jews in positions of power) still not create almost the same problem?

        I don’t see how that’s enough of a change. Sure by 2150 you might have almost no connection 10/15/25/50 and then sure you can go ahead and not worry about it. But certainly not in a few years or even one generation.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2013, 11:04 am

        @ JeffB
        Interesting, the way you calculate the probability for tens & scores of years to come is that grassroots goy America won’t ever discover the facts about the history of Israel’s creation and conduct to date, and that they paid for nearly all of it by tax dollars and losing their international reputation. While it’s true that the average Jewish American of younger generations is way richer than the average goy in America, and more politically active by far when it comes to any issues touching on Israel, they still remain a tiny percentage of the population–further, two major keys to America’s love affair with Israel, the Holocaust (Christian and humanitarian guilt–no the Jews don’t have a monopoly on guilt), and the Cold War–are both long gone. And, yes, it’s true that the spawn of Jewish-Goy intermarriage is high, and it seems true that the result is often the kids stand up for Jews, but that does not mean they will stand up for Israel’s evil policies and conduct–because they’ve also been indoctrinated in America’s highest values. Nobody knows more about “Judeo-Christian” values, as a practical experience, more than the spawn of intermarriages between American Jews and American Goys. Phil has no kids, I do.

      • JeffB
        December 24, 2013, 4:14 pm

        @Citizen

        Up a level

        Interesting, the way you calculate the probability for tens & scores of years to come is that grassroots goy America won’t ever discover the facts about the history of Israel’s creation and conduct to date, and that they paid for nearly all of it by tax dollars and losing their international reputation.

        I don’t think Americans are as ignorant as you do. They know the Palestinians sorta lived on Israel and then the Jews moved back and kicked them out. If they were ignorant you wouldn’t see the strong correlations you do, for example rightwing politics and support for Israel; or support for the War on Terror correlating with support for Israel.

        further, two major keys to America’s love affair with Israel, the Holocaust (Christian and humanitarian guilt–no the Jews don’t have a monopoly on guilt), and the Cold War–are both long gone.

        America’s relationship with Israel has been getting warmer over the decades not cooler. The level of support of Israel has been increasing. Virtually everyone associated with the Holocaust is dead. The holocaust played a role in the Truman administration since he was actively dealing with post-holocaust refugees. After that it just became the moral justification for Israel, part of the founding myths.

        The same way that USA was founded as a fight for representation in government, Israel was a response to the holocaust. These myths have some truth in them but they aren’t driving policy.

        The data we have shows the opposite of deterioration. They show a population siding more and more strongly with Israel. They don’t show deterioration. They don’t show evidence of ignorance, beyond the ignorance Americans have of all foreign policy.

      • James North
        December 24, 2013, 4:22 pm

        JeffB: This comment once again prompts me to raise the question I posed to you earlier today, which you haven’t answered. Your main theme once again is that Israel is powerful, and the forces critical of Israel are puny and insignificant. Why then do you spend hours every day on Mondoweiss? I don’t hang around over at the Flat Earth Society website, commenting away.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2013, 3:05 am

        I don’t think Americans are as ignorant as you do. They know the Palestinians sorta lived on Israel and then the Jews moved back and kicked them out.

        You keep repeating that theme. You are talking about forcefully imposing grand apartheid, i.e. no statutory limitation shall apply to eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid.
        — Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity link to www1.umn.edu

        Why should it be okay to justify, condone, or trivialize war crimes here at Mondoweiss? It’s not just impolite, it’s illegal in many jurisdictions. Jewish lobbying groups have zero tolerance for that sort of thing on Twitter, Wikipedia, & etc. whenever such comments are made about crimes committed against Jews.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2013, 4:07 am

        JeffB:

        I don’t think Americans are as ignorant as you do. They know the Palestinians sorta lived on Israel and then the Jews moved back and kicked them out.

        What for crying out loud does “Palestinians sorta lived on Israel” mean? How does a group of people “sorta live” somewhere, and how were Palestinians “sorta living” in Israel when Israel didn’t exist at the time?

        (And why do you say “the Jews” moved back, when only some Jews colonized Palestine, and most all of them were not “moving back”, since they never lived there or were directly descended from people who lived there?)

        On the one hand you say Amerians aren’t ignorant, and on the other you attribute to them a belief in such nonsense?

      • JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 7:57 am

        @Sibiriak

        Americans sorta live in the continental United States.
        Some Americans live in Hawaii and Alaska. Some americans live abroad. Some of the people in the continental United States aren’t Americans. But roughly the geographic area associated with America is where you find the bulk of Americans.

        And why do you say “the Jews” moved back, when only some Jews colonized Palestine, and most all of them were not “moving back”, since they never lived there or were directly descended from people who lived there?

        Most Americans believe in the basic structure of bible stories and believe Jews lived in Palestine for two millennia. I’m not one of them, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a mainstream belief.

        On the one hand you say Amerians aren’t ignorant, and on the other you attribute to them a belief in such nonsense?

        Yes that is exactly what I’m saying. Americans aren’t ignorant of the basic anti-Zionist argument. They understand the broad outlines of it, and they reject it. There is no big secret that’s going to change their opinion. As Americans have had more access to both side’s information sources directly and excellent unfiltered reporting via. the internet support for Israel has risen sharply.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 8:52 am

        “What for crying out loud does “Palestinians sorta lived on Israel” mean?”

        It means that JeffB —- doesn’t understand squat about the history of Palestine and the manner in which it was invaded and stolen by a horde of European zios, and trades in lies.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 26, 2013, 12:09 am

        If Jews won’t support BDS, which they won’t, then BDS can’t thrive inside American liberalism.

        so why don’t you tell us what else can’t thrive inside american liberalism without jewish support. actually, if jewish support is all it takes to thrive within american liberalism, then what difference does it make what the other 98% of americans support.

        i think you’re wrong. i think the growth of bds is not dependent on jewish support, albeit it has lots of it. you’re in a bubble of your own making jeff assuming jewish support is the end all for whatever outcome the american populace supports and that is just not the case. one cannot really tell the difference between american and jewish american support when they are aligned, but make no mistake, if israel pisses off the majority of americans, it won’t matter what jews support. we matter, whether you realize it or not.

        unlike you i really don’t believe jews rule america. and bds can absolutely thrive inside american liberalism without jewish support. none the less, there is a lot of jewish support for bds. because it’s the right thing to do and where ever you find liberal american values, you find american jews.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 8:51 am

        “Roughly 1/2 the American liberal activists are Jewish. If Jews won’t support BDS, which they won’t, then BDS can’t thrive inside American liberalism.”

        Or, American liberalism kicks out the Jews who are PEPs. If they can’t apply their principles when it’s Jews who are the fascists — as is the case in the zionist entity — then they’re not really liberal. American liberalism should do this, because to oppose the kind of fascism the Jews built in occupied Palestine is the minimum that a “liberal” needs to do to be worthy of the name.

      • Taxi
        December 26, 2013, 10:32 am

        Happy Holidays, Woody!

      • JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 3:40 pm

        @Woody

        Or, American liberalism kicks out the Jews who are PEPs. If they can’t apply their principles when it’s Jews who are the fascists — as is the case in the zionist entity — then they’re not really liberal. American liberalism should do this, because to oppose the kind of fascism the Jews built in occupied Palestine is the minimum that a “liberal” needs to do to be worthy of the name.

        Might happen but I doubt it. That’s going to be quite a tough sell. When you go across the various liberal causes from gay rights to feminism to animal rights to environmentalism to financial reform to the peace movement to… you have a lot of different people who believe in a lot of different causes. Many of those causes would be terribly damaged if American liberalism were to lose a chunk of activists and money.

        Let’s take a simple example. You don’t really provide any justification for why someone running a battered woman’s shelter in central California should be able to serve 18% less women so that she can throw token support behind some cause she doesn’t care about in the first place. And it doesn’t make sense when you go the mainstream Democrats either.

        Assume that you could actually get a sanctions bill through congress. And in exchange we would now have President Romney with a Republican Senate. How many Democrats would make that trade?

  7. eGuard
    December 22, 2013, 9:09 am

    Let’s not forget that Haaretz is promoted as that very liberal open minded paper. Sure. Here is Shalev the likud and, we can predict, he will have Levy fired.

  8. pabelmont
    December 22, 2013, 12:01 pm

    If there is a “need” for a Jewish state (for Jewish or Israeli prestige? for a safe haven for Jews in case of local anti-Jewish catastrophes elsewhere?), how does this need create a “right” to carve a Jewish state out of Palestine (or anywhere else)? Does my neighbor’s poverty (“need” for money) create a “right” for my neighbor to rob a bank or to steal from me?

    But if, nevertheless, one concedes to Jews a right for Jews in Palestine to create a Jewish State and to populate that state with Jews from elsewhere, how did any of that justify either the expulsion of the exiles of 1948 — or the continuous refusal of a Palestinian right of return PRoR for those exiles from 1948 til today? There are 12 million Jews in the world and about 6 million in Israel. they can (if they wish) outnumber the Palestinians. The entire Jewish world population and the entire Palestinian world population could move to Israel and there would be a substantial Jewish majority. But many Jews don’t want to come.

    Must Palestinians suffer exile because many Jews find living in Israel unpalatable?

    • NickJOCW
      December 23, 2013, 7:43 am

      @Pabelmont. Your quest for answers suggests the processes that brought all this about were rational when they were no more so than the processes that maintain them. Reason is a tool but it needs to be learned and most people manage perfectly well without it. Zionists like many others have no use for it and if they do give it a go, like JeffB above, they generate nonsense. They are solely motivated by what they want, tempered perhaps by what they can get away with; in JeffB’s case aliyah for his daughter. Reason, like mathematics, requires consistency; it has rules and is meaningless if they are not followed. Sooner or later those with whom you cannot reason have to be clobbered. That means, however reluctantly, putting aside reason for a spell, which is exactly what BDS supporters are being driven to do. If asked by Zionists why they support BDS they might best simply say, Because I want to, and reserve more reasoned answers for more reasoned debate.

      We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children is the goal statement of the Hammerskins movement another irrational outfit link to hammerskins.net

    • Ibraimsued
      December 23, 2013, 3:05 pm

      I think the jewish people (religion. mythology, whatever) decided to build a country of its own, that meaning being the major etnicity of that country and I can only support such an idea, due to the experiences this people has gone through in history. Its a very practical idea that led to the refusal of the return of 600.000 enemy fled natives, so what? It’s an amazing country and it’s not obliged to respond forever for the fate of all descendents of that formerly fled enemies. Its enough clear to me yhat israelis don’t wish to become a minority in its own country just as those formers natives wouldn’t had their own country existed then. The Jewish people had never wished to become a ruling national majority anywhere else that not its own sovereign homeland. Would other countries oppose such an idea they would be right, specially when the jewish people already has its own independent homeland, which is or will eventually be the case of palestinian muslim arabs.

  9. Ibraimsued
    December 22, 2013, 6:08 pm

    I think the jewish people (religion. mythology, whatever) decided to build a country of its own, that meaning being the major etnicity of that country and I can only support such an idea, due to the experiences this people has gone through in history. Its a very practical idea that led to the refusal of the return of 600.000 enemy fled natives, so what? It’s an amazing country and it’s not obliged to respond forever for the fate of all descendents of that formerly fled enemies. Its enough clear to me yhat israelis don’t wish to become a minority in its own country just as those formers natives wouldn’t had their own country existed then. The Jewish people had never wished to become a ruling national majority anywhere else that not its own sovereign homeland. Would other countries oppose such an idea they would be right, specially when the jewish people already has its own independent homeland, which is or will eventually be the case of palestinian muslim arabs.

    • Citizen
      December 24, 2013, 10:33 am

      @ Ibraimsued

      The Jewish people in USA may have wished to become the ruling national majority but demography cancelled that wish, so now we have AIPAC, which proves that in a democracy you don’t have to be the national majority ethnic group to rule on selected issues you prioritize. I mean, even MLK knew that….

    • Hostage
      December 26, 2013, 2:32 am

      Its a very practical idea that led to the refusal of the return of 600.000 enemy fled natives, so what?

      So it was actually a war crime to forcefully expel them in the first place and another, separate offense to refuse to repatriate them in a timely manner. That’s also a war crime.

      There is actually a UN Convention which explains that no statutory limitation shall apply to eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid. So, in many countries when you suggest it’s a “practical idea” to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity on the basis of racism or xenophobia that’s also considered hate speech and a criminal offense.

      FYI, the illegal Jewish militias were considered public enemies by the government authorities in Mandate Palestine. They were ethnically cleansing the lawful Arab inhabitants long before the mandate expired. The perpetrators admitted as much themselves. General Pundak openly bragged that the militias engaged in ethnic cleansing and razed enough villages to drive off a million Arabs. 100-Year-Old General: We Razed Arab Villages, So What?

      See also the full account of:
      Yerachmiel Kahanovich, Palmach soldier
      * link to zochrot.org

      The British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, noted that the Arabs of the large towns, had borne the brunt of the Jewish offensives. By late April he reported that Jewish attacks

      “had led to a crisis with ominous and intolerable implications for the British: Recent Jewish military successes (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press. . . .Jewish broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany. . . . on the roads Hagana armoured trucks are increasingly impudent and intrusive.”

      See Theory and practice in the history of European expansion overseas, By Robinson, et.al, Routledge, 1988, ISBN 0714633461, page 142 link to books.google.com

      • JeffB
        December 26, 2013, 7:54 am

        @Hostage —

        Will you stop describing things in such a completely one sided way! There were several attacks on the Jewish population starting around 1920. The purpose of those attacks was to ethnic cleanse inhabitants, in this case Jews. In 1936-9 there was a massive movement to ethnic cleanse the Jewish population that failed terrible and the Palestinians were crushed. Before the mandate ended this was not a one sided policy and if anything the Palestinians were far far more enthusiastic about ethnic cleansing than the Jews were.

    • Sibiriak
      December 26, 2013, 3:19 am

      Ibraimsued:

      I think the jewish people (religion. mythology, whatever) decided to build a country of its own, that meaning being the major etnicity of that country and I can only support such an idea, due to the experiences this people has gone through in history.

      Unfortunately, the place where Zionists chose to build a Jewish ethnocracy was already populated by large numbers of Palestinians with national aspirations of their own.

      Its a very practical idea that led to the refusal of the return of 600.000 enemy fled natives, so what?

      Most were not “enemies” (i.e., belligerents engaged in war or conflict)–they were simply non-Jews– and they did not simply “flee”–they were driven out via terror, rape, murder and massacre.

    • talknic
      December 26, 2013, 3:20 am

      Ibraimsued “I think the jewish people (religion. mythology, whatever) decided to build a country of its own..”

      The Zionist Federation decided

      “Its a very practical idea that led to the refusal of the return of 600.000 enemy fled natives, so what?”

      The State of Israel obliged itself to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter and hasn’t, that’s what!

      “.. it’s not obliged to respond forever for the fate of all descendents of that formerly fled enemies.”

      The laws and UN Charter Israel obliged itself to uphold tell a different story

      “Its enough clear to me yhat israelis don’t wish to become a minority in its own country just as those formers natives wouldn’t had their own country existed then”

      Their own country did exist then. It was called Palestine. Under Article 7 of the Mandate FOR Palestine, Jews could immigrate and get Palestinian citizenship. It was partitioned by default of Israel proclaiming itself independent of Palestine. What remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed itself ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ was and still is Palestine. None of it has ever been legally annexed to the State of Israel.

      “The Jewish people had never wished to become a ruling national majority anywhere else that not its own sovereign homeland”

      The Israeli Government said otherwise Aug 31st 1949 link to wp.me

  10. Nevada Ned
    December 22, 2013, 7:34 pm

    JeffB is a worthy successor to Richard Witty, and may very well be the same person. Busily hijacking the blog.
    Phil, I suggest that posters be limited to 2 posts/day, to avoid Richard Witty Syndrome, a handful of fanatics monopolizing the blog.

    • Taxi
      December 22, 2013, 11:57 pm

      I’ll go further and request his actual banning. For his racism, and, for the sheer agonizing tedium of his posts. (Oh Woody Tanaka where art thou?)

      • Sibiriak
        December 23, 2013, 12:56 am

        Taxi:

        I’ll go further and request his actual banning.

        I suspect it is because he is effectively arguing his views –to the extent that they can be–that requests are now appearing for his banishment.

        For his racism…

        I’ve read most of his posts–I believe he is a “tribalist” not a racist.

        …for the sheer agonizing tedium of his posts.

        Is anyone forcing you to read them?

        An elderly spinster who lives by the river complains to the police about a group of little boys bathing in the nude in front of her house. The constable dispatches one of his men, who tells the boys to move away. The next day the woman complains again: The boys are still within sight. The policeman goes back and sends them farther upstream. A day or so later the spinster quite indignantly calls again: “If I go up to the roof with a pair of field glasses, I can still see them.”

      • Taxi
        December 23, 2013, 10:41 am

        “I’ve read most of his posts–I believe he is a “tribalist” not a racist. ”

        Oh right mister god – but of course you MUST be right because YOU said so. Of course there is NO racism in tribalism uhuh.

        Really now, I can’t think of anything more tedious than jeffb posts – except perhaps debating with you, sibriak, on what makes that old toad jeffb tick.

      • Sibiriak
        December 23, 2013, 11:34 am

        Taxi:

        Of course there is NO racism in tribalism uhuh.

        Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you want to prove JeffB is a racist, go ahead–I’m not standing in your way.

      • American
        December 26, 2013, 10:42 am

        Sibiriak says:
        December 23, 2013 at 12:56 am
        Taxi:

        I’ll go further and request his actual banning.

        I suspect it is because he is effectively arguing his views –to the extent that they can be–that requests are now appearing for his banishment.>>>>>>

        Have you lost your mind? jeffb has to be the most moronic troll we’ve ever had on here. He doesnt ‘effectively’ argue anything—he makes sweeping ‘pronouncements’ on everything with nothing to back them up, offers no credible sources or any sources for that matter….. he offers ‘what he wants people to believe’ as facts when they arent facts.
        When people respond to his hubris nonsense the whole thread turns into jibberish back and forth.
        What I have noticed in our latest trolls is that are retreating somewhat from the Jews as victims whine and are going more for the “hubristic” statements of ‘we’re big, we’re bad and we rule..viva Israel and Jewish power!”
        Wouldnt surprise me if they werent Dr. Duke or neo nazi operatives sent over here to rile us into hating them even more than we already do by illustrating and reinforcing all the despictable attitudes of their kind.

      • libra
        December 24, 2013, 5:23 pm

        Taxi: Oh Woody Tanaka where art thou?

        Strangely, whilst Nevada Ned thinks JeffB could be Richard Witty, Woody seemed to be under the impression he’s Jeff Blankfort.

        Call be a sceptic but I find it hard to believe that even several years of remedial English could have transformed Witty’s prose. That said, it’s surely a much more plausible theory than Jeff Blankfort returning as a Zionist shill.

      • JeffB
        December 24, 2013, 7:54 pm

        Jeff Blankfort wrote a lot of articles: link to mondoweiss.net

        But nope. I’m mid 40s he’s a lot older.

    • Sibiriak
      December 23, 2013, 1:06 am

      Nevada Ned:

      Phil, I suggest that posters be limited to 2 posts/day, to avoid Richard Witty Syndrome, a handful of fanatics monopolizing the blog

      He’s not monopolizing the blog since of most his posts are hit with a
      half-dozen intelligent rebuttals.

      For anyone who doesn’t like JeffB’s views, that’s a good thing– it provides an excellent means of developing and refining those rebuttals and creating an archive of them.

    • OlegR
      December 23, 2013, 9:53 am

      I have a better suggestion.
      Lets ban every Zionist or Zionist sympathiser.
      That way you will enjoy peace and quiet and bash away at Israel uninterrupted
      and we will find a better way to waste our time.

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2013, 10:28 am

        @ OlegR
        You mean the way mainstream media and US government have effectively banned anti-Zionists? Mondoweiss does not get taxpayer funds, nor is powerful and well-funded by big Zionists, like the handful of mainstream media big corporations.

      • talknic
        December 26, 2013, 1:23 am

        OlegR “Lets ban every Zionist or Zionist sympathiser.
        That way you will enjoy peace and quiet and bash away at Israel uninterrupted
        and we will find a better way to waste our time.”

        I’ve an even better idea. Israel could adhere to International Law for once. It’s never been tried

    • talknic
      December 23, 2013, 11:14 am

      @Nevada Ned “posters be limited to 2 posts/day”

      Such a measure would stifle lively and informative debate.

      I suggest people be banned the moment they’ve been shown to lie. Leaving the lie and reason for banning for readers to see. Maybe even a repository of the banned and their foul deeds

      • Citizen
        December 24, 2013, 10:25 am

        @ talknic
        Sounds good, but many lies are lies of omission, not commission, and many others are implied, e.g.,by exaggerated comparisons, or by vague words, often abstractions, that can be interpreted in different ways. So, you suggested a difficult task that probably also costs a lot. Yet, it would at least catch the really big and bold lies…

  11. Reds
    December 22, 2013, 8:11 pm

    So the line of the Pro-Israeli supporter. Even the ASA want to wipe israel off of the map. Then he claims active peace process without noting that it’s going nowhere and Israel’s Governing body is against it now.

  12. Reds
    December 22, 2013, 8:15 pm

    So if the line is there’s others out there worst then Israel? How come this line doesn’t come up with Iran when Israel calls for boycotts and sanctions of Iran?Who if using the same logic is unfairly and singling it out because for worst actors out there?

    • JeffB
      December 23, 2013, 6:13 am

      @Reds —

      Iran is being sanctioned mainly for developing a large terrorist network and for development of a nuclear program. The two states developing a nuclear program that the USA finds threatening are: Iran and North Korea both sanctioned. The last country that supported state terrorism against the USA was Afghanistan which got invaded. How is Iran being singled out?

      • Reds
        December 25, 2013, 10:34 pm

        Incorrect. The main reason for Iranian sanctions is the nonexistent nuclear weapons program that even the CIA and Mossad doesn’t believe exist or Iran is doing. As for terrorism it could be argued Israel is a terrorist and support of terrorism state. You leave out the part that Iran is legally under international law allow to enrich U.S. Fear doesn’t mean jack on that though Iran would/should have fear of U.S. Or Israeli agression espically when countries like Israel violates so many international laws and Geneva conventions.

        As for NK it’s far more agressive then Iran and the U.S. Is nothing close to as agressive or threating so your analogy is bunk

      • talknic
        December 26, 2013, 1:20 am

        JeffB “Iran is being sanctioned mainly for developing a large terrorist network and for development of a nuclear program. “

        Wrong! Iran is being sanctioned on suspicion of developing a nuclear weapons program. Suspicion and accusations are not evidence

        “The last country that supported state terrorism against the USA was Afghanistan which got invaded. “

        Afghanistan didn’t support state terrorism against the USA

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 26, 2013, 8:58 am

        “Iran is being sanctioned mainly for developing a large terrorist network and for development of a nuclear program.”

        LMAO. No, it’s because the Jews in occupied Palestine are pathological paranoiacs and fear the Iranians becoming a regional power.

        If terrorism and developing nukes was sufficient to get one sanctioned, then the zio Disneyland would have been sanctioned long ago. The i”d”f is the most powerful terrorist organization in history and they have nukes.

  13. Reds
    December 22, 2013, 8:19 pm

    So we shouldn’t get down the Rabbit hole of apartheid but it’s okay to claim that the ASA and BDS are there to destroy Israel?

  14. Reds
    December 22, 2013, 8:33 pm

    Even the debate is somewhat slanted in favor of Israel. Count how many times the hosts apologized to the Pro-Israeli guest and agreed with him and what he said vs the Pro-Palestinian guest. When Munayyer spoke the guest somewhat agreed but mention it was for both sides. While the hosts try to be fair or balance but what you say is the argument and words that shouldn’t be spoken was towards Munayyer.

    At 20:50 the Host makes the same argument that Reagan made for actions against Boycotts against S.A.

    Shalev is also allowed to make Ad Hom against the BDS movement without either host questioning if such comments will help the debate.

    • ritzl
      December 23, 2013, 1:01 am

      @Reds- Yeah, it was a bit of an odd, deferential dynamic.

      But it was refreshing as well. I can’t remember seeing a Jewish-Israeli even placed in the position of being directly questioned by an “Arab” host as part of the format, let alone actually (mildly, as moderated by Sacks) questioned. It was something new and interesting, for me anyway.

  15. mcohen
    December 23, 2013, 6:19 am

    my pet theory on relegion goes like this

    survival is the primary concern,and relegion provides the will and intent
    so……………..
    a group of people -israelis-use judaism to provide the will and intent to survive

    but a second group-non israelis-survival protected by the laws of the country they reside in,telling israelis stop using my judaism to survive,and by the way ,while you are about it, give it all back,we do not need israel anymore because…………

    the laws of the country jews live in will always protect them and we will live happily ever after

    the mind boggles through rose tinted googles (TM)

Leave a Reply