When occupation becomes apartheid

US Politics
on 166 Comments

Israel’s military occupation and control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza has gone on almost half a century, since it conquered those territories during the 1967 Six Day War.  While many fear Israel will become an apartheid state unless it relinquishes all or most of these occupied territories, the evidence is overwhelming that Israel created an apartheid system and became an apartheid state at the end of the 1967 war, 48 years ago.

THE LAW OF MILITARY OCCUPATION

Under international law and Section III of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, a conquering army becomes an occupying power once military operations have ceased.  The occupying power has the duty to restore public order and safety and protect the local civilian population. Under Article 49, it cannot seize or annex any part of the territory occupied or forcibly deport civilians, nor can it permanently transfer its own citizens into the occupied territory.  It must also relinquish control of the occupied territory and return it to civilian authority and control as soon as reasonably possible once order is restored.

The US conducted one of the most difficult military occupations in history at the end of World War II after it had defeated the combined Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan.  Despite the bitterness of the conflict, the US restored public order and safety and took less than eight years to rebuild the infrastructure and civilian democratic institutions of all three countries and return each to sovereign democratic rule.  The US didn’t seize or annex the sovereign territory of these three countries, it didn’t deport civilians, nor did it transfer portions of its own civilian population into the three countries it occupied.  The US post-World War II occupations are models of how military occupations should be conducted, and today, Germany, Italy, and Japan, all former bitter enemies of the US, are healthy, prosperous democracies, and strong allies. 

THE UNLAWFUL DEPORTATIONS AND ANNEXATIONS

By sharp contrast, Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza has defied international law almost from the beginning.  Some 300,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to leave their homes during and after the 1967 fighting and then were deported from the territories occupied by Israel, as were another 130,000 from the captured Golan Heights.

Israel also prevented Palestinian refugees from lawfully returning to their homes and lands by denying them entry at the borders and by using force against those who surreptitiously attempted to return.  It destroyed dozens of Arab towns and villages to prevent their Arab inhabitants from returning.  It also seized and annexed Palestinian lands including East Jerusalem and about 27 square miles of West Bank land which became Greater Jerusalem, the so-called eternal capital of Israel.  Later it annexed the Golan Heights.  Both annexations have been declared illegal under international law.

DIPLOMACY BY PREVARICATION, FOREIGN POLICY BY DECEPTION

In his meticulously researched study of the two years following the 1967 Six Day War, The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War (2012, Yale University Press), author Avi Raz details how Israel successfully forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to leave the West Bank and then conducted “a diplomacy of prevarication” aimed at deceiving the US and its allies into believing it was willing to allow the refugees to return and would give back the territories it had captured during the war.  Raz also shows how Israel was approached by both the Jordanian government and by Palestinian leaders who were eager, after the debacle of the 1967 Six Day War, to negotiate a settlement with the Israelis.  Israel used excruciatingly-protracted talks with both sides to convince the UN and the US that it was interested in and working toward a negotiated settlement while instead it was doing everything possible to delay and avoid any commitment to one.

This diplomatic strategy was aptly described by Israel’s foreign minister, Abba Eban, as tahksisanut or unstraightforwardness.  Raz concludes Israel was never willing to trade captured land for peace and used a “foreign policy of deception” to hide that fact from its allies, mainly the US, which it feared would force it to return the captured lands, and refuse to sell it the sophisticated aircraft and weaponry it craved.  Raz argues that Israel’s entire approach to settlement negotiations from 1967 through the Oslo Accord of 1993 to the present day followed Eban’s strategy of diplomatic tahksisanut.   The goal has always been to delay and avoid an agreement until the number of illegal settlements and settlers in the occupied territories created facts on the ground that would make the permanency of Greater Israel a fait accompli. The collapse and failure of Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2013-14 peace talks reflects the continuing success of tahksisanut, of Israeli duplicity. 

THE ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

Raz quotes then Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, as saying Israel “wanted the dowry” (the land of the occupied territories) “but not the bride” (the Palestinians living on that land).   To solve that dilemma, plans were made and implemented almost immediately after the war to keep the occupied territories as an integral part of Greater Israel or Eretz Yisrael, and create all-Jewish settlements in the occupied areas so as to establish facts on the ground that would make the creation of a separate Palestinian state difficult if not impossible.  In September of 1967, a secret legal memo commissioned by Israel’s prime minister made it clear that transferring Israeli Jewish citizens onto settlements in the occupied territories would be a direct violation of international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Despite this warning, Israel began the process of transferring Jewish civilians into settlements, establishing 12 in 1967, followed by ever-increasing numbers in the next five decades.  Today, 48 years later, over 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, well over 600,000 Israeli Jews, live in hundreds of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, making the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state virtually impossible, as was the plan from the very beginning.

US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, in a March 1968 memo to the US embassy in Israel, told the US ambassador to warn the Israeli government that the transfer of its civilians into the occupied territories violated Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  He instructed the ambassador to tell the Israeli government in the strongest possible terms of US opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.  He also said that creation of Jewish colonies created the impression that Israel had no intention of reaching a settlement and withdrawing from the occupied territories.  Half a century later, Rusk’s memo has proved prophetic.

The evidence is clear that Israel knew its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention but decided to ignore them.  Its illegal actions of forcing civilians out of the occupied territories, refusing to allow them to return, annexing portions of occupied lands for itself, and transferring its own civilians into the occupied lands, all while keeping the Palestinians under strict military rule, demonstrate an intent to keep the occupied territories for itself.   Its negotiation strategy of tahksisanut is further evidence of that intention.

If Israel had no intention of withdrawing from the occupied territories, and deliberately violated most if not all of the legal precepts regarding military occupation, its behavior was and remains illegal under international law and constitutes grave violations of the laws of war, or war crimes.  Even President Obama’s White House seems to have finally acknowledged this hard fact.  On March 23, at the J Street annual conference, White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough said,

“Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely…

“An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state…

“Palestinian children deserve the same right to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land.” 

THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF APARTHEID

Can Israel’s 48 year illegal military occupation be described as apartheid?  The term was originally used to describe a system of racial segregation in South Africa.  Today, the crime of apartheid, according to the UN Apartheid Convention, applies to acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial, ethnic, or religious group, over another by acts of systematic oppression.  Examples include: denying the one group the right to life and liberty and subjecting members of that group to arbitrary arrest and expropriation of property; depriving the group of the right to leave and return to their country, or of freedom of movement and residence; the creation of separate areas for the members of different racial groups; the prohibition of mixed marriages, etc.

Each of these examples applies to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, and, to a lesser extent, to the 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are non-Jews.  Some 50 laws in Israel discriminate against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, forcing them to live in impoverished Arab communities surrounded by prosperous all-Jewish communities who receive the vast majority of public resources.  Moreover, Israel’s Arab population lived under strict martial law the first 18 years of Israel’s existence, until 1966, even though Israeli Arabs became nominal citizens of Israel in 1952.  Today, there remain about 274,000 Israeli Arab citizens who are internally displaced refugees of the 1948 war who fled or were forced to leave their homes and villages and were not allowed to return to reclaim their homes, land, and property after the end of the war even though they are lawful residents and citizens of Israel.

In the occupied West Bank, conditions are far worse.  Palestinians are forced to live in enclaves (the so-called Area A) surrounded by Israeli military zones (Area B).  Area C, about 61 percent of the West Bank, contains over 300,000 Jewish settlers living in all-Jewish settlements under complete Israeli control.  This area completely surrounds Areas A and B.  Palestinians are forced to live in dozens of separate enclaves, their movement heavily restricted.  Arbitrary arrest and detention of adults and even young children is commonplace, due process a distant dream.

Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is confiscated and used to build all-Jewish Israeli settlements protected by Israeli Army units, and connected by access roads that are restricted to use by Jews only.  Israeli Jews living in the occupied territories have full civil rights including the right to vote while their Palestinian Arab neighbors live under Israeli military law, have no civil rights, and cannot vote in Israel’s national elections.   All of these discriminatory restrictions on the Palestinian Arab population certainly seem to meet the definition of apartheid.

Stephen Robert, a Jewish-American investment banker, and long-time Israel supporter, as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former chancellor of Brown University, described the situation in the occupied territories as apartheid after fact-finding visits to the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2011.  In a long and detailed article entitled “Apartheid on Steroids”, he concluded,

“How can Jews, who have been persecuted for centuries, tolerate this inhumanity? Where is their moral compass? How can this situation be acceptable to Judaism’s spiritual and political leaders? I don’t have that answer; except to say that Israel’s biggest enemy has become itself.”

That was four years ago.  David Shulman, an Israeli Jew and distinguished professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem described similar conditions in his March 21 post-Israeli election recap, article:

Israel has, in effect, knowingly moved further toward a full-fledged apartheid system. Those who don’t like the word can suggest another one for what I see each week in the territories and more and more inside the Green Line.” [Emphasis added].

Shulman sees apartheid in the occupied territories and more and more evidence of it even within Israel itself.  Israeli journalist and author, Amira Hass, sees much the same,

“When you look at the geography of Palestinians in Israel, it’s the same geography, they are encircled in enclaves. They are deprived of their land. Most of their land has been taken by Jews to settle, even though they are Israeli citizens… They are all packed and cramped in houses without spaces to breathe, without agricultural lands…The political geography of the Israeli state is very similar on both sides of the Green Line.”

The treatment of Palestinian Arabs by Israeli Jews is also strikingly similar to the treatment of non-whites by South Africa’s all-white regime under apartheid.  Moreover, all the conditions for apartheid, the deportations, the annexations, the creation of Jewish settlements, the isolation of Palestinians under military law, were put in place by the Israeli government in 1967.  Since both the intent and the fact of apartheid were in place in 1967, and since conditions have only gotten worse, it’s become impossible to call Israel’s near-half century military occupation of the Palestinian people on Palestinian lands in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza anything but apartheid.

The only remaining question is why we as Americans continue to support a country whose oppression of its Arab population is so contrary to our own national values, a country that openly practices apartheid.  Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinian people makes a mockery of its claim to be “the only democracy in the Middle East”, as does its claim that Israel and the US share common values. 

It’s high time that we, as Americans, face up to the fact that supporting Israel is supporting apartheid, and that our military, economic, and diplomatic support of that country has fostered and abetted nearly half a century of continuing oppression of 4.5 million Palestinians.  It’s also high time we put a stop to it by telling our representatives in Congress that while we as Americans support the state of Israel, we will no longer provide military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli apartheid.

Gil Maguire is a retired civil rights attorney and a writer of both non-fiction and fiction.  His interest in the Israel-Palestine issue came from his father’s involvement flying Jewish refugees from around the world to the new state of Israel in 1948-49.  David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister called his father “the Irish Moses” because of his exploits, hence the name of Maguire’s blog site — www.irishmoses.com

About Gil Maguire

Gil Maguire is a retired civil rights attorney and writer of both fiction and non-fiction. He lives in Oxnard. His blog, Irish Moses, is named in honor of his father, Robert F. Maguire, who was awarded the Medal of Valor by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 2004 for “his heroic efforts that helped to rescue tens of thousands of Jews” during 1948-49 after the founding of the State of Israel.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

166 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    April 4, 2015, 1:56 pm

    Great article, Gil. Much has already been said, but, as the practice in this matter is to ignore the truth, it needs to be said again and again.

    One thing perhaps missing: the land-grabs, marked in significant part by the building of the Jews-only highways and the apartheid wall (sometimes called “separation barrier”), can no longer be regarded as temporary either in intention or in practice and are therefore violations of the UN Charter Art 1(4):

    Chapter I – Purposes and Principles

    4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
    or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
    of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes
    of the United Nations.

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 2:14 pm

      “4. All Members shall REFRAIN in their…”

      “Refrain” seems to be an awfully weasel-like word. It sounds permissive rather than instructive.

      Thanks for reading the piece. The Avi Raz book I cited “The Bride and the Dowry”, is a real treasure for the I-P library. I just discovered it and think it is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand post 1967 Zionist actions and strategy. It is true scholarly work. A full third of it it end notes. I don’t understand why it has been ignored.

      • lysias
        April 4, 2015, 6:49 pm

        “The passengers will please refrain…”

      • irishmoses
        April 4, 2015, 10:37 pm

        They also say “fasten your seat belts” not “please refrain from leaving your seat belts unfastened. Big difference.

    • Mooser
      April 4, 2015, 7:49 pm

      It is a great article, clear and easy to read.

      • irishmoses
        April 4, 2015, 9:00 pm

        Thanks Mooser.

  2. Citizen
    April 4, 2015, 2:12 pm

    Well, would it do any good to mail this wonderfully accurate article to each member of the US congress? How about to TV news anchors with cc to their bosses? Too bad there is no Palestinian-Americans as rich as Soros or Adelson, for example.

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 3:37 pm

      Thank you Citizen.

      I’d be happy if it was just picked up by AntiWar or Consortium. If anyone knows how to submit to either of these sites, let me know.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 4, 2015, 8:24 pm

        try emailing [email protected]

        and here’s anti-war’s submission page: http://antiwar.com/submissions.php

        great article gil, thanks a lot and good luck!

      • irishmoses
        April 4, 2015, 9:26 pm

        Done! Annie, you’re a treasure.

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 6:04 pm

        My article was just picked up by https://consortiumnews.com/. Consortium News is a great resource for timely articles on foreign policy issues from a variety of sources, including independent, non-MSM investigative journalists. It’s editor, Robert Parry, a pioneer in investigative journalism, also contributes thought-provoking articles. It’s a daily go-to site for me as it will show me who is writing about what foreign policy issue that day. Here’s the link to my article: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/05/when-occupation-becomes-apartheid/

      • just
        April 5, 2015, 6:16 pm

        Well- deserved and well done, Gil!

        (Thanks, Annie ;)

      • truth2power
        April 7, 2015, 1:33 pm

        Excellent article – can you send it to all the British political leaders too? We’re having a general election over here and I think they all need a reminder about their responsibilities too, whoever wins on May 7th

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 10:44 pm

      Yeah,
      Well you guys keep it up and I’m going to have hire a couple of body guards or exercise my right to carry a concealed handgun.

      In a more serious vein, it would be nice to get a more accurate narrative out there. I’d prefer starting with college kids, or maybe anyone under 35. I think they’d listen. Not so sure about anybody older, particularly members of Congress.

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 10:57 pm

      Yeah,
      Well you guys keep it up and I’m going to have hire a couple of body guards or exercise my right to carry a concealed handgun.

      In a more serious vein, it would be nice to get a more accurate narrative out there. I’d prefer starting with college kids, or maybe anyone under 35. I think they’d listen. Not so sure about changing the minds of many older folks, particularly members of Congress.

      Thanks for your kind thoughts.

      • irishmoses
        April 4, 2015, 10:59 pm

        I thought I was editing the first version but ending up sending both. Read the second one.

  3. mcohen.
    April 4, 2015, 5:19 pm

    fantastic article

    well wrltten

    extremely erudite

    but useless as it contains no final solution except the obvious one

    one state for all with a jewish military force based on the hezbollah model in lebanon with the us the main backer just as iran is the main backer of hezbollah

    would anyone like to suggest a name in hebrew…party of G-d is taken

    how about…………Defence of Zion

    anyone?

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 8:42 pm

      Thanks, MCohen. Solutions? Hard to see one. I think if UNSC was allowed to function, without US veto, a strict legal approach could work. Drop the ADR negotiations between the parties fraud and get back to what the law is, and who is and has violated it. The UNSC could do a lot to solve the problem, particularly after P+5 success on Iran issue. I’ve always felt the solution has to be imposed.

  4. just
    April 4, 2015, 9:55 pm

    Thank you very much for this great, and well- sourced article, Gil.

    It should be spread far and wide~ I wish it was required reading for every American.

    I’ll do my bit. I think it will make a great enclosure to the next email to my reps and to the WH. ;-)

    So the question(s) I have is WHY did the US put up with the lies all these years? Why did Israel get the designation as the US’ best ally when it committed these crimes? Is the US afraid to admit that it made too many allowances and excuses for the actions of Israel over these long years when we not only ignored their violations of international law, but were also complicit?

    • irishmoses
      April 4, 2015, 11:18 pm

      Avi Raz, in his book “The Bride and the Dowry” asked the same question. He points out that the US knew Israel was stalling and knew what it was up to. He says LBJ was the reason nothing was done, the rest of the government was ready to act and very, very frustrated and pissed off at the Israelis.

      LBJ was a real lover of Israel, according to Raz, which explains why the Liberty incident was buried, but it doesn’t explain why no one was willing to call him out in public on that and other issues. Several talked about it in their memoirs but none of them were willing to stand up and be counted while they were still serving. Typical.

      Here’s an article from a Jewish publication that claims LBJ was Jewish, at least technically.
      “Our First Jewish President”
      http://5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/

      It’s a well written pretty complimentary article and shows how Johnson helped Jews get out of Nazi Germany before the war. But it also shows how far he was willing to go to support Israel, contrary to the wishes of his state department. If the article is accurate, it may explain why LBJ was so unbalanced toward Israel on the critical issues that arose in 1967 and 1968.

      • just
        April 5, 2015, 8:33 am

        Thanks for your reply, irishmoses.

        I was so bothered by this entire LBJ thing that I had to search for an article that I’ve saved from January 15, 2014 by Julian Borger:

        “Deep beneath desert sands, an embattled Middle Eastern state has built a covert nuclear bomb, using technology and materials provided by friendly powers or stolen by a clandestine network of agents. It is the stuff of pulp thrillers and the sort of narrative often used to characterise the worst fears about the Iranian nuclear programme. In reality, though, neither US nor British intelligence believe Tehran has decided to build a bomb, and Iran’s atomic projects are under constant international monitoring.

        The exotic tale of the bomb hidden in the desert is a true story, though. It’s just one that applies to another country. In an extraordinary feat of subterfuge, Israel managed to assemble an entire underground nuclear arsenal – now estimated at 80 warheads, on a par with India and Pakistan – and even tested a bomb nearly half a century ago, with a minimum of international outcry or even much public awareness of what it was doing.

        Despite the fact that the Israel’s nuclear programme has been an open secret since a disgruntled technician, Mordechai Vanunu, blew the whistle on it in 1986, the official Israeli position is still never to confirm or deny its existence. ..

        … Israel refused to countenance visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), so in the early 1960s President Kennedy demanded they accept American inspectors. US physicists were dispatched to Dimona but were given the run-around from the start. Visits were never twice-yearly as had been agreed with Kennedy and were subject to repeated postponements. The US physicists sent to Dimona were not allowed to bring their own equipment or collect samples. The lead American inspector, Floyd Culler, an expert on plutonium extraction, noted in his reports that there were newly plastered and painted walls in one of the buildings. It turned out that before each American visit, the Israelis had built false walls around the row of lifts that descended six levels to the subterranean reprocessing plant.

        As more and more evidence of Israel’s weapons programme emerged, the US role progressed from unwitting dupe to reluctant accomplice. In 1968 the CIA director Richard Helms told President Johnson that Israel had indeed managed to build nuclear weapons and that its air force had conducted sorties to practise dropping them.

        The timing could not have been worse. The NPT, intended to prevent too many nuclear genies from escaping from their bottles, had just been drawn up and if news broke that one of the supposedly non-nuclear-weapons states had secretly made its own bomb, it would have become a dead letter that many countries, especially Arab states, would refuse to sign.

        The Johnson White House decided to say nothing, and the decision was formalised at a 1969 meeting between Richard Nixon and Golda Meir, at which the US president agreed to not to pressure Israel into signing the NPT, while the Israeli prime minister agreed her country would not be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons into the Middle East and not do anything to make their existence public.

        In fact, US involvement went deeper than mere silence. At a meeting in 1976 that has only recently become public knowledge, the CIA deputy director Carl Duckett informed a dozen officials from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the agency suspected some of the fissile fuel in Israel’s bombs was weapons-grade uranium stolen under America’s nose from a processing plant in Pennsylvania.

        Not only was an alarming amount of fissile material going missing at the company, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (Numec), but it had been visited by a veritable who’s-who of Israeli intelligence, including Rafael Eitan, described by the firm as an Israeli defence ministry “chemist”, but, in fact, a top Mossad operative who went on to head Lakam.

        “It was a shock. Everyody was open-mouthed,” recalls Victor Gilinsky, who was one of the American nuclear officials briefed by Duckett. “It was one of the most glaring cases of diverted nuclear material but the consequences appeared so awful for the people involved and for the US than nobody really wanted to find out what was going on.”

        The investigation was shelved and no charges were made.

        A few years later, on 22 September 1979, a US satellite, Vela 6911, detected the double-flash typical of a nuclear weapon test off the coast of South Africa. Leonard Weiss, a mathematician and an expert on nuclear proliferation, was working as a Senate advisor at the time and after being briefed on the incident by US intelligence agencies and the country’s nuclear weapons laboratories, he became convinced a nuclear test, in contravention to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, had taken place.

        It was only after both the Carter and then the Reagan administrations attempted to gag him on the incident and tried to whitewash it with an unconvincing panel of enquiry, that it dawned on Weiss that it was the Israelis, rather than the South Africans, who had carried out the detonation.

        “I was told it would create a very serious foreign policy issue for the US, if I said it was a test. Someone had let something off that US didn’t want anyone to know about,” says Weiss.

        Israeli sources told Hersh the flash picked up by the Vela satellite was actually the third of a series of Indian Ocean nuclear tests that Israel conducted in cooperation with South Africa.

        “It was a fuck-up,” one source told him. “There was a storm and we figured it would block Vela, but there was a gap in the weather – a window – and Vela got blinded by the flash.”

        The US policy of silence continues to this day, even though Israel appears to be continuing to trade on the nuclear black market, albeit at much reduced volumes. In a paper on the illegal trade in nuclear material and technology published in October, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) noted: “Under US pressure in the 1980s and early 1990s, Israel … decided to largely stop its illicit procurement for its nuclear weapons programme. Today, there is evidence that Israel may still make occasional illicit procurements – US sting operations and legal cases show this.”

        Avner Cohen, the author of two books on Israel’s bomb, said that policy of opacity in both Israel and in Washington is kept in place now largely by inertia. “At the political level, no one wants to deal with it for fear of opening a Pandora’s box. It has in many ways become a burden for the US, but people in Washington, all the way up to Obama will not touch it, because of the fear it could compromise the very basis of the Israeli-US understanding.”

        In the Arab world and beyond, there is growing impatience with the skewed nuclear status quo. Egypt in particular has threatened to walk out of the NPT unless there is progress towards creating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The western powers promised to stage a conference on the proposal in 2012 but it was called off, largely at America’s behest, to reduce the pressure on Israel to attend and declare its nuclear arsenal.

        “Somehow the kabuki goes on,” Weiss says. “If it is admitted Israel has nuclear weapons at least you can have an honest discussion. It seems to me it’s very difficult to get a resolution of the Iran issue without being honest about that.””

        There is so much more here @ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 6:10 pm

        Just,

        Great article. Thanks for the link.

      • Bumblebye
        April 6, 2015, 9:52 am

        Brilliant article Gil!
        Sent me looking for more on the book and its author, found a speech about an hour long from feb ’13:
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gTx_0tDvVKI

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 12:03 pm

        Great catch, Bumblebye. Watching it now.

  5. tombishop
    April 4, 2015, 9:57 pm

    So why is the leadership of the American Federation of Teachers supporting Israeli apartheid?

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-american-federation-teachers-promoting-israeli-apartheid

    • just
      April 5, 2015, 8:44 am

      A good question that’s easily answered~ she’s an I- firster and she’s been exposed. A liberal Zionist oxy- MORON.

      My question is: will she hold on to her leader role?

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 6:15 pm

      Great link tombishop. Connecting the links to the Likud-Zionist project.

      • tree
        April 5, 2015, 10:44 pm

        Let me add my congratulations on the article, Gil. Great work.

        But I don’t get why you are talking about the “Likud-Zionist project”. There was really no significant difference in how Labor Zionists treated the Palestinians compared to Likud, and Labor was in complete control of Israel for the first few decades. Labor was just better at lying about what they were doing. And Ben-Gurion was a master prevaricator.

        Weingarten calls herself a Liberal Zionist and is bemoaning Netanyahu winning the election. And yet she still supports Israeli apartheid. Why not drop the “Likud” part? Its unnecessary.

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 11:04 pm

        Tree,
        I think there is a difference in that Likud-Zionism springs (or sprang) from the Jabotinsky wing, and that wing has been in control for quite a long time (Sharon, Netanyahu). I think the Labor side was a bit more refined or disengenuous or self-deluded, or maybe all three. But, I think at one point they might have pulled off a solution. I’m not sure the Palestinians would have accepted it, but I think the realism and desire was there. On the other hand, their actual conduct toward the Palestinians and toward settlements seemed just as bad as Likud.

        In any case, the Labor solution possibility is long past and no longer a viable possibility. I don’t like saying Zionist because it seems a little too much like saying Jews. It’s overly inclusive and smacks a bit of the antisemitic meme.

        I’ll stick to Likud-Zionist right now because they are in power and no other option is in sight.

        So, have you checked Air BNB yet for our Tehran visit?

      • oldgeezer
        April 6, 2015, 12:38 am

        @irishmoses

        “On the other hand, their actual conduct toward the Palestinians and toward settlements seemed just as bad as Likud.”

        You make a distinction without a difference then. I’ll stick with zionist.

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 2:21 am

        I’ll give you the differences were minor, but they were there. Moot now though. Call them what you will.

      • yonah fredman
        April 6, 2015, 3:16 am

        Although Rabin’s career previous to his second term as prime minister was filled with negative acts against Palestinians, he was making strides in attempting to bridge gaps both with the Palestinians of the occupied territory (and as far as Arafat represented the Palestinian Diaspora, as well) and the Palestinians living in Israel. I think he was superior during the three years of his service as prime minister between 92 and 95 until he was assassinated than any other prime minister. This attempt to blur all the parties together, Likud and Labor, may have its flashes of truth, but there is a need to insert this contrary fact of Rabin between 92 and 95.

      • tree
        April 6, 2015, 6:46 pm

        Irishmoses,

        I don’t like saying Zionist because it seems a little too much like saying Jews. It’s overly inclusive and smacks a bit of the antisemitic meme.

        Zionism has always been about Jewish supremacism, regardless of which wing you talk about, and at its very beginnings it was opposed by the majority of Jews worldwide. If I say Nazism, its not like I’m saying German, and likewise with ZIonism and Jews. While many if not most Jews today may approve of it to one extent or the other, it is not an existential part of being Jewish. Frankly speaking the vast majority of white people were white supremacists to one extent or the other for centuries, if not millenia, but it isn’t an existential part of being white. Its an attitude. Its a circumstance of environment and thought and can be changed without changing one’s racial, ethnic or religious identity, and therefore it is not anti-semitic to refer to Zionism anymore than it is racist to refer to white supremacism.

        As to the overriding ideology of the early years of Zionism (prior even to “Jabotinskyism”), I’d suggest reading Ilan Pappe’s “The Idea of Israel”(book) as well as Etan Bloom’s doctoral dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, the father of early Jewish settlement in Palestine. (available on the internet) And, as Avi Shlaim has pointed out, Jabotinsky might have fleshed out the doctrine of the Iron Wall, but Ben Gurion and the Labor Zionists lived by it.

        As to the dishonesty of Ben Gurion et al, let me use this incident from 1947 as an illustration. In late December, 1947 , Irgun terrorists threw a bomb at Palestinian day laborers waiting outside the Haifa Oil Refinery, killing 6 of them and injuring 40 or so. This violence immediately sparked a riot by Palestinian workers at the refinery (where, BTW, the Jewish Agency had been constantly pressuring the British to hire more Jews and less Palestinians, and pay the Jews more than they paid the Palestinians). Some 39 or so Jewish workers at the refinery were killed and some number were injured.

        The Jewish Agency, under control of Ben-Gurion, immediately came out with a statement condemning the Irgun attack and blaming Irgun for the resultant riot against Jewish workers at the plant. Sounds like quite a reasonable statement, except that, at the same time, Ben Gurion decided to issue a “reprisal” raid on the village of Balad al-Shaykh for the murderous riot at the refinery. The raid by the Haganah lasted three hours, killing over 60 Palestinians and destroying parts of the village. At the same time the Haganah went into one of the poorer neighborhoods of Haifa, Wadi Rushmiyya, expelled its people and blew up its houses. All of this was under Ben Gurion’s direction. Pappe considers this act as the “official beginning of the ethnic cleansing operation in urban Palestine”.

        So here you have Ben Gurion sounding all understanding and reasonable for public and international consumption while privately instigating acts of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Thus his dishonesty helped to disguise the true purpose and intent of “Labor Zionism”. Irgun was at least honest about what they did and why they did it. Ben Gurion was not. He was therefore the much more dangerous brand of Zionism. He was also the one who made up the story that the Palestinians fled at the exhortations of Arab leaders, rather than from fear or expulsion by Israeli forces. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg with his lies.

        To my mind, using the term “Likud Zionism” leads to the inference that “Labor ZIonism” or “Liberal ZIonism” are not the problem, only the Likud version is. But clearly Zionism itself is the problem, no matter what “wing”; just as white supremacism was the problem in the US South, not just the right-wing variety. My two-cents. YMMV.

        And, sorry but I didn’t get your Airbnb reference.

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 9:21 pm

        Tree,
        Great analysis. I’ve read the Pappe book as well several more by him.
        I’ll look up the Ruppin thesis.

        I agree that in practice there is little difference between labor and likud and that the former is more disengenuous which is why I wanted Netanyahu to win. I don’t want to repeat my earlier arguments to you and others so let just try to summarize why I prefer the Likud-Zionist framing.

        If I use the plain Zionist frame, it includes not just Labor Zionism but also the more progressive forms (long dead) that were advocating for a cooperative, bi-national approach with the Palestinians. If I frame my argument using Zionism, writ large, I appear to be saying all forms of Zionism and all Zionists are bad.

        In reality, Zionism has morphed over a century from something that was potentially bad to mostly bad to really bad. While I agree with your comments about Ben Gurion and that Labor Zionism has been every bit as bad as the Likud version, I’m not making a distinction between Likud and Labor, but instead between Likud and Zionism writ large.

        I think my argument is more persuasive if I use the Likud Zionist frame rather than a general Zionist frame. The face of Zionism today is Netanyahu, is Likud. The so-called liberal Zionists see Likud and Netanyahu as being the problem. If I use the Zionist frame, those folks will feel I am unfairly including them as the cause of the problem. Thus, in my mind it is better to hone in on the Likud frame even though the liberal version are also part of the problem.

        Finally (at last!), from what I’ve seen and read, the Likud version is really all that’s left on the Israeli political scene. The competing parties are little more than Likud-light.

        So, even though I agree with your points about the non-differnces between labor and likud, I still believe and remain comfortable with my decision to frame my argument using Likud-Zionist rather than Zionist writ large.

        Maybe it’s the attorney in me, but I think it’s important to be aware of the audience you are trying to persuade and frame your argument so it has the best chance of being effective.

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 9:53 pm

        Re: “sorry but I didn’t get your Airbnb reference”.

        In another thread I said I wanted to be counted in on any planned trips to Iran. You had said something about a chartered jet. My comment was a query (obviously in jest) about whether you were checking on accommodations for all of us.

        Stupid joke. My apologies. I need Mooser to help me clean up my act.

      • tree
        April 7, 2015, 5:18 am

        If I use the plain Zionist frame, it includes not just Labor Zionism but also the more progressive forms (long dead) that were advocating for a cooperative, bi-national approach with the Palestinians.

        The proper term used is cultural Zionism, not political Zionism. All political Zionism is based on ethnic nationalism, sometimes referred to as “romantic nationalism”. Judah Magnes, for one, was a cultural Zionist, but not a political Zionist. He did not believe in a Jewish state, nor in the negation of the diaspora, nor did he believe in partition or separation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Leon_Magnes

        Politically speaking, he was profoundly anti-Zionist, rather than a “progressive version” of a Zionist.

        But of course you are free to use whatever terms you find effective, whether or not I disagree with them.

        BTW, one of the more sane and rational Israeli Zionist politicians today is a member of Likud – Reuven Rivlin, the current President of Israel.

        As for the joke, not to worry. No apologies needed. You are confusing me with some other commenter, which is why I din’t understand the reference at first, but now I understand. I never made a comment about chartering a jet. I tend to be pretty much a home body, rather than an avid traveller. No doubt my loss, but I’m well aware of my limitations, and long distance flights are one of them.

      • irishmoses
        April 7, 2015, 11:15 am

        One of my favorite books on the development of Zionism is ZIONISM AND THE PALESTINIANS, by my favorite historian of the conflict, Simha Flapan. In a section of this book, he goes into the influence (or lack of) of the more “moderate” Zionists like Nahum Goldman, Sharett, what he calls the bi-nationalists, Ruppin, Magnes, Buber, and the founders of that movement, Itzhak Epstein and Ahad Ha’am.

  6. JeffB
    April 5, 2015, 7:27 am

    The US conducted one of the most difficult military occupations in history at the end of World War II…, it didn’t deport civilian

    Well the allies most certainly did:
    About 3m Sudeten
    About 600k Germans from Poland…
    and about another dozen giving another 1m or so.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–50)

    Of course these people were resettled by UNHCR rather than kept in camps by UNRWA so it hasn’t been a red hot flashpoint creating multiple wars and that’s why you didn’t know about it. Refugee problems are can be handled by countries acting in good faith.

    it’s become impossible to call Israel’s near-half century military occupation of the Palestinian people on Palestinian lands in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza anything but apartheid.

    The people of East Jerusalem are full citizens of Israel with full voting and civil rights if they so choose. The people of Gaza live in a separate country not under Israeli rule. So it is easy not to say that.

    • Mooser
      April 5, 2015, 3:45 pm

      Shorter “JeffyB”:

      ‘If Israel did it, it can’t be wrong. The only problem is explaining ( to us dummies) how and why it’s right. And how it’s the best of all possible rights, too!’

    • tree
      April 5, 2015, 5:05 pm

      Notes to JeffB:

      Poland was NOT our ally AFTER WWII.

      And Palestinians from East Jerusalem are NOT full citizens of Israel. They are allowed to APPLY for citizenship, but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel, and those that do apply risk losing their rights to Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship, as well as their rights to enter neighboring communities in the West Bank. Even those East Jerusalemites who manage to become Israeli citizens do not have full rights in Israel because they are not Jewish, and are barred from living in many Israeli Jewish communities.

      Gaza is not a separate country. And its borders, airspace, territorial sea, and even its population registry and monetary market, taxes and custom duties are controlled by Israel. It is simply a bantustan, ultimately controlled by Israel.

      • JeffB
        April 5, 2015, 5:51 pm

        @tree

        and those that do apply risk losing their rights to Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship, as well as their rights to enter neighboring communities in the West Bank

        That’s called equality. Few Jewish Israelis have Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship. And Jewish Israelis are often prohibited from entering Areas A and B. What you are complaining about is them being treated equally.

        , but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel

        What evidence do you have for that? I know the 2006-10 numbers were 3000 applicants 2300 accepted. With the strongest number being 2010 (690). 2013 I know that 13k applied and the refusals percentage wasn’t looking high but I don’t have final figures. So where is the data you are using?

        Here is a good (and pro-Palestinian) source of data that’s a few years old but has the standard figures: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/135-extreme-makeover-ii-the-withering-of-arab-jerusalem.pdf

        Gaza is not a separate country.

        Israel has renounced claim on it. There is an independent government. That government refused to live in peace but that’s no different from the status of other states that war on their neighbors.

      • irishmoses
        April 7, 2015, 1:14 am

        Jeff B,
        1. I don’t quite understand how Israel can renounce a claim to something it never had a legal claim to.
        2. I also don’t see how Israel would have a right to detach one portion from the Palestine it has been illegally occupying for 48 years and then keep the rest of it for itself. I can see how it’s a great plan because it pushes 2.1 million scruffy, untermenschen Palestinian Arabs out of the intended racially pure (or nearly pure) Greater Israel. The only problem is it’s not legal and it won’t fly. Nice try though.

        Of course, JeffB, your game here is not to offer cogent arguments, your game is to throw any half-assed argument you can come up with on the table so it will look to the uninitiated like there is another perfectly valid side to whatever the issue is.

        It’s a hasbara tactic and you are part of the team. Congratulations, you must feel very good about yourself.

      • yonah fredman
        April 6, 2015, 3:04 am

        tree- How many East Jerusalem Palestinians have applied for citizenship and how many have been approved?

        Gaza is not a bantustan. (certainly not simply). It has a border with Egypt. No matter the motivation of Egypt, you can’t be a bantustan if you have a border with the nonoccupying power. you are misusing the term bantustan.

      • tree
        April 6, 2015, 5:54 pm

        JeffB:What evidence do you have for that?

        and yonah:How many East Jerusalem Palestinians have applied for citizenship and how many have been approved?

        I am using the very sources that JeffB has linked here twice. Apparently he doesn’t really read his own links, or else he thinks he can be dishonest and imply some sourcing for his claims that doesn’t actually exist.

        Leading the horse to water, here it is on page 22 of the International Crisis Group Report, second paragraph and footnote 205:

        “Assessing the extent to which applications for Israeli citizenship among East Jerusalemites have trended upward during the last decade is difficult because the government has released contradictory figures. About 13,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem (roughly 5 per cent of the Arab population) are reported to have citizenship,203 though it seems likely a significant proportion are members of Israel’s Palestinian minority who have moved to Jerusalem for work or family reasons.204 In terms of applications,the interior ministry said that almost 7,000
        individuals applied for citizenship between 2001 and2010 205 – a relatively small number – yet two thirds of these applications were made from 2008 2010.206 ”

        Footnote 205:“Roughly one third were approved, one third were denied and one third were deferred. Central Bureau of Statistics response to Crisis Group question.

        http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Israel%20Palestine/135-extreme-makeover-ii-the-withering-of-arab-jerusalem.pdf

        The report is summarized in Haaretz here: (which JeffB linked on an earlier occassion, again as if it supported his point, which it does not)

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/more-east-jerusalem-palestinians-seeking-israeli-citizenship-report-shows.premium-1.516906

        A deferral in this case is equivalent to a denial at the time of the request. So, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, roughly two-thirds of the applicants during this period were denied- one half of those denials being permanent and one half of them being at least temporary, which could later become permanent.

        I won’t even bother to respond to the idiocy of Jeff’s argument that Jewish Israelis not having Palestinian citizenship is equal to East Jerusalem Palestinians not having Israeli citizenship. Its beyond ridiculous, but totally predictable.

        And yonah, the meaning of a bantustan does not require being landlocked, only that the territory has limited self-government subject to the whims of the apartheid government, and that same apartheid government controls the bantustan’s borders, which Israel does directly, as well as through its blockade, and through its treaty with Egypt which allows it ultimate control over the border between Gaza and Egypt. Gaza is a bantustan.

        http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131372925495458.html

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/gaza-bantustan-author-samah-sabawi-interviewed/12180

        Note to JeffB: If you have an actually source to back up your statements on the number of applicants approved for citizenship, please provide it. The numbers from the International Crisis Group that you linked are in direct contradiction to the numbers you posted. I think it highly dishonest of you to imply that that your link supported your statement when it clearly did not. Please link to SUPPORTING sources next time, not ones that disagree with your point.

        Note to all readers: If the Haaretz article leads to a shortened version and a paywall, simply enter the first sentence exactly as written into Google or Yahoo search engines. A link to the article should appear that when clicked on will reveal the full article, not just the first paragraph.

      • yonah fredman
        April 7, 2015, 4:54 am

        tree- certainly you should apologize for the “simply”. there’s nothing simple about gaza. gaza sux, as in it sux. that includes hamas, but mostly everything since 1948 and i’m sure you can tell me precisely what month the area around gaza was emptied of its people and gaza became such a heavily refugee population. and i suppose that any negative word that you use regarding gaza is insufficient because it will not stop the next round of idf versus hamas that is probably coming in a year or two and that just plain sux. so i guess bantustan as a type of cant is appropriate because when people die cant is born.
        egypt, al sisi, a seaside, i would think that israel and the us could come up with something that could avoid the next round. but it sux. but bantustan is a word that is an analogy. and i’ve been thinking about your last analogy of jordan: egypt, israel. britain poland deutschland and it really reflected some contused and simplistic thinking on your part. but clever argumentation.

      • JeffB
        April 7, 2015, 7:15 am

        @Tree

        Deferral is not denial. Deferral is fairly standard in government processing. The process is complex as the person needs to prove that Jerusalem is the center of their life so landline phone bills, electricity bills, and proof of payment of municipal property tax bills … need to be provided. Your claim was, “but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel” which is obviously not true. Of the people who reach resolution half get it and the 1/3rd deferred are likely going to get it, that’s the whole point of asking for additional information. That’s pretty standard in other countries, for example m wife was deferred for about 19 months while getting USA citizenship, she’s a citizen today and has been for many years.

        Moreover, the entire section you are quoting from is about how the number of Jerusalemites who are Israeli citizens and on the voter rolls is exploding and how the Palestinian civil authorities are discouraging this practice because it legitimizes the annexation. There is no discussion at all about how applications are being denied in mass numbers or anything of the type. You were making it up.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        April 7, 2015, 2:21 pm

        @JeffB

        Lest you continue to shift the goalposts, let’s recall that your claim was, “The people of East Jerusalem are full citizens of Israel with full voting and civil rights if they so choose.” That has been proved completely false by your own sources, since at least one third of those who “choose” to become Israeli citizens have their applications denied. Also, as you yourself admit, Arabs born in East Jerusalem can’t become citizens if they don’t prove that Jerusalem is the center of their life. On the other hand, Jews born there are granted automatic citizenship without need to prove anything. Different rights for different groups is apartheid, plain and simple.

        Your other arguments are flawed. You don’t provide the slightest evidence for your claim that Jerusalem Arabs who ask for Israeli citizenship and whose applications are deferred “are likely going to get it.” Your wife’s experience in the US is irrelevant because it’s another country with different rules and procedures.

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 6:41 pm

      JeffB,
      1. That relocation of ex-patriot Germans at the close of WWII, while regrettable, was perhaps understandable in the immediate wake of the Holocaust revelations, the massive holocaust death tolls of non-Jewish as well as Jewish Slavic eastern Europeans, not to mention these communities had provided Hitler with a convenient reason for attacking those countries (to save threatened Germans). Those circumstances were entirely different than the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the nascent Israeli state.

      2. As to your comparisons to UNHCR and UNRWA, the expection at the end of the 1948 war was that the Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to their homes and lands. Why weren’t they? Israel wouldn’t allow them to return. It didn’t like those scruffy Arab semites. The same thing happened in 1967, per my article.

      3. “Refugee problems can be handled by countries acting in good faith”. Would you include Israel on your list of bad faith countries? I suspect not. How many countries have accepted Palestinian refugees since 1948? Dozens and the numbers of ex-pat Palestinians living outside the middle east is at least a million. How many did Israel accept? None. Even their own Arab Israeli citizens have not been allowed to return to their homes and lands. Please, have you no shame?

      4. Read my article re the apartheid-like status of Israeli non-Jewish citizens, and the comments by the people I cite (all Jews, two Israeli Jews). But, wait, wait, these folks are the liberal Israelis that Netanyahu warned were “bussing in the Arabs.” God knows we don’t want those scruffy semitic Arab hordes to vote in our Jewish State election even though they may be Israeli citizens.

      5. Gaza is a separate country? No, Gaza is a part of Palestine as affirmed in the Oslo Accords. What clever Likudnik Zionists like yourself are hoping is that it can be separated off as a different country, crammed full of those pesky Arab semites, and kept under the thumb of Israel for the indefinite future. The advantage of this separation is that it removes some 2.1 million pesky semite Arabs from the Greater Israel that will be declared when Area C (if not the whole West Bank) is annexed. This, it is hoped, will solve the “demographic problem” It’s a very clever but rather transparent ploy that fools no one.

      Again, have you no shame? I guess not since you never got around to apologizing to me for calling me an anti-Semite a few months back.

      • JeffB
        April 5, 2015, 7:01 pm

        @Gil

        First off I said then was what you were saying which was that Jewish American should fear an outbreak of anti-Semitism if they fully participate in American civil life was was anti-Semitic. And I stand by that. You’ve said a lot more since then that’s pretty insulting this response full of pointless insults being one of them. If you want me to agree that maybe you are simply rude, ignorant while virulently anti-Israel and American Jews but not quite anti-Semitic sure that’s possible.

        I think you should decide if you want to have a thin skin or throw around insults you can’t do both. “Have you no shame…” is unneeded you can elevate tone by practicing politeness.

        1) Your claim implied that the allies didn’t deport civilians when in reality they deported millions. What you said was at the very least highly least misleading and either deliberately or accidentally so. You cannot write as if Israel committed a unique evil while admitting there is nothing unique about it.

        2) the expection at the end of the 1948 war was that the Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to their homes and lands UNWRA was formed Dec 1949. By then Israel had made their position clear as had most Arab nations. The Arab and Palestinian position was that the Israeli implant would be crushed and the Israelis were quite definite the Palestinians would not be returning since they did not intend to live in peace in Israel. UNWRA was formed because it was well understood they couldn’t easily return. So again this is just false.

        3) Would you include Israel on your list of bad faith countries? . I’d say uncooperative. Israel hasn’t wanted to take them. Sure that’s a fair statement. OTOH Israel has over the last 7 decades taken in something like 7x its population in refugees from other countries. So I’d say are likely in first place for housing refugees. They just don’t want one particular group of them.

        4) I don’t know what you are responding to here.

        5) Yes is a Gaza separate country. It is not physically connected to the West Bank. It has a distinct population. It has a distinct government. It it is rapidly experiencing a different culture. It is subject to different economics. I don’t know what you mean by “fooling”. But Gaza is out. As for keeping it under the thumb of Israel that’s simply nonsense. If Israel wanted control they would annex Gaza.

      • irishmoses
        April 9, 2015, 11:29 pm

        JeffB said:

        “First off I said then was what you were saying which was that Jewish American should fear an outbreak of anti-Semitism if they fully participate in American civil life was was anti-Semitic. And I stand by that.”

        I said no such thing and responded at length to your scurrilous allegation. Here’s my complete response (from 3/30/14):

        “JeffB:

        Let me deconstruct your desperate bullshit reply at 12:40pm above. I’ll do this from top to bottom with your comments in quotes:

        “You cut the comment out I was responding to.”

        False. I provided a link to your entire quote above which was mine. You should have quoted the comment of mine that you found antisemitic, particularly when making such an inflammatory accusation.

        “Your point was pretty clear that Jewish lobbying was somehow fundamentally any different than other American groups forming lobbies to have their interest addressed by government. An agricultural lobby is fine, the NRA is fine, the NEA lobby is fine…”

        A straw man. I never said Jews should not lobby, nor that they should be excluded from lobbying. My comment was specifically addressed at lobbying by a subset of American Jews who are promoting the extremes of Zionism and trying to influence American foreign policy to promote the interests of another country. I am critical of their lobbying efforts to the extent that they are damaging US interests and encouraging the continuing oppression of the Palestinians. My criticism may be misguided or based on faulty analysis but that doesn’t make my motive antisemitic. Being critical of Israel’s leaders or policies, or of American Jewish organizations that support or enable those policies is not antisemitic any more than being critical of China’s policies towards Tibet or the Uighurs is anti-Asian.

        “… a Jewish lobby is justifiable grounds for a resurgence in anti-Jewish violence”.

        I never said a Jewish lobby justifies antisemitism, nor did I use the term “anti-Jewish violence”. What I said was:

        “By failing to be out in front in opposing Israel and its US supporters on a very clear-cut human rights issue that is causing great harm to their own country, American Jews are potentially putting all their accomplishments, contributions, credibility and loyalty at stake. What happens if perceptions of Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, and Jewish power get attached to something truly nefarious like Jewish disloyalty to this country? Fairly or unfairly, those dots could be connected into a litany of charges, mostly unfair, that could be devastating to American Jews. Their visceral fear of a potential for a wave of antisemitism in this country could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

        You said: “Damn right it is anti-Semitic to promote special discriminatory laws or policies towards Jews.”

        Another JeffB straw man. I said nothing remotely approximating any promotion of “special discriminatory laws or policies toward Jews.” Nor did I say anything that would suggest I have a core belief that Jews are not like other Americans.

        You then string together your false statements and straw men to jump to the remarkable conclusion that:

        “Holding one or even a few views that are anti-Semitic does not make you anti-Semite so I’m not accusing you of that, yet. But your view on that issue is clear cut anti-Semitism. I have no problem saying that much.”

        I suppose it’s comforting to know that you don’t yet consider me a full blown antisemite, just that my “view on that issue is clear cut anti-Semitism”. If my view is so fucking clear cut, why don’t you have the decency to use my words as evidence of my antisemitism on this issue rather than making false statements about what I said and then throwing in a pack of straw dogs to support your scurrilous claim? Is that too much to ask? It’s simple. Just say: “Irish, this statement by you [verbatim quote by me inserted] seems to be antisemitic because …. Could you please explain?”

        As to your ending laundry list of hypothetical remarks that would suggest discriminatory animus against a variety of groups, let me reassure you that I have never said nor do I believe:

        1. That “whites”, Jews, or anyone else are entitled to separate bathrooms or front seats in buses,.
        2. That Jews, Muslims or anyone else, “shouldn’t be able to speak equally on the laws of this nation”.
        3. That Jews, Japanese, or anyone else, “can’t be trusted”.
        4. That Jews, or anyone else, “should not be allowed to participate fully equally in the American system of government”.

        If you feel you have evidence to the contrary, please have the decency to provide direct quotes from me that lead you to conclude I do harbor antisemitic tendencies or bias or animus.

        So, no, your response and conclusions are not “clear enough for [me]”. Your response was inadequate, defamatory, scurrilous, and highly offensive. Instead of offering a simple apology for an unwarranted and over-the-top statement, you instead buried yourself even more into the morass of the Hasbara Central antisemitism defense.

        Finally, your comment on HUAC:

        “As for HUAC. You also cut the comment I made about their numbers and how misleading wikipedia was on multiple fronts. Your response was dishonest.”

        False (once again): I didn’t cut any comment. I provided a link to your full response.

        False (once again): You said nothing about Wikipedia being “misleading on multiple fronts”. What you said was you preferred HUAC and the FBI as sources because “Wikipedia is random people.”
        You provided no cites in supporting of your HUAC claims, nor of HUAC’s accuracy or reliability as a source. I provided Wikipedia which cited several other sources that appear reliable.

        How can you conceivably claim or justify your comment that my response was “dishonest”? There are few congressional committees that have been ridiculed and vilified as much as HUAC (the McCarthy Senate committee is its only close rival). For you to claim HUAC as a reliable source is both ludicrous and embarrassing.

        Resorting to unsupported claims of antisemitism when you can’t win an argument on the merits, is a despicable, cowardly tactic that is shameful and should be below you. To paraphrase Senator Welch’s response to one of Senator Joe McCarthy’s outrageous statements defaming a witness, “Have you no sense of decency Sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?”

        Despite my detailed response (which you didn’t respond to), you now repeat the allegation misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what I said while again failing to quote the words that you allege are antisemitic.

        You then say, that i am “virulently anti-Israel and American Jews” (not to mention “rude” and “ignorant”). Another unsupported scurrilous slur by JeffB who, when losing an argument, always falls back on the antisemitism defense. First, I am not anti-Israel, I am anti-Israeli mistreatment on another people. There’s a difference. People who criticize Nazi Germany’s genocide of the Jews, the Slavs, the homosexuals, the gypsies, and a myriad of other groups, are not “anti-German”, or “anti-Germany”, they’re anti-Nazi German treatment of lots of helpless groups, foremost the Jews. As to the charge that I am “virulently anti-American Jews”, that comment is so outrageous and beyond contempt that I won’t waste my time dignifying it.

        As to me insulting you, you deserve the insults which were anything but pointless as they were based on your scurrilous, contemptible remarks. As to my “have you no shame” comments, how in fuck’s name do can you expect an “elevated tone” and “politeness” when you’ve accused somebody of being an antisemite? Give me a fucking break.

        I will respond briefly to your 5 replies to my original 5 points:

        1) What you seem to be saying is that Israel’s ethnic cleansing of over 1 million Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 is justified because somebody else did something similar. That flawed logic could be used to justify any post WWII genocides on the grounds that since Hitler and Stalin committed genocides., there’s nothing particularly wrong with someone else doing the same.

        2) Any reading of Israeli history, particularly by the new Israeli historians, shows that the motive from Herzl on was to create a pure, Arab-frei Israel as the Arabs were considered undermenschen and the Zionists wanted a land free of their lessers, goy, Arab, Amalek, or whatever.

        3) Your justification for Israel’s multiple ethnic cleansings of Palestinian Arabs is that it was making room for millions of refugees. You fail to mention that these refugees were exclusively Jewish. What you seem to be saying is that ethnic cleansing of non-Jews is justified if it results in more land for Jews.

        4) You do know what I was responding to. You just don’t want to address my facts and argument. It’s much easier to throw out the antisemite slur than argue in good faith.

        5) You say Gaza is a separate country but offer no evidence that this is so except to throw out a laundry list so-called differences between West Bank and Gazan Palestinians without offering a shred of legal evidence in support of your preposterous claim.

        As I said last year to you:

        Resorting to unsupported claims of antisemitism when you can’t win an argument on the merits, is a despicable, cowardly tactic that is shameful and should be below you. To paraphrase Senator Welch’s response to one of Senator Joe McCarthy’s outrageous statements defaming a witness, “Have you no sense of decency Sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?”

      • Philemon
        April 5, 2015, 8:34 pm

        The “anti-Semite” “Jew-hater” accusers never apologize or admit they might have been mistaken. They can’t. It would undermine their entire sense of who they think they are.

        However, irishmoses, you may be on to something. It kinda seems as though the ones who are the most vocal about “anti-semitism” when it might be Jews, actually applaud “anti-semitism” when it’s Arabs or anyone else who lives in the Middle East. Or anyone from those parts who lives elsewhere. It’s almost as though they want to distance themselves from them…

        Aside from the big money interests, the people who are merely psychologically invested are interesting. There’s a lot of projection, and self-aggrandizement, and persona-defending going on. I’m not willing to say that all of them are NPD, and for the younger ones, I’m hoping they’ll grow out of it in time, but for a lot of them, their whole personality seems to be wrapped up in “anti-semitism” one way or another. It’s sad when you think about it.

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 12:01 pm

        Good points Philemon.

        The same holds true for attacks on religion. Attacks on Judaism are prohibited (justifiably) but attacks on Islam are fair game.

      • Mooser
        April 5, 2015, 10:13 pm

        “What clever Likudnik Zionists like yourself”

        Not sure if “JeffyB” can be a Likudnik, since he lives in the US.
        He’s more of a Tea Party Zionist.

        I’ll give JeffyB one thing, tho, he sure does draw some informed responses.

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 10:31 pm

        No, he’s far too articulate to be one of that crowd. They just get manipulated to serve the ends of their higher ups. Maybe more a Likudnik Zionist loyalist.

      • yonah fredman
        April 6, 2015, 3:09 am

        irishmoses- the ethnic germans were moved out of those countries after world war II for purposes of future domestic tranquility, or as comeuppance for supporting the nazi invader. It had nothing to do with the death of Jews, except as an excuse.,

      • tree
        April 7, 2015, 5:57 am

        Yonah, for someone who nit-picks every word that Phil uses, you have an obvious problem with your own choice of words, ala this:

        as comeuppance for supporting the nazi invader.

        Maybe you are just profoundly ignorant of the ethnic Germans who were the victims of this post-WWII revenge, but a large number of them were children, who were punished, not for “supporting the nazi invader”, as they were too young to do so, but because they were of the same ethnicity as the Nazi invaders. It’s called collective punishment, not “comeuppance” which means that they had it coming.

        “come·up·pance
        ˌkəmˈəpəns/
        nouninformal
        a punishment or fate that someone deserves.”

        If you really think that “comeuppance” is the proper term, then I suppose you wouldn’t object to it being applied to Israelis who support or advocate the killing of Palestinians, as Rabbi Hartmann did. Oops, I forgot, he was Jewish and so subject to more lenient rules in your book.

        It had nothing to do with the death of Jews, except as an excuse.,

        Oh please. It had everything to do with the death of Jews, and the death of Slavs and other Eastern Europeans, and the innumerable hardships and violence perpetrated by the Nazis on other nations. It led to the all too human, but horrendous, desire to seek revenge by attacking other Germans who may have well had absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi violence, but merely shared their ethnicity. Some Jews were just as morally culpable for these attitudes and actions as those of other ethnicities. Salomon Morel for one very egregious example.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Morel

        If you really think that no Jew ever sought revenge for the death of other Jews then you are truly lying to yourself as well as others.

      • yonah fredman
        April 7, 2015, 6:53 am

        tree- tell me again. from the perspective of 2015 are you in favor of US involvement in World war II?

        I should have said vengeance instead of comeuppance.

        how many relatives suffered in world war II for you, tree? any?

        and if you consider yourself american, what was the most traumatic event of your people since the civil war? and if you consider yourself some other ethnicity, what was the most traumatic event of your people?

      • Mooser
        April 7, 2015, 1:40 pm

        Yonah, I am very sorry you were killed in WW2. You have my condolences. Your suffering must have been intense. Must be awful, being dead in 2015.

        Yoanh, will you please stop this ‘I’m the biggest sufferer in the world’ stuff. It’s really unseemly.
        I am sorry you’re dead, we all are, can’t you accept that? And nobody cares what your “ethnicity” is. Just drop it, okay?

      • tree
        April 9, 2015, 4:14 pm

        Yonah,

        Your questions bespeak of a seriously twisted mindset and perhaps I should just ignore them but in the interest of dialogue I will answer them, mistake or not.

        tree- tell me again. from the perspective of 2015 are you in favor of US involvement in World war II?

        Yes, but I can respect those who felt otherwise at the time and don’t feel the need to accuse them of Jew-hatred, especially since there was so much more to the war than the Jews, and war always creates much suffering, even with good motives and intent.

        how many relatives suffered in world war II for you, tree? any?

        Sounds like another particularly twisted question to me. No one suffered “for me” since I was not born until well after WWII. My father fought and was injured, one or two other more distant relatives were killed that I know about but obviously did not know personally.

        And a great grandfather was killed in WWI, and a grandmother was orphaned because of it. WWI- you know the World War that doesn’t count when tallying up victim points. And certainly casualties of any other of the myriad regional wars since WWII don’t count either. All the really important suffering started in 1939 and ended in 1945, right?

        So why do you even ask this question? Because I called you on your false implication that Jews don’t do revenge, as opposed to every other ethnicity/religion that does?

        and if you consider yourself american, what was the most traumatic event of your people since the civil war?
        and if you consider yourself some other ethnicity, what was the most traumatic event of your people?

        Now this is the most bizarre question. I am a US citizen. I don’t just “consider” myself one, I actually am one according to the US government. Its not an ethnicity, its a nationality, one I share with every other US citizen regardless of whatever their and my ethnicity or religion happens to be.

        I don’t have “my people”. All people have worth and meaning and I don’t see any need to claim some restricted group in preference to all others. You ought to try it sometime. Its quite liberating and clarifying. It releases one from the idea that one must support or excuse evil actions just because they committed by “your people”. If everyone, and no one, is “your people” then you can focus on the actions without having to preface your judgment on who is doing it before deciding whether the action is right or wrong. And you can account for and understand the frailty and imperfections of all human beings, not just some limited group.

        Ethnically speaking, I guess I would say that the roots that I am aware of are European, mostly Western European, with some Central and Eastern European roots thrown in. Religiously speaking, my ancestors have been of multiple religions -including Judaism. I consider myself an atheist, who grew up as a Unitarian. This does not mean that I consider either atheists or Unitarians as “my people”, any more than I consider Europeans or Americans as “my people”. I don’t see the need to do so, and find it deleterious to do so if it is done to give me a illusory mantel of suffering, or accomplishment, that I didn’t personally experience. Its seems the height of selfishness and narcissism to me.

        I am well aware of the fact that I have been quite lucky in my life. My personal sufferings have been minor compared to so many other people all over the world. The only discrimination I’ve faced has been gender oriented, and its much less than it was when I was growing up and so much less then what my Mom faced. I don’t support gender equality just because I personally faced some discrimination, but because it is the right thing to do, and I believe in equality for all.

        So why is this so important to you? I usually answer all your questions, and you seldom answer mine in return. So can you answer this one in the interest of the dialogue you claim to want? Why do you think it important to know what “my” non-existent people have suffered throughout history? If I haven’t personally suffered it, why is it so important for me to point out what people who share my ethnic heritage had to suffer? Do I get points for other people sufferings? And if so, then, for Dog’s sake why? Why is the suffering of dead people who might have had a ancestral relationship to me more important that the suffering of people, both living and dead, who have no direct genetic relationship to me? Please explain, because it seem to me that this kind of thinking only leads to the creation of more suffering and more suffering for anyone is NOT a good thing.

      • just
        April 9, 2015, 4:21 pm

        A seriously excellent comment, tree.

        Thank you very much for it.

      • RoHa
        April 9, 2015, 7:27 pm

        Very well said, tree.

      • yonah fredman
        April 9, 2015, 8:36 pm

        tree- The way you linked to the Salomon Morel wikipedia article spooked me out. How come you have a whole file on despicable Jews? I suppose as a polymath maybe the file of disgusting jews only represents .1% of your knowledge.

        To get upset at the Jews of Eastern Europe of 1945 or 1946 for taking vengeance on innocent German children, well it’s great to be a universalist, is all I can say. my use of comeuppance rather than vengeance and your picking on that and your swift: gaze your eyes on this despicable Jew, well, I reacted to that.

        No America Firster from 1941 ever is criticized by you and no Jew is ever praised by you unless they work against Zionism. So I am curious about the source of your attitude.

        But now I see: it’s your love of truth and universalism that explains your politics. you are good and I am evil. as simple as that.

      • OyVey00
        April 9, 2015, 11:01 pm

        That relocation of ex-patriot Germans at the close of WWII, while regrettable, was perhaps understandable in the immediate wake of the Holocaust revelations, the massive holocaust death tolls of non-Jewish as well as Jewish Slavic eastern Europeans, not to mention these communities had provided Hitler with a convenient reason for attacking those countries (to save threatened Germans). Those circumstances were entirely different than the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the nascent Israeli state.

        Let’s see:

        – They lost a war
        – Were subsequently expelled or killed
        – And got their land and property stripped of them

        Nope, sounds exactly the same. Just admit you hate Germans cause they’re evil nahtzees.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 9, 2015, 11:40 pm

        oyvey no, it’s not exactly the same. the zionist project was to expel palestinians. without that there wouldn’t have been a war.

      • OyVey00
        April 10, 2015, 12:11 am

        oyvey no, it’s not exactly the same. the zionist project was to expel palestinians. without that there wouldn’t have been a war.

        So what? Stalin planned to invade Eastern Europe all along.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 10, 2015, 1:21 am

        sorry, my history is a little rusty. do you mean because Stalin planned to invade Eastern Europe all along this pertains to zionists intending to colonize palestine all along — that they somehow are analogous? you’ve lost me here.

      • OyVey00
        April 10, 2015, 3:01 am

        sorry, my history is a little rusty. do you mean because Stalin planned to invade Eastern Europe all along this pertains to zionists intending to colonize palestine all along — that they somehow are analogous? you’ve lost me here.

        Well, if I understand you correctly, you’re implying that the Germans had it coming since they invaded the Soviet Union, in contrast to the Palestinians who only declared war when they were already being colonized.

        Well, what happened in a nutshell:

        – Germany and the SU sign a non-aggression pact and in a secret article of the pact partition Poland among them

        – Britain and France sign a mutual defense treaty with Poland

        – A few days later Germany and the SU invade Poland

        – Britain and France declare war on Germany (but not on the SU)

        – The SU officially stays neutral but provides resources like oil and steel to the German defense industry

        – Germany launches a surprise attack on the SU

        The prevailing opinion of historians is that Stalin just supported Germany to let the Western powers fight a long and destructive war of attrition among themselves and planned to invade Germany once they were weak enough. However, he didn’t predict that Germany would be daring (or insane) enough to launch a pre-emptive strike on them, much less during the Russian winter. Well, it failed though and the rest is history.

        TLDR: Even if the Germans didn’t attack first, they’d most likely have been invaded and expelled. So I don’t see how this situation is fundamentally different from the Palestinian one. Moreover, the Red Army didn’t just expel the Germans, they bombed refugee treks, sunk vessels with thousands of refugees on board and killed/raped every German they could get their hands on.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 10, 2015, 5:15 am

        you’re implying that the Germans had it coming … in contrast to the Palestinians who only declared war when they were already being colonized…Even if the Germans didn’t attack first, they’d most likely have been invaded and expelled. So I don’t see how this situation is fundamentally different from the Palestinian one.

        i think this tells me all i need to know .. about you.

      • tree
        April 10, 2015, 4:16 pm

        yonah,

        To get upset at the Jews of Eastern Europe of 1945 or 1946 for taking vengeance on innocent German children, well it’s great to be a universalist, is all I can say. my use of comeuppance rather than vengeance and your picking on that and your swift: gaze your eyes on this despicable Jew, well, I reacted to that.

        You don’t do dialogue well, yonah, and the primary reason for that is you don’t listen-instead you project. I never said I was “upset at the Jews of Eastern Europe” or at any other European who succumbed to acts of vengeance after WWII. And I made it clear that such acts were not limited to Jews. I also made clear that vengeance is the product of universal human traits, or failings, so when you say that I was upset at Jews for seeking vengeance you are projecting. You are falsely interpreting my statements as hate so that you can hate in return. You seem to need to create instances of hate from others in order to justify your own in return.

        You claimed that the ethnic cleansing of Germans after the war was in no way related to the collective punishment of ethnic Germans for the horrors of Nazi Germany, and that vengeance and hatred had no part of it. I corrected you. The reality was sad and ugly, as was WWII even more, but it stems from human failings and including Jews in with the rest of humanity as having human failings is not an expression of Jew hatred. Its an acknowledgement that they are like the rest of humanity.

        If this will make you feel better, here’s an example from Denmark about Danish doctors after WWII, that I read about recently:

        Denmark ‘s Myths Shattered: A Legacy of Dead German Children

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/denmark-s-myths-shattered-a-legacy-of-dead-german-children-a-355772.html

        I’m sorry if you disapproved of my example of Salomon Morel, but I have heard too many times from defenders of Israel that Jews don’t commit atrocities. I find the attitude most distressing Precisely because it is usually expressed, quite ironically, in order to excuse the mass killing of Palestinians or other Arabs by Israel. Mentioning Morel was a quick way of countering the false idea that somehow no Jew, apart from the rest of humanity, ever seeks vengeance or commits violence unless it is forced upon him. Again, I’m talking humanity, not singling out Jews. You were the one who implied that Jews never did such a thing, and that victims of collective punishment are just getting their “comeuppance”.

        No America Firster from 1941 ever is criticized by you and no Jew is ever praised by you unless they work against Zionism.

        I simply defended Lindbergh against your claim that he was a Jew hater and threatened Jews. I mentioned some of his failings, in fact more than you did, but again you don’t listen – you project. You hate Lindbergh so Lindbergh must have hated Jews. I defended the great Jew hater in your mind, so I must be a Jew hater too.

        So I am curious about the source of your attitude.

        Does that explain why you asked me who “my people” were? So you could stereotype me on the basis of my ethnicity? Doesn’t that seem a bit bigoted on your part??? Think about it.

        you are good and I am evil. as simple as that.

        Projecting again. I never said that and don’t believe it. You do seem to have a boatload of unresolved anger, though, which can’t be good for you, or anyone else you interact with.

        And BTW, bantustan is an accurate description. “Sux” on the other hand is cant, which means next to nothing in describing the conditions under which Gazans live. Homework “sux”, Monday “sux”, McDonalds “sux”. Gazans live in a Bantustan. It is way beyond the amorphous “sux”.

        But I will apologize for the use of the word “simply”, not because I misused it. I didn’t. But because I tend to overuse some words and “simply” is one of those words. One of the reasons I comment here is to try to improve my writing. I don’t think that I’m making much progress on that score.

        PS to Roha and just: Thanks for the kind comments. I appreciate both of your comments here.

      • just
        April 10, 2015, 5:53 pm

        tree~ another really great comment.

        Sadly, I have visited some of the cemeteries and have seen the graves, including those in Vestre Kirkegaard. Thanks for linking to the article.

        P.S. your writing is superb, imho. I appreciate your insights.

      • tree
        April 10, 2015, 6:19 pm

        just,

        I appreciate your insights.

        Thanks. And I yours.

        whine mode on:
        I can’t believe how far up I had to scroll to reply to your comment. I love this place but I so miss the old version and especially the green highlights on unread comments. I end up missing too many comments and conversations are much more disjointed these days. Hard to tell who’s replying to whom some times.
        whine mode off.

      • just
        April 10, 2015, 6:33 pm

        LOL!

        I’ll ditto the ‘whine’! Your comments make it worth it, though.

      • yonah fredman
        April 11, 2015, 4:01 pm

        tree- you are an intelligent human being plus you are an American and you believe in the unity of the human race. three bravos.

        anyone who defends Lindbergh’s infamous Des Moines speech of september 1941 in the disingenuous fashion that you at first attempted until scaling back to merely obnoxious falls into the antiJewish category. (i’m sure that out of every 1000 people who would defend that speech at least 3 of them don’t have a jew hating bone in their body. but i’ll bet you’re one of the 997.) if only your refusal to see that speech from the standpoint of American Jews it paints you as someone who refuses to see things from the vantage point of the Jews. I asked you what people you belonged to in an attempt to fathom the variety of Jew hatred that lies at the basis of your opposition to the Jews. There are 31 varieties of ice cream at Baskin Robbins and there are many varieties of Jew hatred, some attached to ethnic origin and I was curious if you learnt your Jew hatred from the newspapers or from your grandparents or from Toynbee or Voltaire or the New Testament or from your concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam. In the good old days when i used to haunt the pro Palestinians on east 14th street on saturdays in manhattan, I was able to meet the haters face to face and i got all kinds of input to add to the words they spoke. the nature of written communication is different.

        at this point of time there is no real problem with antisemitism in america, as in: it does not measure up to the occasional killings in western europe and certainly not to other eras of recent history, so your hatred of the Jews is relatively harmless.

        (I use jew hatred because antisemitism is not specific enough and judeophobia is a silly word. in fact jew hatred is probably too harsh a term, antiJewish would sum it up in a less loaded way. )

      • Annie Robbins
        April 12, 2015, 1:33 am

        another poison pen comment yonah?

      • Mooser
        April 12, 2015, 4:24 pm

        Yonah: I entreat you, I beg of you, please, stop making such a flagrant ass of yourself!

        “There are 31 varieties of ice cream at Baskin Robbins and there are many varieties of Jew hatred,”

        So if you act in a completely unpleasant and provocative way, are irritatingly passive-aggressive, and anybody reacts in any way, you immediately reach for the scoop and select one of the 31 flavors? With so many flavors, what else do you need in your diet but ice cream? Mmmmmmm, ice-cream.

      • tree
        April 13, 2015, 4:02 pm

        if only your refusal to see that speech from the standpoint of American Jews it paints you as someone who refuses to see things from the vantage point of the Jews.

        Yonah, the question was about Lindbergh’s motives, not about anyone else’s reaction to it. I’m sorry if you felt threatened by the speech but that does not mean that Lindbergh intended to threaten. Just as Iran’s intentions are not the same thing as your average Israeli Jew’s reaction to Iran. I don’t believe that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon, or even build one for deterrence purposes. Iran’s intent should not be judged by whether Israel feels threatened or not. If in fact Iran does not intend to attack Israel then Israel’s reaction is wrong, not Iran’s intent. The “vantage point of the Jews” in this case is irrelevant to Iran’s intentions.

        Same goes for LIndbergh’s speech. If his intent was not to threaten Jews, then the speech can’t be used as an example of “Jew hatred”. If his intent was not to threaten, then the fact that some Jews felt threatened can be explained as either an insensitivity to certain Jews feelings on his part, or his belief that preventing the US from entering WWII was more important than hurting some peoples’ feelings. ( BTW, isn’t your using the term “the Jews” in the quote above a bit anti-semitic in assuming that “the Jews” are a monolith?)

        My guess about your background is that you are in your 80’s and were an American child in the early 1940’s, had a crush on Lindbergh yourself, and were devastated by what you thought was a threat against Jews like yourself from someone you had thought of as an idol. That would explain your obsession with Lindbergh’s speech and your refusal to view it from any other vantage point than the one you had as a child. Otherwise your obsession with an arcane bit of history makes little to no sense, unless you are just looking for ways to hate people and justify your own hate.

        I asked you what people you belonged to in an attempt to fathom the variety of Jew hatred that lies at the basis of your opposition to the Jews.

        First off, what’s with the term “the Jews” again? You have to know that Jews are not a monolith, and my opposition is to Zionism, which I view as a racist and supremacist movement, not to Jews per se, just as my opposition to white supremacism is not an opposition to whites per se. Zionism may perhaps be the viewpoint of the majority of Jews today, but likewise white racism was the viewpoint of the majority of whites for a long time. Opposition to either ideology is not opposition to either ethnicity. You asked “what people I belong to” because you accept the idea of an exclusivist “my people” and you sought to claim some personal victimhood on the basis of other people’s pain that you think that you have a right to claim but I do not. It was a particularly bigoted reaction on your part. Apparently, you think that you are allowed to judge people based solely on their ethnicity and not be called on it, while pretending that people who oppose Zionism are anti-Jewish when they are clearly not. Another example of projection on your part. You judge people according to their ethnicity and then project that onto others.

        There are 31 varieties of ice cream at Baskin Robbins and there are many varieties of Jew hatred, some attached to ethnic origin and I was curious if you learnt your Jew hatred from the newspapers or from your grandparents or from Toynbee or Voltaire or the New Testament or from your concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam.

        So why not ask me directly where my non-existent “Jew hatred” comes from instead of assuming that my ethnicity or religion must be at fault. If you wanted to know where my opposition to Zionism comes from I would have told you. I’ll tell you now. If you know anything about Unitarianism you know that it is very non-dogmatic. I spent the few years I went to Sunday school (at my parents doing) mostly learning about other world religions, including Judaism, Christianity (Unitarians are not Christians), Islam and Eastern religions. My mother and father chose that religion as adults, but encouraged their children to make up their own minds. As my sister approached adulthood she became interested in Judaism. Although it wasn’t our path the rest of the family approved of her seeking her own religious path (while my mother became Buddhist and I chose atheism). Many years later, in the early 1990’s she chose to go live in Israel. I was a bit uneasy about that, knowing a very limited amount about the Occupation, but wished her well personally. It was after all the start of the Oslo period and things were generally assumed to be getting better, especially for those of us who knew very little at the time. We were sporadically in touch by email but not regularly. Then in late 2000, when the second intifada was ongoing and I began to follow the news a bit, and discuss things on a chat board, I got an email from my sister, out of the blue, filled with some of the most racist garbage about Palestinians I had ever seen. I was shocked. My sister didn’t grow up a racist, why was she one now? That email, and the contradictory arguments that I heard from defenders of Israel led to my delving into the history and the more I delved the more I realized how incredibly bigoted and destructive the ideology is.

        As far as “[my] concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam” I think that history, rather than flotsam, is important to learn from, but only if you have an accurate view of history. I’ve pointed out to you many instances where Zionism was destructive to Jews as well as others and you are the one who ignores that, probably because you are too wrapped up in your perceived identity as a Zionist and your belief that Zionist Jews would never hurt other Jews. I know from your personal belief system that you care much less for the much greater harm Zionism has done to non-Jews. One day people will look back and recognize the “healthy cruelty” that the early Zionists practiced even among themselves, the Zionist’s mistreatment of the early Yemeni Jewish immigrants as well as the Israeli mistreatment of the latter Yemeni immigrants, the mistreatment of the DP camp Jews who refused to volunteer to fight for Israel in 1948, and many other instances where the interests of individual Jews were sacrificed to the interests of the ideology, and realize that Zionism was not “good for the Jews”. Whether you will hold on to your sanitized view of Zionist history or not, I do not know. I hope you let it go as well. It would make you a much happier person.

        In the good old days when i used to haunt the pro Palestinians on east 14th street on saturdays in manhattan, I was able to meet the haters face to face and i got all kinds of input to add to the words they spoke. the nature of written communication is different

        You sound exactly like a hater yourself. A hater and a baiter. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people just hate YOU and your attitude? Maybe its not all about your Jewishness to them just because it is to you? You come off rude and aggressive here. God knows how you come off in person, what with all the added input you give off in a face to face. I can’t imagine your demeanor being anything but aggressive in such an instance, especially since your admitted purpose in going there was to find “haters” to confront. You need people to hate you to justify your hatred of them. It’s self-destructive. You don’t have to be an angry old man.

      • just
        April 13, 2015, 4:32 pm

        Simply elegant, tree.

        A perfect 10. Thank you.

      • oldgeezer
        April 13, 2015, 5:40 pm

        @tree

        I have to echo the perfect 10.

      • justicewillprevail
        April 13, 2015, 6:11 pm

        Superb, tree. An eloquent and heartfelt essay which would make a standalone article here. A pity it will be wasted on the likes of Yonah, who will ignore it and continue with his ceaseless quest to force people into his straitjacketed, narrow-minded view of the world. However, it is not wasted on most of the rest of us who appreciate the time and effort you take to respond so thoughtfully to a serially thoughtless and rebarbative insulter, part of the small gang who continually whine and divert so pointlessly here, without ever learning a thing. Which they would if they bothered to take your articulate thoughts on board.

      • yonah fredman
        April 13, 2015, 8:32 pm

        tree- If I say your mother comes home late every night. She oughta watch herself. A lady that age going out so late in this neighborhood. She ought to take better care.

        If I am the local cop telling you that, then it’s one thing. But if I am the local thug telling you that, it’s quite another thing. You think Lindbergh was some innocent and the interpretation of his words is irrelevant to his heart. I do not care about his heart. I care about the threat implicit in his words.

        The Des Moines speech was the lowest point in American Jewish history in terms of a famous public figure threatening the Jews.

      • Mooser
        April 15, 2015, 1:16 am

        “- If I say your mother comes home late every night. She oughta watch herself. A lady that age going out so late in this neighborhood. She ought to take better care.

        If I am the local cop telling you that, then it’s one thing.”

        Yeah, it’s harassment, a threat, and completely unprofessional actions by the cop. Same as the thug.
        I’m not surprised you can’t tell the difference.

      • Mooser
        April 15, 2015, 1:18 am

        “In the good old days when i used to haunt the pro Palestinians on east 14th street on saturdays in manhattan, I was able to meet the haters face to face”

        What happened, you ended up with a restraining order? Or did you assault somebody, and can’t afford another run-in with the cops, because you have a history, or a warrant?

    • Mooser
      April 5, 2015, 10:20 pm

      “Well the allies most certainly did:”

      Sure “JeffyB”, that’s the league Israel plays in, Israel’s power and resources and position in the world is just like the combined allies at the end of WW2! Anything they could do, Israel can do better, and get away with!

      • Mooser
        April 13, 2015, 9:33 pm

        Tree’s comment I didn’t give full attention to til just now. It is, indeed, beautiful. I don’t know where he finds the patience, after all the insults from Yonah, but I’m glad he did. Thank’s, Tree.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      April 5, 2015, 11:02 pm

      @JeffB

      1-This article talks about countries occupied by America. The regrettable expulsions you bring up didn’t take place in those countries. By the way, it takes some conceit to believe we didn’t know about that ethnic cleansing until you opened our eyes to it.

      2-Just because the UN was complicit in the deportation of Germans doesn’t mean it should be complicit in other expulsions.

      3-Jews born in Jerusalem have the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. Arabs born in Jerusalem have the right to apply for citizenship, not the right to citizenship itself; and as you know, applications can be turned down. Different rights for different groups — that’s what Apartheid is about.

      4-Gaza is not officially part of Israel, agreed. But Ciskei, Transkei, Vendha and Bophuthatswana were not officially part of South Africa either, and even so the situation in those four “countries” was described by the international community as Apartheid. Are you sure you’re familiarized with the meaning of the word?

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 12:10 pm

        Good points, Hasbara Buster. However, Israel is still attached to the hip of Gaza as it remains the “Occupying Power” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and has the same duties and responsibilities to the Palestinians of Gaza as it does to those in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

  7. just
    April 5, 2015, 7:28 am

    Gideon Levy’s latest goes to the heart of this:

    “Behind the maple leaf: Gideon Levy visits Israel’s second best friend

    It’s not hard to imagine what would happen if lecturers from Tel Aviv University were to preface every event at the institution by noting that their university stands on Palestinian land – First Nations land.

    The Cathedral of St. James, a historic Anglican structure on Church Street in Toronto, was packed. The large, striking stone building, which usually fills up only on Sundays – church attendance is far higher in Canada than in Europe – was crowded last Tuesday evening with hundreds of people who came to hear a talk about a distant land.

    The event, originally scheduled to take place at the University of Toronto, was moved to the church because the organizers – Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East – did not want to break a strike by university teaching assistants and course instructors.

    The large organ in the background, the sense of a sacred space, the benches and the lecturer’s dais – the pulpit – created a bit of an odd setting for the speaker from Israel. Initially the dean of the cathedral did not want to allow the lecture to be held in his church, since it is intended for prayer and talks on spiritual themes. However, he was soon persuaded that a speech against the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Palestinians is a spiritual matter.

    Canada’s liberal circles haven’t lost interest in developments in the Middle East and haven’t abandoned hope for change, even in a period when their government’s support for Israel has reached an almost embarrassingly high level. Canadians are divided between supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper – a right-wing nationalist, who’s the most automatic backer of Israel in the world – and his rivals. Harper is Benjamin Netanyahu’s identical twin when it comes to fearmongering as a method of survival. The one is obsessed with Iran, the other with ISIS. They’re good friends, of course. …

    …Eight talks in eight days, in eight cities coast-to-coast, with travel between them by air, sea and land, left little time to experience the climate. But a homeless man who was freezing to death at the edge of Chinatown in Montreal and was taken away in an ambulance definitely felt the weather. He belongs to what are called Canada’s First Nations – the politically correct term for the country’s indigenous peoples, the Indians, who have been disgracefully dispossessed and oppressed. …

    …Another academic, Prof. David Leach, head of the department of writing at the University of Victoria, in British Columbia, was a volunteer on Kibbutz Shamir as a young man; he’s now writing a book about the kibbutz. Leach prefaced the visitor’s talk with a warning that those who parked illegally might get tickets, and then said: “I want to acknowledge the fact that the University of Victoria is situated on the unceded lands of the Coast Salish and Straits Salish peoples. Over my 25-year association with UVic, we have gone from ignoring this historical fact, to recognizing this fact, to turning that recognition into something of a routine at events such as this.”

    It’s not hard to imagine what would happen if lecturers from Tel Aviv University were to adopt a similar custom, and preface every event at the institution by noting that their university stands on Palestinian land – First Nations land.

    In the industrial city of Hamilton, Ontario, the Al Simmons Gun Shop looks exactly like similar establishments in movies about the Wild West. Homes in the city, which depended for its livelihood on the depleted American steel and automotive industries, are decaying. It’s a depressing sight.

    Most of the audience in Hamilton arrived for the talk, in a Unitarian church, in old vans. As a young woman, the church’s minister was in love with a Palestinian from Nazareth. “Now he’s married and the father of children,” she says wistfully.

    Waiting for us at Victoria airport was a couple in an old Ford bearing a sticker in support of preserving wild salmon. The two pensioners, he with a ponytail, she with a broad smile, recently bicycled across Canada. It took them 14 weeks. Recently, along with fighting for the rights of salmon, they’ve also been active in promoting the rights of the Palestinian people.”

    There’s more @ http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/twilight-zone/.premium-1.650269

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 6:56 pm

      What in god’s name happened to Canada? They were always our better half, an image of what we could be as a country. It was a country of decent people who cared about what was happening in the world. They took in our Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters, quietly, just as they took in all those planes that needed somewhere to land after 9/11. They did it quietly, out of sheer decency, as Canadians did back then. Now, with Harper, they’ve out neoconned the neocons.

      So very sad.

      • just
        April 5, 2015, 7:24 pm

        It is really very sad, Gil.

        Amira Hass has a new article up about the First Nations:

        ““Today we are going to party like it’s 1491,” says the man on the stage, and the audience laughs hysterically. “We’re not beating up on the whites here,” said Charlie Hill, the man who got onstage before him. “It’s not white-bashing what we are doing here, it’s just a spiritual spanking you should have gotten 400 years ago,” he continues, to the thunderous laughter of the audience, whose Native American features are caught by the cameras. The descendants of those who lived there before the white invasion in 1492.

        This scene appears in a 2009 video clip with stand-up acts. (Hill, a Native American comedian, who succeeded in the land of the whites, died in December 2013.) The video crops up in cyberspace between newer videos by a troupe called The 1491s, which I first heard about at a lecture last month in North Carolina.

        The 1491s are five men, members of the Dakota, Muscogee (Creek), Navajo, Osage and Seminole tribes. They laugh at themselves, and laugh at the whites and the stereotypes and representations of the Indians in American society, and at how in their own way Native Americans commercialize the offensive and flattening representations.

        In their video clips their looks are veiled, the way a noble savage is supposed to look, and they growl and mumble and speak in slow and “spiritual” sentences, as expected of them. It is much funnier, of course, when you see it, for example, in the video clip “The Indian Store” on YouTube. An aging beatnik is looking for books about tribal legislation and sovereignty, while the two sellers, dressed up in noblesse-oblige ornamentation, offer him books on spirituality and Mother Earth. No, he wants a book about the rights of the Creek (tribe), for example, and no, that they don’t have, but they do have a book of native tales that teach you “how not to be.”

        He continues to try; maybe they have one of the many books of the researcher of American policy towards the First Nations, Vine Deloria (a Sioux native), or something about the history of colonization; no, they have books about the language of the animals, and the latest edition of the book of photographs by Edward Curtis (which will be discussed below). There have been about 215,000 viewings of the video clip. …”

        more @ http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.650629?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 7:36 pm

        Just,

        Do you have a link to that 2009 video clip? I didn’t see it on Haaretz.

      • just
        April 5, 2015, 8:01 pm

        Funny you should ask! I’ve not located it yet, mostly because I was reuniting with Charlie Hill (RIP). Here’s a couple of clips:

      • just
        April 5, 2015, 8:02 pm

        The video is not very good on this one, but the audio is fine:

      • Walid
        April 6, 2015, 10:04 am

        “They were always our better half,… “(Irishmoses)

        That’s a problem Americans always had with their northern neighbours; they never considered them as full partners in anything but simply as half of one thing or another. Canadians are not all Christian Zionists working at making the Second Coming happen as their PM, but they have faith in him for his economic leadership much more than for his undying love for the Zios.

      • irishmoses
        April 6, 2015, 11:53 am

        No disrespect to Canada intended. “Better half” refers to a partnership, a marriage of two equal individuals.

        As to the PM, I hope he is not basing his economic leadership on the same principles used in the US which seem aimed at enriching the top 10 percent at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

        I’d also point out that PM Harper’s undying love for the Zios and near deification of Netanyahu aligns Canada as a fellow supporter and enabler of apartheid as is its neighbor to the south.

        I have great affection for Canada so seeing its leader jumping onto the Netanyahu bandwagon has been painful for me to watch.

  8. Blake
    April 5, 2015, 9:22 am

    Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, the South African PM in 1961 and architect of apartheid itself, said this at the time:

    “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state”
    (Rand Daily Mail, 23 November 1961).

    Its always been an apartheid entity. Not only since 1967

    • bintbiba
      April 5, 2015, 11:55 am

      @ Blake,
      Greetings…
      You once posted a link to ofpeasantsandothermatters over 2 1/2 years ago. Do you have any idea why R.Ciuffo has stopped posting since August 2012 on that site?
      I would appreciate any information . Thanks in advance.

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 7:30 pm

      Thanks Blake. Is there an online link to that article?

  9. Sweetling
    April 5, 2015, 11:16 am

    Amazingly cogent and readable piece. I’ve shared it with a friend who is a Jewish PEP (Progressive Except for Palestine). He very much wants peace, but he sees far more nuance and Arab responsibility for the situation than is warranted, and he is not alone among American Jews. Thank you so much for your writing. Laura

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 7:20 pm

      Thanks for reading it and for the kind words Sweetling.

      The writing part is very difficult for me. I usually end up putting down a whole lot of stuff and then, with my wife’s help, I have to figure out what I was trying to say. This piece seemed way too long and was particularly difficult to sort out. I just about walked away from it at one point.

      Yours and the others kind comments give me hope. I’d never thought of myself as a cogent and readable writer. Turgid, verbose, overwrought seemed more appropriate.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 5, 2015, 7:50 pm

        I usually end up putting down a whole lot of stuff and then, with my wife’s help, I have to figure out what I was trying to say.

        that sounds familiar, send you wife to my house! ;)

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 8:29 pm

        Very moving piece. Thanks Just.

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 8:48 pm

        I don’t think so. :>)

      • Mooser
        April 6, 2015, 12:48 pm

        “I usually end up putting down a whole lot of stuff and then, with my wife’s help,”

        In praise of literary helpmeets:

        ‘Can she edit turgid prose, Gillie boy, Gillie boy?
        Can she pare down verbose prose, darling Gillie?
        Yes, she edits turgid prose,
        keeps it crisp,
        and makes it flow.
        She’s a young thing,
        and cannot leave her Mo-ther!’

      • irishmoses
        April 7, 2015, 1:32 am

        Funny, Mooser. She’ll like this. However, if her mother had come with her I’d have joined the French Foreign Legion.

      • Mooser
        April 7, 2015, 11:41 am

        Thanks. It was meant well, but the edit window closed before I came to my senses.

  10. oldgeezer
    April 5, 2015, 12:25 pm

    Great article and analysis. I have bookmarked it specifically for future reference. Thanks!

  11. echinococcus
    April 5, 2015, 2:31 pm

    Very good. A date problem, though. Not since 1967, but since 1948. We should take the unilateral statehood declaration on other people’s land as the start of the Apartheid state (not the 11/1947 attack that preempted the partition proposal) even though most of the Apartheid legislation that followed was not official yet. Statehood was immediately paired with de facto Apartheid and martial law for the owners of the land and national sovereignty.

    • Mooser
      April 5, 2015, 4:02 pm

      “echinococcus”, my cyclophyllid friend, Israel will probably end up getting away with quite a bit. But I don’t worry too much, since Israel itself has more than adequately demonstrated that the borders within which it has the strongest declared claim to state-hood are not adequate. See what I’m saying? Since the Israeli’s themselves don’t seem to feel they can live, operate their Jewish State securely within the ’48 boundaries, why worry about reducing their claim even further?

      • irishmoses
        April 5, 2015, 7:26 pm

        Jesus, Mooser, it’s hard enough to google echinococcus let alone cyclophyllid. Sounds like butterflies or stages of butterflies?

        As to boundaries, you forget their deed. Their biblical one, gets them clear to the Euphrates as I recall. If you got the Old Testament, to hell with that limey Balfour crap.

        They may need to negotiate possession with ISIS as it has a pretty good claim in adverse possession. (retired lawyer joke).

      • echinococcus
        April 6, 2015, 4:10 am

        My learnéd zoologist and parasitologist friend, the idea is that when you negotiate you gotta negotiate. Crazy as it may seem, and believe me I’m saying this with the due humility of a worm and a parasite, things might one day get so that even Zionists have to negotiate for dear life, you gotta be hard-nosed as hell cause those babies are used to negotiating your underwear from under your ass even when they don’t hold a single card, so no concessions before starting. The rights that the Zionists may claim as rights, to start with, are zilch, nada, nought, not in nineteenhundred-anything. Just whatever individual real estate deeds were held before day D. The colonial powers had no right to gift any land or transfer any sovereignty; the Partition proposal was rejected by the natural owners (and anyway violated and so voided by the Zionist aggression but that’s irrelevant.) One can even give a hard time to all the immigrant offspring since the start of, say, the British mandate, because it’s unclear if we should really go by jus solis… see what I mean?

      • MHughes976
        April 6, 2015, 1:05 pm

        From the Nile to the Euphrates, give or take a bit of interpretation. It comes from a higher power than the UN and suchlike. I think they do agree with ISIS at least to the degree that there is something totally contemptible about people meeting in trivial gatherings and calling themselves by grand names and pretending to supersede the laws that are ancient and sacred.
        The Palestinians have no right to be there. It’s not their fault that they are there but in the end they have to go, one hopes by the most humane procedures available. Apartheid never sounds quite right to me as the basic term for what is going on, though I’m sure you’re right that the legally defined crime of apartheid is being committed en passant.

  12. irishmoses
    April 5, 2015, 7:07 pm

    echinococcus, what was “the 11/1947 attack that preempted the partition proposal”? Attack by who? How did it preempt the Partition Plan that I believe had been UN ratified by that point?

    Actually, the statehood declaration by Israel on May 14, 1948 was for the Jewish State portion of the UN Partition Plan not all they had captured outside that portion by that date.

    • echinococcus
      April 6, 2015, 4:20 am

      Sloppy wording, you’re right. Anyway, I seem to remember that it was a GA proposal, predicated on acceptance by the parties and coming with some conditions from the start, including that of non-aggression. Not to mention that how the UN members come by the right to sell or give the sovereignty over that land is also something that can be questioned.

  13. just
    April 5, 2015, 8:17 pm

    About That Violent Military Occupation:

    “From an Israeli combat soldier to conscientious objector

    Two years into his service, a Nahal soldier refuses to continue serving because of the occupation. …

    “From the moment I began my training I understood how violent this place is,” he recalled. “It was a totally traumatic experience. Every time we would do shooting practice, we would be ‘executing’ someone – ‘Now we shoot Mohammed; now we shoot at Ahmed,’” he said.

    Because Kaplan is an only child, he had required his mother’s permission to do combat service in the first place, and he asked her to rescind her agreement. He was reassigned to the training base headquarters of the Nahal Brigade. “As a result I somehow became reconciled to the fact that I’m in the army, understanding that we need an army, and I would do the best I could to change the system from within,” he recalled. He even thought of taking an officers’ course. But at some point, he realized that, “he couldn’t represent the system,” as he put it. “The army has a very violent nature and I couldn’t be its emissary.”

    He said he took leave from the army during the period before the Knesset election and volunteered for the Joint List – the amalgamation of three Arab parties and Hadash, an Arab-Jewish party. It was only then that it became clear to him that he did not want to continue his army service.

    “I understood something that until then I’d been avoiding; that I can’t expect or demand from a person that he be my partner, or that he should really see me as a partner for dialogue as long as I am imposing a military regime on him,” he said. “There’s this inequality and the situation itself is so asymmetrical that there’s no basis for discourse. If I want this cooperation, the most fundamental thing I can do is to refuse to be part of this regime.”

    A few days before Passover Kaplan refused to return to his base, and he is now considered AWOL. While at home he and others who have refused service are planning a demonstration in front of the induction center on Monday, to protest the detention of several others, including Yehiel Nahmani and Effi Dershner, who are in prison now, and Ido Ramon, who is expected to be sent to prison for a second time on Monday. …

    After Passover he plans to present himself at his base and be sent to prison. “I am fully aware of the ramifications of this, what the path before me looks like – a lot of prison, including lengthy terms,” Kaplan said. “I’m a person who believes that you have to listen to your heart, to follow your beliefs. I have no doubt that this is the right thing to do. The emotional price and the price to my conscience that I would have to pay for the mental suffering of being in the army are too heavy from my perspective. To be [another] year in the army is impossible on the most practical level. I would suffer terribly.””

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.650660?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  14. piotr
    April 5, 2015, 9:04 pm

    Israel had one “non-Apartheid year”, from ending the military rule over Arab citizens to the imposition the the military justice on the newly conquered population about a year later.

    The very formation of the State has genetic affinity to Apartheid. South African Act gave the Whites of South Africa the right to rule over other folks there any way they please, and five years later another colonial project was promised by Balfour Declaration. The idea that as land can be cleared from weeds to facilitate crops, it can also be cleared from undesirable types of people was of course yet older, and I am not sure if it was seriously criticized in the West before 1950. By “seriously” I mean members of Cabinets and other Established members of society. No wonder that Nakba did not make big waves in Europe and America.

    My point is that Nakba was, to a degree, following de facto international norm back when it was committed. During the subsequent 68 years, the world made some progress, but Israel seems to be increasingly harsh, sharing values with people who long for the good old days when we did not had “these problems”.*


    Trent Lott was a Senate Majority leader for a while, and he said those warm words on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Thurmond had run for President of the United States in 1948 on States’ Rights ticket (“Segregation forever”). Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

    • irishmoses
      April 5, 2015, 10:08 pm

      Piotr,

      Thanks for your thoughtful response.A long reply I wrote to you just disappeared. I’ll try to redo it.

      The one year non-apartheid period you refer to (1966-67) is technically correct but I suspect the status of non-Jewish Israeli Arabs was significantly below that of Israeli Jews both in legal terms and community support.

      While you may be right about the different norms in the 1948 Nakba, don’t underestimate the power of the Zionists back then to manipulate a narrative. The public outrage that might have occurred or been more widespread was effectively diverted because of Zionist efforts aimed at manipulating the narrative in their favor and attacking those who attempted to give voice to a more factual narrative.

      In any case, my article concerned the period after the 1967 war, a period in which apartheid was present from the beginning. Israel’s intentional and knowing violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which it had signed) were war crimes and part of the whole structure of the apartheid system they created.

  15. piotr
    April 5, 2015, 9:14 pm

    Israel had one “non-Apartheid year”, from ending the military rule over Arab citizens to the imposition the the military justice on the newly conquered population about a year later.

    The very formation of the State has genetic affinity to Apartheid. South African Act gave the Whites of South Africa the right to rule over other folks there any way they please, and five years later another colonial project was promised by Balfour Declaration. The idea that as land can be cleared from weeds to facilitate crops, it can also be cleared from undesirable types of people was of course yet older, and I am not sure if it was seriously criticized in the West before 1950. By “seriously” I mean members of Cabinets and other Established members of society. No wonder that Nakba did not make big waves in Europe and America.

    My point is that Nakba was, to a degree, following de facto international norm back when it was committed. During the subsequent 68 years, the world made some progress, but Israel seems to be increasingly harsh, sharing values with people who long for the good old days when we did not had “these problems”.*


    Trent Lott was a Senate Majority leader for a while, and he said those warm words on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a long time conservative leader. Thurmond had run for President of the United States in 1948 on States’ Rights ticket (“Segregation forever”). Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

  16. Boomer
    April 6, 2015, 2:25 pm

    Re M. Hughes976, “Apartheid never sounds quite right to me as the basic term for what is going on . . . ”

    Perhaps “redemption of the land” ?

  17. just
    April 6, 2015, 9:56 pm

    Interesting and very creepy:

    “The failure of Zionist Union and the left at the ballot box last month stemmed partly from the failure of all those involved in education in this country. In order to maintain his rule, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made sure that all his education ministers placed militaristic and nationalistic education at the forefront of education in our state-school system. Plans were drawn up to incorporate the Israel Defense Forces into high-school studies – to include trips to Hebron and elsewhere in the territories – and to initiate daily flag-raising ceremonies. Unprecedented levels of Jewish and Holocaust studies were adopted as well.

    No time was devoted to educating toward peace; and no enhanced studies of civics or humanistic values were initiated. Political education? No such thing. There were but a few principals, teachers or parents who dared oppose domineering education ministers.

    How did this come about? The education system was severely damaged by Limor Livnat (Likud) and her deputy, who quietly dismissed hundreds of teachers between 2001 and 2006. Since then, silence has fallen over anyone involved in education in Israel.

    What a huge gap and contrast between former education ministers who came from Labor and Meretz and those appointed by Netanyahu. The late Shulamit Aloni emphasized democracy and civil rights; Amnon Rubinstein took up the quest for peace; and Yossi Sarid embraced the periphery as a high priority. Even Likud members in outlying areas commended him for that approach.

    The IDF continues with its nationalistic and religious education, incorporating rabbis who are sprouting up everywhere in their role as army preachers.

    A few months ago, I was present at a ceremony, marking the end of basic training, in which two rabbis delivered speeches. One told the soldiers that anywhere our feet step belongs to us – be strong and courageous!

    We’ve tasted the bitter fruits of such nationalistic preaching, with the actions of the “price-tag” vandals who commit racially motivated hate crimes, and in the words of the prime minister regarding our Arab citizens on Election Day; nationalistic education with flag waving and a conception of the settlements as part of Israeli territory. Concessions in the interest of peace? Unmentionable within the current, nationalistic education system. …”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.650733?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • irishmoses
      April 6, 2015, 10:03 pm

      Probably stems from Jabotinsky’s time in fascist Italy. Apparently he admired more than just the trains running on time.

  18. mcohen.
    April 7, 2015, 7:05 am

    its almost but not quite,say it enough and it might take on a life of it,s own….this obsession with the left to make the apartheid label stick is tiresome and the references to south africa not even close ….arabs voted and they are represented…..the manipulation of the narrative to project the image of “apartheid” is a full time arab propaganda project…..jews did not arrive in israel 200 years ago the same way europeans colonised south africa….in fact the majority of black african tribes in south africa came from central africa and migrated down to south africa

    http://www.ezakwantu.com/Tribes%20-%20Southern%20African%20Tribal%20Migrations.htm

    nooooo my friend ,jews are the indigenous inhabitants of israel……

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/FirstJudeanCoins.html

    Judaea was part of the Persian empire from the 6th – 4th centuries BCE. During the latter part of this period, small silver coins were struck by an autonomous Jewish authority with the permission of the Persians. Many copied the owl design of the popular Athenian silver coins, but the Greek inscription “AQE” was replaced by an ancient Hebrew legend “YEHUD,” the Persian name of the Province of Judaea.

    apartheid is an islamic practice where people of different relegions are seperated out from muslims in an islamic state….in israel muslims are integrated and allowed freedom to worship wherever….it may not be perfect but it is not the saudi arabian wahhabi school of no churches or synagogues

    come come fellows lets not be lazy and try and latch onto ready made misleading cliches…all nicely written in best english

    really why not say that england occupies ireland and there is apartheid between the the irish and english…there certainly is a history to back it up,with relegion thrown in for measure

    i always wondered why the un never intervened in the “troubles” or am i mistaken

    • Annie Robbins
      April 7, 2015, 11:59 am

      mccohen, i don’t really have the time right now to respond to this, other than advising you to google the “crime of apartheid” because it describes the conditions for the crime to be applicable, which it clearly is. mentioning ways in which SA apartheid is different that israel is not a defense per se.

      also, just thought i would point out: arabs voted and they are represented

      yes, and after they voted the israel gov proceeded to arrested and imprison their elected leaders. they are still in jail. abbas/fatah, didn’t win the election.

      • mcohen.
        April 7, 2015, 4:29 pm

        annie …come on …you read what the man wrote….no solution but the application of UN law might solve the problem.

        the point about arabs voting is that it has not been in there interests to vote because in there minds supporting a democratic process in israel is not part of there strategic vision…namely the demise of the state of israel

        A LAND FOR JEWS……that idea is not a jewish problem …it is an arab one….failure to accept the concept of a land for jews will not lead to a just peace no matter how many apartheid labels you throw at it

        it is up to the arabs to come up with a just iniative not the israeli,s..not the un and certainly not jimmy carter,a peanut farmer from the usa who tried to intervene in the pistachio wars between israel and iran back in the late 80,s.

        any boycott of pistachio supplies or even those tasty small dried figs will lead to an escalation that can only bring about more wars in a region that is already volatile.

        as much as bo has tried to push arab leaders in the right direction….notice the grey hairs…at the end of the day only a arab iniative,not iranian, but arab iniative with a good solid offer of what ? thats the problem what can the arab people bring to the table at the banquet of enlightened souls….the ein brazzani,the imar afgoosh

        first week in june

      • Annie Robbins
        April 7, 2015, 5:21 pm

        mcohen, just out of curiosity how did you happen to think of pistacios. have you been reading about them lately? i asked because an old article of ours – about pistacios, is getting slammed w/traffic these last few days. i am just wondering why that might be.

      • Mooser
        April 7, 2015, 6:48 pm

        “first week in june”

        What about it? About the “first week in June”? Mind explaining what that’s about for the unenlightened?

      • RoHa
        April 7, 2015, 7:28 pm

        “A LAND FOR JEWS……that idea is not a jewish problem”

        Yes it is. Jews cooked up the idea.

        “it is an arab one”

        Because Jews decided to make their land at the expense of Arabs.

        “failure to accept the concept of a land for jews will not lead to a just peace ”

        The concept of a land for a specific ethnic/religious group is inherently unjust. Failure to reject the concept of a land for Jews will not lead to a just peace.

    • eljay
      April 7, 2015, 12:20 pm

      || mcoheneee: … jews did not arrive in israel 200 years ago … ||

      You’re right: Many Jews arrived in Palestine up until 1948, after which:
      – many Jews continued to arrive in Israel; and
      – many Jewish Israelis colonized (and continue to colonize) non-Israeli territory (including Jerusalem).

      || nooooo my friend ,jews are the indigenous inhabitants of israel … ||

      Nooooo, my Zio-supremacist, they’re not. Palestinians (Jewish and non-Jewish) were/are the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine. Israelis (Jewish and non-Jewish) – including refugees from Israel – are the indigenous inhabitants of Israel.

    • oldgeezer
      April 15, 2015, 2:04 am

      Sorry mcohem but Jews are not the indigineous people of Israel even according to Jewish myth. Just as we see in current events zionists start the clock at points in time convenient to their argument. When Jewish people supposedly took control over land in the general area of Israel they had to fight to take the territory.

      No Jews are not the indigenous population by any stretch of the imagination. And Jewish mythology, like Christian and Muslim mythology, requires one heck of an imagination.

      • MHughes976
        April 15, 2015, 4:32 am

        Yes indeed – biblical teaching is emphatic that the Israelite immigrants’ right to Canaan was unique, based on the special dispensation of God which overrode the normal rights of the people living in a place for the greater overall good of humanity in the end. Ancient people knew as well as we do that is there is no normal right to conquest or plunder.
        Perhaps there have to be some special things, perhaps the great overall good has sometimes to be created painfully. But where is that greater good to be seen?
        Boomer noted my dissatisfaction with apartheid as the basic term for what is going on and suggested ‘redemption of the land’. I always think that apartheid was a rather prosaic idea about the organisation of labour, keeping it cheap – and Boomer is right that what’s going on in Palestine has to be understood in poetic and theological terms. I think that I prefer ‘conquest’, which is both theological and all too realistic.

  19. just
    April 7, 2015, 7:51 am

    Terrific interview @ EI with 2 amazing anti- apartheid, human rights activists:

    “Boycotting Israel more urgent than in case of South Africa, says anti-apartheid veteran
    Submitted by Adri Nieuwhof

    ……..So the BDS movement is located in a progressive, humanist, left discourse. It has got nothing to do with the Nazi discourse. The pro-Israel lobby damn well knows. It is simply a question of expediency and playing the guilt card with Europe and the US.

    AN: How do you assess the role of the BDS movement against Israel in comparison with BDS activism against the apartheid regime in South Africa?

    FE: The South African struggle only acquired sexiness in the last five years before the end of apartheid. And Mandela acquired sexiness only after he was released and became the reconciler. But BDS was alive 25 years before that. This year we are celebrating ten years of BDS against Israel. It is far more developed, has notched up far more victories than what the anti-apartheid movement had notched up when it was ten years old.

    Another difference is that South Africa never had as its project the importation of all white races throughout the world into South Africa. BDS is now dealing with a movement that has as its fundamental project the importation of other settlers, other colonialists from other parts of the world. In South Africa we dealt with a settled colonialism. In the case of Israel, you are dealing with a colonialism that is ongoing and being entrenched every single day. So the nature of the enemy, the extent of its viciousness and its determination accelerates every single day.

    As the BDS movement, we are facing challenges. Unlike South Africa, where we had a clearly focused liberation movement, liberation movement forces in Palestine are very truncated. You have the equivalent of the South Africa homeland governments still pretending to be liberation movements, while they have already sold out. Then you have very large resistance movements, all of Palestine’s civil society and in theory all the political parties that have called for BDS.

    After the Arab Spring, the solidarity with the Palestinians from the front line states completely collapsed. In South Africa, we could count on support — in different degrees — from all the surrounding countries except Malawi. Palestine is surrounded by collaborationist, sell-out client regimes of the West. Not only can we expect no support from them, on the contrary, in some cases, for example Egypt and Saudi Arabia, they have effectively joined the camps of the enemy and are collaborating actively with the Israeli state to destroy the resistance movement.

    This makes the urgency and the need for a BDS movement much more significant than it was in the case of apartheid South Africa.

    Because of the BDS successes, the Israeli lobby have really upped their game. With every victory that we have achieved, we are creating much more work for ourselves. The challenge is how to transform the broad level of support that we have in most countries throughout the world into a larger base of activists to take on the bigger task and the greater urgencies that we are facing.”

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/boycotting-israel-more-urgent-case-south-africa-says-anti-apartheid-veteran

    Farid Esack nails it!

    from the article: “Farid Esack, an Islamic studies professor at the University of Johannesburg, has faced strong objections from the Zionist lobby in France over plans to give a series of lectures about the parallels between Israeli and South African apartheid. The pressure meant that he was banned from speaking at events in Paris and Toulouse.”

  20. mcohen.
    April 7, 2015, 8:29 am

    just…..the article you pasted had this quote

    “Another difference is that South Africa never had as its project the importation of all white races throughout the world into South Africa. ”

    just ….soweto awaits you,hillbrow beckons,the bright lights twinkle

    just…….for you

  21. Mooser
    April 7, 2015, 2:10 pm

    “just ….soweto awaits you,hillbrow beckons,the bright lights twinkle
    just…….for you”

    Wow! If anybody wants to understand the meaning of the Yiddish insult: “A shtik fleish mit tzvei eigen“, I think maybe we could find an exemplar in “mcohen”

  22. mcohen.
    April 7, 2015, 10:12 pm

    annie says

    “mcohen, just out of curiosity how did you happen to think of pistacios.”

    not sure actually,about 3 days ago the idea just came into my mind,then i googled it and found out that israel gets it pistachio,s from iran….i always thought sunflowers seeds were the national pip but evidently its pistachio,s

    i then posted a comment on moon of alabama and then here…why do you ask ? does seem a bit strange in retrospect

    which is your article on pistachio,s…have you a link

  23. mcohen.
    April 8, 2015, 3:43 am

    annie

    seriously…you got to be joking

    i come from a farming family ..do you have any idea what it takes to be a primary producer…these people are feeding millions of people…so what they bought farms in the drought …thats an old story…then they got water and they got the thing up and running……they are to be admired for having what it takes…

    i never heard of the resnicks,but thanks for the article…its an inspiration….

    you know why israeli,s like iranian pistachio,s…they have been eating them for centuries.

    you should try the small round dried figs..good stuff…first you suck them to soften them up and then you chew them…easy on the teeth…i said to grandma

    • Mooser
      April 8, 2015, 10:43 am

      “you know why israeli,s like iranian pistachio,s…they have been eating them for centuries”

      It is said that the Ten Tribes lived almost entirely on ground Iranian pistachios during their 40 year sojourn in the desert.

      I have a lot of faith that the Zionist project won’t be around to find out what a “century” is.

      • just
        April 8, 2015, 10:50 am

        Never mind that there was no such thing as an “Israeli” until 1948…

        otoh:

        “Iran is home to one of the world’s oldest civilizations,[17][18] beginning with the formation of the Proto-Elamite and Elamite kingdom in 3200–2800 BC. The Iranian Medes unified the country into the first of many empires in 625 BC, after which it became the dominant cultural and political power in the region.[3] Iran reached the pinnacle of its power during the Achaemenid Empire (First Persian Empire) founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC, which at its greatest extent comprised major portions of the ancient world, stretching from parts of the Balkans (Bulgaria-Pannonia) and Thrace-Macedonia in the west, to the Indus Valley in the east, making it the largest empire the world had yet seen.[19] The empire collapsed in 330 BC following the conquests of Alexander the Great. The area eventually regained influence under the Parthian Empire and rose to prominence once more after the establishment of the Sasanian dynasty (Neo-Persian empire) in 224 AD, under which Iran again became one of the leading powers in the world along with the Byzantine Empire for the next four centuries.[20]”

        (wiki)

    • Annie Robbins
      April 8, 2015, 11:00 am

      you know why israeli,s like iranian pistachio,s…they have been eating them for centuries.

      no, why? funny, i thought they were another israeli invention, like the state, and cherry tomatoes.

  24. mcohen.
    April 8, 2015, 10:31 pm

    just

    israel is home to one of the oldest relegions in the world.

    Judaea was part of the Persian empire from the 6th – 4th centuries BCE. During the latter part of this period, small silver coins were struck by an autonomous Jewish authority with the permission of the Persians. Many copied the owl design of the popular Athenian silver coins, but the Greek inscription “AQE” was replaced by an ancient Hebrew legend “YEHUD,” the Persian name of the Province of Judaea.

    no matter how hard you try to spin it the jewish connection to israel is minted on coins

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/AncientJewishCoins.html

    check the link out…..its rich in historical facts…..in fact i am hoping that we will see a palestinian coin this century

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound

    check these notes out in hebrew,arabic and english from the 1930,s

    fantastic stuff

    In the Gaza Strip, the Palestine pound circulated until April 1951, when it was replaced by the Egyptian pound, three years after the Egyptian army took control of the territory. Today, Gaza Strip inhabitants mostly use the Israel shekel

    first week in june

    • Mooser
      April 10, 2015, 1:40 pm

      “first week in june”

      How many times have you repeated this cryptic phrase at the end of a comment “mcohen”? I count three.
      Could you screw your courage to the sticking point, and tell, in plain language, what is going to happen the “first week in june”?
      Or does simply getting the phrase on this site invoke some kind of Kaballistic attack?

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2015, 6:35 pm

        It’s April 14th today. The “first week in June” is coming up fast. Or is “mcohen” telling us it’s been cancelled?

        I feel like everybody knows about “first week in June” but me. All right then, don’t tell me.

      • irishmoses
        April 14, 2015, 9:37 pm

        Beats me too Mooser. Aniversary of 6 Day War?

      • Mooser
        April 15, 2015, 1:25 am

        “Beats me too Mooser. Aniversary of 6 Day War?”

        Isn’t he something, with his cryptic mutterings? But never man enough to say what he means. Oh well, as far as I know, that’s when it “is busting out all over” (June, that is) and that’s good enough for me.

        Loved mcohen’s crack upthread about the townships in South Africa, Another beauty.

  25. irishmoses
    April 10, 2015, 12:04 am

    Annie said:

    “tree, it’s very generous of you to answer yonah’s list of question, but i’m not sure why you do it. contrary to his claims of wanting dialogue, i don’t think that’s why he’s here. and it doesn’t appear there’s going to be any reciprocity wrt your queries. i think we’re all fairly used to yonah slinging his invective around by now. maybe better to simply ignore him.”

    I would add JeffB to that list. I just spent too much time responding to another accusation of antisemitism by him. Waste of time. He’s here to goad, to obfuscate, to throw out unsupported BS tidbits.

    I do wish MW would put a stop to some of his nonsense. I don’t mind responding to genuine opposing arguments documented by factual claims supported by links or other sources, but it is unfair and exhausting to have to respond to repeated scurrilous and unsupported claims of antisemitism.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 10, 2015, 1:24 am

      oh you caught that comment of mine irishmoses. and i had already deleted it.

      I do wish MW would put a stop to some of his nonsense. I don’t mind responding to genuine opposing arguments documented by factual claims supported by links or other sources, but it is unfair and exhausting to have to respond to repeated scurrilous and unsupported claims of antisemitism.

      oh i know i know i know. but they whine so much about being beat up on. i tend to let most of the comments thru because they are so ever constantly victimized!

      • Mooser
        April 10, 2015, 1:37 pm

        “i tend to let most of the comments thru because they are so ever constantly victimized!”

        The comments from the ilk are astounding yes, but look at the amazing well informed answers they often provoke in response! I don’t know where people find the patience, but I’m grateful.

      • mcohen.
        April 11, 2015, 7:51 am

        ever so constantly…….sometimes when i look at israeli news sites on the internet my screen ever so constantly twitches

        no kidding ….it takes on a life of it,s own as if the hackers think you are not aware….quite funny because the more bullshit you post the more it twitches

        during the last gaza war the web pages turned positively trippy…entertaining to say the least

        the best comments however are the ones that you least expect to amuse………like……ever so constantly victimized

        anyway how about this comment i read on a site

        there is a certain site that posts photo,s of hacked picasa accounts

        this one guy commented that he loves to look at the names of the people and their photo,s and then look them up on facebook and look at their photo,s

        why

        because it gives him a thrill that he can see both their private and public lives on display

        never mind the photo,s ….thats secondary

        how,s that for…………

        ever so constantly victimized

        any way next time you see fit to block a comment why not let both sides ot the coin come floating to the surface

      • Annie Robbins
        April 11, 2015, 10:56 am

        why not let both sides of the coin come floating to the surface

        because of this: http://mondoweiss.net/policy

        if i can’t decide, or if a comment is too cryptic to have merit .. sometimes i leave it for someone else to decide.

      • Mooser
        April 11, 2015, 10:24 pm

        So I guess nobody is going to tell me what the “first week in June” is all about. Am I supposed to be frightened?
        Anybody gonna give up the numerology and let me in on the secret?

        BTW, “mcohen”, sometimes the “other side of the coin” is simply the bottom of the barrel.

  26. JeffB
    April 10, 2015, 6:11 am

    @Irish

    I’m going to start another subthread for this

    A straw man. I never said Jews should not lobby, nor that they should be excluded from lobbying.

    No actually that’s what you did say. You felt that American Jews who engaged in lobbying would bring upon American Jews a widespread and deserved persecution. That is that Jews unlike other groups shouldn’t have the right to lobby. Holding AIPAC to a different standard than other religious subgroups who represented their interest, like say the Irish lobbies (which were very powerful in municipalities often effectively the government), is anti-Semitic. It is asserting that Jews are not worthy of equal treatment under American law.

    My comment was specifically addressed at lobbying by a subset of American Jews who are promoting the extremes of Zionism and trying to influence American foreign policy to promote the interests of another country. I am critical of their lobbying efforts to the extent that they are damaging US interests and encouraging the continuing oppression of the Palestinians.

    They don’t exist. There are 0 Jews who are promoting the interests of another country. There are Jews who disagree with you regarding what’s in America. That’s another example where with other groups you merely disagree, but when Jews have an opinion you disagree with it is some sort of secret plot tied to the dark ephemeral powers.

    My criticism may be misguided or based on faulty analysis but that doesn’t make my motive antisemitic.

    I never said your motive was anti-Semitic I said you statements were.

    Being critical of Israel’s leaders or policies, or of American Jewish organizations that support or enable those policies is not antisemitic any more than being critical of China’s policies towards Tibet or the Uighurs is anti-Asian.

    That is correct.

    Despite my detailed response (which you didn’t respond to), you now repeat the allegation misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what I said while again failing to quote the words that you allege are antisemitic.

    I suspect I did respond. About 1/3 of what I write gets censored. The constant censorship to break up conservations is another piece of evidence of how weak the BDS case is.

    As for HUAC, that was a congressional investigative committee with multiple members. The claims against them were not that their conclusions were unwarranted but that they abused the investigative process to often induce punishment without trial. The McCarthy stuff came after. This is long topic, but I’ll stand by their figures on the Bund.

    • Mooser
      April 10, 2015, 5:37 pm

      “I suspect I did respond. About 1/3 of what I write gets censored. The constant censorship to break up conservations is another piece of evidence of how weak the BDS case is”

      You are moderated not “censored”. You might want to look up the two words and learn the difference. BTW, it has absolutely nothing to do with BDS. BDS doesn’t even enter into it.

    • irishmoses
      April 14, 2015, 12:26 am

      JeffB said:

      “Irish, I’m going to start another subthread for this”

      [quoting me] “A straw man. I never said Jews should not lobby, nor that they should be excluded from lobbying.”

      [quoting JeffB] “No actually that’s what you did say. You felt that American Jews who engaged in lobbying would bring upon American Jews a widespread and deserved persecution. That is that Jews unlike other groups shouldn’t have the right to lobby.”

      JeffB, your method of arguing I’m an antisemite is to ignore my responses and then repeat your scurrilous claims. I’m tired of playing your dishonest game.. In your next response, please do the following:

      1. Instead of interpreting what I said and projecting your own view of its meaning, quote my exact statement and then say precisely why it is antisemitic.

      2. Provide the exact quote from me that says “Jews should be excluded from lobbying”, “Jews will deserve persecution from lobbying”, and that “Jews shouldn’t have the right to lobby.”

      3. Provide the exact quote from me that says “AIPAC should be held to a different standard than other lobbies”, and ” Jews are not worthy of equal treatment under American law”.

      4. Please provide your evidence that there are 0 Jews (or non-Jews) who are promoting the interests of Israel. It seems to me pretty obvious that there are a minority of Jews who advocate strongly on Israel’s behalf and interests, and there are Christian groups that join in that advocacy. Many donate large sums of money to Israeli causes. Your denial of these obvious facts seems ludicrous.

      5. Please provide the exact quote from me that says “Jews that have different opinions or disagree with me are part of a secret plot tied to the dark ephemeral powers.”

      6. If you cannot provide these exact quotes from my responses to you, please explain again why my comments were antisemitic, or, better yet, just apologize.

      Thank you.

      • Walid
        April 14, 2015, 4:29 am

        “They (Canadians) took in our Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters, quietly, just as they took in all those planes that needed somewhere to land after 9/11.” (Irishmoses- April 6th)

        OT here, Irishmoses, but further to what you said about Canadian people about 10 days ago in relation to 9/11, a documentary by Tom Brokaw and the people where Oldgeezer lives:

      • oldgeezer
        April 14, 2015, 11:30 am

        @Walid

        I’m actually about a 4 hour drive to the east. My small city has it’s own stories of that period but they pale next to the efforts of those communities in that area. What they did was truly both inspiring and amazing. Thanks for remembering!

      • Walid
        April 14, 2015, 11:56 am

        Hi OG, I had guessed wrong; thought you were in St John’s. Great down-to-earth people in your neck of the woods.

      • oldgeezer
        April 14, 2015, 12:42 pm

        @Walid

        Yes I am in St. John’s…. It’s a 4 hour drive to Gander from here. Straightline not so much but geography makes the drive long. St. John’s reacted in the same way as Gander, both individuals and businesses, but the degree of effort for a population center with (say) 200k in it’s environs versus a population of 10k in Gander is insignificant. When the call went out for private accomodation in St John’s it was filled within a couple of hours with ease. Accomodating 7k passengers in a 10k town takes a lot of effort and a lot of huge hearts.

        It’s only fair to point out the appreciation that has been shown to that town by some of the passengers. Donations to and construction/ehancement of public facilities. Scholarships created for the kids.

        It’s a wonderful world when we stand together.

  27. just
    April 10, 2015, 6:18 am

    Gil,

    This morning I happened upon an article in ‘The Guardian’:

    “Afrikaner singer chains herself to vandalised South African statue

    As black South Africans rally against symbols of white domination, questions are raised about Afrikaner identity in post-apartheid society, writes Daily Maverick

    …Amid an ongoing row about historic symbols of colonialism and white domination, questions about Afrikaner identity in post-apartheid South Africa have come to the fore.

    One response to these questions comes from those such as Bridges who, along with the musician and language activist Steve Hofmeyr, has become a self-appointed spokesperson for a group of Afrikaans speakers calling themselves “Boers” who believe the “volk” are under threat. They fear being victims of a “Boer genocide” by the black majority.

    …Sunette Bridges is the daughter of the late Bles Bridges, a crooner with a penchant for colourful blazers and who once made Afrikaans women swoon as he warbled sentimental ballads.

    Bridges and Hofmeyr’s politics are as prone to kitsch and overwrought emotion as Bles Bridges’ ballads. They firmly identify as cultural Afrikaners – a group defined by a unique history, language and destiny – set apart from the rest of South Africa. There are, they believe, enemies everywhere – old colonials, English-speaking South Africans and then, of course, black South Africa.

    …That many white, progressive Afrikaans-speaking South Africans – writers, activists, clergymen and journalists – bravely aligned themselves with the broader struggle for democracy is often overshadowed by the likes of Hofmeyr and Bridges.

    But they do not speak for all Afrikaners. Yesterday Francois van Coke, the voice of a post-apartheid generation, released a haunting and soul-searching solo album that allows for a different way of answering these questions about identity.

    …Van Coke’s beautifully melancholic solo album exposes a more mature artist grappling with weighty existential (and universal) matters. He has collaborated with fellow artists Karen Zoid, Arno Carstens, Laudo Liebenberg and Hunter Kennedy (of Die Heuwels Fantasties) and the album is threaded with anxiety and quiet despair.

    So, somewhere between the hard places – the statues and relics that tower over contemporary South Africa – are the softer places, the emotional vistas of the Van Cokes and the Zoids, that offer an alternative space for self-reflection for Afrikaners.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/10/afrikaner-singer-chains-herself-to-vandalised-south-african-statue

    Here’s Van Coke and Zoid :

    Translation of lyrics:

    “I lay down my arms
    Tonight for the first time
    I see myself in your eyes
    I lost this war
    I stared at the blood on my hands
    I know I have changed
    You think I speak again
    I love you
    I swear

    no-fuss
    no charge

    Outside the votes skater
    Friends who greet
    See you later
    Everyone finds his way
    I know I have my treasure

    Hey, my sweet
    Hey, my baby
    You are my refuge
    Want never let cry
    You’re my song
    You’re my melody
    We have a dog
    We have a cabin

    I have given enough
    I had enough shouting
    I have long since learned back
    But still I tried
    Flight as a traitor
    This holding me
    There were monsters in the dark
    Then I found you
    I swear

    no-fuss
    no charge”

  28. mcohen.
    April 11, 2015, 8:24 am

    i have a new philosophy…….jeffb and irishmoses….maybe the 3 of us can start a new society.

    call it the new israelite reformationists……our motto could be a saying i made up

    “creativity in all it,s forms burns brightest at the moment of creation.after that it becomes a fossil ,cast into stone ,useful only for throwing at glass houses.”

    • Mooser
      April 11, 2015, 10:32 pm

      “i have a new philosophy…….jeffb and irishmoses….maybe the 3 of us can start a new society.”

      Blogger is free! “mcohen”. It’s gratis, it won’t cost you a cent, “mcohen”! You go start your own blog about your philosophy, and the world will beat a path from your door.

      Oh, wait, let me guess, you insist that Mondo host it, and you be allowed to settle here, where you are comfortable.

  29. jayn0t
    April 12, 2015, 11:03 pm

    “When occupation becomes apartheid”

    When Israel becomes South Africa.

    When Jewish supremacy is as bad as white supremacy.

    • Mooser
      April 13, 2015, 9:49 pm

      “When Jewish supremacy is as bad as white supremacy.”

      I’m sure you will agree, given the specific examples (yours!) of Israel and South Africa that we can say “when” now? That bitter cup is pretty full, wouldn’t you say?

  30. Sibiriak
    April 15, 2015, 1:55 am

    tree: “I don’t have “my people”. All people have worth and meaning and I don’t see any need to claim some restricted group in preference to all others. You ought to try it sometime. Its quite liberating and clarifying. It releases one from the idea that one must support or excuse evil actions just because they committed by “your people”. If everyone, and no one, is “your people” then you can focus on the actions without having to preface your judgment on who is doing it before deciding whether the action is right or wrong. And you can account for and understand the frailty and imperfections of all human beings, not just some limited group.”

    ————

    Eloquent remarks–and many others in the exchange with Yonah. Thanks.

    (One of my problems is, many of “my people”, if I have a “people”, aren’t people.)

  31. Boomer
    April 15, 2015, 9:35 am

    re MHughes976: “I think that I prefer ‘conquest’, which is both theological and all too realistic.”

    – yes, “conquest” is apt, reminding us of “The Conquest of Mexico” by Cortez. My allusion to “redemption of the land” was, of course, sardonic. In today’s parlance, I think “ethnic cleansing” also suitable. As you observe, the power of myth and collective narrative is evident. It was only natural for people in the early iron age to compose myths in which their god was superior to others, and in which they had a divinely-ordained right to take what they wanted, to kill whom they wanted. (Of course, modern scholarship suggests that, whatever happened in the region 3,000 yeas ago, Hebrew scriptures can’t be read as entirely accurate history.) As an American in the 21st century, I find it disturbing that we support such a narrative (whether the sincere belief of a cult, or the cynical rationalization of a criminal) and enable the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians.

Leave a Reply