Deconstructing Netanyahu’s tribute to Mandela

Israel/Palestine
on 152 Comments


Netanyahu couldn’t attend Mandela’s memorial. It was too expensive. I mean, with the cost of the Prawer Plan and dealing with those pesky Palestinians who just won’t shut up and die already, the Jewish state is strapped for cash. So, Israel’s prime minister sent a 37 second video. You can watch it here, then read the actual words behind his words.

Nelson Mandela was one of the stellar figures of our age.

We tried hard to help our brethren in South Africa squash his legacy before it was too late, but they were too soft and now look what happened.

He was the father of his nation, a man of vision, a freedom fighter who rejected any violence.

I know that’s not true, but in order to be a legitimate freedom fighter, you have to reject all forms of violence, including against those who are savagely beating you over the head. This applies only to brown people. White people like me are always freedom fighters, no matter what we do or how we do it.

He gave a personal example for his people in the long years he spent in prison.

Because accepting any and all punishment we give you is the best example you can set for your people. Always be patient. Take it on the chin. We have your best interest at heart. Love us for it.

He never became proud or haughty.

This is important because we cannot accept this kind of uppity behavior from black men.

He acted to heal the wounds within South African society.

He forgave whites for hundreds of years of unspeakable and still untold crimes and, more importantly, didn’t punish them or make them pay back anything of what they had stolen.

And with the force of his unique personality, he was able to prevent the eruption of racial hatred.

You know, over 300 years of robbing and destroying native South African lives cannot be called ‘racial hatred’.

He will be remembered as the father of modern South Africa and as a moral leader of the highest order.

Because of the stuff I just outlined in the previous 70 seconds. All the other stuff he did does not come under the banner of ‘moral leader’.

Susan Abulhawa has a new book of poetry out, My Voice Sought the Wind.

About Susan Abulhawa

Susan Abulhawa is the author of the international bestselling novel, Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury, 2010) – www.morningsinjenin.com – and founder of Playgrounds for Palestine – www.playgroundsforpalestine.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

152 Responses

  1. hophmi
    December 10, 2013, 12:43 pm

    Sounds like you weren’t a big fan of Mandela, Susan.

    • Justpassingby
      December 10, 2013, 1:05 pm

      Says the boy that support Israel lol.

    • Susan Abulhawa
      December 10, 2013, 2:52 pm

      how do you figure that?
      guessing that you didn’t get that the words between his words were a deconstruction of what Netanyahu said; i.e. they’re meant to reflect Netanyahu’s thoughts, not mine.

  2. MahaneYehude1
    December 10, 2013, 2:22 pm

    Susan Abulhawa, who do you think is your Nelson Mandela?

    • Susan Abulhawa
      December 10, 2013, 2:54 pm

      Thank you for asking that because it’s an admission that we face the same kind of racism that the indigenous people of South Africa faced from foreign immigrants.

      • hophmi
        December 10, 2013, 3:01 pm

        I don’t think so. I think you face what you face because your leaders decided to focus on targetting civilians.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 10, 2013, 3:17 pm

        @Susan Abulhawa:

        So, could you tell me, please, who, do you think, is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela? Arafat? Haniyeh? Barghouti or someone else? I mean a Palestinian leader that espouses Mandela’s legacy, a leader that fights for the freedom of your people that has same principles as Mandela.

      • Cliff
        December 10, 2013, 3:59 pm

        @Kahane

        Where is the Israeli Mandela?

        Oh wait that analogy does not exist at all since Israel is South Africa in this game.

      • Shmuel
        December 10, 2013, 4:04 pm

        So, could you tell me, please, who, do you think, is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela?

        I’m afraid it’s all a matter of timing, MY1. By the time the Zionists decided to play the colonial game, all the good “natives” had already been taken. If it’s any consolation, you weren’t the Palestinians’ first choice either.

      • Susan Abulhawa
        December 10, 2013, 4:44 pm

        i think you ask the wrong question. aside from the fact that Israel has assassinated nearly every leader it could get its hands on, whether he/she espoused armed or unarmed resistance, looking for a messiah or savior is disempowering and actually something that Mandela himself warned against. There are many ways to construct effective resistance and every people living under circumstances that call for resistance will find their own way, as is their right.

      • Shingo
        December 10, 2013, 4:45 pm

        I’d say Barghoutti. Like Mandella, he’s in prison for resisting occupation and the crime of being popular.

        Still, the struggle against apartheid wasn’t about Mandella. It’s legitimacy would have been the same with or without him.

        Who do you think is
        Israel’s De Clerk MY1?

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 10, 2013, 5:56 pm

        @Susan Abulhawa:

        To end our conflict completely we need two brave leaders, Israeli and Palestinian, that have the will to end the bloodshed and the conflict for ever, to accept, recognize and respect the sovereignty of the other independent state (Israel and Palestine) as Begin and Sadat did. I afraid that one of the problem (and there are many of them) is that there is no Palestinian leader that can sign and declare end of the conflict and recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel without further demands. A Palestinian leader that will sign on such agreement would be considered as a traitor by most of the Palestinians since he “sold the land of Palestine to the Zionist”. At the moment, I don’t think we have Mandela nor De Clerk in the Palestinian side, as we had Ben Gurion that was brave enough to take tough decisions and compromise when necessary.

      • tombishop
        December 10, 2013, 8:08 pm

        All of the Palestinians true leaders are in Israeli jails. That’s why they are put there. It shows Zionist apartheid is worse than South African apartheid.

      • Kathleen
        December 10, 2013, 11:35 pm

        How many Palestinian activist has Israel thrown in prison?

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 11, 2013, 12:28 am

        @Kathleen:

        Did white people kill black people in SA? Yes!!!
        Did black people kill white people in SA? Yes!!!
        Did white and black people established the “SA truth and reconciliation committee”? Yes!!!

      • Shingo
        December 11, 2013, 3:03 am

        To end our conflict completely we need two brave leaders, Israeli and Palestinian, that have the will to end the bloodshed and the conflict for ever, to accept, recognize and respect the sovereignty of the other independent state (Israel and Palestine) as Begin and Sadat did

        Don’t be stupid. Begin did not recognize and respect the sovereignty of the other independent state, he in fact was fundamentally opposed to partition from the beginning and was opposed to any Palestinian state.

        I afraid that one of the problem (and there are many of them) is that there is no Palestinian leader that can sign and declare end of the conflict and recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel without further demands.

        I’m afraid that even if there was, Israel would lock him up or kill him the way they did Arafat, who was the only man would could have delivered on a peace deal.

        A Palestinian leader that will sign on such agreement would be considered as a traitor by most of the Palestinians since he “sold the land of Palestine to the Zionist”.

        No, a Palestinian leader that will sign on such agreement would be considered as a threat by Israel.

        It was Israel that kiled Rabin. It was Israel that killed Arafat.

        Stop projecting you racist, supremacist, apartheid loving troll.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 6:52 am

        “To end our conflict completely we need two brave leaders, Israeli and Palestinian, that have the will to end the bloodshed and the conflict for ever, to accept, recognize and respect the sovereignty of the other independent state (Israel and Palestine) as Begin and Sadat did. ”

        Stupid analogy. Egypt was not part of Palestine, so they merely had to end a state of war and return to the status quo ante. It is the ISRAELIS who refuse to do that with regard to Palestine, because the status quo ante, was a single bi-national state (albeit one under the occupation of the UK) that was universally recognized as a single entity.

        “I afraid that one of the problem (and there are many of them) is that there is no Palestinian leader that can sign and declare end of the conflict and recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel without further demands.”

        Yes, you’re looking for someone who will give you Jews everything you want while you give the Palestinians nothing they way. Geez, I wonder why you can’t find someone like that.

        “A Palestinian leader that will sign on such agreement would be considered as a traitor by most of the Palestinians since he “sold the land of Palestine to the Zionist”.”

        And rightly so. Why should the Palestinians give you people peace when you won’t give then freedom, independence and their land?

        “At the moment, I don’t think we have Mandela nor De Clerk in the Palestinian side, as we had Ben Gurion that was brave enough to take tough decisions and compromise when necessary.”

        What evil rot. Ben Gurion was an ethnic cleanser. Might as well call Hitler a “man of peace.” It demonstrates the depravity of your zio view, MY1.

      • amigo
        December 11, 2013, 7:34 am

        Mahane 1,2 or 3??.You are spouting nonsense again.Gurion was a thief and a murderer .He took tough decisions but only the Palestinians felt the pain.

        Here is the real BG , not the imagined hero that occupies your cranial lala land.

        ” Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future “Jewish state”. In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote: “No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country.” (Righteous Victims, p. 138) * In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the “Jewish state” on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote: “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)”

      • Cliff
        December 11, 2013, 7:59 am

        Dear Potato Salesman,

        To end the Israel-Palestine conflict, we need you Israelis to get off of Palestinian land and stop stealing and colonizing. Release Palestinians from your dungeons and pay reparations or allow the RoR to the people you’ve turned into refugees.

        Stop equivocating. This conflict exists because of you and your fanatic cult.

      • Cliff
        December 11, 2013, 8:01 am

        Ben-Gurion was a terrorist and is responsible in large part for the Nakba.

        You are no different from a Holocaust denier.

        Your cult nation-state must be overcome and abolished. There wasn’t any ‘truth and reconciliation’ with Nazi Germany. There shouldn’t be with Zionist Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 11, 2013, 5:17 pm

        there is no Palestinian leader that can sign and declare end of the conflict and recognize the sovereignty of the state of Israel without further demands.

        mahane, perhaps you are unaware israel is completely unwilling to even put a proposal on the table, for years now. http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/europe-asks-wheres-israels-proposal.html

        how is a Palestinian leader supposed declare end of the conflict with an occupying state that shows every indication their intent is to colonize all the land? if you’re so interested in peace why not hang around some racist zionist site and pester them about the unwillingness of your team to make concessions.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 12, 2013, 5:02 am

        @Annie:

        if you’re so interested in peace why not hang around some racist Zionist site and pester them about the unwillingness of your team to make concessions.

        Thank you very much for your recommendation. Look, Annie, the first step of peace between peoples, in my humble opinion, is to respect the other side, to listen the other side, recognize his sufferings, aspirations, demands etc. So, when you stop demonizing us, humiliate us, recognize our rights and narratives, recognize our state as the homeland of the Jewish people and, most important of all, declare that you want peace, real peace, with the state of Israel, not instead of Israel, then, I promise you, I will follow your recommendation. Till then, I am here to bring the voice of the ordinary Israeli citizens that want peace, real peace, with Palestine, not instead of Palestine. Shalom from snowy Jerusalem!!

      • justicewillprevail
        December 12, 2013, 6:16 am

        Well perhaps you should take the first step and “respect the other side, to listen the other side, recognize his sufferings, aspirations, demands etc” of the Palestinians, because nothing you have written demonstrates that you have done so yet. Regurgitating ignorant cliches and hasbara doesn’t count, while always of course, demanding people do this or that to satisfy your victimhood complex. That’s not peace, or wanting peace, however much you use the word.

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 6:36 am

        Look, Annie, the first step of peace between peoples, in my humble opinion, is to respect the other side, to listen the other side, recognize his sufferings, aspirations, demands etc.

        No, the first step of peace between peoples it to put an end to the crimes being perpetrated. When you want to resolve domestic violence, you don’t try counselling the abuser and victim while the abuse is allowed to carry on – you separate them first.

        So, when you stop demonizing us, humiliate us, recognize our rights and narratives, recognize our state as the homeland of the Jewish people and, most important of all, declare that you want peace, real peace, with the state of Israel, not instead of Israel, then, I promise you, I will follow your recommendation.

        You hear that people. In other words, the rapist will continue raping his victims until they recognize his humanity, his side of the story, and recognize his right o have sex with a woman – whether she consents or not.

        Till then, I am here to bring the voice of the ordinary Israeli citizens that want peace, real peace, with Palestine, not instead of Palestine.

        The only voice you are bringing is further confirmation of the sick mentality and ideology that pervades throughout Israeli society. If indeed you bring the voice of the ordinary Israeli citizens, then the state of Israel is even more desperate and beyond salvation than I even imagined,

      • talknic
        December 12, 2013, 6:39 am

        @ MahaneYehude1
        ” .. the first step of peace between peoples, in my humble opinion, is to respect the other side… “

        Instead of illegally acquiring their territory while dispossessing them? Good idea!

        respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r#unscresolution242

        ” ..to listen the other side…”
        Good idea!

        Balfour : “The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.” http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere

        “..recognize his sufferings..”
        Good idea!

        refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000 http://pages.citebite.com/q1d2i2f0f4upy

        “.. aspirations..”
        Good idea! The Palestinians aspire to have an independent state free of Israeli occupation per their legal rights under the laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold, but hasn’t!
        Instead Israel has and it seems still does aspire to acquire all of Palestine http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r
        Meanwhile, for peace, the Palestinians are willing to cede 78% of the territory that remained of Palestine after Israel was declared http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd

        “..demands etc.”
        The Palestinians demand their legal rights under the laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold, but hasn’t!

        The State of Israel demands to be allowed to keep non-Israeli territory it has illegally acquired, illegally annexed and illegally settled.

        One can only wonder when will the Zionist Movement‘s Jewish state begin to take the first step you mentioned…

        “So, when you stop demonizing us”
        The Jewish state demonizes itself by its illegal activities “outside the State of Israel” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

        ” humiliate us..”

        It is Palestine and Palestinians being denied their independence, not Jews or Israelis. It’s Palestinians who’re forced to suffer the humiliation of 65 years of Israel’s illegal facts on the ground, destruction of Palestinian homes, villages, farms, orchards. Not Israelis or Jews

        “recognize our rights and narratives, recognize our state as the homeland of the Jewish people”

        Israel already exists, Israelis rights have already been recognized. The Holocaust has been recognized (and was over more than half a century ago). The State of Israel was recognized as the homeland state of the Jewish people in 1948/49 as it asked to be recognized “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        “most important of all, declare that you want peace, real peace, with the state of Israel”

        Name another instance where a state lived in peace with its neighbours while it was still illegally acquiring the territory of its neighbours. Still illegally settling. Still illegally creating illegal facts on the ground!

        “Till then, I am here to bring the voice of the ordinary Israeli citizens that want peace, real peace, with Palestine, not instead of Palestine. Shalom from snowy Jerusalem!!”

        Hilarious stuff ….an illegal settler in Jerusalem claiming to want peace

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 12, 2013, 8:16 am

        @jusricewillprevail:

        In the short history of our conflict, it is the Palestinian side that rejected and still rejecting most of the solutions like the partition plan in 1947 and today, they refuse to recognize the state of Israel as the Jewish homeland or to sign on the end of the conflict as Arafat refused to do it in year 2000 when Ehud Barak was the Israeli PM. Please, don’t tell me they refused because so and so…no, the refusal is a principal no matter what Israel will do, even gives the Palestinians all they demand.

      • eljay
        December 12, 2013, 8:51 am

        >> In the short history of our conflict, it is the Palestinian side that rejected and still rejecting most of the solutions like the partition plan in 1947 and today …

        1. Jews had no right to demand half of Palestine.
        2. No-one had a right to give it to them.
        3. Palestinians were right to reject the demand.

        >> … they refuse to recognize the state of Israel as the Jewish homeland …

        Israel is not “the Jewish homeland” and should not be – or be recognized as – a supremacist “Jewish State”. Palestinians are right in their refusal. Zio-supremacist Jews like you are wrong to continue spreading, enforcing and defending your hateful and immoral ideology.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 12, 2013, 9:46 am

        @talknic:

        As always, I read carefully your response and, while reading, I started to think about my response to you, till I reached your last sentence:

        Hilarious stuff ….an illegal settler in Jerusalem claiming to want peace

        That is your problem, talknic, as I, and others, wrote to you many times: You have no ability to see the Israeli side, the Israeli sufferings, the fact that we are the main victims of this conflict, the Israeli willing to do peace etc. I already told you in the past and my word is still relevant: a creature from Venus that reads your comments, would think that the Arabs sent their soldiers to wars against us, holding UN resolutions documents instead of guns. When you start realize that Israel is the occupier not because we wanted to occupy, but because we had no choice but to win or die, then you change your tone (BTW, “win or die” is not my invention, it was said by Palestinians refugees in 1948).

        About Jerusalem, I can’t be an illegal settler in Jerusalem, a symbol of the Jewish people, regardless the documents you cite. Jerusalem is mine as well as of the Palestinians. I have no intentions to leave my city never and I hope my children remain here. I already told you that I personally will accept if Israel will withdraw East Jerusalem and gives it to Palestine, although I love my city and won’t be glad to see it divided again. Regards.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 12, 2013, 9:55 am

        @eljay:

        1. Jews had no right to demand half of Palestine.
        2. No-one had a right to give it to them.
        3. Palestinians were right to reject the demand.

        Zio-supremacist Jews like you are wrong to continue spreading, enforcing and defending your hateful and immoral ideology.

        OK, I think these sentences summarizes your positions. For one that even can’t recognize our rights at least in part of the land (that I consider my home), I think none of my arguments will be accepted by you. Thanks.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 12, 2013, 10:08 am

        “In the short history of our conflict”

        Short? The zionist plans began in the 19th century.

        “it is the Palestinian side that rejected and still rejecting most of the solutions like the partition plan in 1947 ”

        I have a gun to your head. Give me half of your assets or you are to blame for rejecting “partition.”

        “today, they refuse to recognize the state of Israel as the Jewish homeland”

        Because it is not. 1/5 of the people there are non-Jews. By what right to you have to demand that someone else ignore them and leave them defenseless?

        ” or to sign on the end of the conflict as Arafat refused to do it in year 2000″

        Of course they haven’t signed on to end the conflict, you zionists haven’t agreed to end the conflict. The Arabs have had a plan out there for over a decade that would give you everything you claim you want, and you people don’t even have the courtesy to address it, let alone accept it. And you have the gall to blame someone else??? How dare you?

        ” Please, don’t tell me they refused because so and so…”

        Yes, because why would a zionist like you want to consider the legitimate reasons of the Palestinian side or the injustice of israelis demands. They exist solely to bend to your will, right?

        “no, the refusal is a principal no matter what Israel will do, even gives the Palestinians all they demand.”

        You are out of your mind. When the Arab Peace Plan is there and you haven’t accepted it, you are in no position to pretend that it is anyone but your fellow zios who are responsible for this conflict and all the deaths and injury in it, as you’ve been responsible since the start.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 12, 2013, 10:13 am

        “You have no ability to see the Israeli side, the Israeli sufferings, the fact that we are the main victims of this conflict”

        LMAO. Yeah, a bunch of European and American Jews flock to Palestine, steal the Palestinian’s land, kill then in droves and herd them into an open-air prison and Bantustans and you people are the “main victims”… You really need to get some mental health care.

        “the Israeli willing to do peace”

        Then accept the Arab Peace Plan and get behind the Green Line. Until you do that, your assertions are meaningless.

        “When you start realize that Israel is the occupier not because we wanted to occupy, but because we had no choice”

        More disgusting victim-blaming. Oh, we had to burn up those Palestinian children in Gaza…. We had no choice.

      • eljay
        December 12, 2013, 10:35 am

        >> OK, I think these sentences summarizes your positions. For one that even can’t recognize our rights at least in part of the land (that I consider my home), I think none of my arguments will be accepted by you. Thanks.

        I accept that Israel exists and that it should continue to exist within its / Partition borders.

        I accept that Israel must halt its ON-GOING occupation of Palestine immediately and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.

        I accept that Israel must honour its obligations under international law.

        I accept that Israel must be held accountable for its past and ON-GOING (war) crimes.

        I accept that Israel must enter into sincere negotiations with Palestinians for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        I accept that Israel must be a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, equally.

        I accept your right to be an Israeli within Israel’s / Partition borders.

        I cannot accept your alleged “right” to continue spreading, enforcing and defending your hateful, immoral and supremacist “Jewish State” ideology.

        I guess that makes you a victim, potato man. :-(

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 10:52 am

        the fact that we [the Israelis] are the main victims of this conflict

        Nakba is an Arabic word that means “catastrophe.” The Nakba was the destruction, expulsion, looting, massacres and incidents of rape of the Palestinian inhabitants of this country. It was keeping refugees out by force at the end of the war, in order to establish the Jewish state. And it is the ongoing destruction of Palestinian localities, the disregard for the rights of refugees and displaced people, and the prohibition against teaching and commemorating the Nakba in schools and civic groups.

        http://zochrot.org/en

      • talknic
        December 12, 2013, 10:58 am

        @ MahaneYehude1

        “You have no ability to see the Israeli side, the Israeli sufferings, the fact that we are the main victims of this conflict, the Israeli willing to do peace etc”

        After having been GIVEN completely gratis over half of Palestine, Israel has for 65 years been illegally acquiring Palestinian territory and you cry victim. Hilarious stuff.

        ” I already told you in the past and my word is still relevant: a creature from Venus that reads your comments, would think that the Arabs sent their soldiers to wars against us, holding UN resolutions documents instead of guns.”

        Repeating nonsense is cute and still nonsense

        ” When you start realize that Israel is the occupier not because we wanted to occupy, but because we had no choice but to win or die”

        Your drivel just doesn’t make the grade
        A) You admit you’re occupying
        B) It is against the laws of war to illegally settle in occupied territories
        C) Israel illegally claims territory it has occupied
        D) Israel has been condemned for its illegal actions in non-Israeli territory and reminded of its obligations to the law HUNDREDS of times by the UNSC

        There are no UNSC resolutions condemning any state for invading or attacking Israel. All of Israel’s wars have been in territory “outside the State of Israel”. There has never been a war in Israel.

        “I can’t be an illegal settler in Jerusalem”

        Your denialism is impeccable. The UNSC, by a majority, have condemned Israel’s illegal actions in Jerusalem. As an Israeli citizen, you ARE an illegal settler

        “Jerusalem is mine as well as of the Palestinians”

        The UNSC says it isn’t and you’re spouting the typical idiotic drivel one expects of an illegal settler. You are either really stupid or have been successfully duped by successive Israeli governments or you are part of the problem. Given your incredible ability to deny facts, it would seem you’re the latter

        “I have no intentions to leave my city never and I hope my children remain here”

        As Palestinian Jews, if the Palestinians allow….fine

        ” although I love my city and won’t be glad to see it divided again”

        It’s divided now. It was divided by Israel according to the Israeli Government http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Jerusalem+Declared+Israel-Occupied+City-+Governm.htm

      • talknic
        December 12, 2013, 11:19 am

        @ MahaneYehude1 “In the short history of our conflict..”

        From the founding of the Jewish COLONIAL Trust in 1897 to today is 120 years

        ” it is the Palestinian side that rejected and still rejecting most of the solutions like the partition plan in 1947″

        Rightly so according to the Lon Mandate FOR Palestine and the UN Charter

        “they refuse to recognize the state of Israel as the Jewish homeland”

        Irrelevant. There is no legal obligation for anyone to recognize any state. This can be seen in the UN where there are UN Member states that do not recognize each other. Israel didn’t recognize any state in order to have its independence, free of occupation. It was recognized and accepted into the UN while it waged a war in and on what remained of Palestine.

        “or to sign on the end of the conflict as Arafat refused to do it in year 2000 when Ehud Barak was the Israeli PM”

        Of course he did. Israel offered to swap Palestinian territory for Palestinian territory so that Israel could keep Palestinian territory. A sh*te deal is a sh*te deal even if it comes from the less than Jewish state (coveting other folks property is against the basic tenets of Judaism)

        “the refusal is a principal no matter what Israel will do, even gives the Palestinians all they demand”

        Israel has never offered anything. Israel demands non-Israeli territory. The Palestinians want only their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold, but hasn’t.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 12, 2013, 2:01 pm

        @eljay:

        OK, I glad you sent this comment because from your first one I thought you are against our existence here. I can agree with you on most of your arguments, I have no problem.

        I guess that makes you a victim
        You don’t have to guess nothing: We are victims of this conflict!!! and I will write it hundreds of times. Please, don’t ask me “proofs”, you can visit here and see the thousands of graves, tens of thousands of orphan children and hundreds of thousands of war invalids.

        potato man. :-(
        Indeed, a seller from Jerusalem that sells potatoes, not delusions, hatred and lies!!!! :-)

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 2:42 am

        You have no ability to see the Israeli side, the Israeli sufferings, the fact that we are the main victims of this conflict, the Israeli willing to do peace etc.

        It is official Mehane. You have proven beyond a doubt that you are either certifiably insane or given up any pretense of being honest. Israel is as much the real victim here as Germany was the victim of WWII.

        I already told you in the past and my word is still relevant:

        Your world is clearly nothing more than a figment if your imagination. It might be relevant to you, but imaginary nonetheless .

        a creature from Venus that reads your comments, would think that the Arabs sent their soldiers to wars against us, holding UN resolutions documents instead of guns.

        A creature from Venus would look at the fact that Israel has the 4th most powerful military in the world, as well as hundreds of nukes, while the Palestinians don’t even have a Hummer and conclude that your claim to being the victim proved that you inhabit a parallel universe.

        When you start realize that Israel is the occupier not because we wanted to occupy, but because we had no choice but to win or die

        Rubbish. Yitzhak Pundak has exposed that lie long ago. As he explains, if the Israelis hadn’t expelled the Palestiniamsthere would be a million more Arabs and there would be no Israel.

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168912#.UmMD6vlmiHZ

        Levi Eshkol said the Israelis wanted the dowry (the land) not the bride (the Palestinians).

        Clearly the occupation had nothing to do with the survival of anything other than the agenda to colonize and take Palestine.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 8:57 am

        We are victims of this conflict!!

        Just like Charles Manson is the victim of Sharon Tate. I might try writing that a 100 times and see if it makes it true by the time I get to 101.

        Please, don’t ask me “proofs”, you can visit here and see the thousands of graves, tens of thousands of orphan children and hundreds of thousands of war invalids.

        Rubbish. There are not tens of thousands of orphan children because there have not been half that many Israelis killed.

        But based on that logic, then Israelis cannot be the vicitms seeing as there at least 10 times as many Palestinian graves, orphaned children and hundreds of thousands of war invalids.

        You’re a sick a depraved extremist Mehane. You have no concept of peace.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 13, 2013, 9:18 am

        we are the main victims of this conflict, the Israeli willing to do peace………Shalom from snowy Jerusalem!!

        it’s freezing in gaza too, and little children, mothers, teens, old people ..everyone is cold. there’s sewage running thru the streets and they have no fuel and only a few hrs of electricity a day. the water is contaminated. and you have the nerve to talk about who the main victims are, as your people are warm in their homes, many built by and stolen from palestinians. tens of thousands of homes built illegally on stolen land.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 13, 2013, 9:54 am

        @Annie;

        Please, tell me, what is your solution? Can I know your position since I never read it here? I wonder if you think that we have rights on this land. Thanks.

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 13, 2013, 10:25 am

        @Annie:

        We are the main victims of this conflict, the Israeli willing to do peace………Shalom from snowy Jerusalem!!

        I agree with you, I am sitting now at my warm home, writing the current comment, while people freezing in Gaza. The fact is correct, but I am not sure who is to blame in this situation. As you recommend me to write in Zionist web sites, I recommend you to write in anti-Israeli web site and lobbying for peace to end the Gazan situation. You can start here in this web site.

        Look, Annie, the difference between us is that you see the results of the conflict, blame Israel only and can’t see our side. I don’t see Israel versus Palestine, I see Israel versus a whole Arab world (including Palestine). I see a situation in which since we return to our homeland, most the Arab countries decided not to let us live here in peace, hence the long conflict between us, hence I think we are the main victims here (this is not to say that the Palestinian are not the main victims also as I wrote to you many times). Please, don’t tell me “you are on stolen land” – this situation didn’t begin in 1967 or 1948, but many many years before those years, from almost the time of the creation of the Zionist movement and the return of the Jewish people to his homeland – my home.

      • amigo
        December 13, 2013, 2:28 pm

        “In the short history of our conflict, it is the Palestinian side that rejected and still rejecting most of the solutions like the partition plan in 1947 “The Mahanes.

        Stop peddling this lie.I have posted many times including above the actual facts about the Partition.Here we go again.

        ” In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the “Jewish state” on part of Palestine was only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest. He wrote: “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107 & One Palestine Complete, p. 403)””

        Israel accepted the Partition for less than one day !!!

        “One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel’s future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized “.

        So please Mahane tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

        You should be banned from this site for repeated posting of lies which we have shown to be pure zio propaganda.

        As to Palestinians recognizing Israel as the Jewish State, why should they.

        It is not.It is the nation State of the Israeli people.

      • Susan Abulhawa
        December 14, 2013, 11:24 am

        Cliff,
        I don’t think I’ve ever read a post by you that didn’t make me smile. I don’t know who you are, but I totally like you! You never mince words and your rebuttals always distill matters to their logical elements, with a dash of excellent sarcasm and humor.

      • Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 11:47 am

        I don’t think so. I think you face what you face because your leaders decided to focus on targetting civilians. . . . I mean a Palestinian leader that espouses Mandela’s legacy, a leader that fights for the freedom of your people that has same principles as Mandela.

        I noted the other day that in his autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela pointed out that the conditions in which Martin Luther King struggled were totally different from his own. In the US there was democracy and a Constitution with guarantees of equal rights that offered some protections for non-violent demonstrations.

        He said the South African government had publicly offered to release him from jail on at least ten occasions, including a speech delivered by P.W. Botha to the Parliament in 1985 which called upon Mandela to publicly renounce the use of violence in exchange for his release.

        On each occasion Mandela turned down the offers, while explaining that the government only wanted the onus for violence to rest on his shoulders, while he wanted to reaffirm to the world that members of his movement were only responding to violence done to them.
        http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PP378&pg=PT378#v=onepage&q&f=false

        James Zogby recently noted that unlike Arafat, Mandela inherited a functioning state. http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/unlike-yasser-arafat-mandela-inherited-a-functioning-state

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 14, 2013, 1:51 pm

        @Amigo:

        OK, you bring “declaration” of Begin, which was not in a position to takes national decisions, that show that he didn’t accept the partition plan. Now, please, bring me proofs that the Zionist leadership rejected the plan after 1947. Also, please, I want to see your proofs that the Arabs accepted the plan.

        You should be banned from this site for repeated posting of lies which we have shown to be pure zio propaganda.

        No, Amigo, you didn’t show nothing. It is you and others that telling lies and half-truths, can’t see our side, ignore us and our sufferings, not because you love the Palestinians, but because you hate us. Please, start your lobbying to ban me from this site, Mahane will survive without MW propaganda, as well as the Jewish state of Israel.

      • Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 6:21 pm

        Now, please, bring me proofs that the Zionist leadership rejected the plan after 1947.

        That’s fairly easy since the relevant Zionist representatives testified on the record that they rejected both the UNSCOP majority and minority plans. The spokesmen said that they would only recommend adoption of either (by Vaad Leumi), subject to reservations that have never been withdrawn. They conditioned acceptance on being granted immediate control over immigration and on further discussions involving the constitutional and territorial details of the UN plan. In particular, the spokesmen said that no plan that failed to incorporate Western Jerusalem into the Jewish State would be acceptable. See Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        65 years later, both Israel and the Jewish Agency for Israel are still reserving those same positions on the issue of legal equality of minorities in a “future constitution” and the incorporation of Jerusalem and other territory into the Jewish State. See for example the note in the FRUS which cited the statements of Rabbi Silver to the Ad Hoc Committee when he explained the Jewish Agency’s conditional acceptance, subject to further discussions on the constitutional and territorial provisions. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        If you mean to imply that Rabbi Silver or the Jewish Agency used the term “accepted” in the normal legal sense, then you are mistaken. He made it clear that when he spoke about “the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations” that he only meant the part of the plan regarding the establishment of a Jewish State. In his view, implementation of the whole plan, including the establishment of the Corpus Separatum, the Arab State, and the Economic Union, were neither necessary nor conditions that could even affect the establishment of the Jewish State. He said as much in his full remarks to the Security Council on the subject.
        Silver also made an impassioned plea that same day for permission to organize a Jewish militia, “while there was still time”. This, despite the fact that he represented an Agency that had already spent more than a decade building a far-flung network of fortified settlements and conscripting, organizing, training, and deploying a well-equipped force of at least 60,000 fighters, who were already engaged in combat operations and conquests.
        Among other things on the Security Council agenda latter that day, there was a report from the United Nations’ Palestine Commission [UN document S/663], in which the representative of the United Kingdom was quoted as stating: “. . . the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable.”
        Neither was Silver’s claim that the Zionists had loyally accepted the decision adopted by the General Assembly.

        Ben Gurion told a JNF official in February of 1948 that the Jews didn’t need to buy land anymore, but to conqueror it. He also instructed that ethnically cleansed Arab villages be settled by Jews even before the end of hostilities had occurred. See page 45 of Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of war, wounds of peace, Oxford University Press, 2006.

        On 18 February 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote “We will have only enough troops to defend ourselves, not to take over the country.” Ben Gurion replied:

        If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend, but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination. ” Ben Gurion Archives, Correspondence Section 23.02-1.03.48 Document 59, 26 February 1948. –See page 46 of Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, reprint 2007

        the documentary record shows that the Jews were planning the military conquest of Palestine ever since the mid-1930s, beginning with the Avnir Plan. It also shows that the neighboring Arab states accepted the principle of partition, but not the ethnic cleansing or massacres that occurred after the UN proposed the plan of partition.
        *In “Pan-Arabism Before Nasser” (page 98), Michael Doran reported that Eliyahu Sasson made at least two trips in late 1946 to lobby Egyptian officials regarding the partition of Palestine. Sasson reported that he had been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Secretary General of the Arab League. Doran says that King Faruq and other palace advisers received reports on the partition talks and did nothing to scuttle them.
        *Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics”, University Press of Florida, 2000, says that in the Spring of 1946 Sasson was dispatched to Egypt and that he reported that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, there was a virtually unanimous consensus on partition among the members of the Arab League.
        *Before the Deir Yassin massacre, the US Minister in Saudi Arabia told Secretary Marshall that the Saudi’s and Abdullah of Transjordan had warned the other members of the Arab League (in March of 1948) that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn’t take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression.
        Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami, PhD, is an Oxford University trained historian. He served as Israeli Foreign Minister and Minister of Internal Security and as the head of the School of History at Tel Aviv University. Ben-Ami relates that after the UNSCOP was formed in May of 1947, Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority. He pledged to Mapai’s Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said …”the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders … the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. … We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.”

        Ben Gurion who upon his appointment as ‘defence minister’ in 1946 made it clear that the time had now arrived for a ‘showdown of force, a Jewish military showdown’, had been meticulously preparing for a war he was convinced, ever since the Arab revolt, was inevitable. See page 34 of Scars of War Wounds of Peace. link to books.google.com

      • MahaneYehude1
        December 15, 2013, 12:06 am

        @Hostage:

        I very appreciate your comprehensive summary but I expected to receive such summary full of interpretations but nothing formal. Also, you mix between two different issues: Acceptance of the partition plan in 1947 and dealing with the coming war in 1948. Before I response to you, please, send the first link again since when I try to open I receive Susan Abulhawa article.

      • MHughes976
        December 10, 2013, 3:41 pm

        One might as well ask who is the Palestinian William Tell or Joan of Arc. If there is a problem that needs the attention of someone like Mandela then there must, as you say, Susan, be a problem of racial superiority to be addressed by someone who offers racial equality, amid an atmosphere of bygones being bygones, to a counterpart who will accept the offer, an Israeli de Klerk. Who would that be? Situations are different.

      • seafoid
        December 10, 2013, 4:46 pm

        Who is the Israeli Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Where is the Sabra Sophie Scholl?

      • marc b.
        December 10, 2013, 4:59 pm

        yeah, and who ‘was’ the Zionist Gandhi? The poor Zionists had to settle for Jabotinsky and Stern, and their puny car bombs and booby traps, to fight the occupation. no non-violence for them. too much of a luxury.

      • marc b.
        December 10, 2013, 5:03 pm

        @ mhughes

        it is a particularly stupid question with thousands of political prisoners, peaceful protesters regularly shot, killed, maimed. a Palestinian could shave his head, put on his wire glasses, and place him/herself under the treads of an oncoming merkava, and the frauds would still be whining about the absence of a non-violent resistance. ‘where is the Palestinian Gandhi?’ well, you’ve just killed him, didn’t you? you crushed him, shot him point blank in the face with a tear gas canister.

      • Shmuel
        December 10, 2013, 5:12 pm

        yeah, and who ‘was’ the Zionist Gandhi?

        Overheard one evening at a British officers’ mess:

        Palestine?! Oh my God. Not a Gandhi or a Mandela (whatever that is) in sight! How ever will the regiment survive?

      • seafoid
        December 10, 2013, 5:15 pm

        The Zionist Gandhi was killed by the PFLP.
        He was an advocate of ethnic cleansing.

      • JeffB
        December 10, 2013, 5:16 pm

        @Marc B:

        The Zionist Gandhi: David Ben-Gurion. He led the world to accept the fact that Jews like other peoples should enjoy equal rights to sovereignty. He also lived long enough to help his infant state through its first very rough decade of life.

      • braciole
        December 10, 2013, 6:36 pm

        @JeffB
        What rubbish! David Ben-Gurion was like all Zionists a racist because he believed that Jews like certain other peoples had the right to colonize anywhere they chose and dispossess the people who lived there.

      • tombishop
        December 10, 2013, 8:14 pm

        Israel is a colonial state. You have your metaphors mixed up. There could not be a Zionist Gandhi because Israel is part of Western political, economic, and cultural imperialism which Ghandi fought in India. The inhabitants that the Zionists drove out of Palestine are the oppressed people of the area like the Indians.

      • eGuard
        December 10, 2013, 8:19 pm

        JeffB: The Zionist Gandhi: equal rights for Jews

        LOL. The only place in the world where Jews do not have equal rights, is Israel.

      • ritzl
        December 10, 2013, 9:43 pm

        @JeffB What an absurd thing to say.

        Ben Gurion is better characterized and understood as an anti-Gandhi. Contemporaneously and morally, given the contrarian colonialization, suppression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder and mayhem embraced by Ben Gurion’s persona and politics.

      • yonah fredman
        December 10, 2013, 9:51 pm

        ritzl- How many people do you have to kill before you are guilty of genocide? If you kill one person because of their race is that genocide? The fatalities to the Palestinians caused in the nakba was approximately 13,000 according to an article I just read. Each human being is a complete world and murder is a horrible thing. Just trying to ascertain a definition.

      • Walker
        December 10, 2013, 10:10 pm

        He led the world to accept the fact that Jews like other peoples should enjoy equal rights to sovereignty.

        Unlike Gandhi he posited that his people should enjoy their “equal right to sovereignty” in someone else’s country.

      • Sumud
        December 10, 2013, 11:43 pm

        I’ll bet that figure doesn’t include infant mortality in Palestinian refugee camps – which was still 80% in the early 1950s.

        I have no problem with labelling the Nakba as attempted genocide. Trying to turn “a land without a people for people without a land” into a reality.

        Sick Jewish supremacism.

      • Shingo
        December 11, 2013, 12:11 am

        The fatalities to the Palestinians caused in the nakba was approximately 13,000 according to an article I just read

        There were only 8,000 were killed in what was considered a genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

      • just
        December 11, 2013, 12:28 am

        yonah– the Nakba is capitalized.

        And it is ongoing. Your numbers are wrong– try another “article”.

        thanks.

      • just
        December 11, 2013, 12:37 am

        Drawing any likeness between Ben-Gurion and Gandhi is insulting to Gandhi.

      • yonah fredman
        December 11, 2013, 1:26 am

        just- refer me to another article. Sumud- Please link to a source regarding infant mortality rates in Palestinian refugee camps in the 50’s. I will capitalize Nakba in the future.

      • Walid
        December 11, 2013, 2:08 am

        Just, there are a couple of similarities, but a big difference in the way they operated. Both were the hope and inspiration for their people and both wanted to get rid of the British and both lived at just about the same time. While Gandhi preached passive resistance to drive the British out of India but was sympathetic to the Muslim population living there, Ben Gurion was into murderous terrorist plots to drive the British out of Palestine while organizing the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs. While certain similarities existed, Gandhi symbolized what was good in mankind while Ben Gurion symbolized its pure evil.

        Ritzl saw Ben- Gurion as an anti-Gandhi figure. It was really the other way around; you could say that Gandhi was anti-Ben Gurion figure. During the the intense Arab-Jewish problems in Palestine in 1938, the Zionists pressured Gandhi to express his position on the issue, to which he wrote an article in the Harijan (India), a message that in so many words told the Zionists that they were wrong in the way they were going about it to take the Palestinians’ land from them by way of their mass migration to Palestine and thaey they should stay in the countries where they were then located such as France and UK , and fight for their rights there rather than take another people’s land away from them. His article denouncing Zionism’s racism is on the Internet and can be read and his quotes from it summarized in the following Youtube; it’s ironic how today Zionsits keep refering to Gandhi and the “Palestinians Gandhi” when Gandhi had actually spoken out against Zionism. It’s just as bad when Zionists speak of or eulogize Mandela that was also against the Zionist enterprise that had helped maintain apartheid in South Africa.

        2-minute video of Gandhi’s sound advice to the Zionists, it wasn’t what they were hoping for:

      • Peter in SF
        December 11, 2013, 2:32 am

        JeffB:

        The Zionist Gandhi: David Ben-Gurion. He led the world to accept the fact that Jews like other peoples should enjoy equal rights to sovereignty.

        What an absurd formulation. The world accepts “equal rights to sovereignty” for the inhabitants of defined territorial areas, whether those inhabitants have a collective sense of being “a people” or not. When 37 men and women sign a declaration of independence of a state of a particular “people”, and 37 of the 37 belong to that “people”, and 36 of the 37 are themselves immigrants to the state’s territory, and the majority of the territory’s native-born population are not members of that “people”, and these signatories declare a goal of bringing in other members of their “people” from hundreds or thousands of miles away, the world calls that colonialism.

        You might as well talk about Eugene Terre’Blanche as the Afrikaner Gandhi for trying to get the world to accept the fact that Afrikaners like other peoples should enjoy equal rights to sovereignty. He wanted to set up a separate state for Afrikaners in southern Africa. He failed, but unlike Ben-Gurion and the Zionists, Terre’Blanche and most of his supporters had deep roots in South Africa, their families having lived there for a couple of hundred years.

      • Shmuel
        December 11, 2013, 2:48 am

        The Zionist Gandhi: David Ben-Gurion.

        So “Gandhi” in this context would simply mean successful or potentially-successful revolutionary leader, easily exchangeable with any number of names — say Nasser or Tito or Che Guevara. Do you really think that is what the question “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” means?

      • talknic
        December 11, 2013, 3:04 am

        @yonah fredman “Please link to a source regarding infant mortality rates in Palestinian refugee camps in the 50′s”

        https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=PRyoUvSUBsGN8Qeb74HYBA&gws_rd=cr#q=infant%20mortality%20in%20Palestine%201950&tbm=bks

      • Ecru
        December 11, 2013, 5:44 am

        Drawing any likeness between Ben-Gurion and Attila the Hun would be insulting to Attila.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 7:01 am

        “Just trying to ascertain a definition.”

        And I guess it will depend on who you ask. To your average zionist, the number is: “‘genocide’ begins somewhere less than what the Jews have suffered, but somewhere greater than what we have inflicted on the Palestinians.”

      • JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 7:05 am

        The people that Ben-Gurion represented in his early days were the Jewish people all over the world. The ones who eventually died in the camps. The ones in the arab countries who were eventually driven to Israel. The ones in latin America some of which only recently driven out. Israel was the vehicle by which he set them free.

      • JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 7:38 am

        @Shmuel

        Do you really think that is what the question “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” means?

        No. I think “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” comes from people using the term “colonialism” for Israel. Basically they are asserting that non-violent resistance is what is needed. I think they are wrong.

        There is also another sense that Gandhi recognized common humanity. I’ve seen the news coverage and there were quotes from Mandela from the 1960s, “I reject white oppression. And I reject black oppression.” or “We are one people”. All throughout his tenure he constantly communicated that he recognized the legitimacy of the Afrikaners. Anything from Afrikaners history that was non-racist he embraced enthusiastically. He constantly strove to send the message that he was not looking for Rhodesia.

        I think in some sense the accusation means that as well. And that is something that I think would serve the Palestinians very well, leaders who constantly reassure Jews that he accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish people part f the heritage of Palestine. But that position, is as far as I know, not only not embraced but completely rejected by Palestinian leadership and for that matter Arab leadership. What anti-normalization means is a total rejection of accepting Israel as part of the middle east. This is the popular position.

        I remember talking to a Syrian friend about the original King Faud plan. This was an Arab peace plan that I, at the time a rightwing Zionist, would have said “yes” to. She was shocked that I was so enthusiastic about things like joint transportation projects, cultural exchanges and cross border business would get me to drop the settlements when bombings wouldn’t even get me to consider it.

        I don’t think I was alone in this. The IDF can buy Israel territory and the IDF can buy Israel cold peace. But the IDF can’t buy Israel a warm embrace in the region. The Palestinians could potentially help with that. And I think that’s what’s ultimately meant. That the Palestinians use path of love and negotiate with the best card they are holding.

        Ultimately the Jews faced wholly different problems from the world than the Indians faced from the British and the Palestinians face wholly different problems from the Israelis than the Indians faced. Any analogy is going to be bad.

        But yes I think Ben-Gurion is the closest thing the Jews have to Gandhi even understanding he isn’t that close.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 7:56 am

        “The people that Ben-Gurion represented in his early days were the Jewish people all over the world… Israel was the vehicle by which he set them free.”

        He committed his great crimes on top of the stolen land and dead bodies of the Palestinians. How dare you lump all the world’s Jews in with a criminal like him? Most were not part of the zionist terror.

      • Cliff
        December 11, 2013, 8:02 am

        I agree Wondering Jew. By that metric you Zionists have not only committed genocide against the Palestinians but of course mass ethnic cleansing.

        You belong in the Hague not in Palestine.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 8:34 am

        There is also another sense that Gandhi recognized common humanity….All throughout his tenure he constantly communicated that he recognized the legitimacy of the Afrikaners. Anything from Afrikaners history that was non-racist he embraced enthusiastically.

        I think in some sense the accusation means that as well. And that is something that I think would serve the Palestinians very well, leaders who constantly reassure Jews that he accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish people part f the heritage of Palestine.

        What nonsense. The problem isn’t that the Palestinians aren’t acting like Mandela, it’s that the zionists aren’t acting like the Afrikaners.
        -Mandela did not deal with an opposition that called the blacks of South Africa an invented people; the Palestinians do.
        -Mandela did not deal with an opposition that claims that their “right” to the land is ordained by God; the Palestinians do.
        -Mandela did not deal with an opposition that claimed that the land was exclusively for not only those Afrikaners in South Africa, but millions upon millions more in other lands; the Palestinians do.

        “But that position, is as far as I know, not only not embraced but completely rejected by Palestinian leadership and for that matter Arab leadership.”

        What nonsense. The Arabs have promised the israelis full normalization if they would accept the Arab Peace Plan, but the Jews reject it fully, because it would require them to accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian people in Palestine.

        “I remember talking to a Syrian friend about the original King Faud plan. This was an Arab peace plan that I, at the time a rightwing Zionist, would have said “yes” to.”

        And the fact that the israeli government and people constantly reject overtures by the Arabs that give them everything that they claim they want so long as they are required to treat the Palestinians with decency and respect should tell you all you need to know about the kind of people the zionists put forth as their leaders.

        “Ultimately the Jews faced wholly different problems from the world than the Indians faced from the British”

        Bad analogy. The israelis in this case are like the British, not the Indians.

        “But yes I think Ben-Gurion is the closest thing the Jews have to Gandhi even understanding he isn’t that close.”

        It’s like saying that Mussolini and Gandhi are comparable.

      • Shmuel
        December 11, 2013, 9:29 am

        Jeff,

        Marc’s comment about a “Zionist Gandhi” was a joke. The circumstances of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine in no way resembled those of Indians under British rule (or black South Africans under Apartheid – as long as we’re treating Gandhi and Mandela as if they were interchangeable). There may or may not have been a “need” for a nationalist leader like BG, but there was certainly no “need” for a Gandhi (or a Mandela).

        Having said that, the question “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi/Mandela/MLK?” is generally voiced by supporters of Israel who reject all modes of Palestinian struggle – violent and non-violent – against oppression they downplay or deny altogether. The question serves to blame Palestinians for their own condition, and to provide an alibi for Israeli intransigence, along Ehud Barak’s “no partner” lines (see e.g. yesterday’s unsigned editorial on the subject in Haaretz).

        There is something else at play here, however, and that is the notion (directly related to the denial of historical and ongoing oppression) that the entire issue is one of conflict, to be resolved through compromise, leadership, confidence-building, generosity and even “love”. Yes, there is a conflict here that needs to be resolved through negotiation, but there is also oppression, domination and a rejection of the fundamental humanity not of the oppressor (which takes what it wants anyway), but of the oppressed. Without such recognition, there can be no real basis for negotiation. A Palestinian Gandhi or Mandela would demand no less.

      • Sumud
        December 11, 2013, 10:03 am

        Yonah – to paraphrase ‘only 1 in 5 will survive to live to 6 months’.

        Today the term “infant mortality” means number of deaths of children per thousand before the age of 1 year, so the actual infant mortality rate of the Palestinian refugees must have been higher even than 80% – many more would have died between 6 months and 12 months of age.

        Sands of Sorrow (1950)

        I won’t provide a time, you’ll have to watch yourself, about half hour.

      • ritzl
        December 11, 2013, 10:23 am

        @yonah How many people must you kill for it to be genocide? None, if the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition is the operative one (Article 2).

        http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

        But you’re right. Killing a lot of people in pursuit of “(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” does bolster the case a bit.

        For you it’s pick a number. For me it’s the ruthless intent/calculation/actions put into the physical destruction of Palestinian life, ongoing.

      • ritzl
        December 11, 2013, 10:25 am

        @Walid As you say, it’s an imperfect comparison. I struggled with which way to flip it. You said it better…

      • Peter in SF
        December 11, 2013, 1:03 pm

        And that is something that I think would serve the Palestinians very well, leaders who constantly reassure Jews that he accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish people part f the heritage of Palestine. But that position, is as far as I know, not only not embraced but completely rejected by Palestinian leadership and for that matter Arab leadership.

        The PLO in its official statements does accept the legitimacy of Jewish people as part of the heritage of Palestine. Even Hamas does. They just don’t accept the legitimacy of Zionists, who started arriving around 130 years ago and ended up taking over the place, to the detriment of the non-Jewish population.

        It’s the same distinction as there was in the region a thousand years ago between recognizing the legitimacy of Christians in Palestine and recognizing the legitimacy of Crusaders.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 1:47 pm

        “It’s the same distinction as there was in the region a thousand years ago between recognizing the legitimacy of Christians in Palestine and recognizing the legitimacy of Crusaders.”

        Awesome analogy. Right on.

      • JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 4:34 pm

        @Peter —

        So that’s like what 1% of the population they recognize the legitimacy of? Close enough to 0, that it presents a fundamentally different approach than Mandela’s and that was my point. Mandela always considered Afrikaners as part of South Africa he never called the colonizers the way you are with your analogy to crusaders.

        The crusader states when they fell, the population was mostly ethnically cleansed. So if you use those analogies then the implications is the old Jewish “want to push us into the sea” are 100% correct. The fact that they would let say 1% of the population live on as an oppressed minority in a muslim state doesn’t meaningfully change that.

      • JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 4:57 pm

        @Shmuel —

        Yes, there is a conflict here that needs to be resolved through negotiation, but there is also oppression, domination and a rejection of the fundamental humanity not of the oppressor (which takes what it wants anyway), but of the oppressed.

        Sorry but I think the rejection of the fundamental humanity of the “oppressor” is what led to the rejection of it with regard to the oppressed, and continues to do so. Language like “oppressor” / “oppressed” isn’t all that helpful IMHO either. By using humanizing language negotiation becomes easier.

        Use the word “crusader” and Israel is just an implant from Europe and like the crusader states will fall within two centuries.
        Use the word “colonizer” and Israel is just a western power that can be overcome by popular struggle (i.e. Ghandi).
        Use the word “immigrant” or “mass migration” and like Ghandi you are starting to deal with the reality of the situation.

        The lack of humanity coming from the Arab side, is destructive to their interests. Time and time again their rhetoric has caused them miscalculate. And this BTW is one of the core ideas of Ghandi, one that the Palestinians have rejected, to not engage in demonization because it prevents one from seeing reality. Ghandi humanized the British. And because he humanized the British he was able to appeal to their ethics. Same as Mandela.

        Take for example 1947. The Arabs used the crusader / colonizer language. When they actually engaged the Jews what they discovered was an army with sky high moral fighting for their lives. The Jews 1% of their population 47-9 (on par with losses in the US civil war for example, much higher than any other American war) and never even considered surrender. Any colonial army would have given up with 1/2 maybe even a 1/10th those loses. If they had used humanizing language they would have understood the Jews were fighting for their lives, while their own armies moral was piss poor since their soldiers were fighting for a people they didn’t care much about. Given that both sides equipment wise had a relatively on par army the willingness to endure massive causalities guaranteed Jewish victory. The Arabs would have understood that, they wouldn’t have walked into a buzz saw and from there history is totally different.

        Oppressor / Oppressed dichotomies is the language of NGOs and childish at that, like calling someone a fart-head. It is not the language of people ready to run a state.

        I don’t know if the Palestinians have any more plays. Camp David may have been their last chance. But if they do have more plays that kind of thinking does nothing but help them make bad ones.

      • Shingo
        December 11, 2013, 5:05 pm

        The people that Ben-Gurion represented in his early days were the Jewish people all over the world.

        False. Most Jewish people were opposed to the idea of a Jewish state, so he clearly did not represented the Jewish people all over the world.

        Israel was the vehicle by which he set them free.

        At the expense of Paletinians.

        Thus he was the anti Gandhi.

      • Shingo
        December 11, 2013, 5:25 pm

        Use the word “immigrant” or “mass migration” and like Ghandi you are starting to deal with the reality of the situation.

        No, the worlds are “unsustainable mass migration” and “colonizer” and “conqueror”.

        The lack of humanity coming from the Arab side, is destructive to their interests.

        Perhaps but it is also immaterial. The Zionists agenda would have proceeded with or without it.

        And this BTW is one of the core ideas of Ghandi, one that the Palestinians have rejected, to not engage in demonization because it prevents one from seeing reality.

        Wrong. The reality that Israel is a fascist, colonizing, ethnocentric supremacist state, is impossible to ignore.

        Ghandi humanized the British. And because he humanized the British he was able to appeal to their ethics. Same as Mandela.

        But that’s not what Ben Gurion did at all. Also, Ghandi had the benefit of representing a movement of people from within a country as opposed to exiles and refugees. Has Israel not expelled the Palestinians in such large numbers, then the Palestinians could have easily taken Gandhi’s approach and simply used their demographic majority to their advantage.

        Mandela used violence in his early years and his use of violence is what gained him notoriety. And like Gandhi, he was able to lead a population that was a still a majority within their land, and had not been expelled.

        After all, had Israel not expelled the Palestinians, there would be no Israel as we know it. All the Palestinians would have had to do was call for democratic elections and they would have prevailed.

        In fact, that was one of the argument Ben Gurion put forward before the Knesset opposing the return of the refugees – that they would be a majority and that democratic elections would put them in power.

        The Zionists would have understood that.

        Take for example 1947. The Arabs used the crusader / colonizer language.

        Which was absolutely correct and proven by subsequent events. It was also people like Ben Gurion that used crusader / colonizer language. Remember, he said “we must expel the Arabs and take their place”. Is that not crusader / colonizer language.?

        When they actually engaged the Jews what they discovered was an army with sky high moral fighting for their lives.

        Rubbish. They discovered was an army with a supremacist agenda who was hell bent on stealing their land and expelling them. They were not fighting for their lives, they were fighting to take more land.

        They came across moral degenerates like Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Pundak, who in an interview on IDF Radio, confirmed that forces under his command razed Arab villages in 1948.

        “My conscience is at ease with that, because if we hadn’t done so, then there would be no state by now. There would be a million more Arabs,”
        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168912#.UmMD6vlmiHZ

        They never had to consider surrender because they were never threatened or in any danger of defeat. When Britain’s General officer commanding in Palestine, General John D’ Arcy, was asked about the military situation crafty the pull-out of the British forces, he said:

        “The Haganah will take over all of Palestine. They could hold it against the entire Arab world.”

        So the Palestinians and Arabs never stood a chance. So no, the Jews were not fighting for their lives at all. After all, the fighting took place not in Israel,. bit Arab territory, so the Jews were never on the defensive.

        Oppressor / Oppressed dichotomies is perfectly accurate and appropriate. The only people who can;t stomach it are those that can’t bear to be reminded of the facts and the reality on the ground.

        Stop lying and recycling your shop worn hasbara here Jeff. We’ve heard it all before as well as your faux humanism and selective morality.

      • hophmi
        December 11, 2013, 5:45 pm

        “Mandela did not deal with an opposition that called the blacks of South Africa an invented people; the Palestinians do.”

        Oh, BS. Israeli leaders are not referring to Palestinians as “invented,” and to the extent that it shows up in the rhetoric once in awhile, it is more than reciprocated by Palestinian claims denying Jewish history.

        “Mandela did not deal with an opposition that claims that their “right” to the land is ordained by God; the Palestinians do.”

        And of course, no Palestinians ever base their claims on religion in any way. Don’t act like the sole of the Israeli claim is based on G-d. That’s a lie.

        “Mandela did not deal with an opposition that claimed that the land was exclusively for not only those Afrikaners in South Africa, but millions upon millions more in other lands; the Palestinians do.”

        Neither do the Palestinians, who comprise 20% of the people within the Green Line.

        “The Arabs have promised the israelis full normalization if they would accept the Arab Peace Plan”

        Yes, and I promise you that if you utter the words dinky-rinky-doo, gold will fall from the sky. Who cares what the Arabs promise? They promise their people stuff every day that doesn’t happen. What is the promise worth? That’s the question.

        “but the Jews reject it fully”

        Untrue.

        “And the fact that the israeli government and people constantly reject overtures by the Arabs that give them everything that they claim they want ”

        Excuse me. The Arab peace plan contains clauses calling for a so-called right of return for refugees in conjunction with GA resolution 194. That’s not giving the Israeli everything they want.

        “It’s like saying that Mussolini and Gandhi are comparable.”

        So Ben-Gurion’s a fascist now. Godwin’s law.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 11, 2013, 7:20 pm

        “Ghandi”

        Oh, I love it when you go on and on and on and on with your encyclopedic knowledge of the man and his philosophy and you can’t manage to spell “Gandhi” right. Not even once.

        “The lack of humanity coming from the Arab side, is destructive to their interests.”

        BS. You’re blaming the victim, nothing more.

        “And this BTW is one of the core ideas of Ghandi, one that the Palestinians have rejected, to not engage in demonization because it prevents one from seeing reality. Ghandi humanized the British. And because he humanized the British he was able to appeal to their ethics. Same as Mandela.”

        The issue here isn’t whether the Arabs “humanized” the zionists and it certainly had nothing to do with the result of the conflict. The issue is not whether the victim “humanized” the attacker, but whether the attacker “humanizes” the victim.

        The Jews could have humanized the Nazis all day long and it wouldn’t have made a difference; the Nazis did not believe the Jews had rights which needed to be respected and acted accordingly. How successful would Mr. Gandhi have been against the Nazis?

        African-Americans in the South could humanize slaveowners and later the Klan and nothing would have been different, because the slaveowners and the Klan did not believe the African-Americans had rights which needed to be respected and acted accordingly. How successful would Mr. Mandela have been at a Klan lynching?

        By contrast, the British in India and the Afrikaners in South Africa, for all their oppressions, humanized their victims. They eventually recognized that there were rights that the Indians and the Black Africans had that had to be respected.

        The Palestinians have not been so fortunate. Rather, they face a foe that has not, even once in the over one hundred years it has existed, recognized that the Palestinian people have rights in their own land which must be respected. Rather, the zionists have plotted, schemed and acted to steal that land, to ethnically cleanse it of its inhabitants when it was not outright murdering them, in order to make for themselves their European colony on Middle Eastern land.

        Yeah, I’ve no doubt that zionists don’t like words like “oppressor” and “crusader” and “colonist.” If the shoe fits…

      • JeffB
        December 11, 2013, 9:10 pm

        @Shingo

        Most of your other post is you just saying false and then asserting the opposite but this deserves a response:

        False. Most Jewish people were opposed to the idea of a Jewish state, so he clearly did not represented the Jewish people all over the world.

        Most Jewish people were opposed to the idea of moving to a Jewish state personally. I don’t know of any good study that shows they opposed the idea in theory. If there is evidence present it. Certainly most Jews thought Palestine was silly and the viable one early on, Birobidzhan which was far less hospitable and the surrounding areas had something like 30k supporters who moved there.

        That being said the opinions of Jews in the early years aren’t relevant. Today they agree with Ben-Gurion. Today his positions are fully endorsed. Today Israel has just under 1/2 the jewish population living in it, and just under 1/2 living in an incredibly pro-zionist state strongly supporting it. So Ben-Gurion won the battle of Jewish opinion utterly and completely.

        Where is Israel meaningfully opposed by Jews? The 3rd most populous country (France) Jews have fled the left over anti-Zionism. The 4th most populous (Canada) Jews have US style opinions. The 5th (the UK) the Jews are quiet. But when surveyed they are incredibly Zionist:
        90% see it as the “ancestral homeland” of the Jewish people,
        86% feel that Jews have a special responsibility for its survival
        etc…

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 1:45 am

        Oppressor / Oppressed dichotomies is the language of NGOs and childish at that, like calling someone a fart-head. It is not the language of people ready to run a state.

        Oppressed: Stop stealing my land and water and livelihood. Stop inflicting collective punishment on me and denying me my basic freedoms and human rights.

        Oppressor: That’s so childish. First humanise me and then we’ll talk.

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 6:06 am

        Nicely put Shmuel ,

        Or put another way, picture the IDF soldier with his boot on the neck of the Palestinian and rifle pointed at his head screaming, “I’m the victim here”!!

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 6:13 am

        Most of your other post is you just saying false and then asserting the opposite but this deserves a response:

        No, of your other post is me just saying false and then correcting you.

        Most Jewish people were opposed to the idea of moving to a Jewish state personally.

        No, they were opposed to the very idea of a Jewish state. That included the Jews in Palestine, who clearly didn’t have to concern themselves with moving there.

        I don’t know of any good study that shows they opposed the idea in theory.

        What do you mean good study? When Herzl came up with his theory, the majority of the world’s Jews considered him nuts. As Shlomo Ben Ai documents in his book, “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace”, in 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews in Palestine , and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists.

        That being said the opinions of Jews in the early years aren’t relevant.

        Of course they are, because if the majority of Jews were opposed to the idea of a Jewish State, then Ben Gurion could not possibly have been considered a Gandhi symbol or a symbol of their freedom. And no, Ben-Gurion did not win the battle of Jewish opinion utterly and completely. It was not until the 1967 war that Israel enjoyed majority support among Jews.

      • RoHa
        December 12, 2013, 6:45 am

        “By contrast, the British in India … for all their oppressions, humanized their victims.”

        The British never intended to drive the Indians out of India. They learned the languages and culture of India (no promotion in either the Army or the Indian Civil without fluency in the local language) and regarded themselves (not always inaccurately) as working for the benefit of the Indians as well as the British Empire.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 6:47 am

        @Shmuel —

        JeffB: Oppressor / Oppressed dichotomies is the language of NGOs and childish at that, like calling someone a fart-head. It is not the language of people ready to run a state.

        Oppressed: Stop stealing my land and water and livelihood. Stop inflicting collective punishment on me and denying me my basic freedoms and human rights.

        Oppressor: That’s so childish. First humanise me and then we’ll talk.

        That was funny, I”ll score you two points. But what the oppressor says in your dialogue is still true. As a weaker people next to a dominant people your best situation is to have affection on both sides. It is kinda bad for you when the strong side doesn’t like weak side much. It can be deadly when the strong side thinks the weak side doesn’t like them (i.e. is a threat).

        The weak side knows what will happen if they are at the mercy of the strong side, because they already are. The strong side does not know what happens if lay down their defenses. It is up to the weak side to tell them and make them believe it will be safe. Otherwise the logical, safe course of action is to oppress them.

        We are all descended from the winners of many thousands of generations of these replacement conflicts over the trillion generations of life on the planet.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 6:55 am

        @Shingo

        What do you mean good study? When Herzl came up with his theory, the majority of the world’s Jews considered him nuts. As Shlomo Ben Ai documents in his book, “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace”, in 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews in Palestine , and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists.

        Believing something can’t be achieved and being opposed to what would happen if it could be achieved are very different. For example most Americans didn’t believe the Kennedy would achieve his goal of a manned move landing with 10 years of his call to action. They fully supported the goal however despite this.

        As for Jews in Palestine in 1906 they probably weren’t Zionists. Zionism arose first among European Jews. Zionism as it existed in Palestine was not a movement for the Sephardic Jews in all but name. The issue of Sephardic Jews really wasn’t part of the program until after the state was established. Once Israel / Zionism did start to focus on them they became Zionists. Which I think shows they did support the idea once the option was offered to them. While Sephardic Jews didn’t become Zionists until the 1950s now they are far more unapologetically Zionist than the Western European Ashkenazi. They certainly don’t agree with your characterization they had it good, they view themselves as an oppressed people rescued by Israel.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 7:02 am

        @RoHa —

        The British never intended to drive the Indians out of India. They learned the languages and culture of India (no promotion in either the Army or the Indian Civil without fluency in the local language) and regarded themselves (not always inaccurately) as working for the benefit of the Indians as well as the British Empire.

        Agree completely. Let me do you one better. The British didn’t really even want to control India. Ultimately was getting some particular stuff (cotton, opium…) out of India, control was incidental to their objective. Conversely the Israelis in general don’t want any stuff, nor control over the Palestinians. At this point they just want them to leave.

        I’d agree, the situations are totally different. The Palestinians face a much worse threat. And direct analogies to Gandhi are silly. That being said though the gain of competent Palestinian leadership in a situation where they aren’t going to be able to stop the Israelis from drive them out, is to change Israeli opinion so that they don’t want to drive them out. And that means to start looking at the world from the Israeli point of view and identifying with them.

        In some sense, Israel exists because the oppressed Jews of Europe were able to identify with the hassles and annoyances their Christian oppressors faced in running their colonies. I’m not saying identification of the “oppressed” with the “oppressor” is tasteful or easy. I’m saying it is effective and often vital for success.

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 7:05 am

        Believing something can’t be achieved and being opposed to what would happen if it could be achieved are very different.

        I was referring to the latter. Herzl’s idea was not rejected because it did not seem achievable, but because it was a considered a bad and dangerous idea.

        Once Israel / Zionism did start to focus on them they became Zionists. Which I think shows they did support the idea once the option was offered to them.

        They supported the idea after they were brainwashed into believing that they were not safe anywhere but in Israel. That is why they later viewed themselves as an oppressed people rescued by Israel. Of course, they were not rescued at all.

        Many who migrated to Israel regretted doing so.

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 7:06 am

        The strong side does not know what happens if lay down their defenses. It is up to the weak side to tell them and make them believe it will be safe. Otherwise the logical, safe course of action is to oppress them.

        So according to your theory, the Nazis would have freed the Jews from the death camps if only the Jews had assured them they would not seek retribution?

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 7:14 am

        The strong side does not know what happens if lay down their defenses. It is up to the weak side to tell them and make them believe it will be safe. Otherwise the logical, safe course of action is to oppress them.

        Reminds me of Jerry Haber’s tale of Pete and Paul:

        Once upon a time, two small boys, Pete and Paul, were fighting over a garment. Pete grabbed the garment, wrestled Paul to the ground, and sat on him, at first for days, then for months, finally for years. Pete had nothing against Paul personally. He even made sure that he had enough to eat and drink to stay alive. But Pete was afraid to get off Paul’s stomach, because whenever he did, Paul would start clawing at him, and Pete was scared, for himself and for the garment. He was even willing to share a bit of the garment with Paul – he certainly did not stand to gain by having to take care of Paul — but how could he be sure that Paul wouldn’t use the opportunity to grab the garment from him, or worse, sit on him?

        Whenever an onlooker started to rebuke Pete for sitting on Paul, he would say, “Why are you picking on me ? I am only sitting on the kid; he’s not dead or nothin… If you turn around, you will see plenty of people doing worse things.” And he was right; it was an awful neighborhood. Pete began to suspect that anybody who criticized him was really a friend or relative of Paul, or at least unwittingly gave him support. Because if he really cared about crime, why was he just going after Pete?

        Pete was also right to be afraid of Paul. You see, Paul hated Pete and, aside from his getting his freedom and the garment, he would love nothing more than to see Pete dead for what he had suffered all these years. But instead of sending somebody for the police, or seeking outside help, of which he was always suspicious, Pete just kept sitting there on Paul.

        And there he sits, to this day: holding on to the garment and defending himself from the accusations of the onlookers by saying, “Hey, I am willing to let the guy up, provided that he….”

        http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2007/09/singling-out-israel-for-moral.html

      • Shingo
        December 12, 2013, 7:46 am

        Great example Shmuel,

        It also reminds me of those who say Iran is threat because they might close the Straight of Hormuz if they are attacked. In other words, they are a threat because we might attack them.

      • eljay
        December 12, 2013, 8:26 am

        >> The weak side knows what will happen if they are at the mercy of the strong side, because they already are. The strong side does not know what happens if lay down their defenses. It is up to the weak side to tell them and make them believe it will be safe. Otherwise the logical, safe course of action is to oppress them.

        1. Ah, yes, it’s always the victim’s fault that the rapist continues to keep her shackled in his basement and that he rapes her on a regular basis. He’d love to stop acting immorally and unjustly, but until she tells him “it will be safe”, the logical course of action is to continue to keep her captive and to rape her.

        2. What does “it will be safe” mean? Does it mean that the weak side will not try to harm the strong side? Or does it mean that the weak side will not attempt to seek justice against the strong side and to hold the strong side accountable for its crimes? The former I can agree with. The latter is something only an immoral person would suggest.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 8:49 am

        @Shingo

        So according to your theory, the Nazis would have freed the Jews from the death camps if only the Jews had assured them they would not seek retribution?

        I know you meant this to be extreme, but sort of yes, though you need to replace Nazi with German. If you read Nazi propaganda the Nazis actually portray themselves as defending the Germans from the Jews. The entire basis by which they sold the Germans on the early phases of the holocaust was defensive. Most Germans all throughout the war believed the Jews were being isolated and then “sent east” for their protection.

        I was referring to the latter. Herzl’s idea was not rejected because it did not seem achievable, but because it was a considered a bad and dangerous idea.

        I don’t see any evidence for that. I can’t think of many people participating in the anti-Zionist debates who were making the case that a Jewish state in and of itself would be bad. Heck, that’s what Jews were praying for literally.

        Where do you find that case being made, much being the dominant narrative?

        They supported the idea after they were brainwashed into believing that they were not safe anywhere but in Israel.

        How did Zionists brainwash people in other countries they didn’t control and had limited contact? Brainwashing requires extensive contact and control. I find your side tend to use the term “brainwash” as a synonym for “made an argument that X found convincing that I don’t agree with”. The Zionists created awareness among the Sephardic populations about systematic persecution. The Arab governments and populations decided in the 1950s to induce an upsurge in persecution and this led to mass flight to Israel and a change in political orientation. That’s politics not brainwashing.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 9:02 am

        @Shmuel —

        Reminds me of Jerry Haber’s tale of Pete and Paul: [snip]

        Exactly!

        ____

        @Eljay —

        The discussion is over effectiveness, what works and what doesn’t. If you want to talk justice, justice is impossible. The Palestinians are in a situation similar to someone hit by a drunk driver and maimed. Nothing that can ever possible be done is just for them. There is no fair amount of reparations. You can pick any number from trivial to completely unpayable and none of them are intrinsically just.

        And what does it mean to hold a society responsible for their crimes? Let’s take an example. I don’t agree with the Northern Frances crimes in the Albigensian Crusade. I find it really really morally offensive. OK, in your system of collective punishment of societies what should I do to the inhabitants of Paris or Tours to make them pay for their crimes?

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 9:17 am

        I don’t see any evidence for that. I can’t think of many people participating in the anti-Zionist debates who were making the case that a Jewish state in and of itself would be bad.

        Except for the Orthodox, neo-Orthodox, Reform, socialists, assimilationists and even some of the Zionists (did I forget anybody?)

        Heck, that’s what Jews were praying for literally.

        No, they were praying “May our eyes behold Your return in mercy to Zion” — not “May we have a modern nation state in Palestine, as envisaged by Theodor Herzl”.

        See Moritz Gudemann’s Nationaljudenthum, the letter published by the “Protestrabbiner” (based on the virtually unanimous decision of the Association of German Rabbis), the Or layeshorim anthology (mostly Eastern European, but with an important contribution by British Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler), etc.

        On secular and assimilationist opposition to Zionism, see e.g. Robert Wistrich, “Zionism and its ‘Assimilationist’ Critics’ (1897-1948)”, Jewish Social Studies, vol. 4, no. 2 (Winter 1998): 59–111.

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 9:27 am

        If you read Nazi propaganda the Nazis actually portray themselves as defending the Germans from the Jews. The entire basis by which they sold the Germans on the early phases of the holocaust was defensive.

        Of course that’s what they said, and maybe even believed, but is that really where you want to go with your onus-on-the-victim/logical-oppression argument?

      • andrew r
        December 12, 2013, 9:33 am

        Those fatalities may not include the “infiltrators” shot by the IDF border guards during the first half of the 1950’s and killed by mines laid along the armistice boundary. Morris estimates in Israel’s Border Wars and Righteous Victims (Which duplicates much of that material and is easy to find cheap) that 2,700 to 5,000 Palestinians were killed attempting to reenter Israel (p. 274).

        I think one of the reasons Israel allowed a certain number of Palestinians to remain in the Green Line after 1948 is that at some point it was easier to keep tabs on those deemed less dangerous (The Christians of Illabun and Iqirt, though the latter village was demolished on Christmas day 1951) than to try and expel every last individual. The only reason Israel is 20% Arab today is a logistical failure, not because it has a conscience as that stupid Richard Cohen article in WP would have you believe.

      • eljay
        December 12, 2013, 9:46 am

        >> If you want to talk justice, justice is impossible. The Palestinians are in a situation similar to someone hit by a drunk driver and maimed. Nothing that can ever possible be done is just for them.

        Although you’ve neatly resolved the I-P crisis – to the advantage of Zio-supremacists, no surprise there – I have no doubt that Palestinains would beg to differ with your assertion.

      • Sibiriak
        December 12, 2013, 9:50 am

        JeffB:

        It is up to the weak side to tell them and make them believe it will be safe. Otherwise the logical, safe course of action is to oppress them.

        We are all descended from the winners of many thousands of generations of these replacement conflicts over the trillion generations of life on the planet.

        Ah, Israel–red in tooth and claw. Congratulations, you are doing a beautiful job of moral delegitimization.

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 12, 2013, 9:59 am

        So according to your theory, the Nazis would have freed the Jews from the death camps if only the Jews had assured them they would not seek retribution?

        I know you meant this to be extreme, but sort of yes, though you need to replace Nazi with German. If you read Nazi propaganda the Nazis actually portray themselves as defending the Germans from the Jews. The entire basis by which they sold the Germans on the early phases of the holocaust was defensive. Most Germans all throughout the war believed the Jews were being isolated and then “sent east” for their protection.

        First, this is clearly Holocaust denial: claiming that the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust because they didn’t “humanize” the Germans. This is clearly a post that should lead to a summary banning.

        Second, this is ignorant gibberish and historically ignorant. Nothing that the Jews could have done nor anything that the Germans (as contrasted to the Nazis) could have done would have changed anything. The Nazi state did not work that way.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 11:02 am

        @Shmuel

        Except for the Orthodox, neo-Orthodox, Reform, socialists, assimilationists and even some of the Zionists (did I forget anybody?)

        That’s obviously not true. For example Truman in for the 1948 election felt he had to back Israel because American Jews were Zionist and likely to go with Dewey over it. If there had genuinely been opposition as was being claimed that dynamic wouldn’t have played out. Eisenhower had the same opinion that outside of New York City most Jews were anti-Zionists and thus didn’t care much about taking an anti-Israel position starting in 1953. The degree of Jewish support for Democrats in 1954 (when Jews became loyal democratic voters) and then the poll results before the 1956 election show the opposite.

        The very first paragraph in Zionism and it’s Liberal Critics starts with the idea that “nothing could be done about the historical process that led to the dispersal of the Jews.” That it was too late, not that the process by which nations formed was so objectionable that Jews would prefer to be powerless pawns in Christian countries.

        “May our eyes behold Your return in mercy to Zion” — not “May we have a modern nation state in Palestine, as envisaged by Theodor Herzl”.

        Where is Tzion? It is just another name for Jerusalem. And people weren’t praying for “your return”? What would that even me, HaShem building a house in Jerusalem. There were praying for their return.

        Let us see the consolation of Zion Your city, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem Your holy city, for You are the Master of [all] salvations and the Master of [all] consolations.

        or in other prayers another example:

        Rebuild Jerusalem the holy city speedily in our days. Blessed are You, L-rd, who in His mercy rebuilds Jerusalem.

        I could easily find a 1/2 dozen like that. Yes, Jews were praying for a state in Palestine.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 11:13 am

        @Walker —

        Gandhi’s own ethnicity in Gujarat colonized huge chunks of India starting around 700 BCE. India is Gandhi’s country only because of colonization otherwise. All countries are someone else’s country.

        The Jat, one the key the key ethic groups that supported Gandhi in Northern India originated in Turkey and pushed the locals out. And that’s one of the later ones we know the most about because that migration was happening all during the early parts of the British migration.

        No one is a native of anywhere. We are all living where we live because of murder and usurpation

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 11:37 am

        @Shmuel —

        Of course that’s what they said, and maybe even believed, but is that really where you want to go with your onus-on-the-victim/logical-oppression argument?

        Where I want to go is to stop using words like “onus” and “victim” which implies a responsibility. And frankly reduces the whole discussion to silly name calling. I really meant what I said that “victim” is just hard left for “good guys” and “oppressor” is no more informative than other insults like “farthead”. It is just leftwing name calling. It doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t say anything Thinking in those terms is completely not helpful.

        The Jews know that better than anyone. During their few centuries of oppression and especially in the 1930s leading to the holocaust they had a lot of people say really nice stuff about them and say mean stuff about the Nazis in their defense. Cornelius Vanderbilt IV (a great guy btw for doing this) had a huge microphone to advertise how much he really disliked what Hitler was doing. He even made a really good movie about one a huge farthead Hitler and Nazis were and lots of people bought tickets to those movies. What Vanderbilt and all those pro-Jewish groups never did was offer Hitler an alternative he found acceptable. (Incidentally Ben-Gurion did but the British support for the Arab blockade prevented that solution from being implemented).

        The Jews of Eastern Europe that survived learned from that. You are dead all the same if your killers are “righteous defenders of Christendom” or “fartheads”.

        What I think is valuable is is that you stop thinking in those terms all together.
        The Israelis are a nation with strategic objectives X1, X2, X3… They are facing the Palestinians a nation with strategic objectives Y1, Y2, Y3…. and have a serious discussion from there.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2013, 11:50 am

        “oppressor” is no more informative than other insults like “farthead”. It is just leftwing name calling…. Jews know that better than anyone. During their few centuries of oppression ….

        oh my. it sounds like you can use words like oppression when jews are the victims but not the oppressors?

      • Woody Tanaka
        December 12, 2013, 11:50 am

        “What Vanderbilt and all those pro-Jewish groups never did was offer Hitler an alternative he found acceptable.”

        And yet again, JeffB engages in Holocaust denial and is permitted to post here.

        Please delete JeffB’s account or delete mine. If he’s permitted to post this crap here, I’ve no interest in posting here at all.

        Thanks.

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 11:53 am

        That’s obviously not true. For example Truman in for the 1948

        How did you get to 1948, ’53, 54′, 56? The time-frame we were discussing was “Ben-Gurion’s early days”, prior to the Holocaust (you refer to “the ones who eventually died in the camps”).

        The very first paragraph in Zionism and it’s Liberal Critics

        Good try, but that’s not the article I cited (“Assimilationist” not “Liberal”, Wistrich not Laqueur, Jewish Social Studies not Journal of Contemporary History).

        I could easily find a 1/2 dozen like that

        And you would anachronistically mangle them in precisely the same way. The traditional prayers are eschatological. The creation of a modern nation-state was not only beside the point, but its fundamental incompatibility with traditional concepts of redemption and the messianic age had to be smoothed over with a little trick called “athalta de-ge’ulah” (“beginning of redemption”).

        We’ll leave out the Reform for a moment, because they rejected the very notion of national redemption (and changed the prayers accordingly), but are you seriously suggesting that the chief rabbi of Vienna, the chief rabbi of the British Empire, the Association of German Rabbis (which included Orthodox as well as Reform rabbis), and the many illustrious East-European scholars who opposed the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine, didn’t understand their prayers? It’s a shame you don’t do time-travel, or you could go back and set them straight.

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 12:15 pm

        Where I want to go is to stop using words like “onus” and “victim”

        You remind me of Bibi’s “Spitting Image” puppet, who would answer every question with a “that’s not the question” and go on to say whatever he wanted.

        It is obviously more comfortable for Israel to continue violating Palestinian rights, while paying lip-service to a negotiated solution. For some strange reason, the Palestinians don’t see it that way – your kind concern for their welfare (if only they would humanise their … um … friends) notwithstanding.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2013, 12:24 pm

        If you read Nazi propaganda the Nazis actually portray themselves as defending the Germans from the Jews. The entire basis by which they sold the Germans on the early phases of the holocaust was defensive.

        so by this same logic you agree zionist propaganda portrays themselves as defending jews from palestinians and the entire basis by which they sell the world on ethnic cleansing is defensive.

        and how do you suggest ending that? having zionists continue on as the oppressing ethnic cleansers until palestinians convince them of something?

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 12:28 pm

        What Vanderbilt and all those pro-Jewish groups never did was offer Hitler an alternative he found acceptable.

        What an incredibly stupid and immoral thing to say.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2013, 12:32 pm

        Where I want to go is to stop using words like “onus” and “victim” which implies a responsibility.

        wrt the holocaust? have i stepped into some chamber somewhere, where this has become acceptable discourse on mondoweiss?

      • Taxi
        December 12, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Man! What will it take to make these ziobuggers realize that they’re behaving like nazis because they THINK like nazis! (Nazism is when you don’t allow minorities their fundamental human rights, then proceed to systematically liquidate them, with state-sponsorship ware and know-how).

        I guess jeffb is a fine example of how extreme defense of zionism eventually unravels the nazi within.

      • JeffB
        December 12, 2013, 1:55 pm

        @Shmuel —

        How did you get to 1948, ’53, 54′, 56? The time-frame we were discussing was “Ben-Gurion’s early days”, prior to the Holocaust (you refer to “the ones who eventually died in the camps”).

        We were discussing those with respect to Europe. Western Europe Jewry is dead by ’45. You started bring up primarily American groups. I’m not sure those people (remember people not leadership) even knew about Ben-Gurion in the 1930s. More importantly polling really starts existing during Truman’s time in office. Prior to that no one really knows what the broader public thought about most political issues, the ones that weren’t going to decide elections.

        Good try, but that’s not the article I cited (“Assimilationist” not “Liberal”, Wistrich not Laqueur, Jewish Social Studies not Journal of Contemporary History).

        So your argument is openly assimilationist factions disagreed with non assimilationist policy?

        And you would anachronistically mangle them in precisely the same way. The traditional prayers are eschatological. The creation of a modern nation-state was not only beside the point, but its fundamental incompatibility with traditional concepts of redemption and the messianic age had to be smoothed over with a little trick called “athalta de-ge’ulah” (“beginning of redemption”).

        The reality of redemption was different from the fantasy of redemption. So what? The reality of the restablishment of Jewish rule under the Maccabees was far removed from the fantasy. The reality of space flight was different than the fantasy too. That doesn’t mean that what the Apollo program did wasn’t the realization of the 19th and early 20th century dreams. And whatever practical issues need to happen to get men to Mars doesn’t mean the space program of say the 2030s that does it isn’t the realization of our current dreams.

        Let’s play the Ben-Gurion as the messianic king:

        Saving the afflicted — check
        Let the Jews stand against their enemies — check
        The Jews become righteous — miss
        Jewish prayers become more effectual — ? (I’ll score this a miss, but who knows)
        Unite the poor among the Jews under the new king — check
        Reestablish the Sanhedrin — 1/2 (I can see an argument for check or miss here)
        Other nations look to the Jewish king for guidance — check
        Whole world worships HaShem — miss
        People from all nations attracted — check

        etc… I don’t see the fundamental incompatibility you are talking about. This is pretty good for the consummation of a religious fairytale. And BTW we know Jewish attitudes in the late 19th century, here we do have pretty good information and the majority most certainly did consider this list a religious fairytale.

        but are you seriously suggesting that the chief rabbi of Vienna, the chief rabbi of the British Empire, the Association of German Rabbis (which included Orthodox as well as Reform rabbis), and the many illustrious East-European scholars who opposed the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine, didn’t understand their prayers?

        If I were to reverse that and ask you the same question about the Chief Rabbis of Israel how would you respond? I think messianicism is a movement of total despair. I think the real messianic promise is to create a Jewry unable to relate to messianicism. The idea of a fantasy mix of Isaiah and David except beholden to the religion our years of defeat… the whole thing is ridiculous. I think what’s happening in Israel where Judaism is morphing into a religious of victory again, is messianic fulfillment.

        The question is what the people believed. When you start talking early 20th century easter european Jews you are talking my wife and my family’s understanding of those prayers. I knew these people as children and because my wife’s family has better genes I knew her family as an adult. No they did not believe in a Jewish super-rabbi. What they were praying for “next year in Jerusalem” was an end to fear.

        I’m saying that religions, political movements, societies in general often don’t understand their own fulfillment.

      • Shmuel
        December 12, 2013, 2:51 pm

        You’re a pretty good prevaricator, JeffB. I’ll give you that. I started going through your about-faces, near-saves and subject-shifts one by one, but came to the conclusion that it really wasn’t worth the effort. Good luck with the verbiage and the pseudo-nihilism.

      • RoHa
        December 12, 2013, 7:28 pm

        “We are all living where we live because of murder and usurpation”

        So murder and usurpation is fully justified and Israel can go on murdering and usurping.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 2:59 am

        I know you meant this to be extreme, but sort of yes, though you need to replace Nazi with German.

        Just like you have to replace Jews with Zionists. All wars of aggression throughout history (at least in the last few centuries) have been sold to the public as acts of self defense. There is no other way to win public support.

        How did Zionists brainwash people in other countries they didn’t control and had limited contact

        Obviously it had to take place AFTER those Jews migrated to Israel.

        I find your side tend to use the term “brainwash” as a synonym for “made an argument that X found convincing that I don’t agree with”.

        No, it’s a synonym for “made an argument that X found convincing even though it was a false”.

        The Zionists created awareness among the Sephardic populations about systematic persecution.

        If there was systematic persecution in the Arab world, why did the Zionists need to create awareness of it among the Sephardic populations who according to your thesis, would have experienced it already?

        The Arab governments and populations decided in the 1950s to induce an upsurge in persecution and this led to mass flight to Israel and a change in political orientation.

        They just decided did they? It had nothing to do with Israel expelling 700,000 Palestinians from Palestine or setting off bombs in Egypt and Iraq?

        And yes, politics includes brainwashing.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 3:03 am

        The reality of redemption was different from the fantasy of redemption. So what?

        No, it was the redemption being different from the religious concept of redemption. As is the case with many crusades and military aggression, it always helps to sell the agenda by cloaking it some religious ideal.

        That is why to this day, many orthodox Jews continue to reject the claim that Israel was any kind of Jewish redemption.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 9:05 am

        Conversely the Israelis in general don’t want any stuff, nor control over the Palestinians. At this point they just want them to leave.

        Absolutely false. They wanted them to leave because the British stood between them and their goal to take all of Palestine.

        That being said though the gain of competent Palestinian leadership in a situation where they aren’t going to be able to stop the Israelis from drive them out, is to change Israeli opinion so that they don’t want to drive them out.

        As has been pointed out to you, this is a false argument because the threat Israel fear from the Palestinians is not from violence or retribution, it is from their very existence. When they speak of a demographic threat or demographic time bomb, they are not referring to the threat of violence but the threat to their position of superiority and entitlement.

        As Yitzhak Pundak explained,

        “My heart is singing. There were over 200 Palestinian villages here and there are no more. It was necessary to destroy them. Otherwise there would have been here another million Arabs among us.”

        “And after 2000 years of exile, one cannot create a state by using silk gloves”.

        This is not the song of joy over surviving a threat to their lives, it is the joy of ridding the territory of non Jews. As he admits, the Jewish state was only possible through perpetrating massive ethnic cleansing. That is the Israeli point of view, and one that no about of peace of kindness will satisfy – the only solution is to remove the Arabs.

        And according to you Jeff, the Arabs owe it to Israelis to disappear.

      • JeffB
        December 13, 2013, 10:06 am

        @Shingo

        As has been pointed out to you, this is a false argument because the threat Israel fear from the Palestinians is not from violence or retribution, it is from their very existence. When they speak of a demographic threat or demographic time bomb, they are not referring to the threat of violence but the threat to their position of superiority and entitlement.

        If the Palestinians and the Israelis were living next to one another for the last generation in peace we’d have today somewhere like a hundred thousand 1/2 Palestinian, 1/2 Jewish babies. Children who identified themselves as “Israeli” and families that identify themselves as “Israeli” without any of their prior tribal identities. 5 generations from now the idea of a demographic threat would seem as incomprehensible as the arguments made two hundred years ago about Catholic immigration to the East Coast of the United States seem today.

        The way tribal conflicts get resolved is by dissolving tribes into a common nation and that happens by creating a common tribe through sex. People need to live near one another for sex to happen.

        A demographic threat exists when you have two nations trying to live in the same area. That’s why Lebanese Christians and Muslims are so obsessed with demography. That’s why 2 generations ago Quebecois and English Canadians in Quebec were obsessed with demography…. The relatives of mixed populations don’t think in those terms.

        If the Palestinians keep acting like a demographic threat, they will be perceived as a demographic threat and the Israeli nation will defensively crush them further. If the Palestinians act like Israelis they won’t be a perceived as a demographic threat and the Jewish Israelis will breed with them and then you have a real viable one state solution because there is very quickly (in historical terms) one nation.

      • Shingo
        December 15, 2013, 6:43 am

        Children who identified themselves as “Israeli” and families that identify themselves as “Israeli” without any of their prior tribal identities

        That’s clearly false.

        Ben Gurion told the Knesset in 1948 that if the Arab refugees had been allowed to return to their homes, they would become a majority and therefore elect an Arab leadership and that this would prevent the goal of achieving a Jewish state. This argument has not been swayed by peace or lack of one iota.

        The Israeli leadership has identified the main objective is to create a Jewish state and maintain the Jewish identity and Jewish majority. So even if the Palestinians and the Israelis were living next to one another for the last generation in peace, the Jewish majority would remain a priority.

        5 generations from now the idea of a demographic threat would seem as incomprehensible as the arguments made two hundred years ago about Catholic immigration to the East Coast of the United States seem today.

        No, because the entire Zionist project was based on the commitment to Jewish self determination and self rule. So the demographic issue will remain a constant until Israel give up the idea of a Jewish state.

        Remember, that it was Netenyahu who first demanded Israel be recognized as a Jewish state.

        The way tribal conflicts get resolved is by dissolving tribes into a common nation and that happens by creating a common tribe through sex.

        That too is demonstrably false. The segregation and desire for segregation and prevention of intermarrying is stronger today than it has ever been and it’s proponents do not cite the issue of violence and peace, they cite the need to preserve Jewish culture and Jewish heritage.

        That’s why Lebanese Christians and Muslims are so obsessed with demography.

        That aren’t.

        That’s why 2 generations ago Quebecois and English Canadians in Quebec were obsessed with demography

        As someone who lived in Qubec for 5 years, I know you are lying. The Quebecois are concerned with preserving their Francophone heritage and language, and are not the least concerned about Anglophones so long as the
        Anglophones make an effort to learn the French language.

        If the Palestinians keep acting like a demographic threat, they will be perceived as a demographic threat and the Israeli nation will defensively crush them further.

        The Palestinians are not acting like a demographic threat, they are automatically regarded as such because they are not Jewish. It doesn’t matter how much they act like Israelis they are still non Jews.

      • Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 11:55 am

        it is a particularly stupid question with thousands of political prisoners, peaceful protesters regularly shot, killed, maimed. a Palestinian could shave his head, put on his wire glasses, and place him/herself under the treads of an oncoming merkava, and the frauds would still be whining about the absence of a non-violent resistance.

        It is especially irrelevant, since Mandela and the ANC adamantly refused to renounce the use of violence in opposition to the apartheid regime. Our Zionist friends are engaging in revisionist history.

      • Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 12:09 pm

        Where I want to go is to stop using words like “onus” and “victim” which implies a responsibility. And frankly reduces the whole discussion to silly name calling. I really meant what I said that “victim” is just hard left for “good guys” and “oppressor” is no more informative than other insults like “farthead”.

        But unfortunately we are talking about the victims of atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The Rome Statute is only one of many treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, that employ that term: victim. The constituent document of the ICC uses it more than two dozen times in the context of the Court’s legal obligations to protect the victims, take their testimonies, make perpetrators pay reparations to them, and to establish a trust fund for them. I suspect you want to dissemble and dissimulate about that, but we’ve repeatedly asked you to stop engaging in Nakba denial.

        The International Court of Justice noted years ago in the Nicaragua v United States case that the victim state and its citizens are in the best position to determine if they have been the target of the crime of aggression. So it really isn’t up to you to decide.

      • ritzl
        December 14, 2013, 1:32 pm

        Great comment, WT.

    • SQ Debris
      December 11, 2013, 3:37 pm

      How about Mubarak Awad? Israel either kills, imprisons, or deports advocates of non-violence in te Palestinian struggle for human rights. Then some ziotwerker asks, “Where’s the Palestinian MLK, or Mandela?” Here’s a link: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-05-22/news/8801310443_1_jewish-jerusalemites-arab-jerusalem-east-jerusalem

  3. hophmi
    December 10, 2013, 2:36 pm

    I’m curious about this:

    “We tried hard to help our brethren in South Africa squash his legacy before it was too late, but they were too soft and now look what happened.”

    Are you asserting that the Jewish community in South Africa tried to squash Mandela’s legacy? Because that’s not remotely true.

    “I know that’s not true”

    It’s true for the last twenty years of Mandela’s life.

    “This is important because we cannot accept this kind of uppity behavior from black men.”

    Do you think being haughty and uppity has helped Arab leaders be better governors of their people?

    “He forgave whites for hundreds of years of unspeakable and still untold crimes and, more importantly, didn’t punish them or make them pay back anything of what they had stolen.”

    Yes, forgiveness is generally a part of reconciliation. For a leader who did not forgive and what resulted from it, see Robert Mugabe next door.

    “You know, over 300 years of robbing and destroying native South African lives cannot be called ‘racial hatred’.”

    Wow, Susan. You seem like one angry lady.

    • Shmuel
      December 11, 2013, 3:04 am

      Are you asserting that the Jewish community in South Africa tried to squash Mandela’s legacy?

      What makes you think Susan was referring to South African Jews? The entire premise of this “deconstruction” is Netanyahu’s hypocrisy in praising Mandela while practising apartheid. The “brethren” remark obviously refers to those who ran and wished to perpetuate apartheid in SA.

    • Peter in SF
      December 11, 2013, 3:50 am

      He was … a freedom fighter who rejected any violence.

      “I know that’s not true”
      It’s true for the last twenty years of Mandela’s life.

      Come on, hophmi. The last twenty years of Mandela’s life were divided into three stages:
      (a) 5 months of being the universally acknowledged front-runner in a presidential election campaign;
      (b) 5 years of being president of his country;
      (c) 14 and a half years of post-presidential retirement.
      Where does “a freedom fighter who rejected any violence” fit in to that 20-year period?

      Do you think being haughty and uppity has helped Arab leaders be better governors of their people?

      Hophmi, do you think being haughty and uppity has helped Jewish-state leaders be better governors of their people?

      Yes, forgiveness is generally a part of reconciliation. For a leader who did not forgive and what resulted from it, see Robert Mugabe next door.

      Can you think of any unforgiving Jewish-state leaders and what resulted from it?

      “You know, over 300 years of robbing and destroying native South African lives cannot be called ‘racial hatred’.”

      Wow, Susan. You seem like one angry lady.

      Well, she’s Palestinian, and therefore non-white. White people don’t have that kind of historical baggage to get angry about. Take Jews, for example: Jews are white people, and we never hear Jews complaining about racial hatred in the form of anti-Semitism, or the destruction of Jewish lives in the form of holocausts or what not.

    • Woody Tanaka
      December 11, 2013, 8:03 am

      “Are you asserting that the Jewish community in South Africa tried to squash Mandela’s legacy?”

      Stop your trolling, troll. She’s talking about the zionists gave to their brothers-in-racism, the Apartheid gov’t of South Africa.

      “It’s true for the last twenty years of Mandela’s life.”

      Your statement is absurd. Mandela rejected violence when it was appropriate to do so, but was not hesitant about using it when the oppressor only understood violence.

      “Do you think being haughty and uppity has helped Arab leaders be better governors of their people?”

      Wow, what a racist statement.

      “Yes, forgiveness is generally a part of reconciliation.”

      Which comes after the oppressed are liberated and the oppression ends. The zios want the benefits of reconciliation with even doing that.

      “Wow, Susan. You seem like one angry lady.”

      Not at all, hoppy. She seems like she’s got it all right and she’s not excusing evil, like you do every day you post here.

    • Cliff
      December 11, 2013, 8:08 am

      Susan, please ignore the Jewish fundamentalist/Israel Firster known as ‘hophmi’.

      He has called all Palestinians, ‘Nazis’ and said that Arab political agency is genocidal and that Palestinian agency is an outgrowth of Arab political agency – all genocidal vis a vis the Grand Mufti.

      Why shouldn’t I say Arabs in general? They have united in their hatred of Israel, and the Palestinian movement is an outgrowth of a greater Arab movement, a movement that has time and again tried to commit genocide against the Jews. In 1944, the Mufti organized an unsuccessful chemical attack that would have killed tens of thousands had it been successful. link to wymaninstitute.org

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/experts-weigh-in-what-dennis-rosss-departure-means-for-iran-and-the-peace-process.html#comment-390244

      I’m not bigoted toward Arabs, but yes, to save Cliff the time and trouble, I did once say that the Palestinians supported Hitler during a conversation about how the Palestinians were perceived by the elites at the UN responsible for partition.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/experts-weigh-in-what-dennis-rosss-departure-means-for-iran-and-the-peace-process.html#comment-390244

      You won’t “shut me up” since I never denied that Irgun perpetrated terrorist attacks. The real question is what exactly you hope to accomplish by repeating “Irgun, Irgun, Irgun.” Are you helping the Palestinians get justice? Are you being honest about the Irgun’s history, which is as a tiny group that was out of the mainstream but was basically fighting British imperialism? No. You’re standing up for British imperialism.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/and-they-scream-when-a-street-is-named-after-yihia-ayash-in-gaza.html#comment-317318

      He has said that the Nakba is academic and Jewish terrorists were fighting British imperialism so to criticize Jewish terrorism is to support British imperialism. He regards any discussions of Jewish terrorism to be ‘unhelpful’ to the Palestinians.

      Why Phil Weiss allows a known Nakba-denier like hoppy to pollute this blog and insult Palestinians with his racist BULLSHIT is beyond me.

      I really don’t get it, Phil. hophmi should have been banned years ago.

      It’s absolutely disgusting seeing a yuppie American Jewish fanatic insult a Palestinian. I expect this garbage behavior from Kahanists, and hoppy is certain one. But to see it every other day here? This isn’t a discussion – it’s harassment.

      Don’t censor this comment Phil. I’d like Susan to know she is not being harassed by some random commentator on MW. She is being harassed by a Zionist troll who has a well-documented record of hate-speech and pathological lies.

      • Chu
        December 12, 2013, 10:14 am

        Cliff is totally correct. He should be banned.

  4. W.Jones
    December 10, 2013, 3:06 pm

    Congrats on your poetry book.

  5. dbroncos
    December 10, 2013, 8:55 pm

    @JeffB

    “We will expell the Arabs and take their places” – David Ben-Gurion

    When did the world officially accept this essential part of Ben-Gurion’s infant state?

    • seafoid
      December 11, 2013, 7:22 am

      David “Ben-Gurion” Gruen said
      “The Arabs of the Land of Israel have only one function left to them – to run away.”

    • jon s
      December 13, 2013, 4:51 pm

      Dbroncos, Ben Gurion wrote no such thing. In fact he wrote the opposite : We don’t want to and don’t have to expel the Arabs and take their places.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2013, 6:40 pm

        Wrong Jon.

        Ben Guruon did indeed write that “we will expel the Arabs and take their place”, which is exactly what he did.

      • jon s
        December 14, 2013, 9:35 am
      • Hostage
        December 14, 2013, 1:29 pm

        See a discussion of the (mis)quote:

        link to camera.org

        The document already had the penned-in changes when it was turned-over to the Ben Gurion archives by his estate along with the typed manuscript Ben Gurion provided to Valentine when it published the quote as “we will expel the Arabs and take their place”. It was hardly out of character for Ben Gurion to redact records or to engage in historical revisionism.

        Just to keep the record straight, we know for certain that he told the other members of the Jewish Agency Executive on 12 June 1938 that he was in favor of forcible transfer of the Arabs and that there was nothing immoral about it. At that time, he simply favored a scheme to get the British to accomplish the task. See Ben Gurion Memoirs (1938) 5:208.

        By 1948 he was no longer afraid of Arab reprisals. on 18 February 1948 Ben Gurion, who was in charge of the Jewish Agency Defense Portfolio, advised its Foreign Minister Shertok that:

        If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend, but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination. ” See Ben Gurion Archives, Correspondence Section 23.02-1.03.48 Document 59, 26 February 1948. — cited on page 46 of Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, reprint 2007

        The unredacted portions of the letter to his son Amos already predicted that Israel would use its armed forces to settle neighboring Transjordan by force. CAMERA doesn’t point out that also would have been illegal, in line with other policies Ben Gurion had endorsed, like forcible transfer.

  6. Taxi
    December 10, 2013, 10:10 pm

    Thanks, Susan, for a very amusing, and yes, accurate “deconstruction”. I know it didn’t take long for you to write this piece because them zionists are so freaking predictable.

    We have today studied the enemy bone by bone, thought by thought, therefore tomorrow we will be ahead of them.

  7. Sibiriak
    December 10, 2013, 10:32 pm

    yonah fredman:

    Just trying to ascertain a definition.

    Good luck! I had an epic debate with Hostage on that question. I seriously recommend you check it out, starting here:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/on-the-jewish-israeli-street-theres-no-solution-to-palestinian-issue-but-more-violence.html/comment-page-1#comment-515659

    • LeaNder
      December 11, 2013, 8:44 am

      Epic debate, indeed. In the end I was glad to see that Mooser was on Hostage’s side too.

      Your position in this debate puzzle me deeply Sibiriak. For whatever reason this early German genocide comes to mind. You could claim hadn’t they rebelled against German rule, there would have been no genocide, but at what point exactly does it start? What do you think?

      Among others what puzzled me in your responses was how lightly you seemed to deal with collective punishment, if you consider a mindset that starts in less visible ways, ultimately leading up to “final” more extreme expression of intent, collective punishment would be very high up on my list.

  8. Peter in SF
    December 11, 2013, 3:08 am

    Note what Netanyahu is not doing in this message. He is not drawing a parallel between the liberation of black South Africans and the liberation of the Jewish people, which is what he tells everyone his “Jewish state” has achieved. He could have given a reminder of how Jews of his parents’ generation fought for their freedom, and freedom is a wonderful thing, and now it’s great that South Africans have their freedom too, thanks to the leadership of Mandela. Think of Raul Castro’s speech, which mentioned Cuba’s history of African slavery. But Netanyahu chooses to say not one word about Jewish history at all. Instead, he’s speaking the language of the powerful, whose concern is about threats from the less powerful, as Susan Abulhawa notes here. He even includes an outright lie [*], saying that Mandela “rejected any violence.” When a politician lies, there’s always a reason for it, and in this case it’s to propagate a myth among his American audience (it’s always his American audience) about someone they admire, for the reasons Susan gives above.

    [*] I’m being charitable here in calling Netanyahu a liar. If he sincerely believes that Mandela rejected any violence, then he is utterly out of touch with the world.

Leave a Reply