Trending Topics:

CT bus ads feature longstanding plan to ‘abolish partition’

Activism
on 52 Comments

A new ad is appearing in buses and bus shelters in some Connecticut cities. It features the famous maps of disappearing Palestinian land, along with a quote from David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:

“I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine.”

Latest ad against Israeli expansion, in Connecticut bus stand

Latest ad against Israeli expansion, in Connecticut bus stand

The ads are thanks to Henry Clifford’s Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine. In the spring Clifford ran this ad in the Hartford Courant (image thanks to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs), using the same Ben-Gurion quote then stating that the U.S. does nothing to stop the Israeli settlement project. “Our tax dollars assist Israel in doing what we ask them not to do.”

SCAN01Ben-Gurion made the statement at a Zionist meeting in 1938, according to this book. The pro-Israel group CAMERA has disputed Clifford’s campaign by arguing that Ben-Gurion intended that Arabs would be a party to this process.

Clifford — a friend of this site — has been trying to raise consciousness on the east coast for years– like the disappearing-Palestine map ads at Metro North stations in New York in 2012 that got a lot of folks het up. He has one goal, to stir discussion so that people become more aware of the issues. You’ll notice that he puts his email address on all his pronouncements. [email protected] So let him know what you think.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. Citizen
    July 13, 2015, 3:20 pm

    CAMERA has just launched a campaign pushing US Congress to stop C-SPAN from allowing callers on its 3 hour morning show, Washington Journal, from criticizing Israel. CAMERA says it’s been monitoring CSPANWJ since 2008 and has counted way too many anti-Semitic rants against Jews & Israel; it says CSPAN is impliedly complicit in anti-Semitism because the host does not cut the callers off, or voice the pro-Israeli stance and context. CAMERA is very careful to conflate criticism of Israel with its alleged anti-Semitism. Many comments on MW over the years have voiced criticism of CSPANWJ because they so often cut off callers who begin to criticize Israel. I can personally say I have seen this often, especially in the last few years.. Sure is a hot potato, eh?

    • Annie Robbins
      July 13, 2015, 3:33 pm

      pushing congress to stop c span? they will legislate our silence? c span is a public service.

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2015, 2:33 am

        @ Annie Robbins

        Somebody needs to send a memo to CAMERA that C-SPAN is a public service. It’s funded by the cable operators who all contribute 6 cents from every subscriber bill payment. Brian Lamb said he was once asked by a member of C-SPAN’s board of directors to push certain content, so they changed the charter to specify the board had no power to influence content. He also said the worse things for open media are money influence and government regulation. I think it was Kathleen, a regular commenter here, who has periodically noticed changes in how callers into Washington Journal show are handled by the host of the day when it comes to anything involving Israel. Anyway, it’s obvious pressure gets exerted because for awhile such callers get cut off quickly and or their calls are not pursued by the host with the guest; later the reverse can be seen.
        Interview of BL: The Democratizer–Interview of C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb http://on.reason.com/l/EWAF

    • Citizen
      July 16, 2015, 2:51 am

      Here’s the April-June 2015 example of CAMERA’s documentation of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel callers indulged on CSPAN WJ , coupled with its running commentary as to each call and how it was handled: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2971

  2. GilGamesh
    July 13, 2015, 9:44 pm

    So shortly after Mr. Weiss writes an article excoriating Michael Oren for supposedly lying by omission for not mentioning that a synagogue, which was blown up by an unknown assailant, had scheduled Kahane to speak because that somehow made the bombing not traumatic or anti-Semitic, has no problem with a bus ad that takes a quote out of context because it supposedly “raise consciousness” about the issue. Apparently what constitutes a lie on Mondoweiss has nothing to do with actual fact and everything to do which side is taken.

    • talknic
      July 14, 2015, 4:36 am

      Thanks for alerting us. Always good to have one’s facts right

      So …… what was the actual context? You forgot to tell us.

    • Giles
      July 14, 2015, 8:30 am

      “I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine”.

      “..has no problem with a bus ad that takes a quote out of context..”.

      What context should we be aware of?

    • Hostage
      July 15, 2015, 12:10 pm

      a bus ad that takes a quote out of context because it supposedly “raise consciousness” about the issue.

      There is nothing taken out of context at all. Ben Gurion himself saw to it that his own memoirs and letters confirming his intentions were published while he was still alive. Even if we leave out the contested, crossed-out sentence, in his infamous 5 October 1937 letter to his son Amos, the remainder of the text supplies incontrovertible proof that partition was simply the first step of his plan to build-up a military force that he planned to employ in order to settle the empty territories allocated to the new Arab state and Transjordan after the partition, with or without the consent of their governments. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117343519/B-G-Letter-translation

      Even in 1937, that was considered to be an illegal usurpation of sovereignty or a form of illegal aggression under the rules of customary law reflected in the Hague Convention of 1907, the 1920 Versailles Peace Conference report of the “Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties,” and the “General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy” (aka the Kellogg-Briand Pact).

      Likewise, we also learn that was his intention from an article published in the official history of the Haganah, printed while Ben-Gurion was still alive. In the summer of 1937, in the wake of the recommendation for partition contained in the Peel Commission report, Ben-Gurion ordered the Haganah commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Slikowitz (“Avnir”), to draw up a plan for the military takeover of the entire country in anticipation of the expected British withdrawal from Palestine. The article helpfully provided a map of the military stages of the envisaged conquest of Palestine. See Dinur Benzion, ed. Sefer Toldot HaHaganah, Vol. II (Tel Aviv: Zionist Li­brary and Marakhot, 1964), pp. 749-54.

      • MRW
        July 15, 2015, 5:41 pm

        I love it when you show up with the cement foundation, Hostage.

      • Hostage
        July 16, 2015, 11:15 am

        I love it when you show up with the cement foundation, Hostage.

        Well, there are always absurd suggestions that the question of Ben Gurion’s well-publicized plan of aggression against the Arabs has been somehow taken out of context or that these maps are mere propaganda, because the Jewish people had some sort of inherent or residual right to settle on state land in Arab Palestine, even after the UN partition plan was adopted and its transition period began or after the armistice agreements were concluded under the auspices of a series of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions. You have to be so detached from reality as to be completely fact-averse to even begin to entertain such ridiculous notions.

  3. jon s
    July 14, 2015, 3:56 pm
    • amigo
      July 14, 2015, 5:01 pm

      “Are these the same misleading maps that have been used before? “jon s

      You got shot down on that one last time , oh and thanks for the link.

      “Kris

      @jon s: “Where is state land? Conveniently, it’s included in the green, in order to convey the impression that the Palestinians lost it.”

      “State land?” Could you explain what you mean? Thanks.

      @ jon s: “It creates the misleading impression that there was a Palestinian state.”

      Didn’t that land belong to the Palestinians?
      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/disappearing-palestine-ads-come-to-vancouver-public-transit#comment-588426

      You failed (surprise) to answer Kris that time.Care to answer this time??.

      • jon s
        July 15, 2015, 5:55 am

        Amigo, No, I was not “shot down” last time, and I stand by my critique of the misleading maps.
        “State land” is land owned by the government, and there were different categories. For a detailed explanation :
        http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Land_question_in_Palestine.htm
        Scroll down to “who owned the land?”

        Did the land belong to the Palestinians? some was privately owned, some by the government. The maps ignored Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

      • echinococcus
        July 15, 2015, 9:45 am

        John S,

        If you consider yourself shot down or not is immaterial. The fact is that the entirety of Palestine, as to sovereignty, belongs to the Palestinian people, For the information of fanatic extremists such as yourself, yes that includes the approximately 4-5% of Jewish Palestinians at the time of the Zionist invasion.
        So the Ottoman treasury lands, or state lands as you call them, belong entirely to those Palestinian people as of the start of the Zionist invasion. And you ain’t it. Not entitled to a single inch.

        Real estate ownership is totally irrelevant, and “Jewish” ownership of such was a piddling small number anyway even by the post-war. Any occupying power, including the British, is under the obligation of good stewardship of the so-called state land and don’t have the right to sell or privatize, or the ban on right of conquest would be voided.

    • Hostage
      July 15, 2015, 12:32 pm

      @jon s: “Where is state land? Conveniently, it’s included in the green, in order to convey the impression that the Palestinians lost it.”

      Because in fact they did. FYI, Article 6 of the British Mandate for Palestine made it abundantly clear that any “State land or waste land required for public use” was off-limits to Jewish settlement. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art6

      There was no such corresponding prohibition against its use by Arabs, since many of them had acquired heritable rights through tenure as cultivators on community owned lands and the Sultan’s estates that were shown on the Ottoman civil list. I don’t know what kind of “State” the authors had in mind, but it damned sure wasn’t a “Jewish” one from the standpoint of the right to use its public lands.

      So, even if we accept the (completely false) argument that Article 80 of the UN Charter somehow preserved Jewish rights under the mandate, that cannot explain how Jews obtained exclusive use of so much “state land” on both sides of the partition or armistice lines. In fact, Israelis have designated millions of additional dunams of occupied Palestinian land as “state land” in order to colonize it after the Supreme Court affirmed the applicability of the Hague Convention prohibition against expropriating private property in the Elon Moreh case. The ICJ was correct when it declared those practices illegal.

      • jon s
        July 15, 2015, 1:30 pm

        echinococcush,
        I’ve asked you before: who were- or are- the “Jewish Palestinians”? When did the “Zionist invasion ” begin?
        The fanatical extremist is you. You’re the one who rejects any notion of compromise, coexistence, reconciliation and peace.

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2015, 1:53 pm

        I’ve asked you before: who were- or are- the “Jewish Palestinians”?

        There were only about 60,000 of them prior to the mandate era. Many of them were descendants of religious pilgrims living off of foreign charitable donations in one of the small communities located in the four holy cities. They didn’t have any substantial land holdings which could be used to establish a state. To be perfectly honest, the Zionist movement despised them, precisely because they were considered to be poor and almost indistinguishable from their Arab neighbors. See Arthur Ruppin’s “The Picture in 1907″ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Ruppin1907.html

        If that doesn’t embarrass you enough to drop the subject, then read Elkan Nathan Adler’s account in the Forward of his book Jews in many lands (1905), where he brags about the fact that he targeted the indigenous Jews living on lands held by his employer’s Jewish charitable trust with evictions and home demolitions to make room for Zionist settlers.

      • eljay
        July 15, 2015, 1:37 pm

        jon s: … The fanatical extremist is you. You’re the one who rejects any notion of compromise, coexistence, reconciliation and peace. ||

        Funny stuff, coming from a Zio-supremacist who rejects ALL notion of justice, accountability and equality in favour of a “peace” that:
        – allows Israel to remain a supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – allows Israel to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen; and
        – absolves Israel / Zio-supremacists of most (if not all) of its / their past and on-going (war) crimes.

      • Kris
        July 15, 2015, 2:10 pm

        @jon s: “You’re the one who rejects any notion of compromise, coexistence, reconciliation and peace.”

        We need an automatic translator here on mondoweiss, for comments by jon s and his fellow hasbarists. They use English words, but attach different meanings to them.

        For example, in this instance jon s means: “You’re the one who insists that Israel should return all that it has stolen from the Palestinians, make reparations for decades of human rights abuses against the Palestinians, and accept equal rights for all people regardless of race/religion/ethnicity–i.e. discard the racist ideology of Zionism.

      • echinococcus
        July 15, 2015, 2:25 pm

        The Zionist invasion is most properly dated from the Basle Congress, as earlier quasi-Zionist or Zionist migrations did not have the explicit aim to establish foreign domination on Palestine. Hostage will surely have a more considered and better informed opinion on that.
        In their infinite generosity, the earlier Resistance organizations of the Palestinian owners of the land had put that date at 1917. It seems ridiculously late, considering all the damage already done by that time.
        As for the Jewish Palestinians, Hostage essentially answered. Let me add that in addition to the hermits or beggar-scholars from Ashkenaz and their descendents there were also a few Sefardi, Giannena Romaniotes and a number of Mizrahi from other provinces of the Ottoman Empire, settled mostly in Jerusalem. These Palestinian Jews, who had always lived in harmony with the local population, in general strongly opposed the Zionist invasion, predicting what was going to happen. For their crime of being Jews, they were all treated atrociously by you Zionist pirates. I would particularly call your attention to the serious beatings and exiling of traditionalist Jews from Palestine, obliged to seek refuge (this time from the Zionists!) in Holland or the States or Turkey.

        [This is the third time I am answering your –now more obviously dishonest– questions. They show what kind of a being you are, if you are in fact a human and not a robot. Stop disturbing people with repeated questions, pretending to be deaf and dumb. You aren’t deaf.]

      • echinococcus
        July 15, 2015, 2:29 pm

        Kris,

        Excellent translation from English into clearer English –I doubt, however, that a propaganda agent has any interest in understanding.

      • Kris
        July 15, 2015, 2:59 pm

        Thanks, echinococcus.

  4. just
    July 14, 2015, 5:08 pm

    Good maps. Good ads. Great effort.

    Many thanks to Henry Clifford’s Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine~ you’re indefatigable!

    Respect!

    • jon s
      July 15, 2015, 3:45 pm

      echinococcus,
      Thanks for finally answering.
      So are you saying that Jews descended from the pre-1897 Jewish population are legitimate?not “invaders”? Would you need all of your grandparents in that category to qualify? or are two enough? or even one?
      What about Palestinians who may be descended from Arab immigrants to Palestine from those same years?

      Your idealizationof Jewish -Arab relations pre-Zionism, is just that, an idealized , romantic picture. It would have been nice, had it been true.
      As to this:

      “the serious beatings and exiling of traditionalist Jews from Palestine, obliged to seek refuge (this time from the Zionists!) in Holland or the States or Turkey.”

      How could the Zionists exile anyone, seeing that the Turks, and then the British, were in control?
      Do you have a source? How many were beaten and exiled? by whom? when?

      • echinococcus
        July 17, 2015, 12:30 am

        You know what, JohnS? You’re not getting me upset. Just full of disgust. Do your own searching –the stuff is all over the public domain, and of course you have no interest in checking it. Do you think your repeated asking after having been repeatedly answered was not observed? I’ll answer your rants when I want, in the terms I want, as an exercise in setting the record straight, or to make fun, but I certainly am not talking to you.

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2015, 2:45 pm

        But “echinococcus” don’t you remember “Jon s” teaches Israeli history! He’s an Israeli history teacher. He must know what he is talking about!

        After all, he teaches history to Israeli kids. What possible interest would the Zionists have in falsifying their own history? We place a high value on telling the truth to children!

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2015, 3:00 pm

        “How could the Zionists exile anyone, seeing that the Turks, and then the British, were in control?”

        Sure, but once your buddies blew up the King David and enough other stuff, the British pulled out, leaving the Zionists in control.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2015, 6:49 pm

        “How could the Zionists exile anyone, seeing that the Turks, and then the British, were in control?”

        FYI, the report of the director of development in Palestine, Lewis French, and the portion of the Peel Commission report on the subject of landlessness said that the Jewish Agency routinely demanded that any untenured fellaheen tenant cultivators be internally displaced as a condition of their land purchases and in accordance with their program of “Conquest by Hebrew Labor”. They only offered compensation in return for resettlement outside Palestine in such cases.

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2015, 9:14 pm

        Hostage,

        Thank you. The purchase agreements conditional to displacement of populations are another big, hard to swallow thing and should be expanded on somewhere else as obvious proof that the first Zionists came with the full-fledged intent of ethnic cleansing and usurpation of sovereignty.

        John S doesn’t give a damn, though. He is trying to deny the beatings and harassment of Palestinian Jews by the Zionists. He is interested in his definition of humans only.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2015, 10:27 pm

        The purchase agreements conditional to displacement of populations are another big, hard to swallow thing and should be expanded on somewhere else

        Well of course they have been. For example, the Charter of Herzl’s proposed Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) contained an article which reserved the right of the Zionists to involuntarily transfer or deport the non-Jewish population of Palestine to other parts of the Ottoman Empire. link to jstor.org He was enticing the Sultan with offers to pay-off a large portion of the Ottoman public debt with funds made available by Jewish American banking and business leaders. But in the end, the Sultan obtained a French bailout instead.

      • echinococcus
        July 18, 2015, 11:49 pm

        Thanks again, Hostage. I wasn’t aware of that clause.
        [By the way, that one should have been the last big loan that through “bailouts” brought about the takeover of the Ottoman Finance Ministry by the West, parallel to the Goldman-Sachs “loan” that murdered Greece.]

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2015, 2:09 am

        [By the way, that one should have been the last big loan that through “bailouts” brought about the takeover of the Ottoman Finance Ministry by the West, parallel to the Goldman-Sachs “loan” that murdered Greece.]

        I’ve cited the fact here on many occasions that the Mandated States of Palestine and Transjordan paid-off their share of the judgment awarded to the creditors in the Ottoman Public Debt Arbitration. Greece apparently never did so. It gives bondholders haircuts today, but nobody questions its existence or statehood. In 1962 the British government noted that the taxpayers of the States of Palestine and Jordan had settled their debts, but that Greece never had:

        In addition, the Greeks have a responsibility for a share of the Ottoman debt; for under the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, the successor States of the Ottoman Empire undertook to take their share. With the exception of Greece, all the others, Turkey, Syria, Palestine and Jordan, have, come to satisfactory and far from exigent terms with the Ottoman Debt Council, but negotiations with Greece have never been finalised.

      • echinococcus
        July 19, 2015, 2:45 am

        Wildly off topic, but: wasn’t that “successor state” thing put to rest by Venizelos in 1923, arguing in Lausanne that the liberation of northern Greek provinces in 1913 was nothing but the logical continuation of the 1829 state, so they couldn’t and shouldn’t be considered in that group?

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2015, 12:36 pm

        Wildly off topic, but: wasn’t that “successor state” thing put to rest by Venizelos in 1923

        No, I don’t think so, since only the new government of Greece could pursue the claims on behalf of Mavromatis against Palestine in the PCIJ. Palestine was the successor state to which the old Ottoman Concessions had been subrogated. Those cases, like the Ottoman Public Debt Arbitration dragged-on until the 1925 final judgments were delivered.

        There’s a discussion about the fact that the assignment of the Ottoman Public Debt under the Treaty of Lausanne was not based upon any existing customary rule of succession in international law by D.P. O’Connell “The Law of State Succession”, Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor. The attempt by the UN in its partition plan to include the assumption of the public debt and pensions incurred by the UK during its own administration in accordance with Article 28 of the mandate was rejected by Israel after the fact. It announced that it was adopting a “clean slate” on treaty and loan obligations since there had been no orderly replacement of one state by the other to which the laws of succession could be applied. See the discussion by O’Connell pages 10-11, and 178. Among other things, the UK was trying to pass-on the multi-million pound invoice for operation of the detention camps in Cyprus and elsewhere that it had established to house Jews trying to enter Palestine illegally or Zionist fighters that it had deported as undesirables under the Palestine Defense Emergency Regulations of 1945.

        Here’s a link to the UN discussion about a bill for the operation of the camps during the resolution 181(II) transition period. Note that the 4-3 split opinion among the members of the old Permanent Mandates Commission over the legality of the 1939 White Paper is really an indication of an uphill battle for the Jewish Agency. A decision in their favor by the Council of the League was virtually impossible, since it would have required unanimous agreement. The permanent members or members of their commonwealths protected each others interests from outside interference by preventing the adoption of decisions and insisting upon watered-down recommendations. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/29B6E87D9790D10905256602004F5467

    • echinococcus
      July 19, 2015, 8:20 pm

      Thank you.

  5. traintosiberia
    July 15, 2015, 12:08 am

    Thanks to this brave organization for daring to sepak truth to the power.

  6. Kay24
    July 15, 2015, 3:10 pm

    The last time this great shrinking map of Palestine poster went up Pammy Geller went nuts and started putting up nasty posters too.

    I wonder how she will react this time. Maybe those who support her financially might get her to respond in her usual Islamaphobic ways.

    • jon s
      July 15, 2015, 3:48 pm

      This “great shrinking map of Palestine” is great propaganda, I’ll give you that.
      It’s still a lie.

      • Kris
        July 15, 2015, 4:00 pm

        @jon s: “It’s still a lie.”

        translation: “This is an embarrassing and distressing truth for me, a teacher and “nice guy” (though I’m an American living on stolen Palestinian land), so I pretend it’s a lie, realizing that most readers won’t look up the actual facts.”

        Ooops, Hostage did look it up. Please see Hostage’s July 15, 2015, 12:32 comment, above.

      • Citizen
        July 16, 2015, 9:34 am

        jon s bills himself as “An Israeli history teacher,long-time activist on the Israeli Left.”

        I guess we can conclude his crap history here is what he teaches his students? Does he have dual citizenship? Where was he brought up? Where educated?
        What does he mean by “the Israeli Left”? I don’t recognize “the Left” in his comments; I guess that’s because I’m a home-grown American.

      • Mooser
        July 18, 2015, 2:48 pm

        Citizen, you see the way “Jon s” treats us. Can you imagine him working on a kid. Makes me shudder.

        Educated by freebooters and filibusterers, the kids don’t stand a chance.

      • Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 12:17 am

        “Ooops, Hostage did look it up. Please see Hostage’s July 15, 2015, 12:32 comment, above.”

        You can easily see from how the comments are ‘nested’ that “Jon s” simply moves on, and does not deign to reply to “Hostage”.

  7. jon s
    July 17, 2015, 3:54 am

    Citizen,
    Most commenters here don’t volunteer that much personal information, so I wonder about your curiosity. We should be discussing the topics, not each others biography.
    The information in my profile is correct, and I’ve mentioned in previous comments that I do hold dual citizenship. If you explain why you’re interested in more personal information, I’ll decide whether or not to oblige. If I do , the information will also be accurate. I’ve never deliberately lied on this blog. Not that I would be caught, just a little promise I made to myself.
    As to being on the Left: I identify with the struggle for more social justice , more equality, more democracy and human rights, and the pursuit of peace, all the classic ingredients of the Left.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      July 17, 2015, 7:33 am

      “As to being on the Left: I identify with the struggle for more social justice , more equality, more democracy and human rights, and the pursuit of peace, all the classic ingredients of the Left. ”

      And all of them the opposite of Zionism.

    • Mooser
      July 18, 2015, 2:53 pm

      “The information in my profile is correct, and I’ve mentioned in previous comments that I do hold dual citizenship.”

      Another words, “Jons” what it all adds up to in the real world is this: When you completely screw up Israel, you will hop a flight back to the good ol’ US of A.

      How the hell will Israel ever find any solutions when so many of the people pushing them right are half-Israelis, like you “Jon s” that can simply do a bunk when you’ve screwed the place up enough? You are not committed to Israel beyond the material advantages you think you can get by theft.

      • Mooser
        July 19, 2015, 12:05 am

        Or when whatever ethno-supremacist fantasies backed up by a bastardized Judaism you harbor meet up against reality and legality.

        I just realized, it’s not just the US. Israel is the one with the real serious dual-loyalty problems.

    • Mooser
      July 19, 2015, 12:13 am

      “We should be discussing the topics, not each others biography.”

      “Jon s” nobody forced you to reveal that you are a freebooter, living in an settlement, an illegal squatter. You felt it was necessary for us to know that.
      And as far as your honesty goes, are you saying you teach the kids a completely different version of Israel’s history then the one you espouse here.

      Not to mention your tendency, no, it’s a downright proclivity to a most tiresome, and unwise condescending and pedantic self-righteousness which fools nobody.

      Oh, BTW, Yonah said that removing the settlements would cause violence. Does your settlement have any plans for violence toward Israel if you are asked to move, or will you just leave rather than shoot at other Jews?

  8. jon s
    July 20, 2015, 4:44 am

    Citizen, still awaiting your reply.

    • eljay
      July 20, 2015, 7:38 am

      || jon s: Citizen, still awaiting your reply. ||

      jon s, still awaiting your reply to the question I posed to you here:

      So what’s your take on anti-Semitic incidents, jon s? Do you believe that the perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions? Or, given that there is no such thing as “perfect justice”, do you instead advocate “peace” and absolving the perpetrators of responsibility and accountability for their actions?

  9. jon s
    July 20, 2015, 12:03 pm

    eljay, I understand where you’re leading with this.

    Of course criminals should be held accountable, otherwise we would have anarchy.

    I believe that , in relations between nations and states, where there’s a danger of large-scale bloodshed, sometimes it’s wiser to prefer peace over justice.

    • eljay
      July 20, 2015, 12:27 pm

      || jon s: Of course criminals should be held accountable, otherwise we would have anarchy.

      I believe that , in relations between nations and states, where there’s a danger of large-scale bloodshed, sometimes it’s wiser to prefer peace over justice. ||

      Thanks for the reply. So, basically, if Iran – as an example – were to massacre thousands of Israelis and occupy parts of Israel, you would be OK with “peace” rather than justice and accountability in order to avoid any large-scale bloodshed with Iran. Accountability at the micro level; absolution at the macro level. Interesting.

Leave a Reply